At this point in time, it appeared to Barbara during the trial was that anything that could show that she was a REASONNABLE person was not included into EVIDENCE, but if she decided to testify on her own behalf anything against her could be probed and she could and would be labeled a sovereign citizen engaging in equity stripping, for example.
A major issue with this is first, what a person or their family does with the equity in their home is their business. It does not mean that they’re a criminal or have bad intentions if they use or move around equity in a home that rightfully belongs to them. The judge also allowed and stated Barbara’s payment history was probative. But the prosecution only focused on the missed payments Barabara was told by the lending companies to miss. The prosecution then made it seem like because there was no money left after Barbara used all of it, so that is why she stopped making payments.
This ALL was highly PREJUDICIAL.
