Notice of Invalid Lien - what to do?

[Newbie]

I just received a letter today from an Assistant US Attorney. It is a Notice of Invalid Lien. The do***ent states;
"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that do***ents described as "Affidavit of Obligation" or other do***ents purporting to create an obligation or interest in the real or personal property of Thomas S. Zilly, Jill Otake, Annette L. Hayes, filed by Jason-Norman:Troll and recorded under King County Recorder's Number, are invalid and unlawful non consensual common law liens. Pursuant to R.C.W. 60.70.030(3) and R.C.W. 60.70.070, such liens have no legal effect unless accompanied by a specific Order from a court of competent jurisdiction or Specific Statute authorizing the filing of such liens. NO SUCH COURT ORDER OR SPECIFIC STATUTE EXISTS.

I thought that Commercial Liens are non-judicial and are based on commercial law that are based on the maxims of law
How should I respond?

[Lawdog]

It means you better get your act together. Filing bogus liens against judges and other public officials has become enough of a problem that many states and the federal government have passed criminal laws against it, or beefed up existing laws.

The citations to RCW (Revised Code of Washington) mean you or someone using your name filed bogus liens against the named persons. If it was you, I suggest you do whatever is necessary to expunge the liens and apologize to those affected.

Otherwise, the next attorney to talk to you might be a public defender.

[indio007]

Seems kind of strange that a US attorney is using a state statutes to declare common law liens invalid. Common law doesn't rely on statute.

He's right though, they have no "legal" effect.
If you made a claim for legal tender you traversed into the legal fiction world and polluted your claim.

A common law lien is meant to be a lawful claim. This guy seems to be claiming that it is unlawful because it not consentual. What proof does he have it wasn't consented to?

I'm assuming the individual liened put themself into a lienable position by some affirmative act or silence. i.e. deciding to act ultra vires. This could be merely acting in a de facto capacity.

It seems your lien is might be defective in some way.

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim statutes apply to a common law liens. The statute will have to specifically and unequivocally abrogate the common law.

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim the lien is invalid.

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim the lien wasn't consented to be silence or affirmative act.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Newbie

such liens have no legal effect unless accompanied by a specific Order from a court of competent jurisdiction or Specific Statute authorizing the filing of such liens.

NO SUCH COURT ORDER OR SPECIFIC STATUTE EXISTS.

This says in effect:

We have superior force of armed corporate municipal mercenary troops and will happily deploy them against you if you don't withdraw your position.

The "court of competent jurisdiction" referenced is likely a thinly veiled military or quasi-military tribunal, (e.g. has troops)

In effect, ultimately, the same thing the lawdog says, but he leaves out the parts he doesn't like to have to look at or think too much about.

Dang, broke another cinder block on the trialer and the still got busted up by them infernal revenooers agin!!!

[indio007]

Furthermore if the lien was truly invalid they would be prosecuting. They are trying to get your silent acquiescence to the assertion that it is invalid and/or non-consensual . You are in a negotiation right now. Prove your cause of action by affidavit.

[Newbie]

I have to be honest I am not sure what the affidavit should say.

[Shoonra]

You don't say whether you actually filed liens against any of these people (or what positions they hold or the reasons for the liens).

If you filed liens against federal employees because of their official duties, the US Attorney is authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to undo the liens. And, yes, there are state statutes that enable courts to expunge or nullify liens. Earlier this year, a new federal law was enacted that makes nuisance liens against federal employees a criminal offense. Even before that law, there were criminal prosecutions under other statutes for nuisance liens. Lawdog gave you good advice.

AND by the way, the automatic censorship routine of this forum seems a tad overeager.

[free*to*be*me]

Originally Posted by Newbie

I just received a letter today from an Assistant US Attorney. It is a Notice of Invalid Lien. The do***ent states;
"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that do***ents described as "Affidavit of Obligation" or other do***ents purporting to create an obligation or interest in the real or personal property of Thomas S. Zilly, Jill Otake, Annette L. Hayes, filed by Jason-Norman:Troll and recorded under King County Recorder's Number, are invalid and unlawful non consensual common law liens. Pursuant to R.C.W. 60.70.030(3) and R.C.W. 60.70.070, such liens have no legal effect unless accompanied by a specific Order from a court of competent jurisdiction or Specific Statute authorizing the filing of such liens. NO SUCH COURT ORDER OR SPECIFIC STATUTE EXISTS.

I thought that Commercial Liens are non-judicial and are based on commercial law that are based on the maxims of law
How should I respond?

Ask them to explain what a court of competent jurisdiction is? And let them know you will do some research into finding that order they are looking for, If they really had a cause of action against you they would have already filed charges,

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You don't say whether you actually filed liens against any of these people (or what positions they hold or the reasons for the liens).

If you filed liens against federal employees because of their official duties, the US Attorney is authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to undo the liens. And, yes, there are state statutes that enable courts to expunge or nullify liens. Earlier this year, a new federal law was enacted that makes nuisance liens against federal employees a criminal offense. Even before that law, there were criminal prosecutions under other statutes for nuisance liens. Lawdog gave you good advice.

AND by the way, the automatic censorship routine of this forum seems a tad overeager.

Shoonra even you know that acts performed outside of jurisdiction make the actor liable. How someone extracts that liability from the assailing party via the process of law is up to the claimant. It could be a tort action, administratively, arbitration, statutorily, criminally etc...


How can the US attorney presume to know that the guy has no legit claim until the matter is settled? The US Attorney can't settle it by mere proclamation but he can sure be added as a party for interfering with lawful claims that have no public interest.
there is one question .

Is he (presumably a public actor) indemnified or immunitized by the public ,from responsibility of his actions. He has to be acting within delegated authority or the public disowns him.

The US attorney can not presume to know this because he is not a competent fact witness. Where are the affidavits?

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You don't say whether you actually filed liens against any of these people (or what positions they hold or the reasons for the liens).

I was wondering what gave rise to the lien[s] in the first place as well.

I was also wondering if the administrative remedies had been exhausted before the lien[s] had been filed.

Presuming that there is any validity to the lien[s], I like
indio007's approach:

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim statutes apply to a common law liens. The statute will have to specifically and unequivocally abrogate the common law.

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim the lien is invalid.

Conditionally accept their notice on proof of claim the lien wasn't consented to b[y] silence or affirmative act.

indio007;

Unless the lien speaks specifically of Federal Reserve Notes, a claim for lawful money (per 12 USC 411) is what I would presume was being made.

The "saving to suitors" clause also came to mind:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office do***ent 99-16, p. 741.

Is [are] the lien[s] upon the STATE et al. or the private people?

Is the Assistant US Attorney acting as the "Assistant US Attorney" in that matter, or as a private attorney for the clients?

Does the Assistant US Attorney have an Oath of Office on file?

Diligently,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes