A number of people are writing me to say that their UCC filing has been removed and even though I sent this out before I suspect a number of you missed the first letter. Hopefully herein I can suggest some options that you may wish to follow but as a disclaimer this is my no means legal advice.

 

A few people have asked me to remove the reference in the copyright public notice online which makes reference to the UCC filing. That’s one option or you can contest the fact  – more on that below.

 

Now as stated on my site we use the ‘UCC filing’ as added credibility to what is essentially a common law document “the copyright public notice”. This is because the UCC filing office of the Secretary of State is considered to be the highest office in the land.

 

However technically we do not need it since we are in a common law jurisdiction whereas the Secretary of State is not [its a fictional office created through specific legislation]. We include the UCC reference in the copyright public notice because the perception is if it is filed as a record at the Secretary of State Level that that would lend some legal credibility it. The other reason is that you have a time date that you can reference giving evidence of coming into your own authority if you will. 

 

So essentially what I am saying while it is nice to have a UCC filing for ‘perceived’ credibility it is not absolutely necessary and does not invalidate your copyright public notice. The only thing is if the UCC filing is removed you might want to also remove any reference to it in your pubic posting OR contest the fact that it was removed on a mistaken assumption [see below].

 

Listen to the youtube video http://youtu.be/grxLs0T3h4A to get an idea of what’s happening.

 

In my mind you have 3 options 1) write them back stating that you “fail to see how the code referenced applies in this case since the claim is not against a public official which according to the code cited in your letter of [date] is the only cirumstance that would require sanction from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Since the debtor is obviously not a public official I fail to see why it would apply and insist it be reinstated. Or 2) ask them to please explain how the debtor named can be construed to be a public official as clearly as cited in code mentioned in your letter [date] this is the only condition whereby it need be accompanied by an order of a court of appropriate jurisdiction  Or 3) follow their complaint procedures so noted in the letter they sent you.

 

For most of you receiving this email.  Its quite possible they haven’t sent the letter out yet if you have not received it but it will be likely sooner or later.

 

Cheers! – Les.

 

Below is the earlier email I sent out on October 28:

 

—– Original message —–

From: “Les Copyright-name” <more@Copyright-name.com>

To:

Subject: Your UCC Filings are being rejected

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:30:34 -0700

 

It appears UCC filings are being rescinded on the basis of what is highlighted in red below – so don’t be surprised if you receive a letter stating as much from the UCC office. This is happening all across the board.

 

Here is a clip that pretty well explains what is going on.

http://youtu.be/grxLs0T3h4A

 

In short the video takes the position that a filing can only be rejected if and only if there is a filing or claim

“against a federal, state, or local official or employee based on the performance or nonperformance of that official’s or employee’s duties unless accompanied by a specific order from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of such lien.” See 2) below:

 

In short it appears from my reading not to apply to you despite what the letter says.

 

The code reference regarding Washington state is:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=60.70&full=true see the following:

 

60.70.030

No duty to accept filing of common law lien — Filing of a notice of invalid lien.

 

(1) No person has a duty to accept for filing or recording any claim of lien unless the lien is authorized by statute or imposed by a court having jurisdiction over property affected by the lien, nor does any person have a duty to reject for filing or recording any claim of lien, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

 

(2) No person shall be obligated to accept for filing any claim of lien against a federal, state, or local official or employee based on the performance or nonperformance of that official’s or employee’s duties unless accompanied by a specific order from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of such lien.

 

(3) If a claim of lien as described in subsection (2) of this section has been accepted for filing, the recording officer shall accept for filing a notice of invalid lien signed and submitted by the assistant United States attorney representing the federal agency of which the individual is an official or employee; the assistant attorney general representing the state agency, board, commission, department, or institution of higher education of which the individual is an official or employee; or the attorney representing the school district, political subdivision, or unit of local government of this state of which the individual is an official or employee. A copy of the notice of invalid lien shall be mailed by the attorney to the person who filed the claim of lien at his or her last known address. No recording officer or county shall be liable for the acceptance for filing of a claim of lien as described in subsection (2) of this section, nor for the acceptance for filing of a notice of invalid lien pursuant to this subsection.

 

[1995 c 19 § 4; 1986 c 181 § 3.]