[00:00] Speaker 1: (instrumental music plays) Welcome, folks. Welcome, welcome, welcome to another episode of Barbs Rise. I'm your host, Michael Deem. And, again, with us tonight are very special guests, Mike and Leah Dalton. You guys want to say hello?

[02:00] Speaker 2: Hi, Michael.

[02:01] Speaker 3: Hey, Michael.

[02:03] Speaker 1: Great to be with you guys again on the air. Um, so first, a little housekeeping to, to the audience. Uh, I apologize for not having shows the last two weeks, but I was out of the country for a little while, and, uh, I knew that was coming, but I was trying to, to somehow get more to you guys and I just couldn't, so I apologize for that. But now, we're set for the foreseeable future. We have some, uh, banner shows lined up for you. Tonight, we're planning to go for two hours, and we don't know if we're going to, uh, have to switch to a different channel. Uh, if we do, I'll let you guys know. I'm sorry, a different station. So, right now, uh, we're on station one for BBS. BBS has two stations, so we may have to switch to station two for the second hour, and that's what I'll let you guys know about. Also, BBS is trying to support, uh, a fairly late request from me to try and, and hang certain documents that had been filed in the federal court for you guys to follow along with.

[03:08] Speaker 1: If not, you can just, you know, listen to this show again once you do have the documents, because eventually they will be hanging on the show page for this episode, right? Um, for most of my episodes, most of the shows, we have either handouts or something like that for you guys to follow along, so look for them. It's just a, a, a sm- a small little link. You may skip it, uh, but most of them have it. So, tonight, we're gonna pick up where we left off on the last show. I believe it was January 29th. February 5th, we had the beautiful Saskia with us, uh, interviewed her about, uh, some personal enhancement stuff, and now we're gonna pick up where we left off with the, the homesteading process. Um, for the last show, we talked about the one court date that Mike and Leah had with respect to one of their properties, the school. They weren't allowed to even speak because they weren't attorneys and they could not represent the defendant. In that case, LNM Family Investments, LLC.

[04:12] Speaker 1: So, uh, ju- just think about that. Uh, they're the one that signed the mortgage, but Mike and Leah are the ones that hold the federal land patent. They are the ones whose name is on the warranty deed, but yet somehow, that's not even considered and Choice One Bank winds up with the property because of the procedures in Michigan. And we're gonna talk about that in more detail hopefully tonight. So, uh, Mike and Leah, before we get started, any, uh, initial comments?

[04:47] Speaker 2: Nope, I think we're, we're ready to get started.

[04:50] Speaker 1: Okay, good. Uh, so go ahead. Take us now to that second hearing that you had in state court for their house. The, the bank had already foreclosed and now, own the property, so they considered, um, the redemption period had ended and the sheriff's deed matured to an actual deed that they can enforce now in state court in a summary proceeding and have you evicted from the house. That's what was on the line at this proceeding that you're gonna tell us about. Go ahead.

[05:26] Speaker 2: Uh, so that was on, uh, February 5th, and that was, um, in person. Well, we'd been in person for all of them, but the, the attorney for Choice One Bank was there along with, um, he brought two others, so that was the first time that he was in person. The other ones, he was on a Zoom. Um, and so we started it off. They kind of (laughs) , we started it off and they ins- n- the way they did it before is we would, we were able to stand up and say our name and then we were gonna be able to go right into what we needed to say. Well, they said it, they did it differently this time, and they just said, "Are you Mike?" And then, "Are you Leah?" And then we, and then they went right into the hearing. And-... Mike was... Go ahead, what you were gonna say.

[06:13] Speaker 2: You wanted to-

[06:14] Speaker 3: Yeah. I just said I wanted to... I was gonna just tell him I wanted the court to take judicial notice.

[06:19] Speaker 2: Okay.

[06:19] Speaker 3: Um, I was gonna tell him, you know, we have a federal complaint filed, um, and they have a form that they filled out when they filed this lawsuit against us, and it said that... There was a box to check that there's no other pending cases, um, with... Th- that has something to do with, with this matter, and it actually... There was one. We had filed a, a case, a federal case, so there actually were. That, that statement was false. There were actually two suits, one in state court, one in federal court, that we had filed, and, um, we asked them to, you know, take knowledge of that, and they, they, they basically said, "Well, can have two," (laughs) "two court cases, I guess, at one time." They, they didn't really seem to, to care, but I... And I'm trying to argue saying, "Well, this box says one thing. This is your State of Michigan form. It says, right here, do... Yes or no?" Why... I mean, basically, why do they ask that? Then if they don't...

[07:20] Speaker 3: If they're not gonna acknowledge that, why is that question even on the State of Michigan form when you're filing a, a complaint or a, you know, a lawsuit?

[07:28] Speaker 2: But they started the... I mean, they went right ahead, and they started. They brought their witness before we could even say anything, and they brought their witness up, and she started talking, and then that's when, you know, Mike tried to object. (laughs)

[07:43] Speaker 3: (laughs) Yeah.

[07:44] Speaker 2: Um, I'm trying to think what else. Uh, before that, we also tried to discuss the motion to dismiss, um, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that was supposed to take place on the pr- uh, what's it called?

[08:04] Speaker 3: Pre-trial.

[08:05] Speaker 2: The pre-, the pre-trial, um, which was in January, and they ignored it. The judge ignored it then, and he wouldn't even let... So when you said that he... What did he say? Um, Michael, what did he say-

[08:19] Speaker 3: I can't remember-

[08:19] Speaker 2: ... the judge?

[08:19] Speaker 3: ... exactly.

[08:24] Speaker 2: Noth- Are you there, Michael?

[08:26] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. I was muted.

[08:28] Speaker 2: That's okay.

[08:28] Speaker 1: Yeah, the judge said that he wanted to first hear the evidence, or something to that effect.

[08:33] Speaker 2: Yeah.

[08:33] Speaker 1: And it was kinda like... To, to me, it was putting the cart before the horse. I mean, here you have two people saying you don't have subject matter jurisdiction, and so he should at least acknowledge the, the motion in some way, and he could just say, "No, it's denied." Um, but he never actually ruled on the motion. It was just completely ignored. And if there was ever an example of a kangaroo court, you know, this would be it, kangaroo court in the sense that you really... The court doesn't care what you, the defendant, have to say. You know? Um, I remember watching some, some Western years ago, and you have the corrupt sheriff up there talking to the good guy who's trying to do the right thing, and he says, you know, a- as he's in- uh, putting him under arrest, the corrupt sheriff says, "We're gonna give you a first-class trial, followed by a first-class hanging." In other words (laughs) , the... It's fait accompli.

[09:29] Speaker 1: And that was certainly the case with you guys, as I was watching it. But anyway, sorry for the long-winded response. Please, go ahead.

[09:37] Speaker 2: Yeah. No, so we had... I mean, the thing is, is we had all this paperwork, too, that supported the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That was all turned into the court, but he didn't even... Yeah, he didn't even look at it at all. Um, and then they, they went right into their case and, you know... And then we tried, um, objecting, and then, and then I kinda interrupted him a couple times. (laughs) Um, but the other thing that we wanted to do is we wanted to invoke our Seventh Amendment common law right to a trial by jury. And so, if you wouldn't mind, Michael, I do have the transcript in front of me, and I just wanted to kind of read what I said.

[10:24] Speaker 1: Oh, please do. Oh, and I just have to say this. What... Folks, what you're about to hear doesn't do justice to the emotions in her voce, her voice, the tone. I mean, she was an absolute powerhouse when she was saying this. So, go ahead, Alita.

[10:41] Speaker 2: Okay. So, I just said that I... That we would like to invoke our Seventh Amendment common law right to a trial by jury or demanding an ex- exclusive common law trial by jury, as the US Supreme Court has held repeatedly that we are entitled to, and not in a mixed court of law and equity. We are demanding an exclusive common law trial by jury, as the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that we are both entitled to. And then they went on to say, "Oh, you had the right to a trial by jury. And you, you know, you denied it," you know?

[11:19] Speaker 2: And then we said-

[11:21] Speaker 1: Wait.

[11:21] Speaker 2: ... no. Go ahead.

[11:23] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, 'cause they did give you the opportunity to request a jury, but for them it was a, a... It would have been a jury trial by a court sitting in mixed law and equity, like you just explained. Right? And they never even touched your demand for a strictly common law trial.

[11:46] Speaker 2: Yup. And so then I went on to say, just like that, that this is a mixed court of law and equity, and we're asking our constitutional rights be heard, and in Fenn v Home, it states that the plaintiff's inejectment must, in all cases, prove a legal title. Clearly, federal courts recognize the distinction between legal and equitable jurisdiction. This distinction is crucial if our Seventh Amendment rights are protected. We have the right to a trial by jury under common law. Equity does not trump our constitutional rights.

[12:22] Speaker 2: And then the judge says, "Do you know the difference between law and equity?" And I said, "I do."

[12:29] Speaker 4: He says, "Okay." And I said, "In a sheriff's deed, it's equitable title. We have allodial title, and allodial title is the highest form of titles. And in Weber v. Pere Marquette, it states, 'Patents issued by the US are in general unassailable, and an action at law. They cannot be attacked, questioned, or defeated.' And this is a collateral attack against our patent." Clearly, Mr. the attorney, doesn't understand, and even in his argument, he said allodial title doesn't exist. And I said, "Show us where allodial title doesn't exist. It's clear in case law in the Supreme Court. Case law after case law proves that allodial title does exist. It's we've forgotten about it. And this court can't even hear it. And that's what we're asking. We're asking to be heard in a court that can actually hear it." And he just said, "Thank you, ma'am. All right." And then he just ... That was it.

[13:35] Speaker 4: He (laughs) he di-

[13:36] Speaker 3: Basically said there's no-

[13:37] Speaker 4: (laughs)

[13:37] Speaker 3: ... there's no, no written, uh, demand for a jury trial, uh, prior to the court date. So basically, he said, "Okay, sorry."

[13:47] Speaker 4: Yep. (laughs)

[13:48] Speaker 1: Yeah, but see, a- and that's why I say he never even touched your request, right? The other judge talked about it a little bit. He said, "This is a court of mixed law and equity." Uh, so you got him to, to budge a little bit. But this one didn't even touch it. He was just saying, "No, you waived your, your, uh, right to a jury trial, because you didn't ask for it way back when." But it, it, it doesn't matter, because he, his jurisdiction is set by statute. He can't say, "Well, you know what? Today, I'm not gonna wear the equity hat. We're gonna do just law today." He can't do that. So your request, if you had submitted a request, it would have been futile, because you would not have been given a common law trial by jury. Or, or, a, a jury, uh, excuse me, a trial by jury in a court of law. You would have gotten a trial in a court of mixed law and equity, and that's the key to all this, folks.

[14:45] Speaker 1: Because under federal law, right, the federal land patent cannot be attacked by equitable title or lesser titles. They used to have, I think, adverse possession, and then there were, uh, ways of getting property from prior countries that had property, et cetera. And it got to be a little complicated, but i- if the federal government issued a land patent for a specific piece of property, that was it. Nobody can ta- take that from you. Not even ... And it, and there's a Supreme Court that says this. I, I think it's Hooper v. Shemer, it's in our papers, that says even if you borrowed money to buy a piece of land and then that person who lent you the money, or bank, tried to foreclose on it, they can't foreclose on your property if you hold a federal land patent, because that mortgage is equitable title. Sheriff's deed is equitable title, and equity does not trump a federal land patent.

[15:52] Speaker 1: So what you have here is, you know, I, I guess what all states are doing, and now I better understand this one political cartoon that I saw a while back, where you saw, where you see President Andrew Jackson a- with a sword in his hand, fighting off this multi-headed snake. And one of 'em was, you know, the, uh, uh, the central banks. But then the smaller heads, it had the names of various states on it. Because the states were coming after him, were supporting the banks, right? The banks had co-opted the state governments. But he's, he was representing the federal government. The federal government was trying to keep them at bay. Well, obviously, you know, Andrew Jackson can't live forever, and they eventually got the White House too. And what Mike and Leah are fighting now is the result of that, that the banks control the state governments. And the state government is the one that abrogated the common law right of ejectment, which they should have been able to seek in state court.

[16:59] Speaker 1: Um, can't do that, not in state court anymore. They got rid of the, uh, equitable claim of, to quiet title. That's actually an equitable claim, but it's a special type of equity where equity comes in to protect the legal rights. It comes in to protect the legal title, the federal land patent. Because in that type of a claim, you're not allowed to attack the federal land patent with lesser titles, equitable titles. So the State of Michigan got rid of that, and then they made it so that you cannot get, uh, a common law court or a court of law strictly. They made it so that you are always in a mixed court of law and equity, so that the banks can always attack your federal land patent. And, uh, before we go on, I just want to throw out there, right, because something I've been knocking around for a while, and people say, "Well, that's not right. You know, how can people fix their houses if they don't get mortgages, et cetera?" And I say, "Well, think about it.

[18:08] Speaker 1: If you know that you can't get the entire property back if you loan money, you're gonna come up with more reasonable terms, right?" You're not gonna make it so that if they fail that, y- you know, you're gonna get a windfall. There's stories out there of houses being closed on for, like, $100, $200, $300. It's ridiculous.Absolutely ridiculous. But that's the system that we're in. And that's because, I submit, that the banks are controlling the state governments, and the state governments make, you know, sweet, hard deals like this legislation that Mike and Leah are now dealing with. So, I'm sorry, again. Uh, I tend to get, uh, long-winded sometimes. But I just want people to understand what you're going through and why you're going through some of this stuff. So, go ahead. Um, did you guys want to make any comments on that, or just pick up where you left off?

[19:02] Speaker 3: I think that, um, going back to what you just said about ... 'Cause I've had that same thing. A lot of people have asked me, "So, yeah, Mike, if, uh ... How are you gonna, how are you gonna get your house, how are you gonna build your house? How are you gonna buy a house? How are you gonna remodel it, update it, if you don't use the banks, you know?" And that's a really good point that you had, and that is, that is so true. They would make it a little bit more flexible, so i- if people a- are going through some hard times, some hard periods. But to just take your house after, you know, two, three months of not payment, n- non-payment, that's, that's, that's a little tough. I think that, that they would try to adjust things a little bit.

[19:40] Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, everything they do is lined up to pay that, right? You pay back the interest first, before the principal, you know?

[19:48] Speaker 3: Right.

[19:48] Speaker 1: Just little stuff like that. It's, it's just absurd. It's absolutely one-sided. So, our state legis-

[19:56] Speaker 3: Sure, and I, I mean-

[19:56] Speaker 1: Go ahead.

[19:56] Speaker 3: Go ahead. Sorry.

[19:58] Speaker 1: No, please.

[19:59] Speaker 3: I was just saying, I just had a, a guy call me this last week and told me that they know what we're doing, and he's fired up too, and he just said that his son paid two years on a house. He built a house, paid two years, and he's paid like $36,000 and only $2,000 of it has gone towards principal in the first two years. Like, it's, it's, it's tough. That's, that's a lot of money just to pay out just for you letting me borrow money.

[20:22] Speaker 5: And the cost of housing right now, it's ridiculous.

[20:26] Speaker 3: It is.

[20:26] Speaker 5: And, like, first home, you know, buyers, you know, the, the younger generation, they can't even afford ... They can't afford to move out.

[20:33] Speaker 3: No. (laughs)

[20:35] Speaker 5: So ...

[20:35] Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and let's go back into history, right? I mean, the West was settled b- by, by folks just wanting a, uh, uh, you know, the American dream: a house, a little piece of land where they can grow their own food, et cetera, and just be left alone. And that's what it was. But little by little, over the last, you know, 150, 200 years, that's been eroded by these banks just taking over one house after another. And now we find out that, at least I found out, that y- you have these major, uh, corporations, like BlackRock and, you know, State Street or, or s- uh, um, there's another one too, they're the ones that are buying the vast majority of these single family homes. Which is why President Trump came out and said, "People live in houses, not corporations." And he's looking to, from my understanding, looking to put a kibosh on all that and get people back in homes with more favorable terms.

[21:33] Speaker 1: So, this was the policy of the country at the founding of the, of the nation, and it's the policy now with the Trump Administration. But somewhere in between, we lost our way. And then there's one other thing I want to put out there, because I know I had the same issue, right? It took me a while to get my head around this. I know people are saying, "Well, that's not right. You made a deal. Uh, you know, you signed those papers and you owe them money, and ..." Yada, yada, yada. I'm with you. I got that. But if you go and you do the research, and you'll find this principle in law that's well-settled, and it's called caveat emptor, Latin for buyer beware. Because you may wind up getting into a bad deal, right? So, do your due diligence, do your homework, make sure you know what you're buying, the quality, the service, you know, contract, all of that stuff. Because if it winds up y- you know, not being what you thought, well, that's your- that's on you.

[22:35] Speaker 1: Well, I submit that this very same thing is for lenders. Let the lender beware. They should have known way back ... It's no secret that the Northwest Territory was, you know, basically sold to, to people in order to pay for the war debt that we had just finished, the Civ- uh, the Revolution, right? So, it should be no surprise that there are plenty of federal land patents. And you mentioned two cases in there, Fenn v. Holm, Leah, when you were talking. Fenn v. Holm is a great US Supreme Court case. It's about, I don't know, 150, no, uh, closer to 180, 190 years old. Well, it's still good law. The Constitution is even older than that, and we still rely on that. That still controls. Supreme Court decisions are, are good until the Supreme Court changes it, or Congress passes a statute, or we pass a Constitutional amendment. It's the only way that they wind up being not good. And nothing superseded that decision in Fenn v. Holm. And then there's another one that you mentioned, Weber v.

[23:44] Speaker 1: Marquette. That's a Michigan Supreme Court decision, and that's the one that, you know, that says ... Th- it's basically in line with federal court decisions, the US Supreme Court. Nothing surpasses a patent. So, this is no surprise. And that case alone, I think, is like 100 years old, or, or 150 years old. So, this is nothing new. So, I understand folks today say, "You know, this, this doesn't seem right." Do the research. Do the legal research. You'll find that if a buyer or a lender, I submit, um, doesn't do their due diligence, and they wind up basically holding a bag of bad eggs, bad apples, well, that's on them. Bad choice, bad decision. You shouldn't have made that deal. So, sour grapes as far as I'm concerned. Too bad. Let all the banks go bankrupt.... right? Get people back in their homes, you don't have to pay them back anything. And then President Trump will figure out a way to where we can take care of our own homes. I'm sorry.

[24:49] Speaker 1: I, I tend to get on a sop- soapbox, because this stuff is really, really important to me. It means a lot. So please, go ahead, uh, any comments on what I just said-

[24:58] Speaker 2: Oh.

[24:58] Speaker 1: ... or you wanna continue what you-

[24:58] Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean, that's-

[24:59] Speaker 1: Go ahead.

[25:00] Speaker 2: ... we agree too. That's why it, it's so important to us, um, to fight this, because of the corruption. It's so deep. And if you do, like Michael just said, if you start researching, you're gonna see how deep it really is. Um, and that's what our goal is, is to... We just, you know, we've said this on other sh- other shows, we wanna help too. We wanna help people get a home that will never be taken, no matter what. And, you know, we've talked about it before, you know, people, people are working. I mean, they're working, like, (sighs) you know, so many hours to p- to pay for their vehicle to get to work, and to pay for their house. And, and the prices just keep going up and up with insurances, and people can't afford it anymore. And so, I mean, it's just our goal too, um, just to help people to s- to save their homes. So.

[25:58] Speaker 3: Yeah, I, and I got a, a statistic here for you, Michael. I... In the month of January 2026, in the United States, there were 40,500 foreclosures. In the month of January alone, 40,500 of them. That's, that's families. But see, I mean, just imagine if there's three, four, five, six people in a family, how many people are being displaced right now? Just being evicted, gone. And then, I mean, January, middle of winter, you know, where you gonna go? You're not gonna go sleep on the street. It's freezing, uh, well, in our state anyway. It's... But 40,000... I think it was, like, 40,500 in just the month of January. It's just, it's, it's creeping, it's, it's, it's starting to skyrocket again.

[26:43] Speaker 1: That's phenom-... I had no idea it was that high. (laughs)

[26:47] Speaker 2: Yeah.

[26:47] Speaker 1: That's, that's, that's horrendous. And that's what we're fo- and that's what we're working towards, folks. And Mike and Leah, again, had the intestinal fortitude and the moral clarity to actually put everything that they owned on the line. A custom-built private house, right, 'cause Mike's a builder, and then, uh, a middle school that they bought from the, the school district, 'cause they were looking to sell it. They wound up buying that and they, they leased it out to a few tenants and everything is below market. I had a chance to meet the, uh, W- W- What's that organization?

[27:29] Speaker 2: Um, the Out- Community Outreach.

[27:31] Speaker 1: Community Outreach. They rent some space from Mike and Leah in there and it, it's... L- Leah told me about some of the rates, and I assure you folks, they're not making money on what Community Outreach is paying them. Uh, but Community Outreach, I, I met the person that was there, and she was absolutely elated. She said the whole program is elated, because of how much space they get for the amount of money that they pay. Plus the lights, the electricity, you know, the heat and all that stuff. And they've been doing that for years, years. Uh, I was absolutely astonished. Five figures on what they, they basically have lost, if you will, by not charging market rates. Five figures, over the course of a few years, just for that one tenant alone. So they've been, you know, heart-centered people for years, for a long time. I'll say all their lives, from what I know of them. Uh, but that's the type of people they are.

[28:32] Speaker 1: They put everything on the line to help everybody else across the entire country. Thank you guys.

[28:40] Speaker 2: Yeah.

[28:40] Speaker 3: Thank you for that, Michael.

[28:41] Speaker 2: Thank you.

[28:44] Speaker 1: So, okay, um, do you wanna get back to... Y- you just finished reading the transcript. Now what do you wanna-

[28:51] Speaker 3: Yeah.

[28:51] Speaker 1: ... continue with?

[28:52] Speaker 2: Um, well, w- should we talk about the attorney and how he had spoke with the federal court here, maybe?

[29:02] Speaker 1: Um, yeah.

[29:03] Speaker 2: Or-

[29:03] Speaker 1: Yeah.

[29:03] Speaker 2: Wait a minute.

[29:03] Speaker 1: This is a good time.

[29:05] Speaker 2: Okay. So we have, we've, um... I think we discussed this on the previous show that we had fi- we have filed, um, in federal court in, uh, Jan- mid-January, I think it was.

[29:17] Speaker 1: Right.

[29:17] Speaker 2: And so we've had a... Go ahead.

[29:21] Speaker 1: No, I said right. Go, go ahead. Please.

[29:22] Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Yep. So we, we have that file going against Choice One Bank. Um, and, and so, anyway, we, during this hearing, the attorney for the bank, he s- told the judge that, "Oh, yeah, Your Honor, they do have..." Uh, this is when, 'cause Mike was trying to s- take, have him take judicial notice that there was another complaint going on in federal court. And so then the attorney spoke up, "Well, yeah, they do have something going on in federal court." But then he said, speaking with the federal court, it's been assigned to a magistrate judge, and there's going to be a scheduling order coming out with respect to the different motions that, that they have filed. Um, and so he said that the Dolans are about to find out tomorrow, that they're going to discover that the Federal District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over their complaint. And we all looked at him like, "What is he talking about?" Like, we hadn't heard, we hadn't spoke with the court.

[30:28] Speaker 2: I mean, we're the one that filed the suit. We hadn't spoke with the court. They hadn't shared any of this information. And sure enough, the next day, on that Friday, e- exact- it happened exactly what he said.

[30:43] Speaker 6: So-

[30:45] Speaker 1: How's that for- how's that for trust and confidence inside the federal judicial system, folks? You have opposing counsel saying that he had an ex parte, which means just him and the court, conversation with the court, and the court is telling him that the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. Hmm. And, and, really? And you didn't let us in on it? And if you look at the canons of judicial ethics, if the court winds up... Because things happen, right? Somebody calls for one thing, a scheduling thing, no big deal, but then it goes sideways, and next thing you know you're talking about something substantive. So in that situation, what the judge is supposed to do is call up the other side and tell them. Say, "Hey, sorry, but I just had this conversation, you know, let's have a phone conference. You can ask me anything you want about it, the other side. I'm not trying to do anything behind your back." Did you get a call from the judge or his chambers about anything like that?

[31:45] Speaker 6: No. No.

[31:47] Speaker 1: Yeah. So to me, that's, that's clearly wrong. Um, so, I mean, there's so many things going on right now. You're in, you're in state court, you filed a complaint in federal court, this guy is telling you he had an ex parte conversation, and that just leads to more papers being filed. So where do you want to take us?

[32:14] Speaker 6: Well, so we'll just finish with that. So we, we, we lost there at state court, um-

[32:20] Speaker 3: Which we kind of all knew all along, right?

[32:23] Speaker 1: (laughs)

[32:23] Speaker 3: We kind of all knew it.

[32:24] Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah.

[32:24] Speaker 3: We knew it was... We were just in there kind of wasting our time, but basically making a record. I mean, that's kind of the way we looked at it.

[32:31] Speaker 6: Yeah. And so then they, uh, did an order of eviction, and that date, uh, was the 17th, um, for-

[32:45] Speaker 1: For the house?

[32:46] Speaker 6: Yes, for the house.

[32:48] Speaker 1: Right. The... it was an order to vacate, you had to be out of the house by the 17th. If not, then they can come in and actually evict you.

[32:57] Speaker 6: Yep. Yep.

[32:58] Speaker 1: Okay, so what happened?

[33:01] Speaker 6: (sighs) Okay, so I don't... Do we want to start with some of the documents that we, that we filed, or should we jump right into...

[33:11] Speaker 1: Whatever you want. Whatever you want. Um, so I got a message from Don, from BBS. They were able to post all 10... I'm sorry, I think 10 or 12 documents that I had sent them. Uh, if you want, we can start talking about the first amended complaint.

[33:28] Speaker 6: Yes, I think... Let's, let's do that.

[33:30] Speaker 1: Okay. So folks, if you go to... If you just Google Bard's Rise BBS, that's B-A-R-D as in David, S, R-I-S-E, Bard's Rise BBS, you should come to the show page, go down to today's show, and you should see several documents hanging on the link for this show, and one of them should be entitled First Amended Complaint. It may even have a document on it, number 6, 6- First Amended Complaint. And that's what we're going to be talking about now. So, uh, real quick, we had filed a complaint, right, way back when... But after we filed the complaint, let's talk about the civil cover sheet, right? So when you file a lawsuit, you have to file at least two documents. One is the complaint itself, and the other one is what's called a civil cover sheet. And those are used, from my understanding, just to, for statistical purposes. You list, you know, who the plaintiffs and defendants are, and then the type of case. Is it a contract case? Is it a civil rights case? Is it a property case?

[34:44] Speaker 1: And you check, you know, at least one, maybe two blocks. Is the US government a plaintiff? Is the US government a defendant? Stuff like that. So Mike and Lia had checked property and then other, because they're filing basic, um, uh, claims in ejectment as well as to quiet title. And then the next day, I did a quick search, um, for their case to see what, what would come up, and in Justia, which is, I'm not sure who runs it, it may be the government, but they pull all the information from the federal dockets and they post it. And I noticed that Justia had their case listed as a foreclosure and civil rights action, which was completely wrong. And, and really, that combination shows that the person doesn't really know what they're talking about. So I got upset, because I felt like somebody was trying to torpedo their case and discredit us, right, the plaintiffs, by labeling it like that.

[35:53] Speaker 1: They, they should just cut and paste what we put in there, but instead they actually changed what we wrote. So because of that, I sent a letter to the clerk asking the clerk to correct it, and to this date, that correction has not been made. If you go to Justia, you look at their docket number, it'll still come up as foreclosure and civil rights, which is wrong. So I wanted to try and alleviate that, as well as, um, you know, hindsight 20/20, just tweak the papers a little bit more. We filed a first amended complaint that was a little cleaner. So that's how we got to the first amended complaint. Guys, any comments on what I just said?

[36:37] Speaker 6: Nope. Go ahead.

[36:38] Speaker 3: Nope.

[36:38] Speaker 6: Yup. Nope.

[36:39] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. So, (clears throat) do you want me to go through this?And kind of, like, explain everything, or?

[36:48] Speaker 7: Yes, I, yeah. And just so the audience knows too that, um, that you were on this case together, all three of us.

[36:58] Speaker 1: Right. We're, we're the plaintiffs at the top, as the, the caption, as they say. And the plaintiffs, that's Michael D. Dalton Jr., Leah M. Dalton, and Michael A. Deem, me. And the, the bank, Choice One Bank, is the one only defendant. So it starts off with an introduction, right? In my experience, you basically wanna give a few sentences to the court to let them know what this case is about so they can kind of, like, get oriented 'cause they do get hit with a lot of different types of cases. And after that, you have to go into jurisdiction and venue because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. You have to justify why you're filing in federal court. There has to be a statute, a case, or something like that, and you have to list it in your papers, and we did that. Um, and then we put the venue, right, because it depends on where you go. Is it Western District of Michigan or Eastern District? Well, where did the issue occur? That's where you go, and that's where we put.

[38:02] Speaker 1: (clears throat) Excuse me. So then we, you get into defining the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, and then you get into... What I wanted to get into was the background and legal framework because courts, federal courts, I assure you, are not used to doing ejectment actions or quiet title actions. Why? Because typically, that's done in state court. There are several cases out there where the Supreme Court has said that once title to property passes from the federal government to an individual versus the patent, that state law governs that property, right? And it passes to other successors according to state law. But there's a caveat to that so long as there's the admission that it originally passed, the title passed, from the federal government, and that's what this whole lawsuit is about, because what actually passed? There's, uh, a case out there, Michigan Supreme Court case, Kleiss v.

[39:13] Speaker 1: I can't remember the last name, but it's in these papers, that says that the current owners now own, through the chain of title versus by way of warranty deed, they own through the chain of title what the original patentees owned in the first place. Well, then, that throws it back into the federal government's lap. Well, what exactly did you guys give them? Is it, is it a, a title that beats all these equitable titles or not? Now, according to the US Supreme Court cases that Mike, Leah, and I have read, yes, absolutely, but we just wanna be sure, and this is the issue, uh, of why we're in federal court. So in order to get to the land patent, there was legislation, right? And, and I go through some of that legislation.

[40:03] Speaker 1: Before Michigan was even a state, they were talking about selling properties, et cetera, and they made a distinction between public lands that were gonna be sold to individuals as opposed to the government lands, lands that were given to certain states for schools or for government buildings, et cetera, you know, railroads, whatever it was. They separated everything. And there were three main statutes, and they're, they're talked about here in these paragraphs, eight, nine, and ten. And then, we get into some of the US Supreme Court cases that talk about land patents. One of the very first one is Wilcox versus Jackson, and, uh, you know, I made bold some of the, um, more pertinent language, and here it is.

[40:51] Speaker 1: Back in 1839, it says, "Like all other property in the state, it is subject to state legislation so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States." And the land patent specifically says to have it to hold for you, your heirs, and assigns, in other words, who you sell it to, forever. Forever. And it's those forever benefits that Mike and Leah really went out of their way to claim and make known that they were claiming.

[41:26] Speaker 1: And that's what this-

[41:27] Speaker 8: Mm-hmm.

[41:27] Speaker 1: ... is all about, folks, forever benefits, which is superior legal title in a federal land patent versus equitable title, lesser equitable title, that the banks hold. It's a winning case. They're gonna win, it's just, it, it's a long fight, and it's very uncomfortable for them. So we keep going down. There's more cases, Fenn v. Holme, Gibson v. Shatto, um, Frost v. Spitley, um, Dick v. Foraker, a- and, and all that is still good law. And we talk about this one US Supreme Court case (laughs) that it says it's this court's, the US Supreme Court's, prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents. In other words, a lower federal court, the district court or a circuit court of appeals, cannot say, "Oh, the US Supreme Court's decision over in this one case, that's not good anymore." Can't do that. Only the US Supreme Court can do that or Congress through legislation or a constitutional amendment. It's the only way a US Supreme Court decision gets changed.

[42:34] Speaker 1: So after discussing cases from the US Supreme Court, we get into Michigan State case law, Weber v. Pere Marquette Boom Company. We talked about that, how, uh, the land patent is superior. We get into Guilford v. Watkins, pretty much the same thing. (clears throat) Can't, can't attack it with equitable title. Moran v. Moran, and then Kleist v. Danowski, that's the Kleist case. Says here, this one's really important. Here, it's conveyed a private claim of specific dimensions at a definite location, right? A specific piece of property. Determination of that location is conclusive of the occupants' rights today. They continue to own, through chain of title, what was granted to the patentees in the first place. (clears throat) So if you have, if you bought a piece of property with a warranty deed, guess what? You essentially own all, at least ... Now in Michigan, let me qualify this.

[43:35] Speaker 1: In Michigan, because of a case like this, if you live in some other state, you need to go do the research in that state. But I would suspect that there's going to be more than one state with this kind of ruling. 'Cause that was the, you just understood at that time. And this is Kleist v. Danowski, that was a ruling in 1964, (clears throat) not that old. Right? So you can't say, "Oh, well that's all, almost 200 years old. It doesn't count anymore." Wrong, it's still good even if it is 200 years old. And this one's not even close to that. So if you, like I was saying, if you, at least in Michigan, bought property via warranty deed, you own what the original patentee owned. And you, I strongly recommend that you go and start doing some research on that. And we talked about that in previous shows. Um, if you need help, eventually it'll get out there. Um, there's Gold Dust Titles. I've mentioned it before, I'll mention it again.

[44:34] Speaker 1: If you just Google that, uh, they will help you do the research, right? And they'll also help you in trying to figure out i- if you do have a mortgage, how you can back out of it, you know, in kind of like a nice way. Maybe you can make a deal. Um, maybe not. I don't know. But Gold Dust Titles can help you with title research, absolutely. Guys, anything else? Any comments before I go on?

[45:01] Speaker 2: Well, I just wanted to comment on Gold Dust Title. So that would be goldustitle.com. And, um, that just kind of helps, I think, people just to kind of understand what a land patent, you know, homesteading your property, and it just kind of gives you some, you know, information that you can read on a website. I just find it very beneficial. Um, I've just been sharing it with other people, um, just so they can kind of familiarize themselves, uh, with this process.

[45:30] Speaker 1: Yeah, very educational. Very educational. Mike?

[45:34] Speaker 6: Nope.

[45:36] Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, I've been to that site several times. Um, very helpful, especially if you're starting out. Leah, anything else?

[45:45] Speaker 2: Nope, that's it.

[45:46] Speaker 1: Okay. So, and then I talked about the, uh, like I said, the Michigan Supreme Court cases, uh, that support our position. And then I get into Michigan's state statutory framework and I describe what the real issue is here, right? We talk about MCL, uh, Michigan Combined Laws 600.3201 and then .2932, quieting title. It's no, you know, it's just a remedy. Uh, we get into 600.5714, summary proceedings. And we get into how it's a mixed court of law and equity. And I'm going down ... And then once we explain all of that, then we get into the statement of facts. Okay, with all that background, Judge, this is what we're specifically here for. And then we get into how the land was originally granted to, um, to someone via a federal land patent. And then the history of those, each of those two properties, how they went to them, to Mike and Leah, or just Mike for, uh, one of the two properties, and what they did to perfect title.

[47:07] Speaker 1: And people may be saying, you know, "Why do you have to accept, acknowledge, and, you know, uh, the deed and all this stuff and register it?" Well, if you look at the, if you do the research, you have to do that in order for the deed to be valid. I know, it's kind of hard to believe, right? But there are cases out there that's saying, "How do we know that he really owned it and had a- he accepted that gift?" Well, if you acknowledge it, you know, um, you accept the delivery and you, you post it, et cetera, then, and you file it with the Register of Deeds, then clearly they intended to perfect their, their title, their ownership. So Mike and Leah were very thorough. They didn't want to leave a stone unturned, and they did all of that stuff.

[48:01] Speaker 1: And if you look at the current, um, the current statutory law for Michigan, it talks about some of that stuff and how, um, doing that allows those documents to be used for any legal purpose, which is important for trials and evidence, or if you're asking the court to make a certain decision. You know, the fact that it has a stamp from the local County Register of Deeds is really important. So they absolutely perfected their titles in every which way. If they didn't already own it, uh, through the chain of title, they certainly developed it and stepped into it by doing all of these individual steps. So kudos on that.

[48:51] Speaker 6: Mike, can I ask a question?

[48:51] Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely.

[48:53] Speaker 3: So one of the things we noticed, and we've said this before on, um, previous shows, but one of the things we noticed was that we were looking at our, our warranty deeds from the property, um, both properties, and a lot of people will notice this.

[49:06] Speaker 1: (clears throat)

[49:07] Speaker 3: Once you, once you actually go inspect yours, whoever you purchased it from, your property from, their name is on that. Their signature is on that. Your name is written on there, but your signature's not on there. So you don't even... Well, the reason we did the delivery and acceptance, because we never... When people look at it, you, you, you need to accept it. Somebody, somebody signed it over to you, but you never accepted it. So our, our signature was never on our, you know, on the deed. So you have to do that. That's, that's part of the reason we, we did that and why it was so important. And, um, um, a- another story I have is person that we know, um, paid off their house maybe three, four years ago. And I happened to be with this person when they were doing their, their will. And they, um, the attorney, I looked at the, her paperwork and her house is paid off. And I said to the attorney, I said, "Why does this show that she's a tenant? She's not a tenant. She owns a house.

[50:15] Speaker 3: It's, it's paid for free and clear." He goes, "No, that's just, that's how all the paperwork is, Mike. That's just how it is. That's, that's what they do." I said, "Well, a tenant, I know what a tenant is. I have a couple of them. I know what a tenant is. Tenant means you're leasing, renting. You don't own it. Somebody else owns it." He goes, "Yeah, that's how the paperwork is." And I'm like, and, and this was like maybe three, four years ago, five years ago. And since then, it's, it's opened my eyes. I'm thinking, "Why? Is this what everybody's paperwork says then? You're a tenant, even if your house is paid off, you are a tenant on it." And everybody's paperwork does say that. I don't know if people recognize that or not or realized it, but it definitely says that. You don't own it. You might think you do, but you do not, unless you follow the process here that we're talking about.

[51:00] Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, (laughs) that's absolutely true. And you can't really appreciate it until you go through these steps. And, uh, I would strongly recommend that everybody go through these steps. (clears throat) If you don't, even if you don't officially file it with the, the register of deeds, just go through it so that you see what he's talking about, you know, and start connecting the dots. "Yeah, wait a minute, my name isn't on that document. Why not? I own it." You know, well, um, it's kind of like the, the vehicles. You know, we, if you go and you pull your title, you'll see that you get an abstract of title. Well, an abstract isn't the actual thing. It's just something that they pulled out. It's a make-believe title.

[51:46] Speaker 3: Right.

[51:46] Speaker 1: So you... (laughs) If, if your vehicle is registered with the local state, you don't own your vehicle anymore, because they have the title. So, sorry to, to, to drop that on people, but thank you, Mike. That, that, that's really important. People need to understand that.

[52:03] Speaker 3: Yes, yes.

[52:06] Speaker 1: So after we, we go into, uh, explaining different cause of action, right? The, the facts and stuff, um, then we get into relief. Now, this part of the First Amendment complaint is what we're asking the court for. So we're asking the court to eject the plaintiffs from 305 West Elizabeth Street, and we're asking the court to quiet legal titles, right? Because, and this is really important, folks, I can't stress this enough, the claim to, quote, quiet, quiet title is where two people, two different people claim that they own a certain piece of property. So you go to court and you say, "Judge, can you, you know, tell us what, who, who really owns it?" Well, that's an equitable claim. And the court sits in equity to do that. And then if you're, if you're arguing with the bank, the bank is going to say, "No, we own it. See, this is a court of equity, so we're allowed to talk about our equitable title, the mortgage." Um, he, he did it, uh, we're now on station two.

[53:19] Speaker 1: Um, thank you, Don, appreciate that, and there's no difference to us. I just saw your notes. Sorry about that, Don. Uh, so, okay, if you're in a court of equity, right, then both sides should be able to argue equity. But no, quiet title is a special kind of equitable claim. This is where equity comes in defense of law, because ejectment is a claim in law. It's a legal claim. Ejectment means that, "Hey, Judge, somebody's on my property and I want you to tell them to get off so that I can get on it," right? They threw me out, but I actually own it. Why do I have to wait until somebody actually throws me off the property, like some bank, because of equitable title? I should be able to go, go to the court and say, "Judge, I have legal title, and they're about to throw me off. Stop them from doing that," right? And that's exactly what the quiet title action or claim does.

[54:23] Speaker 1: It comes in, equity comes in to protect law, to protect the legal title, and says, "No, no, we don't care about your equitable title. We're protecting these people before you throw them off." And that's what this case is all about, folks. So again, sorry for being long-winded, but I can't stress this enough. And then finally, after we tell the court what we're asking it for, there's a certification in closing saying, you know, everything that we said is true and yada yada. Then we sign it, file it, and off we go.Guys, any comments on what I just said?

[55:05] Speaker 2: Nope, go ahead.

[55:06] Speaker 3: Yeah, this is good.

[55:07] Speaker 2: It's good.

[55:09] Speaker 1: Okay. So, once you file papers, the other side gets a chance to do something, right? Um, they can do one of two things. They can either answer it, and then th- the fight is on. They're gonna deny everything, they can admit some things, or they could say, "I don't know. I don't have the answer right now." And it's called denying knowledge and information. And they do that for each of the paragraphs that you listed in the complaint. But typically, what they do is, it gives 'em a ... It kinda like puts a pause on things. They file a motion to dismiss, for whatever reasons. There's dozens of reasons why they can move to try and dismiss a case. And that's what the bank did here. They said that the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. That this is, uh, a foreclosure, and this is controlled by the state, and they already had their bite at the apple in state court, and they shouldn't be heard again. They're just sore losers. That's not the case at all.

[56:08] Speaker 1: I mean, one of 'em, like we already said, the defendant was L&N, right, a corporation. Not Mike and Leah Dalton. So, y- you know, I, I ... You can't necessarily trust what the bank is telling you. And then the other one, th- for the house, well, they were never heard. They weren't afforded their constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court has clearly said that a federal land patent holder has a Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury in common law court. And they were not afforded that right in state court. So clearly, fo- federal law, or excuse me, federal court is the only forum that's available to them to try and exercise their rights. And that's what we're trying to do here. So, the, the bank has in fact filed a motion to dismiss. We are in the process of responding to that, uh, so I don't wanna get too much into that. But they do have that motion out there.

[57:07] Speaker 2: (clears throat)

[57:09] Speaker 1: But that's not the only thing that, that we filed. We also filed, uh, a motion for expedited partial summary judgment. And I'm sure people out there, lawyers are gonna say, "You did what? You fi- you filed a, a motion for partial summary judgment and you didn't even go through the initial pleadings phase? You didn't go through discovery and everything?" Well, why should we? There's no question that they own the property through federal land patent, and that's superior title. All right? And there's no question that they are either in or out of possession of one of the two properties. And those are the only two elements that you have to prove in, in either of those two cases, right? So, why do we have to prolong everything? Let's get it done now. All of this can be decided on the papers with the proper law in place.

[58:00] Speaker 1: And that's what we're doing now with these motions going back and forth, is, you know, clarifying our position and getting more s- more cases to support our position, and to show that the bank has no position, that (laughs) they're gonna lose. In addition to that, we also filed motions for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. Temporary restraining orders are used for emergency relief. Like, "Judge, something really bad is about to happen now, and it can't be fixed with money. I need you to do this now, or let me do this, or stop them from doing that now, before we even have a hearing." And typically, if that's granted, it'll be a very short duration, just two or three days, until everybody can get into court, and then you have a hearing on it. And then at that hearing, you know, you, you start fleshing out the, the argument a little bit more. "What exactly are you talking about? Well, how are you gonna be injured?" Right?

[59:03] Speaker 1: You have to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and, and ... which means just over 50%, not almost guaranteed, just the likelihood. And irreparable harm. Money isn't gonna fix this. And one of the things that is irreparable harm, or shows irreparable harm, is (clears throat) eviction or loss of property, unique property. Well, Mike and Leah bought the middle school. There's only one of those, or at least, well, now two. There's the old one and the current one they're using, but it's very unique. There's not, you know, a whole bunch of 'em. So by its nature, that property is unique. And then you add in there all the customization that Mike and Leah have done, along with their family and friends, right? So that property is unique. And then their home, it's a custom-built home. Mike and Leah built it themselves. It was just barren land that they bought originally, and they built a custom-built home. So yes, their, their, both of their properties are unique. Would you believe it?

[01:00:06] Speaker 1: All of their (laughs) motions for TRO were denied. Denied, by the same judge whose chambers were hav- was having an ex parte conversation with the opposing attorney and saying that they don't have subject-matter jurisdiction. How did that make you guys feel when you found that out?

[01:00:28] Speaker 2: Yeah, not good. I mean, you know, we're the ones that, that filed the complaint, and we didn't, we hadn't heard from the court at all. So to find out that he had a, you know, conversation with them, that was kind of disheartening.

[01:00:45] Speaker 3: Yeah, especially when-

[01:00:46] Speaker 2: But-

[01:00:46] Speaker 3: ... w- w- with what is on the line. I mean, this would, this would be different, to me, if we were fighting some type of a code violation, or some type of a, you know, we- we- we did something here, we placed something here, and we didn't get a permit or something, you know, and we're arguing that. But not when you're getting-

[01:01:04] Speaker 1: ... evicted. It's, this is, this is so much more serious, and so much more, um, just intense. So for us, it was very disheartening to, very disheartening for us.

[01:01:16] Speaker 2: And then they denied it for the, for the building, because supposedly, we were supposed to have a conversation, um, with the opposing side, to try to work it out, and because we didn't have that conversation, um, the, the magistrate judge denied it.

[01:01:38] Speaker 1: Well, hmm. Not only did he deny it, folks, but he set a scheduling order. Right? Again, just the, the nature of these, of these motions. Like, "Judge, something... We're about to suffer irreparable harm. We need you to act on this within days. No more than a week, please." And he says, "Nope. I want to hear papers. So I'm going to give the bank 28 days to file papers in opposition to this motion, that's requesting emergency relief, and then the other side, us, gets 14 days to respond to that, and then, I don't know how long I'm going to take, but at least a couple of days, and then I'll render a decision." What he really did, effectively, is he teed us up for eviction. You know? For all the kids, all, all the parents out there, that, whose kids played tee-ball, right? That's exactly what he did. Mike and Aliyah, here you go, we're going to put that on that stick right there. Go ahead, Choice One Bank, give them a whack. That's exactly what he did.

[01:02:50] Speaker 1: We're asking for immediate relief, and he says, "No, I want a scheduling order." Here you go. And then we filed... That was the, for the first one. And then we filed, uh, two more TROS, made the phone call this time, and the bank's attorney said, "There's absolutely no way. They're going to wait until this case is resolved before they evict you." So we went and we told the, the court again. Two more motions. And we said, "The first one is moot, because we filed that before they got evicted. Now they've been evicted, we're asking you to put them back into possession for the school, and please hurry up and decide this other motion that we're signing, that we're filing now, because now they're about to be evicted from the home." What did the magistrate judge do? Same exact thing. "Nope. No. We're going to, we're going to do a scheduling order. The bank has 28 days to respond, and then you're going to have 14 days." Really? (laughs) Semper fi, buddy. As far as I'm concerned...

[01:03:49] Speaker 1: And then, before that happened, right, we also filed a motion to recuse against the magistrate judge. A motion to recuse is when one of the parties believes that the judge is biased against you. And typically, the bias has to be shown from something outside. In other words, the bias can't come from what's happened in court. But there's a decision out there, a more recent decision from the US Supreme Court, that says, "No, no. That's not the case. Maybe that used to be the case, but not anymore." Justification to recuse may come from stuff that is from strictly within the case, certain actions or events. And we pointed out the fact that he called it, right? That the, the attorney for the bank called what was, what happened the next day. As far as the, the, the court having questions about subject matter jurisdiction and, and all this other stuff. It was very uncanny. Very unsettling.

[01:05:05] Speaker 1: And then, um, the court also, uh, in response to the bank's motion to dismiss, put in a scheduling order, and that was about as powerful as finding out that the court, including Chambers, had ex parte communication with the bank's attorney. Because this scheduling order completely misrepresented what we said in our complaint, First Amendment complaint. For example, he says, "The plaintiffs appear to allege that..." You know, as... We didn't appear. It wasn't, it wasn't questionable. We actually said it. In fact, the, the attorney for the bank, in one of his sets of papers, said, "We are alleging blah, blah, blah." But meanwhile, the court is saying, "It appears like this is what they're doing." Right? It appears like this. It's, uh, i- it's confusing to the court.

[01:06:14] Speaker 1: And why all this is kind of like that civil cover sheet that I talked about in the beginning of the show, where they misrepresent what we actually put in the papers, to discredit us, and this, because we're only lonely little pro se plaintiffs. We don't know what we're doing. We don't know the law. That's saved for, for more important people, intelligent people, like judges and stuff, not us little pro se folks. So, you know, it's like the death of a thousand cuts. "No, not credible here, I'm not sure what you're saying there," and they just grind you into the ground. And then you have to do everything again and again and again. So I called him on it. I said, "Nope. A motion to recuse because of this ex parte conversation, and also because of this scheduling order that you put out there, where you mischaracterize, affirmatively mischaracterize what we said here and here and here and here and here. It's absolutely clear.

[01:07:15] Speaker 1: So because of all this, we believe that you acted in bad faith."The touchstone for the motion, uh, to recuse is bias. We use bad faith as something even more than bias. You're not just, you know, favoring the other side, you're actively working against us, right? You're engaging in subterfuge. You're trying to torpedo us and our arguments. That's what was intended by me saying that he was acting in bad faith. So we put that out there, and I said, "If you don't recuse yourself," we said, "that you should..." Uh, you know, we rebut the presumption of regularity. I've talked about this in previous shows as well, and saying everything... The, the law, to a large extent, is based on presumptions, right? We presume the judge is honest, we presume the jury is neutral, all this stuff. Well, if you have certain information, you can, quote, "rebut" that presumption of regularity. And there are cases about there.

[01:08:22] Speaker 1: And I went and I found those cases, and I said, "Because of all this stuff, I'm rebutting your, magistrate judges, presumption of regularity. And I would... We are asking that you answer these two questions. Have you ever been involved in an organization that requires you to lend support to other members?" Right? And here, we're talking about secret societies. Everybody knows about those now, right? If you don't, go to Instagram. It's all over the place. They'll, (laughs) they'll give you great education. I said, and, uh, and there was another question about that, along that. Well, he ignored that. He didn't answer. Mm, why, you know? Courts make other governmental organizations answer questions or provide more, more documents, or provide more answers. When those parties show that there's been bad faith in those actions, why aren't the courts held to the same standard? Somebody please answer that for me. What makes the courts so s- so special?

[01:09:34] Speaker 1: They're government systems, just like these others, agencies and stuff. Oh, because their judges. BS. BS. If you engage in bad faith, we're entitled to inquire. You need to answer certain, certain questions in order to put us at ease, especially if you're a judge or if you're a decision maker over some argument or some decision, and let us know if, you know, that past conduct is somehow related to something that you're involved in, that we don't know about. To my knowledge, those, these kinds of questions aren't asked when people get confirmed for judges. Maybe they do it behind the scenes, but what's available to the public, they don't ask these kinds of questions. So how do we know that the, that the judges, regardless of what level, federal, state, local, aren't inundated with people that have taken oaths to organizations that are outside of the federal government, or whose oaths are actually in violation and conflict with their oath to the US Constitution?

[01:10:47] Speaker 1: They're basically enemies of the state if that's the case, and they have no business being judges or decision makers in anything. I wouldn't trust them with a dead dog, let alone my case, where my friends and I are gonna be evicted. So again, sorry folks, I didn't mean to get on, on a soapbox, but let's bring it back to Mike and Leah.

[01:11:12] Speaker 2: Well, so I would like to just add that we filed that letter for the judge, uh, magistrate judge to recuse himself, um, that Thursday before President's Day. So we filed it that day and we were actually... We filed it and then we went out of town for the weekend, and we came home on Monday, President's Day, and we came home to, um, our... Well, we actually got a phone call first, so go ahead, you, you got a phone call that, um, from one of the tenants.

[01:11:51] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Just saying, "Hey, Mike, do you know," um, "I just got a, a, a letter. There's a letter that's stuck to our door." And I said, "Oh, really? What is it?" And she said who it was from, you know, the attorney saying that this now has been, is now the ownership of Choice One Bank. Contact me if you need to get in here or if you are a tenant. And said we're to, it said, it basically said, "Pursuant to this order and the, the transfer of possession of this building to Choice One Bank, the exterior door locks for this building have been changed." And so we had, you know, few of our tenants calling, saying, "Oh, Mike, what's going on? How do I get in my building? I have appointments, I have this," and we had no idea. We had no clue that was gonna happen. No clue that was gonna happen. I, uh, we just assumed that we would have a little bit of notice.

[01:12:44] Speaker 3: Um-

[01:12:44] Speaker 2: Yeah, that they would say, you know, "We're coming," or something. You know, "Uh, we're on our way," or whatever. And so then we were on our way home and then, um, our daughter's boyfriend drove by and saw all of our stuff. Well, not all of our stuff, but a lot of our stuff in the parking lot-

[01:13:05] Speaker 3: (laughs) .

[01:13:05] Speaker 2: ... of our building. Um, yeah. It was quite-

[01:13:12] Speaker 3: Yeah. It was disturbing. (laughs) .

[01:13:16] Speaker 2: Um, disturbing. (laughs) They just, what they did is they went into the office and they took garbage bags and they just started dumping... I'm gonna get a little emotional. (laughs) .

[01:13:28] Speaker 3: Yeah, they person- pretty much just dumped everything in garbage bags, pulled everything out into the front parking lot and we got a call few hours later saying, "Hey, the eviction process is done. You're not allowed on the property again," and that was that, and so several businesses, that was... several businesses of ours that they just went in and basically just ransacked it.

[01:13:50] Speaker 2: And so our coffee shop that we'd been working really hard on, um, that's part of our community center vision, um, we had it completely decorated, um-

[01:14:01] Speaker 3: Not even ours though, it's-

[01:14:02] Speaker 2: ... and it-

[01:14:02] Speaker 3: ... you know, it's for-

[01:14:04] Speaker 2: Our daughters.

[01:14:04] Speaker 3: ... our daughters.

[01:14:05] Speaker 2: And it was completely decorated and just beautiful, and they just took everything and just threw it.

[01:14:14] Speaker 3: Okay.

[01:14:14] Speaker 2: Threw it. Tables are scratched. I mean, it's just... TVs sitting in the... on the-

[01:14:20] Speaker 3: Parking lot.

[01:14:20] Speaker 2: ... ground in the parking lot. I mean, just everywhere.

[01:14:25] Speaker 3: Yep.

[01:14:26] Speaker 2: And so we finally got home. It took us, like, an hour and a half once we found that out, and then we had the kids and, you know, their boyfriends and some friends, um, come and help us. Just, we had to load it up and quickly find a spot for everything, so... Yep. And what's difficult is we're still trying to run... Mike's still trying to run his business, and we can't find anything. I mean, they just... they literally just threw papers and, uh, just everything. We can't... we just... it's all bagged up, broken, broken things. We just... we can't find anything.

[01:15:06] Speaker 3: But, you know, it's really, really kind of hard to understand for me. I, I mean, I get it, uh, 'cause it's, 'cause it's us, it's me, but they didn't do that to anybody else. Everybody else is still in, in that, in that building, but our stuff was set to the side, and it was... it was not the company. It was not the company that owned the building. It's a different company.

[01:15:26] Speaker 2: A different entity.

[01:15:27] Speaker 3: Totally different entity, so I don't understand .

[01:15:29] Speaker 2: They actually had sent letters. This was back in, I think, November. They sent letters to all the tenants, and one of the tenants was our daughter and her Courtside Coffee. And then, uh, the letter stated that sh- they would remain and that the, the lease would remain. They would-

[01:15:49] Speaker 3: As is.

[01:15:51] Speaker 2: ... as is. They could stay in the building.

[01:15:52] Speaker 3: Yep.

[01:15:53] Speaker 2: And they didn't honor that. They just threw everything out in the parking lot. Mm-hmm.

[01:16:02] Speaker 1: So I- I want to really, uh, hammer this home, right? So the mortgage was, the mortgage was taken out by L&M, L&M Family Investments, right? And then you, as the federal land patent holders, transferred it from L&M, the warranty deed to, to yourselves. So you were the new owners, right? And under Mich-

[01:16:29] Speaker 2: Yes, we quit claimed it.

[01:16:31] Speaker 1: Right. You quit claimed it. But under state law, it actually passes as a bargain and sale deed, right? So it's no longer just quit claim. You now have bargain and sale deed on the warranty. And according to the Michigan Supreme Court, because you took that through chain of title, you own what the original patentee, uh, owned. And again, this is, this is legal title we're talking about, right? The warranty deed, when you first purchased the land, and then warranty deed, uh, to L&M, and then warranty deed to yourselves. That's all legal title. Equitable title cannot challenge that. I don't care how many mortgages, how many sheriff's deeds. You cannot attack that, because you held that through the federal land patent, okay? Accor- by operation of law. You have to understand what the Michigan Supreme Court said here. You own, through chain of title, what the original patentees did. You don't have to go and file and do everything that you did, although you did, right, just to be sure.

[01:17:43] Speaker 1: It's kind of, uh, like wearing a belt and suspenders, right? But either one of them would have worked. What Choice One Bank did is said, "No, no, L&M took out this mortgage, so now we're going to foreclose on that mortgage, and we're going to get a sheriff's deed based on that mortgage," and all that relates back to, let's say, day two. But you passed it to yourselves on, say, day five. So their foreclosure is based on antiquated documents, documents that not only are not strong enough to attack a legal title, a federal land patent, but also documents that are old. There's a new owner in town. And then the court gave them what they asked for, order of eviction, you know, judgment of possession, and then they go into your property, which is no longer L&M's, and even though you have superior title, and they remove the, the property from all these other companies, separate entities. So why is it that Choice One Bank gets to say, "No, no, Mr. Dalton is a separate entity. He is not L&M.

[01:19:02] Speaker 1: The defendant here is L&M. He's not an attorney. He can't repres- represent them, so strike his papers from the record and ignore everything in it he said"? And the judge did that. He specifically said to you, "I don't know you as an individual. The defendant here is L&M Family Investments." But yet, then they can take that order of eviction for L&M and apply it to everybody with the last name of Dalton-Even though they're separate entities. They can apply it to all these other companies that you have, which are separate entities from L&M. And even if L... That they now own the property, L&M potentially, I don't know what all your leases say, they can still be a tenant. But yet now, just because you own it, you automatically get to wipe out all of these leases? It's absolutely absurd. Absolutely absurd.

[01:20:07] Speaker 1: That, I'm just as much as outraged as anything else going on, how they can just come in here with basically a sledgehammer and just start swinging around, everybody out, especially after they told your kids that they can stay. They didn't even give them a chance to remove all their stuff. It's like they set them up for failure. I can't believe they did that. So, anyway, go ahead guys. Sorry, again, I get... The- this stuff gets very emotional when I see people getting picked on and abused by the legal process, all of which goes back to corrupt politicians and bankers, central banking as a whole. Go ahead. Do your... Do, do some research on central banking, folks, and see what kind of gifts they've brought to the world, brought poverty to the world. Okay, I'm sorry guys. Go ahead Mike and Leah. Do you, you want to pick up?

[01:21:04] Speaker 2: Well, so, so like I said, we filed that letter to re... For the judge to recuse himself. That was Thursday, and then this happened on a Monday, on President's Day. I find it quite interesting. (laughs) I feel like he got a little upset. I mean, I don't... I- I can't really say.

[01:21:22] Speaker 3: We're assuming.

[01:21:23] Speaker 2: We're assuming, and he might have contacted the bank. I- I- I'm just ass-

[01:21:28] Speaker 3: We don't know.

[01:21:29] Speaker 2: We don't know that.

[01:21:29] Speaker 3: Right.

[01:21:30] Speaker 2: But I just found it... I found it interesting that that happened. So then that happened Monday, uh, President's Day. We knew that Tuesday on the 17th was the, um, last day of, like, our house, the eviction of our house, or the...

[01:21:51] Speaker 3: Yeah, from the court, court order.

[01:21:52] Speaker 2: Yeah, from the court, court order. And so we thought for sure then that they would, they would possibly be at our house on Wednesday the 18th. And so Tuesday we were spending, like, frantically trying to pack up as much as we could from our house, and the k... I mean, we were just basically bagging up the most important things like, you know, clothes and shoes that we needed to, you know... and just, like, some valuables, and, you know. And so then that went on, um, well, since... That's been going on, that's been going on since, um, last week, the 17th and 18th. And so kind of that, that week, we were staying at our house, but then bagging up, you know, our stuff in the morning, and the kids, everybody would bring it down and set it down, you know, by the door in case somebody showed up, because we didn't know if they were going to show up. And so we were still kind of, you know, in limbo, and then, um, and then each day we kept (laughs) just not knowing. Not...

[01:22:59] Speaker 2: We, we were, like, basically staring out the window whether, you know, a SWAT team or something's going to show up, and... So we've been pretty much frantically packing all of our stuff, and then this past Sunday, um, we had our... you know, some family and friends help, and we got most all of the big stuff. And then, and then what day we got a call?

[01:23:24] Speaker 3: Monday.

[01:23:24] Speaker 2: Monday you had... You got a call?

[01:23:26] Speaker 3: Yes, so Monday morning.

[01:23:27] Speaker 2: This, this Monday.

[01:23:28] Speaker 3: Yeah.

[01:23:28] Speaker 2: Uh, I'm getting my dates... Keep... Go ahead.

[01:23:31] Speaker 3: So yeah, this Monday, we got a call from, um, one of the court officers, um, that we had a run-in with (laughs) a little while back, back in November, and he said, Mike, he goes, um, you know, talking to me, um, and he just said, you know, "We'll give you until next Monday." So what's coming up Monday is, is now our, our eviction date for the home.

[01:23:57] Speaker 2: So that'd be March 2nd. Yeah. So we're currently (sighs) ha- half moved out, half in the house, back and forth. Um, yeah, it's, it's, it's been... I'll say it's been a very, uh, emotional week for everybody, a tiring week.

[01:24:22] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.

[01:24:23] Speaker 2: Just trying to pack everything, and I mean, you know, we've been here for... We've been here for 20 years, and this is our dream home.

[01:24:39] Speaker 3: Yeah. We're trying to find a spot to put everything too, and (laughs) sh- we had from the place we had before, 60-some thousand square feet, and then we had this, you know, and the, the places, and the barns. It's, it's hard to find a spot for stuff. So it's been, it's been a challenge. This last week has been extremely challenging.

[01:25:00] Speaker 2: I want to say too, um, (laughs) we've had... It- it's very interesting. So I think we said this on the last... Well, maybe we didn't. We, we got a phone call. I'm going to let you go ahead and... The offers, you go ahead and share the different offers.

[01:25:16] Speaker 3: Um...

[01:25:16] Speaker 2: Three.

[01:25:19] Speaker 3: Yeah.

[01:25:19] Speaker 2: The bank's attorney.

[01:25:21] Speaker 3: With what? With what? I'm trying to figure. Which one are you talking about?

[01:25:23] Speaker 2: Um, so, well, the, the bank's attorney, you know.

[01:25:26] Speaker 3: Oh, right. Yeah. Yep, and he did say to us, he said, "If you..." Like, "I've heard a rumor that you guys could pay this and be done with it." And he said, "Could you just pay it and be done with it?" And I said, "That's, that's not true. That's a false statement. I can't just pay that off. That's, that's not true."... um, so that is, so whatever you're thinking there, I can't, I just can't do that. Um, and then what was the next one you were asking?

[01:25:51] Speaker 2: Well, then, well then, when the court officer, he actually came up our driveway this week, and he called you.

[01:25:58] Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, he just called me and said, "Whoa. This is your house? This is beautiful." You know, basically, "What are you doing?" You know, "What, what are you doing?" And said, "I, uh, you know, understand, just get your, get your note out the door, and let's, let's be done," basically. But, um, and then-

[01:26:13] Speaker 2: He, but he said, "Make a deal."

[01:26:15] Speaker 3: Yeah. He said, "Can't you just make a deal? Make a deal."

[01:26:17] Speaker 2: And, you know, we're like, "It's too late." And he's like, "No, make, make a deal."

[01:26:20] Speaker 3: "Make a deal." Mm-mm.

[01:26:22] Speaker 2: "Make a deal." And then today. Go ahead.

[01:26:23] Speaker 3: So I don't think I, I don't think that you know this yet, Mike, or not.

[01:26:26] Speaker 2: No.

[01:26:26] Speaker 3: But I'm, I'm standing there today and I don't know if this is something or not, but I'm standing here and, and we're way up on our property here and w- our house is way, way off the road, thousand feet off the road. It's way back. And, um, I'm sitting there putting, moving stuff from a U-Haul trailer into our new s- you know, stuff in our, in our area that we're storing stuff. Somebody walks up and they introduce their, they said is, is, they asked for my name. "Is he here?" And one of the guys that were with me, he's like, "Yeah. Right here." And I said, "Hey, can I help you?" And this person says, "Well, I just want to let you know, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a Realtor, and I know your story.

[01:27:08] Speaker 3: I know this entire story and your entire situation." And this person says, "Why don't you let me..." He or she says, "I, you have a lot of equity." I said, "Yep, we do." And she says, "Let me, why don't you let me help you get your equity?" And I looked, I looked at her and I said, "I think it's a little bit too late. We're a little bit too far for that." She goes, "No, it's not. I can do it. I promise you." And I'm thinking, "Hmm. Really?" So it was just very odd. And this person is a Realtor from about hour and, hour and 40 minutes away from here. Um, so it's, it was a, a very odd conversation. I mean, it could be, I hate to say coincidence, 'cause we don't believe in those, but it was just, it was just very strange at this point in the game for that to happen.

[01:28:02] Speaker 1: Yeah. Because it, in my humble opinion, what's happening here is the bank is the one that's, that's desperate, right? They realize that their days are over. They're numbered. So they're trying to get you to settle this case, because if you settle, then they can continue to survive and continue to leech off of the entire nation. So they, they're dying for you to settle.

[01:28:29] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.

[01:28:30] Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm just wondering, I mean, what are the odds of them doing this to other people? Like, do they, oh, give people chances? Like, and we've, we've, we've lost, you know, in state court-

[01:28:41] Speaker 3: Yeah. (laughs)

[01:28:41] Speaker 2: ... for both, like, who, who, had, do they do that? Like, I've never heard of that. It's like, you get evicted and you're done. Like, that's-

[01:28:48] Speaker 1: Absolutely.

[01:28:49] Speaker 2: Yeah. And so now we've had three people, "Oh, no, it's not," you know, "Make a deal," after we already lost. So it's because we're over the target. (laughs)

[01:28:59] Speaker 1: (laughs)

[01:28:59] Speaker 2: They know, they, they know, just like you said.

[01:29:06] Speaker 1: And, and, yeah. I, I just wanted to follow up on two things that you said. Number one, the SWAT team. A lot of people saying, "Oh, she's being hysterical." No. No, she's not. Because there was a court officer who came to just serve papers, and we talked about this o- on one of the previous shows. He put on a bulletproof vest. Really? I mean, the, the, uh, I call that running scared. There's a lot of, there's a lot of good law enforcement out there, but there's also a lot of people in law enforcement that shouldn't be in law s- in law enforcement. Their days either never should have come, or they're long past their prime. And now they, quote, "run scared," as I say. Right? They're, there's, they're, they're a potential victim at every turn. If that's your mentality, get out of the business. Get out of the industry, 'cause you don't belong there. You're gonna make something bad happen.

[01:29:54] Speaker 1: The second thing I want to follow up on is, everything that they just said is exactly why you file for a TRO, to prevent this from happening. How much money do you think that i- would take to make them whole again? If they came up to you for a million dollars, would that make everything go away? All this stuff that you've been going through, Mike and Leah?

[01:30:17] Speaker 3: No.

[01:30:18] Speaker 2: No.

[01:30:18] Speaker 3: Not a chance.

[01:30:19] Speaker 1: Exactly. You know? $2 million?

[01:30:24] Speaker 3: Right. Well-

[01:30:24] Speaker 1: No. Of course not. So you can't resolve this issue with money, which is why I am so upset with the magistrate judge that denied not one, not two, but three TROs and preliminary injunctions. He put in scheduling orders. And he teed it up for them so that the bank could just do exactly this. And if you believe in, you know, reading people's energies and stuff, and I know all that stuff is true, because I can to a certain extent, I'm telling you, that judge is hooked up to some really evil stuff. I can see it in his eyes. Especially the left one, the picture that's hanging on the internet. Yeah. I said it, folks. I can read that energy. He's hooked up some bad stuff. But we can't do anything about that, at least not at this moment. But what we can do, if you want to support Mike and Leah, is you can contact your federal congressman or your federal senator, and demand the impeachment of US Magistrate Judge Ray Kent, who sits in the Western District of Michigan.

[01:31:38] Speaker 1: I believe his office is in Grand Rapids. Do I have that right, guys?

[01:31:43] Speaker 3: Yes, I believe so.

[01:31:44] Speaker 1: Grand Rapids. Ray Kent, with a K.I'm calling for every single person in Michigan to do just that. And if you're outside of Michigan, you can call up your own and ask for an investigation into him. We need to start rallying behind Mike and Lia. They, we cannot do this fight alone. We're taking it on, and we'll do the best we can, but we will be a lot more effective if we have the support of the nation behind us. Get rid of these corrupt judges, these people who are in office with secret OUs, that have axes to grind, that are torpedoing cases that will help literally millions of people, almost the entire nation, except for the original 13 states. Everybody else can trace their, their property back to land patents, or property that was originally owned or subsequently owned by the federal government. You all have a stake in this. If Mike and Lia win, you win. So please, please, please, please pass the word. Contact your federal representatives. Tell them to investigate this case.

[01:33:04] Speaker 1: Tell them to impeach Ray Kent. He doesn't want to recuse himself, and by the way, I don't think I said this before. When we filed the motion to recuse, he denied it, but he denied it because he s- claimed that he didn't d- there wasn't an actual bias. Well, that's not the standard. That's the wrong standard. The standard is, is there a reasonable appearance of bias, or for us, bad faith, which was even worse than just bias. Of course there is. Of course there is, and Mike and Lia just explained it to you. But no, he used the, the wrong stand... Not a different standard, the wrong standard, just to stay on the case. And that, to me, is even more evidence of why he needs to go. So he has the authority to stay on the case, yes, but guess what? We, as President Trump said, have the power. He gave us... He's putting us back in power, we the people, and now we need to exercise that power.

[01:34:11] Speaker 1: We need to contact our elected representatives and tell them to do something about this, 'cause if they don't, we're gonna vote them out of office, and we're gonna keep going through people until we get the results we want. So I am calling on each and every listener to do just that. Call your federal representatives and spread the word. Have your friends and family and neighbors all do the same thing. How would you like it if all mortgages in the world, or in this country at least, disappeared? If you work for the banking industry, you're not gonna be so happy, but not all of us do that. The vast majority of us who don't work... Are not affiliated with banks, so let's get these Khazarian leeches out of the country, off our backs, out of our wallets, out of our lives. Call up your federal congressmen and senators and ask them to demand, respectfully demand, that they impeach US Magistrate Judge Ray Kent. Okay, again, up on my soapbox again. I apologize folks.

[01:35:18] Speaker 1: This stuff is really important to me. All right, guys. We have about another 15 minutes or so left. Where do you want to take us next?

[01:35:29] Speaker 2: Well, just so where it stands is, um, like we said, mm, next week, March 2nd is our day to be out, so... But we're still fighting, so like we said, we've had offers to try to, you know, settle and make a deal, which, I mean, we don't have enough, but we could probably f- figure it out with some friends, but we're not making the deal (laughs) because that's how important this is to us. Um, you know, just like, you know, you were talking earlier about, you know, President Trump and, you know, the American dream of homeownership, and, you know, we're fighting that right alongside of him. And like you said, we the people, we all have to step up. President Trump can't do everything, and that's what, you know, I hear, "Oh, well, Trump's gonna do this. President Trump's gonna fix this." And it's like, well, we the people have to... We have to stand up in some way.

[01:36:30] Speaker 2: I mean, I realize, you know, this is a, you know, we're not asking others to do this right yet, but I just feel like everybody needs to do their, their part to, to take back this country. We're, we're done having it run, like you said, by corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, corrupt medical field, corrupt education field. I mean, it's... It is so deep. Uh, the web is so deep, and as people are starting to see the Epstein files come out, they're gonna find out how it's all connected. It's a dark web, and this has been going on (laughs) for hundreds and hundreds of years. I mean, in fact, back in the days of Jesus, this is what he was fighting, this corruption, right here.

[01:37:28] Speaker 1: Yeah, the money changers.

[01:37:29] Speaker 2: And we're still fighting it.

[01:37:30] Speaker 1: Yeah, the money changers, absolutely, the bankers.

[01:37:34] Speaker 2: Yep. And we're not gonna stop. We're not gonna stop, and we know we have backing. Um, I'm not gonna share all of that, but we've, you know... W- we've been getting little synchronicities, little, little winks, little God winks, or, you know, we've been getting them, and we know that...... we're supported and we know that we're protected, and we're not gonna stop.

[01:38:07] Speaker 3: And it's hard when it is so deep. There's a lot of people, what, what they say to me is, and I have some pretty, pretty strong people, um, that I talk to on a daily basis. I mean, just strong people and they, they, it's almost like they throw their hands up and they're saying that I, you know, "Well, how, how are you gonna fix it?" It is so deep. It's like Lia was just saying. It is so deep and everything is just entrenched everywhere. And they're, uh, but their question is, "Well, how do you fix that then?" You can't. You can't fix it. It's everywhere. So how do you do it? If the, if the, if the courts are corrupt, how do you fix that? How, how can you do that? And it is by all of us standing up and just, and taking our part, doing our part. Like, like Lia said, we, we all just got to, to stick together and say, "You know what?

[01:38:52] Speaker 3: Hey, this, we, this, you know, education system, we got to stand up." Um, General Flynn says, you know, local impact has national or local, local decisions or whatever has national impact. That's, that's what we do. We have to be, all of us have to stand up. And if just a few do it, we're, we're, it's, it's, it's, it might go somewhere, but it's gonna take, you know, 50 years to do it. But if everybody just gets on board, it's, it's, it'll change quick.

[01:39:18] Speaker 2: And it does seem that more and more are awakening to this. I mean, more and more are starting to come out. I mean, I'm sure people are aware that the media has been controlled by the same deep, dark web of all of this, and the media's been controlled by it. Um, but it's starting to, um, lessen and the information is starting to get out. And I'm starting to see more and more people, you know, on social media post things. And so, uh, it, people are awakening.

[01:39:48] Speaker 3: So we actually have somebody that we know that, um, and this is how we know things are changing. And this is another thing that I would, like, I know how, how podcasters and independent journalists now, this is, this is where we're getting information from now. You know, the mainstream media, that, that, that news is, is, you can't get anything from it. We all know that. But we, we personally know somebody now whose boss was just arrested because he was in the, in the Epstein files. So, it was almost a celebration when we heard this, um, this week, because we know that this happens, all this stuff's happened, but then you read stuff like, that's not true, that's not true. But things are happening. So that confirmed it to us finally. It's not just somewhere, you know, somebody saying this. We actually know somebody whose boss was just taken to jail because he's, of his Epstein connections. So, we, we know that things are, are, are definitely happening.

[01:40:47] Speaker 3: Um, we all wish they would happen a little faster, but it is. It's, it's time for this, this movement, it's time for this change.

[01:40:56] Speaker 1: Well said, both of you. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I'm gonna try and summarize this, uh, or use an analogy I heard once. You know, I was involved with some really big planning efforts when, uh, when I was activated for the war, and my boss would always say, "It's an elephant, it's an elephant." And then he looks at me and he says, "How do you eat an elephant?" I'm like, "Whoa, holy cow. You know, I don't even know where to start." And he looks at me and he goes, "One bite at a time." And we can start attacking this elephant, right, this deep, dark web that Mike and Lia just described, which I totally on board with, beli- I know it's there. Just go back and look at some of my past shows, especially the first one, when I talk about the Satanic ritual fireplace that's been in New York's highest courtroom for over 140 years. Yeah, you can start with that one. And, but there's more. So, I know that what they're talking about is real. So what do we do if it's so deep?

[01:41:55] Speaker 1: Well, it's an elephant. Let's start with one bite at a time. And I, again, I submit to each and every one of you, we can start that fir- make that first bite a call to your senator and congressman, federal level, and tell them to impeach Ray Kent. Tell them, if you're outside of Michigan, uh, call for an investigation into this case. Because Michigan, and this isn't, we're, we're only talking about one lawsuit that Mike and Lia have filed. They actually filed another one. This one will help not just them, but other people can carry, you know, can try and duplicate what they've done, right? But everybody will have to do it on their own, one by one. Mike and Lia and I have also file, filed a second lawsuit, where we're going directly after Michigan and their statutory framework, because Michigan has violated those three statutes that I talked about in that First Amendment complaint. Their, their framework, statutory framework violates federal law, the supremacy clause, hands down.

[01:43:12] Speaker 1: So, an investigation into this will help not just Mike and Lia with this one case, but it will also help with that other case that will definitely help everybody within Michigan. And Michigan will be the first state perhaps, but then all the others just wind up falling down as well, like dominoes. So, again, please make that first bite, a call to your federal elected representatives. Tell them to investigate this c- this case and call for the impeachment of Ray Kent. Even if you're not, I'm gonna expand what I just said. Even if you're not in Michigan, because as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."We can't stand back and say, "Oh, well, they're just violating the constitutional rights and property rights of the people over there in that little city in California, or o- way out there in Alaska." No, they're part of the United States of America. We need to stand up and help them.

[01:44:16] Speaker 1: Because after they take care of those people, guess where they're gonna turn next? Us. And they're coming to our hometown. So let's get them over there, wherever we can find them. Please, call your representatives. Okay, sorry guys, off the soapbox (laughs) again. Back to, to Mike and Leah, please.

[01:44:37] Speaker 2: Well, so I just wanna, you know, say that after we win, which we will, um, our community center building, our vision, our plan, our dream, is to teach people this process, and so that they can do the process. And, and know they won't have to fight like we're fighting, 'cause we're doing the fight for them. Um, but that's, that's our dream. And then we have, I mean, so many... And I think I'll probably share that maybe on another show, like, our, our, you know, vision with, with that, um, in our building. But, you know, it was just, it was so, um, oh, it just felt so good when we were meeting, you were coming and we were meeting in the coffee shop with, you know, Kelly and us and our kids. And, you know, our daughter Kaylee was making us coffee and giving us snacks. And it's just, it's exactly what my vision is, is people will be coming in there meeting. And I'm assuming, eventually, we might be doing seminars once we get the build- the building back.

[01:45:46] Speaker 2: Um, we'll probably be doing some seminars and stuff to teach people this process.

[01:45:53] Speaker 1: That would be awesome. I really look forward to that. Mike, uh, we have about five minutes left.

[01:46:04] Speaker 3: I think I'm good right now, Michael. I do.

[01:46:06] Speaker 1: Okay. All right, good. Leah, anything else?

[01:46:11] Speaker 2: No. I just... We're, we're in this fight, and we're fighting, we're fighting for everyone. So...

[01:46:19] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

[01:46:21] Speaker 1: Okay. So... Oh, I, I just thought of something. What, uh, what I should do is tell them a little bit more about the case. So if... Anybody with a credit card and a computer can open up a PACER account, P-A-C-E-R. And once you open an account, you can go to any court document, or, excuse me, any court, and look up whatever case you want and pull down, for the most part anyway, whatever documents have been filed in any given case. Now, there will be exceptions, right? 'Cause some things are filed under seal. In criminal cases, you're not gonna be able to see everything, et cetera. Uh, but for the most part, you can get a lot of stuff that's out there. Certainly, in a case like this, in Mike and Leah's case. So the index number for their case, if you want to go and pull the documents yourselves, is 26CV00163. Again, that's 26CV, Charlie Victor, 00163. And they are in the Western District of Michigan, because that index number will be repeated in all the district courts.

[01:47:35] Speaker 1: So make sure you also look for Western District of Michigan, WDMI. And you can pull basically everything that's been filed. If you don't have a PACER account or you're not interested in one, BBS has been gracious enough to hang several of the documents that we did file, uh, on this show's web page. And just real briefly, that's the First Amended Complaint. The Justia docket that I talked about earlier that shows how this case was mischaracterized, and you can compare that to the actual civil cover sheet that we did file. Also, our, uh, our objection to the order of referral to, uh, to the magistrate judge. We didn't want that. We wanted to stay with the district court. Um, but she has that prerogative under the local rules. And we'll talk about us challenging those rules as well, because they too, we believe firmly, are unconstitutional.

[01:48:39] Speaker 1: Then we also have a motion for partial summary judgment hanging on the, on, uh, the show page and, uh, a joint declaration from us that attaches exhibits to support that motion for partial summary judgment. We didn't get a chance to get into that, but we will next week. I don't know if next week is gonna be a one or two-hour show. Uh, I'm leaning towards two hours because we do want to pump information out to you all. I know there's a lot of questions out there, and just to keep you abreast of what's going on. Um, okay. Guys, any, any comments re- with respect to that and the documents or PACER?

[01:49:18] Speaker 2: Well, I just wanna say that I just wanna encourage everyone to just please share this. Um, share the show with others. Share the goldostitle.com, just so people can start educating themselves on, on what it, you know, what this process is. And, um, 'cause the more listeners we have, um, you know, we're trying to get this out to the, you know, the higher-up officials. So the more people that share this, um... We wanna get this heard.

[01:49:51] Speaker 1: Great point. Folks, this is, this is the new civil rights movement. You know, getting everybody on their property, their own property, that nobody can kick them off of, ever. With reasonable terms if you want to improve it or something like that. That's where we're going. It's gonna happen. I'm telling you, this is gonna be as big, if not bigger, than the Civil Rights Movement because the Civil Rights Movement, although important, focused on just the minorities. This movement focuses on everybody, regardless of your race, creed, color, et cetera. That's what the Civil Movement eventually moved into, but at n- initially, it was just for certain, um, classes of people. This is everybody, and everybody will benefit. Okay. All right. With that, guys, uh, I think we're gonna sign off unless you have any other parting comments.

[01:50:45] Speaker 2: No, that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Michael.

[01:50:48] Speaker 1: No, thank you, guys. You guys, without a doubt, I said this before, are absolute rock stars. You are the wayshowers. The, the integrity and the courage that you are showing, displaying to, to the entire world is absolutely phenomenal. Really, truly. Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is an honor and privilege to be in this with you guys, to know you guys, and now to be able to call you my friends. Thank you. So with that, BBS, please take it away. Thank you for your support.

[01:51:21] Speaker 3: (upbeat music) Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Ah-ah, ah-ah. Ah-ah, ah-ah-ah. Ah-ah, ah-ah. Ah, ah-ah-ah-ah. Ah-ah, ah-ah. Ah-ah, ah-ah-ah. Ah-ah, ah-ah. Ah, ah-ah-ah-ah. Hey, hey, hey. Whoa.