Marie Miller's Court Hearing for Eviction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2013
- Marie Miller is being evicted by the new owners of her home. Her claim has been, and still is, that her home was sold out from under her illegally. This is not an uncommon story in today's world, but it is a very sad state we are in.
Petition #10 grievance of Marie L. Miller. ( Homeless! )
Grievance Founded with Recommendations.
Committee Findings:
The Redress of Grievances Committee reviewed the evidence and finds that Associate Justice Marguerite Wageling of the New Hampshire Superior Court allowed a home foreclosure case to proceed without the documentation per RSA 382-A:3-501 which requires that the entity making the foreclosure demand actually prove ownership of the home in question through production of the original instruments if requested. The previous judge, Kenneth Brown, acknowledged the rightness of the Petitioner's request that the company trying to foreclose “shall” produce the documents and was awaiting them as a last item before going to trial. When the case changed judges before the production of documents and Brown was no longer involved, the Petitioner's lawful request was ignored. The Committee agrees with the Petitioner and recommends the introduction of legislation to: 1. Require proper documentation of property ownership prior to permitting an action involving foreclosure of property to proceed and; 2. Study the procedures used by the New Hampshire Superior Courts to verify property ownership in foreclosure actions with a view to ending the non-judicial foreclosure approach to such issues. Vote 9-1.
Rep. Daniel Itse for the Committee
This is the video recording of the court hearing for Marie L. Miller, client of the Center For Redress of Grievances, LLC. Either before watching this, or after watching this you need to watch her appearances on Speak Up! with Host Kevin Avard.
Click here for her first appearance on Speak Up! 5/8/12 • Speak Up! - Guest Mari...
www.senatoravard.com/
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
![PIECE BY PIECE - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters October 11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7Bc6trBc1kc/mqdefault.jpg)
I can’t believe the judge didn’t fine this woman for contempt and have her ejected from the courtroom. They don’t allow violations of the securitization of asset backed mortgages to be admitted into evidence in judicial foreclosure states, so why in the hell would this woman think her forensic audit would hold water in a non-judicial foreclosure state? I’m for sure no fan of the banks and it’s quite possible that this woman’s loan was riddled with fraud, but this was the wrong place to start running her mouth. Sadly, if the superior court affirmed the summary judgment of foreclosure, not even the US Supreme Court would have entertained her argument. She was literally wasting her time. This judge needs to grow a pair of balls.
It never ceases to amaze me how complicated we make a situation in a court of law. It never has to be so complicated. Compartmentalize the facts.
It's intentionally made into a game in which only elected judges, court employees and attorneys are apprised of the rules to play.
They need to start by shutting down that "Sovcit" talk as soon as they try to bring it up. Tell the Idiots that it never has & never will work in the US Courts...
Bottom line : pay your mortgage or rent
She has 30 days to obtain an attorney for the first court proceeding, once again no attorney.
No, the defense is wrong. These tire Mark's were made by a 1963 Pontiac tempest.
Underrated comment 😅
Haha Vinny
You are dead on balls accurate 😆
If you cannot pay your mortgage you have to leave your home. Simple as that.
She in there showing out. The judge is extremely patient
That poor judge is trying to be nice yet that lady doesn't understand she's in a courthouse.
FirstNam3 LaztNAM3 . THE judge is an IDIOT, AND A THIEF.
Fionabuster D. The judge is a patient person who dealt properly with someone asserting legal theories with no basis in law.
Fionabuster D. This poor woman had lost repeatedly and she was trying to rehash issues that she had already tried. You generally only get 1 bite of the apple in court, not the 5 or 6 she’s had.
She was likely duped be some sovereign citizen nonsense she saw online. Her arguments were very close to being frivolous.
@@chslaw no it's Mortgage fraud
LuAnn Marie There was no evidence of mortgage fraud presented in this video.
I could never let someone with a literal front butt represent me.
Sounds like she failed to get a proper lawyer in time.
David Shockley The judge strongly suggested she agreed to mediation and warned her the case would be difficult. She didn’t listen and lost in a big way.
The ole bag needs a lawyer
All of these people surrounding this woman ...why weren’t they helping this woman on a day to day basis so this wouldn’t happen in the first place?
Nationstar agreed to a loan modification. She claims she singed it and Nationstar said they never got it back. According to the judge, she didn't dispute the validity of the foreclosure procedures use and she ultimately lost the case. One of the judges strongly suggested she agreed to mediation and even warned her about about the difficulties of properly presenting her evidence without the help of an attorney. She "vehemently declined" to participate in mediation. She only has herself to blame.
She did not have the money to pay her mortgage. Were they aupposed to pay it?
www.doj.nh.gov/news/2020/20201210-nationstar-settlement.htm
was the young woman her reoresnter? she didn't even stand when speaking to the judge. very odd
What’s worse is she looks to me like she’s eating chips and watching tiktok on her phone underneath the table while this is all going on
can't freaking hear anything, and the closed captions are so bad it's ridiculous.
My head starts to hurt when people self-represented parties start babbling about common law jurisdiction.
Carl Starrett . Not babbling. Common laws are different from Corporate/ Admiralty/ Jews law. Thanks again and PEACE OUT.
In other words, babbling.
Fionabuster D. I did process it. The person babbling about common law with no legal basis lost.
@@stevenwinsor5895 sovcit logic in action guaranteed to be a jumbled tumbled mish mash of false legal premises and conclusions. paper terrorism in many cases. and rarely is successful. but peace out and buy stock in safelite auto glass.
@@stevenwinsor5895 babbling
The State is the Owner of All propertys within the State. People buy or Rent Use Rights.
Let it be known, you speak truth. Taxes are rent never goes away.
And when you cannot afford to pay for the use rights the state will toss you out on the street, as they should.
The sound quality is terrible. I have trouble hearing what they are saying.
this poor woman. why could she not have gotten a lawyer when this all started? i even herd her pleas for help in front of the senate judiciary committee.
Fionabuster D. Or maybe the attorneys she consulted saw the case was a loser. She wasn’t making the payments, there is no dispute about that.
i think she watches to much law and order
+Matt H She appealed all the way to the state supreme court and was rejected. Now she claims common law when the state supreme court said she didn't represent herself in court. Her advocates say they couldn't find any attorney.
I thought all these illegal transfer/non transfer of mortgage. cases were disposed of years ago.
I'd like an update on this. Am I right in understanding that her property was forclosed on, the bank sold it, and she's not happy and won't leave? Who are all these people encouraging her behavior and contempt of court? If I was the buyer I'd be pissed and charge her for rent for all the months she's refused to leave. It's quite obvious that there's no reasoning with her and all she wants to hear is that she's right and she can stay. Unfortunately she has people around her telling her just that. If this has gone to the Supreme Court and the appeals court and she's still lost, then she needs to go. Her time is long up, and I'd hope since it's been over a year that this has been resolved.
www.doj.nh.gov/news/2020/20201210-nationstar-settlement.htm
Looks that way
Poor lady.......
Well this sucks! What happened?
Lol. The landlord probably just changed management.
The lawyer is very large
There is no cure for stupidity!
What kind of bailiffs do they have??
That is foreigner coming to our country and not learning the laws. Her house was probably sold because she did not pay the mortgage. The bank owned that home not her.
From what I understood she failed to properly appeal in a timely manner and the courts just reaffirmed the lower court's orders. She failed to get proper representation. Had she done so things would have been much different if what she claimed was true.
I think some activist group then convinced her she that the courts and banks committed a fraud and got her all fired up. And this is the result.
C. Hampton exactly.. i have some acquaintances from brazil, "missionary type" in other words they're used to getting their life paid for by someone else, by preaching god to folks, anyways, they bought a house, then another, couldn't afford it, now they're upset that the bank stole it...... happens all the time. they don't understand personal responsibility and how to pay for stuff they need, and not buy stuff they don't need and can't afford. people don't understand that when they don't pay for their house, its essentially stealing.
It sounded more like the judge is this video was the lower court following what the higher court had ruled in the dispute over the ownership of the note.
C. Hampton . Thanks for letting us know about that, you IDIOT. Thanks again and, FUCK YOU ALL
Newsflash....most Americans don't know the full extent of the law. That's why they hire lawyers. Then you present a statement you don't even know rather it is fact or not. You don't know what that woman paid. I feel sorry for her because she was not given the help she needed in order to litigate this case. You and your foreigner comment.
Pay your rent
can not hear the video
She looks like she’s in prison garb 😂
Judge lost control of his court
when you sign a contract and you buy property.... how is it the person
(bank) sale the property and sign new contract of ownership? when the
property in question has been sold to an individual. if the banks can
just shuffle paper selling it over an over to different people while
someones making payments to me looks like FRAUD? who is really the
Owner?
Dreamylyn Moore . The lady in Court Owns the home. The bank and judge are thieves, stealing it. And should be IN PRISON
@@stevenwinsor5895 There is no evidence presented of any illegality in this foreclosure process.
She stopped making the payments and the bank foreclosed under state law. There is nothing in the court records to indicate any type of fraud. This lady admitted in court that she wasn't making the payments. If you buy something and stop making the payments, you don't get to keep it.
She took out a loan for the home and stopped making payments. it is just like when you buy a car with a loan and default, it gets reposessed. There is no theft. The loan company owns that asset until you pay it off.
@@donnalynn2 Curious ... if a bank can't own anything and their is mortgage insurance ... who gets the mortgage insurance. and who gets the property?
I understand what the old lady was trying to say ok, yes there is her rights, she says reserve her rights, no no no, you want to exorcise your rights, not reserve them ok !!!??????
Why is she screaming at the judge???
FirstNam3 LaztNAM3 Because she wants to be heard... Plus she is elderly and she's hard of hearing.
Fionabuster D. He was incredibly patient and let her go on far too long.
How the F did this video get 52,000 views?!
🤣
Don't most courts bar recording while they are in-session?
No, it’s the decision of the court whether they allow recordings.
lolol
That woman is running things like she's in her home country lol, nobody knows what she's really talking about anyway. Talking about I object lol
Lawyers are too expensive, that's why.
So after watching the show speak up or speak out whatever it was, and watching this video and I don't understand that not one lawyer in all of the state we take this case pro bono to assert the illegal possession of This Woman's house? My second question is the video didn't include the entire hearing what was the Judgment of the judge? Did this woman lose her house because no one would represent her? She has a legally binding case against the litigants how this could happen in America is beyond me.
After spending a good deal of time reading some of the actual court documents today, it looks like she didn't come up with the alleged loan fraud argument until late in the case. The lender even agreed to a loan modification, which she claims she signed and the lender says they never got. The judge strongly urged her to go to mediation and explained to her in writing that it would be difficult for her to present her case.
There is also some indication that she refused to follow the rules like attending her deposition or responding to interrogatories. I've seen no evidence of mortgage fraud in this case.
@@chslawthink again.. my parents just signed another balloon note they've been on a balloon ote since 2013 but they really have not!! After I reviewed their contacts via city treasures database... I had to tell them their bank scammed them forged signatures etc... Their house was actually paid off and the bank convinced them they had to sign another balloon note or they would foreclose, failing to disclose the dead of trust had expired at 10 years...
@@ambersmith8171 Even if I believed you, how does your comment relate to this video or my comment?
@@chslawya momma
@@ambersmith8171 sorry your parents are fools
The audio is horrible not worth watching
Wow
Either this woman's mortgage loan was sold by the original lender to another lender, which is perfectly normal and very common in the banking industry OR the woman failed to make her mortgage payments and her lender foreclosed on the house. IF its the latter, then this is a "show me the mortgage paperwork" argument, which is an extremely disingenuous argument to make because the person doesn't argue that the mortgage payments are current, but that the paperwork between the lender and an OUTSIDE 3rd party buyer are not proper.
This is like an eviction case where the tenant hasn't paid rent, gets sued, files an answer and requests trial; then at trial the tenant DOESN'T argue that he paid the rent, but that notice wasn't properly served or that the notice asked for $25 dollars more than the actual rent due- and then REFUSES to stipulate or waive those issues, in the hope of making the landlord start the process all over again in order to buy himself a few more rent free weeks (since he hasn't been paying rent anyway).
who would pay on fraud
Fair enough....though I will note that NH state courts had already ruled that there was a mortgage, she defaulted on that mortgage, and was foreclosed by the mortgage lender. Miller doesn't seem to be arguing the mortgage was fraudulent or that she HASN'T defaulted, but that the mortgage lender didn't "prove" they had the loan documents. Again, as I said, this seems to be a "show me" case- in other words, she seems to be arguing that the "proper" foreclosure procedure was not followed.
it is what it is... Fraud
I'm glad I don't have a house it's too much money and I can't afford a house anyway I live in a apartment that's alot easer then owning a house I don't have to worry about a morage and I have a very good landlord jc is very helpful and I have very good mantanice and I had to get a new water heater and I didn't have to pay for it and and I had to get my bathroom remodeled and I didn't have to pay for it and I donot want anything to do with a morage or a house at all
@@luannmarie4568 youre foolish
Wow it must be taught you come to America you also get privileged as long as you have the complexion. How dare she talk to the judge like that She has no respect throw her out
I hate when there is no being or end do better research before putting a case on
Did she win though?
This appointed spokesperson/rep saved the day.
Can you say contempt of court.
Fionabuster D. Nope. She seems to have fabricated the fraud allegations when it became apparent she would lose.
we have squatters refusing to leave our home for the past 18 years. They have gone to the extent of damaging the house ( where its lost half its value). They are armed, they threaten us, harass us, attempt to blackmail us, and defame us.
They do not pay any rent, have no ownership and do not contribute. (We to this day still pay utlities, cable/interent/ taxes etc.)
We need help.
They have threatened the owner's kids, ( that is it easy to get someone killed and asked them how much they value their parent's lives) They have tried to blackmail the familys wedding engagements by spreading lies. They Threatened the children that they will purposely fight this just to see the owners waste their time and money going back and forth. It is a nightmare, never met anyone this evil.
Shoeb Fasih why continue to pay cable, utilities etc...that's just crazy !!
18 years something else is going on it doesn't take that long and paying for utilities
Yeah this story is bullshit. You don't let someone squat for 18 years with them paying no rent and you certainly don't continue to pay utilities. Something doesn't add up. Take legal action for crying out loud if that is the case.
This doesn't add up. You are not telling the whole story. How do you squat for 18 years.?.?.?.?
File for eviction. Best of luck. Hard to guess how a judge is going to respond to the statement " That is correct your honor, no rent payments have been received for 18 years... Yes we continued to pay for all the utilities and taxes as well...." Not sure what state you live in but you may have some legal issues proving it is not their home at this point.
Good. Property ownership is theft.
Petition #10 grievance of Marie L. Miller. ( Homeless! )
Grievance Founded with Recommendations.
Committee Findings:
The Redress of Grievances Committee reviewed the evidence and finds that Associate Justice Marguerite Wageling of the New Hampshire Superior Court allowed a home foreclosure case to proceed without the documentation per RSA 382-A:3-501 which requires that the entity making the foreclosure demand actually prove ownership of the home in question through production of the original instruments if requested. The previous judge, Kenneth Brown, acknowledged the rightness of the Petitioner's request that the company trying to foreclose “shall” produce the documents and was awaiting them as a last item before going to trial. When the case changed judges before the production of documents and Brown was no longer involved, the Petitioner's lawful request was ignored. The Committee agrees with the Petitioner and recommends the introduction of legislation to: 1. Require proper documentation of property ownership prior to permitting an action involving foreclosure of property to proceed and; 2. Study the procedures used by the New Hampshire Superior Courts to verify property ownership in foreclosure actions with a view to ending the non-judicial foreclosure approach to such issues. Vote 9-1.
Rep. Daniel Itse for the Committee
Can you please explain what you just wtote in an easier way? Thank you
Please provide a link or other evidence of the claims made in this comment.
Can’t here it, not worth watching.
If unlawful detainers are CONFIDENTIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHY ARE YOU PUBLISHING THE HEARING ON RUclips??????
Defendant obviously watched a lot of sovereign citizen stuff on RUclips. Big mistake. When you start throwing frivolous stuff at the judge, he becomes less willing to excuse your defects in procedure. Judges very usually try to help out pro se litigants, not to make their cases for them, but relaxing rules of procedure for them. That goes out the window when you try to tell them their business.
Just a wild guess here: My guess is that defendant bought into the a4v or accepted for value bs, or something similar and tried to pay her mortgage with a fraudulent instrument. The mortgagor no doubt told her to pay and she insisted she was right, that what she submitted was good as gold. If all that is so, then of course her loan was accelerated and the property foreclosed, and rightly so.
@Fionabuster D. Well, I read some of the actual court documents and this seems like a pretty fair summary to me. If someone files a summary judgment against you and you don't oppose it, either by stubbornness or lack of knowledge of proper procured, it won't end well for you. If the judge suggests mediation and you refuse, that is on you.
Here is what one judge told her: "The Court attempted to the parties towards since a review of the
file would strongly suggest that the self represented Defendant would benefit from the mediation process, particularly if she retained counsel for that limited purpose. The Plaintiff expressed a willingness to mediate. Unfortunately, the Defendant vehemently declined.
This Court will not order mediation when one (1) party declines to participate. It is
unfortunate that the self represented Defendant cannot appreciate the benefit of mediation, particularly in light of the fact that this matter is going to proceed to a jury trial.
This Court envisions that the Defendant will have difficulty presenting her evidence in a complicated matter of this nature."
So one judge tried to warn her. She didn't listen and I've seen absolutely no evidence to support the incredibly vague claim of mortgage fraud, which seems to have been cooked up late in the game.
@@chslaw what’s the benefit of mediation for the home owner in this case?
@@gregdann123 In a situation where the party holding all the cards and leverage is willing to mediate, it the homeowner some options to come up with terms to keep the house. The bank didn't have to agreed to mediation the they probably just wanted to get paid instead of fighting a frivolous. This owner gambled and lost.
@@chslaw If I understand you correctly, I am not sure mediation would have help the home owner. If as you said, the bank has all the power, which could potentially mean power over the mediator as well. They are not likely to give the homeowner many options to keep her home.
As you said, the bank just want their money. Using the mediator, they can either force the homeowner to pay all outstanding balance immediately and if she can’t then foreclose on the property. Either one of these options gets them to the money immediately.
In addition to those possible outcomes the court might offer to restructure the mortgage, which might offer the homeowner a more manageable payment.
@@gregdann123 The bank was willing to work with her. They didn’t have to negotiate, but the court documents said they were willing to do so. She refused, so this is 100% on her.
If the party holding the cards wants to mediate, refusing the offer makes no sense.
DAM FOREIGNERS!!!
craig welch you very right those dam forinerers they get help from dshs and IAM disabled and I have dieabetes and seiures and a learning disability but I get social security but I can't get provider one or food stamps I told dshs I said you guys help ilegal imagrants that's not fair
@@lauriealvaro5816 you have no proof to even assert that this woman receives help number one. Number two because this woman is a foreigner is the very reason she is in court today. The shysters that stole her house did it because she was a foreigner and didn't understand. Foreigners aren't the problem. Illegal possession of homes and shyster lawyers is the problem. According to the state law in your state wherever you live they have guidelines for a one-person household two person household and so on, on what a person can make monthly to be eligible for a state check or food stamps. Your household obviously makes over the amount allotted for however many members are in your household. The state as to go by guidelines. They don't just say hey this person's a Foreigner Let's help them and not help that next lady in line. It's absolutely ridiculous get those words that you wrote what do you think I'm out of your head. Or is it that you don't understand the laws of your state maybe that's the problem.
Well we give GRIFTETS plenty of. protection. WHAT ABOUT THE OWNER? Not paying UR OUT!!!
Sounds like Ms Miller stopped paying her mortgage so the mortgage co foreclosed and sold the property to the new owner who had to evict Ms Miller. If Ms Miller stopped paying so she is out - adios Ms Miller.
so what the hell happen??? Some one did not get their monies I believe!!!
Nationstar foreclosed and she got to stay in the property another 4 years while she tied up this case in court. In the end, she lost.
she watchen too much tv
NO this fraud is real
Know justices in nj court freehold nj monmouth county give use are right back
I feel for her, but this judge is trying to tell her that a higher court already decided the ownership issue and he cannot overturn or alter that judgment.
The judge was very patient and polite, but there was no way he could do anything she was asking him to do.
Fionabuster D. No, he was right.
Fionabuster D. My opinion is based being an attorney since 1993. I have handled hundreds of bankruptcy and debt collection cases and I am more than familiar with her “show me the note” defense. Based on what happened in this video, it clear she lost many times.
The judge in this video did not have the legal authority to overrule the decision of a higher court. She lost and didn’t appeal the last time she lost. That’s the end of the ballgame folks.
The judge was far more than he needed to be.
Fionabuster D. I done have enough information about what happened to you and you case. I know the attorneys also don’t take case where the client is a little nuts the woman in this video.
Attorneys also don’t take cases if the client can’t pay. The bank foreclosed when she didn’t pay her mortgage and she was making nutty legal arguments. And it surprises you she couldn’t find an attorney?
Attorneys also reject cases when clients have unrealistic expectations. Maybe you case wasn’t very good.
@Fionabuster D. You comments about the medical opinions provide some very important missing context to you original statement. In court, you would have had the burden of proof to show that the injury or injuries were caused by the accident as opposed to some other activity like repetitive motion injury.
An attorney working for a contingent fee instead of hourly isn't just putting his or her salary at risk if the case cannot be won and trial. The attorney must pay overhead such as office rent, staff salaries and other expense. And expert witnesses also charge hundreds of dollars per hour. Unless you had the resources to pay that, the attorney would have to go out of pocket potentially tens of thousands of dollars to subsidize you lawsuit. That's a high risk investment in a case that sounds very weak.
When so many attorneys reject a case, that usually says something about how good or bad the case is. And it sounds like you had a bad case.
@Fionabuster D. Your follow up comments about corruption are extremely vague and it isn't clear how they relate to this video.
The judge should have shut those corporation paid attorneys up every time they interrupted the elderly woman.
Lol I like her she said she run that show
Bbjq
We where given a eviction on are property and it has not gone thru probate plus 25,000 was left on are mortgage and the property was sold for 48,ooo and was listed at 202,000 we put in a stay in eviction and never one time got a chances to go in front off the judge because judge martin was the judge for the forscloser and he was the judge for probate he new are property has not gone thru probate and all the children off my mother have not had a say so to keep are home so if anyone knows a lawyer because the judge said there would be a way to save are home but we need a attorney and can't afford one and the people that got are property are deceased
They stole that women house
Independiente saulsegura a saulgarcia greenwood2850 corpuschristy blessa amén Jesús como ho mparty
No, she lost it after not making the payments.
@@chslaw Exactly, it makes no difference who owns the mortgage, the borrower must pay regardless. She didn't pay and is trying to use technicalities to delay her eviction and it's not working. I have no sympathy for her.
Another hard headed petitioner, pro se. Ugh.