Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle

Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby jcolvin2 » Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:53 pm

Now has a CDPH case in the Tax Court, arising out of a determination made on May 20, 2013:

Docket No.: 014065-13 L
Caption: Vernice B. Kuglin

Petitioner Counsel Bar No: PRO SE

06/24/2013 PETITION Filed:Fee Paid R 06/27/2013

06/24/2013 REQUEST for Place of Trial at Memphis, TN R 06/27/2013

08/08/2013 MOTION by resp. by resp. to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under I.R.C. 6673. (C/S 8-8-13)

08/09/2013 ORDER petr. by 8-30-13 file an objection to resp's motion to dismiss & file an amended petition.

The government has apparently made a motion to dismiss and for section 6673 penalties:
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=110993

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby The Observer » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:56 am

This was the woman who, after a protracted battle with the government and criminal trial (albeit with frivolity), swore that she was done with fighting over taxes back in 2004.

Old tax protesters never die - they just never go away.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby Famspear » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:28 am

I've always thought of her as a washed up has-been. In checking the U.S. Tax Court records, I find these:

1. Case no. 002657-00L, petition filed March 7, 2000. See T.C. Memo 2002-51 (Feb. 25, 2002).

2. Case no. 021743-03, petition filed Dec. 22, 2003. Stipulated decision, Sept. 1, 2004.

3. Case no. 014718-05L, petition filed Aug. 9, 2005. Stipulated decision, April 5, 2006.

4. Case no. 014207-06, petition filed July 24, 2006. Stipulated decision, Oct. 27, 2006.

5. Case no. 023468-09, petition filed Oct. 1, 2009. Dismissed Jan. 8, 2010.

And, of course, this latest one,
6. Case no. 014065-13L, petition filed June 24, 2013.

Here's an excerpt from the Court's decision in the case described in item 5, above:

Petitioner [Vernice Kuglin] was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on January 4, 2010, filed an objection. Therein, petitioner did not deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion regarding timeliness and in fact conceded "petitioner's unavoidable filing of her petition in an untimely manner". Rather, petitioner used the objection as a vehicle to express various arguments regarding her citizenship, lack of Federal income tax liability, and lack of any requirement to file a Federal income tax return. Such claims were premised principally on an interpretation of section 6081(a)(1), I.R.C, and regulations thereunder that has no bearing on the narrow timeliness question presently before the Court. The salient jurisdictional fact that the petition was mailed and filed six and seven days late, respectively, remains unrebutted.


--from Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, Vernice B. Kuglin v. Commissioner, case no. 023468-09 (U.S. Tax Court, Jan. 8, 2010).

Section 6081(a)(1) states:

The Secretary may grant a reasonable extension of time for filing any return, declaration, statement, or other document required by this title or by regulations. Except in the case of taxpayers who are abroad, no such extension shall be for more than 6 months.


Apparently, Vernice was trying to argue that section 6081(a)(1), which applies only to the filing of tax returns, etc., with the Secretary (meaning, the "Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate" -- in other words, the personnel of the Internal Revenue Service), should have somehow excused her lateness in filing her petition with the United States Tax Court which, despite the misunderstandings of some tax protesters, is not part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

EDIT: How in the world she might have constructed an argument that section 6081(a)(1) would support a theory about her citizenship, her supposed lack of Federal income tax liability, or the supposed lack of a requirement to file a return, I would not know.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby Famspear » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:26 am

In a case filed by the government in August 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the United States has obtained a judgment against Vernice Kuglin regarding federal tax assessments against her for years 1996 through 2004. Apparently she owes over $1.3 million. Her real estate at 220 Dubois in Memphis was auctioned and, on August 6, 2013, the Court entered an Order to the effect that the initial $2,500 deposit of the sales proceeds be put into the registry of the Court. The balance of the funds, once received, are to be deposited by September 30, 2013.

See United States v. Vernice B. Kuglin et al., case no. 2:11-cv-02741-SHM-tmp, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis Div.).
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby Famspear » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:41 am

I checked out the property at 220 Dubois in Memphis. It appears to be a vacant lot. Although the lot is in a gated community, that won't make much of a dent in her huge tax liability.

EDIT: Check it out (with photo).....

http://www.treasury.gov/auctions/irs/metn_real_6858.htm

I wonder what it went for.....
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby The Observer » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:20 pm

I did a quick Zillow check, which I know is infamous for overestimating property values. Even if we cut the Zillow estimate in half, those lots are worth about $30K. The IRS minimum bid suggest that the fair market value established was $10,000 (if we can accept the statement on the front of the sale sheet that the property will be sold free of all liens and encumbrances - I find it hard that Kuglin didn't accrue some sort of encumbrances over the years).

However, this is Memphis we are talking about and my hunch is the real estate market is depressed in comparision to the rest of the country. Since there are several other vacant lots in the immediate area, that would suggest that there isn't a lot of interest in purchasing and building a residence in this area. That in itself might have reduced the fair market value that the IRS put on the property.

A public records search for the last purchase date and price of the lot would certainly tell us if Vernice took a loss and if there were any other encumbrances on the property.

Given all of that, in my humble estimate, Vernice should consider herself very lucky if even the minimum bid was met on auction day.

Addendum:

It appears that Vernice bought this property for $40K in 1996. Current tax appraisals show it being appraised for $11,250. It is pretty clear that Kuglin took a bath on this one.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11067
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:25 pm

Would seem to be a recurring theme in her life.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby LPC » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:18 pm

jcolvin2 wrote:08/09/2013 ORDER petr. by 8-30-13 file an objection to resp's motion to dismiss & file an amended petition.

The 8/9/13 order directed Kuglin to file a "proper amended petition" by 8/30/2013.

That's still the last item on the docket, which means that no amended petition was filed, proper or otherwise. And yet no order of dismissal. Mere oversight? Or could there be something else going on?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby Kestrel » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:45 pm

The apparent lack of action doesn't necessarily mean anything.

When I was watching Cryer's case unfold I noticed that it was not unusual for items to be uploaded to the docket a month or more after the posted filing date, and for no action to be taken issuing follow-up orders until the next time the judge came through town.

Cryer's case was being heard in New Orleans, which (I'm told) doesn't have an in-residence Tax Court judge. Does Memphis also rely on traveling judges?
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby LaVidaRoja » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:58 pm

AFAIK, ALL of the current Tax Court judges circuit ride out of D.C. LA had a sitting "S" judge at one time, but when he retired, the position was not filled.
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby jcolvin2 » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:16 pm

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCDockInq/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexID=6260972

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217
VERNICE B. KUGLIN, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) Docket No. 14065-13 L
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION

This section 6330(d)¹ case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted and to
Impose a Penalty under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed August 8, 2013. By Order dated
August 9, 2013, petitioner was given the opportunity: (1) to cure the defective
petition by submitting an amended petition; and (2) to submit an objection to
respondent's motion. She did neither.

This case was commenced in response to a Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated May 20,
2013 (notice), in which respondent determined that a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is
an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's outstanding 2005
Federal income tax liability. A copy of the notice is attached to the petition.
Respondent's motion references several other Tax Court proceedings
commenced by petitioner. Those cases show her pattern of commencing a case,
only to concede it in full prior to trial. We consider petitioner's failure to reply to
the above-referenced Order to reflect her concession that respondent's motion is
well-made as it relates to petitioner's challenge to the determination made in the
notice. Moreover, we view the allegations contained in the petition to be meritless
challenges to respondent's statutorily authorized procedures. Those allegations do
not give rise to any justiciable issues.

Given the burden imposed upon respondent pursuant to section 7491(c),
however, we do not consider petitioner's failure to respond to the above-referenced
Order to be a concession that she is liable for a section 6673(a) penalty.
Furthermore, although positions advanced in the petition might suggest the
imposition of a section 6673(a) penalty, we do not, under the circumstances,
consider it appropriate to impose that penalty as part of this summary disposition.

That being so, it is

ORDERED that so much of respondent's motion as requests the imposition
of a section 6673(a) penalty is denied. In all other respects, it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and this case is dismissed
upon the stated ground. It is further

ORDERED and DECIDED that respondent may proceed with collection as
determined in the notice.

Upon appropriate motion by respondent, the Court will vacate this Order of
Dismissal and Decision in order to allow respondent to pursue his claim for the
imposition of a section 6673(a) penalty.

(Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo
Special Trial Judge
ENTERED: APR 25 2014

¹Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby The Observer » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:14 pm

Just more evidence that Vernice cannot accept the fact that she has to pay taxes. Thus she continues to make inane arguments like the ones below. She has learned nothing over the last 15 years.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALAN CHRISTOPHER REYES,
VERNICE B. KUGLIN, SUNTRUST BANK,
AND FIRST TENNESSEE BANK,
Defendants.

Release Date: OCTOBER 22, 2015


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Before the Court are Defendants Alan Christopher Reyes and Vernice B. Juglin's separate pro se Motions for More Definite Statement (ECF Nos. 14, 15) both filed August 6, 2015, as amended (ECF No. 19, 20) on August 24, 2015. Plaintiff United States of America has responded in opposition (ECF Nos. 17, 23). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff United States of America filed a Complaint for Federal Taxes under 26 U.S.C. section 7401 and 7403. The Complaint named Alan Christopher Reyes, Vernice B. Kuglin, SunTrust Bank, and First Tennessee Bank as Defendants. The purpose of the Complaint was to "reduce to judgment the unpaid assessments of income tax, penalties, and interest made against" Reyes and Kuglin as well as to foreclose tax liens on real property located in this District. Plaintiff alleges that Reyes and Kuglin are the owners of the real property at issue and that SunTrust Bank and First Tennessee Bank ("the banking Defendants") may assert an interest in the same property. (Comp. paragraphs 5-8.) 1 The Complaint alleges that the Internal Revenue Service has assessed federal income taxes owed by Reyes for the tax years 1999 through 2008. (Id. paragraph 9.) As of June 22, 2015, the total tax liability including taxes, penalties, and interest owed by Reyes is $ 340,954.67. (Id. paragraph 14.) The Complaint alleges that though the tax assessments were made correctly and in accordance with the law, and the IRS gave proper notice and made a demand on Reyes for the taxes owed, Reyes has not paid the full amount owed. (Id. paragraphs 10-12.)

The Complaint goes on to allege that the IRS assessed federal income taxes owed by Kuglin for the 2005 tax year. (Id. paragraph 16.) The tax assessment was made correctly and in accordance with the law, and the IRS gave Kuglin proper notice and demand for the taxes owed. (Id. paragraphs 17, 18.) The total tax liability including taxes, penalties, and interest owed by Kuglin is $ 211,798.00 as of June 22, 2015. (Id. paragraph 20.) According to the Complaint, Kuglin has failed to pay the full amount owed. (Id. paragraph 19.) The Complaint requests that the Court reduce to judgment the tax liability owed by each taxpayer.

Finally, the Complaint alleges that Reyes and Kuglin are the owners of an apartment along with two parking spaces in Memphis, Tennessee, as described more particularly in the pleadings. (Id. paragraph 22.) The Complaint alleges that the banking Defendants may have an interest in the real property. (Id. paragraph 27, 28.) The government filed separate notices of tax lien as to Reyes with the Shelby County Register's Office on January 8, 2008, and July 3, 2012, respectively. (Id. paragraph 24.) The government also filed a notice of tax lien as to Kuglin with the Shelby County Register's Office on December 5, 2012. (Id. paragraph 25.) On March 8, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee entered a judgment against Vernice Kuglin, in favor of the United States of America, in the amount of $ 1,339,108.00 plus penalties and interest accruing from April 11, 2013 until paid. (Id. paragraph 26.) An abstract of judgment was filed on or around May 2, 2013 with the Shelby County Register's Office. (Id.) The United States asserts that the filing of the abstract creates a lien on all of Kuglin's real property and has priority over all other liens or encumbrances which are perfected later in time. (Id.) The Complaint requests that the Court find that the government has a valid federal tax lien on the real property, judge the priority of the parties' interests in the real property, and declare that the federal tax liens be foreclosed and order the property be sold with the proceeds of the sale to apply to the tax liabilities of Reyes and Kuglin.

In their identical Motions for More Definite Statement, Reyes and Kuglin, who are proceeding pro se, argue that the Complaint for Federal Taxes is "so vague and ambiguous" that Defendants cannot prepare a response. Defendants contend that the Complaint is unclear as to whether the Defendants were domiciled in other state of Tennessee or within this District. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to provide a map of Shelby County, Tennessee, and high light the areas where the United States Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. Defendants further argue that their property was located in the state of Tennessee and not within the jurisdiction of the United States. Defendants raise other defenses to the IRS's tax assessments that go to the facts of the Complaint. Defendants primarily argue that they had no reportable income and therefore never filed returns for the tax years in question. According to Defendants, the IRS is perpetrating a fraud on the Court because Defendants did not file tax returns, and the IRS had to manufacture a substitute for return in order to establish the tax liability. Defendants argue that the Court should require the government to plead with more particularity the process for making the assessment.

The United States responded in opposition to Defendants' opening Motions for More Definite Statement. The government argues that Defendants have presented typical "tax protester" theories in support of their Motions. The government responds that the Complaint for Federal Taxes satisfies the pleadings standard under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' arguments amount to a bad faith attempt to obtain additional discovery or attack the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The United States argues then that Defendants have not actually shown why they need or are entitled to a more definite statement of the tax liability claims against them. Therefore, the Court should deny their Motions.

Defendants had the right to file reply briefs in support of their Rule 12(e) Motions. Instead of filing a brief to address the arguments made by the government, Defendants filed Amended Motions for More Definite Statement. As the government correctly points out, the Amended Motions are nearly identical to Defendants' initial Motions. The Court notes Defendants' Amended Motions for the record but finds that the Amended Motions contain no additional authority or argument to support Defendants' request for a more definite statement.

ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), "a party may move for a more definite statement to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." 2 "If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding." 3 Generally speaking, motions for more definite statement are disfavored. 4 The United States Supreme Court has explained the simplified notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a) relies on "liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions" and not technical forms of pleading. 5 Therefore, motions for a more definite statement should not be granted unless the complaint is "so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it." 6

Defendants have not shown that the Complaint for Federal Taxes is so short on clear and comprehensible factual allegations that a more definite statement is warranted. The pleadings set forth the jurisdictional basis for the suit, the relevant statutory authority, the facts making out the government's claims for tax liabilities owed by Reyes and Kuglin, and the specific property against which the government seeks to enforce its tax liens. For example, the Complaint cites 26 U.S.C. section 7403, which permits the United States to seek the judicial sale of property on which the United States has a tax lien in order to satisfy delinquent tax liability. 7 Under section 7403, the United States must name as parties to the action all persons claiming an interest in the subject property. 8 The Code further provides that after the Court has resolved all claims to the property it may order a sale of the property and distribute the proceeds according to the respective interests. 9 The Court holds that the Complaint gives Defendants proper notice of the government's claims and the statutes authorizing the government to proceed in this manner. Therefore, no more definite statement of the government's claims for relief is required.

Defendants' arguments in support of their Motions for Definite Statement actually demonstrate that Defendants understand the gravamen of the Complaint for Federal Taxes. Defendants have raised a number of issues going to the merits of the tax assessments and even the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. These are obviously questions for discovery and perhaps subsequent dispositive motions. They do not, however, show that the Complaint is indecipherably vague or hopelessly ambiguous such that Defendants answer the claims at their own risk. Therefore, Defendants' Motions for More Definite Statement and the Amended Motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 22, 2015.

S. Thomas Anderson
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ The government caused summons to issue as to the banking Defendants on the same day the government filed its Complaint for Federal Taxes. The record shows that the government served Defendant SunTrust Bank's authorized agent for service of process on July 15, 2015 (ECF No. 12), and Defendant First Tennessee Bank's authorized agent on July 17, 2015 (ECF No. 9). When the banking Defendants did not file an answer within the time allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the government moved for entry of default, and the Clerk of Court entered default as to the banking Defendants (ECF No. 21). Thereafter, the government filed a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 24), which remains pending before the Court.

/2/ Fed R. Civ. P. 12(e).

/3/ Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist., 428 F.3d 223, 228 (6th Cir. 2005).

/4/ E.g. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Webne, 513 F. Supp. 2d 921, 924 (N.D. Ohio 2007).

/5/ Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

/6/ E.E.O.C. v. FPM Group, Ltd., 657 F.Supp.2d 957, 966 (E.D.Tenn.2009) (citations omitted).

/7/ 26 U.S.C. section 7403(a); United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 681 (1983).

/8/ section 7403(b).

/9/ section 7403(c).
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11067
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:31 am

So they're just now getting around to collecting on what she owes? I, for some reason, thought this was all over and done with quite some time ago. I seem to have missed something, who is Reyes? I would have thought Vernie was really old news by now, apparently not.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby The Observer » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:41 pm

As I recall, after Vernice's case had been resolved, there was some noise from her or her attorney(s) that she would not be able to pay what was owed on her liability, despite agreeing in her settlement that she owed taxes. Then again, she made some announcement that she was giving up her fight. I just never believed her, I always had the feeling that Kuglin did not want to pay, thus she would continue to not pay in a passive-aggressive manner. I think this case proves that theory.

I suspect that the subject property being owned by Vernice and Reyes (who appears to be not her husband) complicated the ability of the government to move ahead to seizure and sale. This would be especially true if either or both parties decided to take advantage of the due processes built into law to allow them to contest this at every step of the way.

As to who Reyes is, your guess is good as mine. Boyfriend? Mutal tax protester admirer? Her guru? Some guy just along for the ride?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11067
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Vernice Kuglin - CDPH Case

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:40 pm

OK, thanks. I will admit to having not paid great amounts of attention to this case as it is so similar to so many others, but I thought I had still managed to keep up with most of it, and that it had basically been settled. I will also agree with your comments about her "passive-aggressive" stunt as that seemed in keeping with everything else she had done, and I wouldn't have bet on her having been totally forthcoming on what her assets were, sort of slipped her mind you know????? I do think you are entirely right. It was just when I saw her tied with Reyes that it threw me, thought I'd really missed something, I hadn't it seems. Will be interesting to see where this snipe goes.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests