Watch for Updates
In a performance broadcast on November 5, 2019, Kent Hovind boasted of having filed a motion to vacate as to his 2006 criminal convictions in federal court.
Link to Video
Current Docket History
File Copy of Motion
The document, prepared, according to Kent Hovind, by Paul John Hansen, convicted felon and well-known anti-government sovereign citizen promoter, is a testimony, despite Kent’s denials, that he follows anti-government, sovereign citizen, tax protest theology.
The federal district court will deny the motion on grounds of the arguments being without merit, frivolous, and other reasons to be stated at the time the motion is DENIED.
“Change my mind!”
Update November 6, 2019
Peter J. Reilly returns Kent Hovind as a subject of his Forbes.com column at:
Peter Goldberger focuses on “ appeals and other post-conviction aspects of federal criminal cases”. After reviewing the document prepared by Hansen, he wrote me:
“When a federal defendant has fully served his sentence, including any post-incarceration supervision, the district court where he was convicted no longer has authority to undo (“vacate”) the conviction, except by issuing the extraordinary writ of coram nobis.
Normally, any motion to vacate a federal conviction or sentence, for some fundamental reason not addressed in the original trial court proceedings or on appeal, must be filed within one year after the appeal time ends.
And coram nobis is only available when new facts come to light that could not have been discovered earlier, entirely refuting or defeating the charges, or when a new legal principle (constitutional or statutory) is announced that applies to the case — and which is retroactive (most aren’t) — that shows the conviction or sentence to be completely invalid, not just for some procedural reason, but substantively. (A conviction invalidated under the Supreme Court’s June 2019 Davis decision, could be an example.)
Nothing in this motion remotely reaches that standard;
most of it is based on procedural misunderstandings, at best, or legal nonsense at worst.
Update November 6, 2019
Initial Court response to Hovind motion
In sum; The motion should be denied!
Update November 8, 2019
Kent’s response to the recommended dismissal of his motion to vacate indicates he will pursue “paper terrorism” out of spite until he dies.
Update November 10, 2019
Glen Stoll, Kent’s former business partner and legal advisor, representative, is on his way to federal prison, for doing for other clients what he did for Kent Hovind.
See latest update on related article in this venue at the following link:
Glen Stoll Indictment – Trial Set for Early 2020
Update November 11, 2019
The U.S. Tax Court case of Francis Steffan Hayes was recently decided. Mr. Hayes had anti-government notions quite like Kent Hovind. Here is the Court’s decision for reference:
Mr. Hayes’ petition to the Court for consideration is posted at:
Update November 22, 2019
Looks like Kent is caught flat out lying again in his live performance tonight in that he is now claiming what he filed with the Court is NOT a “motion to vacate”, but rather a challenge to jurisdiction.
However, in the document Kent actually filed with the Court he explicitly refers to what he filed as a “motion to vacate” and claims he will file papers for the rest of his life if he doesn’t get his way.
Time marked link to Kent’s comments below:
Update November 23, 2019
Added this to further show Kent is flat out lying about his “motion to vacate”!
Update December 3, 2019
Since the last report, it seems Kent and Brady and Paul have been busy trying to decide what to do next. No response has been filed as to the Court’s recommendations and 14-day deadline. Kent can’t make up his mind whether or not he filed a motion or what, and claimed a new 21-page document was going to be filed on December 2, 2019. Kent also claims a new website address featuring Brady Byrum’s work on his criminal case: KentHovindIsInnocent.LIFE. However, no such operating website with that address has been found.
Screenshots below are from Kent’s performances since the last report above.
Update December 5, 2019
The sovereign citizen objection to the Court’s intentions to dismiss Hovind’s motion to vacate has been posted to the docket record and it is now in the hands of the judge to decide the matter.
The document was reportedly prepared by Hovind’s sovereign citizen theologian Paul John Hansen and it is immediately evident as being a sovereign citizen document based on the first page heading indicating it is not being “filed in” the federal court but rather being sent “to” the federal court; that being because Hovind/Hansen do not recognize the Court’s jurisdiction.
Update December 6, 2019
Kent goes live and in the beginning of his performance he whines about his case and asks his people to ask their elected officials to get involved in his case, claiming the Court must vacate his 2006 convictions because there was no “verified complaint” in his case (i.e., a person, not police or government, complaining about a crime).
In comments in the above live broadcast, Kent claims that “1st Base” was missed by the Government and so his 2006 convictions must be vacated. Kent claims “1st Base” is the presence of “verified criminal complaint” against him by a member of society; not any government agents/officials.
Nothing new here. That argument is going nowhere. Here’s just one reference to a case that had that issue and how it was dealt with.
There is also the study at the link below which delves into what Kent is up to, and the graphic following is an introduction/summary regarding the merits of Kent’s claims.
Update December 7, 2019
The Hovind/Hansen argument appears to turn on whether or not what Kent says is not in the record is required in order for his prosecution to have been legal and within the Court’s jurisdiction. I propose that such as Kent claims is simply false and such a document is not required for his prosecution to have been within the jurisdiction of the Court. The following are some references from Kent’s objections to the Court’s proposed dismissal of his “motion to vacate” and other references relevant to showing his claim is frivolous.
Update December 8, 2019
I have taken excerpts from Kent’s appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals as indicated below and for a further showing that his present sovereign citizen antics will be of no avail; he was properly investigated, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced.
Update December 10, 2019
Federal District Court will NOT vacate Kent’s 2006 convictions; issues ORDER of DISMISSAL & JUDGMENT!
Update December 12, 2019
Time marked link to Kent’s comments:
Update December 13, 2019
Kent Hovind still lying about the status of his “motion to vacate”!
Kent, your document #494, frivolous objections to the Report and Recommendations, was not timely filed and has no standing before the Court to be considered.
Update December 19, 2019
Kent continues to promote his false legal narrative!
Update December 20, 2019
The following image was posted to my Hovind FaceBook group and Kent’s comment noted therein is what is mentioned in the comments section following this article.
In a live broadcast tonight Kent again promotes his false legal narrative and promotes the rumor that they are out to get him again, without providing any relevant details as to what he is talking about.
Link to Broadcast
Link to my FaceBoook post about broadcast
Update January 3, 2020
Kent Hovind announces his continuing paper terrorism campaign against the federal government for daring to call him to account for some of his crimes.
My treatment of that claim is below:
Update January 10, 2020
Bwahahahaha! Kent plays dumb, and the Court responds accordingly!
Update January 11, 2020
I think this might be worth emphasizing for its humor and because we just might be hearing more about it from Kent in coming days. I have mentioned it before, but will emphasize it with the screenshot below. Kent knew he was filing his objections late and so took a swipe at the Court declaring it lacked jurisdiction to impose a deadline (Kent could have easily asked for and been allowed more time) for filing objections. In its dismissal order, the Court advised Kent that all timely objections (none) were considered. It really is quite funny. Of course, Kent’s untimely objections were frivolous in any case. The ball now returns to Kent’s “court”. What will he do next?
Update January 16, 2020
Update January 21, 2020