Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Bards, Rise!, March 5, 2026
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Bards, Rise!, March 5, 2026
Bards, Rise! with host Michael Deem
The Legal Siege of Bard's Rise: Federal Land Patents and the Reality of Eviction
Bard's Rise: The Homesteading Saga
Episode Analysis: Legal Battles, Federal Land Patents, and the Reality of Eviction (March 5, 2026)
"It's a paper war. A war on who can write the best papers... but the system feels rigged against those without an attorney."
— Leah & Mike, on their Pro Se legal battle
Core Legal Arguments
Federal Land Patent vs. Sovereign Citizen
Explicitly distancing from the "Sovereign Citizen" movement to maintain legal credibility in federal court.
Irreparable Harm
Eviction from "Unique Property" (a custom-built 20-year home and a 60k sq ft community center) cannot be remedied by money.
Procedural Failure
Magistrate judge effectively denied the TRO by scheduling hearings after the eviction dates.
Key Context
#LandPatent #PropertyRights #ProSe #Eviction #FederalCourt
Case Status
Home Eviction:Completed (Mar 3)
Business Eviction:In Progress
Active Case 1:26-cv-163 (ChoiceOne)
Active Case 2:26-cv-449 (vs. Michigan)
Appeal:6th Circuit Pending
Human Impact
3 of 4 children raised in the home. Mike built the house personally 21 years ago. Massive loss of equipment and inventory (siding, tools, coffee shop gear) due to storage constraints.
Host: Michael Deem | Guests: Mike & Leah Est. Reading Time: 4 mins | Length: 36:52
Introduction
This episode of Bard's Rise features host Michael Deem and guests Mike and Leah as they recount the harrowing experience of being evicted from their long-term family home and business properties. The discussion centers on the legal distinction of federal land patents, the systemic challenges faced by pro se litigants, and the emotional toll of a "paper war" against institutional banking and state interests.
1. Defining the Legal Identity: Federal Land Patents vs. Sovereign Citizens
A critical portion of the discussion is dedicated to clarifying the legal framework Mike and Leah are utilizing. Host Michael Deem explicitly distances their movement from "sovereign citizens," a term often used by opposing counsel to discredit litigants. Instead, they identify strictly as federal land patent holders. While the term "allodial title" was previously used by AI-generated summaries of the show, Deem clarifies that they acknowledge state regulation and are not claiming to be above the law but rather seeking to invoke specific rights granted under federal land patents. The guests emphasize that they have never identified as sovereign citizens and believe such labels are tactical attempts by the opposition to prejudice the court.
Legal Framework Comparison
Position
Description
Sovereign Citizen
Often associated with total immunity from taxes/laws; rejected by the guests.
Land Patent Holder
Reliance on federal land grants and constitutional supremacy; subject to state law.
Note: The defense relies on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution to argue that federal land patents supersede state court eviction orders.
2. The Physical and Emotional Toll of Eviction
The narrative shifts to the recent evictions of Mike and Leah from two distinct properties: their custom-built family home and a massive community center. On March 3rd, the family was forced to vacate the home they built 20 years ago and where they raised their four children. Due to the speed of the eviction and a lack of storage, they were forced to abandon significant personal property, including heavy furniture and full kitchen cupboards.
The second eviction involved a 60,000 to 70,000 square foot building that served as a hub for three family businesses: a construction company, a coffee shop, and a community center. Despite having a crew of 15 people helping, the sheer volume of equipment and inventory—including commercial kitchen appliances and 80 squares of siding—meant that more was left behind and likely destroyed than was successfully moved.
3. The "Paper War" and Systemic Hurdles
Michael Deem criticizes the legal system's handling of the case, specifically the magistrate judge's failure to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. He argues that "irreparable harm" was clearly established because the properties are unique—one being a former middle school and the other a custom-built home. The guests express frustration with the "rigged" nature of the system, noting that while they cite dozens of cases in their filings, the opposing banks provide minimal citations yet receive favorable treatment. Furthermore, they highlight a lack of professional courtesy from the court, claiming that their phone calls as pro se litigants go unreturned.
Active Legal Cases
Case 1
26cv163
vs. ChoiceOne Bank
Case 2
26cv449
Dalton v. Michigan
Required for Injunction:
1. Likelihood of success on merits.
2. Irreparable harm (Unique Property).
Key Data
Property Size: The community center/business building is estimated between 60,000 and 70,000 square feet.
Duration of Residency: The family lived in and owned their home for over 20 years (since 2005).
Litigation Success Rate: Mike cites a statistic that only 12% of pro se cases typically win in court.
Timeline: The current federal legal battle began around January 15th, leading up to the March 3rd eviction.
To-Do
Michael Deem will post the First Amended Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, and Opposition Brief for the ChoiceOne Bank case on the show page once BBS creates it.
The legal team will file the bank's reply brief on the show page as soon as it is submitted.
A complaint will be filed against the State of Michigan in case 26cv449, with the court to determine the specific individual defendants.
Listeners are encouraged to open a PACER account to monitor the filings for cases 26cv163 and 26cv449.
The host and guests plan to provide a more positive update in the coming weeks as the case moves to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Conclusion
Despite the "doom and gloom" of the recent evictions, the participants remain committed to their legal strategy. Michael Deem likens the struggle to a long-term war that must be won "one bite at a time," asserting that this case will eventually be recognized as a landmark civil rights and property fight in American history.
View all episodes
By BBS Radio, BBS Network Inc.Bards, Rise! with host Michael Deem
The Legal Siege of Bard's Rise: Federal Land Patents and the Reality of Eviction
Bard's Rise: The Homesteading Saga
Episode Analysis: Legal Battles, Federal Land Patents, and the Reality of Eviction (March 5, 2026)
"It's a paper war. A war on who can write the best papers... but the system feels rigged against those without an attorney."
— Leah & Mike, on their Pro Se legal battle
Core Legal Arguments
Federal Land Patent vs. Sovereign Citizen
Explicitly distancing from the "Sovereign Citizen" movement to maintain legal credibility in federal court.
Irreparable Harm
Eviction from "Unique Property" (a custom-built 20-year home and a 60k sq ft community center) cannot be remedied by money.
Procedural Failure
Magistrate judge effectively denied the TRO by scheduling hearings after the eviction dates.
Key Context
#LandPatent #PropertyRights #ProSe #Eviction #FederalCourt
Case Status
Home Eviction:Completed (Mar 3)
Business Eviction:In Progress
Active Case 1:26-cv-163 (ChoiceOne)
Active Case 2:26-cv-449 (vs. Michigan)
Appeal:6th Circuit Pending
Human Impact
3 of 4 children raised in the home. Mike built the house personally 21 years ago. Massive loss of equipment and inventory (siding, tools, coffee shop gear) due to storage constraints.
Host: Michael Deem | Guests: Mike & Leah Est. Reading Time: 4 mins | Length: 36:52
Introduction
This episode of Bard's Rise features host Michael Deem and guests Mike and Leah as they recount the harrowing experience of being evicted from their long-term family home and business properties. The discussion centers on the legal distinction of federal land patents, the systemic challenges faced by pro se litigants, and the emotional toll of a "paper war" against institutional banking and state interests.
1. Defining the Legal Identity: Federal Land Patents vs. Sovereign Citizens
A critical portion of the discussion is dedicated to clarifying the legal framework Mike and Leah are utilizing. Host Michael Deem explicitly distances their movement from "sovereign citizens," a term often used by opposing counsel to discredit litigants. Instead, they identify strictly as federal land patent holders. While the term "allodial title" was previously used by AI-generated summaries of the show, Deem clarifies that they acknowledge state regulation and are not claiming to be above the law but rather seeking to invoke specific rights granted under federal land patents. The guests emphasize that they have never identified as sovereign citizens and believe such labels are tactical attempts by the opposition to prejudice the court.
Legal Framework Comparison
Position
Description
Sovereign Citizen
Often associated with total immunity from taxes/laws; rejected by the guests.
Land Patent Holder
Reliance on federal land grants and constitutional supremacy; subject to state law.
Note: The defense relies on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution to argue that federal land patents supersede state court eviction orders.
2. The Physical and Emotional Toll of Eviction
The narrative shifts to the recent evictions of Mike and Leah from two distinct properties: their custom-built family home and a massive community center. On March 3rd, the family was forced to vacate the home they built 20 years ago and where they raised their four children. Due to the speed of the eviction and a lack of storage, they were forced to abandon significant personal property, including heavy furniture and full kitchen cupboards.
The second eviction involved a 60,000 to 70,000 square foot building that served as a hub for three family businesses: a construction company, a coffee shop, and a community center. Despite having a crew of 15 people helping, the sheer volume of equipment and inventory—including commercial kitchen appliances and 80 squares of siding—meant that more was left behind and likely destroyed than was successfully moved.
3. The "Paper War" and Systemic Hurdles
Michael Deem criticizes the legal system's handling of the case, specifically the magistrate judge's failure to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. He argues that "irreparable harm" was clearly established because the properties are unique—one being a former middle school and the other a custom-built home. The guests express frustration with the "rigged" nature of the system, noting that while they cite dozens of cases in their filings, the opposing banks provide minimal citations yet receive favorable treatment. Furthermore, they highlight a lack of professional courtesy from the court, claiming that their phone calls as pro se litigants go unreturned.
Active Legal Cases
Case 1
26cv163
vs. ChoiceOne Bank
Case 2
26cv449
Dalton v. Michigan
Required for Injunction:
1. Likelihood of success on merits.
2. Irreparable harm (Unique Property).
Key Data
Property Size: The community center/business building is estimated between 60,000 and 70,000 square feet.
Duration of Residency: The family lived in and owned their home for over 20 years (since 2005).
Litigation Success Rate: Mike cites a statistic that only 12% of pro se cases typically win in court.
Timeline: The current federal legal battle began around January 15th, leading up to the March 3rd eviction.
To-Do
Michael Deem will post the First Amended Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, and Opposition Brief for the ChoiceOne Bank case on the show page once BBS creates it.
The legal team will file the bank's reply brief on the show page as soon as it is submitted.
A complaint will be filed against the State of Michigan in case 26cv449, with the court to determine the specific individual defendants.
Listeners are encouraged to open a PACER account to monitor the filings for cases 26cv163 and 26cv449.
The host and guests plan to provide a more positive update in the coming weeks as the case moves to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Conclusion
Despite the "doom and gloom" of the recent evictions, the participants remain committed to their legal strategy. Michael Deem likens the struggle to a long-term war that must be won "one bite at a time," asserting that this case will eventually be recognized as a landmark civil rights and property fight in American history.