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 (8) From: Ed Umpervitch Date: Friday, January 11, 2013 Time: About 4:35 PM MT ...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.