Apparently the Court was not impressed with Kent s response to the Report and Recommendation and issued its ORDER and DENIED Kent s Motion to Vacate . ...Message 1 of 2 , Jun 12, 2011View SourceApparently the Court was not impressed with Kent's response to the Report and Recommendation and issued its ORDER and DENIED Kent's "Motion to Vacate".
Here are some excerpts from Kent's response to the report that was filed before the recent order denying his motion:
In The United States District Court
For The Northern District of Florida
Case Nos: 3:06cr83/mcr
United States of America
Kent E. Hovind
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS
TO THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(excerpts - EMPHASIS ADDED)
My Motion to Vacate the above captioned case based on the
court's lack of territorial jurisdiction was file stamped April
18, 2011. The government has not responded
The Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Motion to Vacate be denied as "frivolous".
The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is in error for
the following reasons: The Motion to Vacate was filed
pursuant to the Organic Laws of the United States of America
and the territorial limitations set forth by the written law of
the United States. These organic laws are positive law and
can be found as such in Volume 1 (one) of the United States
Code as follows:
> 1. Declaration of Independence,I, Kent Hovind, have openly declared myself a free inhabitant
> 2. Articles of Confederation,
> 3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory Government
> 4. Constitution of the United States and Amendments.
according to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, Nov.
15, 1777. Article IV, "The better to secure and perpetuate
mutual friendships and intercourse among the people of the
different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of
these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from
justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the
people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to
and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the
privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same
duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants
thereof, respectively, provided that such restrictions shall
not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property
imported into any State, to any other State of which the
owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition,
duties or restrictions shall be alid by any State, on the
property of the United States, or either of them."
The following from the Declaration of Independence of
July 4, 1776 requires no proof:
The Third Organic Law establishes a temporary government
for the Northwest Territory owned by the United States of
The Fourth Organic Law...
The legislative power of the House of Representatives is
limited to the territory owned by or ceded to the United
States of America, hence the title "Constitution of the
United States of America - 1787," confirms it is a revision
of the Articles of Confederation. The nomenclature alone
should be sufficient to dispel the unfounded claim that the
Constitution of the United States replaced or superseded
the Articles of Confederation.
The legislative jurisdiction of the United States must be
established, on the face of the record, by the accuser, shown
as PLAINTIFF, before any of the written laws contained
therein may be properly applied, for the COurt has
jurisdiction only by the "fact" accuracy of the pleadings
placed before it by the moving party.
ESSENTIALLY IF THE SUBJECT LAND WAS NOT OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A UNITED STATES
COURT CAN NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY/
PERMISSION TO PROSECUTE KENT HOVIND, SUCH IS
IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
ON THE RECORD TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIM THAT KENT
HOVIND IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
TO THE CONTRARY, OF ALL PRACTICAL EFFORTS, KENT
HOVIND HAS OPENLY DELCARED HIMSELF AN ARTICLE
IV "FREE INHABITANT" AND RESERVES FOR HIMSELF ALL
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES GRANTED TO HIM BY
VIRTUE OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION HERETOFORE
RECOGNIZED AS POSITIVE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF
Regardless of the deceptive practices of certain employees
of government referred to herein as PLAINTIFFS and "agents
of the United States", the court must insist as I do that the
territorial limitations of the United States be established
with written proof of the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States before any attempt may be made to prosecute,
or detain, Kent Hovind in any court of the United States. An
attempt to bypass the Defendant's challenge, of exclusive
Legislative jurisdiction, shall be deemed inconsistent with
the Organic Laws of the United States of America, and every
condification of written law that has followed.
Thus firmly establishing what any court of common law..., by
like free inhabitants, would determine, if Kent Hovind was
ever given his right to a fair trial on land not owned/governed
by the United States of America. Then firmly establishing
Kent Hovind's right of independence from the United States
legislation that is established in the United States
Constitution and its relationship with the Land call the
Northwest Ordinance and the like land as found in the following
The above is what any graduating student of written law should
know foremost; for is not foundational jurisdiction where every
judgment has its force and effect of law, law as to a proprietary
right, be it granted or held by force, and that is in this case the
"exclusive Legislation" that is referenced below, for it only applies
to land that is owned, within the exterior boundaries of the
state called Florida, for example, being more specific one would
say the 89th District of the state of Florida, which is called the
STATE OF FLORIDA, for it is an inseparable subdivision of the
United States which is a corporation as proven by referencing
Am I saying that the local District Attorney that prosecuted
Kent Hovind is limited to crimes committed on federal territory
with the county?
That is exactly what I am saying and also what I have proven
with the Organic Laws of the United States of America and
Title 28, Chapter 5 under Historical Revisions and Notes as
specified in the United States Code as positive law.
Therefore ignorance of the law shall not stand, this captioned
Administrative Court, called THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA
DIVISION is hereby noticed that it only has authority to enforce
written law derived from the above stated "exclusive Legislation"
of its written charter.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power, let no more be
heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution." This was in reference to the
very Constitution articles presented above.
The captioned Court of this case is not a free inhabitant judicial
court but rather an administrative, statutorily governed, entity
created only to administrate its subjects and acts on its owned
Land, as a proprietary function, constrained by the aforementioned
Organic Laws found in its own published written law, the USC.
If the record has no evidence, or more importantly, if fact evidence
is "ever proven" that the United States of America did not own the
Land that Kent Hovind was alleged as doing acts on in relation to
the charges of this captioned case, all acts of this captioned Court
is a nullity, having no legal validity, and most surely no lawful
validity. For truly the claim had to be brought into a court of
jurisdiction in relationship to land owned by the United States of
There is no time limit to challenge jurisdiction.
The Indictment did not allege any type of jurisdiction and it
cannot be constructively amended now by citing cases in the
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. No judicial
determination or case law can convert non-territorial
jurisdiction into factual territorial jurisdiction.
Unknown to the accused, Kent Hovind, at the time of the
Trial, but known to him now, the Florida Constitution at
Article V, section 20(c)(3) clearly gives EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION to the State of Florida over
matters of tax assessment, a fact that the federal government
accusers, with their superior knowledge of the law, should
have known and respected before ever bringing charges
against the accused.
The plaintiff, being the United States, has not proven off the
face of the record that any fact evidence exists in the above
captioned case that the above captioned court had territorial
jurisdiction to do any of the acts challenged in the Motion to
THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME TO ANSWER IS NOW PAST.
THIS CASE MUST BE VACATED WITH PREJUDICE.
WITHOUT PROOF OF JURISDICTION ON THE RECORD IS A
LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE FROM THE FACE
OF THE RECORD THAT THEY HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
TO BRING THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE. THE DISTRICT COURT
DOES NOT HAVE DISCRETION. "IF THE JUDGMENT IS VOID, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS NO DISCRETION BUT TO SET ASIDE THE
ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
THE CASE MUST BE VACATED WITH PREJUDICE.
DEFENDANT DEMANDS WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, FROM THE
RULING JUDGE, FROM THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THAT PROVES
CONSTITUTIONAL "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE" AUTHORITY OVER
EACH SUBJECT LAND WHERE EACH OF THE CHARGED ACTS TOOK
It is hereby certified that the facts in the above response are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of May, 2011.
(signed) Kent Hovind
Kent E. Hovind
Federal Satellite Camp
2650 Hwy 301 S.
Jesup, GA 31599
Here's the ORDER that DENIED Kent's motion:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
KENT E. HOVIND
O R D E R
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation dated May 2, 2011 (Doc. 402). The parties have been furnished a
copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to
file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1).
I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto
timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Defendant's "motion to vacate" (Doc. 399) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2011.
s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE