PDA

View Full Version : Two Sovereign Citizens on Trial for ‘Paper Terrorism’




dannno
10-30-2014, 11:53 AM
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/oct/30/sovereign-citizens-politics-and-paper-terrorism/


Sovereign Citizens on Trial for ‘Paper Terrorism’
Two Men Charged with Conspiring to File False Lien on Judge’s Home
Thursday, October 30, 2014

Democracy may not be on trial, but Tom Murphy and Jeff Lind are. The two have ties to the anti-government “sovereign citizen” movement and are accused of conspiring to file a false lien against the Solvang home of a Santa Barbara County judge in a lengthy and bizarre series of legal challenges and political protests that dates back to 2010. They each face felony counts and maximum sentences of three years and eight months in prison, and their trial is scheduled to start this week.

The saga began when Lind, a marketing executive who lives in Orcutt and works in nearby San Luis Obispo, allegedly threatened a police officer who had arrested his son for driving under the influence. Lind was charged with witness intimidation and ordered to appear before Judge Kay Kuns. Claiming to not recognize the court’s authority over him, Lind ​— ​with help from Murphy, a dogged sovereign citizen crusader living in Los Osos at the time ​— ​loosed an avalanche of filings and paperwork claiming $77 million in damages against Kuns for violating his rights.

Authorities in similar cases around the country have termed the tactic “paper terrorism” meant to harass and frustrate court systems and county counsel offices and used to retaliate against what sovereign citizens perceive as governmental overreach. No matter how ridiculous the documents may read, they still must be vetted for legal significance or potential liability. Just two weeks ago, a 44-year-old Chicago woman who had joined the movement was sentenced to 10 years in prison for filing a series of bogus liens against a number of the city’s judges and prosecutors. In September, a Georgia sovereign citizen was convicted for the same crimes. On the issue of liens, which can be filed by anyone under the Uniform Commercial Code regardless of validity, the target often takes a hit on his or her credit rating and must endure a painstaking process to have the lien removed.

In this case, Santa Barbara prosecutor Brian Cota contends that Murphy and Lind tried to file the lien against Kuns’s home in an “extortion-like attempt” to get Lind’s witness intimidation charge case dismissed, not because they thought they had a legitimate claim over the property. Cota dismissed Murphy and Lind’s defense that they truly believe the court has no jurisdiction over them, pointing to a 2008 case in which Lind pleaded to a “wet and reckless” charge ​— ​a reckless driving charge with minor drug or alcohol involvement — and accepted a probation sentence. Their intent all along, he argued, was simply to distract and deflect with “spurious gibberish.”

Cota also noted that the names of dozens of people with bare involvement in the case ​— ​from Sheriff Bill Brown to county administrative staffers ​— ​appear in filings and online postings created by the pair. Some of the documents are labeled with assault weapon models, and many contain veiled threats, Cota said. On Monday, Murphy and/or Lind distributed fake arrest warrants for Cota, DA Joyce Dudley, Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, and others. The warrants were issued by Murphy’s fabricated organization, the National Standards Enforcement Agency out of Missouri that purports to convene its own Grand Jury.

During pretrial motions this week, Judge Jean Dandona ruled that because of the pair’s “extraordinary history” of perceived harassment, jurors would be referred to not by name but by number. Such unusual restrictions are normally reserved for gang trials. Defense attorneys Jeff Chambliss, representing Lind, and Robert Landheer, representing Murphy, objected to the decision, saying their clients pose no threat to jurors or anyone else. While neither defendant has a history of physical aggression, the sovereign citizen movement’s reputation for occassional violence has prompted a security increase in the courtroom and at the DA’s Office.

In his comments to Dandona, Landheer often suggested that the trial could ​— ​and indeed, should ​— ​include discussion around his client’s political ideology as it would be central to the legal argument over intent. He said his client has been unfairly labeled by the DA’s Office as a “domestic terrorist” and that he believes Murphy’s prosecution is a “witch hunt.” “It is a political case,” he declared, “and I will say it as many times as I can.” Dandona disagreed, ruling Landheer must stick to addressing the specific charges and that he can’t bring politics into the proceedings. “The issues are narrow,” she said. “I don’t believe democracy is on trial.”

dannno
10-30-2014, 12:43 PM
bump

Ronin Truth
10-30-2014, 12:48 PM
Paper terrorism, I wonder if they threatened to just tear up their copies of their "social contract" (so-called)?

dannno
10-30-2014, 12:51 PM
Paper terrorism, I wonder if they threatened to just tear up their copies of their "social contract" (so-called)?

Well they did that too, but they also tried to sue a judge for a lot of money.

pcosmar
10-30-2014, 12:56 PM
Well they did that too, but they also tried to sue a judge for a lot of money.

You will not win against them in their own courts.

ChristianAnarchist
10-30-2014, 06:49 PM
You will not win against them in their own courts.

Truer words have not been spoken...

dannno
10-31-2014, 01:20 PM
You will not win against them in their own courts.

Ya that's what I commented on the article, these guys were just asking permission to steal from a corrupt system, they didn't actually go to the judge's house and take his stuff.

TheCount
10-31-2014, 02:44 PM
You will not win against them in their own courts.

Isn't the bigger issue that the liens are fraudulent claims of money that isn't actually owed?

dannno
10-31-2014, 02:49 PM
Isn't the bigger issue that the liens are fraudulent claims of money that isn't actually owed?

I doubt it, they apparently claimed that their rights were violated and since they believe their rights were violated the claim is not fraudulent.

It's like saying, "hey, I'm suing you for $1 billion for serving me coffee that was too hot and I spilled it on me.." if they actually served you hot coffee and you spilled it on yourself. The claim isn't fraudulent, it's the amount of money which is in dispute and whether they are actually liable for it.

mrsat_98
10-31-2014, 07:07 PM
Isn't the bigger issue that the liens are fraudulent claims of money that isn't actually owed?

What makes you think the liens are fraudulent ?

Irrespective of whether or nor the liens are fraudulent the system will try to lock your azz up for this type behavior.

TheCount
10-31-2014, 07:29 PM
What makes you think the liens are fraudulent ?

I don't believe that there's any possibility that the judge purchased $77 million in goods or services from them.

TheCount
10-31-2014, 07:35 PM
It's like saying, "hey, I'm suing you for $1 billion for serving me coffee that was too hot and I spilled it on me.." if they actually served you hot coffee and you spilled it on yourself. The claim isn't fraudulent, it's the amount of money which is in dispute and whether they are actually liable for it.

The lien comes after you prove liability, not before.

Working Poor
10-31-2014, 07:39 PM
Maybe all the people need to file a lien on the government. The real question might be if we did this would the government feel terrorized? I know I am such a dreamer. I must be inhaling to many chem trails.

Dianne
11-01-2014, 03:53 AM
A guy I know in Raleigh, N.C. has been fighting bank fraud and an illegal foreclosure on his home and they have placed his picture at the court house naming him a paper terrorist with instructions not to accept any documents he files with the court; i.e., Motions, Complaints, etc.