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

Who in the world is Ed Umpervitch?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    I don t know, but he seems to be sympathetic to the plight of Kent Hovind, and has been spotted offering his opinion about such things as that and the income
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 1, 2013
      I don't know, but he seems to be sympathetic to the plight of Kent Hovind, and has been spotted offering his opinion about such things as that and the income tax in various places out and about in cyberspace.

      I posted the petition information on Hovind's own FaceBook pages and this exchange with Ed has followed:

      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

      (1)

      From: Ed Umpervitch
      Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      Time: About 11:30 AM MT

      Do you think you are a 'private' person
      or a 'public' person, Robert?

      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      Time: About 2:30 PM MT

      A little of both!

      (3)

      From: Ed Umpervitch
      Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      Time: About 2:45 PM MT

      You can't be both Robert.
      You are either 'private' or 'public'.

      (4)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      Time: About 3:15 PM MT

      Ed, I answered your question.

      You did not answer mine.

      When you do, then, if there is interest,
      we might continue the discussion and try
      to resolve whether it is possible to be
      both "public" and "private" people.

      (5)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      Time: About 2:20 PM MT

      Ed, have you signed the Kent Hovind,
      White House sponsored, petition?

      --------------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      I think I stumbled across the little game Ed plays with his private or public question. I don t know if Ed is going to return to the discussion he tried
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 1, 2013
        I think I stumbled across the little game Ed plays with his "private" or "public" question. I don't know if Ed is going to return to the discussion he tried to initiate; he may run like others.

        Elsewhere Ed posted the following analysis regarding "public" and "private":

        (6)

        https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=499426536747547&id=110281362328735&refid=17&_ft_=fbid.499426536747547

        From: Ed Umpervitch
        Date: December 15, 2012

        Are you 'Public' or 'Private' ?

        In order to be legitimately called a 'tax' or 'taxation',
        the money we pay to the government must fit all of the
        following criteria:

        1.

        The money must be used ONLY for the support of government.

        2.

        The subject of the tax must be 'liable', and responsible
        to pay for the support of government under force of law.

        3.

        The money must go toward a 'public purpose' rather...
        than a 'private purpose'.

        4.

        The monies cannot be described as wealth transfer between
        two people or classes of people within society.

        5.

        The monies paid *cannot* aid one group of private
        individuals in society at the expense of another group,
        because this violates the concept of equal protection of
        law for all citizens found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth
        Amendment.

        If the monies demanded by government do *not* fit *all*
        of the above requirements, then they are being used for
        a 'private' purpose and *cannot* be called 'taxes' or
        'taxation', according to the Supreme Court.

        ===========================================================

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

        I don't know, but he seems to be sympathetic to the plight of Kent Hovind, and
        has been spotted offering his opinion about such things as that and the income
        tax in various places out and about in cyberspace.

        I posted the petition information on Hovind's own FaceBook pages and this
        exchange with Ed has followed:

        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
        http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

        (1)

        From: Ed Umpervitch
        Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
        Time: About 11:30 AM MT

        Do you think you are a 'private' person
        or a 'public' person, Robert?

        (2)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
        Time: About 2:30 PM MT

        A little of both!

        (3)

        From: Ed Umpervitch
        Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
        Time: About 2:45 PM MT

        You can't be both Robert.
        You are either 'private' or 'public'.

        (4)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
        Time: About 3:15 PM MT

        Ed, I answered your question.

        You did not answer mine.

        When you do, then, if there is interest,
        we might continue the discussion and try
        to resolve whether it is possible to be
        both "public" and "private" people.

        (5)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
        Time: About 2:20 PM MT

        Ed, have you signed the Kent Hovind,
        White House sponsored, petition?

        --------------------------------------------
        --------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts (7) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 Time: About 4:40 PM MT There is a distinction
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 1, 2013
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts

          (7)

          From: Ed Umpervitch
          Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
          Time: About 4:40 PM MT

          There is a distinction between 'public' and 'private'

          In order to be legitimately called a 'tax' or 'taxation',
          the money we pay to the government must fit all of the
          following criteria:

          1. The money must be used ONLY for the support of government.

          2. The subject of the tax must be 'liable', and responsible
          to pay for the support of government under force of law.

          3. The money must go toward a 'public purpose' rather than
          a 'private purpose'.

          4. The monies cannot be described as wealth transfer between
          two people or classes of people within society.

          5. The monies paid *cannot* aid one group of private
          individuals in society at the expense of another group,
          because this violates the concept of equal protection of
          law for all citizens found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth
          Amendment.

          If the monies demanded by government do *not* fit *all*
          of the above requirements, then they are being used for
          a 'private' purpose and *cannot* be called 'taxes' or
          'taxation', according to the Supreme Court.

          If you care not to state whether you are 'public' or
          'private', that is fine... The only issue that has to
          be acknowledged [before potentially moving on] is that
          there is a distinction between 'public' and 'private'.

          (8)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
          Time: About 5:05 PM MT

          I didn't notice, Ed.

          Are you claiming you are ONLY "public" or ONLY "private"
          as to who you are, what you are?



          -------------------------------------------
          -------------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (9) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 Time: About
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 2, 2013
            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
            http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

            (9)

            From: Ed Umpervitch
            Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
            Time: About 7:30 AM MT

            Let's get back to your post, Robert:

            > // One way to level the playing field
            > regarding who pays for what through
            > taxes which are part of the cost of
            > our civilization is to allow "ministers"
            > to pay income taxes like normal folks. //

            I maintain hypothetical "Minister Joe" is 'private'
            and not 'public'.

            You would hypothetically maintain hypothetical
            "Minister Joe" is both 'private' and 'public'.

            I maintain that hypothetical "Minister Joe'
            cannot be both 'private' and 'public'.

            Why would you PRESUME hypothetically maintain
            hypothetical "Minister Joe" is both 'public'
            and 'private'?

            (10)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
            Time: About 8:40 AM MT

            Ed,

            Did I miss something here?

            You asked me a question, complained about my
            answer, and have yet to answer the question
            yourself.

            Did I miss your answer?

            Do you consider yourself ONLY a "private"
            person or ONLY a "public" person?

            You might also quit beating around bushes
            and tell me clearly what the point of your
            exercise is designed to reach by way of a
            conclusion regarding, in this case, the
            propriety of our U.S. income tax law; in
            plain english, Ed!

            ------------------------------------------
            ------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (11) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 Time: About
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 2, 2013
              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
              http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

              (11)

              From: Ed Umpervitch
              Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
              Time: About 9:00 AM MT

              Yes, you are missing something: The purpose and
              intent of the question in reference to your post.

              The purpose and intent of the question is for you
              to demonstrate what you PRESUME to be 'true' is 'true'.

              The purpose and intent of the question and the potential
              follow up questions is for you to realize that what you
              PRESUME to be 'true' you cannot support as 'true', but
              only PRESUMPTION.

              I can tell you what I THINK to be true -- and all that
              becomes is an "is to / is not" waste of time.

              I can DEMONSTRATE this to you instead -- if you care
              to accept the challenge.

              Or you can keep "missing something": The purpose and
              intent of the question in reference to your post.

              (12)

              From: Robert Baty
              Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
              Time: About 9:05 AM MT

              Ed,

              Maybe a case study would be helpful in trying to deal
              with your problems.

              The U.S. Tax Court recently entered a decision in the
              case of Jo Hovind, Kent's wife. A motion will be
              submitted to the Court within the next few days
              proposing that a similar decision be rendered in the
              case of Kent Hovind, which Kent has declined to prosecute.

              The Court, after Jo took her case to trial, determined
              that Jo was liable for income taxes, penalties, including
              the civil FRAUD penalty, and interest. The total liabilities,
              by my estimate, will be over $3,000,000.00.

              Here's a link to the Court's Decision:

              http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/HovindOpinion.TCM.WPD.pdf

              Here's a link to the full docket record in her case:

              https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/DocketDisplay.aspx?DocketNo=10001362

              Maybe you could explain your "public" v. "private" quibble
              in the context of our evaluation of her case.

              I don't recall her lawyers using that in an effort to defeat
              the Government's proposals and Kent apparently is not even
              going to try and prosecute his case.

              What sayeth Ed Umpervitch?

              --------------------------------
              --------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (13) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 Time: About
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 2, 2013
                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
                http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                (13)

                From: Ed Umpervitch
                Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
                Time: About 12:00 noon MT

                Will be away for a couple if days.
                I'll be back.
                I do have answers for you.

                (14)

                From: Robert Baty
                Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013
                Time: About 2:50 PM MT

                Ed,

                I'll try to catch your return.

                I don't like FaceBook, but I have trouble getting
                folks to "come out" to meet me elsewhere.

                I have been preserving our discussion at my place
                for purposes of the historical record. If you keep
                it up, you might earn a place in the book if it ever
                gets written.

                Things have been hopping the last few days with the
                petition, the Hovind Tax Court cases, the Cadrecha
                case, and other things I have an interest in. I have
                hardly been able to keep up with all the excitement.

                So, I would like to ask you and any other interested
                parties to join the discussions at my place which I
                think is a preferable discussion venue.

                You don't have to be a member to post messages, and
                the archives are publicly available at:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

                If you are not into YAHOO! and/or don't want to "join",
                you can participate by simply addressing your email to:

                Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                Most recent postings there deal with the Hovind induction
                to the CSRF, the coverage of the Hovind petition on the
                God Discussion forum, etc.

                See you there, or not!

                ------------------------------------
                ------------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind (15) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 1:00 PM MT Ed, I guess it s a small, small, FaceBook
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

                  (15)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                  Time: About 1:00 PM MT

                  Ed,

                  I guess it's a small, small, FaceBook world.

                  I noticed someone using your FaceBook account
                  posting notes recently at Chad Elliott's place.

                  I spent a couple of days trying to help Chad
                  Elliott with his problems, but he preferred to
                  stay in his cage and would not "come out",
                  "come clean" and deal with his problems openly
                  and honestly.

                  I even set up a couple of venues just for him:

                  (1)

                  http://www.facebook.com/TheElliottArgumentDebate

                  (2)

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EArgDeb/

                  Chad Elliott never showed up, never came out, never
                  came clean, never openly and honestly engaged in any
                  conversation designed to help him with his problems.

                  Oh, yeah, Ed, did you decide not to proceed with me
                  and that conversation about your little tax hobby?

                  -----------------------------------
                  -----------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind (16) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 3:05 PM MT ... Nope. Had other things to do. Let s get
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

                    (16)

                    From: Ed Umpervitch
                    Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                    Time: About 3:05 PM MT

                    > //Oh, yeah, Ed, did you decide not to
                    > proceed with me and that conversation
                    > about your little tax hobby? //

                    Nope.
                    Had other things to do.

                    Let's get back to your post which prompted this discussion:

                    ===========

                    > //One way to level the playing field
                    > regarding who pays for what through
                    > taxes which are part of the cost of
                    > our civilization is to allow "ministers"
                    > to pay income taxes like normal folks. //

                    I maintain hypothetical "Minister Joe" is 'private'
                    and not 'public'.

                    You would hypothetically maintain hypothetical
                    "Minister Joe" is both 'private' and 'public'.

                    I maintain that hypothetical "Minister Joe' cannot
                    be both 'private' and 'public'.

                    Why would you PRESUME hypothetically maintain
                    hypothetical "Minister Joe" is both 'public'
                    and 'private'?

                    ==============

                    Use the information below to support your position:
                    VVV

                    (17)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                    Time: About 3:10 PM MT

                    Ed,

                    You are the one who prompted the discussion by asking,
                    without context or definition, something about whether
                    I thought I was a "public" or a "private" person.

                    I properly answered the question and you then went into
                    your hobby and have yet, as far as I noticed, declined
                    to tell us clearly whether you are ONLY a "private" or
                    ONLY a "public" person.

                    You also have not dealt with the specific case study I
                    offered for your consideration.

                    Do you consider Jo Hovind ONLY a "public" person or ONLY
                    a "private" person, and what relevance does your answer
                    have to your opinion about the decision of the U.S. Tax
                    Court recently in the case Jo Hovind brought before it?

                    Otherwise, Ed, is there some reason why your opining
                    about "public" and "private" should impress me regarding
                    the legitimacy of our United States Income Tax?

                    (The information you said would be "below" I did not find
                    "below".)

                    ----------------------------------
                    ----------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind (18) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 3:30 PM MT ... It was in response to your post -- which
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

                      (18)

                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                      Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                      Time: About 3:30 PM MT

                      > //You are the one who prompted
                      > the discussion by asking //

                      It was in response to your post -- which I
                      have now noted twice.

                      I also noted the purpose for the question.

                      (19)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                      Time: About 3:35 PM MT

                      I have also noted twice or more that you have
                      refused to answer your own question as to
                      yourself or as to the proposed case study
                      regarding the recently decided case of Jo
                      Hovind.

                      Now, Ed, is there something you are getting
                      at that you actually want to discuss, in
                      context, or not!

                      I can take it either way.

                      ------------------------------------------
                      ------------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      (21) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 3:15 PM MT VVVV US-1: Context used in matters describing our sovereign country within the
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                        (21)

                        From: Ed Umpervitch
                        Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                        Time: About 3:15 PM MT

                        VVVV

                        US-1: Context used in matters describing our
                        sovereign country within the family of nations

                        US-2: Context used to designate the territory
                        over which the Federal Government is sovereign

                        - Statuatory citizen & national
                        - 8 USC 1401 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(A)

                        - District of Columbia; Territories belonging
                        - to US: Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Island,
                        - Northern Mariana Islands

                        - Statutory nationals but not citizens
                        - 8 USC 1408 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B)
                        - American Samoa, Swains Island

                        US-3: Context used regarding the sovereign
                        states of the Union united by and under the
                        Constitution

                        - Constitutional Citizen/ national
                        - 8 USC 1101(a)(21); Amdmt XIV of Const; Law of Nations
                        - Constitutional but not statuatory "State" of the Union

                        ================================================

                        1) Constitutional "Citizen": Article 1, Section 2,
                        Clause 2, United States Constitution

                        2) Constitutional "citizen of the United States":
                        Fourteenth Amendment

                        3) Statuatory "non-citizen national": 8 USC 1101(a)
                        (21) and 8 USC 1452

                        4) "Subject to THE jurisdiction" of the CONSTITUTIONAL
                        United States: POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction
                        of the Constitutional but not STATUATORY "United States".

                        5) Statuatory "U.S. citizen": 26 USC 3121(e); 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)

                        6) Statuatory "national and citizen" per 8 USC 1401

                        7) Statuatory "national but not citizen of the United States
                        AT BIRTH: 8 USC 1408

                        8.) Statuatory "national of the United States":
                        8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B)

                        9) Statuatory "U.S. person": 26 USC 7701(a)(30)

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

                        (22)

                        From: Robert Baty
                        Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                        Time: About 3:45 PM MT

                        Ed,

                        I just noticed that extra post you posted that I
                        didn't see until after I posted my query about what
                        you were referring to.

                        It is not particularly meaningful for purposes of
                        this discussion.

                        Let me try to make it easy for you to understand my
                        interest in and position regarding the nature of
                        persons and the applicability of our income tax law.

                        I do not think it matters one whit whether or not
                        you or I think Jo Hovind is ONLY a "public" person
                        or ONLY a "private" person.

                        The U.S. Tax Court, in my opinion, for what it is
                        worth, recently found Jo Hovind liable for certain
                        income taxes, penalties and interest in amounts in
                        excess of $3,000,000.00.

                        Now, if you want to discuss the failure of her lawyers
                        to properly represent her interests in the case, you
                        are welcome to proceed.

                        I may have somewhat to offer to that discussion.


                        ----------------------------
                        ----------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (23) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 4:10 PM MT Ed, You
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                          http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                          (23)

                          From: Robert Baty
                          Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                          Time: About 4:10 PM MT

                          Ed,

                          You might also consider making application of your
                          hobby to Kent Hovind's own U.S. Tax Court case which
                          is on the verge of being decided. A motion for entry
                          of decision is due to be filed with the Court no later
                          than tomorrow.

                          Here's something the Court noted earlier which I think
                          has application to what you are trying to avoid facing
                          head-on:

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

                          KENT HOVIND,
                          Petitioner,

                          v. Docket No. 4245-10.

                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                          Respondent

                          O R D E R

                          (excerpt)

                          (T)he Court notes that the record in this
                          case is replete with patently frivolous and
                          groundless arguments by petitioner, acting
                          by and through his counsel, Mr. Jerold W.
                          Barringer.

                          Petitioner is advised that I.R.C. section
                          6673(a) (1) authorizes the Tax Court to
                          require a taxpayer to pay to the United
                          States a penalty of up to $25,000 whenever
                          it appears that proceedings have been
                          instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
                          primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's
                          position in such proceedings is frivolous
                          or groundless.

                          We take this opportunity to admonish both
                          petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Jerold W.
                          Barringer, that the Court will consider
                          imposing such penalties should they
                          continue to advance arguments that are
                          frivolous or primarily for delay.

                          ----------------------------------------
                          ----------------------------------------
                        • rlbaty50
                          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (24) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
                            http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                            (24)

                            From: Ed Umpervitch
                            Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                            Time: About 4:15 PM MT

                            Enough games, Robert.

                            You claimed to be something but you continually
                            danced around supporting that claim.

                            (25)

                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                            Time: About 4:20 PM MT

                            Ed, indeed, enough games.

                            Tell us clearly, do you think you, Jo Hovind,
                            Kent Hovind, me, et al, are ONLY "public" persons
                            or ONLY "private" persons and what, if anything you,
                            whoever you are and for whatever what you think
                            matters, think it has to do with the application
                            of our U.S. Income Tax to folks like Jo Hovind
                            who most recently had the U.S. Tax Court, whose
                            jurisdiction she invoked, rule that she was liable
                            for amounts in excess of $3,000,000.00 for her
                            involvement in the Hovind business activities
                            (i.e., ministry)?

                            ----------------------------------------------
                            ----------------------------------------------
                          • rlbaty50
                            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (26) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 7:00 PM MT For
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                              http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                              (26)

                              From: Ed Umpervitch
                              Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                              Time: About 7:00 PM MT

                              For anyone still reading this:

                              Robert is advertising his position to repeal
                              a law.

                              I challenged him in a manner which would force
                              him to think critically and would force to him
                              PROVE what he presumes to be true.

                              Rather than support his answer, he began dancing
                              around the issue -- EVENTUALLY and INEXPLICABLY
                              introducing an unrelated 'case study' into the
                              discussion and repeatedly insisting that I address
                              the unrelated 'case study'.

                              Robert -- If you believe you are both 'public'
                              and 'private', introduce the LEGAL SUPPORT for
                              that belief.

                              I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING YOUR PRESUMPTIONS !!!

                              (27)

                              From: Robert Baty
                              Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                              Time: About 8:05 PM MT

                              Ed Umpervitch is not being open and honest in my
                              effort to engage in him what he is really up to
                              with his hobby.

                              He asked me a question, without providing any
                              context or providing any definitions.

                              I answered his question according to the truth
                              of the matter as I defined his terms; terms which
                              he thinks has some special tax meaning with
                              reference to the income tax issue he appears to
                              want his hobby to apply to.

                              Ed Umpervitch is not being open and honest at to
                              the position, fundamentally, that he appears to
                              represent.

                              If that were not the case, he could tell us clearly,
                              unequivocally, if he thinks he, Jo Hovind, Kent Hovind,
                              and I are ONLY "private" persons or ONLY "public"
                              persons and what, if anything, his answer has to do
                              with the operation of the U.S. Income Tax law as
                              recently considered in the case of Jo Hovind in the
                              U.S. Tax Court.

                              I AM INTERESTED IN WATCHING ED RUN,
                              AND HE IS RUNNING!

                              I am proposing that IRC 107 should be appealed and that
                              Obama should be compelled to publicly address this issue.

                              Maybe he will, maybe he won't. The FFRF IRC 107 Challenge
                              will proceed through the judicial system and, I suspect,
                              there won't be any legal discussion as to "public" and
                              "private" when it comes to the FFRF case or the Government
                              rebuttal thereto.

                              If Ed thinks his hobby has some relevance thereto, he is
                              welcome to give us his, as I think my Tax Court quote
                              referenced earlier, frivolous rantings on all of that.

                              ---------------------------------------------
                              ---------------------------------------------
                            • rlbaty50
                              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (I guess I was more right than I thought about Ed being on the run.
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
                                http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                (I guess I was more right than I thought about Ed being on the run. See below. -RLBaty)

                                (28)

                                From: Robert Baty
                                Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                Time: About 8:35 PM MT

                                Did anybody else notice?

                                It appears Ed, or someone else, has been tampering
                                with the evidence here.

                                That's a very serious matter.

                                It appears most of Ed's earlier entries here as
                                addressed to me have disappeared.

                                I suspect Ed is the one who has simply deleted most
                                of his previous messages addressed to me.

                                You can make your own judgment how that relates to
                                who is being open and honest in the discussion of
                                these important public issues.

                                Ed, thanks for your contribution.

                                It makes my preservation of our discussion all the
                                more valuable.

                                I would have preferred a different result, but I
                                take 'em as I finds 'em.

                                --------------------------------------------------
                                --------------------------------------------------
                              • rlbaty50
                                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (29) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 9:10 PM MT If you
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                  http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                  (29)

                                  From: Ed Umpervitch
                                  Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                  Time: About 9:10 PM MT

                                  If you believe you are both 'public' and 'private',
                                  introduce the LEGAL SUPPORT for that belief.

                                  I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING YOUR PRESUMPTIONS!!!

                                  (30)

                                  From: Robert Baty
                                  Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                  Time: About 9:45 PM MT

                                  The heading of this FaceBook page has the following:

                                  > Public Figure
                                  >
                                  > This is the OFFICIAL KENT HOVIND PAGE,
                                  > under the operation of CSE & God Quest
                                  > Ministries.

                                  Anybody here have a problem understanding what that
                                  has reference to?

                                  Ed, is there something you want to tell Kent Hovind
                                  about that?

                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                • rlbaty50
                                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (31) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 9:50 PM MT Ed, I am
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                    http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                    (31)

                                    From: Robert Baty
                                    Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                    Time: About 9:50 PM MT

                                    Ed, I am not interested in discussing my presumptions
                                    either.

                                    I'm interested in watching you perform.

                                    Alas, your apparent tampering with the evidence, I
                                    think, pretty much says enough about your willingness
                                    to openly, honestly engage in what you are really up
                                    to with your hobby.

                                    (32)

                                    From: Robert Baty
                                    Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                    Time: About 10:05 PM MT

                                    Here is something that Ed Umpervitch has run away from;
                                    so much so that he or someone else has deleted his query
                                    to me from the record here.

                                    Out of the blue, Ed Umpervitch "presumed" to query me
                                    without explanation, definition or context as follows:

                                    > From: Ed Umpervitch
                                    > Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
                                    > Time: About 11:30 AM MT
                                    >
                                    > Do you think you are a 'private' person
                                    > or a 'public' person, Robert?

                                    I answered that question, and appropriately so.

                                    It's been almost a week and despite my pleadings, Ed
                                    has not answered the following question (unless I missed it):

                                    > Do you think you are a 'private' person
                                    > or a 'public' person, Ed?

                                    Ed, is that a "yes" or a "no" and explain, in simple,
                                    plain, unambiguous english, what you think the ramifactions
                                    are of your "think so" about that.

                                    ------------------------------------
                                    ------------------------------------
                                  • rlbaty50
                                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (33) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind?ref=ts&fref=ts
                                      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                      (33)

                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                      Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                      Time: About 10:30 PM MT

                                      Simply admit that you don't know.

                                      Admit that despite your claim that you are
                                      both 'public' and 'private' that you don't
                                      know why you believe that you are both 'public'
                                      and 'private'.

                                      Admit that despite all your posturing and
                                      attempts at misdirection and redirection
                                      that you don't know why you believe you are
                                      both 'public' and 'private'.

                                      Admit that you don't know why this is significant
                                      to your petition to 'repeal the law'.

                                      SIMPLY ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW !!!

                                      (34)

                                      From: Robert Baty
                                      Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                      Time: About 10:50 PM MT

                                      I think the following pretty much sums up where
                                      Ed Umpervitch is coming from, and it seems to
                                      me he really doesn't want to openly, honestly
                                      discuss it.

                                      http://www.sovereign-citizenship.net/home.html

                                      (excerpts)

                                      > Think about it: when a private State
                                      > Citizen signs up for a birth certificate
                                      > for their newly-born child, they have
                                      > just..., and when they apply for a
                                      > social security number, and then place
                                      > their privately owned children...

                                      > If you are a private Sovereign Citizen
                                      > and your children are "off the grid"
                                      > you can...

                                      > The "laws" of this land are in a secret
                                      > language called "THE UNITED STATES CODE"

                                      > ...keep the "government" out of your
                                      > private affairs.

                                      > If you claim to be a U.S. citizen you
                                      > are in the public sector...

                                      > If you are a human and were born in a
                                      > State, you are a Sovereign State Citizen
                                      > and should not be claiming U.S. citizenship.

                                      > It's a Maxim of Law that if you don't
                                      > claim to be a Private Sovereign Human
                                      > Citizen on the record, you are presumed
                                      > to be incompetent which means that you
                                      > are a ward of the state.

                                      > We're here to help you understand the
                                      > difference between your Sovereign self
                                      > and your fictitious business birth
                                      > certificate.

                                      > Become a member of the Sovereign Family
                                      > Network

                                      (35)

                                      From: Robert Baty
                                      Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                      Time: About 10:55 PM MT

                                      Ed,

                                      Admit it, Ed, just admit what you are all about
                                      regarding your hobby.

                                      > Do you think you are a 'private'
                                      > person or a 'public' person, Ed?

                                      Ed, is that a "yes" or a "no" and explain, in
                                      simple, plain, unambiguous english, what you
                                      think the ramifactions are of your "think so"
                                      about that.

                                      -----------------------------------------------
                                      -----------------------------------------------
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (36) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 11:05 PM MT
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                        http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                        (36)

                                        From: Ed Umpervitch
                                        Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                        Time: About 11:05 PM MT

                                        Simply admit that you don't know.

                                        Admit that despite your claim that you are both
                                        'public' and 'private' that you don't know why
                                        you believe that you are both 'public' and 'private'.

                                        Admit that despite all your posturing and attempts
                                        at misdirection and redirection that you don't
                                        know why you believe you are both 'public' and
                                        'private'.

                                        Admit that you don't know why this is significant
                                        to your petition to 'repeal the law'.

                                        SIMPLY ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW !!!

                                        (37)

                                        From: Robert Baty
                                        Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                        Time: About 11:45 PM MT

                                        Ed, you are the one refusing to answer your own
                                        question and give an open, honest answer.

                                        It does make for a good show and I appreciate
                                        your antics.

                                        (38)

                                        From: Robert Baty
                                        Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                        Time: About 11:50 PM MT

                                        Ed, can you even bring yourself to explain what
                                        you know about those messages of yours that
                                        disappeared from the record above?


                                        ---------------------------------------------
                                        ---------------------------------------------
                                      • rlbaty50
                                        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (38) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 11:55 PM MT Yep, as
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                                          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                          http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                          (38)

                                          From: Robert Baty
                                          Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013
                                          Time: About 11:55 PM MT

                                          Yep, as I recall, Kent Hovind has been all over the
                                          place promoting such ideas as Ed Umpervitch is now
                                          ranting about.

                                          Now it looks like Kent and Jo are going to spending
                                          much of the rest of their lives having to deal with
                                          millions of dollars in liabilities that Ed might
                                          claim they do now owe for reasons that the Court
                                          dealt with as follows:

                                          KENT HOVIND,
                                          Petitioner,

                                          v. Docket No. 4245-10.

                                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                                          Respondent

                                          O R D E R

                                          (excerpt)

                                          (T)he Court notes that the record in this
                                          case is replete with patently frivolous and
                                          groundless arguments by petitioner, acting
                                          by and through his counsel, Mr. Jerold W.
                                          Barringer.

                                          Petitioner is advised that I.R.C. section
                                          6673(a) (1) authorizes the Tax Court to
                                          require a taxpayer to pay to the United
                                          States a penalty of up to $25,000 whenever
                                          it appears that proceedings have been
                                          instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
                                          primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's
                                          position in such proceedings is frivolous
                                          or groundless.

                                          We take this opportunity to admonish both
                                          petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Jerold W.
                                          Barringer, that the Court will consider
                                          imposing such penalties should they
                                          continue to advance arguments that are
                                          frivolous or primarily for delay.

                                          ----------------------------------------
                                          ----------------------------------------
                                        • rlbaty50
                                          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (39) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 7:15 AM MT Simply
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                            http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                            (39)

                                            From: Ed Umpervitch
                                            Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                            Time: About 7:15 AM MT

                                            Simply admit that you don't know.

                                            Admit that despite your claim that you are both
                                            'public' and 'private' that you don't know why
                                            you believe that you are both 'public' and 'private'.

                                            Admit that despite all your posturing and attempts
                                            at misdirection and redirection that you don't know
                                            why you believe you are both 'public' and 'private'.

                                            Admit that you don't know why this is significant to
                                            your petition to 'repeal the law'.

                                            SIMPLY ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW !!!

                                            (40)

                                            From: Robert Baty
                                            Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                            Time: About 7:40 AM MT

                                            Run, Ed Umpervitch, run!
                                            See Ed Umpervitch run!

                                            (41)

                                            From Robert Baty

                                            Ed,

                                            Admit it, Ed, just admit what you are all about
                                            regarding your hobby.

                                            > Do you think you are a 'private'
                                            > person or a 'public' person, Ed?

                                            Ed, is that a "yes" or a "no" and explain, in simple,
                                            plain, unambiguous english, what you think the
                                            ramifactions are of your "think so" about that.

                                            (42)

                                            From: Ed Umpervitch
                                            Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                            Time: About 7:50 AM MT

                                            > // Run, Ed Umpervitch, run!
                                            > See Ed Umpervitch run! //

                                            Says Robert Baty - The coward and fraud who has
                                            dedicated in the area of twenty posts to avoiding
                                            either proving what he thinks he knows or admitting
                                            that he doesn't know.

                                            I did provide legal support to justify my question.

                                            In fact, I gave you the legal support FOR YOU TO
                                            SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER.

                                            YOU RAN !!!

                                            ====

                                            > Robert Baty ---
                                            >
                                            > Ed,
                                            >
                                            > I just noticed that extra post you posted
                                            > that I didn't see until after I posted my
                                            > query about what you were referring to.
                                            >
                                            > It is not particularly meaningful for
                                            > purposes of this discussion.
                                            >
                                            > Let me try to make it easy for you to
                                            > understand my interest in and position
                                            > regarding the nature of persons and the
                                            > applicability of our income tax law.
                                            >
                                            > I do not think it matters one whit whether
                                            > or not you or I think Jo Hovind is ONLY a
                                            > "public" person or ONLY a "private" person.
                                            >
                                            > The U.S. Tax Court, in my opinion, for what
                                            > it is worth, recently found Jo Hovind liable
                                            > for certain income taxes, penalties and
                                            > interest in amounts in excess of $3,000,000.00.
                                            >
                                            > Now, if you want to discuss the failure of
                                            > her lawyers to properly represent her interests
                                            > in the case, you are welcome to proceed.
                                            >
                                            > I may have somewhat to offer to that discussion.

                                            (43)

                                            From: Robert Baty
                                            Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                            Time: About 7:55 AM MT

                                            Ed,

                                            You are the one acting the coward and refusing to
                                            openly, honestly deal with your own question; your
                                            own problems.

                                            Run, Ed, run!
                                            See Ed run!

                                            I answered your question.

                                            I challenged your approach to your hobby, and you ran.

                                            You lost!

                                            You tampered with the evidence!

                                            Come out, come out, Ed, if you will!

                                            If you wish to further discuss your problems, come
                                            around to my place where the historical record of our
                                            conversation is preserved.

                                            Here's the link to my place if and when you decide
                                            you can be open and honest and actually discuss matters
                                            in which we might share a mutual interest.

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

                                            Otherwise, let's look to see if the Government files
                                            that motion today in the Case of Kent Hovind v. United
                                            States.

                                            (44)

                                            From: Robert Baty
                                            Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                            Time: About 8:00 AM MT

                                            Paraphrasing from the U.S. Tax Court in the Case of
                                            Kent Hovind v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the
                                            following may be properly noted:

                                            FaceBook readers note that the record
                                            in the case of Ed Umpervitch is
                                            replete with patently frivolous and
                                            groundless arguments by Ed Umpervicth.

                                            Ed Umpervitch is advised that it
                                            appears that his antics have been
                                            instituted or maintained by him
                                            primarily for show and that his
                                            position in such discussions are
                                            frivolous or groundless.

                                            We take this opportunity to let Ed
                                            know that we are on to him.

                                            ----------------------------------------
                                            ----------------------------------------
                                          • rlbaty50
                                            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (45) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 9:00 AM MT ...
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                              http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                              (45)

                                              From: Ed Umpervitch
                                              Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                              Time: About 9:00 AM MT

                                              > // replete with patently frivolous
                                              > and groundless arguments //

                                              You might want to enlighten us as to what those
                                              "frivolous and groundless arguments' are....

                                              All I did was insist that either prove what you
                                              think you know or admit that you don't know what
                                              you claim you know.

                                              Surely everyone knows that there are criteria for
                                              being liable for US Income Tax. ie, by and large
                                              Mexicans, Canadians, French, Italians, Germans,
                                              Brazilians, infants, etc. aren't liable for US
                                              Income Tax.

                                              WHY WON'T YOU SUPPORT WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE
                                              BOTH 'PUBLIC' AND 'PRIVATE' ??

                                              > // I challenged your approach //

                                              You introduced another issue into the discussion
                                              rather prove what you think you know or admit that
                                              you don't know what you claim you know.

                                              (46)

                                              From: Ed Umpervitch
                                              Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                              Time: About 9:05 AM MT

                                              > // replete with patently frivolous
                                              > and groundless arguments //

                                              Insisting on FACTS rather than opinion to support
                                              an assertion:

                                              A "frivolous and groundless argument".

                                              (47)

                                              From: Robert Baty
                                              Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                              Time: About 10:00 AM MT

                                              Ed,

                                              If you would like a fresh start, which I think you
                                              probably need after having failed in your present
                                              effort, here's that question again that you have
                                              yet to answer and then make application to the
                                              proposed Jo Hovind case study:

                                              > Do you think you are a 'private'
                                              > person or a 'public' person, Ed?

                                              I'll look for your answer and Jo Hovind case
                                              application, Ed, upon my return later in the day.

                                              (48)

                                              From: Ed Umpervitch
                                              Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                              Time: About 10:05 AM MT

                                              No. Robert.

                                              This isn't about what I am or you are or what
                                              we believe we are.

                                              This is about SUPPORTING with FACTS what we
                                              claim to know.

                                              I have already done that; you have not.

                                              (49)

                                              From: Robert Baty
                                              Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                              Time: About 10:50 AM MT

                                              No, Ed, this is about you and your antics and your
                                              frivolous, as far as it relates to relevance regarding
                                              application to the United States Internal Revenue Code,
                                              hobby regarding "public" and "private" persons.

                                              It's all yours, Ed, and I would like to facilitate you
                                              being able to get it "off your chest".

                                              Let's try this, Ed. I'll set it up for you and then
                                              you can rant on all you want:

                                              > I, Ed Umpervitch, think I am
                                              > just a "private" person, and,
                                              > as far as that relates to the
                                              > United States Income Tax, I
                                              > think that means that________
                                              > _____________________________
                                              > _____________________________
                                              > _____________________________
                                              > _____________________________

                                              Once you complete that sentence, Ed, then folks will
                                              more clearly know what it is the Tax Court was referring
                                              to, in part, when it made reference to frivolous
                                              arguments.

                                              ------------------------------------------
                                              ------------------------------------------
                                            • rlbaty50
                                              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (50) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 11:45 AM MT Ed:
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                                http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                                (50)

                                                From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                                Time: About 11:45 AM MT

                                                Ed: "This is about SUPPORTING with FACTS"

                                                Robert: "No, Ed, this is about you"

                                                Here we have an indirect acknowledgment from a
                                                Kent Hovind detractor that he isn't interested
                                                in the FACTS:

                                                * No. It is NOT about FACTS. *

                                                (51)

                                                From: Robert Baty
                                                Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                                Time: About 11:50 AM MT

                                                Ed,

                                                It is about facts; facts about you and your hobby
                                                that you are running from dealing with having first
                                                dared to bait me with your "private" v. "public"
                                                gimmick.

                                                Man-up Ed, or continuing running!

                                                Let's try this, Ed. I'll set it up for you and
                                                then you can rant on all you want:

                                                > I, Ed Umpervitch, think I am
                                                > just a "private" person, and,
                                                > as far as that relates to the
                                                > United States Income Tax, I
                                                > think that means that________
                                                > _____________________________
                                                > _____________________________
                                                > _____________________________
                                                > _____________________________

                                                Once you complete that sentence, Ed, then folks
                                                will more clearly know what it is the Tax Court
                                                was referring to, in part, when it made reference
                                                to frivolous arguments.

                                                -----------------------------------------------
                                                -----------------------------------------------
                                              • rlbaty50
                                                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (52) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 1:00 PM MT Ed, et
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                                  http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                                  (52)

                                                  From: Robert Baty
                                                  Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                                  Time: About 1:00 PM MT

                                                  Ed, et al:

                                                  In addition to recording this discussion at my
                                                  place, I have introduced Ed Umpervitch to Steve
                                                  Forbes' Forbes On-Line magazine audience in response
                                                  to a recent comment from Forbes contributor Peter J.
                                                  Reilly.

                                                  Here's the link to the article:

                                                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/01/06/war-tax-resisters-dont-call-them-frivolous/

                                                  Ed's introduction is in one of my readers' comments
                                                  which I just posted there in response to a readers'
                                                  comment from Peter J. Reilly.

                                                  Until it is "called out", you may need to "expand
                                                  all comments" in order to view it.

                                                  Ed, you are welcome.

                                                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                • rlbaty50
                                                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (53) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 2:00 PM MT Ed, Your
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                                    http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                                    (53)

                                                    From: Robert Baty
                                                    Date: Monday, January 7, 2013
                                                    Time: About 2:00 PM MT

                                                    Ed,

                                                    Your introduction to Forbes' readers has now
                                                    been "called out". It should be viewable by all now.

                                                    So, Ed, why not try baiting some of those folks at
                                                    Forbes into your "private" v. "public" hobby?

                                                    Here's the link again, and your introduction is in
                                                    one of the readers' comments from me:

                                                    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/01/06/war-tax-resisters-dont-call-them-frivolous/

                                                    -----------------------------------------------
                                                    -----------------------------------------------
                                                  • rlbaty50
                                                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (54) ... (55) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Thursday, January 9, 2013 Time: About 8:10
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jan 9, 2013
                                                      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                                      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                                                      (54)

                                                      > From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      > Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      > Time: About 8:00 PM MT

                                                      > // rlbaty 2 days ago
                                                      >
                                                      > Peter,
                                                      >
                                                      > You said the magic words "sovereign citizens"!
                                                      >
                                                      > It just so happens that I have been jousting
                                                      > with Ed Umpervitch on Kent Hovind's FaceBook
                                                      > page about that sort of thing.
                                                      >
                                                      > While he hasn't been open and honest enough
                                                      > and come out and embrace the "sovereign citizen"
                                                      > position, he has been harping on and on and on
                                                      > about whether or not folks are "private" or
                                                      > "public" persons.
                                                      >
                                                      > I've been trying to get him to just "get it
                                                      > off his chest", but he is reluctant to actually
                                                      > come out and explain what he is getting at.
                                                      >
                                                      > Interestingly, he has deleted many of his own
                                                      > postings there, but I've got the discussion in
                                                      > my archives.
                                                      >
                                                      > For those who want to review what is currently
                                                      > available on Kent Hovind's FaceBook page, here
                                                      > is that link:
                                                      >
                                                      > http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                                                      >
                                                      > The discussion is under the Kent Hovind Christmas
                                                      > Blog entry dated December 21, 2012. The latest
                                                      > exchanges between Ed and me took place just this
                                                      > morning. //

                                                      > // rlbaty 1 day ago
                                                      >
                                                      > Where in the world is Ed Umpervitch?
                                                      >
                                                      > Peter, it just so happens that after I advised Ed,
                                                      > via the Kent Hovind FaceBook page, that I had
                                                      > introduced him to the Forbes audience as noted
                                                      > above, he has not returned to our conversation
                                                      > over there.
                                                      >
                                                      > Maybe he will be back, maybe not!
                                                      >
                                                      > It doesn't look like he's going to be showing up
                                                      > here to challenge some more worth adversaries
                                                      > regarding his "public" v. "private" hobby. //

                                                      (55)

                                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      Date: Thursday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 8:10 AM MT

                                                      Do you have the courage to copy and paste this
                                                      reply to your vanity remarks on forbes ? Not
                                                      that anyone seems to pay any attention to your
                                                      seemingly desperate pleas for attention over
                                                      there, either....

                                                      > // Peter, it just so happens that
                                                      > after I advised Ed, via the Kent
                                                      > Hovind FaceBook page, that I had
                                                      > introduced him to the Forbes audience
                                                      > as noted above, he has not returned
                                                      > to our conversation over there. //

                                                      1.

                                                      This discussion officially ended when you officially
                                                      acknowledged you were not interested in discussing
                                                      FACTS and acknowledged and demonstrated repeatedly
                                                      that you prefer to involve yourself with presumptions
                                                      of and about the personal lives of others -- prior
                                                      to your 'I advised':

                                                      ====

                                                      > Ed Umpervitch No. Robert. This isn't
                                                      > about what I am or you are or what
                                                      > we believe we are. This is about
                                                      > SUPPORTING with FACTS what we claim
                                                      > to know. I have already done that;
                                                      > you have not. Monday at 11:11am

                                                      > Robert Baty ---
                                                      >
                                                      > No, Ed, [this isn't about SUPPORTING
                                                      > with FACTS] this is about you and your
                                                      > antics and your frivolous, as far as
                                                      > it relates to relevance regarding
                                                      > application to the United States
                                                      > Internal Revenue Code, hobby regarding
                                                      > "public" and "private" persons.
                                                      >
                                                      > It's all yours, Ed, and I would like
                                                      > to facilitate you being able to get
                                                      > it "off your chest".
                                                      >
                                                      > Let's try this, Ed. I'll set it up for
                                                      > you and then you can rant on all you want:
                                                      >
                                                      > I, Ed Umpervitch, think I am
                                                      > just a "private" person, and,
                                                      > as far as that relates to the
                                                      > United States Income Tax, I
                                                      > think that means that________
                                                      > _____________________________
                                                      > _____________________________
                                                      > _____________________________
                                                      > _____________________________
                                                      >
                                                      > Once you complete that sentence, Ed,
                                                      > then folks will more clearly know what
                                                      > it is the Tax Court was referring to,
                                                      > in part, when it made reference to
                                                      > frivolous arguments.
                                                      > Monday at 1:02pm

                                                      ==============

                                                      My final reply:

                                                      > Ed Umpervitch ....
                                                      >
                                                      > Ed: "This is about SUPPORTING with FACTS"
                                                      > Robert: "No, Ed, this is about you"
                                                      >
                                                      > Here we have an indirect acknowledgment from
                                                      > a Kent Hovind detractor that he isn't interested
                                                      > in the FACTS:
                                                      >
                                                      > * No. It is NOT about FACTS. *
                                                      > Monday at 1:46pm

                                                      (56)

                                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 10:00 PM MT

                                                      2.

                                                      You are either very confused or very dishonest:

                                                      > // he has been harping on and on
                                                      > and on about whether or not folks
                                                      > are "private" or "public" persons //

                                                      You claimed you were both "private" and "public".

                                                      I have been pushing YOU to SUPPORT that claim
                                                      with FACTS which demonstrate that you [and as
                                                      I later clarified that wasn't specifically 'you'
                                                      as personal, but more in the context of anyone
                                                      in general] can be both "private" and "public".

                                                      I have not 'been harping on and on and on about
                                                      whether or not folks' are 'private' or 'public'
                                                      persons. I have been pushing for YOU to PROVE
                                                      what you THINK you know. And I WILL NOT SETTLE
                                                      for PRESUMPTIONS.

                                                      To anyone who bothers to take Robert even remotely
                                                      seriously, please review the discussion and note
                                                      that Robert has dedicated twenty-plus posts to
                                                      avoiding and evading SUPPORTING his claim with FACTS.

                                                      (57)

                                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 10:05 PM MT

                                                      3.

                                                      I did support the basis for the question. It was
                                                      also noted repeatedly that the purpose for the
                                                      question was to force you to PROVE what you think
                                                      you know.

                                                      4.

                                                      Despite your introduction and YOUR 'harping on
                                                      and on and on' concerning the finding of the U.S.
                                                      Tax Court - which has absolutely nothing to do
                                                      with SUPPORTING with FACTS why you think you can
                                                      be both 'public' and 'private' - you appear to be
                                                      oblivious to the fact that neither Kent nor Jo
                                                      Hovind were tried for nor found guilty of not
                                                      paying Income Tax !!!

                                                      GO READ THE CHARGES !!! (Try to comprehend them.)

                                                      5.

                                                      Given repeated opportunities to SUPPORT with FACTS
                                                      your position, you have dedicated in excess of
                                                      twenty posts to avoiding and evading SUPPORTING
                                                      with FACTS your position.

                                                      6.

                                                      Rather than deal with SUPPORTING with FACTS your
                                                      position, you repeatedly tried to make the discussion
                                                      personal and presumptuous, and introduce topics into
                                                      the discussion which have no place in the discussion.

                                                      (58)

                                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 10:10 PM MT

                                                      7. PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS.

                                                      =====

                                                      > Ed Umpervitch If you believe you are both
                                                      > 'public' and 'private', introduce the LEGAL
                                                      > SUPPORT for that belief.

                                                      I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING YOUR PRESUMPTIONS !!!
                                                      Sunday at 11:10pm

                                                      > Robert Baty Ed, I am not interested in
                                                      > discussing my presumptions either.

                                                      =========

                                                      > // No, Ed, this is about you and your antics
                                                      > and your frivolous, as far as it relates to
                                                      > relevance regarding application to the United
                                                      > States Internal Revenue Code //

                                                      > // I think the following pretty much sums up
                                                      > where Ed Umpervitch is coming from, and it
                                                      > seems to me he really doesn't want to openly,
                                                      > honestly discuss it.
                                                      >
                                                      > http://www sovereign-citizenship net/home.html //
                                                      >
                                                      > // You said the magic words "sovereign citizens"! //
                                                      >
                                                      > // FaceBook readers note that the record
                                                      > in the case of Ed Umpervitch is
                                                      > replete with patently frivolous and
                                                      > groundless arguments by Ed Umpervicth. //

                                                      =======

                                                      These are presumptions, Robert.
                                                      They are not FACT.

                                                      "Believing" one is both 'public' and 'private'
                                                      is a presumption, as well.

                                                      A PRESUMPTION is NOT A FACT.

                                                      Applying the word 'frivolous' is a cowardly way
                                                      of either admitting that one cannot provide the
                                                      facts or acknowledging that the providing of facts
                                                      will expose hidden deceits.

                                                      I have repeatedly stated that I WANT FACTS !!!

                                                      LET THE PEOPLE AT forbes KNOW THAT ROBERT BATY
                                                      CAN'T OR WON'T PROVIDE FACTS; MERELY PRESUMPTIONS.

                                                      LET THE PEOPLE AT forbes READ THIS THREAD IN ITS
                                                      ENTIRETY - GO AHEAD AND SHARE THE DELETED POSTS,
                                                      ROBERT - AND SEE HOW DESPERATELY EVASIVE ROBERT
                                                      BATY HAS BEEN.

                                                      (59)

                                                      From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 10:15 PM MT

                                                      P.S. - LOL at this !!! Hilarious !!!

                                                      =======

                                                      Robert Baty ---

                                                      > The heading of this FaceBook page has the following:
                                                      >
                                                      > Public Figure
                                                      >
                                                      > This is the OFFICIAL KENT HOVIND PAGE,
                                                      > under the operation of CSE & God Quest
                                                      > Ministries.
                                                      >
                                                      > Anybody here have a problem understanding
                                                      > what that has reference to?
                                                      >
                                                      > Ed, is there something you want to tell
                                                      > Kent Hovind about that?
                                                      > Sunday at 11:49pm

                                                      (60)

                                                      From: Robert Baty
                                                      Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 11:50 PM MT

                                                      Evasions, evasions and more evasions from Ed Umpervitch!

                                                      Ed, you wrote, in part:

                                                      > Do you have the courage to copy
                                                      > and paste this reply to your vanity
                                                      > remarks on forbes ? Not that anyone
                                                      > seems to pay any attention to your
                                                      > seemingly desperate pleas for
                                                      > attention over there, either....

                                                      Ed, you are the one begging for someone to pay
                                                      some attention to your frivolous "private" v.
                                                      "public" gimmick.

                                                      I judge you are more than capable of posting there
                                                      if you are serious about trying to engage others
                                                      in a discussion of your problems.

                                                      You, Ed Umpervitch, are the one, if your approach
                                                      is to be accepted, that is confused or dishonest.
                                                      I've got my own opinion about which it is, but
                                                      everyone can form their own opinion about that.

                                                      What are YOUR facts, Ed; tell us plainly!

                                                      Do you think you are a "public" person or do you
                                                      think you are a "private" person and what do you
                                                      think that has to do with liability for personal
                                                      income taxes under U.S. law and such as was recently
                                                      decided in the case of Jo Hovind?

                                                      Are you, Ed Umpervitch, in contact with the Hovind
                                                      family and considering helping them with one or more
                                                      appeals in the Tax Court cases? I hear Kent's
                                                      designated representative has had considerable
                                                      problems recently in being told he can't practice
                                                      law because of the type of behavior your are exhibiting
                                                      (i.e., making frivolous arguments)?

                                                      (61)

                                                      From: Robert Baty
                                                      Date: Thursday, January 9, 2013
                                                      Time: About 11:55 PM MT

                                                      Posted Today, January 9, 2013

                                                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT
                                                      WASHINGTON, DC 20217

                                                      Kent Hovind,

                                                      Petitioner,

                                                      v. Docket No. 4245-10

                                                      COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                                      Respondent

                                                      O R D E R

                                                      As directed by the Court in its Order dated
                                                      December 17, 2012, respondent filed a Motion
                                                      for Entry of Decision on December 26, 2012.

                                                      Upon due consideration, it is

                                                      ORDERED that, on or before January 30, 2013,
                                                      petitioner shall file an Objection, Notice
                                                      of No Objection, or other Response to
                                                      respondent's motion for entry of decision.

                                                      Failure to comply with this Order will result
                                                      in the granting of respondent's motion and entry
                                                      of decision sustaining the determinations set
                                                      forth in the notice of deficiency on which this
                                                      case is based.

                                                      (Signed) Michael B. Thornton
                                                      Chief Judge
                                                      Dated. Washington, D.C.
                                                      January 9, 2013

                                                      SERVED

                                                      (62)

                                                      From: Robert Baty
                                                      Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013
                                                      Time: About 12:10 AM MT

                                                      Ed,

                                                      If you were serious about your hobby and contacted
                                                      Peter J. Reilly at Forbes at the email address he
                                                      advertises with his blog entries, I'm pretty sure
                                                      that he would feature you and your position in a
                                                      column if you could be open and honest with him
                                                      about what you are getting at as it relates to tax
                                                      matters.

                                                      Give it a try.

                                                      I'll be looking forward to Peter's treatment of
                                                      your problem with all of that, or not.

                                                      (63)

                                                      From: Robert Baty
                                                      Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013
                                                      Time: About 12:30 AM MT

                                                      Ed Umpervitch was awarded the dishonesty prize
                                                      when he went to deleting the messages he posted
                                                      here (i.e., tampering with the evidence).

                                                      Following is where his problem started; a message
                                                      he has since deleted:

                                                      > From: Ed Umpervitch
                                                      > Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
                                                      > Time: About 11:30 AM MT
                                                      >
                                                      > Do you think you are a 'private' person
                                                      > or a 'public' person, Robert?

                                                      Ed couldn't stand it when I answered "both".

                                                      Ed can't stand it that he can't stand to tell us
                                                      clearly what his answer to the question is and what,
                                                      if anything, it has to do with the tax liabilities
                                                      recently determined by the U.S. Tax Court as to Jo
                                                      Hovind and such as are pending regarding Kent Hovind.

                                                      Ed, try to be open and honest for a change and answer
                                                      your own question:

                                                      > Do you, Ed Umpervitch, think you
                                                      > are a "private" or a "public"
                                                      > person?

                                                      And then explain what that has to do with the Hovind
                                                      tax matters that are currently before the U.S. Tax Court
                                                      and why.

                                                      Get it off your chest, Ed.

                                                      Who knows, the Hovinds just might let you handle their
                                                      appeals.

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