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

Hovind Motion to Vacate 11052019


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.

My Prophecy

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 column at:


Legal Analysis


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.

Peter Goldberger’s analysis of Hovind’s motion to vacate


Update November 6, 2019

Initial Court response to Hovind motion

Hovind Court response to motion to vacate 11062019

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

Glen Stoll Indictment April 2019


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:

Francis Steffan Hayes Tax Court Oct 2019

Mr. Hayes’ petition to the Court for consideration is posted at:






Kent Hovind’s Motion to Vacate 11/5/2019! — No Comments

Leave a Reply