Law Enforcement

[The Observer]

Just to clarify - the limitation I'm proposing is the use of the lien information by a credit-reporting entity. The lien itself would still be on record.

And how would we prevent the credit-reporting entities from seeing the information? And if we cannot prevent that, how would we know that they are not using the information in some way or manner to affect the credit rating of the party? Seems to me that this will spawn a number of law suits based on the perspective of the damaged parties who may believe, rightly or wrongly, that their rating was affected by a filing that the reporting agency used in spite of the law.

The whole point of businesses paying for credit reports is to protect their interest and reduce their risk when lending money. I am sure some devious mind is going to make sure that their customers are going to get the whole enchilada regardless of what the law says.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Just to clarify - the limitation I'm proposing is the use of the lien information by a credit-reporting entity. The lien itself would still be on record.

And how would we prevent the credit-reporting entities from seeing the information? ...

They will always see it - the issue is whether they are legally allowed to use it or report it. There are some customized limitations in place already, i.e., in New Jersey, the scoring model used by an insurer cannot consider unpaid medical bills.

If the source of the lien is from something other than a taxing authority or a bona fide lending entity it should be illegal to report it or use it in a scoring model.

[wserra]

They will always see it - the issue is whether they are legally allowed to use it or report it.
...
it should be illegal to report it or use it in a scoring model.

Forget "use it" for the moment. You truly contemplate a law making it illegal to report public information?

[The Observer]

If the source of the lien is from something other than a taxing authority or a bona fide lending entity it should be illegal to report it or use it in a scoring model.

So the small claims court victor is unable to receive the full benefit of recording his judgement? Why is he is afforded less protection than the government or lender?

[Pantherphil]

No perfect solutions but I don't see why the big credit reporting agencies should not be held to a higher standard in verifying the identity of debtors and the validity of liens and claims. There seems to be a tremendous amount of inaccurate garbage in typical credit reports despite the well meaning provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If the big credit and collection firms were subjected to major liability (including attorneys fees and punitive damages) for issuing inaccurate reports and failing to correct errors, a lot of this would go away. Also, there should be a quick and simple way to purge the UCC records and land records from bogus lien filings, perhaps by having someone knowledgeable at the Registry whose job it is to verify questionable lien filings, investigate, and cancel bogus liens on the record. I don't think it works to keep the filings "in limbo" or to allow a clerk to refuse to accept a filing because of some perception of irregularity. We have had cases litigated over whether a complaint or lien was timely filed when some low level clerk failed to timely docket the filing. It's not the clerk's job to judge the legal sufficiency of the filing. But it should be feasible for the officer responsible for the filing agency to be able to cancel or release an improper filing.

[Judge Roy Bean]

They will always see it - the issue is whether they are legally allowed to use it or report it.
...
it should be illegal to report it or use it in a scoring model.

Forget "use it" for the moment. You truly contemplate a law making it illegal to report public information?

There are already limitations on what credit bureaus can report - public or otherwise. They can't include race, sex, etc., now.

[Judge Roy Bean]

If the source of the lien is from something other than a taxing authority or a bona fide lending entity it should be illegal to report it or use it in a scoring model.

So the small claims court victor is unable to receive the full benefit of recording his judgement? Why is he is afforded less protection than the government or lender?

You missed this part:

There would also be a class of liens that have survived a review by a court and those could be used in a credit report, i.e., liens filed by taxing authorities as a result of a court ruling.

[The Observer]

You missed this part:

There would also be a class of liens that have survived a review by a court and those could be used in a credit report, i.e., liens filed by taxing authorities as a result of a court ruling.

So after receiving a judgement in small claims court, the filer would have to go to another court and receive permission to file that judgement? It would seem to have to go that route in order to prevent someone like David Merrill faking a judgement document and slipping it through the cracks simply because a county recorder or court clerk believed it to be an official court document and valid for filing.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So after receiving a judgement in small claims court, the filer would have to go to another court and receive permission to file that judgement?

Why should they have to? The small-claims judge's signature on an order is sufficient and the lien would be reportable.

Any goof-ball concocting and filing a bogus lien would find out the potential damage is limited to a transaction associated with that property - no destruction of the victim's credit history and score.

As a weapon for the sovrun, it goes from IED to spit-ball, BUT - the penalty is the same.

[grixit]

Unfortunately, no one is likely to act as long as these...people...make the line officers their primary targets. In the BOP, these guys were causing havoc among institution staff long before the CSIA came to be (it wasn't until several federal judges and USA's started being targeted that something was done).

The Salem witch trials expanded until the governor's wife was accused. Then they were summarily shut down.

[The Observer]

Any goof-ball concocting and filing a bogus lien would find out the potential damage is limited to a transaction associated with that property - no destruction of the victim's credit history and score.

Which would tie up the property when a title search is run for the purpose of a sale or a refi. So the innocent party is still going to have deal with the bogus lien sitting there. And for some sovruns, that would be good enough.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I don't know how many times it's going to take to explain this.

The temporary, but yes, annoying problem involving facilitating the sale of a victim's property as compared to what happens to them when the credit-reporting industry rings the unringable bell of being a deadbeat are vastly different.

[The Observer]

I don't know how many times it's going to take to explain this.

The temporary, but yes, annoying problem involving facilitating the sale of a victim's property as compared to what happens to them when the credit-reporting industry rings the unringable bell of being a deadbeat are vastly different.

It is anything but annoying when you are unable to convince a title insurance company that the lien is bogus, you lose a potential buyer for the home once the preliminary comes out and the real estate agent takes their customers elsewhere, and certainly more than annoying when you have to file suit to quiet title. There are some real costs tied up in there both in time and money. I think asking someone to prefer this over a damaged credit rating is like asking them to accept being hung by their neck instead of being shot in the head. Who wants either situation?

[JamesVincent]

I don't know how many times it's going to take to explain this.

The temporary, but yes, annoying problem involving facilitating the sale of a victim's property as compared to what happens to them when the credit-reporting industry rings the unringable bell of being a deadbeat are vastly different.

It is anything but annoying when you are unable to convince a title insurance company that the lien is bogus, you lose a potential buyer for the home once the preliminary comes out and the real estate agent takes their customers elsewhere, and certainly more than annoying when you have to file suit to quiet title. There are some real costs tied up in there both in time and money. I think asking someone to prefer this over a damaged credit rating is like asking them to accept being hung by their neck instead of being shot in the head. Who wants either situation?

I dont think Ive ever had to say this Observer but your still missing part of the point. It is still taking a chunk of the damage out of the victims life. Unless your going to outlaw liens totally just to make sure that no frivolous ones make it through the system then something to minimize the damage would need to be done. Would you rather have to fight the credit bureaus and try to fix the title to your house for the rest of your life or only try to fix the title of your house?

[The Observer]

I dont think Ive ever had to say this Observer but your still missing part of the point

And you are missing the other part of the point. But I think you are smart enough to realize what part that is. I understand that what you and JRB are proposing will lessen the impact of rogue filers, but it still does not address another serious issue where it can seriously impact and damage the property owner, who may not discover the bogus filing until a much later date and at time that they may not have the resources to undo the damage that is being done. I think I have provided enough examples to show that this is not a desirable situation. Furthermore, JRB is incorrect to say that this will only affect one specific piece of property. A lien can be seen as to attaching to all properties belonging to the entity named on the lien that is present in the county or state where the property resides (based on whether the lien was recorded in a countu recorder's office or the Secretary of State). So for the unfortunate law enforcement officer who happens to own a residence and a rental property in the same county may have to fight two battles to get the lien cleared.

Would you rather have to fight the credit bureaus and try to fix the title to your house for the rest of your life or only try to fix the title of your house?

I don't know why it has to be a situation where the victim has to choose his or her fate. I have already proposed an effective remedy that the law enforcement officers could be afforded by allowing them to have official aliases that would prevent any bogus lien from attaching. A lien is only valid against the entity that is named on it. Even a mispelled name can cause problems of attachment if it can reasonably be construed that it was impossible to identify the debtor and his property. So if LEO James Vincent is allowed to operate in the public as LEO John Smith, any sovrun filing a lien against "John Smith" is going to come up with nothing and his bogus liens cannot legally attach to anything that Vincent owns (provided he has them titled in the name of Vincent). Vicent will have no problems with either his credit rating or his property.

I call that "killing two birds with one stone." What do you call it?

[JamesVincent]

So what happens if a legitimate lien is attached to the alias? I think that is what the real problem is. There are legitimate reasons for someone to file a lien attaching to property that need to be allowed, otherwise its taking someone elses rights away. The problem is the roses need to be separated from the merde at the filing point, not moved or shuffled, otherwise people are going to be hurt. What was proposed is not a perfect solution but would eliminate part of the victims grief from ever happening to begin with. And I dont think setting a strawman is going to help the victims.

[The Observer]

So what happens if a legitimate lien is attached to the alias?

Why would a serious legitimate creditor file a lien against the alias? In most cases, a legitimate creditor is going to know the true name of the debtor and file a lien that can be perfected and enforced. I am not saying that the alias of the LEO is something that he or she uses throughout their daily lives, but only during their professional hours. In most cases this will suffice, since most sovruns aren't going to be smart enough to realize that their target might have another name; they aren't even smart enough to understand how a lien/notice of lien really works.

Can there be situation where a sovrun might learn of a real name and file an effective notice? Sure, it will happen. But that is going to once in a blue moon - far better than what can happen now.

And I dont think setting a strawman is going to help the victims..

And this situation is not a straw man - it happens.

[Gregg]

I don't think I want people with police powers being able to operate with and alias, sorry, that's just scary. Prison personnel I don't have a problem with, the inmates don't need to know any more than "Officer Seventy-Four"

But one thing that has bothered me for a long time is the paradox of a Clerk of Court employee being stuck between not making any legal judgement on a document, they just record what is handed them, and the flip side which is David Van Pelt walking in and getting something that can be passed off as an official looking document to the people who, well, who don't know any better.
It happens all the time, in HYIPs the crook often will register a company as a corporation with a Secretary of State and then use the registry documents as proof that they've been vetted by whatever state. People who believe in that kind of stuff don't often know that for the most part the only thing a state checks is if the name is already in use, and the check to pay the fee cleared. Iraqi Dinar scammers registered with the Treasury as Money Service Businesses, and then put up in big letters on their websites 'Approved by The United States Department of the Treasury", again, the only thing that matters to get that piece of paper is if the check cleared and the name doesn't show up on convicted felon lists, in fact, the Treasury kind of leans on the fact never mentioned by Dinar scammers, that the Federal Permit is not the important one, you have to have a State Money Service Business License in I think 47 states, and they don't reciprocate so they really need to have 47 State Licenses, and that involves posting a Bond in most of them etc... which none of them do, but they're "Approved by the Unites States Department of the Treasury".

In short, there are a lot of gullible people, and quite a few of them who, especially when it fits their get rich quick dreams are willing to believe a lot of bogus things, and some official looking paper only makes it easier.

On the original question, is there some reason my first answer won't work? Is there no way to set up a quick and easy way to expunge records, especially if the person who files the bogus paperwork doesn't show up to defend it?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I don't think I want people with police powers being able to operate with and alias, sorry, that's just scary. ...

Agreed. The other problem is LEO's have real-world lives and it would not take long for a determined whacko to find out who they really were. Face it, privacy as we used to know it is dead.

...
On the original question, is there some reason my first answer won't work? Is there no way to set up a quick and easy way to expunge records, especially if the person who files the bogus paperwork doesn't show up to defend it?

I guarantee the title-insurance industry would never accept the idea that anyone other than a Judge could make a decision on expunging records in a county clerk's office.

[JamesVincent]

I guarantee the title-insurance industry would never accept the idea that anyone other than a Judge could make a decision on expunging records in a county clerk's office.

Yes, but it would have no choice really but to accept a judges ruling, wouldnt it?