We kept telling everyone, the fraud/improper actions caused by the bank attorney Timothy M. Ryan, in the Lassen horse seizure case is legendary, and now FINALLY, the vet who wrote the original report, filed his own declaration attesting to the fraud, misrepresentation and altering of documents by the Ryan law Firm. TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT. But see update (at end of this post)…
According to the court documents filed, the vet alleged:
from document #238, the declaration of vet Michael Russell, filed in the Eastern District Bankruptcy Court, Sacramento Division:
“Even though this declaration appears to bear my signature, I did not sign this document and would not have signed this document because it contains substantial and significant misrepresentations. Even a cursory review of the false declaration raises suspicion of its accuracy. For example, the declaration is signed on August 1, 2011. However, I am informed and advised that this bankruptcy was not filed until August 18, 2011.
Therefore, the declaration could not have been originally signed for the purpose of any motion in this bankruptcy. Further, beneath the signature line, the identifier on the document identifies the Allen action pending in Lassen County. Further, due to the fact that an entirely new paragraph was added to the false declaration, the false declaration contains ‘two’ paragraphs number “6.”
I signed the original declaration on 8-1-2011. On 8-5-2011, I left to volunteer my veterinary services in Peru and I was out of the country for three weeks. I am informed and believe that on August 25, 2011, the Ryan firm on behalf of its clients, Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of America, filed a motion to excuse the turn over by the Receiver of horses formerly located at Whispering Pines Stables to the Bankruptcy Trustee.
In support of that motion, I am informed that the Ryan firm filed a declaration purportedly signed by me, misspelling my name in the caption of the filing. …[t]he declaration that I signed on 8-1-2011 has been altered to add paragraph 5, the content of which is generally false by implication and specifically false as indicated below: …[I] did not make an inventory of all the animals on the property as indicated by Paragraph 5A. I did not make notation of the species or sex of any of the horses other than described herein. I did not evaluate the health of all the animals, their weight or body type as indicated by Paragraph 5C….”
IT WAS the Timothy M. Ryan firm
that filed and used those declarations,
so obviously they had control of the documents.
Who else could possibly have altered such documents?
The purpose for altering documents was to get the COURTS to believe owner should be kicked out, [no hearing, no eviction] animals seized [no opposition allowed, no warrant, no exigent circumstances] and land given to the bank or banks via first reformed deed of trust [via manipulation of procedure and abuse of process generally] And that is what happened.
Will Ryan try and blame the court clerks who have been fired from Lassen County? Trust us, it was not the fired clerks, although it might have been one that was not fired. Ryan didn’t do so well in depositions we heard, in fact he did very poorly. Could that be because he knows he is caught doing the wrong stuff? Could be. Maybe that’s why he was selling off his property?
* The “Timothy M. Ryan” attorney we are talking about is the one that has the office in Irvine CA
The Ryan Firm
30 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606 In case anyone is wondering– it is a felony for an attorney in California to submit adulterated or forged-type documents or other similar misrepresentations.
NOW– the question is—
who is going to believe ANYTHING
that so-called attorney Timothy M. Ryan says?
We hope no one does.
HE SHOULD BE DISBARRED, PERIOD.
But it doesn’t end here. Ryan the attorney, claims he got permission from Grace to send the declaration to the court as he sent it. Ryan filed a declaration in bankruptcy court recently that said this. That right there is admission of wrongdoing. No one can submit another’s signature and claim someone said to do it because he/she had permission, especially NOT an attorney. The problem here is Grace waited 2 yr to try and get this into court. It should have been done as soon as she saw that Ryan filed it. Additionally, in the latest motion to remove the fraud document, the vet did not appear on the record.
Despite the vet having filed the declaration that he did NOT say what attorney Ryan claimed (on paper) that the vet supposedly stated— in bankruptcy court, according to the recent order by Judge, Grace Foundation had filed to obtain permission to REMOVE the fake order by the vet, from the court file. she also asked for an equitable lien on debtor’s property.
It appeared that the banks objected, and the horse owner’s bankruptcy attorney objected. For several reasons, the facts did not support an equitable lien or any lien actually within the bankruptcy jurisdiction, but Judge stated it was all a state court issue and that no legal grounds that he saw would support it in bankruptcy court. Upon seeing that Judge was giving Grace nothing, it appears that unless the “government” forces Lassen County to pay someone, clearly Lassen will not pay anyone. Our bet is Lassen never pays anyone.
Lassen County animal control worked with the bank attorney and Receiver, so they will not willingly admit they did it; in fact, they claim they didn’t have any part in it, even though there are purported documents that were signed.
Lassen claimed they were only helping to facilitate the “transfer” from Party A (the Receiver/banks) to Party B (Grace Foundation)………the problem with that little story is that the County was facilitating a so called transfer to a third party all right— but based on an illegal seizure supposedly done by Receiver “surrender” which, when done by a rents and profits “Receiver” is likely not legal at all, especially when coupled with failure to adhere to PC 597.1 since the Receiver alleged health reasons and that animals were abused and starved but left out the poisoning part? How convenient. That’s like your dog being poisoned by rat bait and then you get accused of killing it when he spits up blood, and it was your neighbor that hid the rat bait in some food?
As for any other newspaper reports on the “Susanville70”, don’t believe any of them as most of them are wrong and always leave out the real truth. It is our opinion that both Ryan, banks, Receiver and Grace have liability, and Lassen County, but for different reasons. There are others as well, but after watching the parties put their spin on the pleadings, we can see there was definitely some non-truths in there, and some outright lies used, mostly by using “RJN”, Evidence Code 450-460, request for judicial notice, as to prior alleged facts in prior volumes of pleadings. RJN does not allude to truth but to fact that it was stated or alleged in most instances:
Note that judicial notice of other Court records and files is limited to matters that are indisputably true. See Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App. 4th 97, 113. This means that judicial notice is limited to the orders and judgments in the other court file, as distinguished from the contents of documents filed therein.*
However, there are exceptions to this rule when a party amends a pleading, particularly a verified pleading and omits material factual allegations that were included in the original pleading without an adequate explanation.
“The general rule is that material factual allegations in a verified pleading that are omitted in a subsequent amended pleading without adequate explanation will be considered by the court in ruling on a demurrer to the later pleading.” Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 1, 13.
*PD: One can only imagine how difficult this is with 15 volumes of pleadings over 7 years, and where the orders are missing, the documents have been tampered with, RJN could mean anything, since it could be likely that one can not even FIND the reference to such notation. Once a file has been tampered with, and let’s say, an order was inserted in PLACE of the REAL order– and then the rest of the case is hinging on the FAKE order– it is obvious that if no one can discover and prove that the FAKE order was NOT the real order–there will be a huge mountain of lies in all subsequent pleadings based upon a fake order. Do you get our drift here?