Users of gold claim defamation by PA sheriff

[Lambkin]

(I guess I shouldn't post this in the sovereign citizen forum!)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-5go ... 9257.story

Three sheriff's sale bidders sue Northampton County The men tried to buy properties with bags of gold and silver

Three men who last October offered bags of gold and silver in an attempt to buy property at a Northampton County sheriff's sale are now suing the county for $1 million in federal court.

Michael Proetto of Whitehall Township, Michael Reis of Bethlehem and Victor Balletta of Allentown say county officials not only wrongly denied their bids, but also defamed them by saying they may be associated with anti-government groups that believe paper money is not legal, or that they are opportunists trying to make a quick buck.

At the sale, Proetto, Reis and Balletta made bids ranging from $12,000 to more than $75,000 on nine properties. County officials said the bids were unsuccessful. The men later filed challenges to the foreclosure sales.

In the suit, the men say county officials defamed them by theorizing about their motives. County officials referred to them in an Oct. 28 Morning Call article as ''opportunists'' involved in ''paper terrorism'' or as ''members of anti-government groups such as Sovereign Citizen, Posse Comitatus or Liberty Dollar,'' the suit says.

[Lambkin]

(I guess I shouldn't post this in the sovereign citizen forum!)

(mods didn't agree!)

I assume this is it...

BALLETTA et al v. SPADONI et al

Plaintiffs: VICTOR BALLETTA, STEPHANIE BALLETTA, MICHAEL PROETTO, SUSAN PROETTO and MICHAEL REIS
Defendants: CHRISTOPHER SPADONI, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR, DAVE RUBERRY, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and JOHN DOES 1-10

Case Number: 5:2009cv02819
Filed: June 23, 2009

Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Office: Allentown Office
County: Lehigh
Presiding Judge: HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $149,000.00

[Lambkin]

I didn't find the original article but there is this blog post from shortly after the event which purports to quote from it.

http://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/200 ... ilver.html

* Whatever their motives, the three returned last week to file 27 notices challenging the foreclosure sales, in which they lost bids to people using ''illegitimate paper'' money. ''[The other bidders] made an unlawful money bid in credit in opposition to my lawful money bid,'' Proetto wrote in nine challenges he made. ''I was the only lawful bidder and therefore the only bidder.''

* In other words, Proetto said earlier this week, his gold was the only valid money at the sale and the rest of the bids used ''worthless paper backed by nothing more than black ink.''

[Pottapaug1938]

In other words, these half-wits are probably among those who focus on the language of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution (the "gold or silver" clause") and ignore the language of Article I, Section 8 (the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof).

[Lambkin]

True, they are some nutty fellows, but why refuse their coin as payment? My guess is that officials were alarmed by their words more than their coins, but it would help to have more details of what was said.

[Lambkin]

The article includes a quote to the effect that they are not associated with Liberty Dollar. That doesn't sound like a claim that could be made by someone passing bags of libbies. I wonder if the sheriff would have accepted bags of FRNs from someone making alarming statements about the monetary system.

[jredison]

IIRC their bids were not the highest. They then claimed that since they were the only one's paying in gold and silver, then only their bids should count.

[Lambkin]

IIRC their bids were not the highest. They then claimed that since they were the only one's paying in gold and silver, then only their bids should count.

Thanks, that sounds like a more plausible explanation - that the bid might have been accepted had it been winning.

Of course that doesn't really answer the defamation question. Although I'm not a gold bug (I own no gold at all) I wouldn't want to be associated with the "sovereign citizen" movement if I tried to buy something with gold, which doesn't exactly sound like a crime.

[Pottapaug1938]

True, they are some nutty fellows, but why refuse their coin as payment?

Probably because that it would be a big pain in the butt to have to 1) store the bullion securely, 2) find the best place to turn the bullion into money -- one which would withstand a legal challenge of insufficiency, and 3) have to account to everyone involved for the bullion liquidation. Since I haven't been involved in conducting foreclosure sales for some time, now, there are probably other reasons that I'm forgetting.

[Dezcad]

IIRC their bids were not the highest. They then claimed that since they were the only one's paying in gold and silver, then only their bids should count.

It appears that is the allegation - from an Affidavit attached to the complaint:

I, Victor Ballatta attended the Sheriff's Sale of Valuable Real Estate on 10/10/2008 on the third floor of the Government Center City of Easton and witnessed Mr. Michael Reis bid the highest and best in lawful money in the amount of $13,156.35 with no other bidders on property 171 Augusta Terrace Williams Township PA Parcel ID M10 3 41-171 0836 Case # CV-0048-CV 2008-0231 #39 Continued from August 08, 2008. Mr. Michael T. Mckeever, Esq. made an unlawful money bid in credit in opposition to my lawful money bid. I was the only lawful bidder and therefore the only bidder.

(bolding in original)

But the statements in this Affidavit are contradictory. It says "I,Victor Ballata" witness Michael Reis make a bid but then it says "my lawful money bid" and "I was the only bidder" even though "I, Victor" did not make the bid.

There are a number of other affidavits with similar allegations, just different amounts and people bidding but all with the same inconsistency - the affiant witnessed a bid (but didn't make the bid) and the affiant's bid was rejected.

FWIW, this property is now listed for sale at $240K so a $13K bid seems opportunistic to me.

[Lambkin]

Yeah the more I read about these guys, the more it sounds like the sheriff had them figured out pretty well. Maybe they are not technically "sovereign citizens" but they didn't fall far from the tree either.

[Prof]

Also, this smacks of "vapor money" and similar theories. Note that the lenders were bidding in debt (this is called "credit bidding"). The wackos are arguing that this debt, secured by the property being sold, was not lawful money. That requires combining the theories about why the paper dollar is not real money with the theory that banks don't really loan money to come up with an argument that "I was the only real bidder at the sale."

If these folks are "Sovereigns," they have certainly been reading the same Internet BS.

[Dezcad]

Yeah the more I read about these guys, the more it sounds like the sheriff had them figured out pretty well. Maybe they are not technically "sovereign citizens" but they didn't fall far from the tree either.

The original newspaper article is attached to the complaint and one of the quotes from the Deputy Sheriff was - "This isn't the barter system, where you can bring your jewelry here to be melted down to buy a house."

[Demosthenes]

The docket for those who are interested.

United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:09-cv-02819-JS

BALLETTA et al v. SPADONI et al
Assigned to: HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ
Demand: $149,000
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Date Filed: 06/23/2009
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
VICTOR BALLETTA represented by MATTHEW B. WEISBERG
PROCHNIAK & WEISBERG P.C.
7 S. MORTON AVE
MORTON , PA 19070
610-690-0801
Fax: 610-690-0880
Email: mweisberg@ppwlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
STEPHANIE BALLETTA
Individually & as H/W represented by MATTHEW B. WEISBERG
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MICHAEL PROETTO represented by MATTHEW B. WEISBERG
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
SUSAN PROETTO
Individually & as H/W represented by MATTHEW B. WEISBERG
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MICHAEL REIS represented by MATTHEW B. WEISBERG
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
CHRISTOPHER SPADONI
individ & in his Official capacity as assistant county solicitor

Defendant
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR

Defendant
DAVE RUBERRY
individ & in his Official capacity as Deputy Sheriff

Defendant
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Defendant
JOHN DOES 1-10


Date Filed # Docket Text

06/23/2009 1 COMPLAINT against CHRISTOPHER SPADONI, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR, DAVE RUBERRY, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JOHN DOES 1-10 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number PPE003628.), filed by VICTOR BALLETTA, STEPHANIE BALLETTA, MICHAEL PROETTO, SUSAN PROETTO, MICHAEL REIS.(jeb, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/proetto1.pdf

06/23/2009 Summons Issued as to CHRISTOPHER SPADONI, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR, DAVE RUBERRY, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. Four Forwarded To: Counsel on 6/23/09 (jeb, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

06/23/2009 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by VICTOR BALLETTA, STEPHANIE BALLETTA, MICHAEL PROETTO, SUSAN PROETTO, MICHAEL REIS. (jeb, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

07/15/2009 2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by VICTOR BALLETTA, STEPHANIE BALLETTA, MICHAEL PROETTO, SUSAN PROETTO, MICHAEL REIS re: Denise Hinkle served Summons and Complaint upon CHRISTOPHER SPADONI, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR, DAVE RUBERRY, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE by Personal Service. CHRISTOPHER SPADONI served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009; NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOLICITOR served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009; DAVE RUBERRY served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009; NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009. (ah) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

[Judge Roy Bean]

I've never seen an auction that would accept anything other than cashier's checks drawn on local banks.

[Gregg]

IIRC their bids were not the highest. They then claimed that since they were the only one's paying in gold and silver, then only their bids should count.

That is correct, they made the minimum bid, which in tax cases is tax owed plus $30 and in forclosure is a percentage of the assessed value plus $30. the banks won all or almost all of hte auctions in question by bidding the outstanding amounts on the mortgages (plus $30 of course).
Which brings me to another thing. ever see the guy on informercials whow shows the "houses for $300" and such stuff? While it is theoretically true you can buy a house at a forclosure or tax auction for a pitinence, in practical fact, is a bank holds a mortgage ont he property, you can bet they will send a lawyer to bid the amount they're owed. That way, they get theirs, as if no one else bids they get the property and if anyone else does, the they get the proceeds. Don't fall for the scam!

[fortinbras]

Pingel v. Troy & Nichols Inc (1995) 51 Ark.App 41, 907 SW2d 757 (“We also hold that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in rejecting appellant’s bid [of one silver dollar against a competing bid of $47Gs] as being so low as to shock the conscience.”); Foret v. Wilson (5th Cir 1984) 725 F2d 254; Bey v. Hutcherson (EDNY 7/28/95); Howe v. Comm'r of Revenue (1987) 401 Mass 1005, 515 NE2d 1190; Southwest State Bank v. Reineking (8/5/82) 108 Wis.2d 782(t), 324 NW2d 831(t); Caligiuri v. Wells Fargo Bank (D. Ore 1/24/08)(against a foreclosure bid of more than a quarter million, defaulter offered 2 ounces of gold and 21 silver dollars -- approximate value $700 -- and a “bonded promissory note for $10M” -- approximate value zero); (when paying taxes using precious metal coins) Crummey v. Klein Indep. School District (5th Cir 10/2/08) 295 Fed.Appx 625; in a perjury case the jury could infer that the perp knew that his bid of a $20 gold piece was not greater than the winning bid of $63Gs. Goble v. State (Ind.App 2002) 766 NE2d 1 (case decided on another issue).

[Lambkin]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a8_ ... 4398.story

Three men prevented from buying foreclosed properties in Northampton County with gold and silver struck out again in federal court when a judge dismissed their lawsuit against several county officials.