Susanville 70 : Reality TV Fraud Case?

Tsk, tsk, tsk!!  4th of July 2012

When illegal seizures start to take on gigantic proportions, and lies, lies, lies are the water they swim in, then it starts to turn reality into a movie?

New evidence has been discovered in what was monumentally hailed as the “graveyard” for horses case out of podunk  Susanville, California, rated as one of the cities with an exceptionally high corruption level nationwide, where prisoners make up almost half of the population of the entire town.  Now that wouldn’t be remarkable for a small town, but when egregious actions are allowed to take place which infringe on constitutional violations, we must then ask ourselves, is this reality, or is this fraud, or is this both?  Or could it be even more? Like in movies?

Court records show that the Wells Fargo attorney, Tim M. Ryan of the “Ryan firm” from Anaheim, California, apparently went on Facebook “Justice for Animals”  Susanville,  California, in the fall of 2011 until March-April 2012,  and started shooting his mouth off left and right, egging others to follow his criticism against the animal owner, and where Ryan apparently wrote online, that the owner was worthy of a long jail sentence and other actions that made owner appear to be guilty.

Of course, the case for owner has not even gotten very far in criminal court, where it is our understanding from talking to the source, that a motion to suppress the illegal seizure was already announced by the owner’s criminal defense attorney. Now it would appear from reading consistent news reports, that the public is being fed a line of nonsense on the case.  That is, nothing but emotional drivel is foisted upon the public, and no actual facts are mentioned.

Who would think that an illegal seizure of animals, without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, without anything including lack of a sworn in witness, or completely proper affidavit coupled with an actual appearance, could result in a BANK   receiver taking animals from a citizen?  Where were the necessary parties?  Why would a Judge allow such a seizure when the owner is entitled to the post seizure hearing by law, and then never gets one?  Where was the prove up of the actual exigent circumstances?  Where was the proof that such seizure was needed without due process, meaning a warrant?  Where is the law that allows seizure and the taking of a citizen’s property without due process?

Those questions are always used for any seizure, especially wrongful seizure. Having viewed the documents from court which gave rise to the seizure, it is obvious that they were lacking and insufficient to levy such a huge seizure, UNLESS the documents given to the COURT were not the same documents we saw.

We say this because apparently in this case, documents purportedly filed in the Superior Court seem to differ with the ACTUAL documents themselves.  How could that be possible?

The only way that could happen would be for an original court order to be surreptitiously altered, and then filed with the court as the “copy of original” order from another court.  For example, if we took a State Court original order, and then altered it, and then submitted it to a Federal Court as “the order from state court”, unless the Federal Court obtained the actual State Court order, they would have no reason to believe that the order presented was inaccurate.

Obviously if and when this is done, it indicates fraud upon a court and calls for severe penalties for whomever may have done it.  But why would anyone with a law degree do such a thing?

The plausible answer to that question, would be to gain a tactical advantage of course. Or maybe to make more money, or to not lose a case?   By removing the fake court order and then replacing the real order, no one is the wiser, that is– unless you have sent personnel or investigator out to check.  In the insane “Susanville 70” case, termed that name by The Grace Foundation of Northern California, that cannot get baby horses foaled without spending $500,000, Grace has widely and publicly asserted that Wells Fargo has engaged in misconduct and potential fraud in the case.

Were that to be the case, then the evidence would point to Wells Fargo attorney Timothy M. Ryan, and indeed Grace has singled him out as the one that supposedly misled The Grace Foundation.

We found that Mr. Ryan’s name is also the named attorney whose name is on the pleadings for seizing the horses under exigent “medical” conditions.  Therefore since Mr. Ryan’s name is listed on the documents, it would be our belief that he is accountable for the seizure, since he filed the document.  While the document may claim it was filed for someone else, which is purported to be a named receiver, we believe this set up does not work for exigent seizure of a citizen’s property for more than several legal reasons.  Accordingly, it would seem that Mr. Ryan, as named by The Grace Foundation, is correct as to any purported or alleged fraud stemming from at least part of the illegal seizure, especially in regard to the owner’s bankruptcy filing.

What we were able to ascertain from the Bankruptcy filings, is that Mr. Timothy M. Ryan, whose firm is named on the pleadings, filed in both late August 2011, [after owner had filed bankruptcy] and September 2011, for “relief” from the court. It would seem apparent that if Ryan filed for “relief” from the bankruptcy court, it would mean he had notice of the owner’s bankruptcy and therefore had to file for “relief.” But since this same Mr. Ryan also apparently filed the State Court motion to seize the owner’s horses, and did knowingly allow The Grace Foundation to TAKE the owner-debtor’s property when he already KNEW the automatic stay was in place–but he apparently had no court “relief” granted yet—-what effect does it have?

It would indicate to us that knowingly allowing a seizure to take place while there is the automatic stay in place, to which the attorney himself filed for “relief” would mean that an attorney let private people take and seize property which violated the bankruptcy stay.

Also, since The Grace Foundation had been clamoring to have owner charged with “abuse” as evidenced by the widespread national online campaign started by The Grace Foundation, it brings up questions of why The Grace Foundation would want to even take all those “medical” problem horses (as they alleged) if they were not in a position to afford to handle such a large number of horses which knowingly, according to The Grace Foundation, could be in foal?

If suspected pregnancies or early abortion were going to be used, would it not seem rather practical to AVOID taking such animals in the first place, if one is low on cash? Being low on “cash” was publicly noted online as to The Grace Foundation in 2010, 2011, and even 2012. The Grace Foundation CEO, Beth DeCaprio, has publicly admitted to the same, having been sued in 2008-2009, according to court records.

According to online sources widely available on the Internet, The Grace Foundation of Northern California ..”Keeping the lifesaving Grace Foundation afloat is a Constant Struggle”[2010, story by Robert Lewis]…”DeCaprio is asking for help” [October ,2011, article by Mike Roberts, Mountain]…

and even worse, September 14, 2011, just DAYS after supposedly obtaining the Susanville owner’s seized horses, DeCaprio interviews for online story…“Grace rides in to save hurt horses” where it is clearly stated “The Foundation currently does not have the resources to feed or house the most recent acquisitions and were fortunate to find placement at an Auburn ranch.” ……. a November 2009 on, “Grace Foundation rescues Texas slaughter horses”..and that’s by PAYING usually, per pound, per horse, and then having to cart them all the way back to California?

In January 2011, online by “Hearts and Hooves at Grace”, author states “The casualties of closed businesses and decreased donations to non profits have been wide spread and catastrophic..the last three years have been a true challenge financially for The Grace Foundation…” 

Why are those revelations important? For one thing, it clearly indicates that The Grace Foundation never had the ability to afford taking in such horses in such numbers.

On the Grace website, it clearly indicates that in 2011, knowing that hay prices were high, Grace stated “Goal: $120,000 to pay our feed bill for the year” and other consistent statements in nearly every single page by The Grace Foundation indicates financial instability.

When finances are not stable, should groups be vying to TAKE more animals they cannot afford to house or feed?  Let’s be serious folks. Rescuing animals is a bottomless pit, we know because we have done it.  It is time consuming, expensive, and hard work.  So if one doesn’t have the finances to support such an endeavor, it does not make sense to do it.

Grace also boasts they have between 85-100 horses that are practically permanent fixtures on the ranch, meaning no one will ever buy them. The cost alone for maintaining that many horses, especially when feeding pellet food for old horses, is not cheap.

So, when Grace now claims that the attorney Timothy M. Ryan did not tell Grace about the bankruptcy until after they took the horses, does that mean if Grace KNEW ahead of time, that they would not have taken such horses? We wouldn’t have bet on it just looking at how Grace runs the business.

Grace is known to take severely ailing horses, dogs, and other animals on a consistent basis. The animal “Freebird” for example, named and taken in by Grace, was an abandoned horse found and lodged with Sacto. animal control ……

“On Jan. 17 large animal veterinarian Michael W. Russell, DVM, was called in by Sacramento County to examine the horse. The horse was in such a severely emaciated state that normal feeding regiments and care by Sacramento County Animal Control could not maintain the animal and euthanasia was the only option for that organization.” “Never have I seen a horse still alive in this poor of condition,” said Beth DeCaprio, founder and executive director of The Grace Foundation.”

January 20, 2012 | Posted by Special to Village Life

Grace Foundation takes in another abandoned horse


So Grace TAKES in the horse, and it dies several days later. Of poisoning.

That is the direct verbiage from the vet, the horse died of poisoning because it ate a poisonous plant…”the vet discovered she had been poisoned from eating Star Thistle which horses only eat when they’re starving.”  That is direct from the CBS Sacramento site from Jan. 24, 2012. It is #2 link, below.


Yet Grace tells the public that the “Susanville 70” horses were starved to death and abused, not poisoned? Interesting.

Now what exactly does the CEO of Grace know about poisoning horses?

Apparently the ranch she rents for $1.00 per year on 600 acres contains “4” thistles, according to the Grace website, which are poison to horses. Hmm… “four” plants?  “four” species?  four of what? Since hoardes of volunteers were being called to action of “Thistle” removal day, June 23, 2012,  this would seem to indicate that they needed tons of volunteers to get rid of a very difficult to eradicate type of plant. See below.

The Grace Foundation – Thistle Work Day
Saturday, June 23 from 9 am – 1 pm, we are asking volunteers to come to Grace for athistle removal day. We have 4 thistles on the property that are toxic to horses.

Thistle Work Day

  • When
    23 Jun 2012
  • 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
  • Location
    The Grace Foundation

Thistle Work Day

Saturday, June 23 from 9 am – 1 pm, we are asking volunteers to come to Grace for a thistle removal day.  We have 4 thistles on the property that are toxic to horses. They can produce as many as 20,000 seeds on each plant. They are in bloom now and must be removed so they don’t spread further.Please let us know if you will be able join this crew by calling the office at 916-941-0800.Below are some of the supplies we need. If you are able to join us, Please let us know what you can bring to help out.

Loppers, long handled pruners for thick stems

Pruning shears


Gas weed whackers

Leather gloves

Large black bags

Water bottles

Long pants and long sleeved shirts are recommended

  1. Surge In Abandoned Horses Leads To Death – KTXL…/ktxl-surge-in-abandoned-horses-leads-to-death-…Jan 23, 2012 – A warning right up front: Freebird’s story does not have a happy ending. At the Grace Foundation ranch, they have brought scores of horse back 
  2. Abandoned Horse Dies After Eating A Poisonous Plant « CBS…/abandoned-horse-dies-after-eating-a-pois…

    Jan 24, 2012 – Sick Horse At the Grace Foundation  The Grace Foundation took in the two-year-old mare named Freebird, and tried to nurse her back to 
  3. Grace Foundation takes in another abandoned horse | Village Life…/gracefoundation-takes-in-another-abandone…   Jan 20, 2012 – Grace Foundation takes in another abandoned horse A. Freebird

2 thoughts on “Susanville 70 : Reality TV Fraud Case?

  1. I think you are totally wrong about the grace foundation. Shame on you! I have done volunteer work at the ranch for the past three years. You should check it out before you bad mouth a wonderful program like the grace foundation. The banks lie regular!ly. I know I lost my house while being treated for breast cancer. Check your facts. Terrible people you are. Folks that lie have special places h–l.

  2. We are not wrong. Tons of evidence. Grace barely even has one hired hand working there,
    the place has tons of thistles, the Board of Directors doesn’t do their job
    correctly and if they did, the entire issues facing Grace would never have even
    happened. You can’t keep hoarding 150, 200 animals you really can’t afford.
    Judging from what evidence we saw in court pleadings, Grace should not be in business.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s