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

Re: Ed Umpervitch v. Robert Baty on Tax Matters!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
      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 2 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
        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 3 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
          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 4 of 9 , Jan 11, 2013
            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 5 of 9 , Jan 13, 2013
              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 6 of 9 , Jan 14, 2013
                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 ยท Like
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.