You have a mental problem. The United States don't apply to you and you get to make them up as you go along like you know more than everybody else in the world. There's really something wrong with you. Now, what did I make up? All of it. Good morning. The 14B District Court is now in session. My name is Yvette Washington and Mr. Fantira If you The court will call the case of the Ranches of Rosebrook versus Anice Battle, case number 25C1245. Good morning, Your Honor. David Fant Battle, please unmute and state your name. Anice Battle appearing specially, not generally. Thank you. All right. We're here for the continuation of the hearing today. >> [snorts] >> Battle, when you're not speaking, You said, "Can I mute my mic when I'm not speaking?" Right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Fantira, I believe that we were in the middle of your um Well, actually, it was Miss Battle's the direct uh direct Yeah, I think Miss Battle was cross-examining uh Miss Charles. That's correct. Miss Battle, are you ready to proceed? Yes. So, Don, do you have a signed lease between me and you in this [clears throat] case? Yes. Um Did I ever waive my rights or agree to the terms in writing? What's the question? Did I ever waive any of my rights or agree to your terms in writing? Your Honor, I I object. I have no idea what that means. Meaning that there are waivers inside of the lease. Your Honor, she's got a signed lease. That was That lease was We moved to have that admitted last time and it was admitted. Miss Miss Battle did not object. So, I don't know what she's asking right now when she talks about a waiver. She signed the lease. >> Okay, that's fine. Are you aware of the notice of rescission that was sent? Yes, Your Honor. I object. Rescission She She We can't go down this this this road again. Why are we not going down the road? Let him finish his objection, please. Okay. >> Your Honor, this lease This This case is not about rescission. It's about This is a pay and This is a nonpayment of rent pay and stay case. The question is, how much money does she owe in order to stay in order to stay in her lease? Um she believes and she stated and she was overruled by Judge Vandenberg and I believe by you that her belief that she rescinded her lease and therefore she gets to stay until she finds a new place is not the law and she should not be allowed to pursue that line of questioning. This is not about rescission, which by the way, she hasn't done anyway. All right. So, your argument is that her question is not a legal question and therefore that's it. It's not based upon law. It is based upon What law is it not based upon? It's based upon common law. You have not proven or stated any laws or facts that back what you're saying. Unlike me, I have. Yeah, but you stated them all wrong and one of the things you stated was the Magna Carta, which was in the 12th century in England. Um you know >> No, I stated it under common law and landlord-tenant acts. That's not We don't We're not under common law anymore, ma'am, and that's part of the problem with sovereign citizens. They think they know the law when they don't. That is not >> sounds prejudiced and biased because I'm not a sovereign citizen. So, it seems like you're trying to group me in with them and that I am not. >> Well, whatever you're using as your basis, it's still not correct. It is not the law. >> It's still under MCL and it's under the landlord-tenant act. Overruled. My My objection is overruled, Your Honor? No, the objection is sustained. Her question it cannot be asked. So, you're saying I can't ask about the contract as in question? No, I'm saying that you have no basis for asking whether the contract was rescinded or not. Why would I not have basis for asking if the contract was rescinded? >> That's not the law. You don't get to unilaterally rescind anything, ma'am. Well, again, as I stated >> My ruling, I'm not arguing with you anymore about it. Right. It's not an argument, so just let the record show that there is no law or basis to what she's saying and she has not yet stated any law or fact behind this objection to asking these questions. I will continue. I will continue. Okay. Did you write me a notice to quit following this action? A notice to quit? Yes. No. I think she's referring to a demand for possession, Your Honor. >> A demand for possession, yes. No, a a notice to quit. No. Right. Do you have proof of delivery or service of any notice to quit? No, I didn't send one. Right. Are you aware that MCL 657.16 requires a notice to quit before initiating an eviction? Your Honor, I object. I object. Um Miss Miss Miss Battle is confusing the term notice to quit with demand for possession. A notice to quit is how you start a termination of tenancy case. This case was started with a demand for possession. If Miss Battle wants to use the wrong term, she's going to get the wrong answer. The statute says that we can start a nonpayment of rent case with a demand for possession and that was issued and if she asks that question, Miss Charles can answer that question. Is there proof of service? Is there proof of delivery on that demand for possession? Miss Battle. Can you do me a favor, please, ma'am? Yeah. Give me one moment. You cited a statute that I I actually need to look up. MCL what? I'm sorry. What was the statute that you cited? MCL 657.6. I mean, not 57.6, 600.57.16. I love it when they try to use the law because here's the thing. The lawyer is actually correct. Under MCL 600.5716, the property manager is legally required to file a demand for possession before the landlord can even start the eviction process. So, not only does she not know what she's talking about, she can't even read the law she's trying to use. Yeah, do you Have you read that statute? Yes, I have read it when I first did this. It uses the term demand for possession. Okay. Everybody, please stop talking. It says, "A demand for possession or payment shall be in writing addressed to the person in possession and shall give the address or other brief description of the premises." It's a demand for possession, not a notice to quit. Okay. So, exactly Is there proof of service of it on the record? That's a different question, though. So, okay. Okay. That's But that's the question I asked next once he said that the demand for possession >> your your question before. I appreciate it. All right. Miss Charles, please her question next is there proof Do you have a proof of delivery or service for that uh demand for possession? Nope. Nope. Did you know that under MCL that you're required to have a certificate of service or proof of service on the record? Your Honor, I object. She's now again, she's not using the co The The statute changed 10 years ago so that you now need on a demand for possession a certificate of service and that's what's at the bottom of the page. If she's looking for a proof of service, meaning somebody going to the door, she's going to get the wrong answer again. The term is certificate of service and I believe Miss Charles will answer that question differently because there is a certificate of service at the bottom of the demand. So, I would appreciate if she's going to cite statutes, she cites them correctly. Okay. That's fine. Um I didn't cite an exact statute, but I appreciate your objection. Um I just said MCL cuz they're both under MCLs. Both proof of service and certificate of service are both under MCL. No. All right. Everybody Let me make my ruling. Uh let's let's just just Okay. All I'm trying to do is ask questions to make sure certain things are on the record. A certificate of service Okay. Answer that question. >> on the disposition and just like she read on 600 uh 57 um 16, was the property described on that disposition? Yes. >> Was there a description of the property? Yes. And if there was a description of the property? Correct. On my copy, there is no description of the property. But uh let's continue. >> [screaming] >> Um Does your company participate in HUD programs or accept federal HUD assistance? Yes. Okay. Did you provide me with grievance procedures required by HUD? Did I provide you with what? Grievance procedures required by HUD. Your Honor, I object. That's that's irrelevant. There are there are no such There are no such grievance procedures uh under under this anything that I'm aware of. I mean, I don't even know what she has a grievance about. Right. The grievance would be with the breach and you all have a grievance and hence on why you initiated a hearing for the breach of the contract. So, it goes back to HUD because you're publicly funded, right? No, we're not publicly >> No, we're not publicly Well, you accept HUD housing. You you accept HUD housing and you apply and you are in compliance with HUD laws and policies, correct? Yes. Right. Okay. So, if you're using if you have HUD terms and you're um Your Honor, I object. Miss Miss Miss Battle is taking >> Object to what? I didn't say anything yet. Well, I'm objecting because she's she asked Miss Charles a question, which was, do you get any funding from HUD? That most most companies do. We do. And then she takes that and starts taking that to a next question where it says, well, when you get funding from HUD, you and then she start she's assuming >> [snorts] >> I didn't assume anything. I asked the question. Okay, what was the question you were going to ask? I said, do you have to follow HUD's policies? That was my next question. >> She said, yes. Right. And then you objected after that. >> And then you started the next question. >> No, I started the question, but I didn't get it out my mouth before you objected me. >> Let her Let her ask the next question and if you have an objection, I can hear it after she finishes her question. Okay. Are you aware that before you initiate a hearing in court or the administrative process before court, you have to have an administrative hearing by a HUD administrative judge? Your Honor, I object. I I'm not I'm not aware of Just say no. I mean, that's not >> no because you're not aware and that's okay to not be aware. That just means that you are not aware of the laws that govern. No, it doesn't because it's not it's not that is not the law, ma'am. How is it? Okay. You're making >> Are you aware of the requirement under 42 USC 1437dK for federally funding or accepted landlords to resolve disputes through HUD before an eviction proceeding? >> Your Honor, again, I'm going to object. The fact that Miss Charles answered the question about about having a relationship with HUD doesn't mean we are a federally funded property. I didn't say that you were federally funded. So, let's be clear. I said either federally funded or get federal funds, which you do if you accept Section 8 and vouchers. Now, that might be true when it comes to eviction rules for people who receive HUD assistance, but here's the problem. As they're about to state on the record, she isn't even on HUD. So, whether or not she lives in a property that has HUD housing, none of those laws apply to her case. No, that's not true. Why is it not correct? You had to think about it. Yes, it is correct cuz if you received any type of funds from HUD which is through Section 8 vouchers or regular vouchers, you get what I'm saying? You receive funding from HUD. We We are Do you have >> saying that I'm not saying that you're funded and that they give you loans of that nature. I am saying that you are within their practice and policies of HUD guidelines because you accept HUD and Section 8. Your Honor, I object to this whole line of questioning. Miss Battle does not receive a voucher and and so all of this questioning >> Well, it doesn't matter if I receive a voucher. It matters that you are of that type of entity that needs to go through HUD because you accept those things. So, you agree with those with those terms and policies of HUD. Your Honor, she's making that up again. I'm not making that up. If you're saying that I'm How am I making it up? It's under 42 USC 1437dK. It's a federal register on it. Miss Battle you've made your record. My ruling is still that every entity that has to file a landlord-tenant action does not have to go through that process for to collect rent, ma'am. That is not Okay. Okay. You're saying that it doesn't have to, but HUD says these are the requirements. Hence why MCL at the bottom is trying to align with HUD guidelines on the same register that I'm talking about. You have those codes at the bottom that match up with HUD. >> move on. Okay. So, well, obviously, if I can't really get a line of questioning I'm being objected because he feels it's not right. He is objecting with no laws or facts behind anything he's saying. He's just thinking it off the top of his head. I'm not getting a fair hearing here. Miss Battle move on. Move on to Okay. Has the Do you have the a copy of the court establishing jurisdiction? Who's that a question for? Don. My plaintiff. >> Your Honor, I object. That's I mean, the court's already said they have jurisdiction over the property. >> said that she had jurisdiction because she said so and that's non-judicial. Okay. Miss Battle move on. >> [clears throat] >> Move on to what? If I cannot have This is not a fair hearing and again, this is why I'm >> I'm not I'm not trying to turn it to anything. I'm just trying to state the laws and I'm not trying to argue with y'all about anything. You get what I'm saying? I'm not trying to argue with y'all. I'm just trying to get y'all to state and prove y'all facts and y'all have not proven any facts, but for some reason are hindering me in this in this proceeding and that's why I I took I took this case to the US District Court in Eastern. That's why there's an open case right now with all of you all because this is just not and I told the attorney general and I told the IRS and I I did everything else because at the end of the day Please move on. it's not right and I told the attorney I'm going to be filing criminal proceedings against you for all these frivolous things that you're filing against me. Wow. It's not every day you see a judge personally warn someone that they're facing serious criminal charges for filing bogus federal court cases and then rule against them on top of it. If you feel that it's frivolous, that's fine, but it's not. My rights and my rights are not frivolous. >> move on. It's Honestly if I if I can't have a fair hearing, nobody has any facts. Y'all talked about constructive possession. Nobody wants to talk about that. Y'all keep saying that I rescinded a contract unilaterally. That's not the case. It's called notice and when it goes a notice goes unrebutted just like if I was to come here if I was to get that notice of dispossession and get a notice of a hearing and I missed that hearing because I did not rebut, >> that would constitute as Miss Battle, if you're not going to answer the questions, then I'm just going to silence you. So, you get the opportunity to ask your questions or you can just be silenced. I don't have a real opportunity to ask the questions. So, at this point, I'm like I said, I'm just going to have to get the federal court involved and get the marshals because I don't know what you all are going to do. You all have not been acting in honor and with good faith. So, I don't know I I >> [laughter] >> I'm I'm going to have to get the attorney general and the court involved. I don't know what that is, but you should seek some mental help. Cuz something is wrong with you. You have a mental >> You have a mental problem. I have [laughter] a mental problem how? states don't apply to you and you get to make them up as you go along like you know more than everybody else in the world. There's really something wrong with you. No, what did I make up? All of it. What? Be specific. No, be specific because now you're lying on the record. This is perjury. I didn't make nothing up. 42 USC definitely applies to this case. Jury All right. I object. >> Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. Ma'am, if you don't stop, I'm going to remove you from the court proceeding. So, Mr. Fantera, apparently, we're not going to have a reasonable hearing here today because Miss Battle feels as though the laws are very different for her as they as opposed to everybody else in the world. Um I I'm not certain how to handle this going forward. You have submitted your documentation and she wants to argue stuff that's not law regardless of my rulings. So, therefore um I'm not sure what to do with respect to your your case. I would ask for a directed verdict. Um she hasn't said anything that is a defense to my action and I submitted a proposed judgment this morning. Um there's um um rent owing in the amount of 3,432.42, court costs of 177 for total of 3,609.42. Um we would ask for a judgment for possession with a writ after 10 days and she can avail herself of whatever procedures she can um in another court. So, you're saying that none of none of my objections is valid towards your claim. So, having a valid contract is not objection. Oh, because you're saying that because a notice was given and unrebutted is not of law. That's what you're saying, right? >> that's not the law. It is. It's the law. It's It's It's Wells versus Andaya of Michigan. It is. [clears throat and snorts] It's All right. Um >> in case law and y'all keep me It's okay. Cuz he can talk, but I can't talk. Ma'am, uh you've argued that over and over and I ruled that it's not. You can file your appeals, file all the things you're filing, but when you file false liens against people, that is a crime. It's not a false lien. You got defaulted in a private side and you know that. Okay, whatever. All right, so what I'm going to do is grant your judgment in this particular case because I've given her an opportunity to present defenses that are real and she has refused to do that. I didn't refuse to present defenses. You didn't ask me about my piece of the case. I only got to cross-examine. You didn't ask me about my defenses. What are your defenses, ma'am? And rescission is not one. I ruled that it's not. I'm sorry. I know you heard me. No, I didn't. You said, "What are your defenses?" and I didn't hear the last piece. >> rescission is not a defense. Okay, that's fine. It's your defense. Right, cuz the threshold matters are not an issue. But again, like I said, the the fundamental um objections and a counterclaim, object to the subject matter jurisdiction. You all accept and receive housing funds, making the subject matter Okay, >> Hold on. >> Stop. Stop. I didn't cut you off. You stop. >> I didn't cut y'all off. You just asked me what my defense was and All right, I'm done. >> Wow. Wow. You asked me what my defense was and I can't Uh take her out. I've asked her three times to stop this. All right, I'm going to grant your um your judgment in this particular case. You're not going to check the box after hearing? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry you had to go >> Washington. I'm sorry you had to go through that. All right, thank you. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. Bye. All right. And there it is. Judge Washington ruled against her. By doing all of this, she has managed to make herself and her children homeless. You would think she'd stop and think about her kids before going down this road, before trusting random people on the internet who don't know her situation. But instead, she only thought about herself. All right, guys, that's a wrap on this one. If any of those charges move forward, there's a good chance we'll be seeing her back in court and we'll be covering it. If you enjoyed the video, hit that like button, drop a comment below, and make sure you subscribe with notifications on so you never miss an upload.