Commercial liens - from research to application

[marksgirl]

I don't understand the SEC thing (tracer flag) either, but since this is for a relatively small dollar amount on an individual person (not a company or legal "official") I figured I don't need to worry about that. I'm also not going to worry about filing a criminal complaint.
I finally did my Final Default and it will be filed today, then a copy (with the county clerk's stamp) will be mailed to her tomorrow.
(Oh, she did "respond", if you can call it that: "I rebut your affidavit." Then she proceeded to tell me her reasons why she didn't follow through on her agreement with me. She didn't attempt to deny there was an agreement or show anything to prove why she shouldn't have to follow through. And it was hand-written on lined notebook paper, and her name was printed, not even signed. Sent regular mail, not certified. So I'm taking it as a non-responsive response.)
Here's what I have for my Final Default:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:Txxx c/o: non domestic (address)

TO: Sxxx
WASHINGTON STATE/REPUBLIC )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
xxx COUNTY ) April 20th, 2006


FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT


RE: NOTICE AND DEMAND March 4, 2006
TLB-20060304-SDB


YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED that you are in default of an opportunity to respond to the NOTICE AND DEMAND sent to you on March 4th by certified mail. You were given the opportunity to rebut the claims made against you with LAWFUL EVIDENCE.

IN ABSENCE of such response, Txxx hereby submits and records this FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT.

WHEREAS such actions now shall be taken in accordance to the procedures set forth in the NOTICE AND DEMAND defaulted.

I, the Undersigned, Txxx, Citizen of Washington republic, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States,” that the above statements of fact are true and correct, according to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Executed on this twentieth day of April in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus The Christ, Two Thousand and Six. Anno Domini

_________________________________________
Txxxx

(with notary below)

NOW I have to figure out how to do the lien. It's a learn as I go process, but at least I have someone to learn with, and there's all of you here at sui juris, too.
Thanks everyone!

[Satori]

Originally Posted by marksgirl

(Oh, she did "respond", if you can call it that: "I rebut your affidavit." Then she proceeded to tell me her reasons why she didn't follow through on her agreement with me. She didn't attempt to deny there was an agreement or show anything to prove why she shouldn't have to follow through. And it was hand-written on lined notebook paper, and her name was printed, not even signed. Sent regular mail, not certified. So I'm taking it as a non-responsive response.)

"Refused for cause without dishonor"?

Basically, her fraudulent statement about rebutting your affidavit aside... the points of your affidavit apparently remain unrebutted. So they stand. I recently went into a courtroom and had a judge almost fall all over himself first thing as I came in trying to tell me that he'd read my affidavit and it was utter shash. The points weren't rebutted, so unless the affidavit doesn't meet the requirements for it to be an affidavit it's valid. (See this post.] Go figure.

NOW I have to figure out how to do the lien. It's a learn as I go process, but at least I have someone to learn with, and there's all of you here at sui juris, too.
Thanks everyone!

There sure is. Be sure and check out the liens area in the Downloads section; I've added some commercial lien stuff there.


- Satori

[planetmark]

On this subject of doing this process for a small claim, against another private individual, I have some questions maybe someone can offer feedback on.

I've heard suggestions that you don't need a formal lien, but can go direct to the sheriff with this perfected default process, and he can just go collect? Is that possible? Or would he need additional paperwork/procedures?

If an actual lien is required, what would be the process for getting a lien against this person? Does it need to specify the exact property being liened? How does one calculate the values - i.e. "You owe me $100. Here's a lien against your bicycle which is worth $XXX". How high can the property value be above the amount sought?

And lastly, how quickly can one proceed from the day of serving the final notice of default and/or the lien (if needed), to the day where sheriff siezes the property? (the total $ value being under $2,000 if that matters.)

The actual application of this process at the final stage is not very well documented or discussed for a real-world situation like this, so any additional input or link to research material, or suggestion where to look this up would be appreciated.

[marksgirl]

Originally Posted by Satori

"Refused for cause without dishonor"?

I'm keeping her "rebuttal" letter as evidence that she didn't rebut anything and that she admitted to my claims that she failed to follow through on the agreement.

Originally Posted by Satori

...so unless the affidavit doesn't meet the requirements for it to be an affidavit it's valid.

My affidavit (Notice and Demand) was signed by two witnesses.

Originally Posted by Satori

Be sure and check out the liens area in the Downloads section; I've added some commercial lien stuff there.

I've read the Commercial Liens: A Most Potent Weapon. That's basically what got me started on this path. The other downloads don't appear (at first perusing) to be helpful for this particular instance, but I'll keep them in mind. Thanks!

[Satori]

Originally Posted by planetmark

On this subject of doing this process for a small claim, against another private individual, I have some questions maybe someone can offer feedback on.

I don't have all the answers, but I'll share the answers I have!

I've heard suggestions that you don't need a formal lien, but can go direct to the sheriff with this perfected default process, and he can just go collect? Is that possible? Or would he need additional paperwork/procedures?

I haven't heard this, so I can't comment on it. The Sheriff's role as I underdstand it is to effect a levy of property via a lien as the basis.

If an actual lien is required, what would be the process for getting a lien against this person?

It's a default process via an Affidavit. Check out this file from our Downloads section!

Does it need to specify the exact property being liened?

The UCC-1 Financing Statement recently stopped requiring that. Whether it's preferable or disadvantageous to accept that convenience is unknown (to me).

How does one calculate the values - i.e. "You owe me $100. Here's a lien against your bicycle which is worth $XXX".

One can set the values at anything one likes, provided one doesn't consider a jury likely to find them unneccessarily high if it goes to trial. Generally the fines for equivalent criminal acts as listed in the statutes are used, in keeping with general practice.

As for assessing values, one generally uses the lien to force a sale of property, and then accepts the FRN amount equal to the amount of the lien.

I'd consider liening for ounces of gold, myself.

How high can the property value be above the amount sought?

You can't collect anything more than what is in your claim, to my knowledge. But you can force a sale of assets which are above that in amount, as part of levying the property to receive that amount due to you.

And lastly, how quickly can one proceed from the day of serving the final notice of default and/or the lien (if needed), to the day where sheriff siezes the property?

After one serves the final lien paperwork? I'm not aware that there is any required wait period.

(the total $ value being under $2,000 if that matters.)

The actual application of this process at the final stage is not very well documented or discussed for a real-world situation like this, so any additional input or link to research material, or suggestion where to look this up would be appreciated.

Agreed. The information on commercial liens is scarce, the information from those who have gotten to the end of the process perhaps the scarcest.


- Satori

[scooterdog]

SATORI, I wanted to post a law in Montana on commercial liens for you. For what ever reason I can't get the MCA to open today(sunday), guess the computers don't work on the freagin weekends either.
Anyway, if I can get it, I will post it for you. It is called "the anti-intimidation act", and I wouldn't try to file a commercial lien in this state if it were the last thing I could do(thanks Montana Freeman, thanks alot! ) I guess those were "common law liens", but they sure wrote up some crazy laws after the freeman.
Matter of fact, I sent an "agreement" to the local bullies in blue, and recieved a response from the county shyster. They were a little upset to say the least. The agreement was simply to restate thier oath of office. Well, unknown to me, that is not the proper way to go about that in Montana! LOL, The county shyster was going to charge me with all sorts of stuff. the point I'm making, or trying to make, is I would recomend you really look over the law here. It can be done, but by the same token, you can get in a real bind doing commercial liens if you F-up one time. Just my two cents worth

[Satori]

Thanks for your post, scooterdog. It's worthwhile to acknowledge that statutory legislation is called that because it merely has the form of law. It only lawfully applies to "persons", that is, government employees, not the sovereign.

Here's how the STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE defines "person":

Section 1-17. "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

Courts have often ruled on just what that means for them.

"And The Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government." United States v Cooper Corp., 318 US 600 [1941]

"It would require clear and unequivocal statutory language to persuade me that Congress intended to grant a remedy to all except one of those who were injured by trust prices - the 'all' including every natural and artificial person, every corporation and association, foreign and domestic..." [Mr. Justice Black, dissenting, US v Cooper...]

"Since in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Fox, 94 USS 315,

"There is an old and well-known rule that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect.

"The Act does not define 'persons.' In common usage that term does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258 [1947]

"[i]n common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [1941;] accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 1947.]

"Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 [1840.]" Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 [1979]

...and two "Supreme Court" rulings:

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 [1886]

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ..." Rodriques v Ray Donavan [U.S. Department of Labor,] 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 [1985]

"If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery ... " United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.

Additionally, a Notarial Certificate of Default can establish agreement to a commercial lien even when such agreement is refused outright, or not responded to.


- Satori

[AndyK]

Satori: do you have any clue as to what "sovereign" means in the various references you posted?

Let me give you a hint: It doesn't mean you, me, or any person that you know or ever heard of.

Secondly, in interpreting laws, courts view "persons" first by the generally accepted meaning of the term and then by specific legislated amplifications, such as corporations.

[scooterdog]

Satori:
If it works for you, thats a good thing. Cal. law and MT are diff., not doubt about that. All I was trying to point out is if MT has laws like this, your state may as well, I don't know. Your agrument may work there, I wouldn't know.
Here, if you go in screaming I'm a "sovereign", or "your laws don't apply to me", I wouldn't even want to be sitting in the back row! These laws apply to everyone, and THEY "the court" will apply it no matter what. You can appeal, sure, and they will shoot that down, and eventually, you won't have anymore FRN(money) to file with, and then they will throw you in the crow bar hotel for some time. For me, and this is just the way I do things, I would rather beat them at thier own game, and Judges here seem to respect that.
I don't agree with our system, not at all. But, for the small percentage of us who would like things to be the way they should, we are a very small percent. I often think how things will be when my son is my age, or maybe even 50, what a f'd up mess it will be. But, I won't be here, so I hope the "people" enjoy what they are creating.
It's interesting that those of us that want to "go against the grain", used to be patriots, now we're "extremest". This country was founded on rebelion, and look at it now! The founding fathers HAVE to be rolling over in their graves.
For instance, I hired a legal group out of Florida, and the person "helping" me had put something in some paper work. Well, when I went to court, some hotshot shyster brought that up right away, and the other defendant had a shyster that was a prosecuter from another county. The Judge just listened, and I could see if I tried to defend the issue, I was going out of the court room early.
But thats here, so like I said, I hope that works where you are, perhaps there would be a little justice left in this world.

Well, if you are referring to “Government-Corporation” – it is most certainly not sovereign according to the Clearfield Doctrine. Has the Clearfield Doctrine been overuled? If it has not, then, the ‘Government-Corporation’ is no different than ‘Burger King’ as it has stooped to using ‘private corporate commercial paper.'

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." - Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371

What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF A CONTRACT OR OTHER COMMERICAL AGREEMENT between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made and further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

A contract must contain these elements or any contract is null and void.

1. Offer by a man or woman qualified to make the contract.
2. Acceptance by party qualified to make and accept the contract.
3. Bargain or agreement and FULL DISCLOSURE and complete understanding by both parties.
4. Valuable consideration given - just weights and measures
5. Must have the element of time to make a contract lawful.
6. Both parties must be sui juris; that is, of lawful age, usually 21 years old.
7. Good faith
8. Privacy of contract