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 (36) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 11:05 PM MT
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

      (36)

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

      Simply admit that you don't know.

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

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

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

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

      (37)

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

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

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

      (38)

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

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


      ---------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (38) From: Robert Baty Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 Time: About 11:55 PM MT Yep, as
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 6, 2013
        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
        http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

        (38)

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

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

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

        KENT HOVIND,
        Petitioner,

        v. Docket No. 4245-10.

        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
        Respondent

        O R D E R

        (excerpt)

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

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

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

        ----------------------------------------
        ----------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (39) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 7:15 AM MT Simply
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
          http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

          (39)

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

          Simply admit that you don't know.

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

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

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

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

          (40)

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

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

          (41)

          From Robert Baty

          Ed,

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

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

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

          (42)

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

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

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

          I did provide legal support to justify my question.

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

          YOU RAN !!!

          ====

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

          (43)

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

          Ed,

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

          Run, Ed, run!
          See Ed run!

          I answered your question.

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

          You lost!

          You tampered with the evidence!

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

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

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

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

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

          (44)

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

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

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

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

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

          ----------------------------------------
          ----------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (45) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 9:00 AM MT ...
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
            http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

            (45)

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

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

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

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

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

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

            > // I challenged your approach //

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

            (46)

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

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

            Insisting on FACTS rather than opinion to support
            an assertion:

            A "frivolous and groundless argument".

            (47)

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

            Ed,

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

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

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

            (48)

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

            No. Robert.

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

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

            I have already done that; you have not.

            (49)

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

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

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

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

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

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

            ------------------------------------------
            ------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (50) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 11:45 AM MT Ed:
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
              http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

              (50)

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

              Ed: "This is about SUPPORTING with FACTS"

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

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

              * No. It is NOT about FACTS. *

              (51)

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

              Ed,

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

              Man-up Ed, or continuing running!

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

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

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

              -----------------------------------------------
              -----------------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (52) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 1:00 PM MT Ed, et
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 7, 2013
                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                (52)

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

                Ed, et al:

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

                Here's the link to the article:

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

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

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

                Ed, you are welcome.

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

                  (53)

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

                  Ed,

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

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

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

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

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

                    (54)

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

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

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

                    (55)

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

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

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

                    1.

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

                    ====

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

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

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

                    My final reply:

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

                    (56)

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

                    2.

                    You are either very confused or very dishonest:

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

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

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

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

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

                    (57)

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

                    3.

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

                    4.

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

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

                    5.

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

                    6.

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

                    (58)

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

                    7. PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS.

                    =====

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

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

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

                    =========

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

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

                    =======

                    These are presumptions, Robert.
                    They are not FACT.

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

                    A PRESUMPTION is NOT A FACT.

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

                    I have repeatedly stated that I WANT FACTS !!!

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

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

                    (59)

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

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

                    =======

                    Robert Baty ---

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

                    (60)

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

                    Evasions, evasions and more evasions from Ed Umpervitch!

                    Ed, you wrote, in part:

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

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

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

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

                    What are YOUR facts, Ed; tell us plainly!

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

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

                    (61)

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

                    Posted Today, January 9, 2013

                    UNITED STATES TAX COURT
                    WASHINGTON, DC 20217

                    Kent Hovind,

                    Petitioner,

                    v. Docket No. 4245-10

                    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                    Respondent

                    O R D E R

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

                    Upon due consideration, it is

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

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

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

                    SERVED

                    (62)

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

                    Ed,

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

                    Give it a try.

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

                    (63)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Get it off your chest, Ed.

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

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