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

Hovind's Motion in Criminal Contempt Case

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    KENT HOVIND 59(e) MOTION FILED July 21, 2014 US District Court For The Northern District Of Florida/Pensacola Division Case No. 3:06-cr-83/MCR Kent E Hovind
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 23, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      KENT HOVIND 59(e) MOTION

      FILED July 21, 2014

      US District Court For The Northern
      District Of Florida/Pensacola Division

      Case No. 3:06-cr-83/MCR

      Kent E Hovind
      petitioner

      v.

      United States of America respondent

      Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) Motion

      Comes Now Kent E Hovind, petitioner, and for his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) Motion, based on the following:

      1. On July 8,2014, the court granted the government's renewed motion to find the petitioner in criminal contempt of violating a 2012 court injunction enjoining certain entities from filing liens to prevent the United States from enforcing its interests in relation to certain properties.

      2. Two months ago the petitioner was transferred from FCI Berlin to FPC Maxwell,and in the ensuing transit only stayed at FPC Maxwell for 4 days before being re-transferred to the Elmore County Jail. From the Elmore County Jail the petitioner was retransferred to the BOP Holding Center in Atlanta, where he remains.

      3. The petitioner's mail has not followed him due to this set of transfers, and at no point was the petitioner ever served with a copy of the renewed motion the court makes reference to in its order.

      4. Having not been served with the renewed motion the courts granting of the motion without affording the petitioner a opportunity to respond or rebut the motion has denied the petitioner his 4th and 5th Amendment procedural due process ,and is further violative of the Local Rules of the court for The Northern District of Florida.

      5. The court's holding which finds the petitioner's objections to the renewed motion as "moot" are misplaced and plain error, when the only objections the court could be referencing are the petitioner's objections to the initial motion, which the court by necessity must have denied the government for this new motion to be under consideration. The petitioner also never was
      served with the court's order which disposed of that initial order, which is a further violation to his due process, and any objections made by the petitioner to the initial order cannot be construed by the court as an implied or express waiver of his legal right to respond to any subsequent renewed motion brought by the United States.

      6. The United States defaulted on the initial motion to hold the petitioner in contempt, which was many months ago, and the court never ruled on that default. The petitioner subsequent to that initial motion has filed pleadings in the courts and with the Department of Treasury which reveal in detail the govemment actors' misconduct in willfully suppressing evidence of his innocence of the crimes he was found guilty of, conduct which soundly violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland. This "renewed" contempt order, made at the end of the petitioner's 10 year sentence and after the government has liquidated the properties which form the basis for the 2012 injunction, creates a rebuttable presumption that this July 8,2014 motion is retaliation against the petitioner for him exercising his constitutional right to redress and appeal in furtherance of exposing the government's aforementioned misconduct. It is well settled in the US district courts that retaliation for the exercise of an , inmate's constitutional right is impermissible and is itself unconstitutional.

      7. The court's granting of the July 8,2014 order, under the aforegoing basis where the petitioner has been denied notice and due process, is unconstitutional, and this proceeding itself is highly prejudicial to the petitioner and gives rise to actions hurried and committed under an impermissible desire to retaliate.

      8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner respectfully asks the court to vacate its July 8,2014 order, and to dismiss the governments motion with prejudice for being based upon an improper motive.

      Wherefore the petitioner prays that the court will grant his motion.

      Kent E Hovind

      --------------------------------------------------------
    • piasanaol
      For once, he might actually have a point or two in his favor. First, as much as he s been moved around recently, it s entirely possible he hasn t been properly
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 23, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        For once, he might actually have a point or two in his favor.
         
        First, as much as he's been moved around recently, it's entirely possible he hasn't been properly served with the papers which should win him at least a delay.
         
        Second, if the government has sold the property, it's clear he didn't prevent the disposal of it and the entire issue may be moot.
         
         
         
      • Robert Baty
        Pi, I would agree that given all his moving around there might be some basis for a delay. However, given the simplicity of the case, maybe it can go forward
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 23, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Pi,

          I would agree that given all his moving around there might be some basis for a delay.  However, given the simplicity of the case, maybe it can go forward as scheduled. 

          I would not want to see a delay.

          I also noticed that Kent indicated some more properties had been sold. 

          I am not aware of that or any of the details if it happened.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty


          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          From: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:03:59 -0400
          Subject: Re: [M & B] Hovind's Motion in Criminal Contempt Case

           

          For once, he might actually have a point or two in his favor.
           
          First, as much as he's been moved around recently, it's entirely possible he hasn't been properly served with the papers which should win him at least a delay.
           
          Second, if the government has sold the property, it's clear he didn't prevent the disposal of it and the entire issue may be moot.
           
           
           

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