Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A Washington state court has handed down a ruling that could presage a bad result for Kent Hovind in Florida (yes, I know it doesn't apply in another state, but the logic is perfectly applicable to both states and the Federal level). In the case of In re Didier, the husband in a divorce proceeding tried to claim a free exercise defense for not paying child support. He made the same claim that Hovind makes, that he is employed by God, has taken a vow of poverty, and has no income. He also claimed, like Hovind does, that the court has no jurisdiction over him.
Michael Didier is a member of the Embassy of Heaven church, which has almost identical views to Hovind's. They claim to be citizens of heaven on earth rather than citizens of the US. They actually print their own driver's licenses and license plates, which of course gets them put in jail a lot. Like Hovind, they are usually represented by Glen Stoll (who gets a lot of clients despite a miserable record of losing because of his loony views of the law). These people are just plain nuts, as I wrote over 2 years ago.
The Washington court ruled against Didier, saying that the law on child support is "neutral and of general applicability" and therefore does not violate the free exercise clause. Even an RFRA claim would fail here, as the state obviously has a compelling interest in requiring fathers to support their children after divorce, and there's no other means of doing that than requiring them to do so.
Comments
IMO, the can of Whup-Ass that is about to be opened upon Dr. Dino couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
Posted by: J-Dog | August 10, 2006 1:50 PM
Hmmm...
I am interested to see how the whole Hovind thing pans out and this ruling in Washington probably will have some bearing on what kind of ruling Hovind gets.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | August 10, 2006 2:02 PM
The sad part of Hovey's argument is that it would still fail even if accepted at face value: Okay, he wasn't paid all that money, but did he have the use of the home, cars, etc that the money paid for? If so, he has an imputed income of the fair market value of thse items. The man is living on something, but apparently it isn't common sense.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 10, 2006 2:26 PM
I heard that Glen Stoll does not have a law degree? Is that true?
Posted by: Hexene | August 10, 2006 4:45 PM
Hexene, you heard correctly. He also got busted for it: "court bars Washington state tax scam":
The court found that Stoll, who falsely claimed to be a lawyer, and his businesses sell a fraudulent "corporation sole" and "ministerial trust" scheme, falsely telling customers that conducting their business activities and funding their lifestyles through a so-called ministerial trust eliminates their obligations to file federal tax returns and pay federal tax.
Emphasis in bold mine.
Posted by: Jurjen Smies | August 10, 2006 4:52 PM
I heard that Glen Stoll does not have a law degree? Is that true?
Maybe he picked one up at Patriot University.
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | August 10, 2006 5:09 PM
If these guys aren't US citizens, then I have just four words for them:
Where's your green card?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | August 10, 2006 7:16 PM
Thanks Jurjen! Must be that criminals interact with other criminals.
Posted by: Hexene | August 10, 2006 8:13 PM
In a related story, From newsoftheweird.com:
Posted by: fnxtr | August 14, 2006 8:49 AM