Dr. Dino locked up for 10 years

Successfully discrediting the government’s main witness would have greatly altered the trial outcome so that petitioner was prejudice by Ritchey’s lack of proper assistance of counsel and the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
3. Defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel when Attorney Ritchey advised defendant NOT to give a defense at close of trial. He said he was convinced defendant had broken no laws and that the government had not proven their case and, in America, a defendant was innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
His advice to not give a defense was followed by Defendant and caused great harm in that the jury was deprived of seeing any of the unanswered correspondence sent by defendant to the IRS over a period of several years where all of the charges in the indictment could easily have been answered and the IRS’s lack of following due process would have been made clear.
4. Defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel when Ritchey did not strenuously object or follow all available remedies at law in a vigorous defense when the court changed the jury instructions at close of trial. Changing “more than $10,000” to “less than $10,000” in the jury instructions misstated the law, violated the FRCrimP and essentially assured a conviction of defendant. Defendant could not reasonably have known all the possible legal options Ritchey should have used to prevent this grave miscarriage of justice to stop the trial process until the issue could be examined and a determination made by a higher authority.
5. At close of trial Attorney Ritchey provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he did not vigorously object to the government asking for the



$430,000 in “structured funds” to be forfeited to the government even though the evidence at trial clearly showed the funds were earned, deposited and withdrawn in a lawful manner and spent on legitimate ministry bills. There was no fraud involved on the part of defendant nor were any drugs involved in the case yet when Title 21 drug laws were used to “justify” this theft of ministry funds Ritchey did not use all the remedies at law available to stop this grave miscarriage of justice.
6. At sentencing attorney Ritchey did not strenuously object or use all available tools in his craft to prevent the grave miscarriage of justice when a $604,874.87 alleged ‘tax loss’ was used to enhance defendant’s sentence even though this alleged tax loss was not found by the jury or certified according to the procedure outlined in the IRC as discussed above. He was further negligent in not stopping the grave miscarriage of justice when the court ordered this alleged ‘tax loss’ to be paid as restitution without due process or certified evidence of a tax due and owing. Defendant is entitled to have all facts found by a jury and to a trial where the government scrupulously observes the rules.
7. Defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel when Ritchey allowed 16 months to go by just to get the trial transcript after it was paid for. This delay caused great harm to the defendant in that appeal could not go forward without this transcript. He also did not demand a certified correct copy of the transcript and a certified correct copy of the sound recording to see if a violation of 28 USC §753(b) had occurred nor did he strenuously object when it was discovered that the transcript was NOT accurate but had been altered even though there were (and still are) at least 25 witnesses willing to testify that what they heard and saw in court does not match the transcript. Many swore out affidavits to this effect.

Ritchey should have filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion or other appropriate motions to have this issue examined by those with authority to judge but he did not. His failure caused a grave miscarriage of justice in that the Appeals court may not have had an accurate record of the trial on which to base their decision. His failure to use every means available to his trade to prevent the grave miscarriage of justice that occurred may have allowed a conviction to stand that would be shocking had it been made known.
8. Attorney Ritchey provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he did not object or pursue all remedies at law to stop the grave miscarriage of justice that occurred when the court ruled that the Church ministry properties actually belonged to defendant even though 10 of them had NEVER been in defendant’s name and the 2 other properties had been deeded over into ministry trusts about 8 years earlier! This redesignation of property ownership was apparently done for the purpose of allowing the government to seize them. Ritchey did not vigorously object or use all his lawyer skills to prevent this grave injustice when this action was done with no trial or even a hearing and this issue was not part of the criminal trial nor found by a jury. This action was done over the clear objections of the trustee whose name is on the deeds and without giving those who had sworn out affidavits about the issue aby opportunity to testify.
Attorney Ritchey did not strenuously object or use other means available to competent attorneys to prevent this grave miscarriage of justice.
9. The public defender first assigned to defendant provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not objecting when no consent forms were offered or signed to allow the arraignment to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.




Without this express consent the magistrate judge lacks authority to proceed. Peretz v. U.S., 501 U.S. 923. This is especially important after defendant challenged the jurisdiction and the magistrate made the determination to ignore defendant’s challenge and change defendant’s plea over his repeated objections without consulting an Article III Judge.
A Magistrate Judge’s judgment without consent is a nullity. Estate of Conners v. O’Conner, 6 F.3d 656 at 658; Binder v. Gillespie, 172 F.3d 649; Aldrich v. Bowen, 130 F.3d 1364 at 1365; Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 at 1126. Consent will not be inferred from silence or conduct of parties; In re Marriage of Nasca, 160 F.3d 578; Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003). “the magistrate’s criminal trial jurisdiction depends on the defendant’s consent.” Peretz supra. There is no time limit to challenge. The arraignment should have stopped at that moment of challenge. Defendant’s attorney was ineffective, negligent and incompetent in that he allowed the court to proceed and try the case without first demanding that this grave miscarriage of justice and failure to follow due process be corrected.
An arraignment is not a ministerial proceeding. In Federal Constitutional law an arraignment is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52; Johnson v. U.S., 333 F.2d 3771. An arraignment is a condition precedent to a trial in which potential substantial prejudice to the defendant’s rights inheres and in which counsel may help avoid that prejudice. Hamilton v. Alabam, supra; U.S. v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111. Arraignment is an indispensable condition to trial itself, the preliminary state where the accused is informed of the indictment and pleads to it, thereby formulating the issues to be tried.

Anderson v. U.S., 352 F.2d 945. An arraignment accordance with Rule 10 is intended to be a safeguard for due process and failure to observe this safeguard amounts to denial of due process and the court is deprived of jurisdiction. Merrritt v. Hunter, 170 F.2d 739. Arraignment in a federal criminal prosecution is a vital part of the criminal process. McConnell v. U.S. 375 F. 2d 905.
The Court at the arraignment must determine whether it has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction concerning this case before any other determinations are made. This critical step cannot be performed by a non-Article III judge in an Article III court involving a felony case. The magistrate proceeded to conduct the arraignment proceeding and made final determinations and rulings as they arose. There is no indication in the record of the existence of communication between the Magistrate and an Article III Judge or of the method of any such communication. We cannot presume, where no evidence exists in the record to support such a presumption; that the Article III judge was playing an active role in making rulings as they were made. Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th circ. 1990).
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case U.S. v. Johnston, supra rules that a Magistrate Judge cannot conduct vital criminal felony proceedings even with the consent of the defendant.
In this instant case the defendant was arraigned without the informed consent of the defendant. The Magistrate Judge is not an Article III Judge as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. The appointment of a magistrate “was conditioned upon the defendant’s express written consent.” Peretz supra.





The legislative history of the statute (28 USC § 636(b)(3) also emphasizes the crucial nature of the litigant’s consent. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-287, p. 20 (1979) (Because of the consent requirement, magistrates will be used only as the bench, bar, and litigants desire, only in case where they are felt by all participants to be competent”) (emphasis added)
There is no Article III problem with the defendant’s consent. No written consent to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge was given by defendant in this case. The legal result is that the alleged proceeding never occurred or happened. When jurisdiction is void, any subsequent criminal proceedings have no validity and are also necessarily void. Any resulting final order form this court, in this case, are void and of no effect and the defendant must be immediately released from custody, the case vacated, all fines, penalties and confiscated property returned, all liens removed and the record expunged or a grave miscarriage of justice will have occurred.
A criminal defendant has a “right to have all critical stages of a criminal trial conducted by a person with jurisdiction to preside.” Thus, harmless-error analysis does not apply in a felony case. In re Morrissey v. Arnold, 717 F.2d 100 at 102; Gomez v. U.S., 104 L.Ed. 2d 923; Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams, 8892 F.2d 305 at 309. Defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel in that they did not vigorously object to this grave miscarriage of justice. The trial cannot be trusted to have produced a just result.

EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Title 28 USC § 2255(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief




the court shall … grant a prompt hearing thereon” Because the “files and records of the case” do not show conclusively that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, Defendant prays this Honorable Court to grant a prompt evidentiary hearing unless this motion is granted, making one unnecessary.

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Defendant Hovind respectfully moves this Honorable Court to appoint zealous “assistance of counsel” in this case should this motion not be granted.


CONCLUSION
Therefore, in light of the above facts, it is prayed that this Honorable District Court grant this 2255 Motion and enter an order that the case be overturned, defendant granted immediate release from federal custody, the case vacated and expunged, all fines, penalties and confiscated property and monies returned and all liens removed.
Defendant further requests that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be included as determined by an Article III judge with any rulings on each of the issues above.
Defendant is a pro se litigant and the court should afford him liberal construction and the benefit of such review recognizing that pro se defendant cannot be expected to navigate the legal system as clearly as a trained lawyer would. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519; Grullon v. U.S., 2004 WL 1900340.



Case 3:06-cr-00083-MCR-EMT Document 365 Filed 12/13/10

reply to post by OperationBlackRose


This is the truth to be told. Evolution has no feet to stand on, and they will try everything to shut people up!!

reply to post by OperationBlackRose


Was just reviewing all that you posted - good research there! Agree; that man was falsely accused, and should not be in prison for this.

Very interesting thread, however, the title of the thread is inaccurate. It should be something like Ket Hovind, Creationist, vs evelution supporters. Then I probably would not have joined.

However, I am here so here are my 2 cents worth.

I watched several of Kent Hovind's videos a few years back and while I found him sarcastic and obviously wrong on a couple issues, one cannot, without bias, help but realize that evelutionists ignore and hide information that goes against their "theory" I admire Kent's reason for not paying taxes on the basis of not supporting the government in brainwashing the children. He is absolutely right in the fact of the brainwashing. However, it was wrong not to pay taxes. We are to obey the laws of the land as Christians and give the President his due. Jesus set the example and we are to folow him.

The Lord chastises those he loves and imprisonment could easily be seen as the Lord's chastening in this instance. He could have got a lot more so God's grace is also evident.

Though the trial may have been missjudged due to improper handling, the government cannot just allow this to go unpunished. It could have been a precident. I am hopeful that Kent has seen this as a victory in that he learns obedience to God rather than the religious pride that blames the devil and the world for all of our trials. As much as they like to think so, the government has not the final answer in any deal.

That all being said and I don't really care if anyone agrees or not, can this post pick up where the title left off. It would be nice to have a conversation regarding the title.

I am a Christian. I am more than convinced that evelusion is a total fraud played by the god of this world. I will post here my link that explains my reasons. It would be appreciated if anyone cares to reply that they would read everything on that link first. This would save several keypads.

Please forgive me, I see as I look again that the title actually fits the thread posts. I will see if this can be done elsewhere.

The good old IRS.Like the forced introduction of the jokingly named"Federal"reserve have been an abomination upon this land and its hard working people.The collection of these agencies crimes SHOULD have put them out of business decades ago.They are prominant examples that the people no longer control the government and WHO EVER is voted in joins in the profitable corruption and high treason.

reply to post by cwhjra


Hard to take someone seriously who can't even spell "evelusion" correctly. Another thing that is apparent is your lack of knowledge concerning the scientific method.

Scientific Law - what happens

Scientific Theory - how and why it happens

In this respect, you and Mr. Hovind are of similar mind... or lack thereof...

reply to post by mdiinican


just reading this thread and saw this i laughed, what happened to those bankers and their bailout??
America, hilarious!!

reply to post by cwhjra


i like how you said that the lord chastises, and i believe you pointing out sarcasm maybe one of the reasons or his cocky attitude. when the theory gets proven right people forget that it's not them who is being proven right and that one must give credit to the one who put the words into their mouth.

we should take an example from the arabs, they say allahu akbar

we should Praise GOD, in all we do.(i'm not an arab or muslim or christian but i do believe in GOD the CREATOR and no one else).

i don't think in any of the videos that he gives credit to GOD for the inspiration. just a cocky attitude during his presentation and debates.

while proving GOD right and giving credit are two different things.

hopefully he won't let his time their go to waste and put it to good use, like my dad said,
"they sent him their to punish him, but he'll just convert all of the inmates".

that being said i give credit to GOD for guiding me with what to say, while i wrote this message.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by cwhjra

 

Hard to take someone seriously who can't even spell "evelusion" correctly. Another thing that is apparent is your lack of knowledge concerning the scientific method.

Scientific Law - what happens

Scientific Theory - how and why it happens

In this respect, you and Mr. Hovind are of similar mind... or lack thereof...

Science is to be repeatable, observable and testable. Outside of those parameters its just religion. Evolution is religion.

Retired Air Force Colonel James Fondren only got 36 months in a minimum security Federal Prison.

He had a civilian job in the Pentagon and got caught selling national secrets to China.

Why's this "Dr Dino" getting much harsher punishment??

James Fondren costed America more than what this "Dr" did. ....his prison sentence was a vacation...able to play pool...shop at the little shopping center in the minimum security prison. He even got frequent visits to get some skin action going with some females.


www.google.com...

I saw this thread when it first came up, but I wanted to let it get a few pages under its belt before I came in to say what I had to say...

...HAHAHAHA!!!
Kent Hovind is a loathesome twit. (I would use much more colorful language if the T&C's would allow it). I have dealt with the man a few times back in the day and even the mention of his name makes me want to cuss. If people think that he had "good reason" to not pay his taxes, they are deluding themselves. The man is a professional fraud, through and through. I am glad to see him get what's coming to him. If nothing more than as a backlash from karma herself for bullying, rigging and being outright dishonest in debate after debate. If you're unfamiliar with these debates, I am sure the "Doctor" has a place where you can PURCHASE his debates he did at STATE Universities.

reply to post by borntowatch


You can play dumb all you like. But it doesn't change the facts. You are wrong on multiple levels.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Evolution is religion.

No, it is "repeatable, observable and testable." It is the base for all life sciences.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Enjoy belittling others do we? This reveals much about your character.

Even JESUS said to pay your taxes.

Hovind is scum. The man is a liar, and now he's a convicted felon. Hovind deserves the derision he is getting.

Exactly right. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar...". And the Bible says you are supposed to follow the law.

It also says "the hireling careth not for the sheep"

There are three Biblical concepts that this guy who people worshiped didn't follow.

reply to post by Jugg


I disagree with his Creationism, but I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people and tend to have a high bar in justifying that action. My suspicion is that it was his anti-NWO activism that attracted unwanted attention.

His dinosaur arguments were really stupid, but his views on the nature of taxes seemed to be the real issue here.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by borntowatch
Evolution is religion.

No, it is "repeatable, observable and testable." It is the base for all life sciences.

Show me where any evolution is repeatable observable and testable.

As for rendering to Ceaser what is Ceasers, I dont think that was a statement about taxes, more of an image statement.
Render the image of God to God. We are Gods image