Kent Hovind Challenge — 46 Comments

  1. Erin, the chicken, already took notice of your new webpage and is less than pleased 🙂 I think you should be the one filing complaints to internet providers not her. haha

  2. Kent Hovind personally responded to the latest rounds with a short video which continues his lies and deceptions regarding his criminal conduct and, more specifically, the structuring law as it applies to his case.

    No Kent, you still have it wrong.
    Come out, come out, Kent.
    We can talk.

    Kent’s false and/or misleading video just out today is at: (4 minutes)


  3. It seems to me that Kent’s convicted co-conspirator his ex-wife Jo has long realised that Kent is a self-deluded liar. If his own victim wife can no longer believe a word of what Kent claims why should any of us?

    • I think her statement on the jail house tapes on YouTube when Hovind was first jailed says it all. I can’t remember the exact working but something to the effect of “I don’t have a hope . . . a hope in our marriage . . . when you get out . . . I’m hearing things that are all the same . . . ”

      That’s two seconds before Hovind quickly says “Maybe I should change . . . or maybe you should change . . . “. Need I say more?

  4. Well, I am going to break down and spend a little time on the cowardly and anonymous poster from the Free Kent Hovind website that offered those lame and evasive and lying comments about the propositions currently outstanding for debate should Kent or his Champion ever come out of hiding and face me.

    One of the propositions affirmed by Kent and denied by me is:

    “You can’t do structuring on a bank account that was opened before 1999.”

    That the cowardly and anonymous poster acting on Kent’s behalf is not properly informed on the issues is demonstrated, in part, by the response offered:

    “Where did this issue come up?”

    See Kent’s interview (audio) at:

    There, between the 44:00 and 44:20 mark you should be able to hear Kent Hovind clearly endorse/affirm the claim that “you can’t do structuring on a bank account opened before 1999”. There Kent is rather explicit in making that claim, supposedly based on something his silly, not-a-lawyer, sovcit associate in Texas, Brady Byrum, was telling him.

    Come out, Kent Hovind, come out!
    We have so much to talk about!


  5. OK, here’s another one!

    Anyone familiar with Kent’s history knows that he and his people have made it a fundamental point to emphasize not just that Kent was arrested in 2006, but that:

    “A S.W.A.T. Team was used to affect the arrest of Kent Hovind in 2006.”


    What does Kent’s cowardly and anonymous FKH poster have to say about that proposition?


    The poster pulls a Hillary Clinton!

    “What difference does it make!”

    Well, actually, the way the cowardly and anonymous poster put it was, in relevant part:

    “IRS/SWAT/FEDERAL AGENTS/POLICE whats the difference?”

    So, I guess they are warming Kent’s people up to admitting that Kent has, indeed, been known to make false and/or misleading claims regarding his legal problems.

    It makes a lot of difference, by the way, a lot of difference.

    Kent knows!
    I know!
    I think we all know the difference it makes!


  6. One of the propositions affirmed by Kent and denied by me is:

    “The IRS had Kent Hovind labeled as an ‘underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands’.”

    The anonymous and cowardly Hovind surrogate writes in response:

    “We have documents from the IMF that will be posted here as soon as we get them scanned. And yes, the IMF does call Kent Hovind an ‘underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands’.”


    “We” have been hearing such claims for years, and Kent has had those records for years.
    Still NOTHING supporting the claim.

    I propose that whatever is in those transcripts there is nothing, properly interpreted, that identifies Kent Hovind as an “underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands”.

    I am certainly open to be convinced otherwise, but the longer Kent evades providing any evidence the greater my skepticism and belief that it is just another Hovind lie that he has been caught promoting as a fundamental claim in his years long promotion of his false legal narrative.


  7. Here’s another special interest proposition that Kent has highlighted as fundamental to his false legal narrative, along with vaseline and baby dolls; perhaps being another well-known case of “projection” where the preacher/politician who supposedly doesn’t like child abuse or homosexuality is actually a participant in such himself. We do know that Kent was closely associated with Mooneyhan and Adkins and spent years confined to all-male quarters, part of the time with his close (how close?) co-conspirator Paul John Hansen who I haven’t seen exhibiting any signs of being heterosexual.

    The proposition Kent affirms and I deny is:

    “John David ‘Roy’ Atchison is the man who put Kent Hovind in prison.”

    What does the anonymous and cowardly Hovind surrogate have to say about it?
    Just this:

    “John David ‘Roy’ the child rapper Atchison worked alongside IRS Scott Schneider and was involved in the case every step of the way including the stealing of money and property.”


    Yeah, that’s merely another manifestation of the proposition and offers no evidence in support of the disputed claim.

    I am open to being convinced that this is not just another Hovind lie, but ipse dixit oft-repeated claims is not what is going to establish the claim popularized by Kent Hovind and his people.

    If you don’t have any legitimate evidence to support the extent to which Atchison was involved in the Hovind case, then it might be best to withdraw the claim, Kent!

    It might also be helpful in dispelling, if appropriate, speculations that Kent Hovind has his own sexual issues he has yet to openly and honestly deal with.


  8. Maybe one more and then I’ll quit, at least for awhile.

    Another proposition affirmed by Kent and denied by me is:

    “Jerold W. Barringer never had authority to file a petition invoking the U.S. Tax Court’s jurisdiction in the case of Kent E. Hovind.”


    The cowardly and anonymous Hovind surrogate pulls another Hillary Clinton:

    “What difference does it make!”

    Well, actually, it looks like this:

    “Don’t think it matters at this point.”

    Of course it matters.
    Kent knows it matters.
    I know it matters.

    Kent doesn’t like to talk about his personal income tax case which includes the FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD penalty and often has been heard to lie about the case; a case Kent and I dealt with specifically during our short, direct exchange via Kent’s CorrLinks account while he was in prison.

    Kent’s personal income tax is integrally connected to his criminal case and Kent needs to be compelled to talk openly and honestly about it and answer for all the lies he has told about it as he has been promoting his false legal narrative.


  9. This one also caught my attention as maybe deserving of some consideration at this point in time.

    Some may recall that Greg Dixon, of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), retired to Florida and was a close associate of Kent in his anti-government ministrations. Greg even signed one of those “affidavits” and falsely claimed something to the effect that he heard Judge Rodgers say Kent was worse than a rapist. (Trivia Note: I was in Indianapolis and visited the IBT during its infamous “seige”.)

    Here’s the proposition regarding Greg and the IBT:

    “One or more former Indianapolis Baptist Temple buildings were bulldozed by the federal government after court ordered seizure.”

    Kent and his people repeated that claim back in 2015 in the context of the litigation ongoing at that time against Kent Hovind and Paul John Hansen. It was a fundamental claim in Kent’s false legal narrative and, you would think, would be easy enough to verify; but it has never been verified in my presence and I happen to think it is simply false.

    Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate had this to say about it:

    “Don’t have any comment on this. Don’t know where this came ‘proposition’ came from and have no idea why Robert Baty is inquiring about this.”

    Yeah, that is the modified Hillary Clinton response: “What difference does it make!”


    Kent knows.
    I know.
    It makes a lot of difference.

    Here’s just one reference where Greg Dixon himself makes the claim:

    “Why do I support Kent Hovind? Because I was there in 2001 when at the orders of the IRS and U.S. Justice Department they bulldozed down our church auditorium in Indianapolis, I don’t want to see anymore church buildings torn down by our government, not here in America.”

    Sounds pretty serious doesn’t it?
    But what if it isn’t true?

    I don’t think it is true, but the burden is clearly on Greg, Kent, and Kent’s people to put up the evidence in support of that claim or admit they have nothing to back up their ipse dixit.

    I am ready to be convinced.
    Bring it on, or not!


    (Oh yeah, it also makes a big difference if one is called upon elsewhere to accept or reject Greg Dixon’s testimony on his say-so alone.)


  10. This one is pretty good as well.

    The proposition reads:

    “The head teller from Kent’s bank testified that he/she did not think there was anything suspicious about the Hovind transactions.”

    Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate pops off with:

    “Don’t have a comment on this. Who cares at this point. The rest of your non-sense has been debunked.”

    Kent and his people must really like Hillary Clinton and be proud of her use of the “what difference does it make” defense.

    Kent cares.
    I care.
    Others care.

    Kent made the claim.
    I think it is false.

    Is Kent going to identify the teller and claim that her/his testimony was stricken from the transcript?
    Is Kent going to identify the teller and show us, explicitly, where in the transcript the testimony is recorded.
    Is Kent going to be found to be a liar………….again?

    Come out, Kent, and tell us plainly what your evidence for this claim is going to be?

    I would like to be convinced.

    For now, however, and after reviewing the transcript, I am thinking the claim is false; which is a very important matter when it comes to having to judge the credibility of someone that talks as much as Kent and makes so many ipse dixit claims.


  11. In my introduction I wrote, in part:

    “Come out, Kent Hovind. Or, send me your Champion. We have things to discuss.”

    The cowardly and anonymous Hovind surrogate, with typical evasive rhetoric, writes in response:

    “No Robert, there isn’t anything to discuss. This all happened 10-years ago and the public knows that Judge Rodgers, Michelle Heldmeyer, IRS Scott Schneider and many others did a terrible injustice.”

    Ten years ago and yet it is as fresh as the morning dew to Kent Hovind and those intent on helping him fulfill his pledge to spend the rest of his life promoting his false legal narrative and trying to control that narrative, even if he has to operate within his own cult’s echo chamber as reflected by the response noted above.

    There is plenty to discuss, as noted in my 59 propositions.
    Kent knows it.
    Kent discusses them.
    Kent won’t face me and discuss them because “Kent Hovind can’t handle the truth about his legal problems”.

    Cute how he so often and now again has dispatched one of his anonymous and cowardly minions to try and cover for him.

    The call remains: come out to me, Kent, or send your Champion.


  12. The #1 proposition reads:

    – “Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers used the term ‘rape’ to describe Kent Hovind and/or his actions and her comments were not reported in the official transcript.”

    Kent’s cowardly and anonymous surrogate writes:

    “…a woman who was raped, and was at the Kent Hovind vs IRS trial heard the Judge say ‘Kent Hovind’s crime is worst than rape’ and signed an affidavit (and so did many others).”

    I propose to you that that surrogate for Kent does not know what that woman heard and you will notice that the woman is not even named in the response nor are the other supposed earwitnesses named in the response. We haven’t begun to get to the bottom of Kent’s little scheme in putting together those signed documents which are not consistent and are not worth much as to evidence on an issue such as this. They were prepared long after the alleged incident and include not “many” but a few (6, or 8 maybe) of Kent’s family and associates. The scheme was apparently orchestrated by another now incarcerated tax cheat Lindsey Springer.

    Kent and his minions want everyone to question the official record and that scheme involving the “rape” claim they have come up with to do just that, with some success for those that don’t know any better.

    Statistically, there were a number of women in that courtroom who would have been rape victims and neither they nor Kent’s alleged rape victim heard the judge say “rape” as claimed. From what is on the record, it was Eric Hovind who put the “rape” issue into play and that was months after Kent’s proceedings had ended; at Jo’s sentencing, and Eric did not actually say the judge said “rape” but only used “rape” in his description of the sentencing of his daddy Kent. Interestingly, Eric seems to have denied the “rape” claim as espoused by Kent and his minions.

    There is no good reason to accept Kent’s contrivance as evidence of the statement and for his real purpose of impeaching the official record.

    Jen Fishburne, a Hovind sympathizer, was an eyewitness and earwitness to the Hovind proceedings relevant to this issue and she reported quite nicely and contemporaneously on the proceedings and what the judge had to say. She, if anyone, would not have overlooked such a statement in her reporting.

    Here is a link to an article she wrote last year in response to the publicity surrounding this issue:

    There are 11 readers’ comments following that article, including one by Kent’s not-a-lawyer, sovcit theologian Brady Byrum and me.

    Here is a link to an interview with Jen last year by Jonathan Schwartz, documentary film-maker covering the proceedings last year:

    Maybe if Kent or his Champion ever comes out we can explore just what was up with Kent’s scheme to try and impeach the official record with such an absurd claim.


  13. One of Ernie Land’s favorite propositions is:

    “Kent Hovind had 6th Amendment rights to have Ernie Land represent/defend him before the Court in his 2006 trial.”

    Ernie and I have discussed that matter more than once, and each time Ernie failed miserably to sustain his claim; and he goes about lying about those engagements and the results. Maybe I’ll post more on that later.

    For now, Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate writes in response:

    “Yes, we do have a constitution. It does say we can have 6th Amendment Counsel and just because Kent Hovind used the wrong ‘terminology’ doesn’t mean you can take away his rights (like you tyrannical thugs did indeed do).”

    Kent was afforded his constitutional right to 6th Amendment counsel, but that right did not, does not include having someone like Ernie Land or Matthew Hovind or Brady Byrum represent him in Court.

    I tried and tried and tried to get Ernie Land to file an entry of appearance for Kent and litigate that issue if he were denied, but cowardly Ernie would not, and I guess Kent would not have wanted Ernie’s unqualified representation in any case, or Matthew’s, or Brady’s, ad nauseum.


  14. The 3rd proposition reads:

    “Kent Hovind’s 2006 indictment is seriously flawed and fraudulent.”

    To which the cowardly and anonymous Hovind surrogate evades the matter in response and posts:

    “You can see in proposition 1 and 2 that Robert Baty’s claims are seriously flawed and fraudulent.”

    That’s another example of Kent’s “cause stalking” policy regarding his legitimate critics. That is, instead of dealing with his problems, Kent’s policy towards his legitimate critics is to “identify them, villify them, and destroy them”.

    As far as the proposition itself is concerned, I think everyone will notice that there was no effort to admit that Kent Hovind made the claim or offer any details as to what he was talking about.

    I am certainly open to be convinced, but I require evidence and documentation; not ipse dixit from Kent and his cowardly, anonymous minions.

    Come out, Kent, and let’s talk about these things.


  15. Proposition #4 is another Kent Hovind quote:

    “It is not a crime to structure.”

    Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate seems to admit that Kent flat out lied about that. The response is:

    “Oh, sure it is breaking the law to structure cash withdraws to sell drugs under RICO. The RICO/structuring laws are meant to go after drug dealers and mafia organizations… Not law-abiding citizens and Baptist Preachers like Kent Hovind.”

    Kent, speak up for yourself, are you admitting now that structuring is a crime, or not?

    Typical of Kent’s sort, they latch on to some applicable circumstance where structuring law might apply and falsely conclude and misrepresent the law and being limited to ONLY that application.

    Structuring law stands alone, independent of the RICO statute(s).
    Structuring is also, last I checked, a stand-alone crime.

    Kent knows that.
    I know that.

    The law was specifically intended to cover individuals such as Kent Hovind and other Baptist preachers who use our financial institutions in their criminal activities; tax evasion in the case of Kent Hovind.


  16. Proposition #11 states:

    “Jurors today have the legal right and option to acquit or convict based on their personal opinions of the law and defendant.”

    The controversy is set with Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate affirming to my denial with:


    However, nothing is presented to support the claim. The following, however, was added by Kent’s surrogate:

    “It is a historical fact jurors would use jury nullification against tyrannical laws since the founding of our country.”

    That juries might have been, in days gone by, allowed to convict or acquit based on their views of the law is not particularly relevant to the proposition.

    As some of Kent’s like-minded people have admitted, today juries are asked to decide facts and not law and so have to lie in order to convict or acquit based on whether or not they happen to like the way someone parts their hair or looks at them, or, in some cases, whether they agree or disagree with the law used to charge the defendant.

    Can jurors today vote to convict or acquit based on their personal whim, whether it’s an opinion on the law or the color of the defendant’s skin or some other matter?

    Yes, but it is not a legal right and option as those terms might be reasonably understood when it comes to our “rule of law”.


  17. Proposition #12 is particularly interesting in it allows for a bit of fun as one considers the lengths to which Kent appears willing to go to evade dealing openly and honestly with his problems; with cover being provided by those implicated in his schemes.

    That proposition reads:

    “Kent Hovind does not remember whether or not he mailed those lis pendens from New Hampshire.”

    Kent’s cowardly and anonymous surrogate replies with:

    “Kent Hovind forgets a lot of things. He is constantly doing stuff and tends to just move from one thing to the other to accomplish stuff. We have been told that when he is working that sometimes he forgets to eat unless people remind him….”

    Sounds kinda like Kent’s minions have been taught to believe what they are told by Kent as if Kent speaks ex-cathedra.

    Some may recall how it was publicized last year during the litigation that Kent has learned and teaches others to plead ignorance or lack of memory when it comes to things which might incriminate them. This might be a prime example.

    Additionally, Kent has on more than once occasion claimed that, as to this issue in particular, there was more than one way for inmates to get such things out of the prison without resorting to the mail. I don’t recall Kent every explaining any of those options.

    I think it was also brought out that Paul Dublin, Kent’s son-in-law, is the one who may have actually filed the lis pendens for Kent at the court house. Paul Dublin, to my knowledge, has never been open and honest about his role in the matter. If he filed it, how did he come by it? Did Kent mail it to him? For all I know, it was created, signed for him by permission, and filed without Kent ever having to mail it to anybody.

    However, Kent’s statements and the above response thereto suggest that Kent admits that the Lis Pendens documents for filing were moved from him in prison in New Hampshire to Florida by some means which he now claims to not recall.


    Kent Hovind knows.
    Paul Dublin knows.
    Others know.
    I know they know.

    Come out, Kent, and speak openly and honestly for yourself about these things with me.

    P.S. – Some might ask, “what motive would Kent have for flat out lying about this?”. I would respond, the motive is to keep from admitting to using the U.S. Mail to affect his bogus Lis Pendens scheme. Remember, the use of the U.S. Mail to affect criminal activity is a no-no, with possible criminal consequences. That, in my opinion, is the bottom line as to why Kent is lying about the matter.


  18. Ah, I think I have now responded to all of the responses posted by Kent’s cowardly and anonymous surrogate, except for #2 which seems to be the cornerstone of Kent’s false legal narrative. I have saved the best for last, though Kent’s surrogate has a long way to go in order to provide brief responses to all of the propositions outstanding in my Hovind Challenge.

    Proposition #2 reads:

    “Structuring requires 2 or more transactions of $10,000 or less, on the same day, that total more than $10,000.”

    Does Kent’s surrogate offer anything to support that claim, considering that the law and the regulations are easily accessible on line?
    Why not?
    That’s easy, the law and the regulations clearly demonstrate that Kent Hovind is flat out lying about what structuring is as applied to his case.

    What does Kent’s surrogate have to say. Here it is:

    “Institute for Justice has already won cases against the IRS and DOJ for this very ‘proposition’ you propose. Yes, the structuring law is ridiculous. If you withdraw less than $10,000 in one day, you have committed structuring. If you withdraw more than $10,000 in one day you have committed structuring. The IRS has apologized to Americans for abusing structuring laws. Recently, the IRS was forced to give small business back the money they stole.”

    I won’t spend a lot of time trying to unravel that mess.

    I will say:

    There was no citation and/or quote from any case involving a win by the Institute of Justice based on that proposition.
    I’m ready to be convinced.
    Where is the citation and on-line reference and/or quotes confirming the claim, Kent?

    The surrogate misrepresents the legal standard by claiming; maybe I should say the surrogate lies:
    “If you withdraw less than $10,000 in one day, you have committed structuring.”
    “If you withdraw more than $10,000 in one day you have committed structuring.”

    Nope! That’s just not it, Kent.

    Whatever it was the IRS apologized for didn’t have any relevance to Kent’s case.


  19. OK, I think that covers all of the 14 propositions which Kent’s anonymous and cowardly surrogate has commented on. The surrogate promised to respond to the other 58 propositions, now 59. I am looking forward to that, but I would prefer Kent come out of hiding and speak for himself, directly with me.

    Come out, Kent, come out, or send me your Champion.

    You can find Kent’s posting of the 58 propositions and his surrogate’s responses at:


  20. Looks like Kent and his cowardly and anonymous surrogates may be running scared and chasing rabbits. I have noticed, to date, that no new comments have been added by them to my list of propositions; leaving me with time on my hands.

    See Kent’s list of my propositions and his comments, via surrogates, at:

    Take your time, Kent!
    I prefer you step up, man-up, and speak for yourself, openly and honestly.

    If not now, maybe you, Kent Hovind, will join me on Bernie Dehlier’s show next month when I am scheduled to appear and response to your false and/or misleading claims and false legal narrative. That is in direct response to some of the comments you recently made to Bernie about me and these important public issues.


  21. Looks like Kent and his surrogates are still chasing those rabbits, or maybe dealing with yesterday’s Hovind v. Hovind divorce proceeding. No new responses posted by Kent or his surrogates to my list of propositions.


    The following note was posted a few days ago after the 14th response:




  22. Regarding Proposition #10 I noticed that Kent Hovind’s convicted co-conspirator Paul John Hansen, perhaps in violation of his own Supervised Release, has posted the following indicating he may be back in the business of practicing law without a license. I think he also, in the article, lies about his case and the statistics for federal cases in Florida.


    Counsel Contract, Agreement. Safe from practicing without a license.
    Posted: June 21, 2016
    by admin in Counsel Right (aka Paul John Hansen)

    M1S-45– Counsel Contract, Agreement. Safe from practicing without a license. ($2.50) Click > “HERE” to order.

    A contract that stops US judges from interfering with your right to counsel (none bar attorney counsel).

    How you can use this document to have me, or others, join your court proceedings, in person (seated right beside you), or telephonically, without fear of anyone being challenged as to “practicing law without a license”.

    They hate it when you have ready access to knowledgable counsel.

    Counsel is a right due to all Americans, as evidenced in the “Bill of Rights”. Rights can not be denied without the court losing subject matter jurisdiction.

    Such rights are ‘not‘ afforded to US citizens, seek counsel time with me for this complicated determination.

    In 2015 I was in Federal Court and demanded this right, denied, and my Federal Prosecutor leaned over and said (whispered); “you may have just won your case”. The major part of the case was won, the first win in the Federal Northern District in 10 years. They dismissed the case the day before the trial.


  23. In tonight’s performance, Kent Hovind bragged about a front page article on him and his new park which appears in the June 23, 2016 edition of The Monroe Journal. It’s on line a little early I guess, at:

    In that article, Kent Hovind appears to present his false legal narrative unchallenged by the reporter.

    I sent an email to the reporter and suggested he may want to followup with “the rest of the story”.


    • In a posting elsewhere someone noted that the article names me as being mentioned by Kent Hovind as a possible “plant”. There are other aspects of Kent’s false legal narrative, I have now been able to notice, reflected in the article.

      The reported did respond to me and has indicated he may want to interview me for future stories he intends to write about Kent Hovind and his commune project.

      We’ll see if anything comes of it.


  24. A 60th proposition taken from a recent video of Kent Hovind around the 11 minutes, 20 second mark:

    Proposition #60:

    If Kent Hovind had been drafted during the Vietnam War era, then he would have served in the military.

    Kent Hovind: Affirm
    Robert Baty: Deny

    The alternative to Kent’s claim is the story that he would have considered alternatives and possibly fled to Canada had he been drafted. As noted in the video. Kent indicates he had no more interest in complying with a draft order than he has had since that time in complying with tax requirements. Other positions publicly espoused by Kent also indicates his long held antagonism towards the military. Kent’s current attempt to reference his family members’ military service may be a simply disingenuous attempt to make himself appear more acceptable in the court of public opinion.


  25. Funny things appear to be going on with Kent Hovind’s premier website, . There seems to be a problem in finding it. That’s where Kent and/or his surrogate had begun providing one-two line responses to my propositions. They had done so through #14, with my responses in comments here. Will Kent’s website come back, or is this the end of it. We will see.

    Others seem to be able to access that page. Could it be that Kent and his people have blocked me and certain others?


  26. It now seems as if the website is back up, but I don’t notice any changes.
    Maybe they will come later.
    Maybe it’s been merely a reflection of the change in management/ownership/operation.

    No new comments on the propositions indicated.

    In other news, it looks like Kent and his people are again on the rampage against Eric in matters regarding web addresses.



  27. Well, the page is both back up now and at least one new article has been posted. However, no new comments have been posted as to the propositions in my challenge to Kent Hovind.

    Maybe they will come later.
    Maybe they won’t.

    We wait, and wait, and wait….


  28. It has been about 3 weeks since Kent Hovind, via his anonymous and cowardly surrogates, tried to put up a defense of the Hovind position on those propositions, and only got through 14 of them.

    He/they promised more, but no more effort has been noticed despite all the noise coming from the Hovind camp.

    Additionally, Kent has remained in hiding from making his own personal appearance and facing me to discuss one or more of the propositions in detail, one issue at a time, with equal time and specificity.

    My answers to Kent’s 14 quips are reflected in earlier comments here.


  29. Proposition #62 – Kent Hovind’s Diesel Therapy Claim

    Proposition #62

    During his incarceration,
    Kent Hovind was subjected to “Diesel Therapy”
    and moved over 30 times.

    Kent Hovind: Affirm
    Robert Baty: Deny

    In today’s article from Kent, via his surrogates, he again makes the oft-repeated claim that he was subjected to “diesel therapy” while he was in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons.

    In my experience in following the story, Kent Hovind has never documented any legitimate cause for this claim. I suspect Kent’s official record will never be publicly disclosed.



    “(Kent Hovind) was sentenced to 10-years in prison and moved over 30 times (this is called diesel therapy) during his incarceration.”

    Also see:


    “Diesel therapy is a form of punishment in which prisoners are shackled and then transported for days or weeks. It has been described as “the cruelest aspect of being a federal inmate.” It has been alleged that some inmates are deliberately sent to incorrect destinations as an exercise of diesel therapy.”


    (Proposition #62 is related to Proposition #25


  30. It’s been about 6 weeks since Kent, via his surrogates, wrote the following after posting 14 lame responses to the first 14 propositions:



    My responses to Kent’s responses, via his surrogates, are noted in my comments above.

    I guess I scared him/them off with my responses to their comments about those 14 propositions.

    They certainly had plenty of time to add more updates for my consideration!

    Come out, come out, Kent Hovind; we have things to discuss.


  31. Why is Danielle attached to this?? My legally married husband james de aguayo’s pic is also featured with her. Why is that??? Do i need to worry bout this woman and her family near my children???

    • Angela,

      I don’t know of any specific threat from Danielle or her family.

      It’s an odd circumstance.

      I was unaware of James’ marital situation.

      As far as I know, Danielle is also still married to Kent Andrew Hovind.

      Last I checked, there weren’t any entries to their divorce docket since last summer. I don’t know what is going on with that.

      Now you appear and indicate that you and James are also still married.

      Danielle and Kent Andrew Hovind play an important part in the continuing Kent Hovind story. Maybe we will hear more about their side of things; maybe not.

  32. The poster “ymickas” appears to be Wyatt Mickas with whom I have
    tried to engage in times past with little success.
    Wyatt has only recently reached the age of majority and has
    steadfastly refused to engage in an open, honest discussion of
    Kent Hovind’s legal and related problems, like sending his first
    wife, Jo, to prison.
    I don’t know what prompted his latest appearance here.
    We may never know.
    It is curious, and I have my suspicions, but I will have to wait
    and see if he cares to open up and explain his latest appearance
    here and in a related article at:

  33. Pingback:Homepage

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>