Re: Gaga's *BullDog Thief*--> *Sues* Gaga!! - Page 3

Angelmanmom · ‎01-03-2011

I hope the woman loses her lawsuit against Lady Gaga. I don't understand how anyone can possibly enrich themselves while being involved in a criminal action. Otherwise, what's to stop criminals from kidnapping dogs, children, cats, etc. and then leading authorities to the kidnapped victim? Not that criminals need any more reasons......

Greeneyedlady21 · ‎01-06-2015

People who constantly post here about crime going unpunished want to reward this woman for being involved in a crime? Hmmm

Because it involves Lady Gaga?

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

paixmcdao · ‎04-16-2022

@occasionalrain wrote:
The legal system can charge her and if convicted set punishment, that's up to them They can make her forfeit the reward, if they choose..
That has nothing to do with Gaga, she made an offer and the women held up her end, Gaga should hold up her's.

She was charged with receiving stolen property, and pled "no contest" in December of 2022. She is currently on probation.

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” -Mark Twain

J Town Girl · ‎06-13-2011

@LizzieInSRQ wrote:
@teganslaw wrote:
Officials didn't originally connect the woman with the theft. After investigation they found that she was involved.

However, according to the news, Lady Gaga did say "no questions asked." about the reward, so if she promised the money, she needs to follow through despite everything.

I wonder how everything will turn out.
Channeling my inner-Judge Judy: No experienced jusge would reward someone for a contract when they are involved unlawfully.

What is it that Judge Judy always says... You can't come to court with dirty hands and be rewarded. This woman was involved in the crime and it doesn't matter what Lady Gaga originally stated. A man was shot and a felony was committed. That's not the same as someone letting you know that they found your dogs and are ready to claim the reward.

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

She didn't shoot the man, wasn't even there. She didn't steal the dogs. She acted as a go between, an agent.

A person of character honors their word. What do you think no questions asked means?

bikerbabe · ‎03-09-2010

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times 2/27/23:

“The lawsuit does not mention the arrest and conviction of McBride, who was sentenced to two years of probation.

Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Michele Hanisee said evidence showed McBride was aware that the dogs had been stolen before she tried to return them.

"Absolutely," she said in an interview. "She was aware, and it was very clear that she was aware the dogs were stolen."

McBride took the dogs from the pole, but video showed that she had been in the area, apparently waiting.

"She was pacing back and forth," Hanisee said, "waiting for the dogs to be dropped off."

When someone in a Jeep dropped off the dogs and tied them to a pole, video showed McBride immediately walking over and grabbing them.”

Highlands22 · ‎01-05-2022

The language "no questions asked" presupposes possible involvement.

A totally innocent person would have no problem with questions being asked.

Etoile308 · ‎01-04-2014

This woman did not act as an agent or a go between.

She was involved in a criminal conspiracy. A crime. She's a criminal!

Does California not have a law on the books about not profiting from a crime? Not have laws about making restitution to victims? As part of the conspiracy any penny she might receive should go directly to the unfortunate soul that was callously shot.

I hope he, the true victim, sues the bejeebers out of all of the criminals involved.

Rewards her? Sure, okay if you believe in rewarding bad behavior, then rip it out of her grimy hand!

occasionalrain · ‎03-10-2010

It was not a conspiracy. The woman knew nothing of the plan to steal the dogs. Only afterward when it became known there was a reward was she approached to return them.

That they left them for her to retrieve, rather than meeting up to transfer them indicates she was not previously involved. Further proof is her sentence of just probation.