of the Curtis bankruptcy proceeding, was void and without effect since it violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4)(1978). We disagree. Under § 362(a)(4) the filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates as an automatic stay of “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate .... ” The language of this subsection manifests no indication that the mere filing of a continuation statement is to be included within the scope of its terms. Such a filing does nothing more than continue the existence of a previously created, previously perfected, and concurrently valid security interest. It does not, in any way, constitute an act to enforce or collect on a lien against the property of the estate. See United States v. Sayres, 43 B.R. 437 (W.D.N.Y.1984) (<HOLDING>); In re Chaseley’s Foods, 30 B.R. 452
holding that a lien holder who is not served and joined as a party to a tax suit cannot have his lien extinguished by the tax sale holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond holding that valid liens do not expire during the pendency of the bankruptcy case despite the creditors failure to take action to enforce or perfect the lien within the time period prescribed by state law holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor holding that the refiling of a tax lien during bankruptcy proceedings did not create perfect or enforce a lien in violation of the  362a4