Formerly first posted July 2012; We are re-posting due to email queries asking about attorneys:
The Grace Foundation case is all in the news, even protesting at the Folsom area Wells Fargo bank……..Essentially the banks offered Grace $400,000 to settle all claims and Grace turned it down. As for an email we saw where Grace is saying that attorney Carolyn Chan who represents horse owner in bankruptcy case is slandering Grace, we have no knowledge of it as we do not engage in slander.
Grace’s attorney seems to believe that straightening out the ownership claims will be the key issue? Because Grace appears to believe that the horse owners’ bankruptcy attorney ‘runs’ this blog, we had to contact the attorney to see if she wanted to give us any information. We do obtain legal information which is public, and we can also access some information which is related to the cases. We do not pay to obtain the information, and do not gain any monetary interest, we do not sell the stories, or anything else. The litigation privilege protects many items from being disclosed or used publicly. Here is the information she gave us:
//The Grace Foundation’s lawsuit was seemingly inspired ONLY after Grace claimed to realize that she was part of an illegal seizure in taking the owner’s animals. As Grace has mentioned to the media and others online, had the County done the seizure correctly, then she would not have this issue. That is likely correct, because the Penal Code does not allow the agency of any government to simply hand over seized property, even in forfeiture without following the law. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is assumed that the CEO of such a group knows that rule.
In California the Penal Code and additional local regs may heavily affect the seizure hearing. However, there is no law that I am aware of that allows a third party to conjure up a false entity run by the third party, and then allow documents for other parties to sign wherein the third party entity did the work for the government [filing a seizure motion] without following due process, in an attempt to avoid due process. This simply cannot be legal and it is not legal. Owner-debtor subsequently filed bankruptcy to try and stop the loss of his property.
When we later viewed the seizing authority document which had no warrant, no proper hearing, no proper documentation of exigent circumstances, and no post seizure hearing, we realized what had happened. However since this all occurred before the debtor owner’s bankruptcy, I was not aware of the documents until after the fact. Since the owner had no criminal attorney at that time, he was then representing himself.
However subsequent to the seizure and after Grace had already taken physical possession, the Wells Fargo bank attorney got the Trustee to “abandon” the animals. Abandonment of the animals reverts to the owner unless there is some reason this should not occur. In this case it would not physically revert to owner because there is currently a court order for no possession of animals, therefore the animals remain in the temporary custodial care of the Grace Foundation. Had Mr. Ryan inserted a “lien” into his motion, we would have opposed it. He did not insert one. It was Mr. Ryan that apparently told Grace Foundation that the “abandonment” meant Grace “owned” the animals. That is incorrect.
The minute Grace realized she really did not own the animals, which appeared to be in 2011 September, she should have enlisted an attorney or spoken to the County and owner’s attorney or his criminal attorney, and come forward with her information that she had against Mr. Ryan, but which she has only now leaked out, in 2012.
This makes the failure to give out the information suspect, since she was a material party to the illegal seizure.
She failed to do this prior [disclose what Ryan allegedly told her], and refused to allow an inventory of the animals. Owner’s attorney (Ms. Chan) requested such inventory October 2011 and again June 2012, both times such inventory was refused by Grace.
Therefore, owner has had to go to great lengths to document, validate and save up information as to what action Grace did not take when she should have. It is a fact that the horse owner actually gave Grace Foundation notice by email of the filing of the bankruptcy, so Grace knew that he had filed the bankruptcy. Grace’s response was that owner was “a sick man.”
In addition, many legal hours have been spent in documenting the fact that the Grace Foundation created defamation and continues to do so against the animal owner. Yes, Carolyn Chan is the owner’s bankruptcy attorney and will be representing him in the action for bankruptcy court, and possibly in civil court if the case ends up there. // It should be noted that printing the truth about a fact cannot be defamation. In any event, Grace’s defamation SOL has likely run and if owner had wanted to sue Grace for defamation he would have done it in 2012.