Couverture de Bards, Rise!, February 26, 2026

Bards, Rise!, February 26, 2026

Bards, Rise!, February 26, 2026

Écouter gratuitement

Voir les détails

À propos de ce contenu audio

 Bards, Rise! with host Michael Deem The Fight for Property Rights: Federal Land Patent (Legal Title) vs. Sheriff's Deed (Equitable Title) Bards, Rise!: The Battle for Freedom Defending constitutional property rights against systemic foreclosure, and legislative and judicial corruption. Mode B: Editorial Abstract 🎙️ The Case: Mike & Leah Dalton "They took garbage bags and just started dumping... Tables scratched, TVs in the parking lot. They didn't even honor the leases for our daughters' coffee shop." •The Eviction: Forced removal from a custom-built home (20 years) and a community school building by Choice One Bank. •Judicial Conflict: Allegations of ex parte communications between Magistrate Ray Kent's chambers and bank attorneys. •Systemic Crisis: 40,500 foreclosures recorded in the U.S. in January 2026 alone. ⚖️ Legal Doctrine Primary Claim Federal Land Patent Title Type Legal Title vs. Equitable Title Key Arguments: LAW: 7th Amendment: Right to a common law trial by jury, not a "mixed court of law and equity." PRECEDENT: Fenn v. Holme: Federal constitution and courts recognize the distinction between legal and equitable jurisdiction, claims and remedies, and honor those distinctions in proper cases. DEFENSE Caveat Lendor: Lenders must perform due diligence; equity cannot trump a federal land patent. #PropertyRights #CommonLaw #LegalTitle #JudicialReform #ImpeachRayKent Action Required: Contact federal representatives to investigate Case 26CV00163. Duration: 112 min Target: Property Owners & Activists In this episode of Bards, Rise!, host Michael Deem joins Mike and Leah Dalton to discuss their high-stakes legal battle against ChoiceOne Bank. The discussion centers on the use of Federal Land Patents to claim superior legal title which cannot be attacked in a court of law, by equitable title. If a state gives you a mixed court of law and equity, it's violating your Seventh Amendment rights and setting you up for failure. The mortgagee (bank) will win and you will lose your home. Detailed Summary of Proceedings The State Court Conflict and Jurisdictional Silencing The Daltons' struggle began in Michigan state court, where they faced foreclosure on two properties: a community school building and their custom-built home. During these summary proceedings, the Daltons were largely prevented from speaking because they were not licensed attorneys representing their LLC, despite being the holders of the federal land patent and the warranty deed. They argued that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because their claim involved a federal land patent, which they believe requires a common law trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment. However, the presiding judges repeatedly ignored their motions to dismiss and their demands for a strictly common law venue, instead proceeding within a "mixed" court of law and equity that favors the bank's equitable title. Title Classification Comparison Equitable Title Mortgages, Sheriff's Deeds, and Bank Liens. Subject to foreclosure in equity courts. Federal Land Patent is unassailable in a court of law. A special type of equity comes in the aid of legal title and prevents equitable titles from attacking / challenging a federal land patent (legal title). Derived from Federal Land Patents. Claimed as superior, unassailable legal title "forever." As argued in Case Law: Fenn v. Holme & Wilcox v. Jackson Federal Litigation and Allegations of Judicial Bias Moving the fight to the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Case 26CV00163), the Daltons filed a First Amended Complaint seeking to eject the bank and quiet their legal title. The plaintiffs allege significant procedural irregularities, including an ex parte communication where the bank's attorney reportedly knew the court's jurisdictional ruling before it was issued. Host Michael Deem has called for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Ray Kent, accusing the court of acting in "bad faith" by mischaracterizing the Daltons' pro se filings and denying three separate requests for Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) that would have stayed their evictions. The Physical Impact: Eviction and Community Loss The human cost of the legal battle manifested in the abrupt eviction from the Daltons' community center. Despite previous assurances that tenants—including the Daltons' daughters' coffee shop—could remain, the bank changed the locks and reportedly "ransacked" the building, dumping personal property and business equipment into the parking lot in garbage bags. The Daltons are now facing a final eviction deadline for their primary residence, a custom home they built 20 years ago, which is scheduled for March 2, 2026. Despite these losses, the Daltons claim they have received multiple "offers to deal" from bank representatives and realtors, which they interpret as a sign that the bank is desperate to avoid a final ruling on the validity of the land patent. Property Status Dashboard ...
Aucun commentaire pour le moment