Talk:Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation

I'm deleting this unless someone can come up with a good justification for some random person on the internet giving snarky incompetent analysis of the complaint in a pending lawsuit against the company that owns this very site. 21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't helping. Zero (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Discussion on this topic should be kept to a minimum. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok removed. Please delete the article then. Ghnn (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(Unsigned octo8, stupid /w/ error) I disagree. Especially because this is a lawsuit that is, essentially, against this wiki it should be mentioned on this wiki. Where else would outside people who've heard about this look for info but here? Also, I very much dislike any hush-hush attitude ("discussion should be kept to a minimum"). 87.175.243.241 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but it seems to me that the most prudent course of action is typically to not comment in public on ongoing legal matters, especially when the people who are commenting are amateurs who may inadvertently end up adversely affecting the position of one of the parties involved. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not a lawyer, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most people above me. As a general rule, it is a terrible idea to comment on ongoing litigation to which we are a party. -RNS 172.56.13.167 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebooting article

No commentary in this article, just the text of the complaint. But I want to know if you guys think wikifying stuff is worth it. Like when he references US Code having it link out to the specific reference. Let me know what you guys think would help but be serious enough. Zero (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would help. Most people wouldn't understand legalese well enough to grasp what they are even reading and the US Code by itself doesn't really mean anything without court cases on how that code is interpreted. Also as the page on The United States Code indicates the code is complex ("A law may be codified in more than one title of the Code, and a law is generally codified in several sections.") Forbes' "Not Income Tax Evasion - Structuring - That's How They Got Kent Hovind" which links to the T.C. Memo. 2012-281 touches all too briefly on this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Status on This?

How is the lawsuit going? That is, if the court didn't just laugh at him. Greatnecro (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this case, but Kent Hovind has other problems right now. He's facing up to 20 more years in prison.

Update on the update: the court date got moved, Hovind's set to be tried for mail fraud on January 5th Hertzy (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You people do realize that the criminal trial is unrelated to the RMF case, right? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at least as far as the RMF case can be discussed on this page. Hertzy (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes as least as far as what? You people do realize the criminal trial is unrelated to the RMF case, right? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(Whole lotta not a lawyer caveats here)The outcome of that trial could be used for substantiation of claims, right? The civil trial is based in the US, and truth as absolute defense against libel is still a thing, right? I'm aware their allegations aren't specifically about the charges existing, but rather a misrepresentation, but findings from one trial can be cited as evidence in another.

We're mostly here just watching as helpless observers, and peanut gallery-ing. People should probably ought to keep from doing things that might create further legal issues for rationalwiki, though. And discussing ongoing procedings is exactly that sort of problem. Ikanreed (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Was this case resolved?

I am curious on this because I have not seen any new updates?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this order, a federal judge in 2015 dismissed the case and had the court clerk close the file. This article needs to be updated to reflect that the lawsuit was dismissed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Manx / talk / contribs} 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to bother. It's irrelevant, as all cases against the RMF end up being. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne is wrong, and I've added it. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

I was speaking in the future past tense, of course. ;P oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk)

Ah. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Timey wimey wobbly bobbly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to do something that's meaningless, by all means, be my guest. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But thank you for causing me to remember that I need to look in on the court case of my pet project. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

How about adding in {{main|Ken Hovind}} at the very top of the page? I don't have permissions to do so. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)