United States v. Reed
668 F.3d 978, 2012 WL 399918 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The filing of a document that purports to be a lien against the property of a federal official on account of their official duties violates 18 U.S.C. § 1521, even if the document is legally incoherent and does not perfectly identify specific property, so long as it is intended to harass the official.
Facts:
- Gregory Allen Davis and Michael Howard Reed believed their membership in the Little Shell Nation, an unrecognized tribe, exempted them from U.S. jurisdiction.
- Reed threatened U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson regarding a federal case involving other Little Shell members.
- Months later, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland denied a motion to dismiss a separate firearm charge pending against Reed.
- The day after Judge Hovland's ruling, Davis and Reed had a recorded phone call discussing placing liens against federal entities.
- The next day, Davis electronically filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the Washington, D.C. Recorder of Deeds.
- The financing statement listed Judge Hovland and acting U.S. Attorney Lynn Jordheim as debtors who owed $3.4 million.
- The 'collateral' section of the UCC filing was a long, incoherent narrative referencing Reed's criminal case, ancient treaties, and 'sliver [sic] coinage' rather than specific property.
- Reed later filed a 'Notice of Default' in his criminal case, demanding payment of $3.4 million and referencing the UCC financing statement filed by Davis.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota convicted Gregory Allen Davis and Michael Howard Reed of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1521.
- The jury also convicted Reed of corruptly obstructing justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a).
- The trial was presided over by a judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation because the North Dakota district judges had recused themselves.
- Davis and Reed, the Appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The United States is the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the filing of a UCC financing statement that names federal officials as debtors but contains an incoherent description of collateral, without explicitly listing any of their personal or real property, constitute the filing of a 'false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property' of those officials in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, J.
Yes. The filing of a legally insufficient or incoherent document can constitute a false lien under 18 U.S.C. § 1521 because the statute criminalizes the act of filing a false or fictitious lien to harass a federal official, regardless of whether the lien would be legally effective. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to prevent intimidation and harassment, which occurs when a document purporting to be a lien is placed in the public record where it can be discovered by third parties like lenders or credit agencies. The court found that Davis's filing, which named the officials as debtors, stated a specific debt amount, and mentioned general types of property, was sufficient for a jury to conclude it was a lien filed on account of the officials' duties. The legal insufficiency of such a filing is characteristic of the fraudulent documents Congress intended to proscribe, rather than a defense to the crime.
Analysis:
This case provides the first appellate interpretation of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1521. The ruling establishes that the statute's focus is on the defendant's harassing intent and the act of filing a document that appears to be a lien, not on the technical or legal validity of the instrument itself. This interpretation significantly strengthens the statute as a tool against 'sovereign citizen' and similar anti-government tactics, as it prevents defendants from using the legal incoherence of their own filings as a defense. The decision confirms that the harm the statute addresses is the financial harassment and intimidation caused by the public filing, regardless of its ultimate effect on property rights.
