Huge WF Bank Atty Error in Horse Case Susanville 70

So this is what can happen when you piece out a case into 3 different courts in different jurisdictions?  SEIZURE becomes “abandonment” and clearly, the difference is highly crucial.  The pleading by the Severson firm, representing WELLS FARGO—- completely misstates the facts, and completely mischaracterizes the property [the horses] completely– 100%. They even cite the “abandonment” in a CA legislative bill, citing banks have no duty…

“Civil Code Sections 1815(d) and 1815(b)…foreclosing lenders

have no obligations with respect to the care of animals abandoned

on properties in which they hold a security interest.”

The seized horses from the “Susanville 70” where owner’s horses were literally taken from him by using an invalid “Receiver” controlled by the Timothy M. Ryan attorney from Irvine CA– without allowing any opposition hearing by owner—–  AND are NOW characterized by Severson/associate, in the Severson Werson law firm — as being an abandonment of the animals, not a seizure, not anything else. What everyone, including Lassen and the banks and others– completely ignore– is the fact that IF one is “taking” the property of another, and that property happens to be animals, there are many many laws in place for such takings– and the District Attorney in Lassen has publicly stated that it was the “Receiver” who got the seizure order. Obviously, people believe that the order printed out by attorney Ryan actually reflects the Judge’s order that day?  Unfortunately, that is incorrect.

Many purported orders are actually missing from the Superior Court file, and alleged orders that were or were not filed have not been dually entered or tracked. Documents that were “filed” but not entered, filed late but not accepted, things like this — are part of the problem. It is our understanding that several court clerks lost their jobs after the appeal was filed, including the head clerk who had been there 27 years. We do not know for 100% exactly how/why she lost her job, but that is what we were told by more than several persons. Therefore if you know exactly what happened, we would be happy to listen.

The “Receiver” was controlled and indemnified by attorney Ryan, and followed his orders. This is shown in her own Receiver documents. Even WORSE– the “Receiver” then SUED Ryan/the banks we believe, late 2012; and was paid off/case was dismissed. YES, we saw the actual lawsuit and dismissal documents. 

NOW the same malpractice defense attorney [representing Timothy M. Ryan] is also currently REPRESENTING THE RECEIVER —  IN THE GRACE LAWSUIT?    Further, the “Receiver” did not obtain a seizure order, she only obtained permission to have the animals examined. According to criminal court records, the seized animals were not even examined by the vet because he did not think they had any health issues, and had seen the animals only one time.  Had such animals BEEN abandoned or actually “starved”, the RECEIVER OR LASSEN COUNTY would have to follow the laws set out for such situations in the Penal Code.  

Animals “seized” were left [at the property] for almost a month before being physically seized and removed. There were no animal negligence charges pending when animals were seized. Thus– it is obvious there were no exigent health issues with the animals, despite all of the claims.

Even further, attorney Timothy M. Ryan’s office filed a declaration purportedly signed by doctor (vet) Russell of the Grace Foundation– and filed it in Eastern District Bankruptcy Court. That [fraudulent] declaration under oath, was USED by attorney Timothy M. Ryan to purportedly help allow the “Receiver” to seize the animals from owner, or to have bankruptcy judge believe the vet had at least issued the declaration. The truth was– that the vet was in another country like South America or something, and did not sign and date that declaration as proffered by attorney Timothy M. Ryan.      According to Dr. Russell, that declaration is a fraudulent document and he did not issue it as filed by the Ryan law firm. It appears that the vet does not want to help attorney Ryan in Ryan’s efforts for pushing questionable , suspect, or even fraudulent declarations?  

Perhaps if the Severson team were to READ the Lassen State Court file, or the appeal, they would find that in opposition to the horses’ seizure, owner filed plenty of pleadings documenting the fact that the Court never allowed him any due process hearing AFTER the seizure, during the seizure, or at any time at all.

It is seriously doubtful that any pleadings state the horses were ever abandoned; the only person who threatened to “abandon” the horses was Ms. Sheridan, the former business attorney for Grace, who issued a letter in 2012 stating Grace could no longer care for the horses and would return them back to place they got them from, which could mean abandonment.

Only in bankruptcy court were the horses abandoned by the Trustee, meaning the estate let them go back to owner. Not physically abandoned.

At no time were there ever any “abandoned” horses in the “Susanville” case,  nor any abandonment. We know this partner attorney is too smart to characterize property incorrectly on purpose. Hey, maybe attorney Timothy M. Ryan gave him the facts?  Hint: don’t listen to Irvine attorney Timothy M. Ryan who actually represented BOTH the banks AND the Grace Foundation at same time. And he is being sued for malpractice?

GRACE BANKS ABANDON NONSENSE  click to read the fairy tale


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