Paul John Hansen - Is It Mortgage Fraud?

[RLBaty]

Some will recognize Paul John Hansen as Kent Hovind's sovcit authority. Last I checked, he was still a fugitive from justice out of Douglas County, NB (Omaha), but that hasn't stopped him from doing what he does. He has moved into Kent's neighborhood in Alabama and, reportedly, may have other "safe houses" outside of Nebraska that he frequents.

It appears Hansen helped Thomas J. Herbst with his "ministerial trust". Herbst appears to have transferred certain real estate into the ministerial trust in an effort to keep the property from being foreclosed after he decided to stop making payments on the mortgage.

Back in December, Hansen & Herbst got together and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to further try and protect Herbst from having the property foreclosed and/or paying the mortgage.

Link to federal Complaint:
Hansen-Herbst Federal Complaint

Things have been rocking along.
Looks like a dismissal is looming, but Hansen & Herbst are trying to keep things going.

A motion to dismiss is currently under consideration by the Court and the Court has given Hansen & Herbst an opportunity to respond to that motion.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[noblepa]

How is a "ministerial trust" supposed to protect him from foreclosure?

AFAIK, even churches can be foreclosed on, if they don't pay their mortgage. Am I wrong?

Churches are not immune from the terms of a purely civil contract, are they?

Furthermore, taking out a normal, non ministerial mortgage and then transferring into such a trust, in an attempt to avoid paying the mortgage, is, to this IANAL, a clear indication of fraudulent intent.

[RLBaty]

Furthermore, taking out a normal, non ministerial mortgage and then transferring into such a trust, in an attempt to avoid paying the mortgage, is, to this IANAL, a clear indication of fraudulent intent.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

Seems the sovcit sorts have long been associated with schemes to evade paying mortgages.

Anthony Troy Willaims comes to mind.
He got hooked up with Rudy Davis (aka LoneStar1776), who has been one of Kent Hovind's big promoters.

They finally caught up with Anthony and it looks like he may live the rest of his life behind bars.

Anthony seemed to have a scam going where he would try to help people get out of paying their mortgages.

His scam might be a little different, but of the same sort of thing Hansen is involved in with Herbst.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[northland10]

How is a "ministerial trust" supposed to protect him from foreclosure?

AFAIK, even churches can be foreclosed on, if they don't pay their mortgage. Am I wrong?

Churches are not immune from the terms of a purely civil contract, are they?

Furthermore, taking out a normal, non ministerial mortgage and then transferring into such a trust, in an attempt to avoid paying the mortgage, is, to this IANAL, a clear indication of fraudulent intent.

No "ministerial trust" could protect the property from foreclosure. The only possible thing is a legitimate trust could potentially slow the process down a bit.

I know very well from experience that a church is not free from paying a mortgage or immune from having to deal with it if the parish previously made some poor choices and over-borrowed. And while property in the Episcopal deals also with being held in trust on behalf of the diocese (the rules that prevent a Parish from leaving the church with the building), that would not protect it from foreclosure. Now, to actually sell the property, the parish has to vote to give the permission to market and sell to the vestry (a parish council) and the standing committee of the diocese has to approve that (this is based on Illinois law and Diocesan rules).

Their whole "ministerial trust" is a way of pretending they are religious in order to evade responsibility for their actions. It doesn't work that way.

There are also a great deal of local, state, and federal laws a church has to follow, including one extremely picky fire marshal. Burn down your church once a hundred years ago and they never forget.

[RLBaty]

No "ministerial trust" could protect the property from foreclosure.

Did you read my post about the sentencing last Friday of Kent Hovind's old "ministerial trust" guy Glen Stoll?

It may be that the foreclosure/mortgage issue is coincidental to the "ministerial trust" issue.

Hansen may have been trying to do for Herbst what Glen Stoll did for the Bradys (who are awaiting sentencing in their related case).

Alas, Hansen & Herbst may not be significant enough these days for law enforcement to pay them much attention.

It does seem that delay and the waste of judicial resources is taking place while the outcome is not really in doubt. That is, the Hansen-Herbst case will likely be dismissed and the property will be foreclosed if Herbst doesn't make good on the mortgage.

They lose all the way around on the merits, but win when it comes to affecting the sovcit goal of wasting the Government's time and resources.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[noblepa]

Glen Stoll's case was a criminal case, right? So, being given probation has nothing to do with protecting the asset.

It's just like taxes. A few anti-taxers have been acquitted of Income Tax evasion, but they still had to pay the tax. The acquittal just meant that they didn't go to prison or suffer even larger fines.

One must be careful not to conflate a criminal case with a civil one. Or criminal fraud with asset protection.

My point is that a court could find that Hanson did not commit criminal fraud, particularly if he can convince a jury that he is too stupid to realize that his ministerial trust scheme would not work.

But he still has to pay the mortgage, or lose the property.

Years ago, when I first began following the anti-taxers, there was a guy named Long, I believe. I think he was a follower of Irwin Schiff. Anyway Long didn't file or pay federal taxes for a long time. Finally, the IRS caught up with him and he was charged with tax evasion. He did, in fact, argue successfully that he was too stupid to realize that he had to pay taxes. The jury acquitted him.

The anti-taxers hailed this as a great victory, saying that his acquittal was a vindication of their arguments against income tax. Unfortunately, while Long didn't go to prison, he did have to pay the taxes, plus interest and penalties. It was, at best, a pyrrhic victory.

[northland10]

Some will recognize Paul John Hansen as Kent Hovind's sovcit authority. Last I checked, he was still a fugitive from justice out of Douglas County, NB (Omaha), but that hasn't stopped him from doing what he does. He has moved into Kent's neighborhood in Alabama and, reportedly, may have other "safe houses" outside of Nebraska that he frequents.

It appears Hansen helped Thomas J. Herbst with his "ministerial trust". Herbst appears to have transferred certain real estate into the ministerial trust in an effort to keep the property from being foreclosed after he decided to stop making payments on the mortgage.

Back in December, Hansen & Herbst got together and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to further try and protect Herbst from having the property foreclosed and/or paying the mortgage.

Link to federal Complaint:
Hansen-Herbst Federal Complaint

Things have been rocking along.
Looks like a dismissal is looming, but Hansen & Herbst are trying to keep things going.

A motion to dismiss is currently under consideration by the Court and the Court has given Hansen & Herbst an opportunity to respond to that motion.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

He almost managed to get it dismissed because he did not pay the filing fee so they did the pre-review and the magistrate's recommendation was to dismiss. He paid the filing fee then and the case went into a normal progression do dismissal.

He has not filed a response to the MTD, and the court has ordered that the plaintiff file a response to the MTD (which was from the beginning of March) in 14 day (the order was last week). He did file a First Amended Complaint right before that so I am not sure where it sits.

It's like he is not paying attention very well.

[RLBaty]

He has not filed a response to the MTD, and the court has ordered that the plaintiff
file a response to the MTD (which was from the beginning of March) in 14 day
(the order was last week).

He did file a First Amended Complaint right before that so I am not sure where it sits.

It's like he is not paying attention very well.

I think that ORDER last week made it clear that the "1st Amended Complaint" did not follow the Court's rules and so would not be considered.

Instead, the Court told him to answer to the Motion to Dismiss as that was the issue considered pending before the Court.

That's my take on it.

I look for the Court to grant the Motion to Dismiss regardless of what foolishness Hansen tries to pull off.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[northland10]

He has not filed a response to the MTD, and the court has ordered that the plaintiff
file a response to the MTD (which was from the beginning of March) in 14 day
(the order was last week).

He did file a First Amended Complaint right before that so I am not sure where it sits.

It's like he is not paying attention very well.

I think that ORDER last week made it clear that the "1st Amended Complaint" did not follow the Court's rules and so would not be considered.

Instead, the Court told him to answer to the Motion to Dismiss as that was the issue considered pending before the Court.

That's my take on it.

I look for the Court to grant the Motion to Dismiss regardless of what foolishness Hansen tries to pull off.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Out of laziness, I did not bother reading the order initially but just saw the docket entry.

For completeness.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.24.0.pdf

Instead of responding to the pending motion to dismiss, plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint. Plaintiff has not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). Defendants’
motion to dismiss remains pending.
On April 21, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why his failure to file an
opposition to the motion to dismiss should not waive his right to oppose the motion. The order to
show cause will be discharged. Plaintiff must respond to the pending motion to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The April 21, 2021 order to show cause is discharged; and
2. Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to the motion to dismiss within 14 days.
Dated: April 22, 2021

If anybody is actually interested in the First Amended Complaint he did file.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.23.0.pdf

Edit: Sometimes, even SovCits get boring enough, I don't bother going to deeply on Pacer.

[RLBaty]

Edit: Sometimes, even SovCits get boring enough, I don't bother going to deeply on Pacer.

Hansen just filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, asking to be allowed electronic filing privileges.

Link to motion:
Hansen Request For Electronic Filing Privileges

That's in California.

Interestingly, in Florida, in the Hansen/Hovind $500,000,000.00+ case, Hansen also tried to get electronic filing privileges and was denied.

Link to motion denial:
Hansen Denied CM/ECF Access in Florida

I am wondering why Hansen has been told he can't represent the trust in the Herbst case, or Herbst, because he is not a party to the suit or an attorney, and he's not, personally, a party to the suit.

Am I missing something on that?
How is Hansen being allowed to do anything in that case?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[northland10]

Edit: Sometimes, even SovCits get boring enough, I don't bother going to deeply on Pacer.

Hansen just filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, asking to be allowed electronic filing privileges.

Link to motion:
Hansen Request For Electronic Filing Privileges

That's in California.

Interestingly, in Florida, in the Hansen/Hovind $500,000,000.00+ case, Hansen also tried to get electronic filing privileges and was denied.

Link to motion denial:
Hansen Denied CM/ECF Access in Florida

I am wondering why Hansen has been told he can't represent the trust in the Herbst case, or Herbst, because he is not a party to the suit or an attorney, and he's not, personally, a party to the suit.

Am I missing something on that?
How is Hansen being allowed to do anything in that case?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Only an attorney admitted to practice in a specific court may represent another. While a non-attorney may be pro se, an organization cannot since they are not an individual. Therefore, that organization would need to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in that court.

[RLBaty]

Only an attorney admitted to practice in a specific court may represent another.
While a non-attorney may be pro se, an organization cannot since they are not an individual.
Therefore, that organization would need to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in that court.

That's why I can't figure out why Hansen has been allowed to do as much as he has done.

He's not an attorney and, as an individual, he has no apparent "standing" in the suit.

Maybe because Hansen listed himself, individually, as a "trustee and beneficiary" that gets him standing.

Maybe it will be made clearer in the dismissal order.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[northland10]

Only an attorney admitted to practice in a specific court may represent another.
While a non-attorney may be pro se, an organization cannot since they are not an individual.
Therefore, that organization would need to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in that court.

That's why I can't figure out why Hansen has been allowed to do as much as he has done.

He's not an attorney and, as an individual, he has no apparent "standing" in the suit.

Maybe because Hansen listed himself, individually, as a "trustee and beneficiary" that gets him standing.

Maybe it will be made clearer in the dismissal order.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

The defendants have covered this in the Motion to Dismiss (MTD), and I am pretty sure (disclaimer, IANAL) that the case will be dismissed on standing because:

B. THE HERBST TRUST CANNOT MAINTAIN LITIGATION IN PRO SE AND HANSEN HAS NO STANDING TO SUE

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.16.0.pdf

They covered other arguments, but the standing issue is obvious and I could see a judge dismissing with prejudice entirely on that issue (save for a new case with anattorney for the "trust" there is no way to cure that defect).

I also grabbed their rather long notice with lots of exhibits. In honesty, I am short on time to read it all but leave it hear for those who may be interested.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.17.0.pdf

[RLBaty]

The defendants have covered this in the Motion to Dismiss (MTD), and I am pretty sure (disclaimer, IANAL) that the case will be dismissed on standing because:

B. THE HERBST TRUST CANNOT MAINTAIN LITIGATION IN PRO SE AND HANSEN HAS NO STANDING TO SUE

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.16.0.pdf

They covered other arguments, but the standing issue is obvious and I could see a judge dismissing with prejudice entirely on that issue (save for a new case with anattorney for the "trust" there is no way to cure that defect).

I also grabbed their rather long notice with lots of exhibits. In honesty, I am short on time to read it all but leave it hear for those who may be interested.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 1.17.0.pdf

Thanks.

I may have missed that reference or forgot about it.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[noblepa]

Only an attorney admitted to practice in a specific court may represent another. While a non-attorney may be pro se, an organization cannot since they are not an individual. Therefore, that organization would need to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in that court.

Didn't Orly Taitz run into that problem when she tried to sue someone on behalf or her America's Freedom Foundation, outside of California, the only state she is licensed in. She tried to sue in the name of AMF, but wanted to be admitted pro se.

[Foggy]

She tried to sue in the name of AMF, but wanted to be admitted pro se.

She knew that AMF was not really a thing that, y'know, existed in the real world. It was really just her pretending to be an organization of some sort, and the great thing about an imaginary organization is that you can call it a corporation or a charity or anything you can dream up. So the court should have admitted her IPS (imaginary pro se).

[northland10]

Only an attorney admitted to practice in a specific court may represent another. While a non-attorney may be pro se, an organization cannot since they are not an individual. Therefore, that organization would need to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in that court.

Didn't Orly Taitz run into that problem when she tried to sue someone on behalf or her America's Freedom Foundation, outside of California, the only state she is licensed in. She tried to sue in the name of AMF, but wanted to be admitted pro se.

I think you're right.