We’ve been unable to get a comment from someone about the following but the latest speculation is that Mutts and Moms lost their license to operate as a non-profit organization a year ago. Does this mean they had no rights to take the dog back? The LAPD is now even saying they may have erred by getting involved.

We were emailed us this information about what is allegedly being reported at the California Secretary of State website:

Suspended: The California corporation has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet statutory filing requirements of either the Secretary of State’s office or the Franchise Tax Board. Information regarding the type of suspension can be obtained by requesting a status report. Fees and instructions for requesting a status report are included on the Business Entities Records Order Form. CA Sec of State.

ET Online reports that it is said the contract in question does not contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts and Moms for taking back the dog. Their sources also tell the syndicated entertainment and news program that the family Ellen gave the dog to — her hairdresser, his wife and their two pre-teen daughters — did fill out an application online when the dog took up residence with them.

It was at that time the agency said they would come out to inspect their property as part of the adoption process. Instead, they reclaimed the dog and calling the police. As Mutts and Moms were officially registered as the owners by the chip, authorities turned over custody to them.

Read how it all started - HERE