USA V Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts (1 of 8)
USA V Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts (1 of 8)
USA V Kent Hovind Trial Transcripts (1 of 8)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KENT E. HOVIND
)
and JO D. HOVIND,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
CASE NO.
3:06cr83/MCR
Pensacola,Florida
February 28, 2007
8:35 A.M.
2
8:32AM
(Court in session.)
(Defendants present.)
THE COURT:
Good morning.
acquittal.
9
10
11
12
MR. RICHEY:
begin.
13
THE COURT:
14
15
16
MR. BARRINGER:
17
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. BARRINGER:
Yes, sir.
We have consistently argued in this
20
21
22
23
September of this past year, ruled in part that it was too late
24
25
But even
3
8:37AM
5
6
7
THE COURT:
We're
10
MR. BARRINGER:
Absolutely.
11
12
13
14
15
16
THE COURT:
Okay.
17
MR. BARRINGER:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
8:38AM
are still dealing with today which was if you don't allege a
not -- and again, I'm not making an issue of whether or not the
Ratzlaf decision and as the cases that talked about that say,
10
11
12
13
14
don't want the bank to know -- or they don't want the IRS to
15
16
the case that they are in of how to avoid that $10,000 amount.
17
It's not one whether or not the bank has an obligation to file
18
19
the bank would have, and every case says that, that if you
20
bring in more than 10,000 or take out more than 10,000, the
21
22
cited to and that the defense cited to and even that the
23
24
25
5
8:40AM
that.
8,000 of 50,000.
let the government -- the IRS know about $50,000 and brings in
8,000 and the wife comes in -- and the wife is then told that
requirement.
10
11
theory that on a use case, and they define the use based upon
12
13
14
15
THE COURT:
16
The cases that we have all sort of focused on, those that are
17
18
deposits.
19
MR. BARRINGER:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. BARRINGER:
22
THE COURT:
23
24
25
Yes.
6
8:41AM
regulation fit within the statute or not, but that's not really
THE COURT:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MR. BARRINGER:
Okay.
18
sum deposit, I would say, no, and I think that is in fact where
19
20
THE COURT:
21
22
withdrawals.
23
MR. BARRINGER:
24
25
7
8:43AM
much I need.
10
document.
11
12
13
period.
14
THE COURT:
It is an interesting theory of
Okay.
15
Ratzlaf and other cases seem to make that clear, that two or
16
17
18
transactions?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BARRINGER:
But do you
It says
8
8:44AM
this case, and I think that that is sort of the starting point
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
Yes.
analyzing.
8
9
MR. BARRINGER:
10
being the overall picture of the process and some of them look
11
12
money out or putting money in and breaking those two apart and
13
14
15
it's the act or the process of there being discussed, you get
16
17
18
19
20
of them deal clearly with where Ratzlaf was at and some of them
21
22
say.
23
24
25
Some
9
8:46AM
the words, what do the words mean, apply those words to what
got it made.
secretary.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
otherwise what are you evading and what purpose are you trying
18
to do?
19
20
nine, you just take it out of the bank, period, the government
21
22
23
5313(a).
24
25
When it says
THE COURT:
10
8:47AM
which the jury could reasonably conclude that the intent was to
structuring.
MR. BARRINGER:
10
THE COURT:
11
12
withdrawing $5,000.
13
MR. BARRINGER:
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. BARRINGER:
Okay.
But to say that it is a structured
16
17
18
19
20
alleged.
21
nothing for purposes of this case, but that's not true because
22
23
24
together.
25
11
8:49AM
amount.
THE COURT:
triggered.
8
9
MR. BARRINGER:
Well, okay.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
structured.
19
20
21
22
23
I have, as the
I had $18,000.
THE COURT:
Is that
your position?
MR. BARRINGER:
24
25
12
8:50AM
period.
Ratzlaf says.
have an issue of, okay, when they talk about innocent activity
takes out 9,000 this week and realizes that she needs 9,000
Without
That is what
10
11
12
of it comes in.
13
requirements?
14
avoid them?
15
16
17
18
19
THE COURT:
this.
20
MR. BARRINGER:
21
THE COURT:
I agree.
22
23
24
25
MR. BARRINGER:
Yes.
13
8:51AM
missing here?
that I'm not getting, which was the reason for the questions of
10
When you look at how these accounts are written, even the issue
11
12
13
14
15
What am I missing
THE COURT:
16
17
18
19
20
that at least Mr. Richey had been making, is that how could the
21
22
23
and I've heard it made and it's been made in writing as well.
24
And the Phipps case makes clear that that is irrelevant for
25
14
8:53AM
argument now about the actus reus part of the crime, and I
appreciate the argument that you're making, but that is why the
Court referenced Phipps in its order and that was because the
argument that was being made to me and in fact even this Cure
case was argued and cited by Mr. Richey, and I'll discuss this
with Mr. Richey in a little bit, but was cited by Mr. Richey in
judgement of acquittal.
10
MR. BARRINGER:
I don't
11
know that the argument, and I don't think I can paraphrase back
12
13
14
15
saying.
16
17
No.
18
19
20
instruction says, with what the indictment says, with what the
21
22
saying this:
23
showed that the Hovinds ever did anything that would ever
24
25
it.
15
8:55AM
the bank had a duty because the bank never would have had a
THE COURT:
viable argument.
have caused the bank to file the report or not under 5324.
MR. BARRINGER:
But
when you look at just a $9,500 check and then look at it from
10
have.
11
requirement.
12
understand what this means, but we were saying the same thing
13
14
action because none of the counts ever alleged more than the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
none of those cases have ever said just less than 10,000 all by
23
itself is enough.
24
8,000 or some of these other cases, but when you look at how
25
Regardless of that, we
And no
16
8:56AM
was now, but one of them had it where it was Counts 2, 3 and 4
each.
THE COURT:
MR. BARRINGER:
9,000, and they said, no, it was all one count, and then there
was a second count there -- or a last count there that was also
sitting by itself, but even that count had more money than
10
11
caught.
12
THE COURT:
You're right.
13
14
the trial.
15
or offered to the Court were the Cure line of cases, which are
16
17
18
MR. BARRINGER:
19
THE COURT:
That's right.
20
this.
21
22
23
24
25
Do you have
a copy of it?
MR. BARRINGER:
17
8:58AM
1
2
THE COURT:
the. . .
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. BARRINGER:
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. BARRINGER:
12
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
Footnote 7.
What?
Yes.
13
parallel the provision -- I'm reading from the text now, but
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MR. BARRINGER:
21
THE COURT:
22
Yes.
definition --
23
MR. BARRINGER:
No.
24
THE COURT:
25
-- definition?
18
8:59AM
Ratzlaf.
muster with respect to whether or not they fit what the statute
is saying.
THE COURT:
All right.
you.
10
11
12
13
14
MR. BARRINGER:
Will
15
you read the last sentence, the modification that was made,
16
17
MR. BARRINGER:
Yes.
The
18
19
20
21
22
THE COURT:
23
24
25
19
9:01AM
$10,000?
MR. BARRINGER:
No.
form?
8
9
THE COURT:
10
MR. BARRINGER:
11
THE COURT:
12
Okay.
I understand.
the greater sum, if we'll use the lump sum definition, but.
13
14
MR. BARRINGER:
15
THE COURT:
Exactly.
16
MR. BARRINGER:
17
18
19
to be.
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. BARRINGER:
22
THE COURT:
23
24
25
20
9:02AM
smaller amounts.
MR. BARRINGER:
for that.
what we're arguing, but this doesn't really address what we're
THE COURT:
Okay.
10
11
MR. BARRINGER:
12
THE COURT:
Yes.
13
MR. BARRINGER:
14
charged.
15
believe.
16
right.
No.
I'm sorry.
I think that's
It is 103.11.
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. BARRINGER:
19
20
21
22
23
involved.
24
25
THE COURT:
21
9:04AM
not?
structuring?
6
7
8
9
MR. BARRINGER:
Do
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
THE COURT:
Well, what is
And
21
22
23
24
25
22
9:05AM
10,000.
requirements.
THE COURT:
deal with the lump sum definition, which is the classic case of
structuring.
10
11
12
MR. BARRINGER:
13
14
15
it can.
16
17
18
THE COURT:
legal question?
MR. BARRINGER:
19
And that
20
21
22
argument has been the regulations say we can do all these other
23
sorts of things and they quote Coney and Shirk and that was in
24
Document 181, the last response, where they work through the
25
23
9:07AM
says this.
statute controls.
10
I don't believe
I believe the
THE COURT:
But
If the
11
12
13
14
the evidence in the case was that, and I'll use the defendants
15
here just for sake of making argument and this is not the
16
evidence at the trial but this hypothetical, that Mr. and Mrs.
17
18
with one another, Mr. Hovind knew that Mrs. Hovind was going to
19
the bank that day, they had a conversation, they spoke about
20
21
Mr. Hovind told Mrs. Hovind, be sure don't withdraw any more
22
than 10,000, keep your withdrawals at, you know, $9,900, you
23
24
25
money.
What if
Okay.
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
24
9:09AM
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
MR. BARRINGER:
THE COURT:
The intent is to evade, your position -And the reason I say that.
No, no.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
position.
MR. BARRINGER:
10
11
because you just have to get the deposits to see what's there,
12
to see what -- you could get, in fact the Kushner court talks
13
14
15
things.
16
THE COURT:
We have the
17
bank account with, you know, an amount that was present in the
18
bank account the day Mrs. Hovind withdraw the sum she withdrew.
19
MR. BARRINGER:
20
21
amounts --
22
THE COURT:
Right.
23
MR. BARRINGER:
24
there.
25
I'm not
25
9:10AM
sure why the government didn't try to do what we're now talking
about in trying to figure out how much was there and saying,
rather than tip everybody off and take 10,001 out, they take
$9,500 out because they have more than enough, or whatever, but
10
11
12
13
either.
14
If I walk
15
16
from deposits.
17
18
19
IRS.
20
reporting requirement?
21
22
23
24
25
The
26
9:12AM
going to withdraw.
MR. BARRINGER:
at that point.
Number
One, could intent had been inferred that more than 10,000 was
10
you could make an allegation that they had more than 10,000,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
conversation.
18
I'll have to tell the IRS, and I have this form that I have to
19
20
I'll take 9,500 out, you could arguably even then make the
21
inference from that conversation that you knew how much it was,
22
the base -- direct evidence shows that there was more than
23
24
around that.
25
here either.
27
9:13AM
THE COURT:
Hovinds' case and accept for the sake of argument that we have
10
MR. BARRINGER:
11
12
13
14
15
more than this amount of money in the bank and with the intent
16
17
took out only $9,500 on this date, but all the other language
18
19
20
21
statutes are, much less any facts aside from the physical act
22
23
24
25
28
9:15AM
taken out because the $9,500 by itself could never have given a
charge.
3
4
THE COURT:
Okay.
make?
MR. BARRINGER:
clearer.
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. BARRINGER:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. RICHEY:
14
Mr. Richey.
Yes, Your Honor.
15
16
argument.
17
THE COURT:
Make argument.
18
19
20
21
fair time.
22
MR. RICHEY:
23
24
25
29
9:16AM
prove every count and every allegation, and the burden also
this case.
obviously, of structuring.
of problems.
10
11
12
13
14
15
during any one business day for determining whether the $10,000
16
17
18
THE COURT:
19
20
MR. RICHEY:
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. RICHEY:
I'm sorry.
It says,
I'm there.
Go ahead.
23
24
25
30
9:19AM
8
9
10
day -- $10,000.
11
12
13
important.
14
That's what
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
defined as structuring.
25
31
9:21AM
opinion.
Federal law
10
103.22(a).
It is illegal to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
9:23AM
structuring means.
what the Senate, the example that the Senate gave was, a person
criminal liability.
And
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
meaningless.
17
18
the cases that we've looked at and none of the cases that have
19
been cited set out a circumstance equal to this one here that's
20
21
22
I think we're
Was
23
Is
24
there any way to say in looking at all of these cases that the
25
33
9:25AM
you have to evade the reporting requirement, and the only way
that threshold.
10
that is.
11
12
13
14
15
16
there was more than the $9,500 in the account or more than the
17
$9,600.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
9:27AM
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
than 10,000.
21
Each financial
22
23
24
25
35
9:30AM
independent.
THE COURT:
jury instruction, would you agree that that language from the
the Cure line of cases, what we're talking about now in Phipps,
10
11
bank?
12
13
MR. RICHEY:
14
that what it did was say that in absolutely no way did the
15
16
17
18
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
20
21
22
23
THE COURT:
24
25
36
9:32AM
MR. RICHEY:
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
MR. BARRINGER:
(gg).
Is it (gg)?
I believe so.
If I might, Your Honor, I think it was
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
Okay.
Okay.
So look at 103.11(p).
So (p) says, the transaction or
10
constitute structuring.
11
THE COURT:
12
13
14
language that the Court inserted into the jury instruction when
15
16
Just a moment.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
B-u-i-l-e-s, case from this circuit and then negate the effect
24
25
Again, it
Do
37
9:33AM
MR. RICHEY:
I do not
agree because, first of all, the Court instructed the jury that
5
6
7
THE COURT:
to file a CTR.
Excuse me.
MR. RICHEY:
10
THE COURT:
What I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. RICHEY:
At no time did I
I don't recall
19
the jury was that there didn't need to be, although a single
20
21
22
threshold amount.
23
24
25
requirement.
38
9:35AM
1
2
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
I understand.
That's what prompted that regulation that
Honor --
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. RICHEY:
14
10
11
Ratzlaf specifically
looked at 5324.
5
6
3
4
All right.
changed this.
15
I'm sorry.
It's a regulation.
THE COURT:
16
congressional intent.
17
18
interpreted.
19
MR. RICHEY:
And it
20
21
22
23
to the jury because you still had to have an amount that was
24
25
itself.
39
9:37AM
THE COURT:
10
11
MR. RICHEY:
12
13
14
reporting threshold.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. RICHEY:
17
to exceed that.
18
THE COURT:
Right.
19
20
21
state that.
22
23
24
Ratzlaf.
25
40
9:39AM
MR. RICHEY:
I agree.
My
10
11
12
13
it, and I think that was the whole intent of the inclusion of
14
15
16
17
18
THE COURT:
In order to be
19
20
exceeded $10,000.
21
MR. RICHEY:
22
THE COURT:
23
making.
What you were making was -- your argument was that the
24
25
41
9:40AM
exceed 10,000.
MR. RICHEY:
looking at all these cases, the cases themselves are not that
transaction.
8
9
THE COURT:
And
Mr. Richey, but this is not the argument that you were making
10
11
12
13
MR. RICHEY:
14
THE COURT:
15
16
17
the law.
18
MR. RICHEY:
19
20
with the Court, but I believe that my argument was that the
21
22
23
have been what the government had to prove and that there was
24
insufficient evidence.
25
42
9:42AM
the actus reus, but the Court also asked us to discuss the mens
rea, and the mens rea requires that there be the knowledge of
requirement.
10
11
12
13
14
10,000 or less.
15
16
17
18
multiple transactions but also when, after the person has been
19
20
back.
21
22
23
24
25
What point
43
9:44AM
THE COURT:
MR. RICHEY:
Right.
-- but also then when the person, after
And in looking --
10
THE COURT:
Okay.
11
12
that they made in their brief to the Court, and it's very
13
14
15
16
transactions.
17
18
19
regulation.
20
with that?
21
MR. RICHEY:
No.
22
23
$10,000 amount.
24
there had to have been some way, some proof, some evidence that
25
44
9:46AM
told when they went in to withdraw from the bank that, well,
In one of the
10
In
11
12
13
14
15
THE COURT:
16
and the Court has already ruled that there was sufficient
17
18
19
20
transaction.
21
MR. RICHEY:
22
23
24
25
45
9:47AM
2
3
4
5
THE COURT:
turn.
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
MS. HELDMYER:
It's her
Good morning.
Your Honor, this case seems to be
10
11
arguing that the issue is that the indictment must charge and
12
13
14
15
16
17
We, of
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In this
The
46
9:49AM
withdrawal.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
institution.
22
23
24
25
47
9:51AM
they have covered all the possible ways the defendants have
reporting requirements.
10
11
So clearly, what
12
13
14
15
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. HELDMYER:
18
THE COURT:
19
about the individual going into the bank and being told by the
20
21
22
MS. HELDMYER:
23
24
25
48
9:52AM
structuring.
can't be because there are too many ways that people can come
activity with currency and you combine it with the mens rea and
I know I'm being very, very broad here, but the statute is
10
11
THE COURT:
12
government's position, how is the actus reus and the mens rea
13
different?
14
mean, you infer the intent from the act of structuring and --
15
16
MS. HELDMYER:
19
Honor.
17
18
THE COURT:
case.
MS. HELDMYER:
In this
20
21
22
of the defendant.
23
24
that she went irregularly into the bank and conducted these
25
49
9:54AM
money to get out of the bank and regardless of the fact that
We have
going to be filed and that there are signs up all over the bank
10
and the report, the 2 o'clock -- I'm missing the word here --
11
12
13
14
15
case.
16
also had the conversation that Brian Popp testified about where
17
18
19
20
21
that, and I'm not sure that Mr. Richey is correct about the
22
23
24
25
We
I would
50
9:55AM
But even if that's not the case, Your Honor, we had plenty of
case, that the defendants had the requisite mens rea as well.
6
7
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
Sure.
10
11
12
13
14
intent element for each of the defendants is, what, from the
15
16
Mrs. Hovind?
17
18
MS. HELDMYER:
19
with the Court that that was the vast majority of the evidence
20
presented.
21
22
pattern, but I certainly agree that that was the bulk of the
23
evidence from which the jury can conclude intent in this case,
24
25
51
9:57AM
The
we did because each and every time, as the Court pointed out,
each and every time she went in there, she had more than
their labor cost obligations were, the salaries, the wages that
they were paying out, were substantially more than the 95- or
$9,600 that she was getting out each and every time.
So what
10
we were able to prove is not only that she had available to her
11
more than $10,000, we also proved that she needed more than
12
$10,000 for the purpose for which she was using the money.
13
14
15
case and that she purposely did not get out as much money as
16
she needed every time that she went, in fact leading her to go
17
18
19
occasions to get out more money, each time less than that
20
$10,000 amount.
So
21
22
THE COURT:
23
24
25
each individual count in the indictment can stand on its own -MS. HELDMYER: Yes, Your Honor.
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
52
9:59AM
1
2
THE COURT:
offense.
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
Yes.
MS. HELDMYER:
All right.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that in a source case when you start with one lump sum of
19
money, that that lump sum of money, once you get that and then
20
21
are over $10,000, that that is one count, because in order for
22
23
24
25
that.
53
10:00AM
You do not have a lump sum of money that you start with.
have each individual act, each time she went to the bank.
time money was withdrawn from the bank, it was withdrawn from a
You
Each
10
The source
11
of that money could have been -- was different every time she
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They were
So there was
54
10:02AM
these transactions.
picture and you eliminate the fact that there's already been an
indictment and you look at it and you try and figure out a way
10
11
12
13
14
prosecution is.
15
16
THE COURT:
The Court
Coney?
17
MS. HELDMYER:
And this is
18
unusual.
19
20
21
charged.
22
use cases.
23
of prosecution.
24
would have been to charge one count flowing over the whole
25
55
10:03AM
particular case.
But I believe that to charge it any other way would have been
would have charged one count per week, that would have been
If I
10
random.
11
12
13
or one count.
14
15
in this case.
16
decides that, the net effect, even if the Court feels that
17
argument wasn't waived, the net effect is the same, one count
18
19
20
21
22
23
THE COURT:
24
25
56
10:05AM
cases, the Davenport line of cases were dealing with just that
issue, but I really don't -- and they can correct me when they
multiplicity argument.
10
11
12
MS. HELDMYER:
13
14
15
16
17
are making the same analogy, but they are making a wrong
18
19
20
21
22
THE COURT:
Certainly,
They
I mean,
23
24
25
57
10:06AM
1
2
defense was making the same argument in Shirk that the defense
I think
10
11
argument they are making here, which just simply isn't true.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
two times.
20
bank, which she did not withdraw, and we have the larger amount
21
22
23
24
25
We proved
58
10:08AM
in to get $9,600, she had $9,601 in the bank, then I don't know
that we would have a crime, but that's not what we have here.
there was an over $10,000 need, and that the decision was made
to withdraw $9,500.
Ratzlaf.
10
11
12
13
willfulness case.
14
15
period.
16
17
18
structuring.
19
20
21
them.
22
23
Ratzlaf was a
24
case, but I'm certainly not the only one to conclude that they
25
only cited the relevant portion, that the portion that was
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
59
10:09AM
first words that are written were before the section describing
relevant.
for this case agrees with our position that they were only
structuring regulation.
9
10
THE COURT:
regulations?
11
MS. HELDMYER:
12
been used by every case, every court that has ever considered
13
14
15
16
There's not been a court, there's not been a case cited by the
17
18
19
court.
20
21
22
certainly guidelines, at the very least, that the Court can use
23
24
25
law that has cited Ratzlaf and cited the regulations, nobody
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
60
10:11AM
with any of the arguments that the Court -- that the government
subsequent to Ratzlaf.
years now, and no one has ever come up with an argument, that I
structuring.
THE COURT:
10
11
12
13
14
15
to the jury instructions and how the Court instructed the jury
16
17
MS. HELDMYER:
He
I would
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court can -- even if the Court finds that -- and we don't even
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
The
61
10:13AM
agree with this, but even if the Court finds that there was
10
11
instruction on materiality.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
the offense.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fact that during the course of the trial, we did in fact prove
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
62
10:15AM
that there was over $10,000 involved in each and every one of
these transactions.
went to the bank, we were able to show that there was $10,000
in the bank at least available to her and that her need was
limit as well.
8
9
THE COURT:
argument before.
Now, am I right?
10
11
12
MS. HELDMYER:
And in fairness to
13
memo of January 26th, I believe was the first time -- was the
14
first time that they argued the unit of the crime and the unit
15
16
17
18
19
standalone crime.
20
THE COURT:
Sure.
21
22
think I've heard the argument as far as the bank account and
23
then also in terms of the money that may have been needed to
24
25
63
10:17AM
THE COURT:
source prosecution?
MS. HELDMYER:
Exactly.
10
are in.
11
all the records that were seized from CSE are in evidence and
12
anyone can look at them and see what the actual labor needs
13
14
15
the Court.
16
The labor, all the labor charts and the labor needs,
THE COURT:
17
18
19
20
MS. HELDMYER:
21
Honor.
22
23
24
25
THE COURT:
Do
But we do
I understand this
64
10:18AM
needs.
3
4
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
MS. HELDMYER:
Where?
need -- I think Brian Popp was probably the most specific about
10
11
12
13
recall where Mr. Hovind is talking about how they are going to
14
stop actually because it was too much cash for her to be going
15
16
17
18
testified about the cash that was obtained by Mrs. Hovind and
19
20
21
22
23
of elimination, you can see that the cash was primarily used if
24
25
So
So by process
65
10:20AM
the argument?
MS. HELDMYER:
as well.
10
11
time.
12
government's problem.
13
14
15
16
17
indictment.
18
THE COURT:
19
20
21
22
23
hasn't been used at any time in this case up until the day the
24
25
And
66
10:22AM
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
Document 847.
Yeah.
argument that I felt came close to, if not did actually raise a
question as to the --
10
11
12
13
14
MS. HELDMYER:
15
THE COURT:
16
MS. HELDMYER:
An offense.
An offense.
Excuse me.
I don't necessarily
17
18
19
20
21
grounds are quite different than what we're arguing here today.
22
23
24
THE COURT:
25
Okay.
Okay.
I do believe that,
I believe the
67
10:24AM
MS. HELDMYER:
THE COURT:
minutes and come back in, and I'll hear rebuttal from defense
counsel.
10:35.
(Recess.)
THE COURT:
We'll
MR. BARRINGER:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
arguments.
19
period.
20
21
where it was three checks for the first count and then the
22
23
over $10,000.
24
25
I reread Nall.
68
10:36AM
10
11
12
that first part, because the Court has defined as the Eleventh
13
14
15
16
17
18
first one is that there is more than $10,000 in the bank and,
19
20
21
is more than $10,000 sitting in the bank, but that's not what
22
the charge was and it's not even what the instruction
23
24
25
The
69
10:37AM
less than 10,000, the multiple of less gets you to the more
than 10,000.
4
5
THE COURT:
MR. BARRINGER:
10
11
12
the extra language that the Court added, does that really
13
14
now?
15
THE COURT:
16
17
18
interpreted it.
19
20
addressing.
21
MR. BARRINGER:
22
other things that Ms. Heldmyer said, she referenced the fact
23
that evidence was adduced, deduced, whatever word that is, that
24
25
employees.
70
10:39AM
but direct examination, when asked that question, can you find
the correlation?
out?
fit, yet again, with where the government's position is, first,
There
10
11
after the trial to make the indictment still hold with the
12
13
14
15
was along the lines of, do you need -- or what do you need to
16
show that each count demonstrates that the defendants knew and
17
18
19
of the statute?
20
21
22
23
if they have to look at, okay, look what the Hovinds did for 13
24
25
71
10:40AM
has admitted that each count has to establish the facts in and
of itself.
transactions?
The government
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
answer.
21
to be perfectly honest.
22
could show, it was happening at the time that the money was not
23
24
25
The
But
72
10:42AM
1
2
but it points out once again, number one, we're not arguing
have to get over or look at all the other counts or look at all
10
11
12
want to make that point that that's something that has jumped
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
because if you flip to page 136, the ones everybody cited to,
23
24
25
It is illegal to
73
10:43AM
rebuttal and what I was talking about, that's exactly the same
transactions.
shown that.
In terms of what
10
that it's only 9,500 or only 9,600 for each of the counts,
11
nothing more.
12
THE COURT:
13
14
15
16
17
MR. BARRINGER:
Do you agree?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
10:45AM
1
2
MR. BARRINGER:
argued to the jury, we're limited in what we can say based upon
what the instructions are and where -- what we're telling the
instruction.
9
10
11
THE COURT:
I believe I objected to
instruction?
MR. BARRINGER:
12
13
currency meant.
14
15
16
17
entirety of it.
18
19
20
21
it is as, the Court defines it, I'm now going to read you the
22
23
24
25
of that nature.
And
This is
75
10:46AM
Ratzlaf now support exactly what the defendants have argued all
along.
saying something different, and I'm not sure that -- that it's
8
9
10
and say, well, we showed evasion by saying that they knew what
11
12
believe it was Anne Dyson was the one from Amsouth that
13
14
told a client, never told a customer that she would file ever
15
file -- ever tell anyone they were going to file a CTR, never
16
17
18
business days tells you when the bank's business day is going
19
20
21
10,000 and you bring it in the first day and you bring it in
22
the second day, then you've covered it, I don't believe anybody
23
24
25
and can suddenly see signs that say $10,000 is the amount, if
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
That doesn't
76
10:47AM
I don't think
were, and where the arguments were, and where the case law is,
not regulations, but where the case law is, none of these
charges is a crime.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
10
Mr. Richey.
11
MR. RICHEY:
12
13
14
15
16
So this is clearly a
17
18
with is that Ms. Heldmyer stated that Ratzlaf is not the only
19
definition of structuring.
20
21
22
defendants know?
23
structuring a transaction.
24
25
77
10:49AM
meaningless.
the Court.
10
11
12
THE COURT:
There is
13
Mr. Barringer.
14
15
16
charged here?
17
MR. RICHEY:
18
support that, Your Honor, no case law that would support one
19
transaction.
20
They have --
THE COURT:
21
for.
22
23
24
25
and the check was cashed for 9,000 and they were told that if
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
Now, there
78
10:51AM
whatever the situation were, that it would file a CTR and they
chose then not to take the additional amount and somehow that
got back to the government and they were charged with that one
way.
Count 13.
10
11
12
13
believe, argued that they proved and argued that the defendants
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The
And so
21
22
of $3,000 and steadily grew, and even the evidence showed that
23
24
Agent Evans testified that those were not -- they didn't charge
25
79
10:53AM
a new novel argument that the government has made today, and
there.
So that is
withdrawing that.
10
11
12
And some
13
14
15
16
17
18
you're running into a problem where some of them are being held
19
20
21
22
THE COURT:
Thank you.
23
All right.
24
deal to consider.
25
question and do my very best to have an order for you all in,
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502
80
10:55AM
8
9
This is
MR. BARRINGER:
I don't believe
10
I've
11
12
13
14
THE COURT:
15
16
level calculation.
Is that right?
17
MR. BARRINGER:
18
MS. HELDMYER:
19
THE COURT:
20
21
22
23
24
25
Okay.
Anything else?
81
10:56AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
s/Gwen B. Kesinger
12-30-07
_____________________________
________________
Date
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gwen B. Kesinger, RPR, FCRR
Official United States Court Reporter
Pensacola, Florida 32502