A woman who claimed she had a lease allowing her to remain in a million-dollar Michigan home walked into court arguing that she did not consent to the judge’s jurisdiction, only to reverse herself moments later when she realized that position meant the court did not have to listen to her at all.
Crime commentary YouTuber Cody “Donut” Garrett reviewed the unusual Ann Arbor-area housing dispute in a recent video, describing the woman, identified in court as Ms. Banks, as using tactics associated with the sovereign-citizen movement while trying to remain in a property that the plaintiff said she had no legal right to occupy.
Judge Simpson ultimately granted possession of the home to the plaintiff and authorized an eviction after 10 days, while also setting a $15,000-per-month bond if the matter was appealed. Garrett said Banks later failed to make the required payment and was no longer living in the home by the time his video was published.
Multiple Bankruptcies Had Already Complicated The Property
According to the courtroom footage featured by Garrett, the dispute involved a home in Ann Arbor worth roughly $1 million and a lengthy history of bankruptcy filings surrounding the property.
The plaintiff’s attorney told Judge Simpson that the Whitlows had purchased the property with a mortgage and defaulted less than a year later, after which proceedings began to recover possession.
Since then, the attorney said, multiple bankruptcy cases had been connected to the same address.
Ms. Whitlow allegedly filed two bankruptcy cases, while a young man who apparently lived in Arizona also filed a bankruptcy and listed the Michigan property as his residence.
Banks then filed her own bankruptcy case and listed the house as her residence as well.
The attorney also told the court that Banks had previously worked as a bankruptcy preparer but had been prohibited by the bankruptcy court from preparing cases for anyone other than herself.
Garrett immediately focused on that history, arguing that it made the succession of bankruptcy filings surrounding one property look especially suspicious.
The plaintiff asked for an immediate eviction, or no more than 11 days to vacate, and proposed that if Banks remained during further proceedings, she should be required to pay about $10,000 a month into escrow or as a bond.
Banks Says She Does Not Consent To The Court
When Banks began speaking, she told Judge Simpson that she was appearing “specially and conditionally” and claimed to have federally protected occupancy rights.
She then made the statement that quickly changed the tone of the hearing.
“I expressly do not consent to this court’s jurisdiction,” Banks said.
Judge Simpson responded that if she did not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, then there was little reason for him to hear from her, particularly because she was not a named party in the original case.
“Sit down,” the judge told her. “You can go.”
Banks immediately appeared to realize the problem.
After some confusion, she attempted to “recant” her earlier statement and indicated that she was willing to accept the court’s jurisdiction after all.
Judge Simpson was not interested in treating jurisdiction as something she could switch on and off depending on whether the court was willing to hear her argument.
Garrett found the exchange particularly amusing, joking that Banks seemed to believe she could simply take back her statement and reset the hearing once it stopped working in her favor.
Beyond the humor, however, the exchange exposed a basic problem with the tactic: someone asking a court to protect an alleged right cannot simultaneously insist that the court has no authority over them and expect the judge to decide the matter in their favor.
Her Alleged Lease Was With Someone Else
Once Banks continued, she said she had a lease and wanted to file an answer and counterclaim against the eviction action.
Judge Simpson focused on who had supposedly given her that lease.
Banks said her agreement was with the Whitlows.
The judge explained that even assuming such a contract existed, her potential claim would be against the people who gave her the lease, not necessarily against the plaintiff that was before the court seeking possession.
“There is no privity of contract,” Judge Simpson explained regarding the relationship Banks was trying to establish with the plaintiff.
When Banks insisted there was an actual lease, the judge replied that he did not know whether that was true because the alleged agreement had not been established before him.
Garrett was far less charitable.
He accused Banks of inventing a landlord and lease to remain in a house she did not own, although that was Garrett’s interpretation of the proceedings rather than a separate judicial finding shown in the clip.
Banks also referred to documents involving the Whitlows, but Judge Simpson said some material filed with the court was unsigned and that the Whitlows themselves had not appeared.
As far as the judge was concerned, any relief they were requesting could therefore be denied both procedurally and, where appropriate, on the merits.
Judge Simpson Explains Who Actually Owns The Home
Banks eventually asked for clarification, saying she wanted to make sure she understood whether her dispute was really with the Whitlows rather than the plaintiff.
Judge Simpson carefully avoided giving her legal advice.
He told her that she was the person claiming to have a contract with the Whitlows, so if she wanted to enforce that alleged contract, they were the people with whom she appeared to have the issue.
The plaintiff, meanwhile, had the right to possession of the property, according to the court.
That distinction effectively dismantled Banks’ attempt to use her supposed lease as a defense against the plaintiff’s claim.
A tenant can potentially have a legitimate grievance against someone who leased them property without the authority to do so, but that does not automatically create a right to keep another party’s property indefinitely. That appears to have been the practical problem Judge Simpson was trying to get across.
Banks said she finally understood and would speak with the Whitlows while continuing to communicate with a real-estate representative who had been visiting the property.
Judge Grants A 10-Day Eviction
After hearing the arguments, Judge Simpson granted the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case and entered judgment in its favor for possession.
He authorized an order of eviction to issue 10 days after the judgment was signed.
The plaintiff had previously suggested a bond equivalent to about $10,000 per month if Banks attempted to appeal and remain in the property during that process.
Judge Simpson decided that was too low.
After considering the property involved, which he described as substantial, he set the appeal bond at $15,000 per month.
Garrett reacted with surprise at the figure, noting that it reinforced just how valuable the house was.
Banks immediately objected that her supposed lease payments had not been anywhere near $15,000.
Judge Simpson replied that if the Whitlows wanted to appear and challenge his calculation, they could do so, but Banks herself did not have standing to object to the bond amount on their behalf.
That was essentially the final setback in a hearing where nearly every new argument Banks attempted led to another procedural problem.
Garrett Says She Ultimately Lost The Home
Garrett summarized the hearing as a failed attempt to use bankruptcy filings, an alleged lease and sovereign-citizen-style jurisdiction arguments to delay losing possession of a house.
He said Banks entered the proceeding appearing confident but left facing a 10-day eviction order and a $15,000 monthly requirement if she wanted to maintain an appeal.
According to Garrett, she did not ultimately keep the property.
He said that several weeks after the hearing, Banks failed to make the required monthly payment and was no longer living in the million-dollar home by the time his video was released.
Garrett’s presentation was highly mocking at times, but underneath the jokes was a fairly straightforward civil dispute: the plaintiff established its right to possession, while Banks could not show the court a legal relationship with that plaintiff that entitled her to remain.
Her claimed lease may have given her a potential dispute with the Whitlows, as Judge Simpson repeatedly explained, but it did not persuade the court to stop the eviction.
By the end of the hearing, the unconventional jurisdiction argument had accomplished little, the alleged lease had not defeated the plaintiff’s claim, and remaining in the house during an appeal would have required $15,000 every month.
The “massive reality check,” as Garrett framed it, was that saying a home is yours, listing it in bankruptcy paperwork or challenging a judge’s authority does not by itself establish a legal right to possess the property.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
