Case 3:14-mc-00053-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 4

Page 1 of 4


Misc. Case No. ________________
On the Government’s motion in United States v. Hovind, 3:06cr83 (N.D. Fla.),
the Court has found cause to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kent
E. Hovind. Therefore, pursuant to the Court’s inherent and statutory contempt
power, criminal contempt proceedings are hereby initiated against Kent E. Hovind
on the Government’s charge that he willfully violated an injunction order of this
Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 401(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a).
Criminal contempt need not be charged by indictment. See United States
v. Cohn, 586 F.3d 844, 849 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, a notice of criminal contempt
initiates the proceedings, and the notice need only state the time and place of the
trial, allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the
essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describing it as such.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a); see also Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1242-43
(11th Cir. 2007). Because criminal contempt proceedings are indeed criminal, a
person charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the same constitutional
protections due in all criminal proceedings.1 See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers
of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826-27 (1994). Thus, “‘[i]n proceedings for
criminal contempt the defendant is presumed to be innocent, he must be proved to


In its discretion, the Court m ay try crim inal contem pt without a jury when the actual penalty
im posed does not exceed six m onths’ im prisonm ent. See Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 495 (1974).

Case 3:14-mc-00053-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 4

Page 2 of 4

be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he cannot be compelled to testify against
himself.’”2 Romero, 480 F.3d at 1243 (quoting Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range
Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911)) (internal marks omitted).
As required by Rule 42(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the Court hereby provides notice of the essential facts constituting the charge of
criminal contempt:

On November 2, 2006, Hovind was found guilty by a jury and

convicted of multiple offenses involving his failure to pay federal taxes on behalf of
employees of entities he owned and operated, namely, Creation Science
Evangelism Enterprises/Ministry and Dinosaur Adventure Land, located in
Pensacola, Florida, and the jury entered a money judgment of forfeiture.3 See
United States v. Hovind, Case No. 3:06cr83-MCR (N.D. Fla.). Subsequently, upon
finding that Hovind had transferred the currency to third parties, and after reviewing
Hovind’s objections, real property was forfeited in partial substitution of the
currency, with limitations. See United States v. Hovind, Case No. 3:06cr83-MCR,
Doc. 212 (N.D. Fla. June 28, 2007), aff’d, 305 F. App’x 615, 623 (11th Cir. 2008),
cert. denied, 558 U.S. 992 (2009); see also id. Doc. 325 (N.D. Fla. July 29, 2009).
The substitute property included properties located in Pensacola, Florida, at 21
Cummings Road; 29 Cummings Road; 100 Cummings Road; and 400 Cummings

In separate civil proceedings, the Court entered a permanent

injunction on June 27, 2012, against Creation Science Evangelism among others,
including “their representatives or agents,” permanently enjoining them “from


To punish for crim inal contem pt of court, there m ust be proof that (1) a lawful and
reasonably specific order (2) was violated and (3) the violation was willful. Romero, 480 F.3d at 1242;
United States v. Bernardine, 237 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Baldwin,
770 F.2d 1550, 1557-58 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Crim inal contem pt is established when it is shown that the
defendant is aware of a clear and definite court order and willfully disobeys the order.”). The
governm ent bears the burden to prove these elem ents beyond a reasonable doubt. Bernardine, 237
F.3d at 1282.

The jury forfeited $430,400 in currency.

Case 3:14-mc-00053-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 4

Page 3 of 4

seeking to file or otherwise create a lien on [the same forfeited] properties without
first obtaining an order from this Court.”

United States v. Creation Science

Evangelism, Case No. 3:12cv136-MCR/EMT (doc. 7, at 7) (N.D. Fla. June 27,

Despite the forfeiture order and permanent injunction, Hovind filed lis

pendens on properties that had been legally forfeited to the Government and were
subject to the Court’s permanent injunction order.

The Government charges that by doing so, Hovind willfully violated the

permanent injunction order.

Kent E. Hovind is required to appear before the Court at 8:00 a.m., on

September 8, 2014, to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt
of Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). This will be a
jury trial and will be held in Courtroom 5, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, located on One North Palafox
Street, Pensacola, Florida 32502.

Kent E. Hovind has the right to the representation of counsel, the

presumption of innocence, the privilege against self incrimination, to prepare a
defense and to present witnesses, and to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
before any criminal sanction may be imposed.

Kent E. Hovind must notify the Court within 15 calendar days of

service of this Order if he desires court-appointed counsel. If court-appointed
counsel is requested, Hovind will be required to provide the requisite financial
information for the Court to make a determination of his right to such appointment.

The Government states it is prepared to appoint a criminal prosecutor

to the case. Thus, the Court hereby appoints the United States Attorney’s Office
for this District to prosecute the contempt. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2).

The United States Marshal is directed to promptly provide transport

of Kent E. Hovind (BOP # 06452-017) from FPC Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, AL

Case 3:14-mc-00053-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 4

Page 4 of 4

36112, or wherever he may be housed, to this district to appear for trial on
September 8, 2014. Defendant shall remain in custody within this district pending
DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2014.


M. Casey Rodgers