PART IV: Tactics Outside of the Courtroom
This Section describes tactics that commonly occur outside of the courtroom but are either directed at members of the court or involve using the court and its process. There are several key considerations in responding to these tactics. First, while the individuals are generally not involved in an in-court proceeding when these tactics are used, courts must be aware that their responses still represent state action and thus are constrained by constitutional and civil rights considerations. Second, the courts must be aware of the danger of escalation. Where these tactics often harass and annoy, they are slowly being legislated against in the states. The important point is that, rather than making such harassment "personal," and escalating the situation, court personnel should be encouraged to pass information and evidence on to the proper investigative authorities. Such authorities are the proper party to handle dangerous or harassing tactics, and their involvement is likely to alleviate the possibility of physical harm, violence and the like.

Subpart 4.1 - Interactions with the Clerk
A.   Appearance at Office/Window/Counter of Court Clerk
Members of the anti-government movement pride themselves on their knowledge (however flawed it often may be) of the conventional court system, and on the ease with which they can enter the system by filing documents or suits. Because of this, it is not uncommon to see members of the movement enter court clerks' offices and request filing of liens (which are often false), suits, motions, pleadings, etc. Clearly, the police and judges are not the only ones who must be prepared to deal with members of the anti-government movement. In fact, it is county and court clerks who are often the first to deal with them. It is important that clerks be aware of their existence and that they be prepared to handle the unique problems and issues they often pose.
While members of the movement pose just as great a threat to clerks as they do to the police and law enforcement officials, it is often the case that they are simply trying to force the government to do what it says it will, or to perhaps feel as if they have exercised some authority over the state. Chuck Ericksen of the National Center for State Courts tells stories of a group of followers who would come to the clerk's office in Washington state to ask for an obscure document that the clerk was supposed to have available upon request. Apparently these people would come every year to ask for this document, and would become combative and belligerent when the clerk failed to produce it. Finally, the clerk put the document out in a basket, and provided it when asked. Once they had gotten the document the followers were courteous and polite, and left without incident. The problem now is dealt with by making such forms available online, thus making certain that state statutes requiring the documents to be available are observed, as well as reducing the potential for discordant confrontations between clerks and members of the movement.
One of the biggest problems posed by the movement is its persistent filing of false liens, frivolous suits, involuntary bankruptcies against public officials and the "reification" of documents issued by a common-law court (which has no real authority to issue binding orders) by having it certified or sealed by the clerk of a real court. The clerk's office is obviously in the best position to deal with such problems; by recognizing when a document is false or frivolous, or by notifying those higher up of action by the movement, a clerk can prevent incredible hardship later on for those who must attempt to clear their credit or who must deal with the mountains of useless claims the movement proffers.
B.    Clerk Responses to Members of the Movement	
1.    Train Personnel to Identify Members of the Movement and the Types of Documents They File - Obviously it is only in the rarest of circumstances that you can look at an individual and immediately peg him as a member of the anti-government movement. Clerks should be taught to be wary when any customer comes to them and acts unruly, belligerent, or abusive. They should be aware of the unusual requests they are likely to make, the unusual practices they may engage in (e.g. Signing documents with "UCC without recourse"), and the refusal to accept common standards. Such people are the ones who are unlikely to produce valid ID, who refuse to sign when required, and who will not give a standard postal address. They may also sign their names First Middle, Last (e.g. John Smith, Doe), appear in the clerk's office frequently, or even tell the clerk outright that they are a "patriot" or "Freeman," or refer to their common law court or militia. Members of the movement may also attempt to file strange looking (bogus or false) liens, notices of involuntary bankruptcy against public officials. It is also fairly common for members of the movement to file documents that either do not exist under current law or are irrelevant to the case in which they attempt to file them. Clerks should be trained to look out for documents issued by "Our one Supreme Court of____" or signed by judges who do not sit in that jurisdiction. The easiest way to deal with falsely filed documents is to prevent them from being filed in the first place.
2.    Have Written Policies - Not unlike in the court context, in the context of clerks dealing with members of the movement it is important that there be clear rules, and that these rules be made known to the party and adhered to strictly. Clerk's offices should have written policies, perhaps even posting them (both on the wall in the office and on the Internet), so that they cannot be challenged to the clerk when he follows them. Written policies give the clerk something to hide behind ("It's not my rule, but it is the rule.") and they also help to make sure that clerks know what they are supposed to be able to do for and provide to customers.
3.    Personnel Should Remain Calm and Courteous - It is not always easy to deal with members of the movement. They may be obnoxious, belligerent, or even threatening. Still, for court personnel to get flustered and shut them out gives their argument merit, in addition to simply being a failure by the clerk to do his duty. Where policies so permit, clerks should refuse to serve those who are belligerent, and they should report any threats to law enforcement, but otherwise they should treat members of the movement like anyone else.
4.    Be Ready, Willing and Able to Explain Policies - It is not in the best interests of the system or the clerk himself for the clerk to engage in doctrinal or philosophical debate with a member of the movement. At the same time, not unlike other customers, followers may genuinely not understand or simply be interested in the policies of the court and the clerk. The clerk's office should be ready, willing and able to provide members of the movement, or anyone else, with information about the policies and procedures the clerk oversees.
5.    Notify up the Chain of Command - It is important that the right hand know what the left is doing. Where members of the movement begin to appear in clerk's offices, their appearance before law enforcement officers and the courts cannot be too far behind. Their appearance may also signal the coming of an onslaught of false liens and frivolous litigation, among other things. Where clerks have reason to suspect that a "cell" of the anti-government movement is operating in an area, there can be nothing but benefit obtained by making other branches of the government aware of their presence. Members of the movement should not be treated differently from anyone else, but the ways in which they act differently from everyone else can pose such significant problems for the law that it is important that all branches be prepared to deal with it when contact is imminent.

Subpart 4.2 - Actions Against Court Personnel
A.    Service of Process/Personal Suits Against Court Personnel
Members of the movement take pride in their ability to make use of the law, both traditional state and federal courts and their own common-law courts. Because of this, it is not uncommon for court personnel to be served with process in both "common-law lawsuits" and lawsuits filed in traditional courts. Examples of such common law documents as Notices to Appear, Common-law Indictments, Orders and Judgments from common-law courts, and warrants issued by such courts have been noted. As well, because members of the movement make use of the conventional court system to validate their false liens, court personnel may find their credit impaired by perfected liens, or that an involuntary bankruptcy has been filed against them.
Court personnel may also find themselves served with process for "real" suits such as actions for violations of federal or constitutional rights under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, § 1985, or § 1986. Suits under state tort law are also filed in traditional courts, as well as the occasional attempt to file a common-law cause in such traditional courts. Finally, as noted above, where a member of the movement has obtained a lien against an official in a common-law court (and often has had it officially sealed, inadvertently, by the clerk of a traditional court) he will often attempt to file an involuntary bankruptcy against the official. Federal Bankruptcy law may allow a creditor of more than $10,775 to file for involuntary bankruptcy against a debtor. Because these bogus liens are often for hundreds of thousands or even millions (and occasionally billions) of dollars, members of the movement often attempt and occasionally succeed in getting such bankruptcy filed. 
B.    Responses to Service of Process/Personal Suits
1.    Avoid Confrontation - It is important that court personnel remain calm and non-confrontational when served with process by a member of the movement.
Because the service may very well be for a "real" case (though often not a legitimate case), such service should be taken seriously. Still, given the possibility of violence by members of the movement, personnel so served should be careful to avoid escalating the situation by confronting members of the movement. Furthermore, because at least some of the process served will deal with cases before "fake courts," and because most of the rest will be frivolous or illegitimate suits, service of process by such groups should be taken with a grain of salt.
2.    Notify up Chain of Command - As always, when court personnel encounter members of these movements, the chain of command should be notified. This is so not only because those above on the chain may also find themselves served, but also it allows for a unified strategy in meeting the suits brought against officials. In some cases, for example, it might be of benefit to consolidate the cases filed in "real" courts. That is, the evidence of joint action in filing cases against officials in common law courts may provide the necessary evidence to show a conspiracy for purposes of prosecuting those who file such "suits" to intimidate.
3.     Retain Counsel, if Needed - Where court personnel are served with process it is usually advisable that they retain counsel or at least consult some form of attorney. In many places courts will cover legal expenses for those court personnel who are sued for actions occurring in the course of their duties. In any event, it may be of critical importance for such personnel to find out if the case they have been served with is a "real" case, or a common-law case that can be dealt with without litigation, if not ignored entirely.
4.     Retaliate - Where "real" suits are clearly frivolous and/or are intended to intimidate or otherwise adversely affect personnel, it may be prudent to file for abuse of process and seek sanctions against the plaintiff. This provides a deterrent both to the individual and the movement in general. There may also be the option of a civil suit against the member of the movement, and perhaps, in some cases, the option of a prosecution for threatening or attempting to intimidate a public official.
C.    Additional Authority
1.     Personal Liability for Civil Rights Suits - though the law may be in a state of flux regarding state liability and the states' amenity to suits brought under federal law, the possibility exists that judges and court personnel might be named individually in civil rights suits, such as those brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Generally, to be liable, a person must be acting under color of state law in abrogating an individual's federal constitutional or certain statutory rights.
a.	Who is a "person" - see, generally, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (state officials, sued in personal capacity, are "persons" for purposes of § 1983, including suits for retrospective relief such as money damages). 
b.	Under color of state law - this generally encompasses the actions of officials and individuals whose conduct amounts to state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed four types of tests to find state action:
i.	Symbiotic relationship - see, e.g., Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). Burton has been significantly narrowed, and may only exist under extremely similar facts. 
ii.	Public function - see, e.g. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Ill S.Ct. 2077 (1991); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982). 
iii.	Close nexus - see, e.g., NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988). 
iv.	Joint Participation - see, e.g., Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982).
c.     Immunities -judges and those performing judicial functions generally enjoy absolute immunity. See, e.g.. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). This may include attorneys, witnesses and jurors involved in the judicial process. See, e.g., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1986). Likewise, those performing prosecutorial functions are protected under this doctrine. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1986).
i.     Qualified Immunity - where absolute immunity is not available, qualified immunity often exists for officials performing discretionary duties where the contours of the right in question are not sufficiently defined. For an introduction to this doctrine, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511(1985).

Subpart 4.3 - Threats Against Court Personnel
A.    Threats Against Court Personnel (see also Section in, Subpart 3.4)
It is not unheard of for members of the movement to encounter court personnel, specifically clerks, in their activities of filing suits and liens against public officials and defending themselves from citations or lawsuits. Given the fact that members of the movement have views that often put them in direct opposition to the law and the courts, it should not be surprising that there have been incidences of threats against such officials. Although violence is not common (see section on Violence), there is certainly the potential for such violence, and threats by members of the movement have been known to occur. Threats should be taken seriously, and should be brought to attention of law enforcement as well as reported up the chain of command.
Sometimes members of the movement will make vague, threatening statements, other times there may be a literal threat of violence. Also, such threats may be made to known court personnel not only in the courthouse or clerk's office, but anywhere where the movement encounters such officials (e.g. post office, grocery store). It is not inconceivable that threatening letters or emails may be sent, or even that legal documents filed may themselves involve or constitute such threats. B.    Clerk/Personnel Responses
1.     Have a System in Place - Courts and court systems should have a system in place for dealing with threats against court personnel and clerks. Such personnel should know the system, be aware of who to contact, and know what constitutes a "threat" within the definition of that system. ALL threats should be reported up the chain of command and to local law enforcement. The threat of violence, a la the Oklahoma City bombing, is real enough that all such threats should be investigated.
2.     Ensure Personnel are Trained - Court personnel should be trained to recognize the specific actions and arguments that members of the movement make. Generally, this includes what the liens they file look like, their "UCC __ without recourse" argument, the types of actions they file against public officials, etc. Court personnel should also have some idea of what constitutes a "threat" and what, generally, the law can do about such threats.
3.     Do Not Engage the Party - As always when dealing with extremists, the court personnel should be careful not to make a potentially bad situation worse. While it is difficult to stay calm in the face of threats, it is important that personnel avoid engaging in a debate or argument with members of the movement. Calmness and courtesy are the most likely responses to cause de-escalation of a tense situation, and this is no less likely here. Following threats, court personnel should engage the system, report the threat to higher ups and to law enforcement, and deal with the situation as calmly as possible.
4.     ALWAYS Inform Law Enforcement or Court Security - Again, given the significant potential for violence by members of the movement, it is important that threats against court personnel be dealt with swiftly and severely. Such response discourages not only the specific individual from further threats, but also the movement in general from doing so. Most jurisdictions will have some sort of statute dealing specifically with attempts to intimidate court personnel, and all will have some sort of general assault statute. Reporting threats to the police also has the benefit of making other branches aware of the operation of the movement in the area.