Watch for Updates

On March 24 & 25, 2020, I (Robert Baty) had an interesting exchange with another one of Kent Hovind’s promoters, Karen Brosius.  That exchange took place in the public FaceBook group named “Kent Hovind: the Man, the Ministry, and the Message”.

Karen ultimately showed herself to be an unworthy correspondent and, typical of Kent and his people, unable to “handle the truth”.  After blocking me, she posted a note consistent with Kent’s public request, asking people fond of Kent to leave that group.

This article is being posted in order to archive my exchange with Karen, for the record.  You can make your own evaluations as to any conclusions that might be drawn therefrom.

Link to Thread Where Exchange Occurred

https://www.facebook.com/groups/KentHovind/permalink/1116754405340407/

Link to Karen’s “Run” Message to Kent’s People

https://www.facebook.com/groups/KentHovind/permalink/1117828538566327/

Link to Karen’s FaceBook Page

https://www.facebook.com/KmayBrosius

 

Link to My FaceBook Page

https://www.facebook.com/robert.baty.1

THE EXCHANGE

https://www.facebook.com/groups/KentHovind/permalink/1116754405340407/

.

Karen wrote to James Mason

.
James Mason, you must be a very miserable person since you feel the need to mock people who don’t think the way you do every day of your life. Are you that insecure you have to make yourself feel good by putting others down continually? Makes you look like an idiot.
.

Robert Wrote to Karen

.
It probably should be pointed out, again, that neither Kent nor his people have any platform upon which to stand and complain about anyone who might using mocking/ridicule when addressing Kent, what he does, and his positions.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.
I have actually commented directly on his site with my opinion on his mocking as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know and understand why Kent is still trying to overcome his anger, but the irrational anger atheists have toward Christians makes me think there is something deeper going on there.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.
I can’t dispute that. There are limits, and such reasonable limits are often seen to be exceeded on both sides. I think Kent exceeds it when talking about me considering he refuses to face me and rationally, reasonably, deal with his criminal issues; warning his people to “ignore me” because he doesn’t want them clued into the truth about his false legal narrative and related matters.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.
By the way, Karen Brosius, Kent also re-affirmed his life-long pledge to harass the government with his false legal narrative today.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I have an article dealing with his latest antics on that at the following link and it includes a number of updates, including today’s statements.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.
I don’t see it the same way you do.
I am sure he is not looking at it as a chance to harass the government for the rest of his life, but to fight for what he believes is justice in his case.
.
You intentionally word it to try and make him look like he is behaving a way he is not.
.
My husband has been following his videos for over a year now watching them daily so I have seen quite a few of them and in no way do I see Kent as a sinister man. He is very sincere, tries to be funny, which adds entertainment to his studies, but never is he mean or hateful.
.
He is a hurt man.
.
I know from all I have seen in him that he is a man after God’s heart and he will be avenged in God’s timing. There is no doubt in my mind that God loves Kent and has allowed him to go through what he’s had to go through to make him an even better man of God.
.
He still hurts from all he had to lose and go through.
.
It sickens me to see the lack of compassion you and your friends show toward a man who is struggling to serve God. Once he is free from his anger… and trust me, God is not going to allow Kent to hold onto that anger… Watch out because he will be used in a mighty way.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.

I went through some of this, but it really doesn’t interest me. I know the person Kent is and is struggling to be. And it is not the same person you try to portray him as.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

Yes, Karen Brosius, we see it different and in the end you indicate you have little interest in advancing your understanding of what Kent has been and is up to regarding his criminal history and related matters I deal with.
.
Kent refuses to face me, or equivalent, in an open, public discussion of the many falsehoods he knows he is promoting in what I call his false legal narrative.
.
I think he is behaving in a manner consistent with my opinions of his behavior and those opinions are formed based on his actual behavior.
.
Kent has his style and I have mine, and if he ever comes out to openly, honestly discuss substantive matters regarding his criminal history and related matters I deal with, we can get real serious about the details.
.
It is almost laughable, Karen, that you talk about Kent being “a hurt man”.
.
He sent his wife, Jo, to prison.
He manipulated Jo into divorcing him.
He quickly married his girlfriend Mary Tocco.
He ran her off after a few months.
There was never a divorce from Mary.
He just took up living with Cindi Lincoln for the “benefits”.
He’s alienated his living brother and sister.
He’s alienated his 3 children.
.
You, Karen, have no platform upon which to stand and talk about Kent being “hurt”.
.
Being the narcissist that many think he is, Kent has been able to simply walk away from his crimes, while falsely declaring his innocence in the advancement of his business interests, walk away from his family, and now apparently walk away from the fact that he, personally, acted so as to contribute to the drowning death of a child on his conpound.
.
Kent knows he was guilty as charged.
Kent knows he has no prospect of overturning his convictions.
Kent does, in fact, see it as an opportunity to do what amounts to harassment, paper terrorism with regard to the federal government.
.
Kent has you fooled, apparently, Karen, and that is one reason, as noted above, why he tells his people to ignore me. He doesn’t want to face me and he doesn’t want his people finding out the truth about his criminal history, related antics, and related problems.

.

Karen wrote to Robert

.
My lack of interest in legal jargon has nothing to do with advancing my understanding of what Kent has been or is up to regarding his criminal history.
.
I still disagree with you on the intent of his behavior.
.
I spent over 10 hours today remoted into many computers installing and fixing soft phones for people working remotely and after that much time in computers, the last thing I want to do is read a bunch of legal jargon on a computer.
.
I can admit I do not know anything about his relationship with his wife or girlfriends or whatever.
.
That is between him and God.
.
If Kent did wrong God will deal with him as a loving Father would.
If Kent loves God he will repent and strive to be a better man.
Kent believes he did nothing wrong.
.
And trust me, there are quite a few man made laws that are stupid in God’s eyes.
.
So I would have to research what “structuring” actually is to see if I even agreed with Kent.
.
It’s really not that important to me. God is a forgiving God and His followers are forgiving people. As long as I see someone trying to live their best for God’s sake, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
.
I am way too tired to continue tonight, but know that I enjoy Kent’s teachings and know he sticks to scripture from what I have seen him teach which keeps me a fan of his despite any short comings. We all have them and need to learn to see the best in each other instead of tearing each other down. And when God is part of building a person’s character I tend to trust that person’s words and perceptions over someone who is not influenced or being built up by God. Just the way it is with Christians because true Christians know that other true Christians fear displeasing God and are therefore honest in their thoughts and words.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.
You’ve made my point(s), Karen Brosius. Thanks for your demonstration.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.
For atheists maybe.
Your points are meaningless to us.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I already said you made my point(s). Your last note was redundant. As they say, 2 of the biggest problems in dealing with such things is apathy and ignorance and you have demonstrated both. You don’t know about Kent’s issues. You don’t care. I get that. You are hardly the first to turn away and invoke “God will deal with it”. If you ever decide to get serious in investigating Kent’s issues, the ones I deal with, let me know. We can talk; when you get ready. It’s really quite simple, but not if you don’t care and don’t know.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.
You are wrong in what people care about.
We don’t dwell on a person’s past.
We see them in the here and now.
I know what Kent believes he went through.
.
One thing for sure is folks who allow their lives to be consumed with the obsession of another person’s life and beliefs is not a normal person.
.
When you have to spend your days mocking an individual as though your very being requires it, tells me you are not a very stable person.
.
Your Kent Hovind filled Facebook proves that.
.
Especially when you behave as though what you think you know better than others gives you some sort of significance. Have at it, waste your time trying to debunk a man who is blessing so many others with his work. I’d rather live my life of continual joy.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I already thanked you for proving up the points I was making, but the icing on the cake you have now added is OK with me.
.
We call what you have been doing now Hovind Hypocrisy.
.
While Kent’s past is part of his present, I am not dwelling on his past anymore than Kent is, only I prefer the truth to the falsehoods Kent is promoting. For all the whining about how busy you were/are, you wasted all your time lamely trying to explain why you didn’t want to inform yourself on the substantive issues involving Kent Hovind’s criminal and related history.
.
Kent has pledged the rest of his life to giving me job security, and I have accepted the employment opportunity. Karen, you are a classic Hovindicator; sticking your head in the sand and acknowledging you are not interested in the truth regarding what Kent has pledged the rest of his life to pursuing, or related matters. I get it, and thank you again for the demonstration.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.

You know what you can do with your idiotic thanks for what only you see as a demonstration.
.
I spent a lot of time this morning reading up on articles of Kent’s issues in Forbes which have only caused me to believe him even more.
.
I read up on quite a bit of your legal jargon as well.
.
I am content in supporting Kent even more so now.
So go away.
Your idolatry of yourself makes your comments mute points.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

Your repeated references to “legal jargon”, as if that provides you with some cover for ignorance is another vindication of my claims regarding your refusal to openly, honestly engage me in a discussion of substantive issues regarding Kent Hovind’s criminal and related matter.
.
Your continued Hovind Hypocrisy is classic.
.
Kent has never, to my knowledge, provided any legitimate reference to support his claim that “structuring” requires 2 or more transactions in one day, each of less than $10,000, that total more than $10,000.
.
Now you show up to imply you believe him.
I get that.
.
It’s worked for Kent for years and he’s never, to my knowledge, shown a legal reference for that. It’s not “legal jargon”, Karen.
.
You cannot present one legitimate reference to support that claim, and that is because it is false, as Kent’s own criminal case and the underlying law and regulations clearly demonstrate.
.
Shame on you, Karen Brosius.
.
His present (get that, Karen, present) living situation is even simply and you have been conspicuous in trying to evade dealing with that as well. Kent and Mary publicly admitted there was no divorce. He just took up living with Cindi Lincoln. And so much more might be said about Kent and his issues. Alas, Karen, you indicated you were done, and keep coming back to demonstrate and justify my claims. Please tell people I am not paying you to do so, Karen.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.
 
So much for the banter, typical of Kent and his people who can’t handle the truth. Let’s see if Karen Brosius, who claims to have spent so much timing reading up on these things, can do what Kent Hovind and his people have been unable to do for all these years:
.
Proposition:
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Karen Brosius: Affirm (She said she believed Kent.)
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
To get started, and may quickly resolve the matter, Karen need only post here her ONE, legitimate, legal reference that she thinks backs up Kent’s claim.
.
If she does so, I will either accept it or explain why it doesn’t do what she claims.
.
Will she perform that simply task, or further prove up my points about Kent and his people not being able to handle the truth about Kent’s criminal history and related matters?
.
Stay tuned!
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I also, above, made reference to the “present” which Karen Brosius claims to have an interest in and Kent’s relationship to Mary Tocco and Cindi Lincoln.
.
Following is a link to my article about why I claim Kent is still married to Mary Tocco and is either a bigamist with regard to Cindi Lincoln or they (Kent & Cindi) are just “friends with benefits”.
.
.
Karen is welcome to explain why, if it be the case, she thinks Kent and Mary are no longer married and why, if it be the case, she thinks Kent and Cindi are married.
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.

Keep trying.
.
Why would you expext me to have any faith in articles written by a man who is obsessed with trying to ruin another man’s success?
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I propose we can judge Karen Brosius’ character by what it takes to get her to openly, honestly, and in good faith simply post ONE, legitimate reference she thinks supports Kent’s “structuring” claim.
.
So far in this exchange, it has been demonstrated, by Karen Brosius, that she is not interested in the truth or in behaving appropriately in dealing with substantive matters regarding Kent Hovind. Kent has said understanding “structuring” is key to understanding his legal problems.
.
Karen has demonstrated she has no interest in understanding Kent’s legal problems.
.
I, however, am long-suffering.
.
Karen, you are being asked, in light of your boasts, for just ONE, legal reference in support of Kent’s fundamental claim for my consideration.
.
Proposition:
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Karen Brosius: Affirm (She said she believed Kent.)
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
– Robert Baty: Deny
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.

Keep trying.
.
Why would you expect me to have any faith in articles written by a man who is obsessed with trying to ruin another man’s success?
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

I propose we can judge Karen Brosius’ character by what it takes to get her to openly, honestly, and in good faith simply post ONE, legitimate reference she thinks supports Kent’s “structuring” claim.
.
So far in this exchange, it has been demonstrated, by Karen Brosius, that she is not interested in the truth or in behaving appropriately in dealing with substantive matters regarding Kent Hovind.
.
Kent has said understanding “structuring” is key to understanding his legal problems. Karen has demonstrated she has no interest in understanding Kent’s legal problems.
.
I, however, am long-suffering. Karen, you are being asked, in light of your boasts, for just ONE, legal reference in support of Kent’s fundamental claim for my consideration.
.
Proposition:
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Karen Brosius: Affirm (She said she believed Kent.)
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
– Robert Baty: Deny
.

Karen wrote to Robert

.

Some of us are working. I will be back when it is worth my time. Your lies and twisting of my words are cracking me up.
.

Robert wrote to Karen

.

More Hovind Hypocrisy as Karen further demonstrates her bad faith in this exchange.
.
Like I said, though, I am long-suffering and Kent said this matter is fundamental to understanding his life pledge.
.
So, I watch and wait for that ONE, just ONE, reference Karen thinks will establish the truth of Kent’s “structuring” claim as opposed to the truth of the matter (i.e., Kent has been lying for years about that and his criminal history).
.
Proposition:
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Karen Brosius: Affirm (She said she believed Kent.)
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
– Robert Baty: Deny

.

End of Direct Exchange

 

Karen’s “Run” Warning to Group Members

 

.

.



 


Comments

Karen Brosius v. Robert Baty on “Structuring”! — No Comments

Leave a Reply