Law Enforcement

[Demosthenes]

Question for youse guys.

Police departments all around the country are concerned about how best to protect their officers from paper terrorism at the hands of sovrun idiots. Liens filed against officers, court employees, district attorneys and so on are a key concern.

Thoughts?

[Pottapaug1938]

Question for youse guys.

Police departments all around the country are concerned about how best to protect their officers from paper terrorism at the hands of sovrun idiots. Liens filed against officers, court employees, district attorneys and so on are a key concern.

Thoughts?

Would it be possible to craft a law which would provide for quick hearings on these liens, with the courts having the ability to issue a "Writ of Unenforceability" regarding the lien, which could then be recorded wherever the lien appears? Anyone having a genuine issue of fact supporting their lien could make such a showing and have the court refuse to issue the writ, while a sovrun with no genuine basis for a lien would get shown the door in short order....

[The Observer]

That might work, but still requires the various municipalities to spend legal dollars and time to go into court and get these things removed. And the initial damage caused by the liens being picked up by credit reporting agencies and financial institutions can leave its mark for a long time before the victim is made whole.

If the law enforcement officers were allowed to operate under a nom d'guerre so to speak while on duty, it would allow them some immediate protection from a vindictive lien filer since the lien can only attach to the asset that is owned by that named entity. So Officer Mark Smith would be protected when the idjit sovrun files a lien against his operating alias.

[Gregg]

Set up mechanisms to expunge the records, much like a criminal conviction can be expunged. And a suitably painful, humiliating and public punishment for the yahoos who file them may not be a deterrent but would be lots of fun!

[webhick]

Train the court clerks in how to spot bogus liens and give them the authority to put said liens aside for review before any damage is done. Then we're not just protecting officers and the like, but also Joe Blow who pissed off his sovereign neighbor.

[add2cart]

I like webhicks idea:

Then we're not just protecting officers and the like, but also Joe Blow who pissed off his sovereign neighbor.

Speaking as Joe Blow here, I have spent tens of thousands of dollars defending a frivilous lawsuit, fighting a lis pendens on a house which now has a clouded title, and evicting a herd of sovrun roaches from a property, not to mention the emotional toll. I will never trust anyone again.

I am writing my county & state legislators to call this to their attention. Snowball's chance in hell, I know, but I have to start somewhere. And I can be pretty darned squeaky when my wheel isn't getting greased.

[wserra]

There isn't one single answer. The only real solution is a combination of measures, some of which would require legislation. A few ideas:

A random person can't just stroll into a courthouse and file papers in a docket. See "Van Pelt, David M." Why not? Because the rules require that clerks check them at least as to such things as an appropriate filer, service on opposing party when required, and so forth. While filing a lien is different from filing a document in a lawsuit, the clerk could at least demand solid identification from the filer (some people will be more reluctant to file forgeries if they know they can be traced). If the document involves title to real estate, the rules could require that the grantor be physically present (with ID) unless the filer is a lawyer or representative of a licensed title company. If a judgment, the rules could require (and already do, in some places) that it be accompanied by a judge's signature.

webhick's idea is a good one, as well: give clerks the authority to stamp in but put aside for review anything questionable. Sooner or later, this will give rise to a dispute over when the public is on notice of a legit filing. If the review is quick enough, however, this shouldn't happen often.

Expedited review of suits challenging liens would also help, but lots of things are currently supposedly subject to expedited review. The more things qualify for it, the fewer will receive it. We already see that.

"Vexatious filer" lists: don't accept anything for filing from this person without an order. Problem: generally gives vexo one bite at the apple.

No single answer.

[AndyK]

Allow the LEOs to 'discuss' the issue with the filer -- perhaps in an abandoned house.

Just a few sovereignoramuses getting scraped up by EMS with the DA unable to prosecute for lack of evidence might get them to think twice.

[TheGunslinger]

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). And it's still hard to convince people to take these Sovereigns seriously.

I have found that the most effective action is to educate individual officers, either alone or in small groups. I am not a lawyer, and I don't try to teach others legal procedures. What I do try to convey is the potential financial damages (our main concern as BOP employees) that can occur, and how to at least detect them. If you are qualified, why not ask to give a presentation at your local PD/Sheriff's Dept. on how officers can protect themselves and their families? All lawyer jokes aside, the people I've read on this board seem to be far more capable than the politicians in our various states. A good person to contact would be the resident gang/intelligence officer. Or the union. And making contacts among the local gendarmes is never a bad thing.

I want to thank you all for the info on this board. It has been more than helpful to me. Even the dissenting voices. Please feel free to PM me any and all advice. While I probably can't reciprocate in kind, I can at least spring for the first round for those who make it out my way.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Question for youse guys.

Police departments all around the country are concerned about how best to protect their officers from paper terrorism at the hands of sovrun idiots. Liens filed against officers, court employees, district attorneys and so on are a key concern.

Thoughts?

Sorry, Dem, but departments trying to protect their officers are going to have to realize the horse left the barn and the damn thing burned down years ago.

The real problem for the victims of this kind of paper terrorism is they suddenly become part of the unwashed masses who are powerless to do anything about it.

That's how the system is designed and it's unassailable. Once you are reported as "one of them" the system has done its job no matter who you were. And if you try to fix it, you're just another one of the PITA complainers trying to get out of paying your bills.

It's the scarlet letter.

The perpetrators of these filing schemes know it. They get off on the fact that there is nothing more the system can do to them. Fines and even incarceration aren't going to deter them. They've probably even had run-ins with credit and background reporting companies and they see using the system as the perfect form of retribution.

The perpetrators and promoters also know the system is so entrenched and so well-defended that law enforcement is utterly powerless to stop it. There is no "ultimate authority" when it comes to the distribution and sale of private information. Even better, the victims have only the civil courts to pursue abuses while they're facing devastating consequences.

There is a simple answer but the industry that collects and sells information about all of us will never allow it to be implemented.

I can't help but find it ironic that the very entities now expressing concern have been more than just supportive of data mining systems that have enormous privacy implications.

[LaVidaRoja]

When this started happening on the Federal level (IIRC 15 or more years ago) filing of false and malicious liens against a Federal employee became a Federal offense. At the time, the US Attorneys were happy to prosecute these idiots. Getting each and every state to make these actions a felony crime and getting local, overworked DA's to prosecute them is a bigger stretch. Since the idiots usually are already penniless and have no future income prospects, civil actions against them are usually pointless.
There are times when the stocks or taring and feathering do seem to have a place in public punishments.

[AndyK]

Used to be, a head on a spike next to the city gate was the way to get the message out.

Unfortunately, we've become too civilized for that.

[LPC]

I generally concur with wserra's comments, because we don't want to burden the clerks in the county offices, and we also want to find some way of separating wheat from chaff, and the malicious from the commercial.

Some suggestions:

1. I'm not a real estate practitioner, but I'm suspicious when someone who is not the owner can consent to a lien on property, so there should be safeguards through signatures and notarization. Mechanic's liens I understand are an exception, but there should be ways to provide safeguards there as well, perhaps in one of the ways suggested below.

2. There should be extra scrutiny when a lien filing is in favor of an individual, or an institution that is not a known financial institution. A filing creating a lien in favor of Joe Blow should get a greater level of scrutiny than a filing in favor of a bank.

3. There should be extra scrutiny when the amount of the lien is disproportionate to the value of the property. Most real property is valued for tax purposes, and if a document is filed that imposes a lien that is 2 or 3 (or 10 or 1,000) times the value of the property, different procedures should apply.

4. Finally, there might be different procedures for liens filed against public officials. A county could have a list of properties and property owners of elected officials, judicial officers, and tax enforcement officers, and lien filings against them would be subject to a higher level a scrutiny.

A "higher level of scrutiny" might include measures like documents being accepted for filing, but not reported to credit agencies until notice to the owner of record and an opportunity to contest. Or perhaps the filer might be required to provide a bond.

What I'm suggesting here is about protecting the innocent. Criminal sanctions against the guilty are a different matter, and usually not helpful to the victim.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

A "higher level of scrutiny" might include measures like documents being accepted for filing, but not reported to credit agencies until notice to the owner of record and an opportunity to contest.

The problem there is they aren't "reported" to credit agencies. The information is harvested.

Or perhaps the filer might be required to provide a bond.

I seriously doubt something like that would pass muster among creditors.

What I'm suggesting here is about protecting the innocent. Criminal sanctions against the guilty are a different matter, and usually not helpful to the victim.

Exactly, but the way to protect the innocent is to prevent using specious information "from whatever source derived" that permeates credit-related matters.

I have suggested there be two classes of liens - including an "untested" form that cannot be used in a consumer credit decision. Such unajudicated filings should be invisible to the credit reporting industry.

The insatiable appetite for negative information as a tool to ratchet-down credit scores has doomed that kind of sensible approach to defending victims from the abuse of the nitwits.

[wserra]

The problem there is they aren't "reported" to credit agencies. The information is harvested.

Absolutely right. If the info is available to put the general public on notice, it is available to data miners to sell.

Such unajudicated filings should be invisible to the credit reporting industry.

Why isn't this inconsistent with the point you made above? And "unadjudicated filings" seems to be an oxymoron. If it's "filed", it must be visible to a searcher. If it isn't, and the system depends on notice, what's the point of "filing"? You might as well say, "Placed in a pile on the clerk's desk".

[JamesVincent]

I think thats basically what he means Wes. Some of the things that this azzhats are filing should NOT be sent out to the agencies, they should be left on the desk or in a file somewhere since they are frivolous crap. That instead of automatically sending an alert to the credit companies under special circumstances, to be defined, they should be filed and forgot basically.

[The Observer]

But that doesn't protect the bona fide filer, especially the little guy who needs to be able to protect his legitimate interest by ensuring that all creditors are aware of the seniority of his interest over theirs. By turning him into a "second-class" filer and putting his filings out of view, he might as well have not filed.

[wserra]

What The Observer said.

My point isn't that we have an insoluble problem. My point is that there is no quick or easy fix. And JRB is quite right that highly entrenched interests are going to fight parts of the fix tooth and nail.

[fortinbras]

Some states have already adopted laws criminalizing nonconsensual liens filed against govt employees; imposing severe penalties and easing the procedure to expunge the liens. There is a similar federal law.

[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.

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.