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

Re: Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino) loses another motion!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    In related matters: The only thing left in his wife s Tax Court case is for the Tax Court to issue its opinion; the trial having already been held and briefs
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      In related matters:

      The only thing left in his wife's Tax Court case is for the Tax Court to issue its opinion; the trial having already been held and briefs filed.

      Dr. Dino has tried to back out of his Tax Court trial, after filing a petition and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. That typically is not allowed and the Court has ordered the parties to file a joint report by the end of this month.

      U.S. Tax Court proceedings involve civil liabilities, not criminal, and involve the personal income tax liabilities of Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) and his wife, separately.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ----------Latest in Dr. Dino's Criminal Case-------------

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

      Case No.: 3:06cr83/MCR

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      v.

      KENT E. HOVIND (aka Dr. Dino)

      O R D E R

      This case is before the court upon Defendant's
      "petition for writ of habeas corpus" and supporting
      memorandum of law (doc. 448).

      Through this submission, Defendant again seeks to
      challenge this court's jurisdiction over his criminal
      case, a challenge which is typically brought via
      motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.2 Defendant has
      already filed one § 2255 motion, which was denied as
      untimely (see doc. 401, granting Government's
      motion to dismiss).

      Whether the instant submission is considered a second
      or successive § 2255 motion or a separate motion for
      miscellaneous relief in which he attempts to circumvent
      the limitations on filing § 2255 motions, his challenge
      to this court's jurisdiction over his criminal case is
      without any basis in law or in fact. As Defendant was
      previously advised (see doc. 402), under 18 U.S.C.
      § 3231, the district court has jurisdiction over "all
      offenses against the laws of the United States" including
      offenses under Title 26 of the United States Code.

      See United States v. Schmidt, 784 F.2d 880, 882
      (8th Cir. 1986); see also Christensen v. Ward, 916
      F.2d 1462, 1474 (10th Cir. 1990); 26 U.S.C. §7102(a).

      This court clearly had jurisdiction over his criminal
      case, and his motion must be denied.

      He previously filed a jurisdictional attack via a pleading
      titled "motion to vacate" (see doc. 399).

      The motion was denied (see docs. 402, 416).

      A petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
      § 2241 generally seeks to challenge the execution of an
      initially valid confinement.

      See Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 810 (11th Cir. 2004).

      Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

      Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 448)
      is DENIED.

      DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 2011.

      s/ M. Casey Rodgers
      M. CASEY RODGERS
      CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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