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 (31) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 9:50 PM MT Ed, I am
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.