Ha ha! Just when you thought you had seen it all, along comes the Bryan Cave law firm from SF, representing Wells Fargo [aka Hells Cargo] and Bank of America, after pro se horse owner filed his appeal in Sacramento Third District Ct. of Appeals, BANKS ASKING if the pro se owner will “stipulate” to giving the banks a 60 day extension??? Are you insane?
The COURT might give the banks an extension, but likely they will need some good reason. Could a good reason be that the former bank attorney, Timothy M. Ryan [of Irvine, formerly Anaheim] got everyone into this horrendous multi party litigation in the first place, by doing everything wrong, acting improperly, leaving a trail of wreckage unknown in most seizure cases, causing the Superior Court file to be an abysmal and errant mess, and blaming everyone BUT himself—- yet claims he is an “honest and able” attorney !@$##%$#%@ gasp cough puke &%#$$#!@!# HARDLY the case. Dishonest is more like it.
It will be quite fun to see ‘ole Ryan, the non honest attorney, squirm like a worm when the CA State Bar investigates all the wrongs he committed. Knowingly. It’s all in the record that liddle ‘old Ryan made himself. Most laughable, he was even stupid enough to DRAFT the RECEIVER’S motions for her!!! Ryan thought because he was in podunk Sunsanville CA, no one would know the difference? How does a party (banks) obtain the right to draft a Receiver’s motions? How can a Receiver be neutral in any sense of the word if the Receiver is controlled by a party? Why did the bank or banks hire someone who had NEVER done a Receivership in her life? The answer is, it was podunk Susanville and the bank attorney was even controlling the Judge from the looks of it.
But would y’all like to have a laugh? Then read what the pro se owner wrote to the BANKS in response:
I would not have a problem stipulating to the extension that you request if the immense power of Bryan Cave L.L.P. were not focused upon defeating the appeal court’s jurisdiction through spurious movements in the Lassen Superior Court courtesy of C. Scott Greene.
Consider this, while you respond to the appeal from the comfort of your high rise offices with untold staffing I am compelled to brief the court homeless, shorn of my property by the antics of Timothy M. Ryan while C. Scott Greene moves to render the appeal moot by disposal of the property in the inferior court.
Will you assure me that Mr. Greene will cease and desist his illicit efforts to supersede the appellate court’s jurisdiction, withdrawing his opposition to setting aside the specious ‘orders’ garnered after perfection of my appeal?
Can you assure me that your clients will no longer ‘hypothicate’ bankruptcy court jurisdiction and will refrain from opposing a motion to dissolve the authority of the unconfirmed receiver, allowing my return to my vested property and allowing solid if unequal footing for me to continue litigation?
It is my intent to move against your clients in the federal courts. The delays that Ryan, the biased courts, your hirelings and banks’ nefarious agreements with the Lassen District Attorney caused threaten statutes of limitation requirements, will your clients wave objections to S.O.L. code upon receipt of the federal complaints?
My A.O.B. is simple and direct. Are you unable to respond to such simplicity? Every day delayed, more information for the prosecution of your client accrues. I see no reasonable cause for delay in your response excepting allowance for Bryan Cave through Greene to pervert the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
Know this, tomorrow I will serve upon you and the Lassen court Notice of Intent to Writ and to request a preliminary injunction under the authority of the 3rd D.C.A. That sir, upon filing of the writ, will narrow your time to respond to 14 days. Nonetheless, your clients’ liabilities will continue to accrue and any delay serves only to pad the pockets of Bryan Cave and afford time for illicit lawyer games to which I have been subjected ad nauseum. Were I you I would be extending efforts to reach settlement rather than milking a dry cow, but I have no aspirations to partnership and do not view the facts with your jaundiced eye. If I were a member of your firm I would be strongly advising the clients not to rely on their malicious criminal prosecution for relief or in the alternative following Ori Edelstein into private practice. I am doubtful that you can provide them alternate solutions to the record economic damages and terminal public exposure that looms. If you so choose to, best of luck.
Feel free to contact me or prepare to meet me in Tombstone, at the trial.
Dwight A Bennett