Re: Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino) loses another motion!
- 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.
----------Latest in Dr. Dino's Criminal Case-------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 3:06cr83/MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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)
DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 2011.
s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE