A Demello Message 07022016

A Hovind Get Baty Promo 07032016

Matthew Demello is the latest to run interference for Kent Hovind who announced tonight that he has no intention of facing me and dealing with his false legal narrative and the “specific” issues we might have worked through one at a time, with equal time/space for our presentations.

In keeping with Kent’s “cause stalking” tactics, Matthew has preferred to utter forth what has become a common and false claim from the Hovind camp; that I am under investigation for filing false police reports.

So, I thought I would set up this venue to see if Matthew is going to come out, come clean, and openly and honestly deal with that issue he has been viciously promoting this evening.

FaceBook Thread Started by Matthew Demello:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=848419135292757&id=339508739517135

Matthew Demello FaceBook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/matthew.demello.1

Matthew Demello’s Version of Proposition #59:

Robert Baty is under investigation for filing one or more false police reports regarding children working on Kent Hovind’s 150 acre commercial construction site near Lenox, AL.

Matthew Demello: Affirm

Robert Baty: Deny

I look forward to seeing if Matthew will present his first affirmative in support of his proposition.  If it is presented, I will then either accept it or explain why his presentation fails to support his proposition.


In earlier reports, it was noted that Kent Hovind was advertising for folks to bring their kids to his 150 acre construction site and be put to work around the projects.

In last night’s video (July 2, 2016), Kent boasted of using a 3 year old as a prop to promote himself and his skills as a tractor driver:

A Hovind and 3 year old 07032016

A Hovind and 3 year old on tractor 07032016

A Hovind and 3 year old 2 07032016

A Hovind and Russian Family and Tractor 07032016

 


Comments

Proposition #59 – Demello v. Baty – The Investigation! — 20 Comments

  1. Not unexpectedly, Matthew has posted messages in the referenced FaceBook thread indicating he has no intention of backing up his charge against me, as he continues to present other false and/or misleading claims reflective of Kent Hovind’s intent to promote his false legal narrative and refuse to face off against me on specific issues which he has famously promoted, and important related matters.

    I’m longsuffering, however, and can wait for Kent Hovind or his Champion to come out of hiding and face me in dealing with these important public issues.

  2. I HAVE debated you before and you just lie like crazy. I show you links to prove what I’m saying and you STILL ignore them. Right in the structuring law it states “there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring” Every day is a new day so what does the word “pattern” mean to you?? A pattern should be MORE THEN one time in 1 day. Kent took out 1 transaction once a week or most of the times once every 12 days. Does that seem like a pattern to you??? You can’t prove that. You just can’t. A pattern to me would be taking the same amount out twice in one day. that’s a pattern. That is something Kent never did. Now I don’t know how you got my post on here. I’m not ok with it. I didn’t ask for you to take my name and post it in this idiot website of yours. Why don’t you go after others who have committed billion dolor crimes like Obama’s pastor?? Why Kent. Also I don’t really want to be on this website. I just don’t trust you all. For all I know you got a hack working with you who hacks everyone who thinks this structuring is wrong.

  3. Matt,

    Thanks for making your appearance. As you know, I am the one that thinks you and Kent flat out lie about these important public issues.

    We need not trade barbs over that. Your course seems so typical of Kent and his people; offer lame excuses for refusing to openly and honestly discuss Kent’s legal problems and related issues (i.e., your claim about me being under investigation).

    I notice you offered nothing by way of a commitment to discuss that issue and, more importantly, advise when your first affirmative in support of your proposition might be expected.

    Like before, you duck and weave, bob and dodge, run to and fro and won’t do as Kent suggests; take up one issue at a time, with specificity.

    I have a proposition dealing with the structuring issue, and if you prefer to abandon your “investigation” proposition, we might be able to advance that discussion.

    That’s proposition #2 in the list of what is now 61 propositions. You may wish, however, given your comments above, to frame your own proposition for consideration.

    For instance, I notice you wrote, in part:

    “Right in the structuring law it states ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

    I don’t think that is true, and I notice you failed to even reference or actually quote the law. That law and related regulations are readily accessible on-line.

    Matt, your statement suggests you have no idea what the law actually says on the subject, much less the related regulations. Both were referenced quite clearly in Kent’s indictment which was used to try and convict him and which indictment was upheld on appeal.

    So, Matt, make up your mind, if you will:

    Run off!
    Rant on!
    Pick one proposition for discussion?
    Offer another legitimate alternative which might advance our discussion.

    —————————————————————

    • You do nothing but lie and you just LOVE to say others lie. Look at you posting pictures trying to say “Kent likes boys” or something. Are you that hateful??? Are you that against Kent that you are willing to make things up?? So you have never cut your grass and let your nephew or kids sit next to you on the lawnmower?? ohhh come on already. That right there shows you are not serious. You are not honest. Funny enough 1 of your supporters sent me the “structuring law” where it says “it needs to be in a pattern” and you just wrote “I don’t think that’s true” what are you going to do when I prove you wrong on that right now!! huh?? will you say sorry I got that wrong?? This is the actual quote from the law itself! 1.Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a SPECIFIC PATTERN calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or 26 USC 6050I (Form 8300). I JUST PROVED YOU WRONG!! it doesn’t even say “it has to be in a pattern” it says “It HAS to be in a SPECIFIC PATTERN” you are wrong. AND since IF I don’t give the link here I KNOW for a fact you will say “You are lying because I didn’t share the link” see you are very wrong and dishonest. How can anyone debate you??? IF you are NOT even willing to admit structuring needs to be in a pattern IN ORDER TO BE CONVICTED! here is the LINK! https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013.html#d0e48

      Go to the 4.26.13.1 (01-07-2016)
      Overview

  4. By the way, Matt, I have excerpts from the law and regulations as a stand-alone page on this website.

    Here’s the link:

    http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

    My references there don’t support your claim about the structuring law.

    Can you frame a proposition that might reflect a substantive point of disagreement on that which you are willing to discuss openly and honestly, with application to the case of Kent Hovind??????

    —————————————-

  5. Matt,

    Maybe we can advance the discussion based on this proposition which you have affirmed:

    Demello v. Baty Structuring Proposition for Debate

    The structuring law states:
    “there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring”.

    – Matthew Demello: Affirm
    – Robert Baty: Deny

    We should be able to get through that one rather quickly.

    If you can provide the legal reference to the law, a quote therefrom, and a link to where it can be found on-line, then I can either accept your position or explain why I think you have failed to establish the truth of your claim.

    Perhaps, if you realize that your claim is false you can quickly repent, bring forth your works meet for such repentance, and we can go our separate ways or take up some other proposition of mutual interest.

    ——————————————

    • Where on earth did you get that version of the “structuring law” from?? its obviously wrong. You completely left out that there needs to be a specific pattern in order to convict someone” Go read my other reply. I proved you wrong. You see I got the law definition RIGHT FROM THE IRS.GOV WEBSITE. Where in your post of the law you didn’t even mention what website you got that law from. Go read the IRS law that I sent you and put it next to your version. You’ll see you are wrong. There DOES NEED TO BE A PATTER. What you think if someone 1 day takes out 9.5k that that’s actually structuring?? lol wow you have a lot to learn. You actually believe that without a pattern, anyone taking 9k out is structuring??? Well I guess you never bought a car for 8K or 4K then huh??? I bet with your own definition of structuring that you are guilty to then.

      • Matt, you struggle so in your effort to keep from accepting the truth of the matter.

        Your proposition reads:

        “The structuring law states:
        ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

        You did not get your quote from the law and now further admit it is from the IRS site, which is a section of the Internal Revenue Manual.

        You did not get your quote from the law cited in your IRM reference (26 USC 6050I).

        I continue to propose, Matt, that your proposition is not in the law and what you misrepresent in the IRM is not relevant to your proposition. I am not interested in arguing about what the IRM says on the subject. The issue in Kent’s case is too simple to be distracted by your quibbling over the IRM. The law and the regulations are what was cited in Kent’s indictment.

        I have the citations to the law and regulations and relevant quotes on my site here at:
        http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

        Repent, Matt, and bring forth your works meet for repentance, or try again to present something that might actually be construed to support your proposition for my acceptance or further rebuttal.

        —————————————————–

  6. Matt, thanks for returning, but you really need to quit ranting and get on with trying to establish the truth of your proposition which is, as I have posted:

    The structuring law states:
    “there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring”.

    You have affirmed and I have denied.

    You stated in your latest submission that:

    “(One) of your supporters sent me the ‘structuring law’
    where it says ‘it needs to be in a pattern’ and you just
    wrote ‘I don’t think that’s true’ what are you going to
    do when I prove you wrong on that right now!!”

    Well, you are a long way from showing that I am the one in error.

    Maybe you will return to try again; I welcome your continuing effort. As Kent would say, for our “students”.

    Here’s what’s wrong with your latest effort, Matt.

    Where ever you may have gotten that link, the link does not take you to the law, and your quote is not from the law.

    You can find the law referenced in your quote at:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6050I

    You need to go there and try to find your proposition and get back to me as to where you think you see it. 26 USC 6050I does have something to say about structuring, but it doesn’t say, I propose, what you claim.

    Be more careful next time you return, Matt, and either repent and bring forth your works meet for your repentance or something that someone might actually thinks supports your proposition for my acceptance or further rebuttal.

    ———————————————————————

    • So you didn’t accept the link I sent you right from the IRS/government site itself??? wow. Also the picture of the kid on the tractor is NOT A BOY like you said. That’s actually a little girl. You are just wrong on everything. The link you just sent me only deals with people taking OVER 10k. Not under 10k. So according to THAT website law code Kent didn’t do that. He took out 9.5k every 12 days or so. Tell me how that’s breaking the law? When it comes to taking over 10k yes you NEED to fill out the right forms BUT when it comes to taking out under 10k there NEEDS TO BE A PATTERN. You know. 2 related transactions in the same day or every day. It honestly should be VERY difficult to charge someone with structuring when it comes to taking out under 10k BUT it should be very easy to charge someone who takes 10k and doesn’t fill out the form. Even though I prove you wrong. You will never admit it. I’m shocked that the IRS even hires people like you. Someone who makes the law fit into what they want so that they are not held to any standard at all.

  7. Matt, really, now you are trying to escape by talking about the girl on the tractor, which I did, in fact, identify as a girl!

    Shame on you, Matt, shame on you; all the more you have to repent of!
    However, that additional example does help illustrate just what kind of problems you are having in these simple matters.

    Your proposition remains:

    “The structuring law states:
    ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

    Nope!
    You offered nothing to support and justify that proposition.

    Let’s look at some details:

    You wrote:

    “So you didn’t accept the link I sent you right from the IRS/government site itself???”

    I accept it for what it is, and it doesn’t contain a justification for your proposition.

    You wrote:

    “The link you just sent me only deals with people taking OVER 10k. Not under 10k.”

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

    Here’s that link again, Matt, and if you insist on continuing with your false claim, please, please, please, cite the reference and quote something you think says and/or means what you claimed.

    http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

    You wrote:

    “He took out 9.5k every 12 days or so.
    Tell me how that’s breaking the law?”

    Read the law, read the regulations.

    In each instance, by definition, Kent broke the law because he was evading the bank reporting rules. Kent admits to the facts that, by definition, make him guilty of structuring, but Kent’s problem, one of many, is, like you, he lies about what the law and regulations actually say about what structuring is.

    You wrote:

    “(W)hen it comes to taking out under 10k there
    NEEDS TO BE A PATTERN.
    You know.
    2 related transactions in the same day or every day.”

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

    You claim the law says something like that, but you have shown nothing to support that and the law and regulations I have given you clearly establish YOU ARE WRONG, MATT!

    You wrote:

    “It honestly should be VERY difficult to charge someone
    with structuring when it comes to taking out under 10k
    BUT it should be very easy to charge someone who takes
    10k and doesn’t fill out the form.”

    That’s a rather subjective matter. It was, honestly, “very difficult” to charge Kent, but, after such difficulty the case was made, the facts were clear, and the jury convicted and such conviction was upheld after “100” appeals and motions.

    You wrote:

    “Even though I prove you wrong.
    You will never admit it.”

    Matt, you are the one playing the hypocrite and accusing me of what is your problem. You’ve not gotten close to showing the law says and/or means what you claimed, and yet you have yet to repent and bring forth your works meet for repentance or something worthy of the proposition for my acceptance. You have made me look good in being able to very simply refute your claims.

    You are welcome, Matt, but it’s time to get serious about your repentance and works meet for such repentance.

    You write:

    “I’m shocked that the IRS even hires people like you.
    Someone who makes the law fit into what they want so
    that they are not held to any standard at all.”

    With such claims, Matt, you bring all the more “coals of fire” upon your own head.
    Matt, really, repent and bring forth your works meet for repentance.

    —————————————–

    • The link you sent me before only deals with the forms you have to fill out after going over 10k. This is the VERY first sentence on that link. (a) Cash receipts of more than $10,000 Any person— It doesn’t say “below or above 10k” now the link I sent you deals with solely taking under 10k out in PATTERNS. So you are still trying to lie and say “The link I sent you doesn’t say anything about patterns??? are you serious?? wow. Ok I’m all set here. all done. I also don’t like your tone. You sound like someone who will try to hack my computer and find out what I do for a living and so on. I don’t want to get involved.

  8. Matt, you are continuing to evade actually trying to establish your proposition which reads:

    “The structuring law states:
    ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

    It does NOT read:

    “Matt can find a link that says structuring requires a pattern.”

    Here’s the link I sent you, where the relevant law and regulations are cited and quoted as applicable to the Kent Hovind case:

    http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

    Your reference about the $10,000 has to do with filing reports and is 26 USC 6050I. You need to be more clear to state what it is you are are talking about so I don’t have to try and figure it out.

    I did not deny that your reference to the Internal Revenue Manual had at least one comment about “pattern”
    I denied that was the law or was relevant to establishing your proposition.

    Matt, your proposition is:

    “The structuring law states:
    ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

    You have offered nothing in support of your proposition, Matt, and now you indicate you are going to execute your lame exit strategy.

    Thanks for the demonstrations.

    You sound like someone who is stiffnecked against the truth and is beyond repentance, but I am long suffering and will welcome you back; preferably when you repent or have something substantive to offer regarding these important public issues.

    ———————————————————-

  9. Matt didn’t just go away, he went away a sore loser!

    See comment from Bertus in the comments section at:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji5nXv8XRmA

    (Begin quote.)

    Matt just posted a comment on Kent’s latest video saying
    that he called Kent and had to inform him of the picture
    circulating the internet about his throat.

    He keeps insisting that the picture is photoshopped.

    Yes it is photoshopped, but only to enlarge it and draw
    a circle around the affected area. I, and others, have
    told matt this, but he keeps spreading the lie.

    Amazing how dishonest these culties are.

    (End quote.)

    Also, see the following from Matt the Liar which he posted on my FaceBook page where he also deleted the thread where he was jousting over the structuring issue with people there and lying about what he was doing here.

    (Begin quote.)

    Sean Krakoski lol you really think you smacked me down? wow.
    i proved you guys wrong on many issues.
    I was just done with it.

    Your leader Robert wouldn’t even take actual law as proof.

    He always wiggles out of it acting like its not law.

    I site the law code number and all and he keeps saying
    “thats not the law”

    its just a losing battle no matter what.

    NOTHING in this world will change all your minds.
    EVEN if the government comes forward and give Kent
    all his money back and say sorry. You all STILL wills
    say “ohhhh noooo the governments wrong”

    There is no point in debating you guys.
    Its only 3 of you anyway.

    (End quote.)

    Indeed, Kent and his people may be beyond repentance.

    However, as Kent himself says, such exercises are more for the public than the participants.

    Kent is wrong and he knows it, and he knows I am right and that is why he says, implicitly, that he will not come out and face me or send his Champion.

    I am long-suffereing and will wait and see if Kent will stiffen his neck further or one day come out to me or send his Champion.

    —————————————————–

    • What the hell. What are you tracing all my online movements now?? how desperate and sick are you??? That photo WASN’T just photoshoped to make it larger. The guy made the lump bigger and messed with the photo. THE GUY even admitted it! Also on your Hovind vs IRS facebook page “that you shouldn’t even be on anymore” that debate I killed those 2 idiots on there and they keep lying about it. I should have kept it all there. That idiot Sean said “the judge never had an issue with other religious people” then I showed him the link “PROVING HIM WRONG” AND then he said “there was no protest over what that judge and the court did” again I showed him the link proving there actually was a big protest about it. Lawn signs, T-shirts. The protest was so big that it even made news in Boston Mass. He LIED again. Why does Sean lie for??? Now watch him comment again and lie again here.

  10. Remember Matt, in one of his off-topic excursions, wrote:

    (Begin quote.)

    Also the picture of the kid on the tractor
    is NOT A BOY like you said.

    That’s actually a little girl.

    You are just wrong on everything.

    (End quote.)

    Such things present very good tests as to the character of one’s opposition.

    After I took a little time out to scold Matt about that, he dropped it.

    Dropping it, shutting up about it, is not the proper way to handle it.

    Matt would have done well to explain how he came to make the accusation, repent, and bring forth his works meet for repentance.

    Running off from the accusation, like Matt did, is not the way to properly deal with it.

    However, it is another fine example, a very simple illustration, of the kind of problem Kent and his people have in dealing with even the simplest of matters.

    ————————————————————

  11. I have now set up a stand-alone page on this website to preserve the historical account of my discussion with Matthew Demello regarding “structuring”, and for comment and analysis.

    I also continue to wait for Kent Hovind to come out to me to discuss these important public issues or to send out his Champion.

    Here’s the link to the stand-alone page presenting the Demello v. Baty Debate on “Structuring”:

    http://kehvrlb.com/demello-v-baty-on-structuring

    —————————————————-

  12. Awwwww, Matty ran away here too when he got a legal beat down from someone that has more than a passing knowledge of the law like I do, and I handed his ass to him on a platter over at your FB page Robert.

    • I knew you guys was lying about that Facebook page “not being Robert Baty’s” Remember me asking????? and you guys kept saying “NOOOOO he’s not in charge of this page” then I said then how did my comments get sent to his website so fast?? remember??? So the Hovind vs IRS” or whatever it is on Facebook is ACTUALLY Roberts page??? wow. He was kicked off of Facebook AND he can’t even uphold that rule. He talks so much about Kent breaking the law yet he’s breaking rules right in front of everyone’s face AND THEN says that’s not him over there. You just proved that site IS Roberts page!!! Also you guys keep loving to say “you beat me down” I don’t think you know what that means. you guys are really insane. I ran away because I shouldn’t even talk to you guys as if you are some kind of moral person or as if you guys are normal folks. Your not. Bunch of hypocrites. I bet you both deal drugs and hire hookers. The worse people in the world are ones who point at others and say hateful things about them. They are usually the worst.

  13. Matt appears to be “projecting”.

    I think that is the term the professionals use. That’s not his only problem, but it appears to be one of them that comes to mind after reading his 10:01 PM post from last night. Such has been noted quite often as being a common technique used by Kent and his people.

    So much to talk about regarding Kent Hovind’s legal issues, but Matt is a continuing demonstration that Kent and his people want to talk about anything but Kent’s “specific”, “one issue at a time”, legal issues.

    Matt wouldn’t/couldn’t openly and honestly discuss or support the common claim that law enforcement officials are investigating me for filing false reports.

    Matt wouldn’t/couldn’t openly and honestly discuss or support his claim that “the structuring law states that ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

    Matt wouldn’t/couldn’t openly and honestly discuss or support his claim that “the kid on the tractor is NOT A BOY like you (Robert Baty) said”.

    Matt has shown himself to be quite an unworthy correspondent.

    I am, however, long-suffering and look forward to Matt’s repentance and bringing forth his works meet for repentance; or something of substance he may wish to present in advancing the popular, public discussion of Kent Hovind’s legal and related matters.

    ———————————————————————-

Leave a Reply