And you said "knowingly" - if that can be proven, he loses the building. If not, no.
Oh really? I must have missed that part. Could you please point that out in the article or retract it?
From the article: "Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him." If the threat of prosecution is behind him, it means that no more charges will be forthcoming.
Yes. Obviously.
It's been two years. He was just recently found not guilty of possession of marijuana. But, according to the article, "In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state".
This must have resulted from some other charge that they haven't told us about.