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 (52) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 Time: About 1:00 PM MT Ed, et
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.