Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Carl Kaun v. Robert Baty - The Two Issues for Resolution!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182033 From: Robert Baty To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2011 Time:
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182033

      From: Robert Baty
      To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2011
      Time: 1:23 PM MT

      Subject: Carl Kaun v. Robert Baty - The Two Issues for Resolution!

      --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182013 ,
      PHarrison/interEng <intereng@...> wrote, after
      engaging his irony meter, in part:

      > I (Paul) am sure everyone appreciates
      > your (Robert's) efforts...

      ----------------------------------------------

      Whether they do or not, whether it's ironic or not, interest in the subject has been further indicated by recent comments from Carl, Doug, Tip and Paul; maybe others and maybe others have interests in such things that have not been expressed.

      We could spend time trying to come to an agreement on the previous Human-NonModerated controversy and discussing that, but I am going to propose another way; a way forward.

      I propose two propositions for discussion; primarily between Carl and me, but others may have somewhat to offer as well.

      The two propositions have been designed to address two fundamental issues and put Carl and me on a level playing field.

      The propositions have also been designed to allow Carl and I, and possibly others, to come to some agreement on certain facts; without regard to our opinions about such facts.

      I propose that the two propositions be taken up concurrently, step by step, with Carl in the lead as to his proposition and with me to follow as to my proposition.

      Here are the propositions:

      (1) Carl Kaun Proposition:

      > I, Carl Kaun, have reason to believe that
      > Robert Baty may have used confidential IRS
      > information in violation of the law.
      >
      >> Affirmed: Carl Kaun
      >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/171958
      >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/181691
      >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/181738

      (2) Robert Baty Proposition:

      > I, Robert Baty, have reason to believe that
      > Carl Kaun was arrested for driving under the
      > influence in March of 2011.
      >
      >> Affirmed: Robert Baty

      Here's how I would suggest we proceed:

      Step (1):

      > Carl confirms that the above does represent
      > his position.
      >
      > By posting this message I am confirming that
      > the above represents my position.

      Step (2):

      > Carl presents the evidence for his belief.

      Step (3):

      > I present my evidence for my belief.

      Step (4):

      > I will have opportunity to respond regarding
      > Carl's evidence.

      Step (5):

      > Carl will have opportunity to respond to my
      > evidence.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • rlbaty50
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182918 From: Robert Baty To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 10, 2011
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182918

        From: Robert Baty
        To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, December 10, 2011
        Time: 6:54 PM MT

        Subject: Re: Carl Kaun v. Robert Baty - Two Issues for Resolution!

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182917 ,
        PHarrison/interEng <intereng@...> wrote:

        > Either Carl is now even busier preparing
        > his libel suit and is too busy to post
        > to the list, or he considers engaging
        > with you on these subjects as a total
        > waste of time.
        >
        > I personally wish you would terminate the
        > whole discussion and show us what is
        > occasionally an admirable capacity for
        > investigative reporting (on the Miller
        > and Hovind cases, for instance) that
        > doesn't zero-in on the foibles of list
        > subscribers.

        ---------------------------------------------

        Paul,

        I think the logicians would note that you have presented an example of the
        "black/white fallacy".

        That is, there is one or more other alternatives as to why Carl would refuse to
        engage in an issue he has brought up and do so on a level playing field; our
        mutual beliefs regarding the criminal activity of the other.

        If you want to exercise your moral influence, you would do better to address
        yourself to Carl and see if he will "man-up" to dealing with these problems.

        I am the one operating under Carl's personal threats (e.g., the lawsuit and the
        $5,000 bounty).

        I would like to get those matters resolved, and they won't get resolved by list
        members whining about not being interested in the issues. It's up to Carl to
        "come out" and deal with, or not.

        Maybe he won't!
        Maybe the subject won't come up again!

        But if it does come up again, you might hear further from me about it.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ----------------An Earlier Post on Subject--------------

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182041 ,
        "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182038 ,
        PHarrison/interEng <intereng@...> wrote:

        > If Carl has any problems (and all of us
        > have problems of some sort), he's probably
        > capable of handling them without your, uh,
        > help.

        It's not about "if", Paul.

        Please, quit trying to derail the legitimate matters I have addressed in posting
        my original message.

        Carl's present problem, as I describe it, is in suggesting that I have been
        engaged in criminal conduct.

        I have returned the favor, as shown in my proposition.

        Now, Carl can deal with his problem and set forth the evidence for his complaint
        against me, or not.

        I will proceed accordingly.

        Carl may decide to follow Tip regarding such things, and run and hide.

        That's fine and will be noted.

        Perhaps Carl will repent and withdraw his claim about my alleged criminal
        activity involving IRS records.

        We will see.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        --------------------My Original Message---------------

        --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182013 ,
        PHarrison/interEng <intereng@...> wrote, after
        engaging his irony meter, in part:

        > I (Paul) am sure everyone appreciates
        > your (Robert's) efforts...

        Whether they do or not, whether it's ironic or not, interest in the subject has
        been further indicated by recent comments from Carl, Doug, Tip and Paul; maybe
        others and maybe others have interests in such things that have not been
        expressed.

        We could spend time trying to come to an agreement on the previous
        Human-NonModerated controversy and discussing that, but I am going to propose
        another way; a way forward.

        I propose two propositions for discussion; primarily between Carl and me, but
        others may have somewhat to offer as well.

        The two propositions have been designed to address two fundamental issues and
        put Carl and me on a level playing field.

        The propositions have also been designed to allow Carl and I, and possibly
        others, to come to some agreement on certain facts; without regard to our
        opinions about such facts.

        I propose that the two propositions be taken up concurrently, step by step, with
        Carl in the lead as to his proposition and with me to follow as to my
        proposition.

        Here are the propositions:

        (1) Carl Kaun Proposition:

        > I, Carl Kaun, have reason to believe that
        > Robert Baty may have used confidential IRS
        > information in violation of the law.
        >
        >> Affirmed: Carl Kaun
        >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/171958
        >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/181691
        >> See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/181738

        (2) Robert Baty Proposition:

        > I, Robert Baty, have reason to believe that
        > Carl Kaun was arrested for driving under the
        > influence in March of 2011.
        >
        >> Affirmed: Robert Baty

        Here's how I would suggest we proceed:

        Step (1):

        > Carl confirms that the above does represent
        > his position.
        >
        > By posting this message I am confirming that
        > the above represents my position.

        Step (2):

        > Carl presents the evidence for his belief.

        Step (3):

        > I present my evidence for my belief.

        Step (4):

        > I will have opportunity to respond regarding
        > Carl's evidence.

        Step (5):

        > Carl will have opportunity to respond to my
        > evidence.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ---------------------------------------------
        ---------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182923 From: Robert Baty To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 10, 2011
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182923

          From: Robert Baty
          To: Human-NonModerated@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Saturday, December 10, 2011
          Time: 7:39 PM MT

          Subject: Re: Carl Kaun v. Robert Baty - Two Issues for Resolution!

          See my earlier reply to Paul at:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/182918

          Paul,

          I would now like to note the following link and excerpts as an example of the
          seriousness of Carl Kaun's allegations against me:

          http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-001.html

          > 11.3.1.6 (03-07-2008)
          >
          > Unauthorized Access and Disclosures of
          > Returns or Return Information
          >
          >> An unauthorized access or disclosure is
          >> willful when it is done voluntarily and
          >> intentionally with full knowledge that
          >> it is wrong.
          >
          > 11.3.1.6.1 (03-07-2008)
          >
          > Criminal Penalties Under IRC § 7213
          >
          >> IRC § 7213 makes the willful unauthorized
          >> disclosure of a return or return information
          >> a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000,
          >> or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or
          >> both, together with the costs of prosecution.
          >>
          >> Upon conviction, officers or employees of the
          >> United States will also be dismissed from office
          >> or discharged from employment.

          I will not and should not have to provide you with any links or discussion, at
          this time, regarding the public issue involving driving while intoxicated.

          Carl, no doubt, has an advantage on me in that he knows full well what the basis
          of my belief is regarding my proposition.

          If Carl can rebut it, I will change my belief accordingly.

          I, however, have no idea what Carl is talking about when he alleges I may be
          guilty of some unauthorized disclosure of IRS information.

          Will Carl "come out" and deal with what ever it is he is talking about regarding
          me and the IRS information?

          If I can't rebut Carl's evidence, maybe I can be Hovind's celly!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • rlbaty50
          I was not aware that Tip Killingsworth and I had this in common: (1) ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/43673 , ... (2) ...
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 13, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I was not aware that Tip Killingsworth and I had this in common:

            (1)

            --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/43673 ,
            Carl Kaun wrote to Tip Killingsworth, in part:

            > Msg: 7
            > From: Carl Kaun
            >
            > Subject: Fundiegelicals are hypocrites
            > (was: Digest Reply 1-27-06a)
            >
            > That's a heinous accusation, and I'm
            > considering if I can pursue a per se
            > libel suit against you (Tip Killingsworth)
            > for it.

            (2)

            --- In Human-nonmoderated@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Human-nonmoderated/message/43652 ,
            Carl Kaun <kaun_carl@...> wrote to Tip Killingsworth,
            in part:

            > ...tell me your (Tip Killingsworth's)
            > lawyer's name, you libelous scumbag.

            ---------------------------------------------
            ---------------------------------------------

            My further comments:

            I couldn't tell where Carl Kaun pursued that, and I do not know his present intentions regarding his similar threats against me.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty50
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 20, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I ran across the following (excerpts) and thought it worth noting in this subject thread:

              > DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
              > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
              > MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2011
              > http://WWW.JUSTICE.GOV
              >
              > MICHIGAN TAX DEFIERS SENTENCED TO
              > JAIL FOR TAX FRAUD SCHEME
              >
              > WASHINGTON - David A. Cusumano of Plymouth, Mich.,
              > and Henry Nino, a resident of Northville, Mich.,
              > were sentenced today following their pleas of guilty
              > to tax evasion, the Justice Department and Internal
              > Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)
              > announced today.
              >
              > Both men paid tax fraud promoters...to
              >
              >> submit frivolous and obstructive...
              >>
              >> including
              >>
              >> false complaints that wrongly accused
              >> IRS employees of criminal activity.

              --------------------------------------------------
              --------------------------------------------------
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.