The Bank Atty and the Grace Foundation

These two– (The Grace Foundation and atty Ryan) — just don’t stop.

The Grace Fdn. attempts to explain them shutting down, while saying they are not doing so, but are just being evicted; see https://www.facebook.com/GraceFoundation  We predicted it a long time ago since it costs a lot to keep horses no one wants.

But the real problem isn’t what they are doing now. The truth is, what did they do before to get into this?

One— Ryan got a Receiver which was controlled by him and his firm. The Receiver followed his beck/call. Receiver improperly handled the property and the animals, because it was really handled by Ryan. It was not a neutral Receiver, as required by law. It was just RYAN.

Two– Grace worked with Ryan. Grace was represented by Ryan. Graces’ Bd of Directors didn’t know what was going on. Being represented by Ryan was a conflict of interest. Grace should have hired independent counsel and gotten proper legal help. NOT Ryan.

Three–  Ryan got an “order” + claimed that the “Receiver” was authorized to surrender all WP animals to Lassen County/Grace under exigent circumstances– (which did not exist.) The “Receiver” was never neutral, the “Receiver” was RYAN. That is abuse of process, if not far worse. The “exigent” circumstances was not true, and the animals simply remained on the ranch almost another 30 days.

In fact, Lassen County should have known that such alleged “surrender” by a rents and profits Receiver, [not for property which is not even part of the leasehold]–would require something far different. **

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/72/804.html

**After explaining that an equity or general receiver takes possession of all of the debtor’s assets and attempts to satisfy creditors out of those assets and may be permitted to completely reorganize the financial status of the debtor, Justice Cardozo continues: “But the situation is very different if the receivership in view is one for the foreclosure of a mortgage.     ——–> In its normal operation such a receivership does not  connote possession of all the property of the debtor or even all the property within the appointing jurisdiction. The mortgage may be a lien upon one parcel or a few, leaving other property of abundant value for payment of the debts.

Indeed, the cases must be many where the owner of a mortgaged building, not personally liable for the payment of the mortgage debt, will hold it the part of prudence, whether he is solvent or insolvent, to let the building go.” (297 U.S. 216, 223 [80 L.Ed. 591, 596].) (See also Tuttle v. Harris (1936) 297 U.S. 225 [80 L.Ed. 654, 56 S.Ct. 416].) Accordingly, the court held that the estate of a rents and profits receiver is limited to the property standing as security.  

Ryan and his bank Wells Fargo, or the other bank,  B of A, had no authority to take anything except possibly the improvements–IF they could prove they had some ostensible ownership.

IF Lassen had obtained a 597 or other penal code order, or if Lassen went to court in conjunction with an order for relocation under the authority of animal control— with permission–that’s one thing. Lassen did no such thing. And SB1500, which was not passed until AFTER 2011, did not apply anyway. And nothing was filed using that code section regardless. It does not apply to livestock.  But because Lassen (via the “Receiver”–which is an arm of the Court)– supposedly handed over custody (not ownership) to Grace– Ryan thinks he’s out of the loop.

Hardly. Ryan controlled the Receiver, and Ryan’s “exigency”  was in the Receiver’s motion to the Court. Lassen didn’t write the motion.  Exigency is controlled by both the 4th Amendment and due process. There was no due process hearing for taking or moving the animals. There was a “hearing” but owner got no chance for opposition. If Lassen didn’t object to the illegal Receiver, that would mean something. But who filed the motion? Ryan did.

Animals seized August 2011. Owner not charged until October 2011. This is a completely improper way to seize and take and move animals, and no amount of Ryan yammering about Grace is going to change it. The later nonsense of abandonment in Los angeles was nonsense. There was no abandonment by anyone including owner. Much talking about abandonment was done simply to take away from what actually happened. Bryan cave attorneys (representing Wells) and Severson (representing B of A) simply argued nonsenical issues that had nothing to do with what actually happened. But when the case was moved to Los Angeles, we knew that would happen.

There were no criminal charges which led to forfeiture abandonment. The animals were already taken by then. BY Ryan’s little “Receiver”– which was basically Ryan himself.   Trying to claim civil abandonment under a different civil code is not even applicable. It all stemmed from illegally taking the animals from the beginning. No amount of arguing is going to change that.  One must remember that Ryan and the banks were trying to take the improvements, which were ON the raw land owned (free and clear) by horse owner–   and not the partitioned section.  That makes a huge difference.

Normally they just fix the boundaries and then assert some type of equitable lien. That would be ok IF in fact that’s what they did, but instead, Ryan filed to take essentially all of the land by apparently changing some words in the “order” which was also not done correctly. We think he tried to get a complete reformed deed of trust over ALL the land. Those issues are on appeal and have been on appeal for over a year now.  Our guess is that Ryan and banks will lose that appeal.

If push comes to shove, we suspect Ryan will blame anyone but himself. Normally that’s what he does. From our view of what he has done, he can never be trusted. Especially NOT as an attorney. Definitely would never call him honest.

The fact that Grace got left holding the animals, and then wouldn’t go through with the trial is her decision. Grace did refuse several times to relinquish them, even when another non profit offered to take them. The former Grace vet that will likely never testify as to any abused horses was nothing new, he testified in court years ago that he didn’t even check them because they looked to be fine.

Grace’s problem (just to name several) are that she tried to capitalize on the animals while working with Ryan. Then when her case went South, we knew she was going to lose. Ryan has $$$ to do a lot of legal work. He surely is not lazy. But his actions will cause someone down the line to suffer greatly, because one  simply cannot do bad acts and believe it will not haunt you, it is impossible. Your family, your kids, whatever you really cherish, you will take a hit. And it will be exactly what you do not want. It is  universal law, for which Ryan has no regard.

So if those horses were taken/seized/then given away, sold, or whatever, and Ryan is found to have done just what was mentioned above, we think the bank and Ryan did a helluva lot of wrong stuff. Like we said, legendary. Just remember. Karma is a bitch. $$ is just a medium of exchange. But when you bring excessive suffering to others because of your own intended actions— you simply will not be able to escape. It is impossible.

Advertisements