a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF'NEW YORK

X
ROWE ENTERTAINMENT. et al..
Case No. 98-8272-RPP

Plaintiffs.
-against-

THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY INC., et al.,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL P. ZWEIG IN SUPPORT OF'ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST LEONARD ROWE

X MICHAEL
P.

ZWEIG,

an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State

of

New York, declares the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1746:

L

I am

a member of the

law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP ("Loeb"), attorneys for

William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC ("WME"). WME is the successor-in-interest of
the William Morris Agency, Inc.

("WMA"), one of the Defendants in the action brought by

Leonard Rowe and others, which this Court dismissed on summary judgment.l See Rowe

Entm't. Inc.. et al. v. William Morris Aeency. Iqc.. et a1..2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 5,

2005). I am fully familiar with the facts set forth below.

2.

I respectfully submit this declaration in support of WME's

ex

parte motion,

brought by Order to Show Cause, for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and permanent

injunction preventing Mr. Rowe from carrying out his threatened filing of more than one billion
dollars in commercial liens against WME, Loeb & Loeb, and individual Loeb attorneys. In three
separate notarized letters dated November 13,2013 and sent to Loeb attomeys, Mr. Rowe states:

t

For ease of reference I

will refer to both WME

and WMA as WME.

You all, along with your client, William Morris, have engaged in an unlawful and
sinister conspiracy to deny me due process and equal protection under the law. You, [Loeb partner] Helen Gavaris, your law firm, your client and others must be held accountable for what all have done.

I will be placing a commercial lien against [Mr. Zweig] and Helen Gavaris for one hundred million dollars ($100,0001000) each and an additional five hundred million ($500,000,000) against the law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP, as well as five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment. I will also be placing commercial liens against others that were involved in this heinous conspiracy if all fail to correct this deplorable situation.
Exhibits 1-3 (emprr'asis added).

3.

Any such lien would be frivolous and a blatant abuse of process,

trs

Mr. Rowe

has

no valid creditor claim against WME, Loeb or the other targets of his vendetta. Indeed, it is clear

from Mr. Rowe's letters that his threatened liens are nothing more than an attempt to harass, and
to extort payment and exact revenge on WME and its attorneys for this Court's dismissal of his

claims. Mr. Rowe

states that

"As part of the Lien, I will demand a substantial sum in

recompense/settlement of the damages." (Exhibits l-3 at p. 3, u 8) (emphasis added).

4.

Further, even though Mr. Rowe does not expressly mention the Court in his

November 13 letters, he ominously wams of retaliatory actions against unnamed "others," and in this action has repeatedly expressed contempt for the Court and its staff. An injunction against

Mr. Rowe is thus necessary to prevent Mr. Rowe's threatened conduct, including the filing of
liens against WME, Loeb, and Loeb attorneys.

5.

Mr. Rowe's direct threats must be taken seriously,

as

Mr. Rowe has in the past

acted on his threats against those whom he perceives as responsible for the dismissal of his

claims. For example,

as the Court is

well aware, Mr. Rowe filed unfounded ethical complaints

against his former attorneys, made an improper "claim'o with their insurance carrier, and incited a

letter-writing campaigr to inundate the Court.

6.

As discussed below, the lien procedure threatened by Mr. Rowe has recently

become a favored tool of abuse and harassment against govemment officials and others. In contrast with the ease with which bogus liens can be filed, their harm to a victim's credit rating and reputation can be devastating and long-lasting.

7.

WME therefore moves this Court,

ex

parte, and by Order to Show Cause, for a

TRO and a permanent injunction prohibiting Mr. Rowe from carrying out his threatened actions.

A Memorandum of Law and Proposed Order to Show Cause with TRO is being submitted
herewith.

8.

WME makes this motion pursuant to Rule 65(b), the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C.

$1651), and the Court's inherent authority to manage the litigants who appear before it.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

9. 10.

Although this Court is fully aware of Mr. Rowe's history of abusive litigation and

spurious accusations, they are summarized below for the Court's convenience.

Mr. Rowe and four other concert promoters commenced an action in 1998 against

many of the most prominent talent agencies and concert promotion companies in the United
States, asserting claims of racial discrimination and antitrust

violations. Following extensive
a

discovery, this Court granted WME's motion for summary judgment and entered

judgment

against Mr. Rowe. Rowg, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75; judgment at docket entry no. Second Circuit affirmed. 167 F . App'x 227 , cert. denied. 549 U.S. 887. I

676.

The

1.

In20l2, Mr. Rowe, proceedingpro se, frled a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from

the Court's judgment, claiming that WME and other Defendants conspired with his former attorneys to conceal and destroy documents allegedly relevant to his claims.

12.

On November

8,2012,in a43-page decision, this Court found Mr. Rowe's

accusations to be "meritless" and based on "nothing more than hot air and paranoid

suspicions[.1" Rowe Ent't v. William Morris Asencv Inc.. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161313,*4, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8,2012).

13.

In its November 8 , 2012 opinion, the Court noted that Mr. Rowe's invective was

not targeted solely at his opponents. In a book Mr. Rowe self-published in 2010, he accused this

Court of racism and corruption, and in court filings he accused the Court's staff of tampering

with evidence. Rowe,2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161313,*37 n.14,*62n.24 ("The Courtwill not
entertain Mr. Rowe's outrageous and speculative insinuation that a member of the Court's

administrative staff manipulated the records"). He also embarked on a "campaign

of

misinformation," which resulted in the Court receiving approximately 60 letters and postcards
asking that Rowe's unsubstantiated claims be reinstated. Id. at *40-41

n.16.

14.

Mr. Rowe also lodged ethics complaints with the New York State Bar Association

and the First Department Disciplinary Committee against several of his former attorneys at SNR

Denton ("SNR"), and he wrote a threatening and "unjustified" letter to SNR's managing

attomey. Rowe. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161313, *47, *76-77. Mr. Rowe even contacted SNR's
'oGeneral Commercial

Liability carrier and 'reported a claim for legal malpractice and criminal

conduct[.]"' Rowe Entm't v. William Morris Asency. Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272, *6
(S.D.N.Y. J an. 17, 20 1 3) (internal quotations omitted).

15.

In view of the unfounded accusations made in his Rule 60(b) motion, Mr. Rowe

was ordered to show cause, pursuant to Rule l 1(c)(3), "why sanctions should not be entered against him and to provide the Court with a certified financial statement of his assets and

liabilities." Rowe,20l2 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 761313,*78.

16.

ln response, on December 4,2072, Mr. Rowe moved to disqualiff the Hon.

Robert P. Patterson, Jr. This Court rejected that motion, finding no basis for Mr. Rowe's
allegations that it was "biased, prejudiced, racist and comtpt" (Dkt. No. 861).

17.

In its January 17,2013 decision on Rule I I sanctions, the Court noted that Mr.

Rowe had served improper discovery requests during the pendency of his Rule 60(b) motion

(including on Loeb itself), even after the Court wamed him that such requests "will be
considered sanctionable." Rowe. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272, *3 (citation and internal

quotations omitted). Mr. Rowe, the Court found, had "engaged in a pattem of leveling baseless
accusations" against his former attomeys, and accused the Court of racism and comrption during
an interview on Roseanne Barr's radio

show. Id. at *3-4. Mr. Rowe also posted

a video to

YouTube.com in which he stated that this Court "is a corrupt racist being paid by the SNR
attorneys and should be imprisoned, that this entire district court is corrupt." Mr. Rowe

continued: "'Wetre not stopping; he can sanction me all he wants to; I don't worry about him sanctioning me' . . . ." Id. at *6-7 (intemal citation and quotations omitted; emphasis added).

18.

The Court ultimately declined to impose sanctions, however, finding that, because
a monetary sanction

Mr. Rowe is "heavily in debt and has very little money in hand ... levying

against him could be unduly harsh and is therefore inappropriate." Rowe. 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 7272,*7.

MR. ROWE'S RECENT THREATS OX'SUBSTAIITIAL FINANCIAL ANI) REPUTATIONAL HARM

19.

On November 13.2013. Mr. Rowe sent me an e-mail with the subiect "Demand

letter and notice of Commercial Lien." The e-mail attached anotaized letter with the subject line "Demand letter and notice of Commercial lien Re: Rowe Entertainment vs. The William

Morris Agency." Attached

as

Exhibit I hereto are true and correct copies of Mr. Rowe's

November 13 e-mail and letter addressed to me.

20.

Mr. Rowe sent a substantively identical e-mail and notarized letter to my partner,

Ms. Gavaris (Exhibit 2 hereto), and a substantively identical notarized letter to my partner, Michael Beck (Exhibit 3 hereto), who serves as Loeb's Chairman and who has had no involvement with this case.

21.

Mr. Rowe's letters rehash the accusations he unsuccessfully made on numerous

occasions in this litigation, including that WME and Loeb supposedly conspired to conceal evidence and violate his civil rights

-

claims that this Court has already dismissed as "nothing

more than hot air and paranoid suspicions[.]"

@,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161313, at *13.

Yet Mr. Rowe persists in asserting that: "The unethical activity and crimes that you, your client
and your law

firm engaged in denied me due process and equal protection under the law, which I

feel only occurred because of my race and/or color." Exhibit

l.

22.

In his letters, Mr. Rowe purports to prescribe a process whereby we are supposed

to respond to his "claim" within 21 days. Mr. Rowe asserts that once the claim "process"
concludes:

I will then place a Public Advertisement, warning whomsoever may be concerned that your creditworthiness is henceforth highly suspect. I will inform Credit Reference Agencies to this effect. I would then be LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO SIEZE ANY OF YOUR PROPERTY, up to (and including) the value of the lien.
ZweigDeclaration, Exhibits l-3 (emphasis added, capitalized words in original).

23.

Mr. Rowe also demands a "substantial sum" in exchange for either foregoing or

removing his false liens. See. e.e. Exhibit 1 at numbered paragraphs 8 and 9(a), and the concluding paragraph. This is a clear case of extortion.2

BACKGROUND REGARDING THE ABUSE OX'THE COMMERCIAL LIEN PROCESS

24.

Although they may appear at first blush to be incoherent ramblings, unless

enjoined, Mr. Rowe's promised course of action will cause sigrrificant harm. Bogus liens have, unfortunately, become a favored tool for harassment and intimidation in this country. As recently reported by The New York Times, billions of dollars in liens have been filed against judges, law enforcement offrcers and public officials, in order to retaliate for perceived official

wrongdoing. The article notes that "[a]lthough the filing of liens for outrageous sums or other seemingly frivolous claims might appear laughable, dealing with them can be

nightmarish, so much so that the F.B.I. has labeled the strategy 'paper terrorism."'
(emphasis added). Attached as Exhibit 4 hereto is a true and correct copy of the online version

of The Times report, titled In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the lileapon, published on August 23,
2013.

25.

Preventing fraudulent lien filings is difficult because many state agencies that

serve as repositories of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings are prohibited from inquiring
as to the

liens' validity. A person intent on harassment can simply file liens against his targets,

2

The Court should also be aware that Marcus Washington, another individual who has asserted unfounded claims of comrption and bias against WME and its counsel, and with whom Mr. Rowe has allied himself, has threatened the same false lien filings against the Hon. P. Kevin Castel. See Exhibit 7 attached hereto; see also Rowe.20l3 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272,*7 n.5 (noting assertion by Mr. Rowe's former attorney that Mr. Washington participated in a recorded telephone call in which Mr. Rowe criticized the Court; the audio of this conversation was posted to YouTube).

usually for any amount, without needing any supporting documentation. The liens tarnish the

victim's credit score and reputation.

26.

Responding to these concems, the New York Legislature recently passed, and

Governor Cuomo sigred, legislation making it a crime to file false liens against state and local
employees on account of their official duties. In doing so, the New York State Assembly noted:

Under the UCC as now written, there is no easy means by which to deter or otherwise prevent such abuse. The INY Department of State] must accept each financing statement filed for recording and subsequently make it available for public viewing. The result: once a fraudulent financing statement is recorded and if sufficient on its face when filed, it must be recorded - that statement can raise red flags that substantially prejudice the availability or price of credit, complicate employment prospects and sully a public seryant's

-

reputation.
(emphasis added). Attached as Exhibit 5 hereto is a true and correct copy of the memorandum that accompanied the Assembly-passed version of the law.

27.

The harm posed by the filing ofphony liens has also been recognized by

Congress, which made

it a crime to file a false lien or encumbrance against the property of a
$

federal employee on account of that employee's performance of his duties. See 28 U.S.C. 1521.

28.

Removing a lien can be time-consuming and costly. As noted in an April 2013

report from the National Association of Secretaries of State, titled State Strategies to Subvert

Fraudulent Uniform Commercial Code (ICC) Filings (Exhibit 6 hereto):
In most states, this action requires a court order. The legal expenses that are involved can run thousands of dollars, and the process can take months, or even years. Restoring damaged credit histories can take even longer.

WME AIID ITS ATTORNEYS F'ACE IMMEDIATE AI\D IRREPARABLE INJURY

29.
of

WME and its attorneys face immediate and irreparable injury absent the issuance Mr. Rowe.

a TRO against

30.

Without having any valid basis for doing so, Mr. Rowe has stated that he

uwill'

file a total of $1.2 billion in liens against WME, its attomeys and "others." As New York's
Legislature acknowledges (see Exhibit 5), liens are automatically accepted and made available

for public viewing without regard to their validity. The burden is then on the victim to reverse
the financial and reputation harm he or she suffers.

31.

If Mr. Rowe is allowed to carry out his threat of filing false liens, he would

damage WME and its attorneys in ways that would be impossible to quantify. Credit ratings, for instance, are a product of numerous factors, and it would be impossible to ascertain the extent to

which Mr. Rowe's actions contributed to a credit downgrade (and, further, how that downgrade
has harmed someone's ability to obtain credit or financing). The reputational damage that Mr.

Rowe is threatening

-

including contacting of credit rating agencies and placing public

advertisements "warning ... that your creditworthiness is henceforth highly suspect"

-

are

similarly not quantifiable. These threatened harms are particularly worrisome for WME and
Loeb, which each have substantial ongoing business operations that depend to a large degree on their creditworthiness.

32.

Moreover, Mr. Rowe, at least as of the beginning of this year, is "heavily in debt

and has very little money in hand." Rowe. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272, *7

. Mr. Rowe is thus

likely judgment-proof, and may believe that as a result he can escape consequences for his conduct.
See

Rowe,2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7272,*6-7 ('o'We're not stopping; he can sanction

me all he wants to; I don't

worry"') (internal citation and quotations omitted; emphasis

added).

The only thing that

will put a stop to Mr. Rowe's

vendetta appears to be the prospect of criminal

contempt of Court. As this Court has noted, Mr. Rowe has already gone well beyond mere words, and has taken a variety of harmful actions against his former attorneys, including filing ethical complaints and making a claim with their liability carrier. See paragraphs 13-17, supra.

33.
as neither

There is no question that Mr. Rowe's motivation is harassment and intimidation,

WME nor its attomeys owes him anything. Mr. Rowe lost his lawsuit. After years of

costly litigation, this Court disposed of the claims that Mr. Rowe asserts in his November l3

letters. Unhappy with this result, Mr. Rowe is now poised to file bogus liens, contact credit
rating agencies to let them know that the creditworthiness of WME, Loeb and Loeb attorneys is

"highly suspect," and even to try to seize property in order to collect on his threatened liens. Mr.
Rowe's threats of filing false liens to extort a "substantial sum" from WME and its attomeys are tortious as well as criminal.
See',

e.s., l8 U.S.C. $ 1341 (mail fraud);

l8 U.S.C. $ 1349

(attempted mail fraud); United States v. Ulloa. 511 Fed. Appx. 105 (2013) (upholding 60-month
sentence of man convicted of mail fraud for

filing false liens and other fraudulent documents

against a variety of private citizens, and for demanding money from his civilian victims).

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

l0

34.

Under these circumstances, WME and its attorneys respectfully request that the

Court enjoin Mr. Rowe from filing fraudulent liens
event

*

something he has no right to do in any

-

rather than wait for Mr. Rowe to cause damage that is impossible to quantiff and

will

likely lead to a damages judgment that cannot be collected. THIS MOTION IS BROUGHT EX PARTE TO AVERT SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO WI,IE AND ITS ATTORNEYS

35.

In acoordance with Rule 65(b), notice of this application has not been given to

Mr. Rowe. Given Mr. Rowe's deranged threats to file baseless liens, as well as his years-long
course of sanctionable conduct in this litigation, WME and its attomeys believe that providing

notice would only causc Mr. Rowe to immediately fi1e liens prsvgnt.

-

the very action we are trying to

36.

We have not made anothcr application for the relief requested herein, in this or

anv other courl.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
LJnited States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on

m.fftay

of November,2013.

HAEL P. ZWEIG

t0

EXHIBIT 1

From: RoweEntertain@aol.com Imailto: RoweEnteftain@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13,2013 12:31 PM To: MichaelZweig Subject: Demand letter and notice of Commercial Lien
I am sending you fair notice of my intent to invoke Commercial Lien against you and your firm. I am allowing 21 days from the date of this letter for you answer or rebuttal.

Leonard Rowe

Leocard Rowe 5835 State Bridge Rd. Suiae #119 Jshns Creek, GA 3009? 404-374-t370

November 13,2013

Michael Zweig Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154

}€mand letter and rotice of Comnercial lien Re: Rowe S:rtert*inment vs. The

Iililliam Morris Agency
Dear Michael Please

Zweig

allow this letter to serve as my offrcial aotice that I iatend to exercise all legal options that are available to me which will include, invoking a co:nmercial lisn against you, Helea Gavaris, your law firrr Loeb & Loeb LLP, your clisat lVilliam Monis Endeavor Entertainment $ormerly kaown as the William Morris Agency), and others that have conspired:o violate my civil and human rights in the above captioned case. As you may well know, I am fully aware of *re crimes and unethical activities that you and your co-conspir*ors engaged in during the litigation of my case. The unethical ac*ivity and crimes fhat yotl yow client, and your law firm engaged in denied me due process and equal prctection under the law, which I feel only occurred because of my race and/or
color.

Ths unethical and criminal activiry that you and the law finn of Loeb & Loeb tLP have engaged ia can easily be provea i:l:he pre$ence of a fair and impartial jary. These overt acts include: - Act$ of fraud and illegal tampsiry with evidence, violation of l8 U.S.C. $ 1506 - Conspiracy to i:rtelfere with civil riehts, violation of 42 U.S.C. $1985 - Violation sf the Racketeer kdlueace and Comrption Organization Act (*RICO',), l8 U.S.C $1961-1968. - Violating the Courtls e-mail order by viewing the e-malLs frst arrd not paying the costs for them.

I could conti*ue, but I know that you and your law are fully
institutional racism is maintained tbroughout Hollyvrood-

aware

of the despicable

things that you, Helen Gavaris, your client, atrd o&ers have done to ensure that

have been made fully awxe that the egregious acts were in &ct not only acts of gross attorney misconduct, &as4 and collusioq but these acts also constitute the commission of serious crimss. Whe:r you and your co-conspirators concealed "smoking gun" email evidence known as "Exhibit 31" - the e-mail search results showiag the number of times various employees from the William Monis Agency and Creative Artists Agency referred to African America:ls as "nigger," "niggu," "coon," "Ijncle Tom," "monket'o a:rd other racially derogatory terms you all committed fie crime of tampering with evidence in a &deral proceeding in*r alia. Regardless of Judge Patierson's November 8, 2012 erroneous decision denying my FRCP 60 Motioa, the three Interim Decisions of Arbitrator David L. Gregory in Washington v. William Monis Endeavor Entertainment-whictr, in part, has conipeiled Williarn-Monis snd Lceb & Loeb LLP to produce the spoliated, underlyiag emails and additional e-discovery related evidence fron:. my case (e.g co:npact disss (CDs), privilege logs, etc.) and admi:ted "Exhibit 31" into the evidence of record- supports the that you and ths law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP are guilty of cornrnitting a pattem of "fraud upol lhe court."

I

-

**

The criminal actions of yo6 Hslen Gavaris, and your law firm have caused complete horror and devastation to my family and I. You all, along with your client, William Morris, have engaged in an unlawfirt aad sinister conspiracy to deny me due process and equal protection under the law. You, Helea Oavaris, your law {im, your client and others must be beld accounlable for what all have done.

lien against you and Helen Gavariso for one hua&ed million dollars (S100,000,000) each and an additional five hundred million {$500,000,000) against the law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP, as well as five hundred million dollars S500,000,000) agairct $/illiam Mo:ris Endeavor Entertainment. I will also be placbg commercial liens against others &at were ilvolved in this heinous conspiracy if all fail to correct this deplo:able sitr:ation.

I will be placing a corlmercial

A Common Law Commercial Liea is a process that aay Human Being can employ in
order 1o obtain a lawful remedy from the actions of another Hr.:man Being(s) whs have attempted or have conspired to - damage said H*man in some way. The reason for this is very simple: Since all are equal uader the LAW, then each Human Seing has a Duty of Care to each otler Human Being, such as to make sure that * whatever action we take towards each o{rer * we have the Commo;r Law behind those actions, and thus can live together in peace. Abrogating said Duty of Care is a CRIMINAL ACT, and constitutes a tort. I believe that you have created a tort, or torts, against My Human Self.

-

The Commercial Lien process is a construct of the Common Law (The Law-ottheLand). Thus any Hurnan Being residing in this counfry is subject to the Com:non Law above all else. And &at includesthe individsal(s), to whom this Notice is ad&essed.
The process comprises of the following:

t. I will w:ite

(Affidavit), uniler peaalry af periury. This beiag othe truth, lhe whole truth, and nothing bat the case, u/hat I will rtnrite ]/i1l be the truth," and will thus be based onlirct-hand knowledge.
a Statement of Truth

2. You

will be sent a copy of my Affidavit, which will compriseall of my factual allegations. You will have ro RTBUT EACH POINT in order to ward offthe potsibility of a Lien. You will be given 30 tthirty) days to do so, but I can assure you that yo:r will not bs able to rebut EVIN ONE SINGLE POINT. You will need to relut by rneans of a sworn Affidavit of your own, '*ritlen under the sarae criteriq umely: Fromfirst-hand knowledge, and under penalq af periury.
Any points you manage to rebut with proof will be renoved from my allegations, and the remainder kept as my final Affidavit. The result will be Notarized (by a Notary Public) to becoare My Statement of Truth which will aot only become TgE TRUTH, IN LAW - but will also become A JUDGMENT, IN LAW.

1

That being &e case, no Hearing will be required. Becaase the jadgtnent has already been msde by the *uth. (That's Coslr:on Law!)

5.

I w:11tlen place a Public Advertisement, warning whomsoever may be concerned, that your crditwo*hiness is he&ceforth hlghly s$sp€ct. I will inforrn Credit Referenqe Age*cies to this e*ect. I would then be LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO SIEZ3 ANY OF YOUR PROPERTY' up to (and including) the value of &e Lien.

6. This process will occur in a LAWTUL manner * because you are given &e ebance to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE - and I will tbus relain eatirely 'clean hands' (unlik€ yourselveso which is why your mechanism is IINLAWS'UL, and why I arn abte to counler il by&is IA1VFUL means).
7.

As footrotes, I should add that:

a.

Even if I make aa hsne$t mistake, WHICI{ YOU FAITED TO REBUT, my nristake BECOMES THE TRUTH, [N LAW. You will not be able to claim o'libel," "slander," etc., because yoa will have b*a given thirty days to rebut the allegations, before public announcsmeo!;

b.

By

a

failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE you would have tacitly

acquiesced to my Statements as Truths, ia

Law;

'-

c. REBUT IN SUBSTANCE does not com;:rise of simply dismissing my
allegatior:s. That is mere gainsaying. "IN SUBSTA}{CC" means "accompanying with HARD proofs" (in this case, 'oto the coatrary").
8.

As apa:t of the Lien, I will denand a substantial susr ln recompense/settlemeat the damages. Being that a Lie* is a Common Law constnrct, the only way this Liea can be removed is:

of

9.

By Full Payme:rt or settlqte$t ... in which case I will remove it:
b. The passage

of99 years; or

The verdict of a Jury af 12, deciding that the Lien should not have been imposed. But this will :eqairc YOU to take ME to a Coart whereupon I wiU be able to explain {to said Jury) exactly bow you took actions which comprised the tort{s) agaiast rne WTHOUT ANY LAWFUL EXCUSE WHATSOEYER. DO NOT, llND[R ANy CIRCUMSTANCSS, ASSUME THAT ANY JUDGE CAN REMOV€ A LIEN. A ruDGE CONNOT )O THAT, AND ruDGES KNOW THAT (because it is a Comrnon Law, NOT A STATUTORY process). This letter is not inter:ded to threalen, harass or intirnidate a$yone, but to only provide the chance for these wrongs to fiaally be made right. I hope and pray that you will accept this opportunity to do so. I will allow 21 days from the date of this letter for your answer or rebuttal.

,{u/',

)ryuryfu&*

"f

A

EXHIBIT

2

From: Leonard Rowe @ Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: Helen Gavaris Subjectr Fwd: Demand letter and noUce of Commercial Lien

I am sending you fair notice of my intent to invoke a Commercial Lien against you and your firm. I am allowing 21 days from the date of this letter for your answer or rebuttal.

Leonard Rowe

Leo:rard Rswe

5885 $txe Bridge Rd. Suite #119 Jobns Creelg GA 30097 404-374-t370

November 13,2013
Helen Gavaris Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154

Dena:ri letter aad notice of Commercial lien Re: Rowe Entertainment William Morris Agency
Dear Helen Gavaris,

vs. The

allow this letter ts serve as ey official sotice thai I intend to exercise all legal options that are available to ne rrhich will include, invoking a comm€rcial lien against you, Michael 7-uteig, your law firm Lo€b & Loeb LLP, your client William Monis Eadeavor Entertainment $omerly known as the William Monis Agency), a$d o&ers that have conspired to violate my civil and human rights in the above captioned case. As you may well known I arn frrlly aware of the crimes and unethical activilies that you and yoru co-coaspirators engaged in during the litigation of rny case. The unetlical activity and criraes thal you" your client, and your law firm engaged in denied me due process and equal protection under :he law, qrhich I feel only occurred because of my race and/or color.
Please

The unethical and criminal activitv that you and the law fimr of Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in can easdy be provea in &e presence of a fair and impartial jury. These overt acts inelude:

- Acts of fraud and illegal tanpering with evidence, violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1506 - Conspiracy to interfere wi& civil dgbts, violation of 42 U.S.C. $1985 - Violation of the Racketeer lnfluence and Comrption Organization Act (*RICO'), 18 U"S.C $1961-1968. - Violating &e Courtls e-mail order by viewing the e-mails first and not payiag the cosls {br them.

could continue, but I lsow tha* you and your law are fully aware of the despicable things tbat yorl Michael Zweig, your client, and othen have dole to ensure that ins:ih:tional racism is maintained throughout Hollywood,

I

I

various ernployees from the William Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency rg&rred to Afrigan Americans as "nigger,oo "nigga,'o "coon," "Uncle Toino" "monkey" and other racially derogatory temrs - you all Nommiued the crime of tampering with evidence in a federal proceeding inter alia Regardless of Judge Pafterson's November 8, 2012 erroneous dscisioc denyrng my FRCP 60 Motion, the three Interim Decisioss of Arbitator David L. Gregory in Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment which, in part, has compelled William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP to produce the spoliated, underlying emails and additional ediscovery related evidence from my case {e.g compact discs (CDs), privilegs logs, etc.) and adrnitted "Exhibit 31" in:o the evidence of :ecord * supports the fact that you and the law finn of Loeb & Loeb LLP are guilty of commifing apattem of 'ofraud uponthe sourt."
The criminal actions of you, Michael Zweig, and your law firm have caused complete honor and devastation to my family and L Yol all, along with your client, Witliam Morris, have engaged in an ualawful and sinister coaspiracy to deay me due process and equal protectioa under the 1aw. You, Miehael Zwerg your law fiag your client and others must be heid accolntable for what all have done.

have beea made fully aware thal the egregious acts were in fact not. only acts of gtoss att'omey misconduct, fraud and collusion, but these acts also constilute the commission of serious crimes. When you and your co-conspirators concealedousmoking gun" email evidence known as "Exhibit 31" - the e-mail search results showing the number of times

I witl

million dollars i$100,000,000) each and an additional five hu:rdred million
($500,000,000) against &e law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP, as well as five hundred million dollars {$500,000,000) against William Morris Endeavor Entertaiment. I will also be placing commercial liens against others that were involved ln this heiaous conspiracy all fail to correct this deplorable situatioa.

be placing a commercial lien against you and Michael Zweig, for one hundred

if

A Common Law Commercial Lien is a process that any Human Being can employ in
order to obtain a lawful remedy from the actions of another Human Being(s) who have attempted ot have conspired to - damage said Human in some way. The reason for this is very simple: Since all are equal under the LAW, then each Hrunan Being has a Duty of Care to each other Human Being, such as to make sure that * whatever action we take towards each other - we have dre Common Law behid those actions, and thus can live together in peace. Abrogating said Duty of Care is a CRIMINAL ACT, and constitutes a tort.

-

I believe that you have created

a tort, or

torls, against My lfunran Self.

The Commercial Lien process is a construct of the Common Law (The Law-otthefand). Thus any Human Being residing in &is coantry is subject to *re Common Law *bave all ebe. And that includes the individual{s), to whom this Notice is addressed.
The process comprises of the following:

!

1.

I will qrite a Statement of Truth {A$davit), under penalty af perjury. This being tbe case, what I will write will be "the trutk, the whole tralh, anil nothing but the *uth," and will thus be based onfirst-hand l*rowledge.
You will be sent a copy of my Affidavit, which will compriseall of my factual allegations. You will have to REBUT EACH POINT in order to ward offthe possibility of a Lien. You will be given 30 {thi*y) days io do so, but I can assure you that you will not be able to rebut SVEN ONE SINGLE POINT. You will need to rebul by means of a sworn Affidavit of yotr own" written uader the same criteria, aamely: Frsmftrst-bcad knowlzdge, snd ander penalty of perjary.
nnanage to rebut with proof will be removed from my allegations, and the remainder kept as my fhal Affidavit. The result wiU be Notarized (by a Notary Fublic) to become My Statement of Truth, which will not only become THg TRUTH, IN LAW -but will also become A JIIDGMENT, IN LAW.

Any points you

4. That being the case, no Hearing will be required. Becarue the already been made by the t/ut*. (That's Common Law!)

judgment

hos

). I will

?lblic Advertisernent, waming whomsoever may be concemed, that your creditworthiness is henceforth highly suspect. I will inform Credit
then place a Refere,rcs Agencies to this effect.

I would then be LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO SIEZE ANY OF YOURPROPERTY, up to (and including) lbe value of the Lien.

This process will occur in a LAWFUL manner - because you are given the chalce to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE - and I will thus retaia entirely 'clean hands' (unlike yoarselves, which is why yoar mechanism is UNLAWFUL, and why I am abl"e to ccuuter it by:hls LAWFUL means). As footnotes, I should add &at:

a.

Even if I make an honest mistake, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REBUT, my mistake BECOMES THE TRUTH, fN LAW. You will not be able to o'slander,'o etc., because you will have been given thirty days claim 'o[ib€l," to rebut the allegations, before pub1lc ?inouncsment;

b.

failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE you would have tacitly ' acquiesced to my Sta&rnents as Tr$hs, in Lavr,

By

a

c. REBUT IN SUBSTANCE does not comprise ef simfly dismissing my
. "IN SUBSTANCE" mear$ allegations. That is "accompanying w:* HARD proofS" (in this ca$e, 'olo ihe contrary").
8.

mere

As apart of &e Lien, I will demand a substaatial surn in recompease/settlement the damages.

of

9. Bei*g

&at a Liea is a Conmon Law construct, the only way this Lien

can be

removed is:

a- 3y Full Paynrent ot settlement ... in which case I will remove it;

b.

The passage of99 years; or

c. The verdict of a Jury of L2,&ciding that the Lien should not have been
i::tposed. But this will require YOU to take ME 1o a Court whereupon I will be able to explaia (to said Jury) exactly how you took actions which comprised the ro*{s) against me MTHour ANy LAWFUL EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSUME THAT ANY JUDGE CAN REMOVS A LIEN. A JUDGE CONNOT D0 THAT, AND JUDGES KNOW THAT (because it is a Common taw, NOT A STATUTORY process).

This lethr is not intended to *::eaten, harass or intimidate anyone, but to only provide the chance for these wrongs to finally be *rade righl. I hope and pray &at you will accept this opporunity to do so. I will allsw 21 days from the date of this letter for your answer or rebuttal.

4

EXHIBIT

3

Leonard Rowe 5805 State Bridge Rd. Suite #119 Johns Clsck" OA 30097

it*1-3?ill3?(l

November

l3,20l3

Michael Beck

Loeb &LoebLLP
345 Park Ave. New York" NY 10154

lesand letter and nctice of Commercial lisn Re:
Wllliam Morris Agoncy
Dear Michrel Beclq

Rowe Entstainmont vs. The

Please allow this letter to serve as my official notice that I intend ta exereise all legal options that are available to me which will include, invoking a conunercial lien against your law firrn, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Mishae.l Zweig, Helen Gavaris, your client William Monis Endeavor ffonrrerly known as The William Monis Agency), and others that bave conspired to violate my eivil and human rights in the above captioned case. As yo! may well know, I am fully aware of the crimes and unethical activities that your law firm and it's co-sonspirators engaged in during tlre litigation of my case. The unethical activity and cdmes that your firm, Loeb & Loeb tLP, have engaged in denied me due process and equal protection under the law, which I feel only occured because of my race andlor color. The overt aets that cdn easily be proven in the prcsence of a fair and impartial jury include:

- Acts of fraud and illegal tanrpering with evidence, violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1506 - Conspiracy to interfere with eivil rights, violation of 42 U.S.C. $1985(3) - Violation of the Racketeer lnfluence and Comrption Organization Act
18 U.S.C $1961-1968. - Violating the Courts e-mail order by viewing the e-mails first and not paying the costs for them.

(*Rlco'),

I could continue but I know that you and your law firm are aware of the despicable things that Michael Zweig, Helen Gavaris, ysur cliont, \Villiam Monis Endeavor, and ottrers have done to easure tlat institutional racisrr is maiatained throughout Hollywood.

I

fully aware that the egregious acts were in fact not only acts of gross attomey misconduct, fraud and collusion, but also that these acts specifically constitute
have been made

the commission of serious crimes, When your law firm aad its co-conspirators coneeal the email evidence, they all committed the crime of tampering with evidence in a federal

proceeding inter alia. Regardless of Judge Patterson's November 8, 2012 decisiol deoying my FRCP 60 Motion, the three Interim Decisions of Arbitrator David L. Crcgory in Washinglon v. William'Morris Endeavor Entertrainrnent suppork the fact that the law fimr of Loeb & Loeb LLP gudty of committing "fraud upon the court.* is
The criminal actioas of y$tr law firm. Helen Gavaris, and Michael Zuteig have caused complete bor:or and deva$tation to my family and L Your fimr, along with your clien! William h{orris, has engaged in an mlawfrri and sinister conspiracy to deny rne due process and equat protectiSn under the law, and your firm Helen Gavaris, and Michael Zweig, your clierrl, and others must be held accountable for what you all have done.

I will be placing a commercial lien agaiast Helen Gavaris and Michael Zweig for one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) each and an additional five hundred million ($500,000,000) against thqlaw firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP, as well as five hundred million ($500,000,000) against William Momis Endeavor. I will also be placing commercial liens against others ihat were involved ia this heinous conspiracy if all fail to correct this deplorable situation.
A Common Law Commercial tien is a process that any Human Being can employ in
order to obtain a lowful remedy from the actioas of another Hmran Being(s) who have attempted ot have conspired to - darnage said Human in some way. The reason for this is very simple: Since all are equal under the LAW, then each Human Being has a Duty of Care to each o&rer Human Being such as to make sure that whatever action we take towards each other * we have the Common Law behind those actions, and lhus can live together in peace. Abrogating said Duty of Care is a CRIMINAL ACT, and constitutes a

-

-

tort.

I believe that you have created

a tort, or torts, against

My Human Self,

The Commercial Lien process is a constflrct of the Common Law (The Law-of-theLand). Thus any Human Being residing in this country is subject to the Common Law qbove all else. And that includes the individua(s), to whom this Notice is addressed.
The process conrprises of the following:

1. I will write a Statement of Truth (Affidavit), under
the case, what I

the truth," and

will write will be uthe trath, the whole truth, and nothing but will &us be based onfirst-hand knowledge.

penal4t af pe$ury. This being

2.

You will be sent a cqpy of my Affrdavit, which will comprise all of my factual allegations. You will have to REBUT EACH POINT in order to ward offthe possibility of a Lien. You will be given 30 (thi*y) days to do so, but I can lNsure you that you will not be able to rebut EVEN ONE SINGTE POINT. You will need to rebut by means of a swom Affidavit of your own, written under the sarne criteria, namely: Fromflrct-hond knowledge, nnd under penalty 6pe$ury.

3.

Any points you nanage io rebut with proof will be removed from my allegations, and the remainder kep as my final Affidavit. The result will be Norarized (by a Notary Public) to become My Statement of Truth, which will not only become THE TRUTH, IN LAW * but will also become A JUDGMENT, IN LAW.
be required. Beesase the judgment has (That"s already been made by the truth, Common Law!)

4. That being the case, no Hearing

will

5.

I will then place

a Public Advertisenrent, warning whomsoever may be colceraed, that your creditwordriness is henceforth hi$ly suspeet. l will inform Credit Refsence Agencies to this effect. I would then be LAWFULLY ENT:TLED TO SIEZE ANY OF YOURPROPERTY, up to (and including) the value of the Lien

6.

This process will occur in a LAWFUL manner - because you are givea the chance to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE - and I will thus retain entirely 'clean hands' (unlike yourselves, which is why your mechanism is UNI,AWFUL, and why I am able to counter it by this LAWFUL means). As footnotes,I should add that:

7.

a. Even if I make an hoacst mistake,

WHICH YOU FAILED TO REBUT, my mi*ake BECOMES THE TRUTH, IN LAW. You will not be able to clairn "libel," o'slander," etc., because you will have been given thirty days to rebut the allegations, before public announcement;
you would have tacitly

b, By a failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE

acquiesced to my Statements as Truths" in Law; and

c. REBUT IN SUBSTANCE
"accompnying
8.

allegations. That is mere gainsaying.

does not eomprise of simply dismissing my "IN SUBSTANCE" means with HARD proofs" (in this case, "to the contrary").

As a part of the Lien, I will demand a substantial sum in reeompense/settlement the damages.

of

9. Being that a Lien is a Common Law construct, the only way this Lien can be removed is:

By Full Payment or settlernent ... in which case I will remove it;
The passage of99 years; or The verdict of a Jury of 12, deciding that the Lien should not have been imposed. But this will require YOU to take ME to a Court whereupon I will be able to explain (to said Jury) exactly how you took actions which comprised the tort(s) against me MTHOUT ANY LAWFUL EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. DO NOT, I.JNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES,

ASSUME TFIAT ANY JUDCE CAN REMOVE A IIEN. A JUDGE

CONNOT DO TI{Af, AND JUDGES KNOW THAT (because it is a Cornmon Law, NOT A STATUTORY process).
This lelt$r is not intesded to threaten, harass or intimidate anyone, but to only provide the chance for these wrongs io finally be made right. I hope and pray that you will accept this opportr:nity to do so. I will allow 2l days from the date of this letter for your answer or rebuttal.

r&ffi
i2x-;::';.'-

eltiinl$ir"

rr\r1\':

EXHIBIT

4

In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon - NYTimes.com

Page 1 of4

@be

rTctuflork6uff

August 23, 2013

Weapon
By ERICA GOODE

In Paper \Mar, Flood of Liens Is the
One of the first inklings Sheriff Richard Stanek had that something was

MINNEAPOLIS

wrong came with a call from the mortgage company handling his refinancing.

"It must be a mistake," he said, when the loan officer told him that someone had placed liens
totaling more than $25 million on his house and on other properties he owned.
But as Sheriff Stanek soon learned, the liens, legal claims on properry to secure the payment of a debt, were just the earliest salvos in a war of paper, waged by a couple who had lost their
home to foreclosure

known as the "sovereign citizen" movement, is being employed more frequently as a way to retaliate against perceived injustices.
Over the next three years, the couple, Thomas and Lisa Eilertson, filed more than $z5o billion in liens, demands for compensatory damages and other claims against more than a dozen people, including the sheriff, county attorneys, the Hennepin County registrar of titles

in 2oog -

a tactic

that, with the spread of an anti-government ideology

and other court officials.

"It affects your credit rating, it affected my wife, it affected my children," SheriffStanek said of the liens. "We spent countless hours tryrng to undo it."
involving sovereign citizens are surfacing increasingly here in Minnesota and in other states, posing a challenge to law enforcement officers and court officials, who often become
Cases

network of groups and individuals who do not recognize the authority of federal, state or municipal government - only when they become targets. Although the filing of liens for outrageous sums or other seemingly frivolous claims might appear laughable, dealing with them can be nightmarish, so much so that the F.B.I. has labeled the stratery "paper terrorism." A lien can be filed by anyone under the Uniform
aware of the movement

-

a loose

Commercial Code. Occasionally, people who identify with the movement have erupted into violence. In Las Vegas this week, the police said that an undercover sting operation stopped a plot to torture
and kill police officers in order to bring attention to the movement. Two people were

http://www.nytimes.com/2013108/24lus/citizens-without-a-country-wage-battle-with-lien...

LIl20/2013

In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon - NYTimes.com

Page2 of 4

arrested. In zoto, two police officers in Arkansas were killed while conducting a traffic stop with a father and son involved in the movement.

Mostly, though, sovereign citizens choose paper as their weapon. In Gadsden, Ala., three people were arrested in July for filing liens against victims including the local district attorney and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. And in Illinois this month, a woman who, like most sovereign citizens, chose to represent herself in court, confounded a federal judge by
asking him to rule on a flurry of unintelligible motions.

"I hesitate to rank your statements in order of just how bizarre they are," the judge told the woman, who was facing charges of filing billions of dollars in false liens.
"The convergence of the evidence strongly suggests a movement that is flourishing," said

Mark Pitcavage, the director of investigative research for the Anti-Defamation League. "It is present in every single state in the country."
The sovereign citizen movement traces its roots to white extremist groups like the Posse Comitatus of the Lg7os, and the militia movement. Terry L. Nichols, the Oklahoma City

bombing conspirator, counted himself a sovereign citizen. But in recent years it has drawn from a much wider demographic, including blacks, members of Moorish sects and young
Occupy protesters, said Daryl Johnson, an expert on domestic terrorism who has worked as an intelligence analyst for several federal agencies.
.

The ideology seems to attract con artists, the financially desperate and people who are fed up

with bureaucracy, Mr. Pitcavage said, adding, "But we've seen airline pilots, weVe seen federal law enforcement officers, we've seen city councilmen and millionaires get involved with this movement."
Sovereign citizens believe that in the r8oos, the federal government was gradually subverted and replaced by an illegitimate government. They create their own driver's licenses and

include their thumbprints on documents to distinguish their flesh and blood person from a "straw man" persona that they say has been created by the false government. When writing

their names, they often add punctuation marks like colons or hyphens.
Adherents to the movement have been involved in a host of debt evasion schemes and mortgage and tax frauds. Two were convicted in Cleveland recently for collecting $8 million in fraudulent tax refunds from the I.R.S. And in March, Tim Turner, the leader of one large group, the Republic for the united States of America, was sentenced in Alabama to 18 years in federal prison. (His group does not capitalize the first letter in united.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013l08l24luslcitizens-without-a-country-wage-battle-with-lien... lll20/2013

ln Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon - NYTimes.com

Page 3

of4

Sovereign citizens who file creditor claims are helped by the fact that in most states, the

secretary of state must accept any lien that is filed without judging its validity. The National Association of Secretaries of State released a report in April on sovereign citizens, urging state officials to find ways to expedite the removal of liens and increase penalties for fraudulent filings. More than a dozen states have enacted laws giving state

filing offices more discretion in accepting liens, and an increasing number of states have passed or are considering legislation to toughen the penalties for bogus filings.
The Eilertsons, who were charged with 47 counts of fraudulent filing and sentenced in June to z3 months in prison, were prosecuted under a Minnesota law that makes it a felony to file

fraudulent documents to retaliate against officials. John Ristad, an assistant Ramsey County
attorney who handled the case, said he believed the Eilertsons were the first offenders to be prosecuted under the law. "It got me angry," he said, "because at the end of the day, these

two are bullies who think they can get their way by filing paper."
The liens were filed against houses, vehicles and even mineral rights. In an affidavit, the

Hennepin County examiner of titles said that in a conversation with the Eilertsons about their foreclosure, one of them told her, "We're gonna have to lien ya." The examiner later found that a lien for more than $S.r million had been placed on her property.

If the purpose was to instill trepidation, it worked. Several county and state officials said in interviews that they worried that they might once again find themselves in the crosshairs. One state employee said it was scarier to engage with offenders who used sovereign citizen tactics than with murderers, given the prospect of facing lawsuits or fouled credit ratings.
Like many who identify with the ideolory, the Eilertsons learned the techniques of document

filing online from one of many sovereign citizen "gurus" who offer instruction or seminars around the country. In hours of recorded conversation found by the authorities on their computer, the Eilertsons consulted with a man identified on the recordings as Paul Kappel, learning what he called
"death by a thousand paper cuts."

Mr. Eilertson, interviewed at the state prison in Bayport, Minn., denied being anti government or belonging to any movement. But he was familiar with the names of some figures associated with sovereign citizen teachings, including an activist named David Wynn Miller, who Mr. Eilertson said was "ahead of his time." (Mr. Miller writes his name as DavidWynn: Miller.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24lus/citizens-without-a-country-wage-battle-with-lien...

1l/70/2013

In Paper War, Flood of Liens Is the Weapon - NYTimes.com

Page 4

of 4

Mr. Eilertson, who had no previous criminal record, said his actions were an effort to fight back against corrupt banks that had handed offthe couple's mortgage time after time and whose top executives never faced consequences for their actions.

"It seemed like we were being attacked every day," he said. "We needed some way to stop the
foreclosure.
"We tried to do our part with as much information as we had available," he said, though he conceded that "it kind of got out of control eventually."
This article has been revised to reflect thefollowing

cotection:

Cotrection: Augttst 29, 2073
An article on Safurday about an antigouernment "souereign citizen" mouement that uses

fraudulent lienfilings to retaliate against local officials attributed a statement about the mouement erroneously.It was Daryl Johnson, an expert on domestic terrorism - not Detectiue
Moe Greenberg of the Baltimore County Police Department mouementhas
sects and Aoung Occttpy

draunfro^ amuchtuider demographic,including blacks,members
protesters.

-

who saidthat inrecentyears the
of Moorish

http://www.nytimes.com/2013l08l24luslcitizens-without-a-country-wage-battle-with-lien... lll20l20l3

EXHIBIT

5

Bills

Page

I of4

Watch Live

Bill No.:

Ao8-oii*

[Searatr,J

Back

M Summarv M Actions M Votes M Memo El Text (fujil9fii9ttty_tex!)
A08013 Summary:

Bill Search & Leqislalive Information Home

Assemblv Home

BILL

NO

A08013
SAME

SAME AS

AS SO4O42-A

Bill / Floor Vote Search New York State Laws Leqislative Calendar

SPONSOR Gabryszak
COSPNSR

Public Hearinq Schedules

MLTSPNSR

Assemblv Calendars amd

Amd

5212, Judy L, amd 5175,35, Pen L;

s9-518, ucc

Authorizes the chief administrator of the courts to establish rules for proceedj-ngs authorized under section 9-518 of the uniform commercial- code relating to wrongful- financial statements.
Go to top

Assemblv Committee Aqenda

A08013 Actions:

BILL NO

AO8O13

06/L4/2013 referred to judiciary

06/f9/2OL3 rul-es report caf.574 06/L9/2013 ordered io third reading rules cal-.574 06 /20 /20L3 passed assenbly 06/20/2013 deLivered to senate
06/20/2013
O6/20
REFERRED

06/L] /2OI3 reported referred to codes 06/1,8/2013 reported referred to rules 06/1,9/2OL3 reported

TO RULES

/201,3 SUBSTITUTED FOR S4O42A 06/20/201.3 3RD READTNG CAL.637
RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY

05/20 /20L3 PASSED SENATE

06/20/20L3
Go to top

A08013 Votes:

BILL: A0801-3

DATET

06/20/ 2013 MOTION:
I UATDAT1
Y

YEA/NAY:142l0

Abbate Y Colton Abinant Y Cook Arroyo Y Corwin
Arrhr\r Rrral rrr v v araen^ ar^rr^h

Y Gibson Y Gigl-io
V r:i^nai

Y Y trP

G1ick Y Barrett Y Curran Goldfed Y Barron Y Cusick Goodel] Y Benedet Y Cymbrow Gottfri Y Blanken Y DenDekk Graf Y Borel-l-i Y Dinowit Y Gunther Y Boy]and AB DiPietr Y Hawl-ey Y Braunst Y Duprey Y Heastie Y Brennan Y Englebr Y Henness Y Brindis Y Espj-nal- I HEVESI Y Rr6n<6n v trrhrt Y Hikind ER M^l Ii^t V Darrv V Brook-K Y Farrell- V H^^h6r Markey Y Pretlow Y S.imanow V nr1:r+ Y lTacobs Y Marrar Y Simotas luglwal : :11"h
Y Y Y Y Y
,

Y Klvera Y Y Roberts Y MoreIIe Y Roblnso ER Mosley ER Rodrigu Y Moya Y Rosa Y Nojay Y Rosenth Y Nolan Y Rozic Y Oaks Y Russel-L Y T.^n6z V nrn^nn6 Y Ryan Y Lupardo Y Ortiz Y Sal-adin Y T.rrnina. V nl-ic Y Santaba Y M:daa Y D:lm6e: Y Scarbor Y Magnare Y Paul-in Y Schimel Y M:i cal v Da^n] 6c r Scntmml- Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Mill-man Montesa
Y Y

Kearns Kell-ner Ki-m Kolb Lal-or Lavine Lentol Lifton

Stevens
qfi rna

Y v Y Y
Y

Sweeney

Tedisco

'In]-el-e Ti-tone Titus Wal-ter
Weinste
Weisenb
$tri Yr!tYrrr ^h t

Y Y
Y Y Y

weprln r
Zebrows

Mr qnLr

Y

v

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld:&bn:A08013&term=2013&Summary=Y&A... lll20l20l3

Bills

Page 2

of 4

Cahill
Camara

Y Y Y Y

Ceretto Cl-ark
Go to top

Galef Gantt

Gabrysz Y Jordan

Friend Y Johns

Y Y Y Y

Y Katz Y Kavanag

Rabbitt McKevitYRaia MclaughYRamos Mil-l-er Y Reil-ich
McDonou Y

Y Y Y Y

Skoufis
Solages Stec Steck

Y Y Y Y

A08013 Memo:

BILL

NUMBER:A8013

TITLE Or' BILL: An act to amend the judiciary 1aw, the penal law and the uniform commercial code, in relation to financing statements

falsely filed under the uniform commercj-al- code

This measure is being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge to redress "paper terrorism" against judges and other public servants committed to harass them or to retaliate against them for discharge of thej-r official- duties. This is a growing problem, not just here in New York*, but across the Nation. See National- Association of Secretaries of State, "State Strategies to Subvert Fraudulent Uniform Connercj-al- Code (UCC) Filings: A Report for State Business Filing Agencies," avail-ab1e at http: //nass,orglindex.php?option =com
catid=964t3Auncategorized-news-releases&Itemid=1
The Unj-form Commercj-al Code ("UCC") Article content&view=arti-cl-e& id=32 9 t3Anews-release-new-ucc-report-augl2 & (Augus t 27, 2012\
.

9 provides a sj-mp1e way for a creditor to record an interest in a debtor's property \"rith the Department of State ("DOS'), thereby giving notice of that interest to the debtor's future creditors. Typically such a recording, termed a "fj-nancj-ng statement" by the UCC, covers property purchased under a security agreement subject to attachment (e.9., a vehicle), and is necessary for a creditor to assert a cl-aim. Wj-th the rise of the Internet and especial-Iy smart-phones, filers instantly can record financing statements, which promptly become publ1c1y available by searchable onl-ine database. Using this database, financj-al institutions, prospective employers and members of the public can determine whether someone has debts recorded against him or her, and assess whether he or she mav be a sound credit risk. This UCC recording system, however, has been subject to much abuse. Often, members of separatist groups asserting sovereign status, prison inmates and others believing themselves to be victims of unjust government action use the system to retaliate agaj-nst or harass the government official-s behi-nd that action. They do this by fiJ-ing fraudulent financing statements agaj-nst those officials thereby potentially creating serious personal- financial difficufties for them. Such "paper terrorism" can take a variety of forms. These often incl-ude the filing of outright false financing statements, asserting claims that do not in fact exist. in New York, in particul-ar, they afso may include statements asserting j-nfringement of a copyright enjoyed in one's name.** Moreover, whatever form the fraudulent filing takes, it invariabl-y runs afoul of the requirement, under UCC section 9509 (a) , that an al-Ieged debtor authorize the fil-ing of a financing statement memorializing cl-aim against him or her.
Under the
UCC as now written, there is no easy means by which to deter or otherwise prevent such abuse. The DOS must accept each financing statement filed for recording and subsequently make it availabfe for pubfic viewing. The resul-t: once a fraudufent financing statement is recorded - and if sufficient on its face when filed, 1t must be recorded - that statement can raise red flags that substantial-1y prejudice the availability or price of credit, compl-icate employment prospects and sully a publ-ic servant's reputation.

To conbat thj-s abuse, this measure proposes amendments to the Penal Law and to the UCC. The former (see bill section three) woul-d amend section 175.35 of the Penal Law (entitl-ed "Offering a false instrument

for filing

in the first

degree") to make it a class E fel-ony offense

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default fld=&bn:A08013&term=2013&Summary:Y&A... ll/2012013

Bills

Page 3

of4

to corunit the existing class A mi-sdemeanor offense of offering a Fal-se Instrument for Fili-ng in the Second Degree (see Penal- Law S 175.30) through the knowing filing of a fraudul-ent UCC financing statement that identifies the debtor as a State or local offi-cer under section two of the Public officers Law, or a judge or justice of the Unified Court System, where that fraudulent filing is "j.n retafiation for the performance of official duties" by the affected public servant. This amendment is similar to Federal law making it a serious Federal offense "to fife, in any public record or in any private record which is generally available to the public, any false l-ien or encumbrance against the property of (a Federal- judge or Federal 1aw enforcement officer), on account of the performance of official- dutj-es by that individuaf, knowing or having reason to know that such l-ien or 18 USC S 1521 (establishing the Federaf encumbrance is fal,se ..."'See offense of Retaliating Against A Federal Judge or Federaf Law Enforcement officer Bv False Claim or Slander of Title).
The UCC amendments proposed by this measure (see bi.l-l- section four) would create a court procedure to surunarily invalidate fraudu]-ent liens. Under this procedure, a State or local- public employee or crj-minal defense lawyer who has represented the fj-ler j-n crj-minal-

court - l-isted as the debtor in a financing statement containing a fafse statement or fafse information rnay under certain circumstances cornmence a special proceeding for the expungement or redaction of the financing statement. In this special proceeding, whj-ch j-s exempt from court fj-ling fees, the petitioner must pl-ead that the offending financing statement was falsely fil-ed or amended to retaLiate for the petitioner's perforrnance of official duties (or, where the petitioner is a lawyer who is not a public employee, for the petitioner's performance of his or her duties representing the filer in criminalcourt) r that the financing statement is not one refating to an interest in a consumer transaction, a commercia.I transaction or any other transaction between petitioner and respondent; that the collateral covered in the financing statement is petitionerrs property, and that prompt redaction or inval-idation of the financing statement is necessary to avert or mitigate prejudice to the petitioner.
Where the court finds that the UCC financing statement at issue was falsely fj-1ed, the court may then direct expungement of the financing

statement or redaction of appropriate portions thereof. In such event, the court must see that a copy of its order is filed with the Secretary of State; and, if the wrongful fifer is incarcerated, with

the head of the correctionaf facility. The court also may grant relief authorized by UCC section 9-625 and bar the respondent wrongful fifer frorn filing other UCC statements without feave of court.
The special proceeding hereby authorized is narrowly-tail-ored so as not to otherwj-se cafl fiens arisi-ng from conmercj-al transactions or other valid l-iens into question, alter Iegitimate UCC j-ncentives or impose burdens upon cornmercial enterprises. Moreover, it is carefully drawn to avoid placing burdens upon the DOS.

Fina11y, this measure also would direct the Chief Admj-nj-strative judge to adopt rules to govern the special proceeding authorized herein, including rules permitting the court to empower a referee to hear and determine the matter so as to minimize delay and assure its expeditious disposition (see bil-1 section two) ,
As noted, this is by no means a problem that is unique to our state. Nor do the remedies proposed by this measure promise total protection for government officials here. Absent co-ordinated efforts by all states to identify and rebuff abuse of the UCC recording system, there is nothing New York can do to assure its public servants that they

will not be victims of fraudulent filings in other states. This said, the instant measure is a significant first step in that it will give l-aw enforcement authorities the tools needed to discourage fraudulent filings in New York, and public officj-als generally, along with certain others who pl-ay an active rol-e in the adninistration of justice, the means by which to protect their credj-t and their good name in the public record.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08013&term:2013&Summary=Y&A...

111201201,3

Bills

Page 4

of 4

This measure would have no fiscal inpact upon the State or any of its political subdivj-sions. Bil_I sections one, two and four, addressed to establishnent of specj-a1 proceedings to expunge a wrongfully filed UCC financing statement, would take effect immediately. Section three, crininalizing as a felony the wrongful filing of such a statement under.certain circumstances where the alleged debtor is a State or local officer under the Public Officers Law or a judge or justice of the Unified Court System, would take effect Novenber first next folJ-owing the date on which this measure becomes a Iaw. Legislative History:
None. New proposal. *Here in New York we are receiving a growing number of reports of judges who have been victimized, and we are aware that there are rnany

other State and focal- officials, in addition to criminal defense attorneys, who likewise have been targeted,

**A dubious cl-aim at best: viz., it is legally j-mpossible to assert copyright in oners name against its use in a public proceeding.
Go to toD Page display time = 0.1547 sec

a

http://assembly.state.ny.us/legl?default_fld=&bn:A08013&term=2013&Summary=Y&A... lLl20l20l3

EXHIBIT

6

Contents
..............4

The Rise in Fraudulent UCC Filings...... The UCC and the Role of the Secretary of State's State Approaches to Fraudulent Filings......... Pre-Filing Administrative

Office.........

..........................5

Remedy Remedy.. Re1ief...........

..............""...'..' 8

Post-Filing Administrative

..'......""....".'.9 '..'.."....9
.......'.......""...10
.....10

Post-Filing Expedited Judicial

Post-Filing Criminal/Civil

Penalties

Conclusion

Appendix l: State Pre-Filing Administrative

Remedies................ Remedies................. .........

...................12
................15

Appendix ll: State Post-Filing Administrative

Appendix lll: State Post-Filing Expedited Judicial Relief Appendix lV: State Criminal and Civil
Endnotes

........................19
.......21 ....25

Penalties

Page2 of 27

lntroduction
The vast majority of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statements filed with Secretary of State offices are legitimate documents authorized by relevant parties. However, financing statements with no

legitimate basis under the UCC, often referred to as fraudulent or bogus filings, are a persistent problem for state filing offices and the individuals targeted by these spurious claims. Often used as a retaliatory measure by government separatist group members, prison inmates, and others looking to harass or intimidate public officials and corporations/lending institutions, these filings can create serious financial
difficu lties for victims.

While various judicial and administrative remedies are available to those who believe that a filing has wrongfully named them as a debtor, there is a general feeling amongst the nation's Secretaries of State that more can and should be done to address the issue. Removing a bogus lien from the public registry can be a costly and time-consuming process. In most states, this action requires a court order. The legal expenses that are involved can run thousands of dollars, and the process can take months, or even years. Restoring damaged credit histories can take even longer.

to subvert fraudulent UCC filings date back to 2004, when the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and the International Association of Commercial Administrators (IACA) developed recommendations to help state filing offices promulgate a more
Collective efforts by states

uniform, nationwide response to the problem. The recommendations, updated in 2006, included the adoption of a clear judicial remedy for victims of bogus financing statements, along with stronger civil
and criminal penalties for those who submit these claims.l

Given the dramatic increase in the number of fraudulent UCC filings during the past few years, state officials are now working under the auspices of NASS to identify additional ways to provide victims of

relief. Members of the NASS Business Services Committee have also urged states to contemplate faster, less costly options for keeping bogus liens out of public records. The role
bogus filings with expedited

of the Secretary of State's office and its level of authority in the filings process are typically at the center of this latest push. Nearly half of all states have implemented their own legislative approaches to subverting fraudulent Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings, and more than a dozen of them have given the state filing office greater influence or oversight in the process.

This report is designed to provide state filing offices and other government agencies with an understanding of these relatively new laws, as well as the issues they seek to address. Section One provides background information on the rise in fraudulent filings, shedding light on the growing sovereign citizen movement and the most common types of bogus filings. Section Two provides an overview of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the important influence that this model law has on the role and authority of state filing offices. Section Three outlines the 2006 NASS/IACA Task Force recommendations and highlights recent state approaches to the proliferation of bogus filings.

Page 3 of 27

The Rise in Fraudulent UCC Filings
Bogus UCC filings have become more common in recent years due

to the explosion in the number of people who identify with an anti-government belief system called the sovereign citizen movement, a loose network of individuals living across the U.S. who believe that the government is illegitimate. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBl) has designated sovereign citizens as a domestic terrorist movement, and a growing threat to law enforcement.2 By some estimates, there are as many as 3OO,O0O sovereigns in the United States, and their numbers are likely to increase.3 For many of these individuals, paper-based tactics are used to strike back at government interference in their lives. Numerous websites sell how-to kits or offer to train subscribers on how to perpetrate filing schemes in
exchange for large fees.

Most of these filings utilize tell-tale buzzwords and share common indicators, including:

-

References to the Bible, the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, or foreign treaties Names written in all capital letters, or interspersed with colons Signatures followed by the words "under duress," "sovereign Living Soul", or a copyright symbol Personal seals, stamps, or thumb prints in red ink The words "accepted for value"
Copies of personal documents, such as birth certificates or Social Security cards

According to the American Bar Association, the vast majority of all bogus UCC financing statements also share another important characteristic: They indicate that the debtor is a transmitting utility.4 This term is used to refer to "any person who is primarily engaged in the railroad, street, railway or trolley bus business, the electric or electronic communications transmission of electricity, steam, gas, or water, or the provision of sewer service."5 Fraudulent filers, particularly sovereigns, use this designation in an attempt to ensure that their financing statements remain indefinitely on file. Under UCC Section 9,

transmitting utility filings do not lapse. This is a major contrast to most UCC financing statements, which unless continued by the secured party, will lapse after a period of five years from the date of filing'

In general, there are three main types of bogus filings: harassment filings, strawman filings, and authentication filings. lt is important to understand the intent behind these submissions, so that states can effectively deal with them. Learning to recognize the common indicators within these spurious claims can also be helpful for policymakers and those who work in state filing offices on the front lines of UCC transactions. All three types of spurious claims will be covered in the following section of this
report. Harassment Filings

bogus financing statements and real property liens against government officials, corporations, and banks (or their employees) as a response to a perceived
Sovereigns regularly

file retaliatory,

Page 4 of 27

injustice. Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders are also frequently targeted. Although they are not legally effective, victims may spend years battling their false claims, and some may not even realize they
have been targeted until they attempt to conduct a property transaction, or open a line of credit.

to harass a target victim often falsely indicate that the "debtor" owes large sums of money to the filer or purported "secured party." Harassment filings have become more
Financing statements filed

common in the past decade as prison inmates have learned about these tactics and adopted them in large numbers. For example, a prisoner seeking retaliation against a government official may file an unauthorized financing statement claiming that the official owes the prisoner millions of dollars.
Strawman Filings Under a complicated scheme known as "redemption theory," sovereign citizens believe that the federal government creates a "strawman" account at the U.S. Treasury Department representing the monetary worth of each citizen. An individual's strawman account supposedly contains anywhere from 5600,000 to 53 million. Sovereign citizens believe that a UCC financing statement allows them to "secure an

interest" in their strawman account and gain access to a secret account holding these funds' This process is sometimes referred to as "freeing money from the strawman."6 A strawman filing will often include the same name for both secured party and debtor, with the name of the debtor (the strawman) spelled entirely in uppercase letters. The debtor name may also include the words "corporation" after it. The name of the secured party (the physical individual) is often spelled with initial capital letters only,
and a comma or a semicolon before the surname (e'g. John-Robert: Doe).7

Authentication Filings Aside from harassment and strawman claims, sovereigns sometimes submit fraudulent financing instruments in conjunction with bogus UCC filings to try and mislead third parties about the authenticity
of the underlying documents.

The UCC and the Role of the Secretary of State's Office
to understand why so many bogus or fraudulent liens are accepted for recording by state filing offices in the first place, it is important to highlight the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and its influence on the role of the Secretary of State's office. The UCC is a comprehensive model uniform act addressing most aspects of commercial law. The Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute are responsible for maintaining and revising its content.
In order

Under Revised Article 9 of the code, Secretary of State offices typically serve as the central filing location for public notices of secured transactions. These public notices, called financing statements, indicate a commercial agreement between a debtor and a secured party,s They are used by banks, mortgage

PageS of 27

companies, and other lending institutions collateral of a prospective debtor.

to determine whether there are existing claims against the

The Limitations of the UCC Article 9 in Addressing Fraudulent Filings

According to the uniform language of the UCC, the Secretary of State's office is limited to its role as a filing office for these public records. The office does not have the authority to verify the accuracy or the

validity of documents when they are filed, even if they are blatantly fraudulent. lf a financing statement is submitted with all of the required information, the Secretary of State must record the document. In fact, the original text of Article 9 prohibits states from rejecting financing statements unless specific grounds exist for this action. Even then, the reasons for rejection are limited to ministerial issues, such as failure to pay the proper fee, incomplete forms, or illegible writing.e Furthermore, the options available to a person named in an unauthorized financing statement are limited under the UCC. There are two main remedies to assist potential victims: an information statement and a termination statement. Formerly known as a correction statement, an information statement can be submitted to the filing office to show that a named debtor would like to amend the record. A termination statement affirms that the unauthorized financing statement is not effective. The person named as a debtor may demand that the secured party file a termination statement, or if the
secured party fails to act, the debtor himself/herself may submit one.to

Neither an information statement nor a termination statement provides the means to quickly or completely remove the bogus filing from the public record. In fact, the submission of an information statement does not actually invalidate the financing statement. lts only purpose is to provide public notice that the validity of the financing statement is in dispute.lt Although the filing of a termination statement will indicate in the public record that the unauthorized financing statement is not valid, it does not remove the financing statement from the registry. The UCC requires the financing statement (including the termination statement) to remain on record until at least one year after it lapses'12 However, while victims may file a termination statement to indicate that a financing statement is invalid, potential secured parties doing an electronic records search may miss the fact that a termination
statement has been filed.

It should be noted that while there are a number of limitations, UCC Revised Article 9 also permits a person named as the debtor in an unauthorized filing to seek injunctive relief, to include the collection of damages for financial harms brought about by the claim.l3 Specifically, individuals who submit unauthorized financing statements may be subject to a 5500 penalty per each bogus filing, and an additional S5OO penalty for each refusal to file a termination statement.la
NASS/IACA Task Force Recommendations and New Approaches

The drafters of UCC Revised Article t have acknowledged the challenges in dealing with bogus UCC filings, as well as the code's inability to provide a completely satisfactory response to the problem. The
Page 6 of 27

drafters' comments have pointed to judicial remedies and criminal penalties as the most effective and
least burdensome approaches.15

As a result,

the

NASS/IACA Bogus Filings Task Force devised its 2005 recommendations around this

notion.16 One recommendation encouraged states to allow individuals named as debtors in an unauthorized financing statement to file a motion for judicial review of the filing without paying a fee. After issuing a decision based solely on the documentation submitted by the relevant parties, the court could then order the filing office to remove fraudulent financing statements from the record. Another recommendation encouraged states to adopt laws that would make it a criminal felony to file a financing statement for the purpose of harassment, while still another focused on civil penalties' Under the recommendation on civil penalties, states were urged to take steps that would allow a person to
seek damages, court costs, attorney's fees, related expenses, and an injunction against anyone who files a financing statement for the purpose of harassing or defrauding someone'

While a number of states have adopted laws that conform to these recommendations, the significant increase in fraudulent filings during the past few years has required some states to consider their own
Article 9 legislative initiatives. Many of these new laws and legislative proposals have a direct impact on Secretary of State offices and how they handle the filing of UCC records.

State Approaches to Fraudulent Filings
When the NASS/IACA Bogus Filings Task Force Recommendations came up for renewal in July 2011, Secretaries of State decided the problem of fraudulent filings had become so widespread and prolific, that new approaches were needed. Their decision was based on shared concerns that the NASS/IACA recommendations continued to place significant burdens on victims, as well as the courts, which have
experienced some delays and backlogs due to fraudulent filing cases. Instead, NASS members decided to examine alternative approaches that would allow state filing offices to play a more active role in subverting these filings, either by expanding the authority of state filing offices so they can refuse to

accept bogus UCC financing statements, or by allowing the offices to quickly and inexpensively terminate financing statements and wipe them from the record under certain conditions.
A number of states have already adopted non-uniform approaches to this problem. In some cases, state Article 9 amendments impose additional duties on the office of the Secretary of State, and in some cases,

it

is the Secretary

of State that must determine whether a contested record was, in fact, filed

without authorization. Generally speaking, the state laws that address this issue can be categorized into four different approaches: pre-filing administrative discretion, post-filing administrative relief, post-filing expedited judicial relief, and enhanced criminal/civil penalties. Each of these approaches is discussed in this section of the report, while summaries of the relevant state laws are provided in Appendices | - lV' In
PageT of27

states where the Secretary of State's office does not handle UCC filing duties, the report focuses on the equivalent state agent.17
Pre-Filing Administrative Remedy

A pre-filing administrative remedy gives the Secretary of State's office broader discretion in rejecting a materially false or fraudulent UCC record submitted for filing. At least fifteen states currently have some type of statutory pre-filing remedy (see Appendix l), although the scope of the filing office's authority can vary from state to state. For example, in Nebraska, and North Dakota, the filing office may reject a financing statement that has the same name listed as the debtor and secured party. In North Carolina, the filing office may reject a financing statement that is outside the scope of the law, intended for an improper purpose, or intended to harass someone. ln Alabama, the filing office may reject a financing statement that appears fraudulent, or has the same name listed as the debtor and secured party. In Texas, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, may reject a financing
statement that appears fraudulent. For a pre-filing remedy

to be most effective, it must be comprehensive

enough

to cover the various

types of bogus UCC filings. While some information can be helpful when identifying a strawman filing (e.g. same name for secured party and debtor), harassment and authentication filings require a more general standard. Thus, a comprehensive pre-filing remedy likely requires that the filing office have broad authority to reject a financing statement. South Carolina is one state that has taken this approach, adopting a statute that defines submissions that can be rejected by the Secretary of State's office given any of the following conditions:

[The financing statement] is not created pursuant to the UCC; is intended for an improper purpose, such as to hinder, harass, or othenivise wrongfully interfere with any person; names the same person as both debtor and secured party; describes collateral not within the scope of the UCC; or is being filed for a purpose other than a transaction within the scope of the Ucc.t8
The obvious benefit of a pre-filing remedy is that it can prevent a bogus financing statement from being filed in the first place. As a result, a person targeted by a harassment filing does not have to spend the

time and resources often required to remove the filing from the public record, and they are spared the potential negative impact that the bogus financing statement could have on their credit, which may linger even after a filing has been expunged from the record. The other benefit important to the Secretaries of State, as stewards of the public record, is this approach maintains the integrity of the public record by not allowing fraudulent information to enter into the public record.
The primary challenge states face when implementing a pre-filing remedy is the limitation of resources in the state filing office. A pre-filing remedy requires active review of filings that come into the office on a daily basis, both in person, as well as electronically. Staff must be trained to review incoming filings
Page 8 of 27

for signs of fraud according to the law. lf an electronic filing system cannot help to flag filings for this type of information, the work must be carried out by humans.
Post-Filing Administrative Remedy

A post-filing administrative remedy gives the filing office the authority to take corrective action with respect to existing UCC financing statements. At least nine states have a law authorizing this type of remedy (see Appendix ll). Once again, the designation of an individual debtor as a transmitting utility typically provides grounds for cancelling a financing statement and/or removing it from the public record. ln West Virginia, the Secretary of State may remove a financing statement from the record if the same person is listed as debtor and secured party, an individual debtor is listed as a transmitting utility, or if it fraudulently names a public official or employee as a debtor. Laws in Montana and North Carolina are broader, allowing the filing office to cancel and remove a financing statement from the record that has been determined to have been fraudulently, wrongfully, or improperly filed.
A post-filing remedy can be most effective if it provides the filing office with the authority to remove a bogus filing from the record. As part of this process, the state may be required to provide some type of due process to the relevant parties. In Montana, the filing office must give the parties notice, and

provide an opportunity to respond prior to removing a filing from the records. In West Virginia, the Secretary of State may commence an administrative proceeding to remove a filing from the record after
publishing notice of the proceeding in the state register.

By authorizing the filing office to remove a bogus financing statement from the record, victims of harassment filings do not have to seek removal of the filing through the courts, which can reduce costs to both victims and the state, speed up the termination and removal process, and provide a less complicated means for addressing fraudulent filings'
The main challenge posed by this approach is that the victim of the harassment filing may only find out

about this fraudulent filing after encountering trouble securing credit or conducting some kind of
property-related tra nsaction. Post-Filing Expedited Judicial Relief

Post-filing expedited judicial relief authorizes corrective action on an existing financing statement through an accelerated judicial review process, with no fee required to bring about the action (see Appendix llt). These laws are very similar to the judicial remedy proposed by the NASS/IACA Bogus Filing Task Force. At least seven states have adopted this type of law, and others have considered them in recent years. In most cases, state law authorizes a person who believes he/she is named as the debtor on a fraudulent financing statement to file a motion for expedited judicial review of the filing, and the court may order that the filing be removed from the records.

Page9 of 27

Victims of a harassment filing are provided with a faster, less costly means for obtaining a declaratory judgment or expungement order from the courts to have the filing removed.le In some states, this approach has significantly improved the timeframe for resolving questions about a disputed filing and

streamlined the legal process for dealing with such records. For example, targets of bogus filings in Minnesota can now resolve the situation in a matter of weeks or months, instead of years. The benefit of this approach seems to be that the court system continues to bear responsibility for handling these issues, which means that the Secretary of State's office does not need to have additional resources, training, and staffing to provide a faster, less costly solution'
One of the drawbacks of expedited judicial relief is that it still places significant burdens on the victims.

Although there may not be a fee for filing a motion for expedited judicial review, it is still a court action, and a victim will often need to hire an attorney and pay the associated costs. Since this remedy also
places burdens on the courts, they may be unwilling to support it'

Post-Filing Criminal/Civil Penalties Criminal and civil penalties are designed to deter and punish those who attempt to file spurious claims using UCC financing statements. At least ten states have laws that make it a crime to fraudulently submit a filing (see Appendix lV). Typically, the first offense is a misdemeanor crime, while subsequent offenses are charged as a

felony. However, a few states, including Minnesota and

Texas, make

it

an

outright felony to attempt to harass someone using a fraudulent financing statement.

At least L4 states have laws authorizing civil penalties. Many of these laws permit victims to seek damages, court costs, attorney's fees, related expenses, and injunctions. In a few cases, fines may also be imposed. In West Virginia, the fine is 5500 per fraudulent filing, while a fraudulent filer in Georgia can be charged up to 510,000 for his or her offense.
Criminal and civil penalties can help prevent the filing of bogus financing statements, and are an important part of a comprehensive approach to the bogus filing problem. However, penalties alone may not provide adequate relief to the victims of bogus filings'

Conclusion
As long as sovereigns and other members of fringe anti-government groups continue to thrive, state filing offices will need to consider laws and policies that deter and defend against bogus UCC filings while maintaining the "open drawe/' thrust behind Revised Article 9. Secretaries of State and other

state policymakers must decide how they can best equip state filing offices, law enforcement, and members of the public to mitigate the impacts of fraudulent filings and harassment liens. State

Page tO of 27

solutions must cover a number of problematic filings, including harassment filings, strawman filings, and deceptive authentication filings.
Several pre-filing and post-filing approaches are currently available, along with the NASS/IACA approach that includes strong criminal and civil penalties for those who file bogus UCC claims. The role and

authority of the Secretary of State are important aspects of this work. For states that seek to expand the authority of a filing office, budgets may need to be increased to cover all of the additional staffing, training, and other additional costs associated with any changes in the process.
Moving forward, it remains to be seen how imposing a new investigative duty on the Secretary of State will impact the number of fraudulent UCC filings in states that have taken this approach. Additionally, it is unclear whether the adoption of non-uniform legislation impacts the reliability of state filing systems.
These issues will undoubtedly be important discussion topics for the members of NASS. ln the meantime, it is clearto the nation's Secretaries of State that states are indeed interested in doing

assist the targets of fraudulent UCC filings and counterfeit claims. Costly, time-consuming remedies are not providing adequate relief for these citizens, and the fallout is putting a strain on

more

to

backlogged courts and busy state filing offices. Even where an expedited judicial review is available, the burden of litigation is still on the victims. A remedy that allows state filing offices to subvert a bogus

filing and/or allows for its quick removal from the record, in conjunction with strong criminal and civil penalties, will likely be the most effective way for states to alleviate the burdens on bogus filing victims.

Page

Ll of 27

Appendix l: State Pre-Filing Administrative Remedies
Alabama
The filing office may reject a UCC filing that appears fraudulent on its face, and a filing

that identifies the debtor and secured party as the same person. lf the secured party is able to demonstrate that a rejected filing should have been accepted, the filing office must file the document with an effective date
of the time that it was originally submitted for filing.20

California The Secretary of State may refuse to perform a service or refuse a filing based on a reasonable belief that the service or filing is being requested for an unlawful, false, or fraudulent purpose, to promote or conduct an illegitimate object or purpose, or is being requested or submitted in bad faith or for the
purpose of harassing or defrauding a person or entity.2l

Colorado
The filing officer may reject a lien or document that the filing officer reasonably believes is "spurious." A

spurious document is one that is groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or
otherwise patently invalid.22
The filing officer is not required

is

to accept for filing any lien against a local, state, or federal official or employee based upon the performance or nonperformance of that person's duties, unless the lien or
claim is accompanied by a state or federal court order authorizing the filing.23 ldaho

The filing office may reject any UCC financing statement where the debtor and the secured party appear

to be the same individual. The filing office may require reasonable proof from the secured party that an individual debtor is in fact a transmitting utility. The Secretary of State may petition the courts to delete
u na

uthorized filings.2a

lllinois A filing office may reject a financing statement if the filing office has reason to believe that debtor does not meet the definition of a transmitting utility, the transaction does not meet the definition of a manufactured-home transaction, the transaction does not meet the definition of a public-finance transaction, or the financing statement is unauthorized, invalid, or filed with the intent to harass or defraud. The Secretary of State may refuse to accept a record for filing on these grounds only if the
refusal is approved by the Department of Business Services of the Secretary of State and the General
Counsel to the Secretary of State.25 A secured party who believes in good faith that a record rejected by the filing office was not in violation of applicable law may file an action to require that the record be accepted. lf a court determines that a
Page

t2 of

27

rejected record should be accepted, the Secretary of State must file the record and include a notice indicating that the record was filed pursuant to its initial filing date.
The above provisions do not apply to a record communicated to the filing office by a regulated financial

institution except that the Secretary of State may request from the secured party of record, or the person that communicated the record, additional documentation supporting that the record was communicated by a regulated financial institution.
Michigan
The Secretary of State may reject any filing that the Secretary of State has reason

to believe

is false or

fraudulenU asserts a claim against a current or former federal, state, or local official or employee related to the performance of that person's duties, unless the filer holds a security agreement or court

judgment; indicates that the secured party and the debtor are substantially the same; or indicates that the individual debtor is a transmitting utility. lf the Secretary refuses to accept a record for filing, the person attempting the filing may seek a court order requiring the Secretary to accept the filing. lf the court orders the record to be filed, it is effective as filed from the initial filing date, except against a person who purchases the collateral in reasonable reliance upon the absence of the filing from the record.26 The Secretary of State must provide written notice to individuals named as a debtor in a financing statement and provide them with a copy of the financing statement. The notice must include the remedies that are available if the debtor believes that the financing statement is fraudulent.2T Montana tf the filing office has reason to believe that a lien submitted for filing is improper or fraudulent, it may reject the submission after giving notice and an opportunity to respond to the parties.2s
Nebraska
A financing statement

will be rejected if it lists the same person

as

debtor and secured party.2e

North Dakota A UCC financing statement must be rejected if it lists the same individual as both debtor and secured
party.30

North Carolina
The Secretary of State may refuse to accept a financing statement that the Secretary determines is not created pursuant to the UCC, or is otherwise intended for an improper purpose, such as to hinder, harass, or otherwise wrongfully interfere with any person.tt

Page

t3 of

27

Ohio The Secretary of State may refuse
reasonable cause

to

accept a document for filing

or recording if the Secretary

has

to believe that the document is materially false or fraudulent. lf the Secretary of State refuses to accept a document, the person attempting to file the document may seek a court order
requiring the Secretary of State to accept it for filing.32
Oregon

Transmitting utility is re-defined as an organization, not a person, primarily engaged in the business of a utility. The filing office may not accept a claim of encumbrance on the property of a federal or state official or employee based on the performance or nonperformance of their duties. The filing office may refuse to accept a financing statement that on its face reveals it is being filed for a purpose not within the scope of the UCC, including factors such as whether the debtor and the secured party are the same person, or whether the collateral described is within the scope of the UCC.33 lf the Secretary of State refuses to accept a record for filing based on this provision, the secured party may contest the refusal by requesting a hearing before the Secretary of State within 20 days. lf the Secretary of State determines that the record should have been filed, the filing office must index the record as of the date it was originally presented for filing.3a South Carolina

The Secretary of State may refuse to accept a financing statement that the Secretary of State determines is not created pursuant to the UCC, or is otherwise intended for an improper purpose, such as to hinder, harass, or otherwise wrongfully interfere with any person. The Secretary of State may also refuse to accept a financing statement that names the same person as both debtor and secured party, describes collateral not within the scope of applicable law, or is being filed for a purpose other than a transaction within the scope of the UCC.3s
Texas

lf the Secretary of State believes that a document filed to create a lien is fraudulent, the Secretary must request that the prospective filer provide additional documentation supporting the existence of the lien,

and request the assistance of the attorney general in determining whether the proposed lien is fraudulent. For purposes of this provision, a document is presumed to be fraudulent if is filed by or on behalf of an inmate in a correctional facility, unless it is accompanied by a sworn, notarized statement signed by the debtor acknowledging that the person entered into a security agreement with the inmate
and authorized the filing of the lien.36

Washington

to accept a document for filing if it appears to be fraudulent or not within the scope of UCC. lf the filing office refuses to accept a document, the filer may contest the decision by filing a petition for review in the Superior Court. The process is provided for in the
The UCC filing office may refuse Administrative Procedure Act which establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.

Page

t4 of 27

Appendix ll: State Post-Filing Administrative Remedies
lllinois

A person named in a financing statement that the person believes was unauthorized, invalid, or filed with the intent to harass or defraud, may file an affidavit with the secretary of state. Upon receipt of the affidavit the secretary of state must request additional documentation from the relevant parties. The Department of Business Services of the Office of the Secretary of State and the Office of General Counsel must review the documentation within 30 days. The Secretary of State may terminate the record if the Secretary has a reasonable basis for determining the record is in violation of applicable law' The Secretary of State may initiate an administrative action with regard to a filing if the Secretary has
reason to believe it is in violation of applicable law. The Secretary of State may give heightened scrutiny to a record that indicates that the debtor is a transmitting utility or that indicates that the transaction to

which the records relates is a manufactured-home transaction or a public-finance transaction' A secured party who believes in good faith that a record communicated to the filing office was not in violation of applicable law may file an action to require that the record be reinstated. lf a court determines that a terminated record should be reinstated, the Secretary of State must re-file the record and include a notice indicating that the record was re-filed pursuant to its initialfiling date. lf the period of effectiveness of a re-filed record would have lapsed during the period of termination, the secured party may file a continuation statement within 30 days after the record is re-filed. A re-filed record is
considered to have been ineffective against all persons for all purposes except against a purchaser

ofthe

collateral in reasonable reliance on the absence of the record from the files.
The above provisions do not apply to a record communicated to the filing office by a regulated financial

institution except that the Secretary of State may request from the secured party of record, or the person that communicated the record, additional documentation supporting that the record was communicated by a regulated financial institution'
Michigan A person may file an affidavit with the Secretary of State stating that the person is named as the debtor in a fraudulent financing statement. No fee is required for the filing, Filing of a false affidavit is a felony. On receipt of the affidavit, the Secretary of State must terminate the financing statement, and notify the purported secured party. lf the secured party claims that the filing is authorized, that person may seek reinstatement of the filing. lf a court determines that the financing statement is fraudulent, the filer of the unauthorized statement must pay the court costs and expenses of the person who brought the action. lf a court determines that the financing statement should be reinstated, it must notify the Secretary and the Secretary must reinstate the filing, and indicate that it is effective from the initial filing date' lf a financing statement that is reinstated would have lapsed during the period of termination, the secured party may, within 30 days after the filing is reinstated, file a continuation statement retroactive to the
Page LS of 27

day the filing would have lapsed. However, if, during the time that the financing statement is terminated, someone purchases the collateral based in reasonable reliance on the absence of the statement from the records, the reinstatement or continuation statement is not retroactive against that person."
filed with the Secretary claiming that a previously filed record was wrongfully filed, the Secretary must determine whether it was wrongfully filed. The Secretary may require the person who filed the correction statement or the secured party to provide any relevant additional information. lf the Secretary finds that the record was wrongfully filed, the Secretary must terminate
lf a correction statement
is

the record, and notify the secured party.38 Montana lf the filing office receives a complaint that a filed lien is improper or fraudulent, the filing office may remove the filing from the existing records after giving both parties notice and an opportunity to
respond.3e

Nebraska

A person identified as the debtor in a financing statement may file an affidavit with the filing office stating that the financing statement was filed by a person not entitled to do. The filing office may file a termination statement with respect to the financing statement identified in the affidavit. The termination statement shalltake effect thirty days after it is filed except as provided below. On the same day that the filing office files a termination statement it shall send to each secured party of record identified in the financing statement a notice advising the secured party of record that the termination
statement has been filed.
A secured party of record identified in a financing statement as to which a termination statement has been filed may bring an action within twenty business days after the termination statement is filed against the individual who filed the affidavit seeking a determination as to whether the financing statement was filed by a person entitled to do so. The action shall have priority on the court's calendar and shall proceed by expedited hearing. A court may order preliminary relief, including, but not limited to, an order precluding the termination statement from taking effect or directing a party to take action

to prevent the termination statement from taking effect. lf the court issues such an order and the filing office receives a certified copy of the order before the termination statement takes effect, the
termination statement shall not take effect and the filing office shall promptly file an amendment to the financing statement that indicates that an order has prevented the termination statement from taking effect. lf such an order ceases to be effective by reason of a subsequent order or a final judgment of the court or by an order issued by another court and the filing office receives a certified copy of the subsequent judgment or order, the termination statement shall become immediately effective upon receipt of the certified copy and the filing office shall promptly file an amendment to the financing statement indicating that the termination statement
is effective.

Page

t6 of

27

lf a court determines that the financing statement was filed by a person entitled to do so and the filing office receives a certified copy of the court's final judgment or order before the termination statement takes effect, the termination statement shall not take effect and the filing office shall remove the termination statement and any amendments filed from the files. lf the filing office receives the certified copy after the termination statement takes effect and within thirty days after the final judgment or order was entered, the filing office shall promptly file an amendment to the financing statement that
indicates that the financing statement has been reinstated. Upon the filing of an amendment reinstating

a financing statement the effectiveness of the financing statement is retroactively reinstated and the financing statement shall be considered never to have been ineffective against all persons and for all purposes. A financing statement whose effectiveness was terminated under and has been reinstated under subsection shall not be effective as against a person that purchased the collateral in good faith

between the time the termination statement was filed and the time of the filing of the amendment reinstating the financing statement, to the extent that the person gave new value in reliance on the termination statement.
The filing office shall not charge a fee for the filing of an affidavit or a termination statement. The filing office shall not return any fee paid for filing the financing statement identified in the affidavit, whether

or not the financing statement is subsequently reinstated. Neither the filing office nor any of
lawful performance.oo

its

employees shall be subject to liability for the termination or amendment of a financing statement in the

North Carolina When a person files a correction statement alleging that a previously filed record was wrongfully filed and should have been rejected, the Secretary of State must determine whether must determine whether the assertions are correct. In order to make this determination, the Secretary of State may require the person filing the correction statement and the secured party to provide any additional relevant information requested by the Secretary of State. lf the Secretary of State finds that the record was wrongfully filed and should have been rejected, the Secretary of State must cancel the record and it

will be void and have no effect.al
Oregon

lf a filing of encumbrance has been made against a federal or state official or employee based on the performance or nonperformance of their duties, a sworn notice may be given to the office which shall clear title to the property. An expedited show cause order for judicial relief may be filed and shall result
in the invalid encumbrance being stricken from the record'

Pennsylvania Department of State may conduct an administrative hearing to determine if a financing statement was fraudulently filed. A financing statement is fraudulent if no rational basis exists entitling the person to file the financing statement, and it appears that the person filed the initial financing statement with the

intent to annoy, harass, or harm the debtor. lf the Department determines that the financing statement is fraudulent, and no appeal is filed, the Department must file a correction statement indicating that the
Page

t7 of 27

financing statement was found to be fraudulent and may be ineffective. lf the decision is appealed and the court affirms the decision, the correction statement must indicate this.a2

Washington
The UCC filing office may remove a financing statement from the record if it appears

to

be fraudulent or

not within the scope of UCC. lf the filing office removes a document, the filer may contest the decision by filing a petition for review in the Superior Court. The process is provided for in the Administrative Procedure Act which establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.
West Virginia

The Secretary of State may commence administrative proceedings to remove a financing statement from the records if the Secretary determines that an individual debtor and an individual secured party appear to be the same individual, the individual debtor claims to be a transmitting utility without supporting documentation, or a financing statement naming a public official or employee as a debtor is fraudulent. A financing statement is considered fraudulent if it was unauthorized, and submitted for the purpose of harassment, intimidation, or fraudulent intent of the alleged debtor'
The Secretary must publish notice of the administrative review in the state register. lf the Secretary determines that the filing of the financing statement was fraudulent, the filing party will be responsible for all costs incurred by the Secretary in reaching a final determination, including reimbursement for all costs of the hearing.

lf the Secretary of State's review, or a subsequent appeal of the Secretary of

State's decision, determines that a filing is not fraudulent, the Secretary may award costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing party.
Pending the outcome of any appeal, the financing statement may not be removed from the records of the Secretary, but must be identified in the records as having been adjudicated to be fraudulent, subject

to a pending appeal.a3

Page

t8 ol

27

Appendix lll: State Post-Filing Expedited Judicial Relief
Colorado Any person who believes a spurious lien or document has been filed against the person's property may seek a court order declaring the lien invalid. The person who filed the document will have up to 20 days to appear before the court and show cause why the document should not be declared invalid. lf the person fails to appear, the lien will be declared invalid and released. lf, following a hearing, the court finds that the document is spurious, it must issue an order releasing the spurious document, and it must award costs, including attorney's fees, to the person who brought the action'aa California A public officer or employee whose property is subject to a false lien or other encumbrance may petition the court for an order directing the person claiming the lien or encumbrance to appear before the court at a hearing and show cause why the lien or encumbrance should not be stricken. The hearing date

must allow adequate time for notice. lf the court finds that the lien or encumbrance is false, it may issue an order striking and releasing the lien or encumbrance and may award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the petitioner.as
Kansas

A person named as the debtor on a lien the person believes to be fraudulent may file a motion for expedited judicial review of the status of the lien. A lien is considered fraudulent if the person named as debtor did not consent to the lien. No filing fee is required for the motion. The court may issue a finding based solely on the documentation submitted with the motion, and without notice of any kind. The court must send a copy of its findings to each party within 7 days after the findings are issued' The court's findings may include an order setting aside the lien and directing the filing office to nullify the lien. In the case of documents filled under the UCC, the order will act as a termination statement.a6
Maine A person named as the debtor on a UCC financing statement the person believes to be fraudulent may

file a motion for expedited judicial review to determine the authorization of the filing. No fee is required to file the motion. The purported secured party must be given 20 day notice of the court's
review. The court's finding may be based solely on a review of the documentation submitted by the parties. The court must send a copy of its findings to each party within 7 days after the findings are issued. lf the court finds that the financing statement is in fact unauthorized, it must order the filing officer to remove the filing from the records, effective at the expiration of the time period for appeal of

Page L9 of 27

the decision, or upon the decision being affirmed following an appeal. lf the secured party appeals the court's decision, it must give notice of the appeal to the filing office. Minnesota A person who has reason to believe that a UCC financing statement is fraudulent may file a motion for judicial review of the effectiveness of the financing statement. No fee is required for filing the motion. A UCC financing statement is fraudulent if it is filed without the authorization of the person named as

the debtor. A copy of the motion must be mailed to the person indicated as the secured party on the financing statement, along with a form for responding to the motion and the relevant section of law.
The person named as secured party has 20 days to respond to the motion and request a hearing. lf a hearing is requested, the court must hold the hearing within five days. lf a hearing is not requested by the 20th day, the court must conduct a review of the motion within five days after the 20 day period

expires, and its findings may be based solely on a review of the documentation included with the motion. The court must send each party a copy of its finding within 7 days of its decision. The court may find that the financing statement was unauthorized and not legally valid, and may also order the filing office to remove the financing statement from the records. The person who brought the motion must file a copy of the court's findings with the filing office. No filing fee is required. The court may award the prevailing party all costs related to the review, including filing fees, attorney fees, and
administrative costs.aT Oregon

lf an invalid encumbrance has been filed, an expedited show cause order for judicial relief may be filed and shall result in the invalid encumbrance being stricken from the record.
Texas

A person named as the debtor on a document purporting to claim a lien believes that the document is false; the person may file a motion with the court for judicial review. The court's review may be made ex parte without delay or notice of any kind, and the court's findings may be based solely on a review of

the documentation attached to the motion. No filing fee is required. A copy of the finding must be sent to each party within 7 days of the court's decision.as lf the lien that is the subject of the court's findings is one that is filed with the Secretary of State, any person may file a copy of the court's findings with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must file the findings with the records pertaining to the
original document.ae

Page 2O of 27

Appendix lV: State Criminal and Civil Penalties
Arkansas

It is a crime to file a fraudulent financing statement with the purpose to defraud or harass a person. A first offense is a misdemeanor, and subsequent offense is a felony. Arkansas also provides civil penalties that include damages, courts costs, attorney's fees, and related expenses. A person may also seek
injunctive relief.so California No person may knowingly file a false lien or other encumbrance against a public officer or employee with the intent to harass or hinder the person in discharging his/her official duties. Any person who violates this provision is liable for civil damages'51
Georgia

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly file a false lien or encumbrance in a public record or private
record that is generally available to the public against the real or personal property of a public officer or employee on account of the performance of the officer or employee's official duties, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or

fraudulent statement or representation. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine
not to exceed S1O,OO0, or both.s2

lllinois
No person shall cause to be communicated to the filing office for filing a false record the person knows or reasonably should know is not authorized, is not related to a valid transaction, lien, or court

judgment, and is filed with the intent to harass or defraud the person identified as the debtor in the record or any other person. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor for a first offense, and a
felony for a second or subsequent offense.

A person who violates this provision is also liable in a civil action for damages, attorney's fees, court costs, and other related exPenses.
Kansas

Page

2l of 27

A person aggrieved by a fraudulent lien may bring an action for civil penalties and injunction against the person who filed the unauthorized lien. Potential civil penalties include damages, court costs, and

attorney's fees. A court may also issue an injunction preventing the defendant from filing any future liens without authorization of the court.s3
Maine Criminal and civil penalties apply against those who file an unauthorized financing statement with the intent to harass, hinder, or defraud the person named as the debtor. Potential civil penalties include
damages, court costs, attorney's fees, and related expenses. A person impacted by the unauthorized

financing statement, or the attorney general, may bring an action
inju nction.sa

to

recover damages or seek an

Michigan Knowingly or intentionally filing a false or fraudulent financing statement with the office of the Secretary of State is a felony. lf the person is convicted of the violation, the court may find that the financing statement is ineffective and may order the office of the Secretary of State to terminate the financing statement and may order restitution. A debtor named in a false or fraudulent financing statement may file an action against the person that filed the financing statement seeking relief or damages, including, an order declaring the financing statement ineffective and ordering the office of the secretary of state to terminate the financing statement, and attorney fees.ss Minnesota
Civil and criminal penalties apply against a person who knowingly files a financing statement that is not

related to a valid lien or security agreement, or is for an improper purpose, including harassing, hindering, or defrauding any person. Filing a fraudulent financing statement is a gross misdemeanor, unless it is intended to harass any person, in which case it is a felony.56 Potential civil penalties include damages, court costs, attorney's fees, and related expenses. A person impacted by the unauthorized financing statement, the attorney general, or the county or city attorney, may bring an action to recover
damages or seek an injunction.sT

Montana
A person adversely affected by a fraudulent lien may recover damages from the person responsible for filing the lien.sg New Hampshire A person who files a fraudulent financing statement is liable for damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. A financing statement is fraudulent if it is not authorized, contains a material false statement, or is groundless. An owner of property covered by a fraudulent financing statement may file suit in court to
have the fraudulent financing statement released or cancelled'se

Page22 of 27

North Dakota
Criminal and civil penalties apply against a person who knowingly files a financing statement that the person knows is not authorized by the individual named as the debtor, and was filed with the intent to harass, hinder, or defraud any person. A first offense is a misdemeanor, and after two or more

violations

felony. Potential civil penalties include damages, court costs, attorney's fees; and related expenses. A person impacted by the unauthorized financing statement, the attorney general, state's attorney, or municipal attorney may bring an action to recover civil damages or seek an

it

becomes a

injunction.60 South Carolina

It is a felony to knowingly or intentionally file a false of fraudulent financing statement for the purpose of hindering, harassing, or wrongfully interfering with another person. lf a person is convicted of violating this provision, the court may find that the financing statement is ineffective, may order the filing office to terminate or purge the financing statement, and may order restitution to an aggrieved
party.

A person named as a debtor in a false or fraudulent financing statement may file an action against the person who filed the document seeking relief or damages, including an order declaring the financing statement ineffective, ordering the filing office to terminate or purge the financing statement, and
awarding reasonable attorney fees.61
Texas A person may not intentionally or knowingly file a UCC financing statement that contains a material false statement or is groundless. A person who files a fraudulent financing statement is liable for damages,

court costs, and attorney's fees. An owner of property covered by a fraudulent financing statement may also request release of the fraudulent statement.62 An offense of this law is a misdemeanor, unless the fraudulent financing statement is filed with the intent to harass or defraud, in which case it is a felony'63

Civil penalties apply against a person who files a fraudulent lien or claim against real or personal property with the intent to cause another person financial injury, mental anguish, or emotional distress' Potential penalties include damages, court costs, and attorney's fees. Civil penalties also apply against any inmate who files a financing statement, or any person who files a financing statement on an inmate's behall unless the financing statement is accompanied by a statement indicating that the document is being filed by an inmate, or by a person on the inmate's behalf. A person impacted by a fraudulent lien, the attorney general, or a district, county, or municipal attorney may bring an action to
recover damages or seek an injunction.5a

Utah A person is guilty of the crime of wrongfullien if that person knowingly makes, utters, records, orfiles a lien having no objectively reasonable basis to believe he has a present and lawful property interest in the property or a claim on the assets. A violation is a third degree felony unless the person has been previously convicted of this offense, in which case the violation is a second degree felony.6s Page23 of 27

West Virginia A person who files a fraudulent financing statement may be subject hundred dollars per filing.66

to a civil penalty of up to

five

Page 24 of 27

Endnotes
Joint Task Force on Bogus UCC Documents, Report ond Recommendotions <www.iaca.orsldownloads/BosusFilins /Recommendations on Bosus Filines.pdf> (2006). 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threot to Low Enforcement <www.fbi.sov/statsservices/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-201l/sovereisn-citizens> (Sept.2011).

t l,tess/lncn

3
a

Southern Poverty Law Center, Sovereign Citizens Movement <www.splcenter.orglget-informed/intelliqence-

files/ideoloqv/sovereisn-citizens-movement> (accessed on Mar. t2, 2OI2l.
The American Bar Association Section on Business Law Joint Task Force on Filing Office Operations & Search Logic, States Rlng in the New Yeor by Amending UCC Article (accessed

9<http://apps.americanbar.orslbuslaw/committees/CL190000pub/newsletter/200901/subcommittees/foosl'pdf>
May 5, 2012).
s
5

Uniform Commercia! Code 5 9-501(1Xn) (2004).
See Federal Bureau

of InvestigatiorL supro n. 2.

7

U.S. Department of Justice, News Releasewww.iustice.eov/usao/ohn/news%202005-2009/11Seotember2006.html (Sept' 11, 2006);SouthernPovertyLawCenter,TheSovereigns:ADictionoryofthePecuIior

e-report/browse-all-issues/201.0/fall/sovereisn-idioticon-a-dictionarv-of-the> (Fall 2010)'

t

A.ticle 9 covers transactions involving both tangible property (e.g. goods, inventory, equipment) and intangible property (e.g' promissory notes, letters of credit, deposit accounts) as collateral. Transactions involving real property, including mortgages, are generally not within the scope of Article 9.
s

lJniform Commerciol Code 55 9-516(a), 9-520(a). /d.
S

10

9-513, cmt. 3.

u
12

rd. 5 9-518. cmt. 2.

/d. 55 9-513 cmt. 5; L5191gl & cmt. 6.
td. s 9-625(a), (b) & cmt. 2

"
to

ld. g-gZS(eX3), (eXa); also see Scott E. Reynolds, How To Recognize ond Remedy an Unouthorized Finoncing Stotement, New

Jersey Law Journal
(Fla. Stat.

<http://riker.com

>

(Dec'

5,

2O7Ll;

Wittioms,476 F. Supp. 2d 1368 at 1379 (awarding damages to victims of bogus filing under Florida's UCC remedies provision

I

679.62s(sXc) (2012)).

tt
15

Uniform Commercial Code, I9-518 cmt. 3.
a

lt should be noted that Congress also took this approach, passing a law in 2008 that makes it retaliatory lien against a federal official.

federal offense to file a false

t'

Some of these provisions refer to financing statements, and others refer to liens. Provisions using the latter reference are included to the extent that they are located in a state's UCC Article 9 laws, or otherwise appear to cover financing statements.

tt

s.c. cod" Ann. 5 35-9-s16(b)(8), (9) (2012).

the See e.g. IJ.S. v. Leitner, No. 3:10cv454/RS-CJK (N.D. Fla.) (2011) (court order removing bogus UCC financing statements Florida UCC registry); IJ.S. v. Dovenport. No. CV-10-027-JLQ (E.D. Wash.) (2010) (court order expunging bogus UCC financing statements from the Washington State UCC records)'

'"

(7) (2007). 'o Ala. Admin. code r. 820-4-3.02(3Xb), (3Xc),
21 22

cal. Govt. Code Ann. 5 12181 (2012).
Cof

o. Rev. Stat. 55 38-35-201, 202

(2ol2l;

olso see Colorado Secretary of State, tJniform Commerciol Code FAQs <!l{lgW.!.9,IS!A

te.co.us/pubs/UCC/FAes/spurious.html> (describing spurious document).

a

bogus financing statement that contains a false lien of claim as

a

Page25 of 27

"
2s

rd. s zoz(g).

'o rdaho code 28-9-51GA (2012).

onl/tiF
"

5 tll. Comp. Stat. 9-516(bX3.5), (e) (2012); lll. H8.5190. 97'h General Assemblv (HB. 5190 was passed by the General Assembly , ZOn. The bill was sent to the Governor on June 20th. As of July 1, 2012 the bill had not yet been signed into law)'
5

Mich.!o-!0pJe!y!

440.9s20 (2012).

ld. 5 gSOf (A) , (51; also see Michigan Secretary of State, Secretary of Stote Tokes Action to Prevent UCC Fraud <www.michisan. sov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1640 9150-117815-,00.html> (May 11, 2005)'

"

28 2s

Mont. Code. Ann. 530-9A-420(1) (2012).
Neb. Rev. Stat. 5 9-515(8) (2012).

'o N.D. Admin. code 72-ot-02-o' (20!2).

" N.e,Es!.5!e!. S 29-s16(8)
32

(2012).

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. S 111.24(A), (B) (2012). Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. 5 79.0516(2Xh) (2012).

33

'o ld. s oszo(s).

"
t'
37

5.c. code Ann. $ 36-9-515(b)(8), (9) (2012).

]g.Goy!.Ggd"e.An!.
Mich. Comp. Laws /d. s 9520.
S

S

405.022 (2012).

440.9501a.

tt
3e

Mont. Code. Ann. 530-9A-420(1).
N.E. LB 210

oo

(Mar. 7,20t3) (available at http://nebraskaleeislature.eov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Slip/LB210.pdf)
5 29-518 (2012).

o'.Nc.-Ec-n
a2

5!e!

13 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann.

I

9518 (2012). (2012).

o'w. va. code a6-9-5l6(e) s

* colo. Rev. stat. 5 204.
ot

cal. code. ciu. Proc. 55 755.010, o3o.

o'
a7
a8

Kil.S!3!.An!.

S

58-4301(2012).

Minn. Stat. 5 545.05 (2012).
Tex. Govt. Code Ann. 5 51.903.

4s

/d. 9 905; o/so see Texas Attorney General, Wiping Out Froudulent Liens <www.oas.state.tx.us/alerts/alerts view.php?id=114

.

&type=3> (Sept. 1, 2005) (describing procedures available for removing fraudulent liens). s 5-37-2ls (LEXts L. publg. 2012).

uoA*.!sdc_AE
sl

Cal. Govt. Code Ann. S 6223. Ga. Laws. Act 582

t'2012
s3
s4

Kan. Stat. Ann. S 58-4302(2012)

Titte 5. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 5 gO-E (2012). Mich. Comp. Laws 5 440.9501(6), (7).

ss

t'

Mi-!-4.s!A! 5 509.7475.
604.L7.

t'Mjnq,Slg!$

Page 26 of 27

s8 se @

Mont. Code. Ann. S3O-9A-420(2).
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.

I

382-A:9-529 (2011).

N.D. Cent. Code 5 41-10.

tt
62 63

s.c. code Ann. 5 36-9-501(cXd).
Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. 5 9-5185 (2012). Tex. Penal Code Ann. S 37.101 (2012). Tex. Civ. Prac. And Remedies Code S 12.002, .OO3 (2012).

a
ut
uu

Utah code Ann.

S

76-6-503.5 (2012).

w. va. code S 46-9-516(e).

Page27 of27

EXHIBIT

7

November

2l.}An

N{r. P. Kevin Castel Southern Disrrict of New York

500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Washington v. tYilttam
Dear Castsl:

Morrir [,ndcavor Entcrtainment ct sl, (10-9647) (PKCXJCF)

ln the process of cra{hng your deceotively wnften July 20, 2011 Stay Order rvhich eroneously compelled this landrnark human rights and antitrust case into arbitration, you not only violoted your oath of oflice and nun'lerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, but you also violated trutnerous criminal statubes to prevelt a1 impartial jury f;om deciding the merits of a case challenging the century plus discrirninatory ernpl,oymcnt oracrices of one of the oldest talent agenci,es in Hollywood - the William Morris Agency (now 1qrown as William Morris Endeavor Enterlainmeot). Now, fwo yetlrs later, it is finally time for these miscarriages of justice to be ad&essed, and ultimately corrected. No later than Decem,ber 23,2013, Arbitrator David L, Cregory of fhe American Ar,bitration Association ("AAA") is expected to render his 'Iinal- decisiOrr in ths abovs referenc€d Inatter. Since Oregory has already "Exceedcd [his] powers" by prematurely disnissing two of my conspimcy claims and stating that tlre arbibation agreements are "not ulcon5cionalrle" without allowing for tiiscovery or an oral hearing and citing no case law to support his conclusions, I will have no choice but to have the award modified and/or vecatsd for a number of rcasons enumerated urrder $ l0 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
I have alwayg acted in "gr:od &i&" in my attempts to receive justice in this case and be made whole for what has happened to not only mysel{ but a clsss of protected indivicluals merely because their bodies produce mslanin. Since rnaking the decision to challenge lfill:iam Monis' instjtutionally discriminatory employmenl practices, I * a pro.rc litigant - have had (o overconrs many obs[aclcs and procedural hurdles erected by not only lrighly urrsthical attornsys at Loeb & l.oeb LLP, but by various employees and officers of the EEOC, Soutfuern District of Nsw York, Secorrd Circuit and the AAA After you ornitted pertinent facB and misapplied the law to uphold Williarn Monis' unconscionable arbitration agrEernents, I had a "gut instinct" that William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P.Zweig were engaging in a sinister conspiracy to cornmit "fi'aud upon the Co,url" ard tlnt your decision was largely pre-determined. The pyramid of svidence I have uncovered over the last two years pt'oves this fact.
Recently, I gained apcess to your Appoinenent Atfrdavits and Oath of Officg. I discovered that on August 29, ?011, a Deinand Letier was submitted by Paul Andr'ew Mitchell requesting that you supply missing rnformafjoR concomilrg your Appoinunent Affidavits. 'Jee trxhibit A, As scated in the leftor, failure to this is in fact true, your failure to provide lhis provide this furfor:nsfion oon,stitutcd {iaud and documentation, furtlrEr s$pports that your July 20, 201I decision should be vitiated. Since 1 am uncertain that this infomration has been supplied to tvlr. Mitchell, I am now requesting s copy of this document under the

if

Freedom of lnformaticln Act no later than Deeember 20,2013.

Mr.

P, Kevin Castel

November 22, 2013 PageT Altlrough you hold a position of considerabl,e powef and authority for a life tenn" you must be reminded tbat you are not Cod" nor are you immune *our being held rs$ponsible for your actions. .!ee Urritgd. Stales v. Lee. law may 106 U,$. 196 {I8S2) ("No rnan in rhis courrhy is so high that he is above the law. Ns officer of the to the lowest, are ser thsr law at defiqncs with ir:rpunity. Atl the off:cers of tho government, ftom the highest governnrcnt, and of in power our systeirt creahlres of lhe law, and are bouud to obey it. lt is thc only suprsfire submit to evgry man who by accepting ofsce pa*icipates in its funclions is only the trrore strongly bsund to which it that supremacy, and to absele the limitations which it imposes upon the ex.ercise of the au*rority you have case, particular gives.,,j yol swore to "suppor.t and defbnd. &e Constitution and as it relates to dris justiee by failing to "administel justice witho$t respect Io petsons," "do equal fight to tht poor
oUstrocted upon you. have To be frank, fhere is absOlutoly nothing "honorable" About 5'ou basetl on your actions in this case. You no proven that withoul honesty, a judieiary "lras little chance of executing its rnoral and constitutional duties, of color the under rigbts human snd civil of their rnatter how mar:y rulcs of ethics exist." Dep.riving a litigant that fact to the the law is a violation of l8 U.S.C. $ 242 and consritutes anything but "good behnviour." Due

are incumbent and to the rich," and "fairhfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties" that

d' I will be left with no choice

bur to begin the process

of filing a corrunercial lien against you and the other predominately

all-

last Whiref'Jewish,, ofhcers rhat hrave rrot only violated my constihrtional and God-given riglrts over the African rights of human with intertbre the to three yeafs, but have also engaged in a sinister conspiracy the Americans by ensuring thst racism (global white supremacy) rs rnaintained througlraut America and world * a violatjon of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S'C $ 1985(3)'

Democracy works "only if the people have frith in tho* who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high oflieials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and co*,priin," For far roo long, many of the predominafely all-White judges electod to thc bench have hidden taking their raclsm and comrption under.their black robes by undermining tlre antidiscrimination statutgs and lt is now time for advantage of a system that is supposed to ensure justice for all. Those days are numbEred.
these swollen iqiustices to ftnally be addressed" acknowledged and corrected.

Best.

iliy-Q
Enclosure:

Marcus L Washington

"l.,b+*

Chief Judge Lorstta A. Preska (delivered via USPS) Mr', Michael P. Zweig of l",oeb & Losb LLP (delivered via e-rnail)

nxhibit A

1

2
"]

NOTICB A!{D DE}tlA!{D 8OR EX TBTX'Q}T Of MIS$TNG CBEDEN?IALS

f

TO:

n
1

clo U.S. DistricL qt
(OO Doa rl

P, Kevin Castol
Court
10007-1312
M.S
raot

6

New York

City

NgW YORX $?ATE, USA
1/l 11 L2
l-4

FROM: Paul

Private AttorneY General c/ c.t I77 Eas L Loulsa Street seatf,te 98102-32C3
WASHINGTOI'I

Andrsw

Mltchell' B.A',
USA

i5
L0 !I DATE;

5TATN,

Augusf 29, 2011 n.o.

l8
19

SUBJECT: missing credentrals

20
LL

1a /J /q ?q 26 l{
2B

Greetings P. Kevin Castelr please be advised that a proper requesL subnj.tted under the Freedom of Information Act {*gpf}") ha$ resulted in a deLermination that tbe following requisite-Jredentiafs for you cannot be found or exhibited by t.he legal custodians of rhose records:

29
30

(1)

APPOintr{tent Af f idavits
j--'.-. !

As cf Ociober ', , 2004 A.D. , a orOOCr SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL overCue for your Oath Office and Appointment Affidavi t,'

CASE '

WAS

JJ
34

For your convenience, we have allached pertinent documentatton.
Formal demand ls lrereby made of you to prociuce all missing credentials as itemlzed above no Iater than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 30, 2011 A.I}. Beyond that rea$onable deadline, your silence wiIl activate estoppel pursuant- to c35nir,r.e, v. Bg!^ren, and it wiIl also constltute fraud pursuant to U.F. V-, ?t;eel. Thank you

36
37
3B

JY

40 !1 4!

f,:r your timely

and prcfessional consideration.

4l
44
^c,

Sincerely yeurs'

46
41

48 49 50

/s/ Paul Andrew Mr.tchell Paul Andrew Mitchall, 8.A., M.S.
Pr,ivate Attorney Gene"{gl, 18
ll.Q-,
C
1.9

64 {a

)

/

hPpolNTMm{r

d

DF$/rTq

--8

2,

2m,3

SIRIKINEIGNINST I1IE

iryg

{D

o
d(
{

,q/Ott||Frl! rltl |r rG/rErccr t9to ut HrD otilr. tErncE cmfl88toll Frs f:-tnt cHAfTEt ttrt

i'.;i.i

ir i+l

(nr! AttioY^L

lro.

lsy
5-rorlr

#4,
llew

tti;;*f
sEr

#PBI$X$ff lrFli[*vfi$
United States

ls t$t

District Court Judge
rppo*rrd)

,t |!lbr Ado'lnlstrat{ve 0fflce of ths Un{ted ttatos Courts $)c'6a:xl gl.rt.alt
{Por&i'*

(Drr. ar,t'{{|lrr:.|,,

fisHJl lL5, (lper

Cour!* tr llsfrb*)

Yor[, lley lort (Flaot d.rrl.tt rt'
eirmr (or nltrm)

I

Loretta A. Preska

--k-r

do aolonnly

thct-

,r. OAnt OF OFRCE I will snpport ord elafcld ibr Csrc,ttu3loo of tha Uniteil $trtor rynind nll lrsmicc, fonign rnd dmilr.iai tlnt I rrill lrrr tntc fnith arul rllqimerlo tbc rnrm; th,nt I tlkr thir obligFtion fiuly, dtb@t uty rx!s,t$l rtrmtion or pwpur of rrnioul ud &at I will rdl ruld frithfutly dircbaryr
tbr&rhe o*thco$cssrrdrich f en rbowttrnhr.
So

helpmrOod.

L AFFIDAVIT AS TO SffmNG AGAII.ST tl{E FEOEf,AT GovtlN}rltNt
f rm not p*rdcipoting in a*y*rikerpinrttbr Sorornmut ol thc Uni*rd $tntrr or rny ryur$y thdlod, rlrd I will notto pnrtioiptc wbilr ln unployra of thr G,ornrntiriflt. of tbe Orital Slrnr or ruy rjoncythcrroi
AFFIDAVI? A5 TO ?UNCHASE AI& 5AI.S OF OFFICE I brvc noq Dor h*r myonc lcting in ny bcbalf, glreiq trenrfcrrrd, prorircd or prld f,ny conddlnttrrrl fnro; in *r1xctltio{r or hopc ol rccriviagmJ'nnnca in *curingtbir oppobtrnent.

C

ge..rdbod nnd r'o,ra (or al[rnsd] bdon ns

thlr l8

rl,ry

ol SFp4fiqJ: . -* f.-D.1g-!!,

$

ilqlllqr!
lsry)

iler

York

Iut] &uairdm rrplrlt-_
(tt
el Llr

Chlaf

{iv*\4+';ryt lal''',h'i.l cioal
du dge,

!t r !t*ru FrUtB, A. i!& af #lr{or Ooddo*.lfi|d !r rforr)

Southern

Dlstrlrt af il*v Yor.k
(f{ttr)

U.5. Dlstrlct Court

lfgllFflt otll al etcr nrrl & ftnibrllGt a It r tgror r'aoltd It t Ot.C. *O\ ?lc roordt ,& ldp;rc gol;. h tlr oatl .r{ tta rrora '.tcd' r.lr}!'ct ft .?Fart .'6aa aa{||J| k }r"ld!c, nrt glcr tlo a)Ooliaca alc',., to l,f,nra rqllcr tla_ruc b tle .rrl.oitr,' ortr ,Lac ll,tJt rcf bc .M*c. ttd ollll *hct tht t rp,tllc clrrft lo tfrt/,>t .fia.olr+ ou.t, c,t.o. tt!l-tlt.ttt/ttal

r/\rrl I fJ *
'1,6i,%

q5 t,

.-,-J App0nruffI ilrflilfiilI$
OF

Uni ted

States District
(/norlri,or to

ldnlnistratlve Offlce of
{Dapartntqrl or
ogcnatt I

Judce l,tiltt rrt{,nfttf l

-October Dttlc
I

al rStnJrt[c,r,

6.

1988
I

tbe unltd stete$ courts

U.S. Di,strlct Court
f8rrr11 rr.liririonl

Nerv

York,
I

New York

l' lnen ol crrgl,rltnlcklt

I

Robert

R'*Pati.9fqpn.-{a-

rlo uolcrruriv svarr.

{nraffirm)

thu-

" rlourssticl thnt
&

A. QATH OF OFFICE I will $lpPrrrt nrrd rlcfend

rvill b*nr tnn f,nith nrrd nlteginnlo to rh,r rtrrrrl tlrai I rnks tlrir ohligluion'frtol.r. rritbtqrrstly_nrrntfllrrscn'xtiolor l]mposeolirnairn; und thet I s.lil q*ll *',cl tiitttirilii.,t;.t,u"go t}rilutixof the oilltnon rvlrich IatnIboul,tosntBr. Fobelprno Gorl. AFFIDAVIT AS TO

I

the ConEdcution_.of r|te l-nite<l Silrrac ugnin*t

lll

errcnric.s, tnre.ign nnrl

$IIIK'NG AGAINST

THE FEOERAL GOYERNMENT

rny rgwcy tlrersof.

not pnrticipatirrg in a.ny striko.lgainsr fho Oors66gn6 of the tiniterl S,fates nr, nfl.v nFaooI ,, , -f tbcrtof, nnd I rvill not so plrticipate .'irils tn emplol'ee of ttrc flor.pt,llment of thr L-rriterl !i;rrm or

t,t

IJ
b

ix

o

tr
Suluarib.d urdnrcrn {or

hl b

g

ir

C. AFFIDAVIT A5 TO PURCHASE AND $ALF OF OFFICT I hlvo notf nor hns anyono nclirrg in my-beh*tf, gir*n. tran*fcrrxl, promised or pri{ ilny con. aidsrutinlr for or in oxprctalion cr hop* of rec*iring nerinr securing t

ctto{*l t)

rfirmd)

bcforr me thir

-

q0th dny of Deaarnhg'

,-_

1,.D"

l0 nt

,

E

s {:}
{t
f.,
c.)
E\:

rt _

Uer Snrk
lortt)
:, ,',i,:"

_&
,i'*,.
,S....:":l
(

tgrrtr)
4

ra:. t-[ta.P..-

Commission.ro,,o,,:uoo*
(U

cnrtr Jttm8, u.s. Drs?8rcf @ttRT
"10u$Iggi[*!J '
s

I'r-Cn".zu (Sltncrprr ol ogloctl

c-

*f

\t r )iotrrt Publlc, thr drto o! GrDlntton d lb CoarolgJoo rbould be rlorro'l
to ltat r.

rn

(

tl,lc)

Ict_0e

!u u-.yo8K_

X(Ill*flrr

or|Jt sl olbo alrl ailnlult1,erct, by Ocrrort.tf6ltrd ir j II.S.C, 290t. Thd ,oo1f,, ilfio hclp nrc Go;* -o ,trlc|csrt-,mftcrulcittin1yt11;tu,icrhn$ttr,f.ririir.elorr.rl..,r drttl.!oc,fhcqtthe tw?tl,b.c th?etlr^iutr.d.at, r".llrr rrllr ,tr:.k ttt tha .fr,torit r ; ijty riii. i;il:;&il;iiin,;",, ,,,,a o*ty r hctt , hf; ttt,ttar,,r.a clcctt to clfvm ttc tfrdollir,a

Ou.t.

o.fi.o.

tft:-tr!

-tzr/aar l

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful