Nick Matzke posted Entry 2458 on July 19, 2006 02:20 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2453

Well, I’ll give Dr. Dino this: at least he is consistent in his wackiness. The latest from the Pensacola News-Journal:

Hovind’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender Kafahni Nkrumah, told U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis at a hearing Monday that his client did not want to enter a plea because he does not believe the United States, the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney’s Office “have jurisdiction in this matter.”

When pressed by Davis to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty, Hovind said he wished to enter a plea of “subornation of false muster.”

“Subornation,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, means instigating another to do something illegal. “Muster” is an assembly, often for inspection or roll call.

When pressed by Davis, Hovind said he was entering a not guilty plea “under duress.”

First, I would just like to say that everyone here at PT would like to express their sympathies to the public defender assigned to Hovind. I suppose public defenders see all sorts of weird things, but Hovind will be a handful.

I attempted to gain a little more insight on what “subornation of false muster” is supposed to be – the poor reporter was obviously struggling. The Pensacola News-Journal‘s columnist, who was at the hearing, said it was “a defense I haven’t heard in 30 years of hanging around courtrooms.”

I googled the phrase (as did the columnist). There is but one hit – to an appeals case in Washington state. The decision has something to do with a guy, Michael Didier, who was evidently trying to avoid a conviction for burglary and violation of a restraining order to keep him away from his separated wife. The rationale?

Mr. Didier considers himself a ‘citizen of heaven’ rather than a U.S. citizen and works with Remedies at Law, 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) (May 19, 2005) at 381, which he describes as an ‘ecclesiastical law firm’ staffed by non-bar members. 3 RP at 380. Mr. Didier’s wife, Judith Didier, petitioned for legal separation. On December 29, 2004, a Pierce County Superior Court Commissioner Pro Tempore granted a temporary order that, inter alia, ordered Mr. Didier to vacate the family home at noon on January 2, 2005, and restrained both parties from ‘molesting or disturbing the peace’ of the other or from ‘entering the home’ of the other. Ex. 1. Mr. Didier attended the hearing without a lawyer, challenging the jurisdiction of the court and filing a pleading [1] based on his understanding of religious and constitutional law that asserted claims against those that he saw as interfering in his family and marriage. Mr. Didier was present when the commissioner announced and signed the temporary order; Ms. Didier’s lawyer also served him with a copy that same day.

[…]

On January 8, 2005, while Mr. Didier was away, Ms. Didier, accompanied by relatives and friends, re-entered the home and hired a locksmith to change the locks. Before the locksmith could do so, however, Mr. Didier returned. Seeing his car, Ms. Didier hid in the bathroom while her friends locked the doors. Mr. Didier entered through a window, telling the others present to leave his home and demanding to speak to his wife. He asserted that the restraining order barring him from the home after January 2nd was invalid because of his ‘revision.’ He made similar assertions to the police, and also told them that he was bound by God’s laws, not theirs. The police nevertheless arrested him.

[…]

Mr. Didier’s own testimony before the jury included assertions that he was a ‘citizen of heaven,’ not a U.S. citizen or Washington resident. 3 RP at 381. He objected to being subject to Washington’s courts at all. He volunteered that he drove using a church-issued driver’s license. Given this testimony, the State argued to the jury that a person who chooses to be in Washington is subject to its laws, and if that person also chooses to violate the law, that person pays the consequences.

[…]

[Footnotes]

[1] Mr. Didier titled this document ‘ABATEMENT/COUNTER-CLAIM’ and within it attempted to enter a plea of ‘Subornation of False Muster.’ Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 19.

This must somehow be associated with Glen Stoll, the guy in Washington who heads Remedies at Law, that has also been representing the Embassy of Heaven Church. An Ed Brayton post from 2004 has some background. See also PT and Dispatches posts mentioning Glen Stoll.

All I can add is that in Oregon, in the 1990s, there was a group (called the Embassy of Heaven or something, but I’m not sure it was the same group [added in edit: actually, yes, it is the same group]). They had 40 acres or so near Salem that they said was the independent nation of “Heaven”, not subject to taxes or other state laws. In a story that is too long to go into in depth, I and some friends actually visited Heaven in person at the beginning of a huge Road Trip we did after graduating from high school. Heaven had its own signs, issued its own passports, and they had kind of a hippie-ish commune in the woods on their property. They had trampolines that we jumped on, and we listened to them try to explain what their philosophy was about for about an hour – they would go on and on.

The major point I remember is that Heaven was in an extended dispute with the Oregon State Police, because Heaven evidently made and issued its own license plates for its cars – and the highway patrol seemed to take a special pleasure in pulling over Heaven’s cars and confiscating their plates (the rumor was the officers would take them as souveniers).

Anyway – we left safely, and proceeded to drive to Eastern Oregon to visit Hell’s Canyon. This naturally made for an excellent title for the Official Road Trip Video.

Still, this doesn’t give much more insight on what exactly “subornation of false muster” is supposed to be. Any guesses?

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #113354

Posted by ben on July 19, 2006 4:31 AM (e)

What you put on a false bratwurst to make it taste better?

Comment #113360

Posted by Corkscrew on July 19, 2006 5:17 AM (e)

I’m guessing that this is tied in with Hovind’s claim to be a citizen of Florida but not of the US. By his logic, therefore, federal legal institutions would have no authority to order him to court, and he’s trying to point out that their actions on this front are therefore illegal.

It all makes perfect sense. If you accept that Florida isn’t part of the US, of course, which is pretty ludicrous. ISTR this thesis depends on some rather heavy quote-mining of old treaties, so I guess it’s not a surprise that it’d be Hovind who argued it.

Comment #113362

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 19, 2006 5:57 AM (e)

Still, this doesn’t give much more insight on what exactly “subornation of false muster” is supposed to be. Any guesses?

It’s kind of the same logic behind his thesis.

His nonsensical, sub-high school language thesis on everything else but science convinced him that he was a science teacher.

He’s now trying to convince himself he’s up to speed with legal talk.

Also, the uneducated masses he preaches to probably would assume that Hovind’s crap is technical jargon that make sense to hide the fact that their ignorance.

If your supporters don’t know what you’re talking about, at least they won’t know you’re a phony.

Comment #113367

Posted by fnxtr on July 19, 2006 6:47 AM (e)

I think Buzz Lightyear said it best:

“You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.”

Comment #113372

Posted by Paul Curtin on July 19, 2006 7:07 AM (e)

I am a lawyer (and a public defender)and I can only say that “subornation of false muster”
1. Does not mean what Rev. H. thinks it means.
2. Is not a plea.
3. Probably is just the reverend’s way of saying: “Excuse you me while I prepare to phonate out my other orifice.”
4. Is the kind of thing PD’s often have to parrot on behalf of clients, leading to our general weariness and fondness for gin (or shoe polish).

Comment #113373

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 19, 2006 7:18 AM (e)

Once again, it should be pointed out that all of this nuttiness is standard “Patriot Militia” boilerplate. The militia movement refuses to recognize any governmental authority above the state level (many times, not even above the county level). Many of them refuse to obtain drivers licenses, or license plates for their cars (McVeigh was pulled over, as he was leaving the scene of the oklahoma City bombing, for not having a license plate). A few of them have even printed their own money (they refuse to recognize the Federal Reserve as having any validity or authority).

They are all, without exception, cuckoo clocks. Hovind fits in well with them.

Comment #113375

Posted by thurdl01 on July 19, 2006 7:22 AM (e)

Somehow I imagine this upcoming trial having all the humor of the Charles Guiteau trial without any of the depressing presidental assassination overtones. Court TV totally needs to have a camera there live at all times.

Oh and…

First, I would just like to say that everyone here at PT would like to express their sympathies to the public defender assigned to Hovind.

I have a suspicion that Hozind will be representing himself by the end of the trial. And, as a lawyer, will have a fool for a client.

Comment #113377

Posted by k.e. on July 19, 2006 7:32 AM (e)

Sub= part of something bigger or under something

Ordination= the gift of power to speak on behalf of some all powerful bureaucracy, given by fiat, when judiciously applied…. can be oneself.

of false= my word against yours

Muster = the larger of 2 groups of blind people.

Thus:

Under my self appointed godliness and with my rabble I will take on the the black helicopter brigade.

To which I reply.

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris
If Caesar were alive, you’d be chained to an oar.

Just who elected Hovind to be god’s representative?

Comment #113381

Posted by Laser on July 19, 2006 8:14 AM (e)

First, I would just like to say that everyone here at PT would like to express their sympathies to the public defender assigned to Hovind.

Perhaps Larry could represent Hovind?

Comment #113386

Posted by Comstock on July 19, 2006 8:39 AM (e)

You can’t just claim laws don’t apply to you because you consider yourself a citizen of somewhere else, can you? Isn’t citizenship a pretty clear legal matter?

Comment #113387

Posted by Aagcobb on July 19, 2006 8:56 AM (e)

In my practice I’ve had occasion to deal with drivel which originated with the freemen and related nuts who entertain bizarre political and legal theories. To someone who went to law school in this universe, they often sound like they have strung together words randomly selected from Black’s Law Dictionary. Conmen have internet sites where they sell “legal” forms full of nonsense which they promise the gullible are guaranteed to produce favorable judgments in courts. The good news is that if Hovind insists on pursuing this kind of defense, there is a good chance he is going to land himself in prison for many years. The IRS loves to make examples of celebrities; Richard Hatch got 51 months in prison for not reporting his million dollar prize on “Survivor” as income.

Comment #113388

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on July 19, 2006 8:57 AM (e)

Damn - I know Florida is far from Pennsylvania, but I think the York Daily Record absolutely should send Mike Argento to report on the trial. I would even be willing to pitch in for some of the expenses.

Comment #113389

Posted by Aagcobb on July 19, 2006 9:01 AM (e)

You can’t just claim laws don’t apply to you because you consider yourself a citizen of somewhere else, can you?

Only in the alternative reality that Hovind resides in. In this universe, Hovind is likely to land himself in prison. He is finally in a forum in which the real world will trump over the BS he spews.

Comment #113390

Posted by snaxalotl on July 19, 2006 9:12 AM (e)

perhaps the point is the position Hovind occupies within his own religious community. in his position, any ludicrous explanation for any position is a humdinger argument because, well because Kent said so and people are expected to hold him in awe rather than use their brains. seems that Kent has become so used to this style of intellectual discourse that he has long forgotten the concept of someone having the authority to disagree and enforce that disagreement.

Comment #113399

Posted by tomsuly on July 19, 2006 9:44 AM (e)

K.E wrote:

Just who elected Hovind to be god’s representative?

You forgot a few: Fawell, Robertston, Dumbski, Behe, Ham, Johnson and all the other nutjobs out there.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think they can speak for God.

Comment #113407

Posted by Jim Lippard on July 19, 2006 10:05 AM (e)

“False muster” is to falsify a muster book, recording the presence of a soldier (or horse) that is not present, or by “presum[ing] to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier.” “Subornation of false muster,” then, would be to illegally instigate someone to falsify a muster book, or to presume to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier.

Perhaps Hovind means by this plea that the court has illegally instigated his capture and presentation before the court as though he is someone under their jurisdiction, when he isn’t (so he thinks).

Comment #113409

Posted by Gerry L on July 19, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

While reading the tale of Mr Didier’s problems, it occurred to me that he felt he had added a “signing statement” to the restraining order. That makes me wonder whether George B and his henchmen subscribe to the same legal texts that Kent and Mike and their gang are using.

Comment #113412

Posted by Sheikh_Mahandi on July 19, 2006 10:41 AM (e)

If Dr Dino is claiming not to be a U.S citizen, doesn’t that make him an illegal alien? Instead of the IRS, maybe the INS should follow up on him. Not terribly sure where they would deport him to though.

Comment #113415

Posted by James Taylor on July 19, 2006 10:55 AM (e)

Pensacola News Journal

When pressed by Davis to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty, Hovind said he wished to enter a plea of “subornation of false muster.”

“Subornation,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, means instigating another to do something illegal. “Muster” is an assembly, often for inspection or roll call.

I think that he is claiming false persecution under God’s law by an invalid court.

Comment #113418

Posted by mplavcan on July 19, 2006 11:00 AM (e)

I suggest central Africa. I have a friend who does field work there, and tells me of finding a couple of missionary’s bodies hanging from a tree deep in the forest. Apparently they failed to reconcile their version of reality with that of the locals. Perhaps Hovind should be thankful that he lives in a country that is relatively tolerant of this type of antisocial anarchistic lunacy.

Comment #113419

Posted by Robert on July 19, 2006 11:08 AM (e)

“Not terribly sure where they would deport him to though.”

Does this declaration make him an enemy combatant? Deport him to Gitmo! Seriously, it troubles me that our justice system affords some individuals decades of Due-Process rights, and others none at all. If he were a less-popular type of religious fundamentalist, I’m sure his fate woule be very poor, indeed.

Comment #113420

Posted by Mark on July 19, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

I think Hovind is trying to plead “sublimation of false mustard.” It would make more sense coming from this crank.

Comment #113421

Posted by Stephen Erickson on July 19, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

Dammit, with DaveScot out of the picture I don’t think UD will be blogging the Hovind case.

Comment #113422

Posted by Mephisto on July 19, 2006 11:27 AM (e)

So when is he actually gonna get his day in court, or is this going to drag on for months? What’s the deal?

Comment #113426

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 19, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

Why should Hovind get any fair trial in court? He didn’t pay his taxes. He should not get the benefits of a taxpayer funded legal system. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded prison. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded lethal injection. So he should just be shot and dumped somewhere. How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?

Comment #113427

Posted by Anton Mates on July 19, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

Laser wrote:

Perhaps Larry could represent Hovind?

I would pay so much to watch that.

Comment #113428

Posted by k.e. on July 19, 2006 11:42 AM (e)

I think that he is claiming false persecution under God’s law by an invalid court.

Oh?….

So he wants to be tried by god…does he now?

Is there anyway we can speed that up?

Comment #113432

Posted by Keanus on July 19, 2006 11:57 AM (e)

I thnk Sheikh Mahandi is right. He’s clearly an illegal alien, most likely from outerspace, close to heaven. I suggest that he be deported back there on the first available rocket destined for outerspace, or at least Neptune, Uranus or Pluto. He’s find comfort in being nearer to home. He’d be better off and so would the planet Earth.

Comment #113434

Posted by Christopher Letzelter on July 19, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Posted by Keanus on July 19, 2006 11:57 AM (e)

I thnk Sheikh Mahandi is right. He’s clearly an illegal alien, most likely from outerspace, close to heaven. I suggest that he be deported back there on the first available rocket destined for outerspace, or at least Neptune, Uranus or Pluto. He’s find comfort in being nearer to home. He’d be better off and so would the planet Earth.

Send him to Uranus. I don’t want him anywhere near my anus.

Comment #113438

Posted by aaa on July 19, 2006 12:18 PM (e)

Send him to Uranus. I don’t want him anywhere near my anus.

Hovind will be the only one not getting any love in prison. Or maybe the most.

Comment #113440

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 19, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

Well I suppose it means that he’s been “falsely instigated” to do wrong through his false into the American “muster”. Sure, it doesn’t make sense, but when has Hovind made sense? He probably just copied Didier (or they both copied some earlier loony), thinking that it sounded like a good way to portray himself to be above the “materialists” operating the justice system.

Yet there’s no reason to dwell on the bat-cave dwellers. Hovind’s just competing for the Koresh contingent. The courts aren’t going to pay attention to his antics, at least no more than for any other crazy, but it’ll get him some sympathy (and maybe money) from the hard-core loonies. Will it be enough to make his gambit pay? We’ll just have to wait to see.

The fun at UD is probably more interesting, if also quite unimportant. Dembski has finally learned that DaveTard is a liability, not an asset, demonstrating once again that we were right (it’s not like we didn’t tell him), and Dembski was wrong. O’Leary’s hardly much of an improvement, though, since she’s even less likely to sound scientific to the rubes, some of whom probably thought DaveTard really does know science.

Most of all, Dembski’s not going to regain much credibility at this point. The vacuity of his writing is presumably the reason why he resorted to the censorious fascist thug DaveTard in the first place.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #113446

Posted by secondclass on July 19, 2006 12:37 PM (e)

Glen wrote:

O’Leary’s hardly much of an improvement, though, since she’s even less likely to sound scientific to the rubes, some of whom probably thought DaveTard really does know science.

True, but at least O’Leary’s social maturity exceeds that of a 5 year old, which wasn’t the case with Dave.

Comment #113448

Posted by Stephen Wells on July 19, 2006 12:46 PM (e)

Comment #113372

Posted by Paul Curtin on July 19, 2006 07:07 AM (e)

I am a lawyer (and a public defender)and I can only say that “subornation of false muster”
1. Does not mean what Rev. H. thinks it means.

Were you deliberately going for the Princess Bride reference or was it just a happy accident? Inconceivable!

Comment #113450

Posted by Steve Harrynuk on July 19, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

Paul Curtin wrote:

I am a lawyer (and a public defender) and I can only say that “subornation of false muster”
1. Does not mean what Rev. H. thinks it means.
3. Probably is just the reverend’s way of saying: “Excuse you me while I prepare to phonate out my other orifice.”

Are you talking about Hovind? He’s not a reverend as far as I know (but please correct me if he is).

Comment #113452

Posted by a.fairchild on July 19, 2006 1:09 PM (e)

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/subornation
Subornation: “Perjured testimony that someone was persuaded to give.”

‘False muster’ itself is a specific (archaic) military phrase which means impersonating someone else being roll called; yelling “here!” when someone else’s name is called, thus making it so that person does not get caught AWOL.

So basically ‘subornation of false muster’ seems to loosely translate to ‘not guilty because the incriminating testimony is false, and not given by the person claiming to have provided the testimony’… or something like that.

Sounds cool, though, I’m gonna bust that one out if I find myself in court.

Comment #113465

Posted by Dale on July 19, 2006 1:42 PM (e)

Anonymous_Coward wrote:

Why should Hovind get any fair trial in court? He didn’t pay his taxes. He should not get the benefits of a taxpayer funded legal system. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded prison. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded lethal injection. So he should just be shot and dumped somewhere. How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?

This is presumably an attempt at a joke, but it ain’t funny.

Comment #113466

Posted by Troublesome Frog on July 19, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

Subornation of false muster? That’s definitely not going to work as well as, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”

Comment #113467

Posted by Steve Harrynuk on July 19, 2006 1:58 PM (e)

Anon Coward wrote:

How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?

Dale wrote:

This is presumably an attempt at a joke, but it ain’t funny.

Agreed. It would be cynical to suggest that A.C. is a creationist troll trying to discredit our side, but I’ll do it anyway. If you really do like that kind of thing, you might prefer a different forum; I hear that kind of stuff is very popular on freerepublic.com.

Comment #113468

Posted by Steve Watson on July 19, 2006 2:00 PM (e)

Not terribly sure where they would deport him to though.
I’ve long had a fantasy in which we take all the demagogues, despots, ideological loonies, ayatollahs (of any religion), etc, and exile the lot of them to a desert island (I suggest someplace like Bikini – contaminated from nuke testing) where they can fight it out amongst themselves, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

I nominate Hovind as first resident of the new penal colony. “Sentenced to transportation….”

Comment #113469

Posted by Steve Harrynuk on July 19, 2006 2:06 PM (e)

Anon Coward wrote:

How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?

Dale wrote:

This is presumably an attempt at a joke, but it ain’t funny.

Agreed. It would be cynical to suggest that A.C. is a creationist troll trying to discredit our side, but I’ll do it anyway. If you really do like that kind of thing, you might prefer a different forum; I hear that kind of stuff is very popular on freerepublic.com.

Comment #113474

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 19, 2006 2:32 PM (e)

If “subornation of false muster” were real, cough cough, legal jargon (why would anyone want to aspire to legal jargon?), which it isn’t, then I think Jim Lippard‘s comment above, #113407, comes the closest to capturing the essence of it:

“False muster” is to falsify a muster book, recording the presence of a soldier (or horse) that is not present, or by “presum[ing] to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier.” “Subornation of false muster,” then, would be to illegally instigate someone to falsify a muster book, or to presume to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier.

Perhaps Hovind means by this plea that the court has illegally instigated his capture and presentation before the court as though he is someone under their jurisdiction, when he isn’t (so he thinks).

“Suborn” and “subornation” are, of course, familiar legal terms, basically meaning to procure in an improper or underhanded manner. These terms are not found in the same phrase as either “muster” or “false muster” in our firm’s ancient edition of Black’s Law Dictionary (or in our even more ancient edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, published the year one of my parents was born).

“False muster” is also not found as a phrase. “Muster” is a “legal” term of sorts, meaning the roll on which the names of soldiers in a military unit (or the sailors on a ship) are enscribed. Once one has been mustered, in other words, one is “officially documented” as being in the service of the military or navy.

By extension, presumably–at least in the addled pates of these gummint-hating (but, oddly, attorney-wannabe) wing-nuts–one who has been properly mustered is in “government service” or, by further extension, as Jim suggests, under the jurisdiction of the government.

A “false muster” then, would involve improperly or fraudulently “enrolling” some poor innocent who was not in the service–or under the jurisdiction–of a government, so as to give the appearance that the innocent actually was subject to–or a subject of–that government.

And “subornation of false muster” would then be an attempt to inform the judge–if any such claim or plea actually existed–that the person hauled into court was not actually a subject or servant of the governmental body in question, but was instead a poor misbegotten freeman who had improperly been subjected to a false conscription into said government’s service.

As Jim and others have noted, this all fits fairly well into Hovind’s crypto-militia worldview, to the extent that can be comprehended by us more mundane taxpayers and wage slaves.

Even if it doesn’t fit into a legal dictionary. Or google…

Comment #113475

Posted by Neil on July 19, 2006 2:35 PM (e)

This is Hovind’s position on income tax:
http://tinyurl.com/syy7x

When the united States Government went bankrupt in the 1930’s the “rich men” of the world… created [a trust account] for each PERSON… This ‘straw man’ has the same letters as your name but in all capital letters (ie. KENT HOVIND the STRAW MAN instead of Kent Hovind a real person created by God). It was created by the government so it belongs to them and the government has the authority to create laws, require permits and licenses, and do anything they desire to their straw man. Look at any driver’s license, marriage license, social security card, or any government issued permit or license. The ‘name’ will be in all capital letters. This is not you, it is your straw man.

In other words, KENT HOVIND is being charged with these crimes, not Kent Hovind. If Kent Hovind answesr to the charges made of KENT HOVIND that would be “false muster”. Since the judge is making him answer, then that is “subornation of false muster”

Simple, no?

Comment #113478

Posted by RBH on July 19, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

Neil wrote

In other words, KENT HOVIND is being charged with these crimes, not Kent Hovind. If Kent Hovind answesr to the charges made of KENT HOVIND that would be “false muster”. Since the judge is making him answer, then that is “subornation of false muster”

Who knew the law was coded in Unix, and hence is case sensitive?

RBH

Comment #113482

Posted by Dale on July 19, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

This is Hovind’s position on income tax:
http://tinyurl.com/syy7x

When the united States Government went bankrupt in the 1930’s the “rich men” of the world… created [a trust account] for each PERSON… This ‘straw man’ has the same letters as your name but in all capital letters (ie. KENT HOVIND the STRAW MAN instead of Kent Hovind a real person created by God). It was created by the government so it belongs to them and the government has the authority to create laws, require permits and licenses, and do anything they desire to their straw man. Look at any driver’s license, marriage license, social security card, or any government issued permit or license. The ‘name’ will be in all capital letters. This is not you, it is your straw man.

In other words, KENT HOVIND is being charged with these crimes, not Kent Hovind. If Kent Hovind answesr to the charges made of KENT HOVIND that would be “false muster”. Since the judge is making him answer, then that is “subornation of false muster”

Simple, no?

By jove, I think we might have the answer here. Kent Hovind was basically pleading guilty to suborning the “false muster” you describe.

Comment #113483

Posted by DragonScholar on July 19, 2006 3:03 PM (e)

What’s the reaction been in the creationist blogosphere to the arrest? I haven’t seen overly much, didn’t even make memeorandum.

For those of us who are trying to point out the shysterism of the ID movement, this is a good way to make a point of how unethical the ID/Creationist leaders are. And considering the investigation, who knows what other nasty secrets will turn up? The louder the preacher, the more skeletons in the closet.

Comment #113485

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 19, 2006 3:04 PM (e)

I’ve always wondered what the heck the deal was with these maroons and their uninhibited use of UPPERCASE letters to make their wretched points.

Now I realize that they’re merely attempting to RECAPTURE the uppercase letters that the illegitimate RUNNING DOGS of the governmental co-conspirators USURPED back in the ’30s in the course of establishing SOCIAL SECURITY.

Works for ME!!!!!

Comment #113495

Posted by Alann on July 19, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

Sheikh_Mahandi wrote:

If Dr Dino is claiming not to be a U.S citizen, doesn’t that make him an illegal alien? Instead of the IRS, maybe the INS should follow up on him. Not terribly sure where they would deport him to though.

Isn’t it obvious? We should give him the option of immediate deportation to heaven, of course since we don’t handle the navigation on those “flights” we can’t guarantee he won’t end up going the other way.

Comment #113497

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on July 19, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

Steviepinhead concludes:
“subornation of false muster” would then be an attempt to inform the judge—if any such claim or plea actually existed—that the person hauled into court was not actually a subject or servant of the governmental body in question, but was instead a poor misbegotten freeman who had improperly been subjected to a false conscription into said government’s service.

How old is Dr. Dino? Does he fall into that window where one was not required to register for selective service? If not, did he register for selective service? If he complied and registered then he could not make the claim of “subornation of false muster”. If he never registered then there is a whole new can of worms.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #113516

Posted by Coin on July 19, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

Bruce Thompson:

Wikipedia and the SSS website indicate that the Selective Service has existed since 1917, but draft registration has not been a requirement for all of that time. For example the current registration requirement has only been in place since 1980, having been suspended when the Vietnam draft ended in 1973. Kent Hovind was born in 1953 according to Wikipedia, and if I’m reading the Wikipedia entry right the draft (not just registration, the actual draft) was active through the 50s and 60s. However I’d say we’d need a more solid source to determine the actual periods that registration was required, and even beyond that further questions linger– for example, is it possible Hovind was born in a period that would require him to register for the Selective Service, but he did not in fact register? And more importantly, when or if Kent Hovind registered with the Selective Service system, did he spell his name in CAPITAL LETTERS?

Comment #113517

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on July 19, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

How old is Dr. Dino? Does he fall into that window where one was not required to register for selective service?

The “window” you speak of are the birth years of 1958 and 1959. According to Wikipedia, he was born in 1953, so if that’s correct, the answer to your question is “no.”

Comment #113526

Posted by steve_h on July 19, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Has Kent Hovind ever used a credit card issued to KENT HOVIND to buy stuff? Had he done so, would that, from a moral perspective, be equivalent to some sort of ID fraud? (Disambiguation: “identity” fraud).

Comment #113530

Posted by DAB on July 19, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

If born in 1953, then most assuredly required to register for the draft within some number of days of turning 18.

OTOH, there was a court decision during the Vietnam era (I don’t know if it was eventually overturned) to the effect that the registration law had a statute of limitations just like the other laws.

Comment #113531

Posted by Les Lane on July 19, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

I expect the trial outcome to be substantiation of false bluster.

Comment #113532

Posted by Neil on July 19, 2006 7:19 PM (e)

steve_h - guilty as charged:

http://205.152.130.14/MyImages/2001887555.pdf

Comment #113535

Posted by Neil on July 19, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

Oops… this ^^^^^^^^^ (my last post) was supposed to show Bruce, Coin, Steve et al that - Kent E Hovind has provably claimed to be KENT E HOVIND.

(Link is a mortage given by KENT E HOVIND in 2001, and signed Kent E. Hovind.)

Also, it looks like he’s still the owner of record of some land.
(I could be wrong - not enough time or care to do a thorough search) Which would give lie to his “owns no property” schtick.

Fruitful searching:
http://205.152.130.14/or_1a.asp

Comment #113536

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 19, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

Good find, Neil, but ALAS AND ALACK that clever [urgh, retch] Kent has outfoxed the gummint yet again–neither his actual signature nor the recitation of his name in the notary’s acknowledgement of his signature are in the requisite ALL CAPS.

Thus, tricky “Kent Hovind” has once again foiled the unremitting efforts of the black-helicopter-people to get him to acknowledge their overlordship over “KENT HOVIND.”

And, of course, he’s already got his not-so-secret identity prepared: the black-helicopter-people may succeed in sending KENT HOVIND a/k/a Kent Hovind up the river to party with the Dirty White Boyz, but Dr. Dino–citizen of Heaven–shall ne’er be RECORNSTRUCTED [extra “R” intentional].

Comment #113537

Posted by Steviepinhead on July 19, 2006 7:38 PM (e)

And, WHAT O WHAT could that mysterious “E.” stand for: Elasmologick? Emptyoneuronz? Edenornuttin?

Surely not Elmo!?! I refuse to believe that anyone named after a Sesame Street character could go THIS FAR ASTRAY…!!!

Comment #113539

Posted by steve s on July 19, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

Maybe he was trying to plead that this was a Super Nation for False Bluster?

Comment #113561

Posted by Henry J on July 19, 2006 9:06 PM (e)

Re “Kent Hovind was born in 1953 according to Wikipedia,”

Well, those born in 1954 had to register, so I’d assume those one year older would have as well.

Henry

Comment #113567

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 19, 2006 10:03 PM (e)

Dale wrote:

This is presumably an attempt at a joke, but it ain’t funny.

Steve Harrynuk wrote:

Agreed. It would be cynical to suggest that A.C. is a creationist troll trying to discredit our side, but I’ll do it anyway.

I thought it was quite difficult to assume any seriousness with anything I’ve written in that post. Wasn’t even an attempt at a joke. But I wonder why both of you don’t also reply to every other sad attempts at jokes (all of them) and tell them they’re not funny either. I mean, none of the jokes on this thread can be considered funny, or clever, either. Definitely not either of your replies, that’s for sure.

It’s okay to be cynical and skeptical. But I’m not a creationist. I’m not even christian. I am pro-science but too lazy to be an extremist and act out on that previous post.

Comment #113571

Posted by Todd on July 19, 2006 10:24 PM (e)

I find the parallels to the downfall of Al Capone most fitting. Capone was ultimately brought down on tax evasion charges when no other technique would work. Although Al Capone probably deserves a lot more credit that Hovind does.

Comment #113600

Posted by Neil on July 20, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

Steviepinhead, surely Kent E Hovind wouldn’t have borne false witness when he signed his name to KENT E HOVIND’S mortgage?

Because Kenny is a Good Christian, and would never say something he knew to be untrue.

So perhaps there’s a whole other layer to this that we mere mortals don’t understand, and when he explains this all in trial the judge will come to understand, it will spare him from jail and make him a hero of freedom loving patriots.

Comment #113634

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 4:00 AM (e)

But I wonder why both of you don’t also reply to every other sad attempts at jokes (all of them) and tell them they’re not funny either.

Presumably because they don’t advocate murder. That’s the point of “suggest that A.C. is a creationist troll trying to discredit our side”.

I’m not a creationist. I’m not even christian.

You’re apparently also not very bright.

Comment #113636

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 4:18 AM (e)

The IRS loves to make examples of celebrities; Richard Hatch got 51 months in prison for not reporting his million dollar prize on “Survivor” as income.

The IRS doesn’t issue sentences. Hatch was indicted on 10 counts, found guilty of 3 – not reporting his earnings from “Survivor”, a radio show he co-hosted, and property rental – and faced up to 13 years and a $600,000 fine; he got off light with 51 months + 3 years of supervision.

Comment #113637

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 4:25 AM (e)

You can’t just claim laws don’t apply to you because you consider yourself a citizen of somewhere else, can you?

Only if somewhere else is the White House.

Comment #113647

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 5:24 AM (e)

Presumably because they don’t advocate murder.

If something written was not meant to be taken seriously at all (which I have made note of already), how is it advocating anything?

You’re apparently also not very bright.

So you say, person who made the argument:

1) Someone posted something suggesting murder
2) That post was not serious
3) Therefore, in its non-seriousness, that post/poster is advocating murder.

??

Your argument, when applied to someone who parodies Creationist thinking, would say that person who made the parody was advocating Creationism.

If you weren’t his ghost, Popper would be rolling in his grave (because he would presumably be not-dead).

Comment #113648

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 5:39 AM (e)

You can’t just claim laws don’t apply to you because you consider yourself a citizen of somewhere else, can you?

Only if somewhere else is the White House.

So funny!

So intelligent!

Oh, please instruct me in the art of humour, great one!

You MUST be the next Mitch Hedberg!

Or are you advocating that people in the White House should start living it up?

Comment #113655

Posted by Sir_Toejam on July 20, 2006 5:58 AM (e)

Or are you advocating that people in the White House should start living it up?

uh, you mean they haven’t been?

from before Kennedy’s time even, all the way to the current one.

In fact, a little more seriousness and a little less flippancy would be nice for a change.

Comment #113656

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 6:07 AM (e)

uh, you mean they haven’t been?

from before Kennedy’s time even, all the way to the current one.

In fact, a little more seriousness and a little less flippancy would be nice for a change.

That wasn’t really the point.

Apparently, according to “Popper’s ghost”, my previous posts were advocating murder, despite having been presented with the fact that I WASN’T serious (not to mention he quotemined my post to make his point, conveniently leaving out my admission that I was not serious). So, according to his logic, his post is advocating the White House should break even more laws. That is, if we keep in line with “Popper’s ghost”s practice of taking someone’s post as a serious post despite the very apparent light-hearted nature of the post.

Comment #113668

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 7:19 AM (e)

So, according to his logic, his post is advocating the White House should break even more laws.

So it may seem to a moronic troll.

Comment #113672

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 7:25 AM (e)

So it may seem to a moronic troll.

Sure, dude.

Cover your own holes in logic by calling me a moronic troll.

Why don’t you explain why it’s within the bounds of good reasoning to say my post advocated murder, when it was not serious, instead of calling me a troll?

Are YOU sure you’re not a creationist troll? Your debate tactics are so similar.

Comment #113673

Posted by Paul Curtin on July 20, 2006 7:26 AM (e)

A (belated) reply to Steve:
No, I’m sorry if I misled anyone…I jest.
The first time I saw Hovind speak, I was completely appalled by his nonsense. At a certain point either the powder-puff interviewer or Hovind himself used the term “Dr. Dino”. At this point I turned purple (mauve perhaps) and sputtered “Doctor!, Doctor Dino? More like Reverend B__________! (bovine scatological term redacted in keeping with the civil tone of TPT). Thus we have referred to him ever after. It just slipped out, I apologize. He is no Reverend, but, in spite of the diploma I assume he has, he is no doctor either.

Comment #113674

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 7:32 AM (e)

The first time I saw Hovind speak, I was completely appalled by his nonsense.

That website that exposes Hovind ( http://www.kent-hovind.com/ ) always amuses me to no end.

Comment #113684

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 8:14 AM (e)

Why don’t you explain why it’s within the bounds of good reasoning to say my post advocated murder

I asnwered your question of why a couple of people noted that it wasn’t funny, but didn’t comment on all other non-funny posts. Geez but you’re stupid.

Comment #113697

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 8:51 AM (e)

I asnwered your question of why a couple of people noted that it wasn’t funny, but didn’t comment on all other non-funny posts.

Yes, and your answer was that my post advocated murder.

Come on. Don’t be a Dembski. Explain to me why you think that “my post advocated murder”. How is my non-serious post advocating anything?

Geez but you’re stupid.

I may well be stupid.

But it doesn’t excuse your own stupidity of accusing my post of advocating murder.

Come on now. Explain to me why my post was “advocating murder”, given that you know I wasn’t serious.

Comment #113700

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 9:12 AM (e)

Yes, and your answer was that my post advocated murder.

I didn’t, actually, I suggested that the reason those folks didn’t comment on other non-funny posts is because those posts don’t advocate murder. Perhaps you have a better explanation … no, I didn’t think so. They objected to your post because it suggested shooting Hovind, and they felt that reflected badly on us. So go argue with them. And then call up the White House and say the same thing about GWB and then explain that you weren’t serious. Or explain that to TSA while chatting about hijacking the plane you’re about to board. Cretin.

Comment #113704

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 9:28 AM (e)

Perhaps you have a better explanation … no, I didn’t think so.

Didn’t Dembski or someone in a related incident do this: ask a question and answer it themself?

Do you feel good about yourself that you’ve successfully answered your own question?

I didn’t, actually, I suggested that the reason those folks didn’t comment on other non-funny posts is because those posts don’t advocate murder.

You say you didn’t, but you said it again just now. And this is to answer the question that you deemed fit to answer yourself. Just like Dembski and co.

They objected to your post because it suggested shooting Hovind, and they felt that reflected badly on us. So go argue with them.

No. You decided to take this up yourself. Not to mention your little comment about me being “not bright”.

And then call up the White House and say the same thing about GWB and then explain that you weren’t serious. Or explain that to TSA while chatting about hijacking the plane you’re about to board.

First, I’m sure the White House actually gets a lot of hate mail and even death threats.

The hijacking thing would probably be taken more seriously. But then, I’d probably not say things on those lines since my “dark humour” doesn’t extend that far.

Do you have a problem with dark sarcasm? Maybe we should ban rock ‘n’ roll because it is the work of satan?

Cretin.

Um, you DO realise that you’re the one who keeps calling me names and trying to insult my intelligence, don’t you?

You know, I sort of expected that people like us who fight against ignorance would be more civilised in debate. We’re supposed to be better than people like Dembski and the whole flock at Uncommon Descent.

You’re definitely not reflecting well on the rest of us with your name calling.

Comment #113705

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 9:30 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #113707

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

You’re definitely not reflecting well on the rest of us with your name calling.

That doesn’t make you any less of a moron or your arguments any less moronic.

Comment #113710

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 9:43 AM (e)

That doesn’t make you any less of a moron or your arguments any less moronic.

That’s kind of predictable, from you.

Just declare my arguments to be moronic. No explanation. We’re just supposed to take your word for it.

At least I explained my position. And you still haven’t given me a reason why you think my post advocated anything in anyway, when you knew full well that I wasn’t serious. (By the way, nice sidetrack in bringing the White House or plane hijacking in your last reply. I guess “logic” requires a second opinion from authorities…)

You could at least try to match my pathetic level of detail, don’t you?

Anyway, you don’t think that your arguments that consist mainly of name calling as less moronic than mine?

Come on, dude. Show some self respect, at least. If you’re going to call me and my arguments moronic, the least you could do is to be “above” that and not rely on ad hominems.

Comment #113711

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

Whatever, troll.

Comment #113715

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 9:52 AM (e)

“Popper’s ghost”: you are a disgrace to your namesake. You can still redeem yourself. Either by using actual logic befitting of people on “our side” of the debate, or admit to yourself that your modes of argument are quite subpar.

Whatever, troll.

I am quite sure Karl Popper did not resort to name calling. He even recanted his “natural selection is a tautology” argument. I’ll be willing to recant my non-serious post if you demonstrate why my post was advocating anything and why my arguments are moronic.

Comment #113716

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on July 20, 2006 10:06 AM (e)

OK, time to abandon this thread and let AC and PG duke it out….

Comment #113717

Posted by fnxtr on July 20, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Yeah, thanks for turning an interesting thread to crap, guys. Again.

“He started it!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”

Grow up.

Comment #113718

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 10:14 AM (e)

“He started it!”

Perhaps you didn’t actually read my posts, as I never commented on who started anything.

Comment #113719

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 10:23 AM (e)

Yeah, thanks for turning an interesting thread to crap, guys. Again.

“He started it!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”

Grow up.

Actually, if you read my posts, all of my arguments were either about explaining my position (repeatedly to what seemed to be a brick wall) or asking him to explain his arguments and logic (and name calling).

This thread did turn to crap, but not for the reason you are implying.

Anyway…

Interesting???

How is Kent Hovind being charged, “interesting”?

That other thread about spontaneous abortion is interesting.

If Dembski did some science, that would be interesting.

If “Patriot University” somehow became accredited, that would be interesting.

Kent Hovind being charged as “interesting” is the same as declaring the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow as “interesting”. They’re both full of hot “air”, anyway.

Comment #113725

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on July 20, 2006 10:46 AM (e)

Another topic relating to Dr Dino’s troubles is the disposition of his employees, whose salary he reportedly paid in cash. Those bright eyed bushy tailed youngsters will have to pay taxes on their income unless they paid quarterly taxes. Dr Dino’s errors led those people astray. I wonder if some generous members of a local congregation will come to their rescue?

Sponsored by the committee to save the thread

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #113726

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 10:50 AM (e)

Dr Dino’s errors led those people astray.

Given his position, I don’t think they were errors.

Comment #113728

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

When pressed by Davis, Hovind said he was entering a not guilty plea “under duress.”

I wonder what made Hovind crack?

Comment #113729

Posted by Paul Curtin on July 20, 2006 11:20 AM (e)

Perhaps the judge was waving a stuffed panda with a sign that said “Contempt of Court Happens!” and H. got the hint! Oh, the stuff that doesn’t show up on the transcripts!

Comment #113730

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Perhaps the judge was waving a stuffed panda with a sign that said “Contempt of Court Happens!” and H. got the hint!

Not in God’s court!

Comment #113731

Posted by Paul Curtin on July 20, 2006 11:27 AM (e)

“Not in God’s court!”

Yes, you’re probably right. I’m not allowed to practice there anymore. (The clerk’s kept complaining that I smelled of brimstone and gin.)

Comment #113734

Posted by doyle on July 20, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

I’ll assume this thread hasn’t been completely derailed. I’ve just browsed the above-linked kent-hovind.com site and learned that Kent had once filed bankruptcy. This one fact ends the “jurisdictional” charade. He once petitioned the Federal government for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws with a filing in the US District Court where he lived. I wonder if he used ALL CAPS? Meanwhile, how does he qualify for a (free) public defender?

Comment #113736

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 20, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

I think AC’s original point was that for someone who never pays taxes (our Kent), it doesn’t seem quite right that he’s sucking up government services like public defenders and jail space. If really he had the courage of his convinctions, he’d be his own lawyer.

But as much as his Public Defender must be suffering, it’s still worth it to contemplate Kent making license plates for a couple years.

Is Kent out on bail now or is he actually behind bars at the moment?

Comment #113737

Posted by Mephisto on July 20, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Look, I’ve been reading this thread and when I saw the comment it seemed to me that you weren’t trying to be funny - just going off the deep end. I don’t know about “advocating murder,” but it was certainly a sort of “I would like to see him murdered” sort of thing.

Just take your licks, acknowledge that you were being a dickhead and a few people have called you out for it, and move on. You’re not doing yourself any favours by dragging it out.

Comment #113738

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 12:51 PM (e)

I don’t know about “advocating murder,” but it was certainly a sort of “I would like to see him murdered” sort of thing.

I’ll certainly grant that the latter is more accurate than the former. Aside from AC’s ridiculous and irrelevant quibbles about whether one can advocate something while not serious, I simply gave the obvious factual answer to his question about why people took exception to his post and not other non-funny posts – because his post referred to murdering Hovind and those other posts didn’t. I never even passed judgment on his statement – only on his failure to recognize that obvious fact.

Comment #113740

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:10 PM (e)

Mephisto wrote:

Just take your licks, acknowledge that you were being a dickhead and a few people have called you out for it, and move on. You’re not doing yourself any favours by dragging it out.

I never denied I was being a dickhead. I know full well I was being a dickhead. I’ve tried to stop dragging it out but you (the general “you”) keep pulling me back in.

Popper's ghost wrote:

I’ll certainly grant that the latter is more accurate than the former. Aside from AC’s ridiculous and irrelevant quibbles about whether one can advocate something while not serious, I simply gave the obvious factual answer to his question about why people took exception to his post and not other non-funny posts — because his post referred to murdering Hovind and those other posts didn’t. I never even passed judgment on his statement — only on his failure to recognize that obvious fact.

I recognise my post was very extreme (since it wasn’t serious). I only failed to realise why you thought my post advocated murder. But since you accept that you misrepresented my post, and that you accept a less extreme version (which is still wrong, I might add), I’ll let it pass.

Remember, Popper wannabe, leave the act of taking things out of context and proportion to the fundies.

I think AC’s original point was that for someone who never pays taxes (our Kent), it doesn’t seem quite right that he’s sucking up government services like public defenders and jail space.

It seems “Arden Chatfield” is the only one who “got it”.

Maybe I should have broken up my post into two paragraphs. One for the main point. And one for the stupid extrapolation of implications. I couldn’t care less if Hovind died or not. I would actually like to not see anyone murdered. I leave the death threats to members of “loving religions”. The death of Hovind was obviously not the main point.

But it seems Popper’s ghost needs to feel good about himself and take up an argument that didn’t really need to exist and miss the point. (And I STILL haven’t called him any names)

Comment #113741

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:12 PM (e)

I never denied I was being a dickhead.

And you continue to be.

Comment #113742

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:18 PM (e)

I think AC’s original point was that for someone who never pays taxes (our Kent), it doesn’t seem quite right that he’s sucking up government services like public defenders and jail space.

No one said otherwise. Some people simply objected to anyone on “our side” writing “So he should just be shot and dumped somewhere. How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?”

And calling that advocating murder is not a “misrepresentation”.

Comment #113743

Posted by John Wilczek on July 20, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

Popper, you seem to spend more time insulting people to their faces than anyone else who posts here. Have you noticed that since you started your routine on this thread, you’ve completely derailed it? This is not the first time you’ve done this.

In your position, I would ask myself why I use PT as such an outlet for hostility. It’s getting tedious.

Comment #113744

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:21 PM (e)

Remember, Popper wannabe, leave the act of taking things out of context and proportion to the fundies.

That’s pretty funny coming from you when, again, all I did was point out why some people had objected to what you wrote but not to other non-funny stuff. Oh, and I said you were “apparently also not very bright”, which all your blather since has been in reaction to … and evidence of.

Comment #113745

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

Popper, you seem to spend more time insulting people to their faces than anyone else who posts here. Have you noticed that since you started your routine on this thread, you’ve completely derailed it?

What I’ve noticed is that your comment is about me and nothing else, and thus utterly irrelevant. It also isn’t accurate.

Comment #113746

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

And you continue to be.

I like you, Popper’s ghost. Every time you talk, I get a nostalgic feeling of being out on the playgrounds in primary school hearing kids tease each other with unimaginative and childish names like “dickhead”. Nice comeback from you!

Seriously, though.

Is everything all right with you, Popper’s ghost?

It’s like you have this need to prove your self worth by trying to “top” me.

Do you want to talk about it? I’m all ears. You seem enjoy the name calling (which seems like a defence mechanism to hide your shortcomings).

What is it. Troubles at home? Troubles with a relationship?

You seem to enjoy the “easy targets”. Maybe you can suggest a list of unflattering names and admit to being all of them. Would that help you resolve your anger?

Comment #113747

Posted by John Wilczek on July 20, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

What I’ve noticed is that your comment is about me and nothing else, and thus utterly irrelevant.

You get to decide what’s ‘relevant’ here?

It also isn’t accurate.

Your belligerent alpha-male routine sank that ‘bad religion’ thread, too.

And since you started it here, almost everyone else left, and it’s just you bellowing at people.

I know I won’t convince you, but you should know what it looks like to everyone else, just for the record. Seriously, it comes across as very screwed up.

Comment #113748

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:32 PM (e)

No one said otherwise. Some people simply objected to anyone on “our side” writing “So he should just be shot and dumped somewhere. How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?”

And calling that advocating murder is not a “misrepresentation”.

which all your blather since has been in reaction to … and evidence of.

It seems that all my “blather” has been proven. Again, you neglect the fact that the murder talk was not serious. Therefore, it can never be construed as advocating murder. It makes light of murder, but it certainly does not advocate it. And I’ve certainly spent a lot of time trying to explain that and many other things to you.

So, AGAIN, I ask you to explain how it “advocates murder”.

Comment #113749

Posted by luna_the_cat on July 20, 2006 1:33 PM (e)

AC, PG, both of you, take it outside. Don’t make me come over there…

Comment #113751

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

In my attempt to reach out to Popper’s ghost, I made a minor mistake:

You seem to enjoy the “easy targets”. Maybe you can suggest a list of unflattering names and admit to being all of them. Would that help you resolve your anger?

should read

You seem to enjoy the “easy targets”. Maybe you can suggest a list of unflattering names and I will admit to being all of them. Would that help you resolve your anger?

Comment #113752

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:35 PM (e)

You get to decide what’s ‘relevant’ here?

I simply made an observation. You can disagree, of course.

Here’s a clue for you: by tangling with me, you’re defeating your purported interests.

you should know what it looks like to everyone else

No, I know what it looks like you, you megalomaniac.

Comment #113753

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:37 PM (e)

AC, PG, both of you, take it outside. Don’t make me come over there…

Where would “there” be, by the way?

Actually, I’ve already extended a hand of compassion to PG if he wants to talk about whatever seems to be making him so angry, as John Wilczek has noticed.

It’s up to him to take his anger outside, now.

Comment #113754

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:39 PM (e)

No, I know what it looks like you, you megalomaniac.

No need to call OTHER people names.

Just call ME names.

I fully admit to being a megalomaniac, Popper’s ghost.

You are always right.

I am always wrong.

You do NOT come across as screwed up.

I come across as screwed up.

Come on. My offer to listen is still open…

Comment #113755

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:41 PM (e)

BTW,

Your belligerent alpha-male routine sank that ‘bad religion’ thread, too.

The reason it “sank” was because it fell off the front page; that thread is over a week old. Beyond that, it went downhill when normdoering started badgering Karen about meditating. I tried to help by pointing out to Norm that he has misinterpreted and misjudged her, and I was somewhat successful.

So you see, you’re not only being hypocritically belligerent, but you’re factually wrong.

Comment #113756

Posted by John Wilczek on July 20, 2006 1:42 PM (e)

No, I know what it looks like you, you megalomaniac.

Yup, *that* proves me wrong.

“I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! THAT MEANS MY BEHAVIOR IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED!!!”

Well, I hope you confine this shtick to here and don’t act this way in your real life.

Comment #113759

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

I tried to help by pointing out to Norm that he has misinterpreted and misjudged her, and I was somewhat successful.

Maybe if you talked to me privately and got rid if your anger issues, you wouldn’t need to qualify your success with “somewhat”, but instead with “completely”.

Remember, arguments are won with logic and not by calling people names.

I’m listening.

Comment #113760

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:48 PM (e)

Popper’s ghost: how old are you?

I’m quite young. If you are also quite young, I can certainly help you through your teenage years.

We wouldn’t want you to retain your anger into adulthood and become like Kent Hovind.

Comment #113761

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

Yup, *that* proves me wrong.

I didn’t say anything about proving you wrong, I simply noted that taking how things appear to you as being how they appear to everyone is megalomaniacal.

“I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! THAT MEANS MY BEHAVIOR IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED!!!”

I’m not always right. But certainly each of us always has justifications for our behavior. You no doubt have justifications for your capitalized strawman.

Well, I hope you confine this shtick to here and don’t act this way in your real life.

Gee, and I thought it was how I act here that had you so upset. It would certainly be fitting if I confined the behavior you find so disturbing to those contexts where you would be subject to it, but you aren’t worth going out of the way for that.

Comment #113763

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

I’m not always right. But certainly each of us always has justifications for our behavior. You no doubt have justifications for your capitalized strawman.

What are you talking about, Popper’s ghost?

OF COURSE you are always right!

Where did that self deprecating attitude come from?

Remember, I’m available if you want to just talk.

Comment #113765

Posted by Popper's ghost on July 20, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

It’s too bad that Anonymous_Coward and John Wilczek derailed this thread by making it all about me. As that’s a subject that I’m already quite familiar with, but I doubt is of interest to others, I’ll now bow out of the conversation.

Comment #113766

Posted by GuyeFaux on July 20, 2006 1:56 PM (e)

This thread illustrates how blogging is different than real-life.

Colloquially calling for someone’s death doesn’t even raise an eye-brow in real-life, whereas insulting people generally results in violence.

Comment #113768

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 2:01 PM (e)

It’s too bad that Anonymous_Coward and John Wilczek derailed this thread by making it all about me. As that’s a subject that I’m already quite familiar with, but I doubt is of interest to others, I’ll now bow out of the conversation.

Come on now, Popper’s ghost.

Didn’t you read my other posts that ignored your immature namecalling and tried to talk about Kent Hovind? We gave you a chance to get back on topic. Yet your replies all consisted of replying to comments that you perceive as being “against you”.

It seems you have a case of the “poor me’s”. It helps to talk about it. Uncle Anonymous_Coward would cure what ails ya.

Comment #113777

Posted by AC on July 20, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

Hovind hardly needs to be shot of course, but I like the idea of dumping - perhaps on a tiny desert isle, where he can drink a stash of rum and contemplate the local wildlife’s adaptations. ;)

Comment #113779

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 20, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

Hovind hardly needs to be shot of course, but I like the idea of dumping - perhaps on a tiny desert isle, where he can drink a stash of rum and contemplate the local wildlife’s adaptations. ;)

Hovind should be able to get drunk off his belief of Jesus, since Jesus is the best drug.

Comment #113815

Posted by Alann on July 20, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

Wow, this thread turned sour quickly.

I think offering Hovind deportation to heaven is amusing.

Discussing how it is more cost efficient to buy a gun and shoot him rather than having the tax payer pay for lethal injection, is just bad taste.

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. The IRS should have revoked it entirely when there where first signs Hovind was abusing it.

In fact I think tax exempt status should be revoked from any church / institution promoting creating science. There is a precedent for this in that churches have lost tax exemption for opposing the public good, specifically for promoting racism and segregation after segregation had been outlawed. Real science is important for the public good, and so called creation “science” is a direct attack on real science. While it is clearly protected under free speech and freedom of religion (and absolutely should be) it should be considered in opposition to the public good, and as such grounds for losing tax exempt status. We should not be indirectly subsidizing creationism.

Comment #113836

Posted by RiciaH on July 20, 2006 7:33 PM (e)

From Neil’s link to the Escampia County Florida Official Records search I found an affidavit filed 8/10/2005 with two interesting attachements:

- His ordination certificate which lists him as “KENT E. HOVIND” (yes, in all caps!) and

- His list of speaking engagements in which most of the time he is named as “Dr. Kent Hovind,” but sometimes as “Eric Hovind.” (E stands for “Eric”? But why would he speak under his middle name?)

Comment #113868

Posted by whheydt on July 20, 2006 10:58 PM (e)

In fact I think tax exempt status should be revoked from any church / institution promoting creating science.

I think you could just leave off the last three words.

Comment #113871

Posted by Sir_Toejam on July 20, 2006 11:03 PM (e)

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. The IRS should have revoked it entirely when there where first signs Hovind was abusing it.

An ex of mine used to do that for a living. In about 7 years she netted over a billion dollars in revenue from churches that abused their exempt status.

Yeah, there are a lot of them that do… and the IRS DOES take it seriously.

Comment #113877

Posted by Ken on July 20, 2006 11:48 PM (e)

What does he do with Romans 13:1-7 ??

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Comment #113883

Posted by Sir_Toejam on July 21, 2006 12:15 AM (e)

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

man, that’s genius. even back when it was written, the writers could clearly see the utility of saying “obey/pay us or go to hell”.

funny though, I personally have yet to meet anybody, xian or otherwise, who still uses this as the reason to pay taxes.

Clearly, Hovind doesn’t either, though I’m sure he has used the principle represented to gain tithings for himself on many occasions.

Comment #113888

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 21, 2006 12:30 AM (e)

What does he do with Romans 13:1-7 ??

Are the Bible verses you quoted verbatim from the King James Version? Since Hovind is part of the group that believes King James is the most accurate english translation.

Maybe the Olde English slipped right past him, so he didn’t pay much attention to those verses.

Comment #113996

Posted by Ken on July 21, 2006 10:15 AM (e)

Anonymous_Coward wrote:

Are the Bible verses you quoted verbatim from the King James Version? Since Hovind is part of the group that believes King James is the most accurate english translation.

Maybe the Olde English slipped right past him, so he didn’t pay much attention to those verses.

My bad. I knew Hovind was part of the King James Version Only crowd, but it slipped my mind when I posted the verse in the New International Version. Here’s Romans 13:1-7 in the KJV, which says basically the same thing. Most Christians are aware of this passage; it comes up in discussions of what to do when the government forbids Christians to practice their faith, etc. In any case, I am certain Hovind is aware of this passage but finds some creative exegetical way around it, just as he is aware of the evidence for evolution but worms his way around it.

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Comment #114353

Posted by Ben Pollitzer on July 22, 2006 11:29 PM (e)

A few months ago I read an essay in a journal on legal tactics used by extreme seperatists, that is mountian men and such. Generally it incuded stuff such as this, they’d claim to not be legal citizens of the United States, instead claiming to be “natural citizens” or “sojourners”

I’ve never personally seen the language “subornation of false muster” but If I had to guess I’d say it’s very much the same sort of tactic. He’s alleging that he’s being forced into the legal status of a “legal citizen of the United States against his will.”

Keep in mind Kent Hovind previously has attempted to avoid income taxes by declaring himself to not be a citizen of the United States and attempted to default on debts by filing a spurious legal document that revoked any and all previous signatures on documents he’d signed”

I think this is very much in the same sort of behaivor.

Comment #114431

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on July 23, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

Really, isn’t the time to harbour ridiculous notions of independence/separation and rebellion only during the mid-teen years?

Notions of “small government” aside, it really just becomes the “spoilt brat” syndrome.

Comment #115146

Posted by stevaroni on July 27, 2006 8:40 AM (e)

I know it’s not a valid defence, but so what if he’s a citizen of Heaven, the US, or Ulan Bator?

The offense was commited in Florida, ergo, Florida has jurisdiction.

(On the other hand, according to international treaty, as an arrested alien Hovind should be allowed access to Heavens’ embassy.)

Comment #115321

Posted by Henry J on July 27, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

Re “according to international treaty […] Heavens’ embassy.)”

Er, is Heaven a signatory to any international treaties? Also, wouldn’t that have to be an interdimensional treaty anyway? ;)

Henry

Comment #115472

Posted by Ted McMillan on July 28, 2006 11:11 PM (e)

Is all this paranoia against Kent Hovind because people earn alot by believing in and supporting evolution??

Comment #115476

Posted by Ted McMillan on July 28, 2006 11:17 PM (e)

Comment 113465

Anonymous_Coward wrote:

Why should Hovind get any fair trial in court? He didn’t pay his taxes. He should not get the benefits of a taxpayer funded legal system. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded prison. He also should not get the benefit of a taxpayer funded lethal injection. So he should just be shot and dumped somewhere. How much does bullets and guns cost at Walmart?

These are not the words of an American. Is all this because Hovind hits the nail against the Evolutionary theory?

Lots of people pay their taxes and in return get an army of lawmakers telling the world that a hike in the minimum wage is inflationary after they vote wage hikes for themselves in percentages that hit the roof.

Those same people paid probably around 400 billion dollars looking for WMDs. Those who made these comments against Hovind now lose their reason and conscience. People have a duty to government. Government also has a duty to the people.

Comment #115483

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 29, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

People have a duty to government.

Then why didn’t Kent pay his taxes or get that building permit?

Comment #115705

Posted by Ed Hill on July 30, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

There is another connection among the names mentioned here recently: Kent Hovind, Glen Stoll, and Michael Didier.

Glen Stoll, who seems to be in the Fed’s sights, heads the “Remedies at Law” outfit in WA State, as already noted. Stoll has served as “legal counsel” for Hovind in the latter’s tax troubles in FL. Michael Didier, recently out of the Pierce Co, WA jail (on burglary and violation of restraining order charges), works with Glen Stoll, and has helped promote various “Remedies at Law” programs as well as “ministerial trusts” and other tax evasion schemes promoted by the “Embassy of Heaven” outfit. There is much overlap between “Remedies” and “Embassy,” and Kent Hovind of Pensacola is aligned with these same stars.

It’s a thicket in there.

Comment #116014

Posted by John B on August 1, 2006 5:08 AM (e)

It reminds me of when Jim Garrison, DA of New Orleans started disputing the findings of the Warren Commission. He started getting a lot of attention from the feds, especially the IRS, and was eventually ruined. Hovind has been a proponent of government involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Comment #116016

Posted by John B on August 1, 2006 5:12 AM (e)

It reminds me of when Jim Garrison, DA of New Orleans started disputing the findings of the Warren Commission on Kennedy’s assassination. He started getting a lot of attention from the feds, especially the IRS, and was eventually ruined. Hovind has been a proponent of government involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Comment #124641

Posted by John Hasler on August 31, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

> …the rumor was the officers would take them as
> souveniers.

While the state might have the right to seize the plates the officers taking them as souvenirs is theft.

Comment #124651

Posted by GuyeFaux on August 31, 2006 11:01 AM (e)

Is all this paranoia against Kent Hovind because people earn alot by believing in and supporting evolution??

I support and accept evolution and I haven’t seen a dime. And my paranoia, and out-right dread is the fact that meatballs like Hovind get a following.

Is all this because Hovind hits the nail against the Evolutionary theory?

If you think he’s presented good evidence, let’s see it.

Those same people paid probably around 400 billion dollars looking for WMDs…

Yes, the government is frequently nit-witted. But Hovind is not only nit-witted (or pretends to be), he’s also rich. Off your money.

Comment #143101

Posted by buy cialis on November 7, 2006 2:15 PM (e)

Where did we leave off last time? buy cialis?http://digbig.com/4nrwy#cialis

Comment #147008

Posted by Prince Felipe on November 27, 2006 11:50 PM (e)

All I have to say is Executive Order 11110

Comment #148424

Posted by Coin on December 5, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Oneiros?