Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Meet Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino), "sovereign citizen"!

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    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, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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".

      Here are some excerpts from Kent's response to the report that was filed before the recent order denying his motion:

      -----------------------------------------------------

      Filed 06/01/11

      In The United States District Court
      For The Northern District of Florida
      Pensacola Division

      Case Nos: 3:06cr83/mcr
      3:10cv487/mcr/emt

      United States of America

      vs.

      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,
      > 2. Articles of Confederation,
      > 3. Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territory Government
      > 4. Constitution of the United States and Amendments.

      I, Kent Hovind, have openly declared myself a free inhabitant
      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:

      (snip)

      The Third Organic Law establishes a temporary government
      for the Northwest Territory owned by the United States of
      America.

      (snip)

      The Fourth Organic Law...

      (snip)

      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
      FORBIDDEN.

      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
      AMERICA.

      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
      written law:

      (snip)

      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
      the following:

      (snip)

      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.

      (snip)

      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.

      (snip)

      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
      America.

      (snip)

      There is no time limit to challenge jurisdiction.

      (snip)

      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
      Vacate.

      (snip)

      THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME TO ANSWER IS NOW PAST.

      THIS CASE MUST BE VACATED WITH PREJUDICE.

      (snip)

      WITHOUT PROOF OF JURISDICTION ON THE RECORD IS A
      LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      IS VOID.

      CONCLUSION

      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.

      (SNIP)

      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
      PLACE.

      VERIFICATION

      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
      #06452-017
      Federal Satellite Camp
      2650 Hwy 301 S.
      Jesup, GA 31599

      -------------------------------------------------------
      -------------------------------------------------------

      Here's the ORDER that DENIED Kent's motion:

      Filed 06/10/11

      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
      PENSACOLA DIVISION
      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
      adopted.

      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

      -----------------------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.