# Siliski Back in Court



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

http://www.tennessean.com/williamsonam/new...ent_ID=67519600


----------



## puppylucy (Jan 8, 2005)

Ugh they better not win


----------



## FannyMay (Nov 18, 2004)

What a joke. They make me sick! Admit that you were wrong and get on with your life without hurting animals anymore! She is only complaining about those dogs being altered because she wants to breed again. Does she really want her children taken away again? Does she really want to go back to jail? What is wrong with people!?


----------



## Brinkley & Neyland's Mom (Jun 14, 2004)




----------



## sheila2182 (Nov 28, 2004)

Someone should keep HER in a CAGE forever


----------



## Sisses Momma (Dec 29, 2004)

Attorney Dan Alexander, who represents Siliski and Largin, said Animal Control has not only destroyed some of the pet supplies, but also damaged dogs and cats that belonged to the women by spaying or neutering them 

I'm sorry, but how is spaying/neutering "damaging" to a dog or cat?? It protects them from other health issues, and in this case, protects them from Siliski!!!


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

Well said!!!!


----------



## FannyMay (Nov 18, 2004)

My point exactly. She is mad that they altered her dogs because she obviously wants to breed again and that's against the court orders! Once a greedy person gets a taste of the puppy mill money they never want to go back!


----------



## prissybaby (Mar 25, 2005)

it just goes to show you how cruel and evil so mnay people can be when it comes to money. they see these innocent puppies as property when they are feeling loving creatures. its so sad where we live in a society that can do this to animals. it just makes me so sad 






> _Originally posted by FannyMay_@Mar 30 2005, 02:01 PM
> *My point exactly.  She is mad that they altered her dogs because she obviously wants to breed again and that's against the court orders!  Once a greedy person gets a taste of the puppy mill money they never want to go back!
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=47466*


[/QUOTE]


----------



## ButterCloudandNoriko (Aug 26, 2004)

It's so so so so FREAKIN' obvious that she plans to breed again! What a fool to be complaining about damaged dog supplies and neutered pets! WHY DO YOU NEED THOSE ANYWAY IF YOU'RE BANNED FROM BREEDING!?


----------



## Char-Luv-4-Maltese (Feb 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by prissybaby+Mar 30 2005, 03:11 PM-->
> 
> 
> 
> ...


<div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=47492
[/B][/QUOTE]
AMEN, You hit it on the nose how evil people can be just over money, they can't care for there dogs if they treat there dogs like this. They should be treated the same way as they treat there dogs this my two cents worth!
Teaco


----------



## nataliecmu (Aug 12, 2004)

She is crazy. 
I still can't believe her website... she's crazy (that's all I can say about her).


----------



## pico's parent (Apr 5, 2004)

AAAHHHRRGGGGHH! Let me at her! I'll give her something to sue somebody for! Those poor animals were ALREADY damaged......by her! Spaying and neutering kept them from further harm. That lawyer must be some kind of sleaze bag, too. I know, I know, he's just doing his job. But if it is a nasty job, you get tarred with the NASTY BRUSH!

Where's the NASTY BRUSH SMILEY, Joe?


----------



## Sisses Momma (Dec 29, 2004)

The latest.....

Posted: Apr 1, 2005 - 8:50 AM 

A Williamson County judge has dismissed a lawsuit in which former Maltese dog breeder Jennifer Siliski was seeking $900,000 from the county.

Circuit Judge Russ Heldman ruled Tuesday that Siliski and Marge Largin, a dog owner who had joined Siliski in the lawsuit, failed to state a claim in which relief could be granted under state law. Together, Siliski and Largin were seeking $1.2 million from the county. The women claimed that Animal Control officials had refused to return animals, cages and other items that were confiscated during a raid of Siliski's home on Jan. 22, 2004.

Largin had become ill sometime before the raid, and Siliski was watching several of her dogs, according to their attorney, Dan Alexander.

County Attorney Lisa Carson said that any dogs Siliski was entitled to and any property that was hers has been returned.

Siliski was convicted last year on 11 counts of animal cruelty for keeping dogs in unsanitary conditions.

Authorities said she had more than 230 animals at her Franklin home during the night of the raid. All but five of the animals have been sold by the county, under an agreement Siliski signed.

Judge R.E. Lee Davies, who presided over Siliski's criminal proceedings, initially allowed Siliski to keep five dogs.

However, after Siliski violated terms of a bail agreement while pursuing appeals, Davies sent her to jail for 16 days and said she is no longer allowed to have any animals.

Source: The Tennesean - March 31, 2005


----------



## ButterCloudandNoriko (Aug 26, 2004)

Where was this largin person from the begining?


----------



## Sisses Momma (Dec 29, 2004)

She evidently is a friend of Siliski's. She claims that some of the dogs they confiscated belonged to her and Siliski was "caring for them" for her because she had been sick. But after the lawsuit came up she could never prove that the dogs were really hers so they went to foster homes and now have new owners. Serves her right, she was probably in with Siliski in the breeding processess.....


----------

