Sovereign Citizen Tries “NOT THE REAL PERSON” Defense — Judge DESTROYS Her & She Loses Home

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:04][music] [music] >> For the record, I'm here on special visitation. What is your name?

[00:00:23]What is your name? I'm not here as as myself.

[00:00:27]I'm kind of This hearing gets strange almost immediately. A woman fighting to keep her home walks into court and claims she's not actually the person named in the case. She says she's not appearing, calls herself a natural person, and insists she's only there on a special visitation. The judge tries hard to understand what she's talking about while the attorney watches the defense slowly fall apart. Behind all the confusing legal phrases is a serious situation, a foreclosure, an expired deadline, and someone desperately trying to stop losing their home. What makes this case so shocking is that the judge keeps giving her chances to explain herself properly. But every time the discussion gets back to facts, it turns into arguments about identities, treasury documents, and legal theories that don't make sense in court. And later, when the court finally reviews her so-called payment document, the entire hearing changes. By the end, the judge is left explaining why a homemade financial paper cannot legally stop foreclosure.

[00:01:32]Do you want to do a different thing?

[00:01:33]Well, you've been known as Tracy Moore.

[00:01:35]Yeah, but I'm I don't know what that means. Yeah, judge judge, if we're going to play this game, I'll ask for a default after now.

[00:01:43]I I can't I can't I can't do that.

[00:01:46][laughter] I'm just saying.

[00:01:48]Well, Oh, wait.

[00:01:51]So, ma'am, Who was saying something that I didn't even say? He was saying that if you're not Tracy Moore, occupant, and there's no other occupants here.

[00:02:00]>> Well, I'm not an occupant. I'm I'm here because this is my home, you know, and it's a consumer good and it's It's a consumer good. It's my home. This is where I live.

[00:02:13]What What are you getting consumer good from then? You know, you you see see No, what's in that? Cuz a home is not a consumer good. It It is. It's It's where I live. It's a consumer consumer good, yeah.

[00:02:27]Cuz it's where I live. Okay. Yeah.

[00:02:30]>> [clears throat] >> So I have my hands. So what did you mean?

[00:02:35]Just say I'm I'm here on behalf of You can't be here on behalf of anybody unless you're a lawyer.

[00:02:43]The lawyers are the only people that can come on behalf of someone.

[00:02:48]Why though?

[00:02:49]What? Yeah, I mean why?

[00:02:51]That's the rules.

[00:02:53]You know, and the case you will have you might have some kind of court order for guardianship or something. You know, you might be able to appear that way, but otherwise no.

[00:03:03]Well, again I'm here on special visitation. And what's a special visitation? What Who are you visiting?

[00:03:09]Well, I'm visiting [clears throat] here, but I don't know about the like Okay, well we need to have some occupants or Tracy Moore. We don't have occupants or Tracy Moore. He's right. There's nobody here [clears throat] cuz you you can't You cannot appear on behalf of somebody.

[00:03:27]>> Well, I'm here.

[00:03:31]I'm I'm not appearing. I can't appear.

[00:03:33]I'm not a ghost. I'm a real woman. I'm a natural person.

[00:03:37]>> Well, ma'am, I don't know what you mean.

[00:03:39]Uh We're looking for the real person, woman, natural person of Tracy Moore.

[00:03:44]Where is she?

[00:03:45]But she can be here.

[00:03:47]She what? She can be [clears throat] here. Well, where is she?

[00:03:54]Cuz she's not here and we don't have anybody else that occupied the premises that are at issue, then he's entitled to a default judgment because nobody's here. No, I'm here and Well, I'm Who are you? You keep saying you're ACTING FOR SOMEBODY. I DON'T EVEN know who you are.

[00:04:12]The case just says occupant. We had somebody named Tracy came before.

[00:04:18]>> What? What? Who can be the beneficiary?

[00:04:21]Can you be a beneficiary?

[00:04:22]>> Yes. No, you have to be the person or the the occupant of the premises.

[00:04:28]It's got to be somebody that's inside living in the premises here and nobody's here. Well, I am I'm living I'm living Yeah, but but who are you?

[00:04:38]>> I'll I'll tell you that I can be Tracy.

[00:04:41]You tell me you can be >> Yeah, I can I'm going to be [clears throat] Tracy for Are you Tracy for this purpose? Tracy Moore. Sure.

[00:04:48]Thank you. Sure. All right, Tracy Moore.

[00:04:51]All right.

[00:04:52]Fantastic. Um Your Honor, this has to do with a foreclosure of residential real property located at 19710 West 13 Mile Apartment 206 in the city of Beverly Hills within this court's jurisdiction.

[00:05:06]There was a foreclosure sale that commenced on January 10th. This case was subsequently filed for possession of the property because the redemptive amount was not tendered to HP Foreclosure Solution redeeming the property. Okay, hold on, Mr. Callahan. We have I have received from the um person stating for the purposes of this hearing to be Tracy Moore, um a um I don't know what this is. It's a notice of payment of $153,749.97.

[00:05:46]It's clear on the face that it's not a check.

[00:05:49]It was not tender. When I asked the young lady standing next to me if that amount was paid, she stated that no amount [clears throat] was paid because >> What is it that she gave you? I don't know. It's a notice of payment under um as defined by 12 CFR section 229.2 sub U, which is a non-negotiable instrument, apparently, but it's not a check. So, no money has been tendered. Okay. Um there's a series of IRS filings that are not applicable to anything at all. I don't know if that was filed with the court, but the the crux of this is that the redemption was not paid. It was not tendered to my client. My client has title vested 100% and they're seeking possession of this home.

[00:06:42]Now we reach the most important part of the hearing. The strange payment document. The judge looks confused. The attorney doesn't recognize it. And the defendant insists this paper should count as over $153,000 toward the debt. The problem is simple.

[00:06:59]Real payments usually come through banks, certified checks, or verified transfers. This document appears to be homemade and filled with treasury language that doesn't function like actual money. The judge carefully reviews it instead of dismissing it right away. But the biggest issue becomes obvious fast. Nobody can explain where the money is actually supposed to come from. There's no account, no proof of funds, and no legal payment process attached to it. At that moment, you can already tell this case is heading toward a tough ending.

[00:07:34]Was there a dispute as to this? Yeah.

[00:07:36]The dispute is my own. Okay. Why? I'm in there. What This dispute?

[00:07:42]Where is the contract that I have with them with HP?

[00:07:46]I'm not a tenant. I've been there for 8 years. I have an invested more than invested interest in the home [clears throat] that was foreclosed unlawfully.

[00:07:55]And I'm filing I'm in the process of filing a court case on this.

[00:08:00]I know I'm behind schedule on this. I don't know what the schedule for that is. I can't say this though, but I do have a sheriff's deed. It It seems to me you're under that deed.

[00:08:11]Lady standing to my right has tried to challenge foreclosure and that time period has well passed and this is not the court to Yeah, but we're in the wrong court.

[00:08:20]No, no, we're not in the wrong. Yeah, because I'm not a tenant.

[00:08:25]Okay, ma'am.

[00:08:27]Well, that's just a characterization [clears throat] of landlord and tenant.

[00:08:31]But it's for anybody that's in premises where they don't have the right to possess them. They can come here.

[00:08:38]And the right to possess is based upon who has the deed basically. And in this case, they're saying they got a sheriff's deed because this property was properly [clears throat] they claim properly foreclosed upon.

[00:08:52]>> No, it was not. If you're challenging the foreclosure, I don't know what you're claiming is wrong with the foreclosure. Well, their note was separated from the mortgage number one.

[00:09:02]You can't do that. Okay.

[00:09:04]And And your honor, that's >> That's against the law. All right. And And And ever when you purchase a home, there was a promissory note and there's a deed that is provided. Um those are two separate and distinct things. We are not discussing that. We are discussing whether or not my client has the legal right to uh possession of that prop- of this property um and that there is no defense. It is It is a defense. Well, ma'am, You said you filed another case about to quiet this title because you believe something is wrong with the >> Oh, yeah. No, I'm not I believe I have proof. I have a >> So, where's the other case pin?

[00:09:41]That's what I'm trying to I was trying to get down there to file it. I just haven't made it.

[00:09:46]But, I will be there this week for sure.

[00:09:48]Okay.

[00:09:49]Cuz right now, all I have is what they provided to me.

[00:09:57]I I sent I didn't send you a copy of what I had sent them when I had tendered the payment and they sent it back. But, ma'am, did you I just want What do you mean by payment? He says it wasn't a check. What was it? Okay.

[00:10:10]It was a negotiable instrument that could have been used as a check, but it was >> Well, what was behind it? What kind of negotiable instrument?

[00:10:17]>> Well, it was it was connected to the Treasury.

[00:10:21]All right. May I approach you? The Treasury? Like the US Treasury? Well, the Michigan Treasury, not the not the big one.

[00:10:30]I I I would ask is this what you're Yeah, yeah. Can I have I I'm holding it. I'm holding in my hand a document that says this is a non-cash item, not a check on the top.

[00:10:42]And may I approach you on this so you can take a look. This is what we're discussing.

[00:10:48]Okay.

[00:10:49]>> [clears throat] >> I don't know. What is this? It's got some numbers on it.

[00:11:01]It's not drawn from a bank. It's not It's not a check. It was going to be >> Drawn from Payable through Tracy Moore and done in good faith. That's her address. It says it's paid to HP foreclosure.

[00:11:13]And then it has United States Treasury, Pennsylvania Avenue, real property for set-off and adjustment. And it's signed by Ms. Moore without recourse.

[00:11:25]This is void where prohibited.

[00:11:28]Non-cash item per 12 CFR subsection 229.2, U1, 2, and 4.

[00:11:41]And it says here, this is a non-cash item as defined by that section I just said of CFR and issued according to 12 CFR 229.2 K3 and 4. Non-cash item means an item that would otherwise be a check except that a passbook certification or other document is attached or is accompanied by special instructions or request for special advice of payment or dishonor or it has not been pre-printed pre-printed or post encoded in magnetic ink with the routing number of the paying bank.

[00:12:18]I believe in other words it's it's a piece of paper. It's A negotiable demand draft by the US Treasury, a demand draft drawn on the state government or unit of general local government that is not payable through a bank.

[00:12:34]Okay, I mean you you just I don't know what this is, [clears throat] but you said that no money accompany accompany this.

[00:12:44]So, and this was I don't know when it was dated, June 10th.

[00:12:48]Mhm.

[00:12:49]It was within the time period. Mhm, but but But they held it in their hand. Well, let me ask you this.

[00:12:56]Where where were they supposed to cash this? Well, they would have sent it in in to the Treasury. It was all of the original was everything.

[00:13:04]All they had to do was just send it to the Treasury. This may be the most important moment in the entire hearing.

[00:13:10]The judge explains that even if there were problems with the foreclosure, the deadline to challenge them has already passed. Foreclosure cases follow strict timelines. Once the redemption period expires, homeowners lose many of their legal options unless they already filed the right case in the proper court.

[00:13:28]Instead, she waited until an eviction hearing to challenge the foreclosure itself. But this court is only deciding one thing, who legally has the right to possess the property right now. And when she asked for another trial date, only to learn this was already the trial date, it becomes clear how unprepared the defense really was.

[00:13:50]And the Treasury has $153,700 or $53,749.

[00:13:58]And now you say this belongs to you, that then they were just going to pay this out.

[00:14:03]Yes.

[00:14:05]Okay.

[00:14:09]I don't see how that could happen.

[00:14:12]Well, then we we wouldn't know cuz they sent it back.

[00:14:15]Because we can't My client can't do anything with that. Well, why when when I called, why didn't they say that? They held it for 2 weeks.

[00:14:24]They don't need it. They don't need it.

[00:14:25]It's not a payment. It's not a payment.

[00:14:27]If there was a payment, [clears throat] they would have to accept that payment.

[00:14:30]There It's what There was no payment.

[00:14:32]Payment, Judge.

[00:14:37]So, um other than your issues thinking that something's wrong with the foreclosure itself. Oh, yeah. If I If I have a I had a securitization on the property. Okay. And [clears throat] it shows it in Well, well, ma'am. In the In the um I guess my question is this. If I'm going to have a trial, which is what today's date was originally scheduled for, I just need some real question of fact.

[00:15:03]I'm not exactly seeing it. I got a sheriff's deed, and I know it's a redemption period of 6 months. You got this, which is, to my knowledge, not any type of uh cash item.

[00:15:20]And I don't see how they could Where they would take it to even try to remit or cash it.

[00:15:29]Yes, I mean it's like I did.

[00:15:33]>> [clears throat] >> I don't know where you got it from, but it says the document has a background and microprinting and there's a artificial watermark on the reverse side.

[00:15:46]I have no idea where [clears throat] you got this and how it was supposed to cash it.

[00:15:55]They needed to send it in.

[00:16:08]And I would like to know how how do they have title to my living in a home?

[00:16:13]I thought 9/10 of it was possession. I don't know what that means.

[00:16:18]But I can tell you that they went through [clears throat] what is known to be a valid process in Michigan, which is a foreclosure by advertisement.

[00:16:28]>> That is so not constitutional and that was why I had brought up the oath also to kind of make sure that I got a little uh help because you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And I'm very fully willing and able and capable of doing that.

[00:16:49]But where's the constitutional issue here? Well, that's >> This is a This is a matter of Michigan statute.

[00:16:55]>> No, but it's not a law. Statutes are not laws.

[00:16:59]>> Well, what are they then?

[00:17:02]What do you mean, what are they? If they're not laws, what are they? They're on the They're on the books as laws in this state. So, I'm not sure if they're not laws to you, what are they then? No, I mean, they're laws in a sense, but not laws by the Constitution. They're They're not laws made from Congress.

[00:17:19]Congress makes the law. I mean there's there's there's federal law and there's state law. Yes, there yes, but But so >> State comes from the federal. No, it doesn't.

[00:17:28]What do you mean it comes from it? Do you know [laughter] how much you got 50 sovereign states here that can do their own thing separate and aside from what the federal government does? And they do it all the time. All the time. What they can't do is something that is a constitutional violation of their state constitution or the federal constitution. I don't see what this is a violation of a constitution.

[00:17:55]Just to foreclose on property when the pay when the bill hasn't been paid. But it was foreclosed on wrongfully from Huntington. They didn't have a right to foreclose. They separated the note.

[00:18:08]And that's a known fact. They never recorded the note. They recorded the mortgage.

[00:18:13]And you're not supposed to do that. That was what That's what part of the affidavit said on the man the gentleman that did the article.

[00:18:24]That is not lawful.

[00:18:26]Your honor, if that's the case, there was plenty of time to challenge that in the circuit court.

[00:18:31]This is not the forum for that. The time has lapsed for that to be challenged.

[00:18:37]No, it's fraud. So it's it's always a challenge in fraud. You know, I've got some case law somewhere on the fact that, you know, the time to challenge these kinds of things in the foreclosure [clears throat] would be during the time that you have redemption. It would be at circuit court.

[00:18:58]I mean at this point the redemption period is over, but if there's something that went wrong with it, the circuit court could Did it? could could rule on it, but you don't even have a case there.

[00:19:09]Well, I will. I'm working on it.

[00:19:13]Well, you know, ordinarily, I mean, this would be the trial date, but I just don't see where the issue of fact is that would require us to actually have a trial in this instance.

[00:19:23]>> What I'm asking, can you give us a trial date, please? This is the trial date.

[00:19:27]Oh, okay. I just misunderstood you then.

[00:19:30]Yeah, this [laughter] is the trial date.

[00:19:32]And of course, I have to call witnesses if I thought it was necessary, but I don't see where it's necessary.

[00:19:38]>> [snorts] >> I mean, all the documentation he has looks good, and you don't have any documentation that says this is not good.

[00:19:47]Except for your statements that you believe are accurate. [clears throat] And if you wanted to file something, you had plenty of time to file something, Ms. Moore, to challenge this in the proper court. This court just says, was there proper foreclosure? You know, did they follow There There There's just a process. There's procedures, you know?

[00:20:08]When they file it, they have to give certain notice. There's certain things.

[00:20:11]You have ample time. They They still didn't do that properly. Well, what didn't they do? Well, they were supposed to have served me, and they didn't.

[00:20:21]Served you [snorts] of what? Served me on the first paperwork.

[00:20:26]They were sticking stuff on the >> So, you're saying it was never noticed in any kind of way? It wasn't attached to >> No, I'm not saying never, but I wasn't personally served. You don't have to be personally served if they can't find you personally.

[00:20:40]They [snorts] have alternate means to attach and deliver. They didn't really >> [clears throat] >> But still, this >> Did you want to add something, ma'am?

[00:20:51]No, Your Honor. I'm just asking for a judgment to issue providing till December 7th for um all occupants of the residential real property at 19710 West 13 Mile Apartment 206.

[00:21:05]You know, I Okay. Well, the court is constrained to have to grant his relief because I don't see the issue of fact here for trial.

[00:21:23]Uh it appears based upon the review of all the documentation [clears throat] that's been provided that there was a valid foreclosure sale. Redemption period has passed.

[00:21:34]Uh there was some type of something proper that doesn't appear to be no legal tender for for the I guess the redemption amount.

[00:21:48]And if there is any question about the foreclosure itself or the validity of this tender, I think this point should have been uh litigated at the circuit court. So, I'll go go ahead and give the judgment of possession for the plaintiff. I object.

[00:22:05]I object. Yeah.

[00:22:07]Yeah, and you have um In the end, the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff.

[00:22:13]The foreclosure stands, the redemption period is over, and the defendant loses possession of the home. This case became a perfect example of what happens when online legal theories collide with real courtroom procedure. The judge gave multiple chances to present evidence and explain the arguments, but the defense relied heavily on confusing legal ideas and a payment document the court could not recognize as valid. What makes this hearing so unforgettable is the emotional side of it. You're watching someone desperately trying to save their home while the court focuses strictly on documents, deadlines, and legal procedure. In the end, the law decided the outcome. What do you think? Did she truly believe these arguments would work, or was this just a last attempt to delay losing a home. And if you enjoyed this courtroom breakdown, make sure to like the video, leave your thoughts in the comments, and subscribe for more unbelievable courtroom cases.