DAN MORALES 

ATTTORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tip 9lttornep 

&ate of ‘PCexai3 

May 2, 1996 

Qhneral 

The Honorable lames W. Carr 

Lavaca County Attorney 

Box 576, Second Floor Courthouse 

HakttsviUe, Texas 77964 

Opinion No. DM-389 

Re: Whether a county clerk must file 

a judgment issued by a “common law 

court” (RQ-876) 

Dear Mr. Carr: 

You have requested our opinion as to whether a county clerk must file a judgment 

rendered by a “common law” court. 

In recent years, the so-called “Republic of Texas” movement has harassed various 

local public officials by, among other things, conducting %ials” in self-styled “common 

law” courts of the movement’s invention, and attempting to the the “judgments” resulting 

from those trials, and other such documents, including phaadings, in the law&l district and 

county courts of this state.’ In the most recent reported instance, two individuals, at odds 

with the federal Farmer’s Home Administration over a prior debt, filed false XC-1 

financing statements against three United States Department of Agriculture employees 

named as “debtors.” United Srales v. Greenstree~, 912 F.Supp. 224, 227 @I.D. Tar. 

1996).2 

Some clerks of courts have been misled by the attempted filings of these bogus 

papers, apparently because, at first glance, they appear to be similar in form to documents 

routinely filed in the courts of the Texas. Invariably, however, they indicate on their thee 

%eveo examples of the kind of “dommems” at issue are reproduced as appendices to the court’s 

decision in Kimmel Y. Bunter County Apposal District, 835 S.W.2d 108, 109-115 flex. App.-Austin 

1992, writ dian’d w.0.j.). 

Gmenswetarguestha~heisof”Freunan chamcwand’ofthewhite 

Preamble Citizemhip and not oae of the 14th Amendment legidated 

enfranchiacd DC Facto eolomd races.” He furlher claims that he is a “white 

Pxamble natural sovereign Common Law De Ime Citizen of the Repubiiclstatc 

of Texas.” As a msult, he concludes that he is a wvereign, not subject to the 

jmhdiction of this Court. 

Gmemlreet, 912 F. Supp. at 228. 
The Honorable James W. Carr - Page 2 @M-389) 

the purported existence of the “common law wurts of the Republic of Texas,” or similar 

bodies which have no legal existence except in the minds of the partisans of this 

movement. As the court said in Kimmel: “We hold that the Common Law Court for the 

Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist since February 16, 1846.” 

Kimmel, 835 S.W.2d at 109. 

The Texas Constitution states, in article V, section 1: 

The judicial power of this State shag be vested in one Supreme 

Court, in one Court of Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in 

District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in 

Courts of Justices of the Peace. and in such other wurts as may be 

provided by law. 

The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem 

necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and 

may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior wurts 

thereto. 

These specifd courts, together with those statutory wurts which the legislature has 

created, such as municipal courts, county wurts at law, and the various specialized courts 

existing in the larger counties, wnstitute the only courts in which is vested the “judicial 

power of this State.” Tex. Const. art. V, 3 1. No “common law wurt,” whether of the 

so-called “‘Republic of Texas” or otherwise, is among those ordained by wnstitution or 

statute. 

Section 191.001(c), Local Govemment Code, provides: “The county clerk shag 

record, exactly, without delay, and in the manner provided by this subtitle, the wntents of 

each instrument that is filed for recording and that the clerk is authorized to record.” A 

document specifying on its face that it is a judgment of a “wmmon law” wurt is not one 

“that the clerk is authorized to record.” Section 192.001, Local Government Code, states: 

“The wunty clerk shall record each deed, mortgage, or other instrument that is required 

or permitted by law to be recorded.” An instrument originating from a “common law’ 

wurt is not one “that is required or permitted by law to be recorded.” 

Fiiy, section 192.004, Local Government Code, provides: “The wunty clerk 

shall record separately from a deed or other wnveyance each deed of trust, mortgage, or 

judgment that is required to be recorded to create a judgment lien and every other 

instrument that is intended to create a hen.” A purported lien from a “wmmon law” court 

is not a lawful instrument and therefore cannot create a hen. In Bernard v. Crowell, 38 

S.W.2d 912 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1931, no writ), the wurt said that “the clerk of 

a trial court has no discretion in the matter of filing papers recognized by law as properly 

belonging in the record of causes.” Any document that purports to be an order or 

judgment from a “common law” court is not one that is “recognized by law as properly 

p. 2134 
The Honorable James W. Carr - Page 3 @M-389) 

belonging in the record of causes,” because a “common law” court is not a legally 

wnstituted wutt under the constitution or statutes of this state. 

County and district clerks should reject any document that indicates on its face that 

it is to be tiled in, that it is an order or judgment from, or that it is a notice of a removal 

petition to, any purported state or local court not so named in wnstitution or statute.) A 

clerk should maintain a list of legitimate wurts ready at hand to assist in this 

de-termination, and should of course consult his or her county or district attorney should 

any questions arise. Local officials may also wish to post notices advising of the legal 

wnsequences that attach to the filing of fraudulent lien~.~ Furthermore, county and 

district attorneys would be well advised to draw up a set of detailed guidelines to assist 

clerical employees in assuring that no legitimate fdings are denied, and that both state and 

federal wnstitutional requirements are strictly observed. In some instances, it might be 

newssary for prosecutorial officials to monitor filings to ensure compliance with the law.5 

‘We note that if district and county clerks have aheady acammlated a number of docoments 

rrlatin~tothe~led”RepublicofTuas,~theymaykableto~oftheminaccorQnawith 

the portions of the records retention statotes that relate to d+mction ofmcotds. See Local Gov? Cede 

chs. 202 (terms under which local gowrmneo tal mxwds may be demmycd), 203 (dnties of recotds 

a&odiaWforlocalgovunmen tal bodies); see also Gov’t Code ch. 441, subch. J (revisions to local 

gomnment ncords retention aebedulcs). We caution, bower, that local 0Bicials should oxacise 

caution in this regard, since se&ion 552.351, Government Code, creates a criminal offer&e for willfol 

destruction of mcor4 i.e. not in compliance with statotory rcguitemont. 

‘In 1995, the legislahue amended chapter 9 of the Texas Uoiform commmial Code to add 

section 9.412, which forbids the filing of a fraudulent lieo, curates a cue of action in favor of the owner 

of property covered by the fmodulendy filed fmancing statement, aod makes such iiliog a crimioal 

o&me. See Bus. &Corn. Code 5 9.412. 

‘Individuals chiming to be Wizens” of the “Republic of Texas” leave no doubt that they meen 

business, sod they routinely issoe public threats to -bring down” govemmen t. Ioarecentaddresshefore 

aboot 300 sopportets at the State Capitol, the “pnwisiooal xzmtary of defense” of the “kpoblic” 

dcdarcd: 

In abom two we&, we cmk op to the next rootui. When we start going 

after...prsonalpropaty,it’sgoingtogctrealserious. Ifwehavotobringthe 

whole govemmem to a halt in order to get legal review before the Legislature m 

they can determine their law&l status, we’ll do it. 

Jeffry Needham, Republic Leaders Give Notice To Govcmor, IRS, SAN ANIDNIO EXPRESSNEWS, Mar. 19,1996, at 3B. 

p. 2135 
The Honorable James W. Carr - Page 4 @M-389) 

‘,. 

..,_ JrMMARY 

A district or wunty clerk should not accept for tiling any 

document that indicate-s on its face that it is to be fded in, that it is an 

order or judgment from, or that it is a notice of a removal petition to, 

any purported state or local court not named in the constitution or 

statutes of the state of Texas. County and district attorneys should 

assist clerical employees in making certain that no legitimate tilings 

are denied, and that state and federal wnstitutional requirements are 

strictly observed. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

JORGE VEGA 

Fii Assistant Attorney General 

SARAH J. SHIRLEY 

Chair, Opiion Committee 

p. 2136