'I didn't mean to lien,' SovCit Claims

[Dr. Caligari]

Faking Liens To Harass Bankruptcy Judges Earns Prison
By Kurt Orzeck

Law360, Los Angeles (February 25, 2016, 12:08 AM ET) -- A California federal judge on Wednesday handed down a yearlong prison sentence to a man who allegedly financially harassed two federal bankruptcy judges by filing false liens against them after he filed for Chapter 7 and Chapter 9.

U.S. District Judge Stanley A. Bastian ordered Barry Halajian to 12 months and one day in prison after authorities said he listed two federal bankruptcy judges in the Eastern District of California as debtors and himself as the secured party.

Halajian insisted that his goal with the filings was to fight fraud in the banking system and hold the judges accountable — not place actual liens on them. Once Halajian became aware that liens were placed on the judges, he tried to undo them but didn’t know how, defendant’s attorneys argued.

Judge Bastian recently convicted Halajian after a brief trial on two counts of filing false liens, according to a Wednesday statement issued by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, who helped prosecute the case, said in the statement, “Filing bogus liens against federal officials for purposes of harassment is a crime, and those who commit it can expect to face prison time.”

Halajian is the owner of Fresno-based Industrial Electric Co., according to court papers. He filed for Chapter 7 in 2010 and for Chapter 9 two years later.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frederick E. Clement presided over the cases, and at the time, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Klein was chief U.S. bankruptcy judge for the Eastern District court.

Halajian’s Chapter 9 case was dismissed in June 2012, court papers said. The following month, he allegedly filed with the California Secretary of State a series of financing statements naming various court staff and judicial officers — including Judges Clement and Klein — associated with his bankruptcy proceedings as debtors.

The defendant then allegedly filed a judicial notice in his dismissed Chapter 9 case saying he had perfected liens against the two judges. The judges told the FBI they didn’t owe any financial obligations to Halajian, according to court papers.

Federal authorities claimed Halajian admitted that he filed the liens against the bankruptcy judges because he was in foreclosure proceedings and was desperate.

“He said he believed his house was in foreclosure because of all the fraud in the banking system,” prosecutors said in a November trial brief. “Halajian said he did not intend to have liens on the personal property of the judges, but wanted to ensure the judges performed their proper duties to the bond and oath they swore to defend.”

Halajian further claimed that unnamed individuals showed him how to file the liens but later distanced themselves from him.

Prosecutors argued that Halajian’s experience with bankruptcy proceedings meant that he was familiar with liens. They said he knew that the judges didn’t hold his property in trust and that his Chapter 9 case wasn’t a security agreement between himself and the judges.

Halajian’s attorneys said in a November trial brief that his filings didn’t meet the definition of “retaliation” as alleged in the “unusual” criminal case, because he lacked criminal intent.

“As in the case of Humpty Dumpty and the Red Queen, the dictionary has proven quite unhelpful,” Halajian’s attorneys wrote.

They said in a Feb. 16 sentencing memorandum that Halajian’s criminal history had been limited to minor incidents of driving without a license — “all based on his antiquated political beliefs, rooted in the common law, that citizens have the fundamental right to travel even without a state-issued license.”

The memorandum added that the defendant had realized the seriousness of his offense and was immediately honest and remorseful when he learned that an actual lien had been placed on the judges’ personal property.

Judges Clement and Klein were recused from the instant case, court filings said.

Judge Bastian on Wednesday sentenced Halajian to one year of supervised release after his prison sentence. He must surrender for service of his sentence by April 12.

An attorney for Halajian declined immediate comment.

The U.S. is represented by U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, and Assistant U.S. attorneys Dawrence W. Rice Jr. and Patrick R. Delahunty.

Halajian is represented by Ezekiel Cortez and Joshi A. Valentine of the Law Office of Ezekiel Cortez.

The case is USA v. Barry Halajian, case number 1:14-cr-00208, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

— Editing by Ben Guilfoy.

[noblepa]

Halajian further claimed that unnamed individuals showed him how to file the liens but later distanced themselves from him.

Once again, the gurus convince some poor soul to try their nonsense in court and then throw them under the bus.

He said he wanted to remove the liens, but didn't know how. I've never recorded a lien against anyone, although I've had a few (mortgages, car financing, etc.) against me. To remove a lien, doesn't one simply go to the county recorder's office (or wherever the lien is filed) and file some sort of statement that the debt has been paid.

That's what has happened with my mortgages. I've looked up my own property on my local recorder's website. I've refinanced once or twice, so there are scans of the original mortgages and liens, plus documents cancelling the lien. Doesn't look too complicated to me.

[Pottapaug1938]

This guy reminds me of the tax denier idjits who think that inserting a phrase like "if I have advocated any tax denier or frivolous positions concerning my income tax, I hereby renounce them" into their paper word salad will insulate them from further unpleasant consequences -- even when the document reiterates those same positions.

[The Observer]

. To remove a lien, doesn't one simply go to the county recorder's office (or wherever the lien is filed) and file some sort of statement that the debt has been paid.

The problem is that the person who got hit with the lien must hope that anyone researching the document index finds the "debt paid" document. With standard lien or security notices most companies are familiar with the forms that typically appear to show that the lien is no longer in effect. But I am not sure if they would recognize the crap that a sovrun filed as being a release. So it may be a recurring headache everytime a new credit report is done and the original lien document is picked up.

[Famspear]

I would be interested in hearing the reason why this Einstein thought it was appropriate for him to file a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition.



Chapter 9 is for a municipality.

You know.

Like Detroit.

[notorial dissent]

. To remove a lien, doesn't one simply go to the county recorder's office (or wherever the lien is filed) and file some sort of statement that the debt has been paid.

The problem is that the person who got hit with the lien must hope that anyone researching the document index finds the "debt paid" document. With standard lien or security notices most companies are familiar with the forms that typically appear to show that the lien is no longer in effect. But I am not sure if they would recognize the crap that a sovrun filed as being a release. So it may be a recurring headache everytime a new credit report is done and the original lien document is picked up.

And what makes you, not you personally, but you collectively, think that the numbnutz would do the release right? Not Me. The comments about the lien residue, if you want to call it that, though are quite valid and can long linger and are very hard to get rid of unless the lien itself is actually purged, which they should be since they were fraudulent to begin with. Many jurisdictions have now set up procedures for doing just that since this has become a serious problem in some places. TX as I recall being on the list.

In answer to the other question, he's a sovcit, I doubt if he even knows what they are, but 9 is higher than 7 so it must be more important, sovcit logic isn't.

[morrand]

I would be interested in hearing the reason why this Einstein thought it was appropriate for him to file a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition.



Chapter 9 is for a municipality.

You know.

Like Detroit.

Because he was a municipality. Duh. Specifically, he filed as "Halajian, Barry SS Municiple Corporation" [sic, like I had to tell you that]. Although, he also checked the box on the bankruptcy form for "Individual debtor," the one for "Debtor is a tax-exempt organization under Title 26 of the United States Code," and the one for "Debtor estimates that funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors." I'm not so sure that he understood that last one, but never mind.

Maybe the hint is that he signed the petition twice. Once as "B Halajian UCC 1-308 authorized representative," and again as "By: Barry-Stuart: Halajian, Living Man, Exe.", as authorized representative.

No, on second thought, the hint is in this steaming heap of gibberish that barry halajian, acting for BARRY HALAJIAN, unloaded on the court.

MUNICIPAL CORPORf\TION: A public corporation, created by government for political purposes, and having subordinate and local powers of legislation. An incorporation of persons having the powers of acting as one person.

11 USC 904. Limitation on juri diction and powers of court
Notwithstanding any power of the court, unless the debtor consents or the plan 0 provides, the court may noi, by any stay, order, or decree,
in the case or otherwi e, INTERFERE with-
(I) any of the pol itical or governmental power of the debtor;
(2) any of the property or revenues of the debtor; or
(3) the debtor's 1I e or enjoyment of any income-producing property.

Glitches reproduced as in original; I'm not yet skilled enough in gibberish to tell whether those are deliberate mutilations, designed to increase the binding power of the words, or simply artifacts of crappy OCR.

Anyway, apparently he believes that, since the court is not allowed to touch the debtor's property in a Chapter 9 case (he claims), and since the definition of "municipality" includes the word "persons," he'll obtain a substantial benefit by declaring himself a municipal corporation and thereby forbidding the court to touch his property in bankruptcy. Hooray! (There's a hint in there that, since the strawman is a creation of the government, naturally it must be a municipal corporation. The "SS" in "SS Municiple Corporation" is later revealed to stand for "Social Security.") The court tried to take the easy way out, dismissing the case for lack of an attorney's appearance (as required for a corporation, you see); but instead, barry failed to list his 20 top creditors, so the court pitched the case on that much easier basis.

Miffed, halajian, still acting for HALAJIAN, sent in the document at issue, a series of demands for how his case would be conducted, including his liens. To be fair, it looks like they really were written against various officials' "Oaths of Office, Bonds, Errors and Omissions coverage(s) and constitutions," as he claimed, and not their persons, though I couldn't explain what the difference is. The rest is history.

[The Observer]

And what makes you, not you personally, but you collectively, think that the numbnutz would do the release right.

Which is why I said:

But I am not sure if they would recognize the crap that a sovrun filed as being a release.

[Dr. Caligari]

He's been drinking the kool-aide for a while; his lawyers argued that:

Halajian’s criminal history had been limited to minor incidents of driving without a license — “all based on his antiquated political beliefs, rooted in the common law, that citizens have the fundamental right to travel even without a state-issued license.”

[Famspear]

....based on his antiquated political beliefs, rooted in the common law, that citizens have the fundamental right to travel even without a state-issued license.

I've never researched this specific issue, but I would like to see a case where a court held that, under English common law, there was a right to "travel without a state-issued license" -- fundamental or otherwise.

More to the point: The current traffic laws in the United States do not prohibit "traveling without a state-issued license."

What the traffic laws prohibit is operating a vehicle on a public road without a state-issued license. The policeman issues the ticket to the operator of the vehicle. He does not issue tickets to the other passengers who don't happen to have a driver's license.

The truth is that these people ("sovereign citizens") just don't want follow the rules. It's the same with the tax protesters. The "right to travel" argument is just a smoke screen.

[Burnaby49]

At heart they are interperting the right to travel as including the right to drive. We have the same issues in Canada and the right to travel is just that, the right to go from one place to another. However getting there by operating a motor vehicle or aircraft is a separate issue which is not part of the right to travel. I can take a commercial flight to Toronto anytime I want but, without a valid driver's license, I can't legally drive myself there. As in the US the jurisprudence is entirely one-sided but the blockheads up here just won't quit trying.

[The Observer]

Well, I find it strange that no one needs a license to drive one to drink.

[Burnaby49]

Well, I find it strange that no one needs a license to drive one to drink.

That's why I don't drive and don't go to bed sober.

[Dr. Caligari]

Well, I find it strange that no one needs a license to drive one to drink.

W.C. Fields used to say, "it was a woman who drove me to drink...I never thanked her."

[Gregg]

I have a policy that I have tried to follow most of the time for the better part of my adult life,

I don't drink in North America, and I don't drive overseas.....

Even though I have made the occasional exception, as a general rule it has served me well.

In my late teens and early twenties, I was, for real, a degenerate drunk, and after returning to Panama from Germany still quite drunk, and finding my schedule had changed and the Army expected me to fly an aircraft in 4 hours I had an epiphany of sorts. (part of it was that if you are flying 9500 km one way to go drinking you might have a drinking problem)

I decided there were three things in my life that I really enjoyed;
Drinking
Flying and
Breathing....
and I needed to pick any two....

So in the end, even I grew up.