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 (54) ... (55) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Thursday, January 9, 2013 Time: About 8:10
    Message 1 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.