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 http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (23) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 4:10 PM MT Ed, You
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.