FAKE LAWYER is Back in Court and Judge DESTROYS Her!

In early 2025, Jgroup Holdings filed a complaint in an Oakland County, Michigan District Court seeking to recover possession of a residential property from occupants who had remained after the expiration of a lease agreement. The case involved a property that Jgroup Holdings had purchased during a foreclosure redemption period and the occupants who appeared to be members of the Stanfield family had signed a rental agreement allowing them to remain in the home while attempting to buy it back.
According to the plaintiff’s attorney, the lease had expired more than 60 days prior. The occupants had stopped paying rent, and the property was sustaining damage from unauthorized construction and landscaping that violated local ordinances. Our footage captures a March 2025 status conference where the presiding judge addresses a proc defendant who has repeatedly filed documents with improper captions, failed to properly serve opposing counsel, and attempted to file a notice of dismissal despite not being the plaintiff in the
action. >> Yeah, in this case, >> your honor, I’m not quite sure. Uh last time we appeared in the court, the court had advised the parties to all reserve all the documents that had been served uh because of some last pleadings the defendant filed. I haven’t received any additional pleadings from them.
We did file an answer to those pleadings. Uh, I do notice that there I pulled the docket today and there is as of today some reference to a dismissal with prejudice and I’m not quite sure what that would mean in this. Now the problem is and I don’t okay you’ve not received any documents that you attempted >> nothing nothing since the original uh delivery that I placed on the record >> at the last hearing I struck all of the documents that had been filed by the defendant in this case because she had changed the caption
They were to be refiled and served. >> They were not. >> Was that done, ma’am? >> Yes, we >> was that done, >> your honor. Um, first of all, we have not been >> ma’am, I asked a yes or no question. >> Yes, your honor. We served the plaintiff with the joiner we filed and in federal court we did.
The def the plaintiff did not send us any pleadings. I have not received any complaint. I have not received he has not followed the rule 5.108 108 of 7day notice that he has to give me. He is in violation of professional responsibility rules 7 and 8. We have not received any complaint or he cannot produce proof of service to us, your honor.
But we can provide proof of service that he was served by sheriff for federal claim. Let’s try this again. The last time that you were here, I told you that you had to improperly change the caption on the pleadings. I struck those pleadings, told you that you needed to refile them with the correct caption and served them on opposing council.
Yes. >> My sole question to you is Okay. >> Did you do that? >> Yes, your honor. >> Thank you. >> Did we get a new phone? >> Yeah. because they if she filed them and served them, they would be in my court file. And it’s odd. I don’t see new filings in my court. And I don’t see and council’s indicating he didn’t get it, but she’s telling me she didn’t.
So according to J answer a motion to dismiss was >> that was not by me your honor. >> Yes. Okay. I see that. But that was not the original. I have not seen that on here. I don’t >> I still have Carl Staffield on this case. >> The exchange reveals a fundamental breakdown in the most basic requirement of civil litigation, proper document filing.
At a previous hearing, the judge had struck all of the defendants’s pleadings because they contained an improper caption, meaning the heading on the documents did not correctly identify the parties or comply with Michigan Court Rule 2.113. The rule requires that every pleading contain a caption stating the names of all parties.
The court in which the case is pending and the case number. When the defendant changed the caption to add parties who were not part of the original case, the court struck those filings and explicitly ordered them to be refiled with the correct caption and properly served on the plaintiff’s attorney. What makes this moment particularly telling is that the defendant claims to have refiled and served the documents.
Yet, the plaintiff’s attorney has received nothing, and the court’s file contains no new filings matching the description. The judge’s tone shifts from patient inquiry to visible frustration as it becomes clear that the defendant either did not understand or chose not to follow the court’s prior directive. This procedural failure has real consequences.
Without properly filed and served pleadings, the defendant’s legal arguments cannot be considered by the court, no matter how meritorious they might be. >> And I don’t know why. >> Because he’s a residence, too. that he needs to properly join the case. [clears throat] I I don’t He did it again. You the caption you just changed. >> May I speak?>> Yeah, go ahead.
You did the same thing we did the last time. And may I show this to your >> No, this >> you did the same thing. >> No, no. This uh notice to appear is only addressed by the plaintiff for my daughter only who is out of town and we received it in the mail yesterday. And it does doesn’t even have my name on it. Who filed this dismissal? >> We did. I did.
>> You’re not the plaintiff. >> I’m a counter plaintiff. >> Then how do you give me a notice of dismissal regarding this case? >> That was not signed. >> I’m sorry. [clears throat] You filed a dismissal of the case under the section notice of dismissal by plaintiff. You are not the plaintiff. >> I am a count of plaintiff.
I am not accepting any of these pleadings until you get the caption right. I’m not accepting these sort of random documents coming in as a dismissal, a notice of dismissal. The only thing that you would be entitled to dismiss would be to the extent you believe you have a counter claim, that’s the only thing you’re going to dismiss.
You can’t dismiss his claim. >> Yes, sir. >> May I May I say one more thing, please? >> My grandmama died and we are flying out of US next week to attend the funeral. If you want to, >> I’m not going to allow you to continue to to delay these matters through some improper procedures that you’re employing.
I’m not I’m not going to let that happen. My condolences on your loss, but I I am not going to just continue to lay this matter out to have you continue to do the same thing. >> What am I doing wrong, your honor? I have already told you what you’re doing wrong. If you don’t think you’re doing anything wrong, then maybe you need to get an attorney.
>> The defendant’s attempt to file a notice of dismissal exposes another critical procedural error. She filed the document using a form titled notice of dismissal by plaintiff. But as the judge immediately recognizes, the defendant is not the plaintiff. She’s the party being sued. This distinction matters tremendously under Michigan law.
Here’s why that matters legally. Under Michigan Court Rule 2504, only a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss their own complaint under certain circumstances, typically before the opposing party has answered or moved for summary disposition. This unilateral dismissal right belongs exclusively to the party who initiated the lawsuit.
A defendant who has filed a counter claim may dismiss that counter claim, but cannot dismiss the plaintiff’s original claim against them. The form the defendant used explicitly states it’s for dismissal by plaintiff. yet she filed it attempting to dismiss the entire case. The judge’s observation that you can’t dismiss his claim cuts to the heart of the issue.
Procedural rules exist to maintain order and fairness. Even with a legitimate personal hardship, her grandmother’s death, the court cannot permit a defendant to unilaterally terminate a plaintiff’s lawsuit through an improper filing. >> If I may, your honor, briefly, just briefly, this is not a rent case, your honor. This is termination of teny.
the the lease has been up for 60 days. She’s staying in there. There was an escrow order that was filed. To our knowledge, she hasn’t paid the rent. To our knowledge, she didn’t pay the jury fee. To our knowledge, all these things have happened and my cl my client is being prejudiced by the moment here. Um there’s damage occurring to the premises.
There was construction and landscaping that was violative of the city ordinances and the HOA standards. We have the the a witness here today to testify that the property is being damaged as we speak and and we need >> what way >> there’s significant runoff and uh sediment runoff. the the back fill was backfilled four feet to five feet to more over the base of the trees in the backyard and that’s been that way for some time.
The fact of the matter is she’s had more than I’m defer to the court of course but she’s had more than an opport she’s filed this federal suit. She’s doing everything possible to delay our occupancy and I just don’t think it’s equitable or right. It’s up course your decision judge. Oh, I know. >> She knows well what she’s doing to buy time here.
And she served all these pleadings. She claims she doesn’t have an attorney. I read the pleadings. They were drafted by somebody other than her. It appears she hasn’t followed one rule. She hasn’t served me once correctly. The person that’s named in incorrect caption isn’t even a tenant on the lease. I don’t know where they came from here, but they’re nonparty.
My clients had to pay me to come in here and deal with all this sort of thing. And I’m just we have they filed a they’ve joined us in a federal case that names almost verbatim the same cause of action that’s named in this very counter claim that the court struck and apparently dismissed with prejudice. All I would ask the court is that we I possibly could get a if she wants to appeal this and I would pretty much betshe’s going to when the time comes.
Let’s get that process started if at all the court would would go along with us. Let’s get a judgment for possession. We can give them a little extra time if they want to put in the appeal period and get us our our judgment and then she can do what she’s going to do anyway when she gets her day in court. According to her, she’s been here three times.
I’ve traveled from from Oakland County. >> I’m sorry to hear that. >> Three different Yeah, me too. >> Three different times to be here. Judge, none of what she files makes any sense. [laughter] And it’s just not right on my client’s behalf to let my client continue to suffer while they occupy the prem premises without any >> consideration.
She’s going to appeal this if we win, and we probably will. Point being, let her appeal. Let’s get that process started if that’s what she’s going to do. Thank you, judge, for listening. Yes. >> Okay, good. >> I want to answer. >> Go ahead. >> Your client, sir. >> No, you will address me. >> Okay. I I apologize. His client, your honor, is a lone shark who bought our property in a redemption period and signed an agreement to let us buy this house back from him.
We are ready to [clears throat] go ahead buy this house back. But while this his client was owning this place in last nine months, the the Bartum Village put a lean on the property. Now we cannot get a mortgage because they have a lean on the property. >> And what by him in this court trying to put me down because I’m representing myself is also another violation of you.
>> You need to talk to me. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Your honor, we have served everything. This gentleman cannot provide one proof of service to this court. We He gives us papers last minute. We received this in the mail yesterday. He did not serve us properly. >> That was the escrow order only. >> Okay. I’m sorry.
Please don’t interrupt me. Thank you very much. I didn’t interrupt you when you speak. Extend me the same courtesy. Okay. This lone shark and his attorney are trying to >> Are you almost done? >> Yes. To to take us out of our home and they put a lean on that house. So now we can’t even get a loan to purchase the pro mortgage to purchase the property because it has a loan.
Now he’s asking us to for the possession. We paid the rent, but the rental agreement is over. We want to buy the house. The lean doesn’t let us buy the house. Your honor, >> I would ask for one brief moment to respond to that if the court wishes. >> The competing narratives illustrate how the same facts can be characterized entirely differently depending on perspective.
According to the plaintiff’s attorney, this is a straightforward case of a tenant holding over after lease expiration, refusing to pay rent, and damaging the property through unauthorized construction. The attorney emphasizes the federal lawsuit, naming the same claims as the stricken counter claim, suggesting a strategy of forum shopping and delay.
The defendant counters with allegations that Jroup Holdings is a lone shark that purchased the property during the foreclosure redemption period and agreed to let the occupants buy it back. Under Michigan foreclosure law, when a property is sold at a sheriff’s sale, the original owner typically has a six-month redemption period to reclaim it by paying the sale price plus costs.
During that period, buyers sometimes enter agreements allowing former owners to remain as tenants while attempting to secure financing. The defendant claims a lean placed on the property by Bon Vage, likely referring to a municipal lean for code violations has made it impossible to obtain a mortgage to repurchase the home.
What both sides agree on is that the rental relationship has ended and the property is in dispute. >> Why? Why? Why are we doing this? >> Okay, so here’s what happened. I told you what I was going to do. >> You wanted to talk, then you wanted to respond and now you want to go back and you want us guys want to spend all day going back and forth.
Tell you what, we can put you over there on the side. I can handle all these other people’s cases so they don’t have to sit through this. I’m required to and you guys can just go back and forth and then I’m going to do what I was going to do 5 minutes ago. >> Thank you, J. >> Hearing nothing else. March 21st, 2025, 2 p.m.
You get the pleadings right or get an attorney in here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Judge. Ma’am, you’re not gonna yell when you’re in here. You’re not going to whisper under your voice. I don’t operate that way. Understood. No. Understood. I heard you all the way up here. Have a great weekend. >> Thank you, Judge. Can you give me Can you go out there and just make sure they know like >> the judge’s eruption represents the breaking point when procedural chaos threatens to consume limited judicial resources.
The observation that you guys want to spend all day going back and forth captures the essential problemwith allowing endless rounds of argument when the underlying issue remains unresolved. The defendant has not complied with the court’s prior orders regarding proper pleading requirements. The directive to get the pleadings right or get an attorney in here reflects a practical reality of self-representation.
While parties have an absolute right to represent themselves under the Sixth Amendment in criminal cases and under common law in civil matters, that right comes with the obligation to follow the same rules that bind attorneys. Courts cannot provide special accommodations or relaxed procedural standards for proc litigants without fundamentally undermining the adversarial system.
The final courtroom management moment addressing the defendant’s whispered comment demonstrates the judge’s broader concern with maintaining decorum and respect for the judicial process. The comment that I heard you all the way up here serves both as a mild reprimand and a reminder that courtrooms operate under rules of civility that apply equally to all participants.
The March 21st, 2025 hearing proceeded as scheduled. Public records do not reflect the final disposition of this matter, though the case likely either proceeded to trial if the defendant complied with filing requirements and obtained counsel or resulted in a default judgment for the plaintiff if she did not. The fundamental issue, whether Jgroup Holdings is entitled to possession of the property, remains a factual question that can only be resolved through proper pleadings, discovery, and presentation of evidence. This case illustrates the
critical importance of procedural compliance in civil litigation. While substantive legal issues, the validity of the rental agreement, the existence of any buyback agreement, the nature of property damage certainly matter, those questions cannot even reach the merit stage without proper adherence to filing requirements. Michigan court rule 2.
113 establishes caption requirements not as arbitrary formalism, but as a mechanism to ensure clarity about who is suing whom, what court has jurisdiction, and what case number applies. When pleadings are filed with improper captions, clerks cannot properly docket them, opposing parties cannot respond to them, and courts cannot rule on them.
The striking of improperly filed pleadings serves an essential gatekeeping function. It ensures that all parties operate within the same framework of rules, preventing chaos that would result if each litigant could invent their own filing procedures. The defendant’s repeated attempts to circumvent these requirements by adding unauthorized parties to captions, filing dismissal notices she had no right to file, and claiming service that apparently never occurred, demonstrate why courts must enforce procedural rules consistently,
even when doing so seems harsh in individual cases.