so this is part of my letter to the Michigan tenure comm based on judges refusal to hear my defense

During a recent hearing, on 12/11/2024, case no. 24-0908-GC. I was subjected to further injustice when I attempted to present my defense. Despite my repeated attempts to speak. The judge continually interrupted me, preventing me from presenting my case. When I requested the opportunity to talk and finish, the judge responded curtly, “NO, THIS IS MY COURT!!,” I am unfamiliar with such a court, and this brings to question jurisdiction and the rules and law that “THIS IS MY COURT” are operating under. The judge’s statement confirms denying me the fundamental right to present my defense. This type of dismissive and disrespectful treatment calls into question the fairness of the proceedings and undermines my rights to due process as guaranteed under both the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. 14, § 1).

When presenting my defense, I cited both relevant law and case law to demonstrate the Plaintiff's legal obligation to prove standing. Specifically, I noted that while the Plaintiff may present an affidavit as prima facie evidence of the debt, they have failed to provide the necessary documentation to establish ownership of the debt at time of filing the legal action which is a fundamental requirement under Michigan law (MCL 440.3302) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Without evidence such as an assignment, bill of sale, or forward flow agreement, the Plaintiff cannot establish standing to pursue this case.

Under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)), a "debt collector" is defined as any person or entity that regularly collects debts owed to others. The FDCPA mandates that debt collectors prove ownership or assignment of the debt before initiating legal action. The Plaintiff’s attorney in these cases, are a debt collector under the FDCPA, and are required to provide evidence of standing before proceeding. This requirement was affirmed in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), where the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that attorneys acting as debt collectors are bound by the FDCPA’s documentation requirements.

Moreover, I pointed out that the FDCPA mandates the Plaintiff to provide debt validation, including proof of ownership. The failure to present such evidence undermines their legal right to collect the debt. The Plaintiff must file supporting documentation, such as a forward flow agreement, bill of sale, or assignment agreement, at the time of filing the lawsuit, as required under both Michigan law (MCL 440.3302 et seq.) and federal law (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.). However, the judge dismissed all my argument without due consideration, dismissing it as the Judge stated that it was “Neither Here nor There.” When I sought clarification on this critical issue, the judge ignored my request entirely, effectively denying me the opportunity to address a fundamental legal matter that is central to my defense.

This conduct not only undermines my right to a fair hearing but also violates my constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Michigan’s procedural rules (MCR 2.111, MCR 2.313). The failure to allow me to present and address this essential legal argument constitutes a deprivation of my fundamental rights and an unjust impediment to the fair resolution of these cases.

The ongoing mishandling of these cases has resulted in considerable physical and emotional hardship, further exacerbating my condition as a disabled veteran. These cases are not merely a legal matter—it has become a personal crisis, and the court's failure to ensure fairness has inflicted significant harm. I respectfully request that your office investigate this matter without delay.