Talk:Kent Hovind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hovind's Federal tax convictions[edit]

It's amusing that some people are so bothered by the fact that Hovind is a tax protester, and that he was convicted of Federal tax crimes in addition to the structuring convictions. Just since early October, we have seen several edits, obviously made in attempts to remove mention (mainly at the beginning of the article) of Hovind's tax convictions, here: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9].

To those who are having a such hard time with the truth of Hovind's past: Wake up. Hovind's convictions are a matter of public record, and are accurately reported in the article. Famspear (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is yet another one of these edits: [10]. Famspear (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet another: [11]. Famspear (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They're still at it: [12]. Famspear (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another: [13] Famspear (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently under pending-changes protection, which means these edits are annoying and require manual rollback, but mostly invisible to readers. Should it be bumped up to semi-protection? DMacks (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is probably always going to be an advocacy magnet. Semi-protection for a couple of months would not be a bad thing, tho, imho. --Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi'ed 3 months. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Section needed for the article on why Kent Hovind's ministry was selected for tax prosecution and other creation ministries were not. IOW there are many ministries that have workers who are tax free.75.120.185.250 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright. And what source discusses this? Please keep in mind wikipedia is not a place for original research.   — Jess· Δ 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No, there are not "many ministries" that have workers that are "tax free." Hovind was not selected for prosecution because of his ministry. You're repeating the big lie that some of Hovind's followers have been perpetrating over the years. The evidence against Hovind was overwhelming. He was a cheater, and he got caught.
The vast majority of people who commit U.S. Federal tax crimes are never even charged -- but that has nothing to do with "ministries" or "creation ministries." I know. I've been studying the subject for many years. The vast majority of people who are KNOWN by the Internal Revenue Service to have committed Federal tax crimes are never even charged. Let that sink in. Famspear (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Another one: [14]. Famspear (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And another one: [15]. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And another one: [16]. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More than a two week hiatus,[17] but it doesn't seem to be stopping. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently set at pending-changes to prevent these sorts of things from becoming visible in the live article. If there's a sense that semiprotection (completely preventing IPs from editing it) would be worthwhile, please say so. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Can't see the point personally, but wouldn't argue further than that, or complain if page protection was increased. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I think pending-changes level is sufficient for now. If the pace picks up again, it would be time to reconsider. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another one: [18].... yaawwwwwn.... Famspear (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another: [19]. Famspear (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense: [20]. Famspear (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another: [21] Famspear (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [22]. Famspear (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [23]. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [24] BiologicalMe (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [25] BiologicalMe (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but it's a profound statement: "Facts are stubborn things." No matter how many times his supporters try to change history, the facts remain: Kent Hovind is a tax protester, and Kent Hovind spent several years in prison for Federal tax crime convictions. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

God favors man and he that thinks he stands could lose it all sure, but to make a mountain out of a mole hill over what he did is just sad. Everyone one on this earth has lied at some point and been envious of another. If you played a tape recording of your thoughts for the week in front of an audience you would be ashamed. All have come short of the glory of God and you people who want to take a man who should be admired for his works and willingness to devote his life to helping others and make SURE people know his word and teachings could be doubted do to this criminal activity honestly work for the world and not for themselves. Showing a man's shortcomings will never make your argument right, and if your not sure today if your going to heaven or hell when you die there is a way you could know 100%. All have fallen short of the glory of God, but God has a gift for you. Not of works lest any man boast. A gift is literally a gift... you don't have to pay for it or give money to receive it. Jesus died so that you could be forgiven of your sin that you were born with that was handed down to you from your parents that was given to them by their parents. That if you believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ you will be saved and be presented in front of the father faultless. He came to save that which was lost. You can pay for your sin yourself and die twice or let Jesus pay for your sins and die once and live twice. Selah Twin Seed (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"What he (Kent Hovind) did" was not a "mole hill" -- and there have been no "mountains" made out of "mole hills" here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Please stay on topic. Famspear (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in advance of any discussion that recent income tax failures on a massive scale seem almost godlike in their recriminations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3yPyrsO6S8 It is fairly obvious that senior Income Tax Inspectors or Directors -or whatever they are called; don't seem to turn up for work at the known offices that pay them. Ever! Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it help you to help us if you clarified for us Unamericans just what taxes relions have to pay the US Federal Government and how reprehensible are those who advise them of their legal standing?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Weatherlawyer: You probably should not be trying to learn anything about the work habits of what you call "Income Tax Inspectors", etc., based on something you saw in the youtube video.

Regarding your second post --the one containing your cryptic question about "those", "them" and "their" -- there is no such thing as a "relion." Your question does not make any sense. Let's stick to the topic at hand -- which is discussion of ways to improve the article on Kent Hovind. Famspear (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Hovind tried to argue that his work was exempt as a religious activity, and that was explicitly evaluated in court and found to be unsupportable. Given that there is a finding of fact which is a necessary condition to the conviction, the question of what taxes religions have to pay, is moot. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Acording to himself, he were never a tax protestor[edit]

Would you like to change the title to 'according' and 'was'? 62.232.124.186 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Kent Hovind does not view himself a tax protestor, and were charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes. Here is a link to an article were he say he isn't a tax protestor: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/01/20/is-kent-hovind-a-tax-protester/#4a15ed2f1784. He has also said this on his youtube channel. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but the legal system has found otherwise. His claim that he didn't not-pay taxes, is his obvious defense, is mentioned. It was rejected, whicih is also mentioned. It's a rare criminal who does not protest his own innocence and mis-characterization. WP:RS says otherwise. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
He also says the earth is 6,000 years old. His mechanism for distinguishing truth from fiction is broken. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
While he has developed a fair amount of expertise on the subject of Kent Hovind, Peter J. Reilly, in his own words, is "just a tax blogger". There is insufficient editorial oversight to make his blogs a reliable source. The article already mentions that Hovind denies being a tax protester, based upon a reliable source, but is presented with due weight given to multiple statements, also published in reliable sources, which have found the label appropriate. Several are cited in the article, and there are more. Additionally, he was convicted for willful failure to pay taxes and obstruction, so the "charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes" argument is patently false. If my math is correct and I accurately followed the sentencing transcript (in which the judge notes on page 107, "...you steadfastly insisted today that you are not a tax protester. The evidence is to the contrary, sir."), eliminating all the structuring charges (counts 13-57) would have reduced the sentence from 120 to 96 months (page 113).[26] BiologicalMe (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hovind also claimed in a letter to the IRS back in 1996 that he was not a tax protester.

Of course, he was indeed a tax protester.

He used many of the same tax protester arguments that other -- well -- other tax protesters have used over and over and over and over and over and over again. For example, here is the text of a letter from Hovind to the IRS, dated February 1, 1996, in response to a summons issued by the IRS. This letter was admitted into evidence as document OBS-8 in open court in United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:2006-cr-00083, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on October 18, 2006. This is not for inclusion in the article, but is provided instead to illustrate the point that he was indeed a tax protester, with my comments inserted in brackets in various places:

"I, Kent Hovind, am somewhat confused after doing some research on the IRS Code and the numbers on the forms you are sending me, as well as the notices.
"For instance, this summons indicates that you assume that I am a taxpayer per the IRS code. Sir, I am a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is my full-time vocation, which is not an excise taxable activity [false; a tax protester argument; generally, the compensation you receive from preaching the gospel is taxable for Federal income tax purposes]. You are assuming that I receive income and that tax is due on this income. I cannot confirm nor deny that I receive income, nor that I am a taxpayer per the IRS Code [typical tax protester rhetoric]. However, if you have determined that I am a taxpayer, I demand that you provide me with the regulations of the IRS Code that make me a taxpayer.[typical tax protester demand]
"I also demand that you produce the treasury delegation order, per U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that give you the delegated authority to begin an investigation on me, Kent Hovind. [typical tax protester demand]
"Also, the form you are suggesting I file, 1040 per the IRS Code is for federal employees. [false; the Internal Revenue Code's application is not limited to "federal employees"; another tax protester argument] I am not a federal employee. My standing, as far as I can determine from the code, is as a nonresident alien to the federal government [false; Kent Hovind was a resident and citizen of the United States], and I cannot find any forms for filing as this type of being. [a blatant lie by Hovind; typical tax protester rhetoric]
"Can you send me the forms for a nonresident alien? Please help me, as I intend to pay all lawful taxes applicable to me. Would you please send me the determining documents or regulations that make me liable for the taxes you assume I owe. [typical tax protester "show me the law" rhetoric"] It would be most helpful to me to help clear up this matter.
"I need the above named information to help determine from the tax code if I am liable for the taxes stated in your summons. I am not a tax protester. [typical tax protester statement] However, as a steward over the property and funds that the Lord supplies to me, I must not carelessly dispense funds, but must determine without a doubt that a debt is owed.
"In the IRS Code implementing regulations, your authority to seize property and levy is under Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms. [false, and typical tax protester argument; the IRS authority to seize property does not come from "Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms"] For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved in any of these businesses or ventures. If your records indicate otherwise, they are mistaken and I request a copy of them so I can perfect the record. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
"If I do not have a response within ten days of receipt of this response, I will consider this matter closed and that I am correct in my assumption that I don't owe the taxes that you assume I do and that my standing is correct." [typical tax protester rhetoric -- an impotent attempt to unilaterally impose a deadline on government personnel]

I have been studying tax protesters for over seventeen years. Hovind was correctly designated as a tax protester in federal court, as noted in the article. Famspear (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Hovind, the Earth is 6,000 years old. Wikipedia is not obliged to report delusional nonsense as fact. Especially when it's been tested in court and rejected. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Developments on Kent Hovind (April 2016)[edit]

Over the past several weeks, there has been some interesting developments regarding Kent Hovind and was wondering should they be added to article. Apparently, his wife is divorcing him and Kent is going to be evicted from his Pensacola property as his son, Eric, now owns it and Kent has been looking to acquire property near Range, Alabama. Also, he was in court over stalking complaint.--Cms13ca (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Without coverage in reliable sources, none of these will have risen to notability. It can be verified that Jo Hovind has filed for divorce, but unless it is finalized, there would be no basis to change basic biographical information. If there were a reconciliation and no reliable sources ever covered the troubles, it never would have reached notability. (I wonder if I can be booted from Wikipedia for excessive use of conditional verb tenses.) There may be some usable coverage on the property, but I'm still working on verifying it exists. Thanks, but let's not get ahead of the sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear BiologicalMe: If your use of conditional verb tenses exceeds the Officially Designated Maximum Prescribed Level of Use as described in the Official Wikipedia Commission on the Excessive Use of Conditional Verb Tenses and Other Overly-Wrought Nomenclature and if your conduct is as described in the Official Wikipedia Manual of Stuff Regarding Excessive Use of Different Things and if an official determination is made by the aforementioned Commission in conformity with the Official Wikipedia Interpretive Rules applicable thereto, then it's possible you might be in trouble! However, what YOU would need in such a case is representation! Of course, we here at the Law Firm of Famspear's Fabulous Foolishness are here to fight for you -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court! For a nominal fee, of course! Famspear (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Now I now why no one has built a time machine and used it to go back in time to raise the funds to build it: lawyers.[27] BiologicalMe (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to think about that for a while. Famspear (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ummm, errrr, gah ... brain is exploding! Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a new editor and I was considering adding 1) New developments such the divorce and Kent Hovind's claims that Eric and Jo conspired against him. It seems appropriate since Kent makes his money from evangelism and supposedly telling people what is right and logical. Or is that not a good reason to add something to a Wikipedia page? I also realize that this page may be a little too active and controversial for a new editor to dive into. ScienceExplains (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that is "seems appropriate", seems being the operative word; the problems is sourcing. While there has been a bit of activity on the internet, blogs and such, no publishers which engage in fact checking have found it newsworthy. As such, most of the content fails both verifiability and notability. The change in marital status documented by the court order, a verifiable primary source about an intrinsically notable basic biographical datum; it is mentioned as a basic fact without further discussion which would require a strong secondary source.
Being a new editor is not a problem. Wikipedia has a set of operating guidelines that take getting used to. (I'm still working on that.) If you are willing to work collaboratively, other editors will keep you on track. Listening is the best way to avoid problems. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold (but not reckless). The area in which the least boldness should be exercised are biographies of living people. There are several ways to go about things. Asking first on this page is a good way to find out if you are hitting a dead end before you expend a lot of effort. If you are sure things aren't going to far, try a test edit. Other editors may revert you. If you think you are right, put forth your best argument on this page; other editors can evaluate what you have said in the context of Wikipedia guidelines.
If I had found any reliable sources, I would have made edits similar to the ones you are suggesting. Maybe you can find a source I missed, but my guess is that anything you find will not qualify as a reliable source. If I'm wrong, I will be pleasantly surprised. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The Escambia Court records are available for the God Quest Inc vs Kent Hovind "Eviction with Damages" (2016 CC 001545) case. Also on the docket in the records are the Kent and Jo Hovind "marriage dissolution" case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrojn (talkcontribs) 18:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no third-party sources that establish the notability of the eviction and the divorce is already included. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources about wedding[edit]

There is evidence to support a statement to the effect that Kent Hovind married Mary Tocco on September 24, based upon self-published materials. (Additionally, there are some blogs,[28][29] but I see no reason to use them as sources.) An invitation was posted KH's official site.[30] Ceremony video was posted to the YouTube channel.part 1part 2 I do not know of any third-party reliable sources that have covered it and a fair amount of time has elapsed. As basic biographical information, I think a very brief entry is warranted, but would appreciate additional input about sufficiency of sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit by User talk:Jaminhubner removing https, using first name[edit]

We decided to convert Google urls to https a while ago, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_127#RfC:_Should_we_convert_existing_Google_and_Internet_Archive_links_to_HTTPS.3F. We also use surname only once the full first name is given in the lead. I've asked the editor to fix these. I'm also not sure why his divorce was deleted. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the lack of supporting discussion, I've started reviewing the edit. I changed the residence field back to the current residence and replace hyphens with en dashes. Instead of checking "show changes" to confirm the dashes changed, I saved without an edit description. I'll leave things where they are for a bit—at least until I've had more coffee. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer Diet Coke first thing in the morning. Famspear (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
My definition of a balanced meal: a breakfast consisting of a Hostess Twinkie balanced on the top of a can of Diet Coke. Famspear (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
A pumpkin spice Twinkie and Pepsi Max. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Coffee, back, no sugar for me, and my definition of a balanced diet is a beer in each hand. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided that complete reversion was the best approach to the edit in question. There was so much monkeying with references (changing https to http, altering dates, changing templates and fields) that any good ideas in the edit were outweighed by the chance of burying errors. There is a strong possibility that the edit was based on an an older version. The first line was an alteration of a page protection template with a expiry date in the past. I recognized the {{plays audio}} template I put in at one point, but removed when the website stopped playing music on launch. The edit changed "pleaded" to "pled" and I remember doing a Google search on that when it had been changed the other way. It won't match an older version because it contains some fairly recent information but also restores some more out-of-date information. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And I found the version: diff. It was a one line modification of the editor's own previous edit which overwrote more than seven months of edits. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)