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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 ยท Like
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.