Search             Print this page     Email a friend

Reversing the Filing of Invalid Liens

by Charles S. Pullium & Meredith Hattendorf
Millsap & Singer, P.C. — USFN Member (MO)

            Our firm recently received an order from a borrower that was issued by the “Federal Moorish Cherokee Consular Court,” established by the “Zodiac Constitution,” and demanded compliance with its terms. The borrower, who identified himself as Lord Noble, ©1979, also requested (via issued invoices) $42 million for the unauthorized use of his “copyrighted” name.  He then filed a lien.

            Missouri law makes it a Class B misdemeanor for anyone to “simulate legal process.” Missouri Statute 575.130 states that:

            “A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if, with the purpose to mislead the recipient and cause him to take action in reliance thereon, he delivers or causes to be delivered:

(1)   A request for payment of money on behalf of any creditor that in form and substance simulates any legal process issued by any court of this state; or

(2) any purported summons, subpoena or other legal process knowing that the process was not issued or authorized by any court”.

            Section 4 of 575.130 also prohibits the filing of a “nonconsensual common law lien,” which is defined as a document purporting to assert a lien against any person’s property where the lien is not expressly authorized by state or federal statute, by consent or contract, or by a state or federal court. [Mo. Rev. Stat. § 420.105]   The borrower creates a substantial headache for creditors and commits a class B misdemeanor when he files or records these nonconsensual common law liens.  Fortunately, Missouri Statute 428.110 provides a process for undoing the filing or recording of them. 

            Additionally, the Federal Bank Fraud Statute, 18 USC § 1344, authorizes imposition of a fine or a prison sentence upon anyone who knowingly executes a scheme to defraud a financial institution or to obtain any money or assets through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises.  The bank need not have actually been victimized by the scheme or have suffered an actual loss if there was sufficient intent to defraud, and the bank was exposed to a risk of loss. [U.S. v. Moran, 312 F.3d 480 (1st Cir. 2002)]

© 2004 USFN. All rights reserved.