Does Illegally Seized Livestock Belong to “Owner?”

The Grace Foundation of El dorado Hills puts their new press release out in effort to uncover the illegal seizure which was orchestrated by not only the bank ATTORNEY Timothy M. Ryan, but where Grace was WORKING with Ryan? We have been advised from the beginning, the seizure was never legal, the Penal code was never followed, and a rents and profits attorney does not have authority to give any OWNERSHIP of property, especially when it is not part of the actual “receivership”…. and especially when the orchestrating ATTORNEY was the bank attorney pretending to simply be the Receiver, drafted all the motions, requests, attended court for Receiver, indemnified Receiver, got sued by Receiver, paid the Receiver, and now both bank attorney and RECEIVER+her Lassen attorney, are defended by the same DEFENSE COUNSEL from So Cal??!

http://www.nwhorsesource.com/news/us-a-world-news/3165-two-year-cover-up-corporate-and-government-corruption

Fourth Amendment Rights Regarding Search and Seizure

In essence, the fourth amendment seeks to protect the privacy rights of private citizens from government officials.

The terms illegal search and seizure as  to law enforcement or government officials,  in many instances  may be illegal; other private citizens, such as your landlord, employer, or even private security personnel have free range in invading your privacy, if they are prepared to accept any criminal penalties applicable to their actions.

Well– if the bank attorney RYAN (Timothy M. Ryan of Irvine) is the actual “Receiver” then who exactly TOOK the livestock of owner–

(a)  the physical Receiver Ms. Lozano  (b) the bank attorney Ryan [masquerading as the Receiver]  (c) the neutral arm of the court “Receiver” [which didn’t exist]  (d) Lassen County [whose employee says the horses were not abused]

Let’s put it this way. Ryan and The Grace Foundation orchestrated a huge online debacle defamation campaign,  intended to defame the horse owner, this is documented online. Ryan and Grace worked together, Ryan was the one that gave the District Attorney the “prosecution package”, Ryan legally  represented Grace, and Ryan in essence was the Receiver (illegally); the purported Receiver (actually Ryan) then requested that the livestock be surrendered to the County of Lassen. Various documents supposedly gave Grace some ownership (Grace says) but just because Ryan/Grace/Lassen allegedly got the livestock MOVED –it did not necessarily transfer anything else.

That MEANS that Grace knew or should have known the law involving seizure and transfer, especially when YOU are levying abuse charges against someone. Yet Grace never disclosed exactly how the scheme was set up, in her lawsuit she did not disclose many things, she didn’t sue Lassen County or the Receiver. She had to amend her complaint to do so but her complaint has not done exactly what she wanted, with Ryan actually appearing to win so far. In fact Lassen County (in the Los Angeles lawsuit) seems to have the upper hand.

Criminal Defense Guide

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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