I don't know the exact nature of the 'Ornithiscia and Saurischia' scenario or whether or not deceit was employed,
i'll elaborate. there are two kinds of dinosaurs, ornithischians ("bird-hipped") and saurischian, ("lizard-hipped").
archaeopteryx is a "lizard-hipped" dinosaur. hovind claimed that this means he cannot be related to birds, because he has the wrong kind of hip.
the problem is, of course, that birds are (surpise!) saurischian, and archaeopteryx shows (suprise again!) a hip that is strongly turned backwards, a good half-way point between standard forward-facing "lizard" hips and backwards-facing bird hips. ornithischians have have a section of their hip that projects forward that birds do not have. the name is not a name of relation, but because they look similar.
but kent uses the lay-people names to make it sound like he has a really, really good point, when he in fact as no such thing. it's a trick of semantics -- we'd expect birds to have "bird hips" when they in fact do not.
the question i want to know is -- what did kent say when our friend hoag explained this relatively simple fact to him? will he continue to use the point, even though it is so obviously wrong to anyone who's studied paleontology or biology?