I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.



Obviously there is more than meets the eye to this case. And apparently there was enough probable cause for the authorities to press charges. The "theft by fraud" charge certainly does imply that at least the one dog in question may have been obtained under false pretenses.



There are other articles about this on the web that provide more details.

[ Hide Replies ]

• Couple cited for illegal possession - EricWI, Tue Mar 23 22:18:07 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Wed Mar 24 08:17:48 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - mavericksdad, Wed Mar 24 08:31:11 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Wed Mar 24 09:33:45 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - mavericksdad, Wed Mar 24 09:39:39 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Wed Mar 24 10:41:35 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - mavericksdad, Wed Mar 24 10:57:48 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Wed Mar 24 11:47:39 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - jscrick, Wed Mar 24 09:26:25 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - Katrina, Wed Mar 24 18:34:48 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Thu Mar 25 11:11:37 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - jscrick, Thu Mar 25 16:37:32 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - AMaceW, Thu Mar 25 21:35:01 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - StephF, Sun Mar 28 12:40:49 2010
• RE: Couple cited for illegal possession - jscrick, Sun Mar 28 20:59:39 2010
• Who would name their daughter Tawni? n/ - Jaykis, Tue Apr 6 17:36:16 2010