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

Re: Who in the world is Ed Umpervitch?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            (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 5 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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 18 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 19 of 25 , Jan 9, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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.