Bring it on, Kent Hovind!

Let’s see you make your case; maybe you’ll get it, maybe not!

Case Example:



18 USC 3583(e) –


The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7), terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release…if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice.


18 USC 3553 –

Factors (excerpts):

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant

to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct

to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant

to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner

the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct

the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense


In tonight’s performance Kent almost told us something about his efforts to get out of Supervised Release early, but he caught him self and stopped before revealing any actual details about his effort to get out early.  He wound up just asking folks for prayers.


UPDATE AUGUST 23, 2016 & SEPTEMBER 6, 2016

Kent claims in an August 23, 2016 broadcast that he applied for his early release from Supervised Release.  However, as of September 11, 2016 I have been unable to find any record of any such application; which I believe is done through a motion to the court which would be public record.




Kent Hovind – Bid To Reduce Supervised Release — 2 Comments

  1. “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense”…seeing as Hovind is “retired” and most likely not paying the back taxes and fines he’s accrued, I don’t see an early release in his future…

    • Yes, there are a lot of details that Kent never seems to address in his public performances; which is all we get to see. He and his people also don’t write about them.

      Will the Court be sympathetic to Kent if he continues to maintain his innocence in the face of the clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence against him? Maybe the Court will order a psychiatric evaluation before deciding if Kent maintains his innocence.

      What about Kent’s $500 a month payment that was required before his personal income tax liabilities were decided? Has Kent been making those payments.

      What about Kent’s use of nominees to evade payments and still begin raising the millions for his playground and retirement home?

      Will Kent really cause these matters to become public by filing a formal request with the Court?
      I hope so.
      I would really like to see where it goes.

Leave a Reply