Assorted Militia/SovCit news,(formerly Bundy thread)

[Xameil]

The native American tribes that are getting impatient with the federal government not taking action.

Don't they realize that the federal government is too busy fighting a football organization that the federal government has decided for them is insulting to them?

[Predicto]

So, I can just show up at the courthouse and put a lien on somebody's property?  Without any authority at all?  I don't have to go to court and get a judgement or anything? 

 

 

The county recorder doesn't have the time or resources to investigate each piece of paper he is asked to record.   He just takes your 6 dollars, stamps it, records it, and moves on to the next one.

 

What happens after the properly owner discovers someone placed a fake lien on their property?   Well that varies.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Predicto

[The Sisko]

There are valid criticisms of the guy. If all the haters would stfu for once I think that we could raise some legitimate criticism of his presidency. However, too easy to lump them all together as you did

He's handled this standoff with as much fortitude as he has handled Putin and the Republicans. Which is start off by ignoring it and hope things change

If the past is any indication, I think step two will involve whining.

Obama is far from perfect, but then who isn't? I'm with you in wishing he'd be tougher with Putin and the GOP, among others. I was getting at the idea that Obama is always too passive...when it's something that a given individual wants pushed aggressively. Other times he's cast as a tyrannical despot, again, when a given individual's ox is getting gored.  So I find it kind of ironic given that probably all of these guys are among the most vehement believers in the Obama as passive appeaser/tyrannical despot idea and yet his restraint is what will likely deny them the martyrdom they seem to want more than anything. So yeah, thanks Obama!

[PCS]

Okay. So that "Judge" Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch that was discussed earlier,is so extreme in his views and actions,even the "extreme" folks in Florida,(where he's from),distance themselves from him. Now we know why. 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/phony-judge-may-have-illegally-impersonated-a-cop-to-bring-militants-kids-to-occupied-oregon-refuge/

 

 

Phony judge may have illegally impersonated a cop to bring militants’ kids to occupied Oregon refuge

phony judge may have impersonated a police officer to help a pair of Oregon militants take their children away from a relative and bring them to an armed showdown with federal authorities.

Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch, a Tea Party activist and self-appointed “judge” from Florida, has been chosen by the militants to oversee an extralegal “common law grand jury” to investigate and intimidate elected officials standing in the way of their plan to take over Harney County.

DeMoreta-Folch is not actually a judge — and he’s not even an attorney.

However, the wife of one of the imprisoned ranchers who helped draw the militants to southeastern Oregon agreed to sign a “Demand to Amend With No Delay” that DeMoreta-Folch promised her would help clear, and eventually free, her husband and son from prison.

““That’s why I signed it,” Susie Hammond told Oregon Public Broadcasting. “That is my name, and I think he’s my new attorney — do you know his phone number?”

DeMoreta-Folch has a history of filing frivolous, incoherent lawsuits against political foes — a tactic common among so-called “sovereign citizens.”

His tactics are considered too extreme for the National Liberty Alliance — which encourages others to claim “sovereignty” for themselves through extralegal means.

“I don’t want to say that he’s crazy, but he’s too extreme for us,” said NLA spokesman Robert Bristow.

 

 

*Click Link For More* 

 

Now I'm not a lawyer,(and unlike a few in Tailgate I won't pretend to know as much or pretend to be one),but I'm thinking this guy could be in just a tad amount of trouble with the Feds on this one,(much less the state). 

[Predicto]

PCS - you left out the important part of that story.

 

 

The pair went to the relative’s house, where DeMoreta-Folch — who Dowdell said put on a phony law enforcement ID badge before leaving — argued that the relative had no authority under common law to hand over the girls to CPS, and the man threatened to call the police.

Bruce Doucette, a Colorado man assisting the militants, said he called the relative, identified himself as a “United States at Superior Court Judge” and threatened “to bring him up on charges to the grand jury of kidnapping” if he did not turn over the girls to their mother and DeMoreta-Folch.

Dowdell said DeMoreta-Folch also threatened to bring the relative up on common law grand jury charges if he turned the girls over to CPS workers.

The Florida activist said the pair jumped into a car with the girls and sped away, and they drove past a police car with its sirens flashing on its way to the relative’s house.

“The key point there, relative to the question of enforcement and Joaquin’s ability to get the job done, was he has a very professional-looking ID card that he hangs around his neck and it identifies him with a picture as the common law jury administrative investigator, and when the gentleman said, ‘I need to talk to an officer,’ he said, ‘I am an officer — you know, what do you want to know?'” Dowdell said.

[Larry]

I think that might be a really good place to draw a line. Interstate travel with kidnapped children sounds good.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I read up on all this sovereign citizen nonsense a few years ago. To what chipwich said, it's actually not that complex a theory; they have about ten to twelve pat answers for everything. The issue is that it sounds sort of half-right and official on first blush and if you challenge them too directly, you may get shot.

 

For law enforcement, a lot of this comes down, do you want to end up in a shootout over someone driving without a license?

 

For courts, the question often becomes, how much debate over fringe on a flag do you want to have over a minor tax offense?

 

To Larry, filing a lien is the easiest thing in the world. Enforcing a lien takes some time, effort, and money. But if you are trying to sell your house, a ten year old bogus lien is a nightmare.

 

It's the same thing with getting a judgment and enforcing a judgment. I have a $3000 judgment against past renters. Last time I researched it, she was in jail and he was living with a buddy and getting paid under the table on some construction jobs. I will never collect on that judgment.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Destino]

Did "the relative" have custody?  Maybe I missed something but why would their mom need a fake judge and a crazy guy impersonating a cop to go get her own kids in the first place?  

 

Either way it seems like those kids aren't in the best place and that impersonating a cops/judges is criminal. 

[Larry]

Did "the relative" have custody?  Maybe I missed something but why would their mom need a fake judge and a crazy guy impersonating a cop to go get her own kids in the first place?  

 

Well, I do note the reference to DCS. (Although, I believe that in Florida, the correct acronym is DCF, the Department of Children and Family Services. But I'm certainly no expert on the subject).

[Larry]

To Larry, filing a lien is the easiest thing in the world. Enforcing a lien takes some time, effort, and money. But if you are trying to sell your house, a ten year old bogus lien is a nightmare.

 

It's the same thing with getting a judgment and enforcing a judgment. I have a $3000 judgment against past renters. Last time I researched it, she was in jail and he was living with a buddy and getting paid under the table on some construction jobs. I will never collect on that judgment.

I'll certainly take y'all's word for it, that that's the way things ARE. But I've got to say, I've got a problem with that. Seems to me that what we've created is a situation where anybody who wants to can claim to own your house, and your only remedy is to go to court, at your own expense, and prove your innocence.

To get your judgment, you had to go to court, and prove that a debt existed. You had to at least give the accused an opportunity to contest your claim. And the burden of proof was on the person wanting the property.

Seems, to me, that seizing somebody's home should require AT LEAST that burden of proof.

(And yes, I realize that a lein is only a claim to own PART of your home. So what?)

I would think that a law is needed. Maybe two.

1). In order to place a lein on real estate, a judgment must first be obtained.

2). Falsifying a judgement is a criminal offense. (A felony, if the amount of the lein is more than $20, or whatever the threshold for felony theft is, in that jurisdiction).

Maybe, if there's some reason why it's necessary, you permit non-judgement leins to be placed, but such leins expire, say, one year after being filed, unless a judgment is obtained.

[The 12th Commandment]

Mechanic's Lien

 

They don't transfer ownership of the property just an interest in it that must be released before ownership can transfer (sell).  That's why it's possible to only find out 10 years later when some title company looks into it as part of a sale.  

 

The history of real property rights and interests is more interesting (npi) than you might think.  

[Larry]

They don't transfer ownership of the property just an interest in it that must be released before ownership can transfer (sell).  That's why it's possible to only find out 10 years later when some title company looks into it as part of a sale.

Gee, I could have sworn that I mentioned that they weren't claiming all of your house, just part of it.

And it's still wrong. In order to attack something so basic, the plaintiff should have to go to court and prove that the debt exists.  (In a setting where the owner has the right to object.  That includes being told that the claim is being made.)  The owner should not have to prove his innocence. 

[Predicto]

Gee, I could have sworn that I mentioned that they weren't claiming all of your house, just part of it.

And it's still wrong. In order to attack something so basic, the plaintiff should have to go to court and prove that the debt exists.  (In a setting where the owner has the right to object.  That includes being told that the claim is being made.)  The owner should not have to prove his innocence. 

 

 

You are conflating the obtaining of a judgment with the recordation of a lien.   Recording a document is merely the act of putting the world on notice of the existence of your claim.   It is not the place where the validity of your claim is determined.   You are telling the world that if you want to buy this guy's house someday, when you investigate title you will learn that I am making a claim against him which is something that you have to take into account.

 

What you are suggesting would change the county recorder into a quasi-judge.  They aren't equipped for that.   It's just a place to put notices, not to try cases.

[PCS]

Apparently,the FBI and Bundy talked today. Here they are. 

 

[Larry]

You are conflating the obtaining of a judgment with the recordation of a lien.   Recording a document is merely the act of putting the world on notice of the existence of your claim.   It is not the place where the validity of your claim is determined.   You are telling the world that if you want to buy this guy's house someday, when you investigate title you will learn that I am making a claim against him which is something that you have to take into account.

Unfortunately, it's a public record of a claim, without a claim even being made, let alone proven.

 

What you are suggesting would change the county recorder into a quasi-judge. They aren't equipped for that. It's just a place to put notices, not to try cases.

 

 

Uh, no, I'm suggesting that judges be judges.  And then the county clerk records what the judge ruled. 

 

I'm proposing that people's property cannot be encumbered without any judge whatsoever. 

[Predicto]

Unfortunately, it's a public record of a claim, without a claim even being made, let alone proven.

 

 

Uh, no, I'm suggesting that judges be judges.  And then the county clerk records what the judge ruled. 

 

I'm proposing that people's property cannot be encumbered without any judge whatsoever. 

 

 

It cannot be properly encumbered.   But how the hell is the county recorder supposed to decide which of the thousands and thousands of documents he or she records is genuine?   

[Larry]

It cannot be properly encumbered.   But how the hell is the county recorder supposed to decide which of the thousands and thousands of documents he or she records is genuine?   

 

Are you asking me "how can the county clerk tell if a piece of paper that says it's a court order really is one?" 

 

I'm assuming that a county clerk does at least know what an actual court judgement looks like.  But yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Yahoos could manage to type up a fake one with the correct parts in place. 

 

OTOH, granted, I'm ignorant about such things, but I strongly suspect that a real judgement will have the name and address of the court that issued it, and the name of the judge, and a date and a docket number.  If somebody manages to record a forged one, then I would think that a simple matter of attempting to contact said court (to get a copy of the judgement) would result in immediately discovering that either it's a fake name and address, or that it's a fake court.  Followed immediately by a motion to vacate the judgement.  (Or whatever the legal term is for "make it go away".) 

 

I at least assume that getting rid of forged court orders from courts that don;t exist is easier than proving that you never ran up a bar tab in Judge Roy Bean's Saloon and Courtroom. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Larry

[dfitzo53]

Are you asking me "how can the county clerk tell if a piece of paper that says it's a court order really is one?" 

 

I'm assuming that a county clerk does at least know what an actual court judgement looks like.  But yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Yahoos could manage to type up a fake one with the correct parts in place. 

 

OTOH, granted, I'm ignorant about such things, but I strongly suspect that a real judgement will have the name and address of the court that issued it, and the name of the judge, and a date and a docket number.  If somebody manages to record a forged one, then I would think that a simple matter of attempting to contact said court (to get a copy of the judgement) would result in immediately discovering that either it's a fake name and address, or that it's a fake court.  Followed immediately by a motion to vacate the judgement.  (Or whatever the legal term is for "make it go away".) 

 

I at least assume that getting rid of forged court orders from courts that don;t exist is easier than proving that you never ran up a bar tab in Judge Roy Bean's Saloon and Courtroom. 

I think what Predicto is saying is that recording a lien has nothing to do with obtaining a judgment of any kind.  It wouldn't matter whether the clerk knew what a judgment looked like or not, because you don't need one.

[Larry]

I think what Predicto is saying is that recording a lien has nothing to do with obtaining a judgment of any kind.  It wouldn't matter whether the clerk knew what a judgment looked like or not, because you don't need one.

I'll certainly take y'all's word for it, that that's the way things ARE. But I've got to say, I've got a problem with that. Seems to me that what we've created is a situation where anybody who wants to can claim to own your house, and your only remedy is to go to court, at your own expense, and prove your innocence.

To get your judgment, you had to go to court, and prove that a debt existed. You had to at least give the accused an opportunity to contest your claim. And the burden of proof was on the person wanting the property.

Seems, to me, that seizing somebody's home should require AT LEAST that burden of proof.

(And yes, I realize that a lein is only a claim to own PART of your home. So what?)

I would think that a law is needed. Maybe two.

1). In order to place a lein on real estate, a judgment must first be obtained.

2). Falsifying a judgement is a criminal offense. (A felony, if the amount of the lein is more than $20, or whatever the threshold for felony theft is, in that jurisdiction).

Maybe, if there's some reason why it's necessary, you permit non-judgement leins to be placed, but such leins expire, say, one year after being filed, unless a judgment is obtained.

  

[chipwhich]

The judges couldn't keep up with them.  Friends of mine are home builders and use them when necessary.  They put an addition on someones house, they don't get the final payment, homeowner refuses because they think  X isn't finished.  Builder thinks it is finished.  Homeowner refuses to pay.  Builder throws a lien on the house.

 

It will get resolved, but not sure it's worth going in front of a judge for a judgement.  The law was meant to help contractors, not get them lost in the court system.  Of course the bad guys figure out the loophole and issues arise.

 

We have friends whose daughters married.  One daughter and her husband contracted with the other daughters husband to do work on their house.  Husband who owned house refused final payment to other husband.  Family feud exists.  Makes for fun get togethers

Edited January 27, 2016 by chipwhich

[China]

They're coming out of the woodwork:

 

Oregon man joining Bundy militants threatens cops in drunken rant: ‘I will kill all of you’

 

4-year-old Oregon man allegedly planning to join the militant group occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge can be seen threatening to kill sheriff’s deputies in footage posted on Monday by KATU-TV.

 

Body camera footage shows Joseph Arthur Stetson telling a Harney County deputy, “I’m planning to go out there and protect the Bundys, be their personal guard. If anybody wants to kill them, they have to kill me first.”

 

The encounter on Monday was filmed at a local market after deputies responded to a report of an armed man on the premises. Stetson was reportedly carrying a pellet gun.

 

“What concerns me right now, as I’m talking to you, I can smell some alcohol on your breath,” the deputy tells Stetson. Stetson responds by saying that he drank some NyQuil earlier in the day, then refuses to take a field sobriety test.

 

“I was a colonel in the United States armed forces,” he says. “Green Beret.”

 

He then reaches into his pocket, only for the deputy to stop him by grabbing his arm before telling him, “You’re making me a little bit nervous right now” and motioning for a colleague to assist in handcuffing Stetson.

 

As he’s being handcuffed, Stetson says, “I will kill all of you. Don’t believe me? If I go to jail, when I come out, I’ll kill you.”

 

As the arrest continues, Stetson can be heard speaking more angrily, saying, “I’m a Green Beret colonel, you damn sons of ****es. Freaking Nazi Germany, that’s all you are. I can’t be killed anyway.”

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

Looking forward to the follow up story, where we find out his actual military service.

[Larry]

The judges couldn't keep up with them.  Friends of mine are home builders and use them when necessary.  They put an addition on someones house, they don't get the final payment, homeowner refuses because they think  X isn't finished.  Builder thinks it is finished.  Homeowner refuses to pay.  Builder throws a lien on the house.

 

It will get resolved, but not sure it's worth going in front of a judge for a judgement.  The law was meant to help contractors, not get them lost in the court system.  Of course the bad guys figure out the loophole and issues arise.

 

We have friends whose daughters married.  One daughter and her husband contracted with the other daughters husband to do work on their house.  Husband who owned house refused final payment to other husband.  Family feud exists.  Makes for fun get togethers

I do not believe that the only possible way to resolve said disputes, is to allow the contractor to encumber the homeowners property, with no burden of proof whatsoever, and the homeowner must then give in, or go to court and prove his innocence.

Maybe I'm silly, but I think the burden of proof should be on the contractor, and that said proof should come before encumbering the property.

And, like I suggested. If there's some compelling reason why the contractor has to get the encumbrance first (say, an electrician who didn't get paid by the general contractor, and the house is about to be sold next week), then let them get a temporary, one year, encumbrance, while they wait for their court date.

[PCS]

Just got home from gym. Twitterverse alive with news of arrest of Bundy and 2 others plus shots fired. 

https://www.rt.com/usa/330249-ammon-bundy-oregon-arrest/

 

 

 

 

Ammon Bundy, 3 others arrested in Oregon standoff amid shots fired – reports

*click Link For More*

[PCS]

Santilli the shrill pos has a live stream going. Says he's on the phone with Blaine Cooper,(militant in refuge),and telling him don't do it. It's not necessary. Asked to get kids out of there first then phone went dead. 

 

 

Edit. Twitter feed for #oregonstandoff

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/oregonstandoff?f=tweets&vertical=news&src=hash