Shareware Overload Trio 2/Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO/dir33/cllien1.zip/CLLIEN1.TXT

Text File | 1994-05-31 | 20KB | 436 lines

                           COMMON LAW LIEN

                         WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

                           By Alfred Adask

[Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786, Dallas,
Texas 75354-0786, or call [phone] - an annual subscription (6
issues) $25.]


     Suppose you bought a $100,000 house seven years ago when the
economy was strong, your job secure, and life looked great.  You paid
$20,000 down and borrowed the other $80,000 from the bank.  Over the
last seven years, you paid off another $20,000 on the principle of
the bank loan leaving a $60,000 balance due on the principle of your
mortgage), spent $5,000 installing a new roof, and the house
appreciated in value from $100,000 to $150,000.  You still owe the
bank $60,000 on the principle of your loan, but your personal equity
in your house is now $90,000 ($20,000 downpayment + $20,000 paid on
principle + $5,000 improvements + $45,000 appreciation).

     Suppose you were laid off last winter, haven't been able to find
work in your profession, and are now unemployed or so "underemployed"
you can no longer afford the payments on your house (or farm, or
car).  After you miss a few payments, the bank holding the mortgage
on your home may institute foreclosure proceedings, force a quick
sale of your home on the courthouse steps for a substantially reduced
price, and apply all (or most) of the proceeds of the sale to paying
off the remaining $60,000 principle due on your mortgage.

     Typically, the foreclosed house is sold on the courthouse steps
(often for just enough to pay off the mortgage) and the bank would
receive all, or the majority, of the proceeds of the sale.
Unfortunately, the homeowner's downpayment, mortgage payments,
maintenance costs, and appreciation is wiped out in the quick, cut-
rate foreclosure sale.  His $90,000 personal equity is vaporized.
The new buyer of the property would get a great bargain, but it would
be at the expense of the former home owner.  Variations of this
unpleasant scenario have occurred regularly (and generally without
protest) during the past several years of the nation's economic
decline.

     When you stop to think about it, it's curious that home owners
take it for granted that if they fall behind in their payments, they
are "honor bound" to forfeit everything they've already invested.
Remember, we're not talking about some homeowner who's too lazy to
work - we're talking about a man who's unemployed and unable to pay
his bills because forces beyond his control (probably the government)
mismanaged the economy and precipitated a recession.

     Where is the justice in letting a homeowner invest a
downpayment, years of mortgage payments, and maintenance costs in a
property, and then, when he hits a temporary low in his life (as most
of us do, sooner or later), take the property away from him and
essentially rob him of most of the money and years he invested in the
property?

     Should that homeowner lose everything because the nation is in
economic decline?  Realistically, who caused the decline?  Why
doesn't the party responsible for the recession have to pay, rather
than the victim?  And why, if there's a general economic downturn,
should the homeowner bear complete responsibility for the decline?
Shouldn't the bank, or perhaps the government also share in the
losses?


                          COMMON LAW LIENS

     Several pro se litigants have developed an unusual legal
strategy that seems to stop foreclosures, or at least minimize their
damage to property owners.  According to Mark Zimmerman of Pro Se
Litigants of Florida: "Check the case law [cited in the following
lien form], and you'll see that a property owner can effectively lien
himself to the property.  I believe that the common law lien is
superior to any other lien, and therefore, if this logic is correct,
the homeowner must be paid first after a foreclosure, prior to any
payment of an "Equity lien" to the mortgage holder (the bank or
mortgage company).  This would require that after a foreclosure, the
home owner be paid first and in full before the mortgage company is
paid."

     As I understand it, this "common law lien" strategy calls for
the owner of a property, which is about to be foreclosed, to file his
own "federal common law lien writ of attachment" naming himself as
the lienor against his own property.

     That's the key to the strategy: You file a lien on your own
property based on whatever investments or equity you have accumulated
in your property.  Because this is a "federal common law lien", it
theoretically takes precedence over "equity" liens (like the
mortgage) filed by local lienors (banks and mortgage companies).
Therefore, under this common law lien strategy, when a property is
foreclosed, the order of payment is reversed: the property owner is
the first lienor to be paid from the proceeds of the sale, and would
at least recover his investment in the property; and the bank is paid
last.

     In other words, if a home owner filed his own "federal common
law lien writ of attachment" naming himself as a lienor, he would not
lose everything in a foreclosure, but could theoretically recover all
of the money he had invested in the house.  For example, our original
homeowner's equity of $90,000 on the $150.000 house would be the
first money paid from the sale of the house, and it would go to the
homeowner.  The bank would take it's share out of whatever was left.

     Mr. Zimmerman says this "common law lien" strategy has been used
twice in Florida and has stopped foreclosures cold --both times --
"right on the courthouse steps".  He also claims the strategy drives
the mortgage holder or other lien holders absolutely nuts because
they are effectively prevented from making a quick, cheap sale of the
property to recover their loans (and sometimes make a quick,
exorbitant, unscrupulous profit at the homeowner's expense).  Since
the bank is last to be paid, and only receives whatever is left over
after the homeowner is paid his equity, the bank doesn't dare sell
the property for less than its market value, since any reduction in
price will come out of the bank's share of the sale, i.e., if the
bank has $60.000 still due on the mortgage, and sells the $150,000
house for the reduced price of $125,000, the homeowner will get the
first $90,000 and the bank will get only $35,000 -- causing the bank
to suffer a $25,000 loss.  This makes the bank extremely "reluctant"
to foreclose.

     Further, Phillip Marsh (of the Pilot Connection) claims there
are only three ways to remove a "common law lien": 1) wait 100 years;
2) have it removed by a "common law jury"; or 3) pay it off in full.
If he's correct, no judge could arbitrarily remove a common law lien,
and the only practical method for removal would be to pay the
lienholder.  If Mr. Marsh is correct, it means banks and mortgage
holders would be effectively compelled to pay the common law
lienholder first, and in full, before they could take any of the
foreclosure money for themselves.


                        PUBLIC POLICY NO. 1?

     At first glance, this strategy sounds delightfully effective,
but a little too slick, almost wickedly so.  After all, the bank is
entitled to recover its loan when you fail to make your payments,
right?  Of course.  To deny the bank it's right to collect its money
would be an injustice, right?  Of course.

     But the common law lien strategy doesn't create an injustice, it
stops an injustice.  Under this strategy, the bank can still
foreclose if they must, but because it will be the last party paid,
the bank can't afford to sell the house at a price far below its fair
market value.  Because the homeowner has to be paid first, the bank
(which initiates the foreclosure) must ensure that the house is sold
for enough money so both the homeowner and the bank receive a fair
return from the foreclosure sale.  Therefore, this common law lien
strategy would prevent injustice by inhibiting the bank from
foreclosing and selling the house for a fraction of its value and
thereby destroying (stealing) the homeowner's personal investment and
equity.  In fact, this common law lien strategy would tend to make
"partners" of the bank and homeowner who were compelled to work
together to protect each other, rather than adversaries able to
profit unfairly at the other's expense.

     Where's the injustice in that?

     So far as I can see, this "federal common law lien" strategy
does not cheat the bank or anyone else who has a loan against the
house.  Everyone will be paid (or suffer similar losses) but instead
of the homeowner being paid little or nothing, the homeowner would
generally be paid first, and in full.

     [There is an exception: mechanic's liens probably take
precedence over the federal common law liens.  For instance, if the
roofer who put the $5,000 roof on the house had not been paid for his
work when the house is foreclosed upon, the roofer's mechanic's lien
would be paid first, the homeowner's "common law lien" would be paid
second, and the bank's equity lien (mortgage) would be paid third.
Sounds fair to me.]

     In truth, the "common law lien" strategy is less a "slick trick"
than a real improvement in the quality of justice surrounding
foreclosures, bankruptcies, et al.  After all, why should the
homeowner, alone, accept a (nearly) complete loss in the event of a
foreclosure?  Why shouldn't the homeowner be entitled to recover the
money he's invested in the home?

     Moreover, this "common law lien" strategy is not merely good for
the occasional homeowner faced with foreclosure, it's good public
policy.  Is it so far-fetched to suppose that if banks couldn't
profit from our individual economic misfortunes, there might be a lot
less misfortune?

     What would happen to our national economy if banks and mortgage
companies were effectively prevented from profiting from foreclosure
sales during a recession?  It might mean the banks would have a
stronger vested interest in preventing recessions, rather than
tolerating and then exploiting them (as they do now).  And if the
bankers took a more serious interest in preventing economic declines,
wouldn't they also play a more aggressive role in exposing whatever
government idiocies ultimately cause those declines?  Wouldn't that
be good for everyone?

     If this "common law lien" strategy really works, it just might
produce some suprising, positive benefits for the entire nation.

                               CAVEATS

     But, does this "common law lien" strategy really work?  Does it
work always?  Ever?  And will it work in Texas or Oregon as well as
Florida?  I don't know, and neither do the folks in Florida who
developed it.  Although this strategy has reportedly stopped two
foreclosures "on the courthouse steps", it is uncertain whether the
strategy will stand up under rigorous legal examination.

     It's entirely possible that the reported success of this
strategy is based on the "caveats" and threats of prosecution written
into this common law lien.  It's possible that no sensible official,
faced with this lien for the first time, would execute a foreclosure
until the validity of this new strategy (and the official's personal
liability) could be determined.

     In short. just because the "common law lien" form looks slick
and has scared a few officials, doesn't mean it's a legitimate (or
foolproof) strategy.

     So I present the "federal common law lien writ of attachment" as
another "legal experiment" conducted by some inventive pro se's.
Read it over, and if the strategy intrigues you, research and confirm
the cases cited in the form, read up on the law in your area
concerning liens in general (and common law liens in particular), as
well as property descriptions and so on, and then make up your own
mind.

     The form might seem a little confusing at first glance, but just
remember that the various case numbers, dates, and names of lienors,
counties, etc., must all be changed to reflect your specific case.
Further, any of the [bracketed comments] are general descriptions of
the kind of information that must be furnished at that point in the
form.

     Bear in mind that the following "common law lien" form is said
to work in Florida and may reflect a format required in Florida, but
still be contrary to the rules of your locality.  Before you attempt
to use this fonn or the "common law lien" strategy, make sure both
form and strategy conform to the legal requirements of your state and
local courts.

     As always, the final responsibility for using any legal strategy
or advice is your own, so be careful.  But be inquisitive, too.
There is not so much to fear in the legal system that we should be
afraid to try new strategies, especially if our backs are up against
the courthouse wall.  If you try this "common law lien" strategy and
it works, let us know.  Likewise, if you discover that this strategy
is defective, or can be improved, tell us that, too.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


                       FEDERAL COMMON LAW LIEN

                                 AND

                  NOTICE OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW LIEN
                         WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
                    ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

(Date).1992

NOTICE TO:

Clerk of the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the
State of Florida in and for Pinellas County; and Sheriff of Pinellas
County, Florida; and (name), Vice President on behalf of (name of
bank), Plaintiff; and (name), attorney for the Plaintiff; and All
Title Companies; and All Potential Purchasers; and all entities who
may claim interest now or at some time in the future; and All persons
known and unknown who may be similarly situated and All other
concerned parties.

You are hereby notified that a FEDERAL COMMON LAW LIEN WRIT OF
ATTACHMENT - ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY is now in effect on a
certain parcel of Real Estate now of record in the Name of JOHN Q.
PUBLIC the LIENOR, on property located in Pinellas County, Florida,
and known as (property address, city, state,); and more specifically
LEGALLY described as:

    [Here, the form contains the legal description of the property,
including: the Lot number(s) according to map or Plat as recorded in
Plat Book XXX, page XXX, of Public Records of (name of county)
County, State.]

Copy of this Federal Common Law Lien Writ of Attachment On Real And
Personal Property has also been filed in the following case file with
the Clerk Of The Circuit Court Of Pinellas County, Florida:

                          Case No: 92-XXXXX

Pursuant to that certain agreement that JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the OWNER of
the property, and JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the LIENOR, claims the attachment
of the FEDERAL COMMON LAW LIEN WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY is in the AMOUNT of:

              Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35.000.00)


                   MEMORANDUM OF LAW lN SUPPORT OF

     Writ Of Attachments are but another form of Federal Common Law
Lien and supercede mortgages and equity liens, Drummond Carriage v.
Mills, (1878) N.W. 99; Hewitt V. Williams, 47 La. Ann. 742, 17 So.
269; Carr V. Dail, 19 S.E. 235; McMaham V. Ludin 58 N.H. 827, and may
be satisfied only when paid and/or property is taken in lieu of the
monetary value and fully satisfied by said taking of property.

     The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rich v. Braxton, l58
U.S. 375, specifically forbids judges (Titles of Nobility) from
invoking equity jurisdiction to remove common law liens or similar
"clouds of title."  Furthermore, even if a preponderance of evidence
displays the lien to be void or voidable, the equity court (and Title
of Nobles) still mmay not proceed until the moving party asks for and
comes "to equity" with "clean hands" based on the "Clean Hands
Doctrine" And "Power Of Estoppel", Trice v. Comstock, 57 C.C.A. 646;
West V. Washington Sheriff, 153 App. Div. 460, 138 N.Y. Supp. 230.

     ANY OFFICIAL WHO ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY OR REMOVE THIS COMMON LAW
LIEN IN THE FORM OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT IS FULLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES AT
LAW PURSUANT TO THE MANDATORY RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN
BUTZ v. ECOHOMU, 438 U.S. 494, 98 S/Ct. 2894; BELL v. HOOD, 327 U.S.
678; and BIVENS v. UNKNOWN AGENTS, 499 U.S. 388.

     This Federal At Law Lien in the form of a Writ Of Attachment(s)
shall be valid, notwithstanding any other provision of statute or
rule regarding the form or content of a "notice of lien", nor shall
it be dischargeable for 100 years, nor extinguishable due to lienor's
death whether accidental or purposely, nor dischargeable by lienor's
heirs, assigns, or executors.


                               CAVEAT

     Whoever attempts to modify, circumvent, and/or negate this
Federal Common Law Lien, in the form of Writ Of Attachment, shall be
deemed outlaws and/or felons and shall be prosecuted pursuant to
Title 42, United States Code, Sect. 1983, 1985, and 1986, and
punishable under the penalties of the common law at law and
applicable sections of Title 18, United States Code.

     Demand is made upon all public officials under penalty of Title
#42 U.S.C. Section 1986 not to modify or remove this lien any manner.




                           JUDICIAL NOTICE

     WE HEREBY NOTICE this all parties and this Court that pursuant
to U.S. Supreme Court case HAFER v. MELO. No. 90-681, November, 1991,
any judicial actions which violate the constitutional rights of
individuals may be sued as a cause of action in civil litigation
against those performing said acts, without any form of immunity.

     CIVIL RIGHTS - Immunity: State officials sued in their
individual capacities are "persons" subject to suits for damages
under 42 USC 1983; Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits in
federal court. (Hafer v. Melo. No. 90-681). page 4001.

Respectfully Submitted in the Name of Justice on
this _________ day of _________________(Month), 19_____ .


(John Q. Public's Signature)
(Lienor's typed name,
address,
and phone number)



                              AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this _____ day of ________,
19___, did personally apear JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the OWNER of the
property, and JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the LIENOR, who being first personally
and duly sworn, does depose and say that the information contained in
this foregoing Federal Common Law Lien Writ of Attachment of Real and
Personal Property is true and accurate.

Further this affiant sayeth not.

(Signature)                              (Signature)
JOHN Q. PUBLIC                           JOHN Q. PUBLIC
"PROPERTY OWNER"                         "LIENOR"




                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS

  The foregoing Federal common Law Lien Writ of Attachment on Real
and Personal Property was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 19___, by JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the OWNER of the property, and
JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the LIENOR, who is personally known to me or who has
produced his Driver's License as idedification and who did take an
oath and acknowledged that he did execute same.

(Notary Signature)
Print Name:
Notary Public State of Florida At Large
My Commission Expires:





                    FLORIDA SHORT FORM INDIVIDUAL
                     ACKNOWLEDGMENT (F.S.695.25)

Type or Title of Document:

                  FEDERAL CLAIM OF COMMON LAW LIEN
                                 and
                  NOTICE OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW LIEN
                        WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON
                     REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

Number of pages:         Date of document:

JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the OWNER of the propeny;
and
JOHN Q. PUBLIC, the LIENOR.