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

Re: Mary Jo LeBlanc v. Robert Baty: The Kent Hovind Case!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Here s the announcment I made on Eric Hovind s FaceBook page: http://www.facebook.com/erichovind From: Robert Baty Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013 Time:
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's the announcment I made on Eric Hovind's FaceBook page:


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
      Time: About 7:35 PM MT

      Mary Jo LeBlanc makes her appearance on Forbes!

      Maybe others will follow her lead.

      I just noticed that Mary made her appearance there
      and so just now was able to post a reply.

      You can review the two messages in the readers'
      comments section of the article on Forbes at the
      link given below or at the posting of these developments
      that I made at my place via the link below.

      In her appearance on Forbes, Mary states the claim that,
      with regard to having chosen me as a correspondent, Kent
      Hovind was deceived.

      Some insinuate that I was involved in that deception;
      Mary denies she intended any such insinuation.

      So, my previous challenge for the Kent Hovind folks,
      and for Kent himself, to publicly give an account of
      the correspondence that led up to me becoming one of
      his "chosen ones" remains outstanding an unanswered.

      Hints, my correspondents leading up to Kent choosing
      me included Nick Lally, the Chairman of the Board of
      the Creation Science Hall of Fame, and J. Ted Rosien,
      one of Kent's other chosen ones.

      Here's those links:



      My Place:



      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      I just noticed that Mary had made her appearance on the Forbes website a couple
      of days ago.

      So, I am just now responding to her posting there (see archives here for earlier
      history with Mary):




      From: Mary Jo LeBlanc
      Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013

      Robert, I do think you are delusional.


      We have no relationship and if we did it would not
      be working out well because I am revolted by you.


      I do not have an internet presence. I have assured
      you that I am a nobody, yet you continue to insinuate


      If you want to call me a Hovind apologist, go ahead.
      But I am not here to defend them legally since I know
      very little of their case. They are my friends and
      friends stand up from each other when others try to
      exploit them.


      I seriously doubt that your intentions for digging up
      the Empower network pages had anything to do with
      clearing your name, rather you were most likely flexing
      your cyber-muscles and attempting to intimidate me.


      I still don't know why you choose to make such a big
      deal about Dr. Hovind choosing you as his correspondent.
      He was misled. I don't know who misled him and I never
      accused you of doing it. All I was saying is that he
      withdrew from the conversation as soon as he realized
      that your intentions were to exploit him, his case,
      his family, and his ministry. Can anyone blame him for


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
      Time: About 7:15 PM MT

      I haven't figured out how to keep up with all the
      postings to the articles I have an interest in and
      so it is the case that I just now noticed that Mary
      had made her appearance here.

      My apologies for the delay in responding.


      We do have a relationship, and it has worked out well
      enough considering the circumstances. In her latest
      posting to the Hovind FaceBook pages on the subject,
      she wrote, in relevant part:

      > Robert:
      > Please forgive me for accusing you of finding
      > a link that doesn't exist. I did find it this time,
      > but have NO idea how to delete it since it is
      > part of the Empower Network.
      > I was mistaken and accused you falsely.
      > Please forgive me.
      > And, just to clear the air, I also want to
      > mention that I never accused you of
      > misleading Dr. Hovind.
      > I don't know who did.
      > It was just clear from the transcript that
      > he was misled.
      > Who did it?
      > I don't know.


      Despite the fact we are both alleged "nobodies", we
      both have an Internet presence.


      She is a Hovind apologist, and given her oft-professed
      ignorance of Kent's legal problems and his problems with
      his legal problems, she would have done well to leave me
      alone. She didn't, and the rest, as they say, is history.
      It seems a little hypocritical of Mary to propose I am
      exploiting Kent Hovind when Kent Hovind comes across as
      one professional exploiter.


      I didn't dig anything up. It just falls out of the Internet
      when you check on Mary. It had very much to do with "clearing
      my name", but Mary, quite typically, doesn't like to admit she
      sees the analogy between her concern over being associated with
      the "Empower Network" that she alleges she gave up on and my
      concern that she and others have insinuated that I misled Kent
      Hovind or his handlers regarding his choosing me as a


      Kent Hovind choosing me as a correspondent is a big deal.
      It's historic.

      Kent needed/needs help with his problems.

      I gave him some, and then he rejected the therapy.

      I could have helped him so much had he been receptive, open
      and honest in dealing with his problems.

      Mary is deceived if she really believes that Kent cut the
      cord because of any concerns over my alleged exploitation
      of him, his family, his cases, and/or his ministry.

      I don't blame kent for what Mary represents the case to be;
      I blame Kent for the way the case is.

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