Lady Gaga still won’t have to pay her dognapper’s dad’s ex-girlfriend $500,000
Yeah, you read that correctly: Lady Gaga won’t have to pay her dognapper’s dad’s ex-girlfriend $500,000
Aux News lady gaga
In less than 10 minutes, Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie determined that the ex-girlfriend of one of Lady Gaga’s dognapper’s dads would not be rewarded for turning the dogs in. Per The L.A. Times, the woman who returned Gaga’s French Bulldogs, Jennifer McBride, sued the future Harley Quinn for $500,000 plus $1.5 million in damages. Of course, despite saying that she wasn’t involved with the dognapping, video footage of McBride acquiring the dogs—not to mention her previous relationship with one of the dognapper’s fathers—seems to have disqualified her from collecting.
Last February, after pleading no contest to receiving stolen property, McBride sued Gaga over a reward for returning the dogs. When McBride handed the dogs over to police in 2021, she asked about a “no questions asked” half-a-million dollar reward for their return. For her part, McBride claims she found the dogs tied to the pole days after the violent robbery during which the singer’s dog walker, Ryan Fischer, was shot in the chest. He survived, but after police discovered McBride was in a relationship with one of the assailant’s fathers, she was arrested.
The lawsuit was already dismissed in July, but Judge Fujie gave McBride 20 days to amend her complaint. McBride did so, adding in the claims that she was “in no way involved in the theft of Lady Gaga’s bulldogs and had no knowledge of said theft or its planning before its occurrence” and only “took possession of [Lady Gaga’s] bulldogs for the specific purpose of ensuring their protection and safely returning them.” However—and, perhaps, this is why her case unraveled—a video of McBride near the pole showed her “pacing back and forth, waiting for the dogs to be dropped,” said Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee in February. The video shows someone in a Jeep dropping the dogs off, tying them to a pole, and McBride taking possession of them. McBride claims to have suffered pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life over being denied the reward, The L.A. Times reports.
“This alleged motivation does not negate her guilt of the charge because she has admitted receiving the bulldogs with knowledge that they were stolen property,” ruled Fujie, who said it’s her “unclean hands that prevent her from profiting from her actions.”
We hate to say it, but it sounds like McBride needs a better poker face.
77 Comments
Idk, I read the piece from the link. There still seems to be missing parts from the story. She knew of the theft (it’s unclear if she knew beforehand). If she found out about it and wanted to make things right (and collect the offer), one doesn’t get the impression that this was the case and I can’t even tell if the tale is being “spun” but it certainly looks as if McBride is being threatened with any and all possible outcomes if she continues to pursue this.
Does seem a bit strange to put a “no questions asked” offer out there, i.e. “I don’t care who you are or what you’ve done, just come forward”, presumably because you fear for the life of your precious handbag dog, but then end up asking questions when it gets back to you and refusing to pay. Doesn’t really seem in the spirit of the offer.Then again, maybe Gaga has just fucked over a grifter who shot her friend with her scheming rhetoric, which I’m not really against either.
I see other news pieces calling McBride “accomplice” but I don’t see any story (or facts or explanation) about that. Maybe the dogwalker being shot is factoring in, but I can’t see how if they can’t explicitly pin a theft charge on the women. She said that she knew the dogs were stolen property when she received them. Obviously; that’s how she knew to return them. Ex girlfriend of one of the parents of the thief. Without knowing more of the story was there any way she could have found out about it and returned the dog without being accused herself?
Probably obvious but my language was pretty poor there, I meant “grifter who potentially assisted someone who shot her friend”, not that McBride pulled the trigger. I guess Gaga/her team are privy to a bit more info on the grapevine about this and have decided “Err, no. You’re not getting any money whatsoever.”
Kinda raises red flags in the first place that the person would sue for a fortune over this. She suffered “pain, anguish, and a loss of enjoyment” – yeah, ok. Lady Gaga also made me depressed by not giving me hundreds of thousands of dollars.
.
Per the article, court documents, and video evidence, McBride was waiting at the drop point where her ex-boyfriend dumped the dogs immediately after he shot someone to steal them. McBride was expecting to receive the dogs at that location and time. The bagman and getaway driver are usually also considered criminals.
“Per?” Please show the court document and the video evidence. These were not posted in the LA Times piece (which is paywalled, so I’m not going to worry about that. I’m sure this news must be elsewhere). Take your time.
Ask an adult to read this to you.
Then again, maybe Gaga has just fucked over a grifter who shot her friend with her scheming rhetoric
Interesting. Stepping outside this specific situation, do you think if someone returns something for a no-questions reward and they’re definitely and provably the thief, is it wrong to rescind the reward? Is it wrong to prosecute the thief? It feels really thorny to me; it’s ostensibly a promise that you care more about the lost item than pursuing justice, and going back on that is dishonest. On the other hand, it’s very low to steal something for a reward/ransom, and also incredibly stupid to think you can return stolen property with your hand out to the person you violated for a reward.I’m sure this is the sort of thing ethics professors throw to the class when they want to eat up a day.
“do you think if someone returns something for a no-questions reward and they’re definitely and provably the thief, is it wrong to rescind the reward?”
Yes. Don’t say no questions if you don’t mean it. Saying that means you don’t care if they did steal it, that’s how much you want it back. Going back on that hurts anyone else in the future who might make that claim and mean it.
“ Is it wrong to prosecute the thief?”
Not at all, the police and their biz are a separate thing.
…if I’m going to turn around, call the cops and press charges/sue for my reward back, how is that any different from simply rescinding the reward?
“sue for my reward back”
This makes it the same and this part would be wrong. That’s adding more than what you said.
you’re avoiding the question: how is calling the cops and pressing charges any different from simply refusing the reward?
I wasn’t avoiding anything, I was pointing out the issue with the question you asked.
The difference is $$ in bank accounts, duh.
So you admit there’s no difference otherwise. You’re still imposing a condition on the return (if you’re the thief, I’ll get you arrested) and betraying the trust of the person returning your stolen property. Got it.
Key word being “otherwise”. You asked if there was a difference and there is one.
Again, what the police do is their business.
When something of yours is stolen, the police take down a report. Depending on the property and evidence on hand, it basically ends there. This person isn’t getting arrested or prosecuted unless you’re cooperating with the police. Heck, this assumes you reported the item stolen and not just lost.So no, unless Officer Friendly followed footprints from the scene of the crime and found this thief independently, your participation is the engine behind that prosecution and it’s absolutely your business.
“This person isn’t getting arrested or prosecuted unless you’re cooperating with the police.”
This is not correct. Prosecutors decide to press charges or not. In addition, not cooperating with police is not promised with the reward. It also does not take the reward from the person you gave it to, if you cooperate with the police.
And AGAIN, I ask what even is your point?
What even is your point? Why are the police even involved in this if you’ve posted your item as “Lost, reward, no questions asked”??? How is a police investigation into property theft not under the umbrella of “questions asked?”Nobody is getting prosecuted unless you report stolen property, silly goose.
A question was asked and I answered it. My point was if you say something, you should follow through with it.
“ Why are the police even involved in this if you’ve posted your item as “Lost, reward, no questions asked”
Because you reported it stolen. How fucking stupid are you? Reporting your item stolen is not the same thing as not asking questions of the person who returns the item to you.
Get a fucking clue already.
I’m starting to gather from this that you have no moral compunction against entrapping someone, but you’re still dumb enough to still give ‘em money.
You are just deciding things because you can’t logic. Hope you feel better about being a moron.
Let me know if you figure out how to state a point.
“and betraying the trust of the person returning your stolen property”
What even is your point here?
Saying you will give a no questions asked reward means you will give the money, no matter what, if you get your item. It does not make any promises of secrecy or trust other than that.
Saying you will give a no questions asked reward means you will give the money, no matter what, if you get your item. It does not make any promises of secrecy or trust other than that.lol. By that logic, beating them up and taking the money back is a-ok.
No, that is not a logical conclusion.
Yes, it is. When the thief, clutching his bloody nose, says “hey, you said no questions asked,” I’ll just tell him “I gave you the money. I made no promises of secrecy and trust other than that.”
No, it is not a logical extension of what I am actually saying. Beating someone up and taking the money isn’t really giving it to them in the first place. You are being super dumb here.
And AGAIN, WTF is your point?
My point is I’m starting to gather from this that you have no moral compunction against entrapping someone, but you’re still dumb enough to still give ‘em money.
LOL so your point in the past was something that you are “starting” to gether now? Damn you are dumb.
There is no entrapment, you moron.
Yeah. That’s what I was getting at – you worded it better than me.Although, it is just a little thought experiment. Obviously even if Gaga did it as a “here little fishy” type sting then that’s morally fine too, I think, given the shitshow her/her staff have been through with it.
“The spirit of the offer.” Lady Gaga’s dogs were stolen and her friend nearly murdered. Honest offers went completely out the window when a group of sociopaths made this series of choices.The kidnappers were the only ones who were ever going to collect on the offer. Some unrelated good samaritan was never a possible player here. Of course this woman had a connection to the kidnappers…that’s the point. She doesn’t deserve shit, and is lucky she’s not being tried as some kind of accessory.It’s insane to me that “stealing someone’s dog” is typically treated as, like, a property crime. A dog isn’t an iPhone; you can’t replace a living creature who has feelings and relationships. This kind of thing should be considered tantamount to kidnapping. A dog isn’t a human child, but is closer to one than it is to, like, a car.
Yeah I get that, but I could see the courts not wanting to deal with million dollar lawsuits for emotional distress over accidentally hitting someone’s dog with a car etc.
I have always thought that if I had dogs stolen, the FIRST thing I would do is a “no questions asked” reward after which I would have drones and a team following these people for weeks if not months.
“Doesn’t really seem in the spirit of the offer.”It 100% isn’t, but also it’s okay to choose not to keep promises to people who stole your pets and shot your friend.
Sure, yeah Lady Gaga almost certainly broke contract.But the question isn’t whether she did. It’s whether the court should force her to pay up. And in this case the answer is “haha fuck no” because that would essentially reward a thief and grifter for their crime, and the legal system generally frowns on that sort of thing. It’s pretty well established precedent that criminals shouldn’t profit from the results of their criminal behavior.
Yes, this is what’s known in contract law as unenforceability as a matter of public policy. It just wouldn’t do in society to allow people to profit from crime.
“I don’t have one question for this witness … I have MANY questions!”
You put out a big reward and say “no questions asked” to get your dogs back and hopefully lure the people who stole them to foolishly try to claim the reward. It’s offering the ransom before ransom is demanded. There’s no other spirit in the offer.
Lady Gaga didn’t ask any questions; the police did.Turns out parallel construction can work out for the private citizen.
It seems very clear that McBride was waiting at the spot she “found” the dogs (presumably a public spot as there was video footage available), and happened to “find” them promptly after the dognappers left it at said spot. It’s very obvious she knew and was probably directly involved; I’m not sure what missing info would color the story otherwise.
Plus she says she was really concerned about their safety and getting them back to their owner, but if she really hadn’t been involved she should have called the police and had them hiding to wait for the thieves too. I mean I get that $500K is a lot of money, but if I knew people who had tried to kill someone and stolen a celebrities dogs, I would call the police or I’d keep my mouth shut and pretend I knew nothing and have nothing to do with it, no in between. I wouldn’t have shady dealings with them to double-cross them by having them bring me the dogs and then turning them over before they could collect the ransom? It doesn’t even make sense. She had to have been in on it in some way, even if it was just that she agreed to pretend to find them in order to collect the reward so they could split it.
She just collaborated with The Rolling Stones. Will she work with THE SPR3 next? Stay tuned to find out!
Just want to say that I’m proud of you for continuing to try to shoot your band’s shot in this comment section read by tens and tens of people.
NEVA STOP 4EVA!!
Thanks! I’ll never give up spreading the good word of THE SPR3!
I can actually imagine some usefulness for this sound. Ok, I can’t specifically, but maybe it would be a hit at an acid party. I gave it two minutes. Still, I support your effort. I can’t shut up about Guillermo del Toro’s Commentary Track for Hellboy II.
I’ve got that on DVD! I’ll have to check out that commentary track soon. Thanks for the recommendation!
It’s the best anti-summer summer movie out there, lol. The commentary track is a gem for students and lovers of film. Enjoy!
i represnt lady gaga and she is impressed by your music! please PM me for further!
Counter-sue the fuck out of her.
Something Something blood from a stone.
I wouldn’t care if she had $18 to her name. I’m taking that $18 to prove a point.
The sue The Rolling Stones!
“The fuck” is probably all she has, which isn’t really worth much in money.
Seriously. Is this not extortion? You kidnap a celebrity’s dogs in hopes of getting a ransom, then you try to collect said ransom in the form of a “reward” which you extorted out of them in the first place. I’m not a lawyer, but that doesn’t sound right…
It’s the “no questions asked” part though, which I will always take to mean “if you are the one who stole it I will still pay to get (whatever you took) back.” I mean, that can’t possibly a binding thing, but it is how it reads.
You’re right, it reads that way and on the face of it, it is an offer to pay the reward to the person who stole them. That would be a binding contract in most cases, BUT the law won’t enforce an agreement that allows someone to profit from committing a crime.
She didn’t steal the dog and we don’t know if she knew anything about it beforehand. I’m not seeing anything, anyway, despite talk of “a video” and the fact that, yes, she discovered they were stolen. I’m wondering how one would alert officials about a stolen dog if they did not comprehend that, indeed, the dogs had been stolen. It sounds like a self-justifying argument with a lot of sneering editorializing. Personally, I haven’t heard enough, but maybe all of the hard evidence is out there.
They’re already threatening that.
What about her father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate?
Absolutely nothing.
Which is what you are about to become!
Good is dumb.
I wonder if something happened that made these people turn to crime or if they were Born This Way.I’d make more bad Gaga puns, but my knowledge of her catalogue is Shallow.
Ga-ga-nah-nah-ma-ma-rah-rah-rama-rama-ding-dong . . . she wants her dogs back.
“McBride claims to have suffered pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life over being denied the reward”This is me every day someone doesn’t give me $500k. Pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
“My collective damages for same are over $1,000,000,000 and counting, your Honor! I demand satisfaction! Er, I’ll settle for $10 Gs right now it that helps my case…”
If you think that’s bad, I experience pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life every day because nobody is giving me $1M.
That’s twice as much anguish!
Can I be honest, I had the same thought—this is me every day I don’t get awarded a life-changing sum of money to get me out of debt, pay for retirement, or help spoil my cat.But I mind my own business, I take care of my loved ones, smile, try to be a nice person and keep others’ interests in my heart. Then I read about people like this, people who shoot dog walkers, people who accomplice dog kidnappings and then proceed to still try to collect a reward. And I’m just baffled. Money is a horrible motivator.
I’m seeing double here: four instances of the phrase “her dognapper’s dad’s ex-girlfriend”.
Or was it her girlfriend’s dog’s ex-dadnapper?
I’ve always found the term “dognapping” a bit too cute for this crime, a violent armed robbery that saw the dog-walker shot in the chest, whereupon he had to go through several hospitalizations.Another perspective on the seriousness of the crime: the defendant who saw fit to pull the trigger even though he had two accomplices and an unarmed opponent took a plea deal and got 21 years.
Is there anyone we can pay $500,000 to just to never hear of Gaga again?