Much has been said about illegal seizure of animals, but in CA we believe we have seen the case from Hell that would outdo nearly all other cases.
It is believed from examining the record, that the banks/bank attorney definitely carried out improper actions, that the Grace Foundation vet did not ever examine the seized horses, and now it has all backfired on Grace and the bank attorney, but the bank attorney’s defense team seems to have emerged ahead of Grace in Los Angeles.
The alleged “Susanville 70” which is what The Grace Fdn of Northern CA named it… Our opinion is just that, our opinion. But we can’t sit quietly when we see that the CEO of The Grace Fdn of Northern CA has issued this and asks people to pass it forward…….
|“To all parties and all Government officials:”Lassen County and all other parties have failed to provide feed and authorization for Veterinary care as legally required. The actions of the parties are deliberate and have placed the horses and The Grace Foundation in serious jeopardy.Attached is the letter and invoice from Dr.JenniferGaluppo giving notice that she has resigned as the veterinarian in charge of the care of the Lassen horses.She has also detailed what she must receive from the parties before she can begin to provide veterinary care again to these horses.Dr.Galuppo’s invoice only includes the amount that has been deferred and does not reflect ANY of the payments made by The Grace Foundation to Dr.Galuppo for the costs and services provided to The Lassen horses. Nor does it reflect vaccinations and medications of The Grace Foundation’s that were utilized on the Lassen horses.The parties have also failed to provide feed for the horses.Grace Foundation cannot legally continue to have horses in their custody that they cannot provide veterinary care and treatment to.
Nor can Grace be expected to continue to pay for feed and care of animals that were illegally placed in their care and THAT THEY DO NOT OWN.
Further, The Grace Foundation has been instructed by the El Dorado Court that in order for The Grace Foundation to receive legal authority from the Courts to place the horses (under civil code 3080), Grace must provide proof that the horses are not part of the criminal action pending against Mr. Bennett. [In other words, Grace can’t adopt out horses if they are evidence in the criminal case]
This information is also necessary in order for The Grace Foundation to be able to provide medical treatment in the event that Dr. Galuppo’s letter is ignored.
The parties must provide the following:
1) The parties must provide Dr. Galuppo with the information and payments detailed in her letter
2) Purchase feed TODAY by contacting the R & S hay directly. Feed must be provided until The Grace Foundation receives full payment for the lien amount for back care of horses for over 2 years.
3) If the parties prefer they can provide a licensed Veterinary provided by the parties to handle both non-emergency or emergency care to the 42 Lassen horses. Care must be provided at The Grace Foundation ranch.
If the parties can provide proof that the horses are NOT part of the criminal animal neglect charges filed and pending against Mr. Bennett, then please provide proof and:
4) A letter from an authorized Lassen County official stating that the horses in the Grace Foundation’s possession are not (and never have been) part of the felony counts brought against Mr. Bennett that are pending today.
5) A letter from all parties stating that they have no legal obligation, authority or legal requirement to secure the safety, protection and care of the Lassen horses. In addition, the letter needs to state that placement of these horses would in no way violate Mr. Bennett’s legal rights pending the outcome of his criminal trial.
6) The parties must indemnify The Grace Foundation for any and all liability and damages that may arise if this information is later determined to be inaccurate.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND PLACES THE GRACE FOUNDATION IN DANGER OF VIOLATING THE LAW FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE CARE TO THE HORSES IN THEIR POSSESSION THAT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED .
THE GRACE FOUNDATION MUST RECEIVE COMMUNICATION AND THE NECESSARY INFORMATION BY THE END OF TODAY, MARCH 22, 2014.
The Grace Foundation is asking for the parties to do the right thing for the horses and come together to insure the safety and welfare of the 42 horses.
The Grace Foundation is requesting government assistance to insure this email is not ignored and that the necessary legal steps are taken to insure the horses safety and welfare.
[all emphasis by PD]
Government agencies: To contact the parties involved:
Most people know by now that the horse owner’s horses were victim to poisoning, and this was reported consistently over time, to authorities. Of course, Grace did NOT test any of the horses for poisoning, which would seem to be quite ridiculous, since Grace claims one test would prove what horse owner had stated (that animals were poisoned…)
When bank attorney Ryan used a fake Receiver to allegedly “surrender” the livestock/animals, no one– not AC, not the County, no one– ever bothered to follow the protocol under the law, for animal seizure. In Los Angeles, the banks’ attorney argued that the code in CA allows “abandoned” animals [in alleged foreclsoures] — to be surrendered over to authorities. Under that code, which we read, we don’t find the animals to have been abandoned. Grace’s attorney argued against it as well, well after the incident, but did not win on that point that we are aware. That might be on appeal as we speak.
In any event, regardless of alleged “abandonment”– if there was an issue with the TAKING of the animals in the FIRST instance— the more detailed law will take precedent over the less detailed law. And the Penal Code re “seizure” of animals, is far, far more detailed than the NEW “abandonment” statute which is fairly recent, and only applies in foreclosure cases; horse owner’s land was NOT even in foreclosure; the improvements were subject to a loan held by Mr. Allen, not the horse owner.
Regardless, had the horse owner been able to convince ANYONE that the initial TAKING was illegally done–and Grace could have known that, if she had hired competent counsel and not USED the BANK ATTORNEY RYAN, who fooled most of the people with Lassen County– it would have been possible to show WHY the “Receiver” surrender order was completely wrong from day one. No one did it, and no one listened to horse owner. Instead, Grace followed along with bank attorney Ryan and tried to get ownership of the horses; even declaring the horses were virtually worthless at $250@ or less. At all times, Grace wanted horse owner to face criminal charges and she helped bank attorney Ryan to send out many, many ads to get donations for Grace’s non profit.
Only NOW– after losing to Lassen County/Receiver in Los Angeles, with her Los Angeles attorney now trying to drop out of the case, Grace now wants everyone to HELP her? While we believe Grace still has the malpractice claim alive in Los Angeles, a corporation must be represented by an attorney, so if Grace’s attorney gets off the case, Grace would have to hire another attorney, and undoubtedly, there is already a huge lien for services on Grace’s case.
Lassen County would NEVER help Grace. Lassen County isn’t, so far, dropping any criminal charges on horse owner. Had Grace DONE the right thing from the outset, she should have turned bank attorney over because he told Grace supposedly, that Lassen County was giving her the horses. All animal groups should have an attorney that knows the seizure procedure of CA if an incident occurs in CA. After the bankruptcy court abandoned the horses/animals, they still belonged to the horse owner— not Grace, not the banks, not Lassen County and not the Receiver. We have stated that since 2011. And that is because the animals were NEVER properly seized, EVER.
Subsequently we believe more than
3/4 of a million, probably more than $2.5m, has been expended on this issue, mostly the litigation in Los Angeles and Lassen State Court from 2011 forward. This could have been avoided by following the seizure law in place, having competent counsel, and not being greedy. Bank attorney Ryan clearly executed improper documents for the Receiver who then later testified she worked for the banks (which is not being neutral)… Clearly the bank attorney did not know penal codes relating to animals, and if Lassen County knew it, they didn’t try and enforce it.
Our prediction is that no one will pay Grace, no one will sue Lassen County, Grace will have to file bankruptcy, and Lassen will not drop any criminal charges unless something changes. We believe there is a problem with Grace’s horse inventory but that’s a Grace problem as well.
Actually Grace will likely get dragged into bankruptcy down the road, and her chances there might actually be better, if she is honest and doesn’t hide the actual inventory facts. We know Grace has continued to tell the story of how they got rolled over on, but really now– let’s face facts– Grace did their part with bank attorney and willingly tried to decimate horse/animal owner, while raising money for their group–then when it went south– they start claiming foul. Yet didn’t do any poison testing on horses. Sheesh, that says it right there to us from a criminal standpoint.
The Los Angeles court claimed the law below applied to this case. It does not.
THE LAW BELOW DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE LAW PLUS, ANIMAL CONTROL DID NOT TAKE CONTROL OF THE ANIMALS, PLUS ANIMAL CONTROL CLAIMS THEY NEVER GAVE OWNERSHIP TO GRACE [obviously not, since they never properly seized the animals and no due process was ever used; this brings up the “order” that the bank attorney used for “Receiver surrender” which basically did not exist and under the law, could not exist, as a rents and profits Receiver is limited, and is not an equity receiver who can seize many items, such as in criminal cases. This was not a criminal case and no charges were filed until about 2 months later. ]
Legislative Info on the Bill AB 2949
CHAPTERED AB 2949:
BILL NUMBER: AB 2949 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT CHAPTER 265 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 4, 2008 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR AUGUST 4, 2008 PASSED THE SENATE JULY 7, 2008 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 15, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 2, 2008 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 12, 2008 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 6, 2008 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2008 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member DeSaulnier FEBRUARY 22, 2008 An act to amend Sections 1815, 1816, and 1981 of the Civil Code, relating to involuntary deposits. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2949, DeSaulnier. Involuntary deposits: abandoned pets. Existing law provides that an involuntary deposit is made by the accidental leaving or placing of personal property in the possession of any person, without negligence on the part of its owner, or by the delivery to, or picking up by, and the holding of, a stray live animal by any person or public or private entity. The person or private entity with whom a thing or animal is deposited is bound to take charge of it, if able to do so. Existing law also provides that every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would provide that an involuntary deposit is made by the abandonment or leaving of a live animal in or about any premises or real property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding, the termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure of the property. The bill would require any person or private entity with whom a live animal is involuntarily deposited to immediately notify animal control officials for the purpose of retrieving the animal. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 1815 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 1815. An involuntary deposit is made: (a) By the accidental leaving or placing of personal property in the possession of any person, without negligence on the part of its owner. (b) In cases of fire, shipwreck, inundation, insurrection, riot, or like extraordinary emergencies, by the owner of personal property committing it, out of necessity, to the care of any person. (c) By the delivery to, or picking up by, and the holding of, a stray live animal by any person or public or private entity. (d) By the abandonment or leaving of a live animal, as proscribed by Section 597.1 of the Penal Code, in or about any premises or real property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding, the termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure of the property. SEC. 2. Section 1816 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 1816. (a) The person or private entity with whom a thing is deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take charge of it, if able to do so. (b) Any person or private entity with whom a live animal is deposited in the manner described in subdivision (d) of Section 1815 shall immediately notify animal control officials for the purpose of retrieving the animal pursuant to Section 597.1 of the Penal Code. Animal control officers who respond shall be entitled to exercise the right afforded them pursuant to that section to secure a lien for the purpose of recovering the costs of attempting to rescue the animal. Nothing in this subdivision shall impose any new or additional civil or criminal liability upon a depositary who complies with this subdivision. (c) A public agency or shelter with whom an abandoned animal is deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take charge of it, as provided in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code. (d) The person in possession of the abandoned animal is subject to all local ordinances and state laws that govern the proper care and treatment of those animals. (e) For purposes of this section, the person or private entity that notifies animal control officials to retrieve the animal or the successor property owner shall not be considered the keeper of the animal or the agent of the animal's owner as those terms are used in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code. SEC. 3. Section 1981 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 1981. (a) This chapter provides an optional procedure for the disposition of personal property that remains on the premises after a tenancy has terminated and the premises have been vacated by the tenant. (b) This chapter does not apply whenever Section 1862.5, 2080.8, 2080.9, or 2081 to 2081.6, inclusive, applies. This chapter does not apply to property that exists for the purpose of providing utility services and is owned by a public utility, whether or not that property is actually in operation to provide those utility services. (c) This chapter does not apply to any manufactured home as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, any mobilehome as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, or to any commercial coach as defined in Section 18001.8 of the Health and Safety Code, including attachments thereto or contents thereof, whether or not the manufactured home, mobilehome, or commercial coach is subject to registration under the Health and Safety Code. (d) This chapter does not apply to the disposition of an animal to which subdivision (d) of Section 1815 or Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 17001) of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Food and Agricultural Code applies, and those animals shall be disposed of in accordance with those provisions. (e) If the requirements of this chapter are not satisfied, nothing in this chapter affects the rights and liabilities of the landlord, former tenant, or any other person.