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 (39) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 7:15 AM MT Simply
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.