Tuesday Night Radio: Mental Illness; Judicial Do’s & Don’ts; Kent Hovind Interview

03 Feb

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

First hour:  Mental Illness, Judicial Do’s & Don’ts, more.

Second Hour:  Interview with Creationism advocate Kent Hovind–currently eight years into a ten year prison sentence and threatened with another trial that could cause him to spend another 100 years in the slammer.


Posted by on February 3, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio


Tags: , ,

33 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Mental Illness; Judicial Do’s & Don’ts; Kent Hovind Interview

  1. wholy1

    February 3, 2015 at 4:46 PM

    pls get Frank to put up your previous week’s program! thx.

    • Jethro!

      February 6, 2015 at 11:26 AM

      The Feb. 3 interview archive still isn’t posted. Is this another unfathomable mystery?

      • cynthia

        February 6, 2015 at 11:54 AM

        I do not know, could be technical and could be what kurt considers non relevant content by the other speaker. Will request original copy to edit and post kurt’s content only without the other speaker if he feels it is either not relevant or distracting.

      • cynthia

        February 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM

        please ignore earlier reply below – would delete if i could as it was a mistake, not for this site\posting

  2. Adask

    February 3, 2015 at 4:52 PM

    Frank is a law unto himself. When it comes to posting programs, he is sometimes guided by mystical forces that I don’t see or understand. In this case, he claims he HAS ALREADY posted last week’s show. To me, it’s all a very deep, unfathomable mystery.

  3. priv.publicPolicyadvocatechris Chris

    February 3, 2015 at 5:37 PM

    FR Evidence R-702 on qualification to “expert witness” (Note EX-Pert old drip formerly under pressure), under “Daubert

    analysis” G E v Merril DOW pHARMa-ceuticals and in re Psychology/ists in: “Kumho Tire Co. Inc. v. Carmichael”

    Do NOT meet the three prong test to rise to qualify as 3rd party independent pier revied evidence therby mere hearsay or

    “Witch Doctor’age / pseudo science. chris near; Las Vegas

    Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 22:36:54 +0000 To:

  4. Fritz

    February 3, 2015 at 8:40 PM

    No doubt in my mind that the so called “Civil War” was really a war over/about destroying t

    he “Sovereignty of the States” & transfering that Power to the Federal Government. The “FED”

    Troops won. The Con (against) Fed, Con-fed-erate States lost. This eventually, via slow

    insidious “Appropriate Legislation” fulfilled what George Washington said to be aware of in his

    Farewell Address All power in one department is, as he said, the worse despotism.

  5. Fritz

    February 3, 2015 at 9:27 PM

    The first President, George Washington, warns the nation in his Farewell Address, that love of power will tend to create a real despotism in America unless proper checks and balances are maintained to limit government power

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

    Once again, it was the War between the States,& the real purpose of that war, the winner of that war, the amendements to the Constitution enforced via “Appropriate Legislation” from then to now, & anyone should NOW SEE where we are. “The B.O.L.M. aka BLM is just one example.

  6. russ

    February 3, 2015 at 11:47 PM

    Good interview with Kent. His Creation debate videos are a great learning tool. Unfortunately, for his first trial, he hired an attorney that did not defend him. Served him up without a defense. Then near the end of his term, Kent files docs to cloud the title of the properties being sold off as ordered by the court, when the court expressly told him not to do that. That may end up costing him his freedom for the rest of his life. He tangled with the beast and got the horns. I would like to hear his answer when asked if he would do that again. It saddens me the way this is turning out. Kent is a good man.

  7. Fritz

    February 4, 2015 at 12:04 AM

    Public “Servants” huh? Does the Master go to the “Servant” to get “permission” to do anything, or,

    why does the “Master” need to have the Public “Servant” to say what is right & wrong? WHO is the

    Master here, now, today? It used to be 12 Kings comprising a Jury that decided who was who &

    what was what. Those 12 Kings had the power to ANNUL an Act of Congress. What’s happened?

    You, russ, say, the Court told him (Kent Hovind) NOT to do that. Who is Master now?

  8. Robert Snyder

    February 4, 2015 at 1:31 AM

    I had no idea Kent was in jail. What the heck did he do? Teach the truth an they didn’t like it?

    • Fritz

      February 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM

      @ I had no idea Kent was in jail. What the heck did he do?

      He had the gall & audacity to proclaim there IS a Supreme Being who created the Heavens AND the earth & therefore committed the heinous CRIMINAL act of proclaiming Creationism & NOT EVIL-LEW-SHUN. Remember, no good deed will go unpunished.

    • Henry

      February 4, 2015 at 5:26 AM

      Excepts from the Wikipedia article on Mr. Hovind, whose brilliance at debunking “evolution theory” far exceeds his judgement in regards to pay-triot “legal theory”:

      On July 11, 2006, Hovind was charged in the District Court in Northern Florida in Pensacola with twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in federally insured financial institutions to evade reporting requirements, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws. Twelve of the charges were for failing to pay employee-related taxes, totaling $473,818, and 45 of the charges were for evading reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as “smurfing”). The withdrawals, totaling $430,500, were made in 2001 and 2002.


      After being indicted, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges, telling the court: “I still don’t understand what I’m being charged for and who is charging me.” Magistrate Miles Davis asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded “To some degree”. Davis replied that the government adequately explained the allegations and the defendant understands the charges “whether you want to admit it or not.” Hovind stated that he did not recognize the government’s right to try him on tax-fraud charges. At first he attempted to enter a plea of “subornation of false muster,” but then entered a not guilty plea “under duress” when the judge offered to enter a plea for him.


      On January 19, 2007, Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000. After his prison term finishes he will serve another three years of probation.

      • moon

        February 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM

        Wikipedia, in my opinion, is a shaky source of factuality…but thanks, Henry, for posting this. It seems that most all incidents of multiple charges include some entanglement with IRS…the bullies. Guess no law/”law” exists that would prevent one from expressing an idea, however unpopular it might be with the powers that shouldn’t be. Do any of the “charges” associated with Hovind address his expressions concerning the idea of Creation?

      • Henry

        February 4, 2015 at 6:46 PM

        moon, I agree that Wikipedia is a questionable source in some ways. It’s heavily edited for political correctness and to support the “official” version of the news. Still, as a reference for public data like historical dates and statistics, it’s one of the best resources around.

        Concerning the charges against Mr. Hovind, none of them were about his creationist views officially. Though his multiple tours of college campuses to debate evolution probably encouraged his prosecution. Hovind used to have an open invitation for any college professor in the US to debate on evolution. He would travel to their campuses, debate them in public and consistently win. Recordings are available on the internet.

        Then he met one of the dime-a-dozen “theorists” with a magical word game that lets you off the hook of paying taxes to the IRS mafia. The result was the usual: financial ruin and a stint in federal prison. A win for the NWO, which probably sent the dime-a-dozen charlatan after Hovind in the first place. They did this because Hovind was a champion doing a lot of damage for the good guys.

      • Fritz

        February 4, 2015 at 7:47 PM

        Anybody can be “CHARGED” with ANYTHING. Yes !!! A so called GRAND JURY which is really nothing more than a Board of inquiry can indict a HAM Sandwich. And, YES, there HAVE been INNOCENT people executed for what he/she was CHARGED with & naturally, a GUILTY AS CHARGED verdict was rendered. LATER, “evidence” arrived that he/she was innocent. Too late then to change anything.

      • moon

        February 5, 2015 at 3:21 PM

        Thanks, Henry, for filling in the gaps for me. The bully IRS can be a monster to tangle with, but consider Joe Bannister and others, who aren’t publicized so much, who have won against the NWO.

        As for filing and paying, my history of not filing and not paying began in my junior year of high school…and the IRS has never officially contacted me. At this late date, don’t see any reason to change my ways. Think that might be considered a loss for the NWO?

        More than sixty million of us don’t file and don’t pay…we’re trying to communicate to everyone else that there is no law that requires it. Want to join us, Henry? It could be another loss for the NWO! (actually, you may already be one of us…don’t know you that well.)

  9. Fritz

    February 4, 2015 at 8:20 PM

    excerpt from Wikipedia
    “After being indicted, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges, telling the court: “I still don’t understand what I’m being charged for and who is charging me.”[162] Magistrate Miles Davis asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded “To some degree”.

    GOOD ANSWER !! “To SOME degree.” Anybody, YES, anybody who says, he/she understands
    “The English Language” is either ignorant, stupid, or just flat outright lying. How many words comprise “The English Language??

    • henry

      February 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM

      If he had good answers, he would not be in prison. Is the court communicating in English? Many words/terms have one meaning in American English and another in court. Since the dictionary of the English language documents the use of English words and the legal dictionaries document the words and terms for legal matters, wouldn’t it be a better answer to ask if the court was using “The English Language”?

      • Bart Shavitz

        July 24, 2015 at 6:35 PM

        @ If he had good answers, he would not be in prison. Is the court communicating in English?

        So YOU understand the ENTIRE, every word in the English Language huh? B.S.
        Are Statutes, rules, regulations,etc., written in English? Does this mean it is CLEAR & should be understood? IF SO, why did the Court say this;
        A law is considered void on its face if its meaning is so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to the statute’s application (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 2d 322 [1926]).

    • Jethro

      February 5, 2015 at 12:46 PM

      To the question “Do you speak English?”, perhaps a better response would have been, “Oh, so everyone here is speaking English and not ‘legalese’? Excellent. Let the record reflect that not a single legal term can be utilized at any time here.” That would have killed any charges against any “taxpayer” right then and there.

      • FittySense

        February 22, 2015 at 5:57 AM

        @ > Let the record reflect
        Reflect? A reflection is artificial, like in, artificial entity the same way generally speaking that a person is defined.

  10. Fritz

    February 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM

    We have become, not a nation ruled by law, not even a nation ruled by men, but a nation ruled by whim. Whim of social media fashion, whim of bureaucratic caprice, whim of officious grandstanding, whim of judicial hauteur, whim of meddlesome gossip, whim of puritanical licentiousness. At last we might find that the whim of a despot ain’t so bad compared to this. After all, a single despot must sleep.

  11. Roger

    February 6, 2015 at 1:31 AM

    Well, if Kent answered “no” to the judge asking him if he “spoke English”, that would be a blatant lie for obvious reasons. Either that or part of a comedy routine.

    So he pretty much had to answer “yes”, as he did in a clever way that probably threw the judge for a loop.

    Kent actually answered a different question than he was asked. His reply of “to some extent” answers a question like “how much English do you speak?”

    The question the judge actually asked, “do you speak English?”, is a yes/no question that is answered in the affirmative by any quantitative reply other than zero.

    No doubt Kent schooled the judge on a few things during that trial.

  12. Jethro!

    February 11, 2015 at 10:37 AM

    Al, I was really looking forward to hearing your interview with Kent, but it looks like the archive of this show was never posted. Any way to prod Frank into posting this episode?

  13. Adask

    February 11, 2015 at 10:50 AM

    When it comes to motivating Frank, you’re on your own.

    However, so far as I know, the episode was published last week. The interview with Kent ran in the second hour of the two hour show.

    That show should’ve been in the archive until after last night’s show, which has now taken the place of the Hovind interview.

    If you still wanted to get the Kent Hovind interview, you might contact Frank at to see how much he’d want to make a DVD of the Hovind show and send it to you.

  14. Toland

    February 11, 2015 at 3:14 PM

    I also tried to check out the interview with Kent Hovind, but it looks like it’s lost down the memory hole.

    The episode available on the network’s archive continued to be the January 27th show until at least yesterday. If yesterday’s show is now on the archive, it replaced the January 27th show without the February 3rd show with Kent Hovind ever being available.

  15. Roger

    February 11, 2015 at 8:04 PM

    Al, it’s clear that many people want to hear your Kent Hovind interview. I too get the feeling it was an important event in radio. I’m sure a simple request from you would be enough to get Frank to post a link to the show so we all can hear it.

    Frank seems like the kind of guy who would jump at the opportunity to serve his listeners in this manner, especially since merely posting a link to an existing audio file would be a trivial effort on his part.

  16. Cody

    February 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM

    Maybe Kent should have declared “I had no idea this is an English Court.” The English language and English law are two different subject matters altogether. I betcha there are very few “civilians” that read this blog. Even fewer that actually write responses.

  17. Colin

    February 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM

    I’m sorry I missed this, I would have liked to have heard the interview. The website looks like only the latest episode is available; is there a way to download past episodes like this one?

    • Adask

      February 25, 2015 at 12:03 AM

      Frank (the show’s producer at only posts the most recent program for one week. Then the next week’s program goes up, etc.

      I think Frank may have still have copies of the previous shows. If you contact him by email at and ask him or even offer to compensate him for his time, etc., he might be able to send you one or more DVDs with previous shows. Just make sure that you understand that all of my recent shows are broadcast from within the borders of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

  18. Adask

    February 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM

    Is it also true that if I say “Barack” there’s no extra significance for the additional words “Hussein” and “Obama”? Do the names Barack, Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, and Barack William Obama all signify the same man?

    If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court has, on at least one occasion, declared that every word in the Constitution has meaning and no word is “surplusage”. Why wouldn’t the same principle apply to every word in a statute or every word in a name?

    Are you saying that the terms “Texas,” “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” “state of Texas” and “The State of Texas” all signify the same “state,” “territory” and political jurisdiction? What about “Tejas”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s