From the book of face page:
In a creative, legal maneuver, Eric Olsen invited the Spindles up to the defense table and proceeded to make his case that, based on the SPCA's involvement in Daisy's rescue and rehabilitation, any opportunity for Animal Control to investigate neglect charges was circumvented and any evidence to the reported condition of the dog was 'undone' because of our involvement.
The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. The SPCA wants us to believe pointing out that their unlawful theft of the dog, rather than calling the duly-authorized animal control officials who could properly document any alleged maltreatment, removed all possibility of documenting said alleged abuse after-the-fact is "a creative legal maneuver."
Elsewhere in the same diatribe, there is some incomprehensible gobbledygook about how they (the SPCA) couldn't place dogs without being able to prove ownership, yet they want us the believe that the fact they stole the dog from a private yard means the owners should be be considered the owners. That's nuts. The last three dogs my family had when I was in my teens were all strays that adopted us. No bills of sale, no breeding papers, no nothin' -- although my parents did register them with the Town annually, as required by law. Would that be proof? Who knows? And, since it seems to be universally acknowledged that the SPCA people dognapped the dog out of a private yard, how did the SPCA expect to document that they owned the dog and had a right to "place" her anywhere?
I am currently caring for my daughter's toy poodle while she's away at college. The dog came from my late wife's native country. No bill of sale that I know of, don't have any idea who or where (in another country) the breeder is. The dog isn't microchipped (which I should perhaps look into). How could I possibly document ownership today if asked to do so?
