People v. Johnson-El, Docket No. 306880.

• Decision Date: 07 March 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 306880.
• Citation: 299 Mich.App. 648,831 N.W.2d 478
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JOHNSON–EL.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

299 Mich.App. 648

831 N.W.2d 478

PEOPLE

v.JOHNSON–EL.

Docket No. 306880.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 5, 2013, at Detroit.

Decided March 7, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Julie A. Powell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Ronald D. Ambrose for defendant.

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and SAWYER and FORT HOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a bench trial, the circuit court convicted defendant, Anthony Lee Johnson–El, of forgery, MCL 750.248, uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249, and encumbering real property without lawful cause, MCL 600.2907a(2), based on an “Affidavit of Allodial Title” that he authored, signed, and recorded with the Wayne County Register of Deeds for a parcel of property in which he had no ownership or other interest. The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish that the affidavit was false and forged and that defendant was aware of the affidavit's falsity when he authored and recorded it. We therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 21, 2010, defendant recorded an “Affidavit of Allodial Title” with the Wayne County Register of Deeds claiming an interest in real property located at 14503 Faust in Detroit. The affidavit stated that defendant owned the property, that its value was secured by a $100–billion bond, and that defendant was a secured party. Defendant claims allodial title because he is a “Washitaw Moor,” as indicated in his tribe-endorsed birth certificate provided to the circuit court. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has called the Nation of Washitaw fictional, the Washitaw Moors apparently believe that all land in this country outside the 13 original colonies and Texas belongs to its members. Bybee v. City of Paducah, 46 Fed.Appx. 735, 736 (C.A.6, 2002); see Article 18(2) of the Proof of Truth Claim: International Declaration of Washitaw Muurs Standing.¹ Allodial title denotes “absolute ownership” of property over which no one can bring a superior claim. Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.), p. 76. As a member of the sovereign nation that he believes owns all land in Michigan, defendant was of the opinion that his claim to the subject property was superior to all others. Consistent with this belief, defendant filed affidavits of allodial title for several properties in Wayne County. Benjamin Way, a deputy register of deeds in Wayne County, explained that in relation to the Faust Street property and the others over which defendant claimed ownership, he found no recorded documents from a previous owner or security-interest holder transferring any interest to defendant.

Defendant's actions clouded the property's title. The property's true owner, Jesus Martin–Roman, was unable to redeem the property, which was then subject to a bank foreclosure, by attempting to sell it to an interested buyer to secure the funds necessary to satisfy the secured debt. When Martin–Roman's real estate agent contacted defendant, defendant asserted his “property rights” and warned the agent not to close the sale or “I got their ass.”

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant contends that the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the affidavit was false or forged or that he filed the affidavit to harass or intimidate anyone. When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the prosecution proved all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Hunter, 466 Mich. 1, 6, 643 N.W.2d 218 (2002).

MCL 750.248(1) proscribes forgery as follows: “A person who falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits a public record ... with intent to injure or defraud another person is guilty of a felony[.]” “The elements of the crime of forgery are: (1) an act which results in the false making or alteration of an instrument (which makes an instrument appear to be what it is not); and (2) a concurrent intent to defraud or injure. The key is that the writing itself is a lie.” People v. Grable, 95 Mich.App. 20, 24, 289 N.W.2d 871 (1980), citing People v. Susalla, 392 Mich. 387, 392–393, 220 N.W.2d 405 (1974).

MCL 750.249 describes the crime of “uttering and publishing” as follows: “A person who utters and publishes as true a false, forged, altered, or counterfeit record, instrument, or other writing listed in [MCL 750.248] knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit with intent to injure or defraud is guilty of a felony[.]” “The elements of the crime of uttering and publishing a forged instrument are: (1) knowledge on the part of the accused that the instrument was false; (2) an intent to defraud; and (3) presentation of the forged instrument for payment.” Grable, 95 Mich.App. at 24, 289 N.W.2d 871. To “utter and publish a forged instrument is to declare or assert, directly or indirectly, by words or actions, that an instrument is good.” People v. Fudge, 66 Mich.App. 625, 632, 239 N.W.2d 686 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

MCL 600.2907a(2) creates criminal liability for a person who unlawfully encumbers real property as follows: “A person who violates [MCL 565.25] by encumbering property through the recording of a document without lawful cause with the intent to harass or intimidate any person is guilty of a felony [.]” This is the criminal version of a slander-of-title tort.

The prosecution presented sufficient evidence from which the court could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the affidavit was a false instrument. In the affidavit, defendant swore that he owned the property and had secured a $100 billion bond over the property. Yet, defendant admitted at trial that he never purchased the property or took ownership through an interest transferred by a previous owner or security-interest holder. Rather, defendant admitted that he drove past the property, saw that the windows were boarded up and the door was padlocked, and then decided to simply take the property as his own by authoring and recording the affidavit. This evidence supports the determinations that the affidavit was false, as required to...