Sovereign Citizen Thought It’d Be 5 Months Max… Then Got SLAPPED With 5 YEARS In Prison!

本站添加: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]I explained that very clearly. I think I explained it actually to both sides during the couple of final settlement conferences that we had.

[00:00:10]So, >> [snorts] >> I don't know why it's being raised. They have elected throughout these number of years to have the case remain here.

[00:00:22]So, at this point, I'm not removing them.

[00:00:26]What do we have everybody from Pittsfield PD here?

[00:00:32]Does Pittsfield have anybody on the road? I mean, I'm just thinking, man.

[00:00:35]You just you know Yeah, everybody's here. You guys take care.

[00:00:42]Thank you, Mr. Schiller.

[00:00:43]>> Thank you.

[00:00:44]>> Um Can you Mr. Schiller, can you approach on a separate matter?

[00:00:50]>> Sure.

[00:00:53]>> What does call the case?

[00:00:55]Uh Finney versus Sedona.

[00:01:01]The first thing is you're going to have to switch sides.

[00:01:10]State your appearances, please.

[00:01:15]>> Good morning, Your Honor. This is Megan O'Dwyer on behalf of the plaintiff, P84205.

[00:01:21]May I please state your name?

[00:01:22]>> My name is Maria Finney.

[00:01:26]>> Mr. Sedona.

[00:01:27]>> Peter Sedona.

[00:01:28]>> All right.

[00:01:29]It states that sometime ago for a non-jury trial, and if parties ready to proceed.

[00:01:35]>> Uh Your Honor, may I approach the bench and go off the record briefly before I begin?

[00:01:41]I have a procedural issue.

[00:01:44]>> A procedural issue?

[00:01:46]>> Yes.

[00:01:47]>> Okay.

[00:01:48]>> Stay on the record, please.

[00:01:49]>> That's right.

[00:01:50]>> Um >> What now? Well, then I'm going to have them up here.

[00:01:55]Well, I guess what is it?

[00:01:57]>> Okay, so there is a counter claim, which is what this separate full trial.

[00:02:02]There was already an order of eviction entered.

[00:02:07]I've been intending to move for summary disposition of their C A and C 10. I need the opportunity to brief that issue.

[00:02:17]>> Well, why am I here on the dated trial?

[00:02:20]What is that?

[00:02:21]>> Right.

[00:02:23]So, the last motion that was filed >> Before we dive in, just a quick note.

[00:02:27]This commentary is created for educational purposes, designed to help those who may be confused or curious about courtroom processes. If you don't find it helpful, feel free to skip ahead. But for those who want a deeper understanding, stay tuned. It's about to get intense.

[00:02:44]What started as a landlord-tenant dispute is suddenly taking a dramatic turn. A newly retained attorney is walking into trial date asking for delays, claiming there may be fraud, insurance issues, and serious misconduct hidden inside thousands of pages of documents.

[00:03:00]But judges typically expect major motions like these to be filed well before trial. The real question now is whether this attorney has the evidence to back up such explosive allegations, or if this strategy is about to backfire in a big way.

[00:03:15]Pay close attention because the judge's reaction here could shape the entire outcome of this case.

[00:03:20]>> It was back in July. I appreciate that this is a long time. So, Stacy, you're on your own. I'm I'm not appreciating that court's time. However, I'm recently retained and there's about a thousand pages worth of evidence. This is found in mediation. There's conflicts in the facts even in uh what was submitted during mediation and there's significant evidence indicating that issues of fraud upon the court and other issues regarding insurance fraud by the defendants. And it is my professional opinion that it does substantiate claims under MCL 2.1168 and C10.

[00:04:04]>> All the motions that have been brought before today I mean I I don't know what particular issues you're talking about in terms of somebody committing fraud upon the court. And I'm just going to say this if they were going to say this about the other side.

[00:04:22]If you're going to make that accusation, counsel, you better bring it.

[00:04:26]And it better be that because if it's not, then I'm going to be exceedingly angry cuz I don't like people I do not like people accusing others of things like that without substantial proof.

[00:04:38]>> Absolutely.

[00:04:40]It is a substantial issue in this case.

[00:04:43]Um My client's rights have been significantly violated.

[00:04:47]>> It's By By who?

[00:04:49]>> By um former tenants.

[00:04:51]>> Um >> This started out as a non-payment of rent case.

[00:04:55]Uh as I mentioned, there was an eviction action. Or I mean I'm sorry, there was an order of eviction.

[00:05:01]Um as you're aware, we're here on the bench trial for the counter claim.

[00:05:07]Um I don't take a claim of fraud upon the court lightly. There is significant evidence to present that.

[00:05:14]And I don't want to uh disparage my client's rights by not attempting to have this dismissed under CA and C10.

[00:05:29]>> Well, I get it.

[00:05:32]But there was an attorney in this before.

[00:05:36]>> [clears throat] >> He's exceedingly difficult to get a hold of. That's part of why I asked to approach the bench. But um He >> your calendar.

[00:05:44]He was in court here Monday. So I don't know why he's not that difficult to get a hold of.

[00:05:50]>> Okay.

[00:05:50]>> Um And then on the day of trial, asking for an adjournment of these proceedings, it's not going to happen.

[00:06:04]>> Okay.

[00:06:04]>> So, you guys either can try to resolve this thing or we're going to try it.

[00:06:10]>> Okay.

[00:06:11]Fair enough.

[00:06:12]Um then I would request a brief recess to please speak to the defendant.

[00:06:18]>> Okay. See if you guys can work it out.

[00:06:21]Court will stand in recess.

[00:06:26]>> 14th District Court of Michigan, 60-1, the Honorable Judge Jedidiah Sanderson.

[00:06:30]>> All right. You may be seated.

[00:06:40]Back on the record, court has called the case Finney versus Sedano.

[00:06:44]All the parties are present and how did the conversation go?

[00:06:50]>> Um it wasn't entirely productive, Your Honor.

[00:06:53]Um so, we have back from 2021 a signed order for conditional dismissal and it says no eviction order entered after that time >> Okay.

[00:07:07]>> against the defendants.

[00:07:09]>> [snorts] >> As it relates to today's full bench trial, it is based on a counter claim that was filed on February 12th, 2021.

[00:07:22]Um however, again, uh it's my position that the counter claim needs to be dismissed. There's not actual cognizable claims under the counter claim. So, that it would be ripe for dismissal under MCR >> Why are they not cognizable claims?

[00:07:41]>> The claims are not cognizable as defendants are now uh pro per in this case. This was filed by their previous counsel.

[00:07:54]Um there is not a a cognizable claim in regards to the condition of the property as against my client for relief.

[00:08:05]As it is >> Why is that not cognizable?

[00:08:08]>> Can you repeat the question?

[00:08:10]>> Why is that not cognizable claim?

[00:08:12]>> It's not a cognizable claim, Your Honor, because there's a conditional dismissal entered as it relates to the original complaint where the defendants were being sued for the non-payment of rent.

[00:08:26]Where the counterclaim asserts a generalized claim without any sort of reference to a breach of habitability or constructive eviction.

[00:08:40]Um it's it the way that it's written in this counterclaim, it's it's more pertinent to the affirmative defenses given the case history here and the fact that there was an eviction order entered. At this time, this can't be a a cognizable claim before the court.

[00:08:57]>> So what happens >> I don't That doesn't even make any sense.

[00:09:00]If somebody If somebody says, "I paid a thousand or rent was a thousand dollars a month.

[00:09:10]I didn't pay the thousand dollars and actually I was living in conditions that um I think the landlord may owe me money because I paid them or something happened to the unit."

[00:09:24]The very fact that there was an agreement to vacate the premises doesn't negate their claim for money.

[00:09:38]As it As it wouldn't the landlord if the landlord had a claim for money.

[00:09:46]>> Absolutely, your honor. Um my point is more towards to back up slightly.

[00:09:53]Um This has been in court for a long time.

[00:09:57]There's a lot on the record, especially for something that started out as a non-payment of rent case.

[00:10:02]Uh The defendant The defendants are the relatives of the plaintiff.

[00:10:09]>> I'm aware I'm aware of a whole lot, Skeet.

[00:10:14]>> There are the facts um in the counterclaim that are very generalized.

[00:10:19]Uh there's There's not a factual section or actual claims after that.

[00:10:23]Um It's very generalized, but it it does assert that there's a dispute as to um mortgage payments. There's a dispute as to ownership interest. So, this is This is out of the realm of a landlord-tenant non-payment of rent case. And it it it's not a cognizable claim under the statutory law for those damages. Secondly, the >> And you're saying that. Give me some case law that says that.

[00:10:51]>> Okay.

[00:11:06]May I move on to the second point briefly and then return to that, your honor?

[00:11:12]>> Go ahead.

[00:11:13]>> Okay.

[00:11:14]Uh secondly, the after the generalized facts in the complaint, then the defendants move on to enter under a claim of statutory conversion.

[00:11:28]Um common law conversion, excuse me.

[00:11:31]Uh well, okay.

[00:11:32]>> Regarding the insurance claim.

[00:11:34]>> It's It's both. In paragraph 28, uh, it's combined into a common law conversion and conversion under MCL 600.2919A.

[00:11:44]Now, again, of course, Your Honor, we're considering what the language actually is in the counter complaint, but it's to my point that these claims are entirely unbelievable. Uh, but they're asking for as you would be entitled to under statutory conversion, three times the amount of actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees. If there's no, uh, summary proceedings to be had in terms of the possession of the property, and what's at issue here are ownership interests and statutory conversion claim that exceeds $25,000, it's at In [clears throat] the beginning, as I was arguing to you, that this would be a >> This is one of those moments courtroom observers notice immediately. The judge has clearly reached the end of his patience with procedural arguments and delays.

[00:12:36]Throughout the hearing, he repeatedly asks for legal authority, case law, or a concrete reason to stop the trial from moving forward, and he isn't getting the answers he's looking for.

[00:12:48]In court, timing matters almost as much as the evidence itself.

[00:12:53]What do you think? Should a newly hired attorney be given more time to prepare?

[00:12:57]Or is the judge right to insist that a years-long case finally move ahead?

[00:13:02]>> for dismissal under MCR 2.1167.

[00:13:09]Um, however, even if >> Jurisdictional? Jurisdictional or under seven? Well, under seven.

[00:13:17]>> Right. This is what I'm stating, Your Honor. Um, in the beginning, uh, I mean, it wasn't helpful to move on to a different issue, but in the beginning, it's uh there aren't cognizable claims that apply any longer given the procedural history. Not only that, but also just the way that it's it written out here in terms of habitability, um I didn't even bring up false information, but uh in terms of habitability, the actual counts that would indicate that the legal requirements have been met are not enumerated.

[00:13:57]Um and then secondly, it would be appropriate [clears throat] under um MCR 4.002 not necessarily to dismiss the action, but if it's related to property ownership, which is my title, and if it's related to conversion for a claim of over $25,000, it's not the court's obligation to dismiss it, but it would be more proper that this would be transferred to circuit court.

[00:14:24]>> And then you asked for removal?

[00:14:26]>> I would request a removal, Your Honor.

[00:14:31]>> I'm not removing this case.

[00:14:33]>> Okay.

[00:14:34]>> I think it was and you coming late to the game, I think I explained to the Sedoneys I don't have jurisdiction over the title.

[00:14:42]>> All right.

[00:14:42]>> I also explained to them that my jurisdictional limit was $25,000.

[00:14:49]I explained that very clearly. I think I explained it actually to both sides um >> [clears throat] >> during the couple of final settlement conferences that we had.

[00:14:59]So, I don't know why it's being raised. They have elected throughout these number of years to have the case remain here.

[00:15:11]So, at this point, I'm not removing it.

[00:15:26]>> Anything else?

[00:15:27]>> I mean, I just I I have to object to proceeding a whole hearing at this time.

[00:15:33]Um for the >> On what grounds?

[00:15:35]>> The numerous reasons I've stated.

[00:15:37]Um >> You've stated a lot of gobbledygook.

[00:15:40]It's the only way I can explain it.

[00:15:42]>> Um >> You haven't given me a reason. You haven't given me a reason why it shouldn't proceed today. This matter has been set for trial today.

[00:15:54]I have given a lot of leeway to both parties, I think, in terms of trying to make sure to try to resolve this case, to try to find a way to do it, sent them to mediation.

[00:16:08]They went through basically a mediation with me regarding this case on a couple of occasions.

[00:16:17]And it's come down to today for trial.

[00:16:21]And now you come in wanting further delay, and I'm not delaying this case.

[00:16:28]>> It's not that at all, Your Honor. I just wanted to confer with my client. Um I was hoping I could approach the bench.

[00:16:35]I understand there's not another attorney and a party also has to be able to. But I would like to call her from my home manager to see if that's acceptable to you.

[00:16:50]>> Do you have any objection to that, folks?

[00:16:54]>> No.

[00:16:55]>> All right.

[00:16:56]That's I don't know how we're going to have this conversation, but let's do it this way.

[00:17:03]We can go off the record.

[00:17:05]Mr. Trapp, take both parties, behave yourself when you're in my hallway, take them back to the jury deliberation room. When you're seated in the deliberation room, I don't want either one of you saying anything to anybody until I get the We're clear?

[00:17:24]Ma'am, am I clear? Miss Finney?

[00:17:28]All right. Take them back to my jury deliberation room.

[00:17:33]And the court will stand in recess.

[00:17:39]My understanding is the parties have had further discussions. Did anything come out of that or we still >> Yeah, I talked to her.

[00:17:50]>> Sure.

[00:17:50]>> When we came back in, she asked us to step out in the hallway and when we stepped out in the hallway, she proceeded to tell us that pretty much if we don't take the $5,200 out of escrow in the hallway today, that she's going to file a lawsuit against us at a different court that you won't be our judge and we'll owe her $25,000.

[00:18:08]So, no money matters. She didn't want to talk about the money matters again. So, she said escrow only. So, I just leave it here in your honor. I don't know what to do anymore.

[00:18:17]>> Completely misconstruing what I said. I made a and I we shouldn't even be talking about settlement matters, but I made a valid offer.

[00:18:24]>> Counter. If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.

[00:18:26]>> Yeah.

[00:18:27]>> It's not going to make a difference to me.

[00:18:29]I mean, you know, I'm just going to say this. I mean, you go back there and talk, your client I'm going to let you put the testimony on, but there are certain representations that she's made to this court that you may or may not be aware of cuz you got caught with one. I'm not saying caught in the sense of whatever.

[00:18:55]A statement that she made which is absolutely contrary to what she said before.

[00:19:04]>> Right.

[00:19:07]>> All right. Are we ready to try this?

[00:19:09]>> So, you want to opt out of the case at this time.

[00:19:13]>> You're looking to withdraw?

[00:19:14]>> Yes.

[00:19:20]I can't reasonably represent her if I am misconstruing the facts.

[00:19:25]>> Well, it's not an issue of you misconstruing the facts. I'm just telling you that there have been certain representations made on the record which I will tell you were different than what was said today.

[00:19:47]And I will tell you, counsel, I could tell by your reaction that you did not know that.

[00:19:56]So, [snorts and clears throat] if you are going to move to withdraw, I'm going to step off and you probably need to have a detailed conversation with your client about that.

[00:20:07]Court is in recess. Everybody can be seated.

[00:20:10]>> Court does call the Here we call this case of the Don- uh Finney versus Sedona.

[00:20:18]Parties are present. The record should reflect I've >> [clears throat] >> had an opportunity to talk with the parties. Um And um parties have come to a resolution. I'll state it on the record and then ask for the concurrence that that is the agreement.

[00:20:36]Parties have agreed to a full and final settlement of all claims that could have been raised in this case or have been raised in the amount of $10,000.

[00:20:47]That will be in favor of the Sedonas.

[00:20:52]The that that $10,000 the amount of $5,263.17 will be released to the defendants from court escrow.

[00:21:08]The remaining amount of $4,736.83 will be paid by Rusfini to the Sedoneys in monthly payments over a 2-year period.

[00:21:21]And counsel, that amount do you What was the amount per month that you came up with?

[00:21:26]>> It was $197.33.

[00:21:29]>> All right, per month for 2 years. When did she wish to begin those payments?

[00:21:37]>> Next month.

[00:21:38]>> April?

[00:21:39]>> Yes.

[00:21:39]>> Okay. Is there a particular date in April?

[00:21:42]>> I think the 30th.

[00:21:45]>> The last The April 30th, would that be acceptable? All right. Beginning April 30th, um 2025, until that is paid in full.

[00:21:55]Should the defendant miss a payment, default on the payments, an additional amount of $5,000 will be added to the $10,000 figure.

[00:22:06]The Sedoneys would then be entitled to a judgment in that amount, less any payments, which is inclusive of the escrow that have been made.

[00:22:14]All right?

[00:22:17]Also, I am the oral motion of counsel to withdraw once the order has been prepared, I will grant that.

[00:22:27]Um so that after that, the order is signed, she will have no further obligation to this case, unless she undertakes it in some other way.

[00:22:37]That's the court's full understanding of the agreement of the parties. I'll start with you, Ms. Finney. Is that your understanding?

[00:22:46]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:22:47]>> Do you have any questions whatsoever regarding that?

[00:22:51]And I will ask this because of what occurred, you are satisfied with the efforts of your attorney in representing you today in this matter.

[00:23:02]>> Yes.

[00:23:03]>> All right, great.

[00:23:04]>> [clears throat] >> To the Sedoneys. Mrs. Sedoney, is that your understanding of the agreement?

[00:23:09]>> Yes.

[00:23:10]>> Do you have any questions regarding that agreement?

[00:23:12]>> No.

[00:23:13]>> And you are satisfied with that agreement?

[00:23:15]Mr. Sedoney, is that your >> This case serves as a powerful example of how courtroom outcomes are shaped by far more than just the underlying dispute. Throughout the hearing, the judge focused heavily on preparation, procedural compliance, credibility, and whether the arguments presented were supported by actual legal authority.

[00:23:35]Serious allegations were raised, requests for delays were denied, and tensions escalated when questions emerged about conflicting representations made during the case.

[00:23:44]Rather than proceeding through a potentially lengthy and uncertain trial, the parties ultimately reached a full settlement valued at $10,000 with structured payments and strict default provisions.

[00:23:55]The resolution allowed both sides to avoid the risks that come with continued litigation while bringing years of conflict to a close.

[00:24:03]One of the biggest lessons from this case is that timing matters, preparation matters, and credibility matters.

[00:24:09]Even strong claims can face challenges if they are raised too late or without sufficient support. In the end, the courtroom rewarded resolution over confrontation.

[00:24:19]If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.

[00:24:27]Thanks for watching, and we'll see you in the next case.