Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ed Umpervitch v. Robert Baty on Tax Matters!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    (I am restarting this in an effort to get Ed s name spelled correctly. - RLBaty) A new start? Maybe, maybe not! http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      (I am restarting this in an effort to get Ed's name spelled correctly. - RLBaty)

      A new start?
      Maybe, maybe not!

      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

      (1)

      Proposed Step #1:

      Ed Umpervitch v. Robert Baty

      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

      > From: Ed Umpervitch
      > Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2013
      > Time: About 11:30 AM MT
      >
      > Do I think I am a "private"
      > person or a "public" person?

      And Ed Umpervitch's answer is....?????

      Will Ed Umpervitch answer his own question?


      (2)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013
      Time: About 1:20 PM MT

      Ed,

      If you won't venture onto the Forbes venue
      to propogate your hobby to the Forbes' audience,
      maybe you will come around my place where I have
      turned the light on for you:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30570

      You just need to take that first step and then
      we can discuss where we might take our chat from
      there.

      --------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      My apologies for any duplications that may show up. YAHOO! is giving me a little trouble! - RLBaty http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        My apologies for any duplications that may show up. YAHOO! is giving me a little trouble! - RLBaty

        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
        http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

        (3)

        From: Robert Baty
        Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013
        Time: About 8:35 PM MT

        Facts, Ed?

        A further example of Ed Umpervitch's obfuscations
        and evasions:

        www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

        > From: Ed Umpervitch
        > Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
        > Time: About 10:00 PM MT
        >
        > 4. Despite your introduction and YOUR
        > 'harping on and on and on' concerning
        > the finding of the U.S. Tax Court...
        > 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.)

        Ed seems to want to deliberately confuse folks
        on the issues and the difference between the
        criminal prosecutions, which resulted in
        convictions on the charges made, and the civil
        cases which both Jo and Kent asked the U.S.
        Tax Court to review.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Evasion

        > Tax Evasion
        >
        > The process whereby a person,
        > through commission of Fraud,
        > unlawfully pays less tax than
        > the law mandates.

        What the U.S. Tax Court had to say about that!

        > T.C. Memo. 2012-281
        >
        > UNITED STATES TAX COURT
        >
        > JO DELIA HOVIND,
        > Petitioner
        > v.
        > COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
        > Respondent
        >
        > Filed October 3, 2012.
        > James L. Chase, for petitioner.
        > Jason D. Laseter, for respondent.
        >
        > MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
        >
        > (excerpts)
        >
        > Conclusion
        >
        > Respondent (Commissioner) has proven by
        > clear and convincing evidence that
        > petitioner (Jo Hovind) underpaid her tax
        > liabilities for 1998-99 and 2000-06 and
        > that some part of her underpayment for
        > each year was due to fraud.
        >
        > Petitioner (Jo Hovind) has not argued
        > or introduced any credible evidence to
        > prové that any specific portion of any
        > underpayment was not attributable to
        > fraud.
        >
        > The record overwhelmingly establishes
        > that she acted with fraudulent intent.
        >
        > Accordingly, we hold that petitioner
        > is liable for the section 6663(a) fraud
        > penalties.
        >
        > To reflect the foregoing,
        > Decision will be entered
        > under Rule 155.

        A similar decision from the U.S. Tax Court may be
        coming soon in the case of Kent Hovind.

        Facts, Ed!
      • rlbaty50
        http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (4) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Friday, January 11, 2013 Time: About 1:00 AM MT Tell
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
          http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

          (4)

          From: Ed Umpervitch
          Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
          Time: About 1:00 AM MT

          Tell us the LAW Robert.
          Tell us the LIABILITY Robert.

          Tell us the SPECIFICS that make the Hovinds
          allegedly liable Robert.

          Tell us where those numbers were derived
          from Robert.

          Those are FACTS Robert.

          (5)

          From: Ed Umpervitch
          Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
          Time: About 1:05 AM MT

          You are finished Robert.
          I am done with you.

          (6)

          From: Robert Baty
          Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
          Time: About 9:30 AM MT

          Thanks for that demonstration, Ed!

          Maybe when you want to be open and honest about
          what your position is really all about you can
          then answer your own question and offer your
          rebuttal to the facts regarding the Hovind case
          study that I have presented here for consideration.

          Run, Ed, run!
          See Ed Umpervitch run!

          Your contribution to the public consideration of
          these important issues is, Ed, greatly appreciated.

          -------------------------------------
          -------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (7) From: Robert Baty Date: Friday, January 11, 2013 Time: About 1:15 PM MT Robert
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
            http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

            (7)

            From: Robert Baty
            Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
            Time: About 1:15 PM MT

            Robert Baty ---

            In one of his parting shots, Ed Umpervitch again
            makes a reference to what he calls "facts".

            So, let's review some of the alleged "facts" and
            Ed's blundering regarding them.

            Alleged Fact #1:

            Without providing context, explanation, or
            definitions, Ed Umpervitch dared to query me with
            following:

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

            Alleged Fact #2:

            I answered truthfully with:

            > A little of both!

            Alleged Fact #3:

            Ed Umpervitch has a little hobby about such things
            which he has not been willing to openly, honestly
            discuss with us here in the context of the Kent and
            Jo Hovind U.S. Tax Court cases.

            Alleged Fact #4:

            Ed Umpervitch has not been willing to tell us clearly,
            unequivocally, whether he thinks he, Ed Umpervitch is
            a "private" or "public" person and what relevance his
            thinking on the subject has to do with anything under
            consideration here.

            Alleged Fact #5:

            Ed Umpervitch, realizing his blundering, deleted his
            posting of the question to me and other related messages.

            Alleged Fact #5:

            Kent and Jo Hovind invoked the jurisdiction of the U.S.
            Tax Court for purposes of redetermining the extent they
            may be liable for taxes, penalties and interest under
            one or more of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

            Alleged Fact #6:

            In response to the request of Jo Hovind, and in consequence
            of the trial conducted as a result of such request, the U.S.
            Tax Court redetermined Jo Hovind's liabilities for tax and
            penalties, with interest to be added as provided by law.

            Alleged Fact #7:

            Despite invoking the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court for
            purposes of redetermining the liability of Kent Hovind, if
            any, Kent Hovind has not prosecuted his case and the U.S.
            Tax Court is now poised to enter its decision in the case
            based on Kent Hovind's failure to prosecute his case.

            Alleged Fact #8:

            The Kent and Jo Hovind U.S. Tax Court cases and the issues
            reflected therein are not yet considered "final". We'll
            just have to stay tuned to see how they play out and if
            Ed Umpervitch is called upon to take part in any appeals
            that are filed.

            Any many other factual allegations might be made and discussed if there is any legitimate interest in doing so.

            ------------------------------------
            ------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            Ed Umpervitch is a bit of a plagiarist, which is actually helpful. In matching up some of his claims to the claims of others of his inclination, I determined
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Ed Umpervitch is a bit of a plagiarist, which is actually helpful.

              In matching up some of his claims to the claims of others of his inclination, I determined that his claims are from the playbook at the following link, or some similar source:

              http://sedm.org/

              Example:

              (1)

              Ed Umpervitch:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30438

              > In order to be legitimately called a
              > 'tax' or 'taxation', the money we pay
              > to the government must fit all of the
              > following criteria:
              >
              > 1. The money must be used ONLY for the
              > support of government.
              >
              > 2. The subject of the tax must be 'liable',
              > and responsible to pay for the support of
              > government under force of law.
              >
              > 3. The money must go toward a 'public
              > purpose' rather than a 'private purpose'.
              >
              > 4. The monies cannot be described as
              > wealth transfer between two people or
              > classes of people within society.
              >
              > 5. The monies paid *cannot* aid one group
              > of private individuals in society at the
              > expense of another group, because this
              > violates the concept of equal protection
              > of law for all citizens found in Section
              > 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

              (2)

              Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry:

              http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PublicVPrivateEmployment.htm

              > (I)n order to be legitimately called a
              > "tax" or "taxation", the money we pay
              > to the government must fit all of the
              > following criteria:
              >
              > 1. The money must be used ONLY for the
              > support of government.
              >
              > 2. The subject of the tax must be "liable",
              > and responsible to pay for the support of
              > government under the force of law.
              >
              > 3. The money must go toward a "public
              > purpose" rather than a "private purpose".
              >
              > 4. The monies paid cannot be described as
              > wealth transfer between two people or
              > classes of people within society.
              >
              > 5. The monies paid cannot aid one group
              > of private individuals in society at the
              > expense of another group, because this
              > violates the concept of equal protection
              > of law for all citizens found in section
              > 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • rlbaty50
              There are so many sovereign citizen type organizations and websites out there, it s easy to get confused as to which one is saying what. Oops! I got my
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                There are so many "sovereign citizen" type organizations and websites out there, it's easy to get confused as to which one is saying what.

                Oops! I got my reference wrong in that earlier message about where Ed was getting his claims.

                Ed's claim about taxes, as I quoted him, should have been referenced to the "Family Guardian" group and not the "Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry". Both groups appear to be similar in their views as far as this discussion, but the specific claims of Ed are like those of the "Family Guardian" group in the example given.

                I got the link right, but not the statement as to where it came from.

                Here's the home page to the "Family Guardian" group:

                http://famguardian.org/

                You will note that on that home page the top resource reference is to the SEDM ("Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry). I did not try to find Ed's claim on the SEDM website. I suspect they are there also, but it is not necessary to cite all the "sovereign" cites that might have been the actual source for Ed's claims.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                "rlbaty50" wrote:

                Ed Umpervitch is a bit of a plagiarist, which is actually helpful.

                In matching up some of his claims to the claims of others of his inclination, I
                determined that his claims are from the playbook at the following link, or some
                similar source:

                http://sedm.org/

                Example:

                (1)

                Ed Umpervitch:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30438

                > In order to be legitimately called a
                > 'tax' or 'taxation', the money we pay
                > to the government must fit all of the
                > following criteria:
                >
                > 1. The money must be used ONLY for the
                > support of government.
                >
                > 2. The subject of the tax must be 'liable',
                > and responsible to pay for the support of
                > government under force of law.
                >
                > 3. The money must go toward a 'public
                > purpose' rather than a 'private purpose'.
                >
                > 4. The monies cannot be described as
                > wealth transfer between two people or
                > classes of people within society.
                >
                > 5. The monies paid *cannot* aid one group
                > of private individuals in society at the
                > expense of another group, because this
                > violates the concept of equal protection
                > of law for all citizens found in Section
                > 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                (2)

                Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry:

                http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PublicVPrivateEmployment.htm

                > (I)n order to be legitimately called a
                > "tax" or "taxation", the money we pay
                > to the government must fit all of the
                > following criteria:
                >
                > 1. The money must be used ONLY for the
                > support of government.
                >
                > 2. The subject of the tax must be "liable",
                > and responsible to pay for the support of
                > government under the force of law.
                >
                > 3. The money must go toward a "public
                > purpose" rather than a "private purpose".
                >
                > 4. The monies paid cannot be described as
                > wealth transfer between two people or
                > classes of people within society.
                >
                > 5. The monies paid cannot aid one group
                > of private individuals in society at the
                > expense of another group, because this
                > violates the concept of equal protection
                > of law for all citizens found in section
                > 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • rlbaty50
                http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (8) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Friday, January 11, 2013 Time: About 4:35 PM MT ...
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                  http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                  (8)

                  From: Ed Umpervitch
                  Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
                  Time: About 4:35 PM MT

                  > // Alleged Fact #5:
                  >
                  > Ed Umpervitch, realizing his blundering,
                  > deleted his posting of the question to
                  > me and other related messages. //

                  Robert has asserted that he has saved a record of
                  this thread, including the deleted posts.

                  Robert keeps posturing as if these deleted posts
                  were somehow damning and incriminating.

                  Yet Robert will not repost these deleted posts.

                  Why not ??

                  Because they are neither damning nor incriminating,
                  at least to me. They do demonstrate how evasive and
                  immature Robert is, however.

                  (9)

                  From: Robert Baty
                  Date: Friday, January 11, 2013
                  Time: About 5:25 PM MT

                  Ed's return and further evasions are noted.

                  Ed, you have a lot of catching up to do if you
                  are going to try and re-enter the discussion
                  with something of substance relating to the Kent
                  and Jo Hovind U.S. Tax Court cases under
                  consideration.

                  ----------------------------------------------
                  ----------------------------------------------
                • rlbaty50
                  http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (10) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Sunday, January 13, 2013 Time: About 7:20 AM MT Here
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 13, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                    http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                    (10)

                    From: Ed Umpervitch
                    Date: Sunday, January 13, 2013
                    Time: About 7:20 AM MT

                    Here is a link to the deleted posts Robert is
                    posturing about.

                    As you can clearly see, what was deleted are
                    simply posts attempting to get Robert to support
                    why he thinks he is both 'private' and ''public',
                    and support for the purpose of the question and
                    follow up question.

                    http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30436

                    (11)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Sunday, January 13, 2013
                    Time: About 7:35 AM MT

                    And one of the deleted messages reflecting the blundering
                    of Ed Umpervitch is the one where he tried to bait me in
                    to a discussion of his problems:

                    > 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?

                    Ed offered no explanation, context, or definitions and I
                    answered correctly and truthfully.

                    Now, I am still waiting for Ed to answer his own question
                    and tell us clearly what his thinking on that has to do
                    with, if anything, the Kent and Jo Hovind U.S. Tax Court
                    cases which have been offered for consideration here.

                    Run, Ed, Run!
                    See Ed Umpervitch run!

                    (12)

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Sunday, January 13, 2013
                    Time: About 7:45 AM MT

                    It does not appear that Kent Hovind, Jo Hovind, or any of their supporters want to make their appearance here for purposes of endorsing and promoting Ed Umpervitch's frivolous theories about the application of U.S. income tax law.

                    Should there be any, or even critics of Kent Hovind, who wish to come out and chat about such things, they are welcome at my place which was most recently referenced by Ed Umpervitch here.

                    You can browse the archives from the link Ed provided and, if you are signed on to YAHOO! you can easily use the "post" and/or "reply" features there to post messages.

                    You don't have to be a member to post messages.

                    Otherwise, you can simply address your email message to:

                    Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                    See y'all there, or not!


                    --------------------------------------
                    --------------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch (13) From: Robert Baty Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 Time: About 7:30 PM MT One of
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 14, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      http://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind
                      http://www.facebook.com/ed.umpervitch

                      (13)

                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Monday, January 14, 2013
                      Time: About 7:30 PM MT

                      One of Kent Hovind's soul mates lost today in U.S. Tax Court. Maybe Ed Umpervitch can solicit that person for a job on her legal team if she plans on filing an appeal.

                      Here are some excerpts that reasonable folks will find applicable to the recent exchanges above between Ed and me:

                      TEXT (excerpts):

                      T.C. Memo. 2013-12

                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                      LAUREL ANN CURTIS,
                      Petitioner

                      v.

                      COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                      Respondent

                      Docket No. 5657-10.
                      Filed January 14, 2013.

                      Laurel Ann Curtis, pro se. (1)
                      Kimberly L. Clark and Aimee R. Lobo-Berg, for respondent.

                      (1) Petitioner was represented by counsel
                      Ronald H. Hoevet throughout the pretrial
                      proceedings. When petitioner's case was
                      called for trial, however, Mr. Hoevet moved
                      for leave to withdraw as counsel on grounds
                      that he could not "assert a position unless
                      there is a basis of law and fact for doing
                      so that is not frivolous."

                      Respondent did not object to this motion, which the Court granted.

                      FINDINGS OF FACT

                      Tax-Protester Activities and First Tax Court Case

                      In the early 1980s after attending a seminar by
                      Irwin Schiff and reading one of his books petitioner
                      decided to stop filing Federal income tax returns.

                      She has not filed a Federal income tax return since
                      1983.

                      Irwin Schiff is... His activities in protest of
                      the tax laws are well known to this Court.

                      In 1996 Mr. Schiff incorporated Freedom Foundation,
                      Inc., in Nevada to propagate his views concerning
                      the voluntary nature of the income tax.

                      Petitioner was listed as the treasurer of Freedom
                      Foundation, Inc., from 1996 through 1999.

                      Mr. Schiff assisted her in preparing for her first
                      Tax Court case, and she unsuccessfully attempted
                      to call him as an expert witness during the trial.

                      At the time, petitioner was aware that Mr. Schiff
                      had previously been convicted, fined, and imprisoned
                      for willfully failing to file Federal income tax
                      returns.

                      ...she "never substantively addressed the pertinent
                      issues" in her case but instead "asserted absurd,
                      discredited, and misguided tax-protester arguments".

                      After her first Tax Court case, petitioner continued
                      to espouse her tax protester beliefs.

                      OPINION

                      Petitioner offers numerous arguments generally objecting
                      to the imposition of an income tax, including:

                      (1)...

                      (2) the Commissioner has no authority
                      to assess an estimated tax unless it is
                      a tax payable by stamp;

                      (3) only corporate entities can have
                      income under sec. 61;

                      (4)...
                      (5)...

                      and

                      (6) no U.S. citizen is statutorily liable
                      for an income tax.

                      Petitioner's meritless arguments have repeatedly
                      been rejected by this and other courts.

                      Accordingly, we sustain respondent's adjustment...

                      Assertion of Frivolous Arguments and Objection to the Tax Laws

                      As discussed above, petitioner asserted arguments that
                      have long been deemed frivolous, irrelevant, and otherwise
                      totally lacking in merit.

                      Such arguments, coupled with affirmative acts designed to
                      evade Federal income tax, support a finding of fraud.

                      Petitioner's continued assertion of frivolous arguments,
                      her association with known tax protesters such as Irwin
                      Schiff, her failure to file returns since 1983, and her
                      activities to encourage others to adopt her tax-protester
                      beliefs demonstrate a clear intent to evade the assessment
                      and collection of tax.

                      This factor weighs heavily against petitioner.

                      Lack of Credibility in Testimony

                      Petitioner asserted only frivolous arguments at trial.

                      This factor weighs against petitioner.

                      Conclusion

                      Considering all the facts and circumstances, we conclude
                      that the record shows by clear and convincing evidence
                      that petitioner understated her income and that her
                      failure to file returns was fraudulent.

                      The Court, in reaching its holdings, has considered all
                      arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes
                      that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

                      To reflect the foregoing,

                      An appropriate order will be
                      issued, and decision will be entered
                      under Rule 155

                      ----------------------------------------
                      ----------------------------------------
                      13 minutes ago · Like
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.