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 (45) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 9:00 AM MT ...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.