[Music] and welcome to facts or frauds. Now, let's go back to the 14B district court with Judge Washington and a nice battle, part three, the finale. Mr. Fant if you uh the court will call the case of the ranches of Rosebrook versus Anise Battle case number 25C 1245. Good morning honor David Fer on behalf of the plaintiff. Battle please unmute and state your name. I need battle appearance especially not generally. Thank you. All right. We're here for the continuation of the hearing today. Mr. Fant, I believe that we were in the middle of your um well, actually it was Miss Battle's uh direct. Yeah, I think Miss Battle was cross-examining Miss Charles. That's correct. Miss Battle, are you ready to proceed? Yes. So, Don, do you have a sign lease between me and you in this case? Yes. Um, did I ever wave my rights or agree to terms in writing? What's the question? Did I ever wave 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 waiverss 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 Dattle 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 recent that was sent? I object recision. 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, honor, this lease, this this case is not about recision. It's about this is a pay and this is a non-payment 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 rescended 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 recision 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 you object. 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 No, I stated it under common law. and landlord tenant act. That's not we we're not under common law anymore, ma'am. And that's a part of the problem with sovereign citizens. They think they know the law when they don't. That is not Well, that sounds prejudice 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 is still not correct. It is not the law. It is. It's still under MCO and it's under the Landlord Tenant Act. Overruled. My objection is overruled, your honor. No, the objection is sustained. Her question that cannot be asked. So you're saying I can't ask about the contract that's in question? No, I'm saying that you have no basis for asking whether the contract was rescended or not by you. Why would I not have basis for asking if the contract was resend? That's not the law. You don't get to unilarily resend 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 filing this action? A notice to quit? Yes. No. I think she's referring to a demand for possession. A demand for possession. Yes. No. a 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 65716 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 tenency 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 the statute says that we can start a non-payment of rent case with a demand for possession. And that was issued. And if she asked that question, Miss Charles can answer that question. Is there proof of service? Is there a 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. 600.5716. 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, ex is there proof of service of it on the record. That's a different question though. So, okay. That's But that's the question I asked next. Once he said that the I wanted to clarify your your question before. I appreciate it. All right. Miss Charles, please her question next is is there Do you have approval delivery or service for that uh demand for possession? Nope. Nope. Did you know that under MCL that you're required to have a uh certificate of service, approve of service on the record? Your honor, I object. She's now again she's not using 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 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 site 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 because they're both under NCL's. Both proof of service and certificate of service are both under MCL. No. All right. Well, everybody, you can I make my ruling, huh? Like, 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. It's not on the disposition. And just like she read on 600 uh 57 um 16, was the property described on that dispossession? Was there a description of the property? Yes. There was a description of the property. Correct. On my copy, there is no description of the property, but uh let's continue. 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 were there are no there are no such grievance procedures 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. No, we're not publicly. 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 Battle has taken I object to 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?" Yeah, 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 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. You said yes. Right. And then you objected after that. No. 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 finished the circumstance. 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 I'm not aware of Say no. I mean, that's Say 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 fedally funded. So, let's be clear. I said either fally funded or get federal funds and which you do if you accept section 8 and vouchers. 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 I'm not 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, how am I making it up? It's under 42 USC 1437DK. It's a federal registar 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 works. 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 is that a question for? Dawn, my plaintiff. No, no, I object. That's I mean, the court's already said they have jurisdiction over the property. The court said that she got jurisdiction because she said so, and that's non-judicial. Okay, Miss Battle, move on. Move on to what? I cannot have this is not a fair hearing. And again, this is why trying to turn this into I'm not I'm not trying to turn into 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 take 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 this is not right attorney I'm going to be filing criminal proceedings against you for all these frivolous things that you're filing against me. If you feel that it's frivolous that's fine but it's not. My rights my rights are not frivolous. Please move on. It's honestly if I if I can't have a fair hearing, nobody has any facts. I talked about constructive possession. Nobody wants to talk about that. Y'all keep saying that I rescended a contract unilaterally. That's not the case. It's called notice. And when it goes a notice goes unrebuted. 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 Mr. 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 marshalss 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'm stuck on what to do. The integrity of the court is question with you. I don't know what that is, but you should seek some mental health because something wrong with you. You have a mental You have a mental problem. I have a mental problem 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 clearly 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 purging. I didn't make nothing up. 42 USC definitely applies to this case. All right. I is a threshold. Ma'am, if you don't stop, I'm going to remove you from the court proceeding. So, Mr. Fanta, 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. Uh, 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 3,43242 court cost of 177 for a total of 360942. Um we would ask for a judgment for possession within right 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 an objection. Oh, because you're saying that because a notice was given and unrebuted. It's not of law. That's what you're saying, right? Yes. That's not the law. It is. It's the law. It's it's it's Wells versus Zenia of Michigan. It is. It's all right. It's fact and case law. And y'all keep muting. It's okay cuz he can talk but I can't talk. Ma'am, I 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 cost leans against people, that is a crime. It's not a false lane. You got defaulted in a private sight 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 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 recision 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. Your recision is not a defense. Okay, that's fine. That is your defense, right? Cuz you know, threshold matters are not an issue. But again, like I said, the the fundamental um objections and a counter claim object to the subject matter jurisdiction. You all accept and receive housing funds making the subject matter going down the same. Okay, listen. Stop. Stop. I didn't cut you off. I didn't cut you off. You just asked me what my defense was and All right, I'm done. Wow. Wow. Uh, take her out. I've asked her three times to stop this. Can you feel that? Can you feel it? All right. I'm going to grant your um your judgment in this particular case. Your honor, are you going to check the box after hearing? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, Judge Washington. I'm sorry you had to go through that. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. Bye bye. You can't fix stupid. And thanks for hanging out with us on Facts or Frauds. Make sure you hit the thumbs up button, you're subscribed, and ring that bell. Also, leave a comment in the comment section. Tell me what you think. And a major thank you to every one of our Factor Frauds channel members. If you'd like to become a member, just hit that join button right next to subscribe or click on the link in the description. And if you're still hanging out, thank you. I appreciate you all. Make sure you hit the thumbs up button, subscribe, and ring that bell. Also, leave a comment in the comment section. Tell me what you think. If you'd like to become a member, you can do that, too. Till next time, I'll see you soon.