Below are Susanville horses at Susanville ranch before seizure.
It’s not that we didn’t see it coming. It was just a matter of time. But the video at the link above, is incorrect as to the starving and abused horses. That is not correct.
Some horses actually donated to the rescue (they were not seized) were basically not gaining weight due to having been poisoned over time by perpetrators, and this was recorded in a TRO filed by owner. The TRO is also part of the record at the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento. The Court has yet to rule on the appeal filed more than a year ago. The “seized” horses actually had very little if anything, wrong with them. (see photo above)
Even the Grace vet refused to testify that there was something wrong with them. In court, he actually testified that he didn’t check them because they looked fine to him. And he is not planning to testify that such horses were starved or abused.
In other words, even the vet didn’t say they were starving. Well who said it then? We believe both The Grace Foundation data and attorney Ryan continued to push the Grace data online over and over, that Ryan bragged about it online on Facebook, and anywhere he could. He bragged that horse owner was a criminal, a horse murderer (a legal impossibility) and that horse owner should be in jail. But that was just a small part of it. The real facts are shown in the court’s files, at least the part that people can find.
Ryan was removed from the “foreclosure” case after Grace filed her lawsuit. There actually was no non judicial foreclosure (as has long been stated.) The purported equitable lien nonsense was morphed into legal shenanigans by you know who, and it is in the Appellate Court right now.
Then we see the errant attorney Ryan supposedly getting paid a six figure amount for some defamation? That could have been avoided if Grace had a proper attorney (not Ryan.) But Ryan hasn’t won anything in the appeals court as to horse owner. And we hope he doesn’t.
Then here is yet another story on Grace closing down. in ALL of the stories seen so far, attorney Ryan just keeps hammering Grace and trying to make it look like he won. Well, he may have won something in Los Angeles, because the Los Angeles court basically saw orders which made Ryan appear innocent. It made Lassen County seem innocent. The truth is, neither Lassen County nor Ryan are innocent.
When an errant Receiver (actually Ryan) files a motion to have animals surrendered to the County due to exigency, even without a warrant, the exigency should be proven. It was not proven, and there was no warrant. That is not how animals are moved, taken or seized in California. Lassen County didn’t care, and Ryan was estatic. But that doesn’t make it a legal taking. There was no due process. There was no due process hearing.
There was essentially nothing. The current code does provide that certain criteria must take place. Not only did it not take place, the VET who was allegedly used to supposedly say the animals needed to be moved immediately, testified later in criminal court, that they were fine and he didn’t even examine them.
A fake “receiver”, especially a rents and profits receiver, does not have authority to TAKE people’s property which are not involved with the alleged secured property (leasehold residence) and thus any seizure or taking would need to comport with the law unless there was some unusual exception (which there was not.) There was no law used. By time the case of Grace v Ryan went to Los Angeles, we knew it would be nearly hopeless because we have watched Ryan’s legal actions. Not good. Like we stated, the horse owner’s appeal–quite complicated— is still at the Court, and the Court has not ruled on it. We would be shocked if the Appeal’s Court found that the bank attorney’s actions were correct. They were not.
If the bank attorney had been correct, the leasehold residence and improvements would not have been released back to the horse owner by the Judge. In July 2014, Lassen County Judge issued an order allowing horse owner back on the ranch (which sits on the horse owner’s 40 acres.) We never hear bank attorney talk about THAT, because no bank took back the property. And we doubt that any bank is going to take it from the facts that we have seen. If that’s the case, that’s a property of about $410,000 with a 27 stall stable and a house— that may never go to the bank. Ever.