That makes more sense then the explantion we heard. If he is a drug dealer, that would explain why the son said the neighbors are too scared of him to testify.
Her story makes NO SENSE. Why would he need to take the dog for ONE night. Plus, she met him on the beach and knew him a couple of months. She cannot answer the simple question as to why she gave him the dog to babysit for ONE night. The son was trying to make an excuse, but she just didn't get it. Then the story jumps to 2 weeks later? Something is not right. Especially with the kidnapping plot and homelessness. And now a second dog gets stolen after she gets drugged. So shocked that this was not thrown out.
Damn JM! You blew this one. Did she even have proof of purchase?! That lady is out of her mind and the son looked guilty af like he knows his mom's FOS.
I absolutely believe the Defendant. She clearly has some mental issues going on. He's not making up the stories of her being homeless and dressing inappropriately. I Hope He Took The Dogs! She's still unable to explain why she gave up the dog!
His own words condemned him. If he hadn't made that comment about CPS, it could've gone either way. That one sentence killed his defense. I would have ruled exactly the same way.
Judge made the wrong judgement . A son as a witness is just like being a witness yourself . And all credibility is lost when she says she paid $1200 for a mut and is homeless between apts , and claims someone else took her other dog. Looks like she doesn’t remember what exactly happened. The defendant offered to look after her dog , and perhaps that’s what the plaintiff recollected and became distorted in her mind. Definitely not inclined to steal because he says the dogs were being neglected - that’s how all animal lovers are .
I'm so surprised by this ruling. I came to the comments to make sure I wasn't alone. There's something seriously wrong with the plaintiff. At the very least I think the case should've been thrown out for no evidence. Also, as an animal lover I am very guilty of looking at certain situations and saying "wow they shouldn't be allowed to have dogs" so I didn't like the assumption JM made by him saying that. Just because we say it doesn't mean we're dog thieves 😅
Aww a la*ina saying horrible shit Abt other women so that she feels better Abt herself..any chance I can buy u at the produce stand..I heard u were a dime a dozen
I feel like there is a lot more to this story....I'm willing to bet this whole thing is not even about any dog but rather something else all together. Like I'm 100% sure that him and his buddies ware all like .."Oh get away from us.. you cladly dressed harlet.. oh the children.. good lord." I'm also super, super convinced that she paid $1,200.00 for an mutt when she was and wasn't homeless and not wearing the dress that Mr. Tanlotion described so well. ...even though him and his buddies ware definitely not looking at it..because of the children. Yeah.
Yeah this case was kinda weird. I’d never let anyone talk me into taking my pet for a sleepover. Wtf was she thinking? Oh probably wasn’t. I’m not sure I agree with the ruling just because she couldn’t answer the judge or Doug about why she gave the defendant the dog for one night.
Judge got this one wrong. That lady couldn’t even explain why she gave a random person the dog. Idk her situation but her demeanor definitely makes it seem like she has drug addict behavior. Judge Mathis would have saw straight through that game.
I do believe she is lying. However, I do not believe this is a dr*g problem. I think it is a literal brain issue. Kind of like a person who has a stroke then can't properly comprehend things!
I’m with everyone else in this chat, I love JM and almost always agree with her.Not this time! So wrong, i feel so sorry for the defendant. Sending thumbs up to all who support the defendant so if he sees this he will feel the love❤
Judge Judy would’ve threw this case out as soon as that plantiff couldn’t even explain why she gave the dog for a night to a stranger. I think Judge Milan was way off on this bizarre case.
Plaintiff couldn’t answer a question and is clearly cracked out and wants money for drugs or alcohol and yet the judge just giving money. So dishonest. Wish this was Judge Judy. The guy in the hallway was harder on her than the judge!
It’s fishy enough that she says she paid 1200 for a dog living in between apartments. I think she was exactly who the defendant said she was and I believe that the dogs were probably lose and she was just walking around looking for sex and drugs. Such an unfortunate situation for those dogs.
@@kyoto32001 oh come on, that sounds agist and pardon me if that isnt what you meant. If she wasnt on drugs she is a woman and there are few men and even yourger ones who would date her but she seems very off like she has addiction issues so that is the problem not her age in case that is what you think the reason would be for no man to feel attraction towards her persona.
Plaintiff is out there in the left field, dazed and confused. Can't answer a simple question, that JM asked three times in three different ways. Seems she's hiding something to be homeless and sold the dogs for whatever reason. But her story doesn't add up
perhaps 1 she didnt want to get busted for illegal drugs or 2 embarassment of being homless but im unsure why her son couldnt ok maybe it makes sense at some point 1s done all they can do with certian family, been there
After long enough you'll notice she's not consistent with what proof is needed. She's just using her intuition instead of evidence which she says constantly it's not your flapping gums but the evidence that matter except when she thinks differently
In small claims you just need to be convinced one way or the other. It’s not a criminal case where you need to be sure without a doubt. The son doesn’t have issues like his mother and provided testimony. Additionally the guy kept talking about how she didn’t deserve the dogs. Why say something like that if you didn’t take one? If someone accused me of stealing a dog I didn’t take, I’d just go to court and say I have no idea what they’re talking about- not that I saw the dogs and felt bad and thought the dogs deserved a better home. Hell he even said he offered to take them, just that he later changed his mind! People are upset because the plaintiff has clear mental and/or drug issues and can’t speak properly. I guess that means we can all steal from the homeless!!
@@Tuturu708Her being high as a kite is the issue, not her being homeless, although it's hard to feed dogs if you can't feed yourself. Also, just because the defendant said she didn't deserve the dogs does NOT mean he stole one. It makes perfect sense to me that he did NOT want to deal with this hot mess as soon as she said she wanted to move in with the dog!
Weird case. Cant believe he was found guilty with literally no proof and the plaintiff is far too out there to believe her words as pure fact. Shoulda been a wash... Her son looked embarrassed as well. 😢
They are both lying about something that is going unsaid. The plaintiff refused to answer a simple question and I can’t believe she actually won. They are both cracked.
The plaintiff is obviously hiding something and yet the judge goes against the defendant, based on nothing but her feelings. Not one ounce of evidence at all.
The most far fetched case involving one or 2 dogs that I ever heard, as told by the litigants and the son. Who buys a dog when the owner is "in between apartments"?
Unfortunately a lot of people do get an animal when "in between apartments". Or at least a lot more do that than should (which should be zero) because many people only care about their own needs and not the fact they have a living breathing animal that requires more than just love and cuddles. With that said, there is definitely something shady going on...
The moment she walked in she seemed like she didn't know where she was. She definitely has a problem with something. Once she said the other person is being investigated for the second dog I thought JM would have ruled with the defendant. There is something wrong with the plaintiff. The only reason I think the defendant had the dog was because he didn't try hard to convince the judge otherwise. I would have done as much as I could to convince the judge. He took it, but there is a lot more to this story.
How ironic is it that Judge Milian says the defendant made a, "preachy kinda, I know better than you, I can play God in this situation and decide who gets to keep the dog statement" when that's the "legal" role she's played her whole career being in the position she's in as a judge! She was wrong on this one and it makes me wonder if she's had a personal experience with male relatives/community "thinking they're right" based on the condescending impersonation of the defendant and his accent...Judges aren't God either and regular citizens are wrongly accused/convicted and ruled against everyday depending on the authority figure's mood/opinion for the day! The defendant seemed sincere and was teary eyed, and the plaintiff was out of her mind from jump! There are definitely missing pieces to this case!
I didn't believe the plaintiff and tough as he is, I *DO* believe the defendant. I think Judge Milian was unduly swayed by the defendant's moral position that the plaintiff was unfit to have a dog. I'm sure he's formed that opinion of others in the past but didnt 'snatch' their dogs like some pied piper. I'm guessing if he's hanging on the boardwalk a lot himself- he doesn't have resources to be running a doggy day-care in his apartment. The judge never cross examined the plaintiff about the exchange of phone numbers and the story of her kidnap was unbelievable.
The way the son is acting, I think the defendant is telling the truth. If someone was lying on my mother Iike that, I would be saying SOMETHING. Son was just standing there shaking his head. That defendant was telling the truth!!
I worked at an SPCA clinic & the judge can harp property all she wants but the shelter I worked for had a cruelty investigator who was deputized. Cruelty goes hand & hand with neglect. When she said I was never homeless BEFORE the defendant even mentioned she was living in her car, was the clue she was an unfit dog owner that was letting them run loose. 😢
All she cared about was the money and winning. She said it herself in her answer to Doug. She didn't care about those dogs at all and that man totally did the right thing! She doesn't deserve to have any pets!!!
Honestly I believe the defendant. Bc the woman can't even think yet remembers what's going on. It took the son to come up to answers the judges question to which she asked the lady about 6 times if not more and wasn't getting steady answers. Everything in this case was hear say and she made a ruling based on what she thinks happened then knowing what actually happened. This is a very bad ruling and I lost some respect for her. As far as this is going the lady could of said anything and won and the son could of been in on it too. Can't rule with no facts. The only fact and evidence that was given was a statement of how much the dog costs Also to the government and law our pets may seem like PrOpErTy but to us are our kids and family and nothing more PERIOD!!!!
This should have been thrown out. The plaintiff couldn't answer why she gave her dog to some guy for a day and she couldn't stop interrupting. She was looking for a pay day and she got it
The expression on the plaintiff’s son’s face, and the way he keeps looking down at the table, tells me there’s more to this story than she’s admitting. I think she was homeless and sold the dog to the defendant for drugs.
I’m very disappointed with Judge M on this one. Usually she requires at least a shred of evidence and in this case she just did whatever she wanted. Plus, she’s advocating for a woman with no money, no home and clearly has some type of abuse problem to own two dogs. You think those dogs would be getting appropriate vet care? “He drugged me and stole my dog” aka “I bought meth from him, did a huge amount and when I sobered up my dog was gone”
She couldn't articulate any reason at all why she gave up the dog. That's reason enough not to find for the plaintiff. For all we know she said he could keep the dog. Her story made no sense.
I don’t think he took the dogs. It was obvious to me that the lady had some issues. His only fault was ever talking to her from the beginning. I totally disagree with this judgment.
She reminds me of my mom. My mom has mental issues and she says delusional stuff like the plaintiff did. I believe the judge got this one wrong. I believe the guy didn't take the dog
Oh for Petes sake. The platiff really needs professional help. Alittle looney in her head. The dog should have stayed with the defendant. The platiff should be in a looney hospital 😅
I found a tiny dog on my street on a very hot day. I brought her inside and called my vet to bring her in, she was dehydrated and had an abscess in her mouth. Also covered in fleas. I called two police precincts to check if she had a chip. Meanwhile the owner Is looking all over for her. They live across the street, I have never met her. Anyway they came in to get her and I suggested they let her stay, I had more time to be with her cuz she was truly suffering. They said no, I gave the dog to them and they called the police on me! They said I abducted the dog. The police had my messages regarding a chip and my vet said I called to have her checked out. Waste of time for the cop and they never thanked me for saving her . No good deed.
The plaintiff’s son looked 👀 a little bit embarrassed. Hearing all those stories about his mom. The reason her story didn’t sound right so because she left some details out lmfao😂 You don’t just give your dog to a stranger. She never denied what the defendant was saying about her being a table hopper and a boardwalk bum.
@ 11:02 she says: "And the dog was 4 months old when I ga..." I think she was about to say when she gave him the dog, but the judge interrupted her. The look on her son's face tells me she drinks.
That Plaintiff is INSANE!!! How does that crazy lady not know the lady who took the second dog didn’t take the first dog? They probably took the first one, realized the lady didn’t remember and took the second one & now she don’t know who has them. I think the defendant didn’t do anything wrong. He could answer questions the best he could vs the crazy lady who had to be asked multiple times and still couldn’t give a straight answer.
@@benjie128 I've plenty more where that came from too....tree short of a forest, cistern short of a toilet, bristle short of a toothbrush, take your pick😂😂
OMG like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer from this women. So why did your dog move from your hands to his hands ? It's a good thing the son was their to translate.
Terrible ruling! That guy does not have nor did he take the dog. I feel for him. A while back, some lady accused my boys of taking her dog, and it turned out the lady never even had a dog to begin with. She talked just like this lady here. When you can't answer a straight question, you're lying about something. I really don't think that guy meant anything when he said, "If they were kids, cps would have taken them away," except he didn't like the way she was treating the dogs. You can object to how someone is doing something without stealing it from them. Judge is jaded concerning this because some people have used it as their excuse why they stole something. To bad for this guy.
it’s a shame for the son of the plaintiff bc she is whacked and his face when the defendant is talking about the outfit she “unproperly” wore & chasing her away said to me that she absolutely was wearing that and she’s been embarrassing him and doing this kind of stuff for a LONG time, he’s sick of it, && his eyes look herartbroken….that look in his eyes at that moment really broke my heart and told me so much about this lady and the life he’s lived with her as his mother
This is so clearly 100 percent drug related and possibly mafia related im surprised it showed up at peoples court because neither of them will tell the truth.. millian shoukd have thrown this case in the trash immediately after she realized the plaintiff couldnt even explain why she handed it over
Two and a half minutes in, and this woman has almost all of my nerves frazzled! 🤦🏽♀️ Either she is avoiding saying something that she doesn’t want the judge to know, or she can’t tell a succinct, sensical story to save her life!
Why didn't the judge ask for a letter from this vet that supposedly saw him with the dog at their practice, that also knows the son? This lady is off her rocker.
Who gets a dog while in between homes? Her blank stare at JM’s question really irked me, and when she kept interrupting. Disappointed JM, you were wrong this time.
She should've thrown the case out. Absolutely no evidence. If I had been the defendant, I would've said " The cops searched my house and didn't find a dog. I don't know what else to tell you. She's drugged up and homeless , clearly looking for a payout from this." Those poor dogs.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The judge should’ve dismissed this case after she asked a third time why did you give him the dog and she wouldn’t give an answer.
I agree
Agree, it’s nuts she let this continue
If this was judge mathis that would be case over. This judge can drag out
agreed. She's supposed to have proof, not he said she said i don't like the guy's attitude All the best to you!
There is more to this story. Why couldn't she answer why she gave him the dog.
OMFG WHY WON'T SHE ANSWER!? Plaintiff was shady as hell, NO one deserved money in this case.
she just sounded slow to me not shady
LOL its soooo obvious 😂. Son is kinda cute.
ha! isaid the exact same thing!
I believe the plaintiff used the dog as collateral for drugs. She didn't pay him back and he sold the dog.
You're right this makes more sense as to why she would give him the dog
Oh u smart 🤓
Facts lol
That makes more sense then the explantion we heard. If he is a drug dealer, that would explain why the son said the neighbors are too scared of him to testify.
Yea she’s shady as hell. You don’t let someone “hold onto” your dog for no reason.
Her story makes NO SENSE. Why would he need to take the dog for ONE night. Plus, she met him on the beach and knew him a couple of months. She cannot answer the simple question as to why she gave him the dog to babysit for ONE night. The son was trying to make an excuse, but she just didn't get it. Then the story jumps to 2 weeks later? Something is not right. Especially with the kidnapping plot and homelessness. And now a second dog gets stolen after she gets drugged. So shocked that this was not thrown out.
I knew this was going to be weird when she walked in & her head was down for so long! 🤦🏾♀️
This is an unpaid drug debt. She gave him the dog as collateral and since she didn't pay, he kept the dog
@@scoot8792 Excellent point.
@@scoot8792 now this makes so much sense!!! I didn't even think of that
@@scoot8792 Blow is a hella drug
Damn JM! You blew this one. Did she even have proof of purchase?!
That lady is out of her mind and the son looked guilty af like he knows his mom's FOS.
Waste of on drugs again
Yeah the son knows exactly what his mom is
She showed her proof of purchase bcuz the judge asked her why would she pay 1200 for a dog when in between apartments
I absolutely believe the Defendant. She clearly has some mental issues going on. He's not making up the stories of her being homeless and dressing inappropriately. I Hope He Took The Dogs! She's still unable to explain why she gave up the dog!
And then someone drugged her and "took" the other dog and now they're under investigation 😢
I don't
I agree! 💯
This was 100% a drug deal collateral scenario. She traded the dog for opiates and now wants it back.
I can't believe the judge ruled that way. The plaintiff was incoherent and completely unreliable. Anyone could have took that dog.
His own words condemned him. If he hadn't made that comment about CPS, it could've gone either way. That one sentence killed his defense. I would have ruled exactly the same way.
You don't pay a grand for a dog, if you haven't got a home. Unless you're a crack adled maniac.
Oh, wait.... 👀
We know he took the dog for payment. She was just to high to remember but just sober enough to want the dog back and sue.
@@destinymiller6122...she clearly has some sort of accountability issue. Sad all round.
@@destinymiller6122...not to mention the welfare of the poor dog(s). I despair.
I hope this case will go viral and someone who witnessed or knows the defendant or plaintiff shares more info. It all feels drug related to me.
Since this episode was from 2018, it's highly unlikely.
drugs or sex, or both
Yes because drugged for one dog and tricked out of another sounds fishy... there are so many dogs out there why steal hers🤔
Judge made the wrong judgement . A son as a witness is just like being a witness yourself . And all credibility is lost when she says she paid $1200 for a mut and is homeless between apts , and claims someone else took her other dog. Looks like she doesn’t remember what exactly happened.
The defendant offered to look after her dog , and perhaps that’s what the plaintiff recollected and became distorted in her mind. Definitely not inclined to steal because he says the dogs were being neglected - that’s how all animal lovers are .
This case is soo weird. So someone took her second dog and drugged her and she’s basically homeless. And she gave a stranger her 1st dog.
Drugged or was she trying to say- she was dragged & the 2nd dog stolen?
I'm so surprised by this ruling. I came to the comments to make sure I wasn't alone. There's something seriously wrong with the plaintiff. At the very least I think the case should've been thrown out for no evidence.
Also, as an animal lover I am very guilty of looking at certain situations and saying "wow they shouldn't be allowed to have dogs" so I didn't like the assumption JM made by him saying that. Just because we say it doesn't mean we're dog thieves 😅
Aww a la*ina saying horrible shit Abt other women so that she feels better Abt herself..any chance I can buy u at the produce stand..I heard u were a dime a dozen
EXACTLY !
I feel like there is a lot more to this story....I'm willing to bet this whole thing is not even about any dog but rather something else all together. Like I'm 100% sure that him and his buddies ware all like .."Oh get away from us.. you cladly dressed harlet.. oh the children.. good lord." I'm also super, super convinced that she paid $1,200.00 for an mutt when she was and wasn't homeless and not wearing the dress that Mr. Tanlotion described so well. ...even though him and his buddies ware definitely not looking at it..because of the children. Yeah.
This comment was so cute and funny at the end lol
Yeah this case was kinda weird. I’d never let anyone talk me into taking my pet for a sleepover. Wtf was she thinking? Oh probably wasn’t. I’m not sure I agree with the ruling just because she couldn’t answer the judge or Doug about why she gave the defendant the dog for one night.
Judge got this one wrong. That lady couldn’t even explain why she gave a random person the dog. Idk her situation but her demeanor definitely makes it seem like she has drug addict behavior. Judge Mathis would have saw straight through that game.
I do believe she is lying. However, I do not believe this is a dr*g problem. I think it is a literal brain issue. Kind of like a person who has a stroke then can't properly comprehend things!
Now she's going to get extra drug money from the verdict. It's complete BS.
I agree with you, he didn't take it... She hasn't grown out of her partying 20s lol
Judges make mistakes too.
"I know a Crack head when I see one" lol
I’m with everyone else in this chat, I love JM and almost always agree with her.Not this time! So wrong, i feel so sorry for the defendant. Sending thumbs up to all who support the defendant so if he sees this he will feel the love❤
Judge Judy would’ve threw this case out as soon as that plantiff couldn’t even explain why she gave the dog for a night to a stranger. I think Judge Milan was way off on this bizarre case.
And if not then, she (Judge Judy) would have thrown the case out after the plaintiff kept interrupting the defendant.
Totally agree!
I believe the guy. She claims another person also took her other dog...i see a pattern
she gave the dogs to these people for payment for drugs. not uncommon
Plaintiff couldn’t answer a question and is clearly cracked out and wants money for drugs or alcohol and yet the judge just giving money. So dishonest. Wish this was Judge Judy. The guy in the hallway was harder on her than the judge!
I agree, Judge Judy wouldn't have put up with this. MILIAN has poor judgement sometimes.
Yes..
Shes on something
..judge knew she needed money....he didn't take the dogs. Heck, she probably don't remember what happen
What is it that Judge Judy always says. If you say something that doesn’t make sense, it probably isn’t true !
It’s fishy enough that she says she paid 1200 for a dog living in between apartments. I think she was exactly who the defendant said she was and I believe that the dogs were probably lose and she was just walking around looking for sex and drugs. Such an unfortunate situation for those dogs.
Dogs? She only had one dog.
there is NO way any man would ever be desperate enough to get "excited" for her. NO WAY!
@@trekgirl65 She had two.
@@kyoto32001 oh come on, that sounds agist and pardon me if that isnt what you meant. If she wasnt on drugs she is a woman and there are few men and even yourger ones who would date her but she seems very off like she has addiction issues so that is the problem not her age in case that is what you think the reason would be for no man to feel attraction towards her persona.
This is the worst ruling. JM she's losing her edge. She's being emotional when comes to rulings now.
The comments passed!!
It’s rare Judge Milian gets it wrong, but on this one she definitely did!
Plaintiff is out there in the left field, dazed and confused. Can't answer a simple question, that JM asked three times in three different ways. Seems she's hiding something to be homeless and sold the dogs for whatever reason. But her story doesn't add up
perhaps 1 she didnt want to get busted for illegal drugs or 2 embarassment of being homless but im unsure why her son couldnt ok maybe it makes sense at some point 1s done all they can do with certian family, been there
More like 5 times she asked why!
You forgot the chaise lounge............then again, she probably would be fine sprawled against the left field fence lol Suchamess
I feel bad for the son. Mom certainly has issues
yes ive got a mom with issues but shes more on the ball and no addictoins but still issues
"she doesnt get her dog back" so now she want money, she reeeaaallly cares for that dog😮
Poor decision. No proof whatsoever. The only bad judgement I’ve ever seen her make.
After long enough you'll notice she's not consistent with what proof is needed. She's just using her intuition instead of evidence which she says constantly it's not your flapping gums but the evidence that matter except when she thinks differently
There have been many and it could be part of why the show has been cancelled.
@@getin3949 WHAT?!?!?!
In small claims you just need to be convinced one way or the other. It’s not a criminal case where you need to be sure without a doubt.
The son doesn’t have issues like his mother and provided testimony. Additionally the guy kept talking about how she didn’t deserve the dogs. Why say something like that if you didn’t take one?
If someone accused me of stealing a dog I didn’t take, I’d just go to court and say I have no idea what they’re talking about- not that I saw the dogs and felt bad and thought the dogs deserved a better home. Hell he even said he offered to take them, just that he later changed his mind!
People are upset because the plaintiff has clear mental and/or drug issues and can’t speak properly. I guess that means we can all steal from the homeless!!
@@Tuturu708Her being high as a kite is the issue, not her being homeless, although it's hard to feed dogs if you can't feed yourself. Also, just because the defendant said she didn't deserve the dogs does NOT mean he stole one. It makes perfect sense to me that he did NOT want to deal with this hot mess as soon as she said she wanted to move in with the dog!
Weird case. Cant believe he was found guilty with literally no proof and the plaintiff is far too out there to believe her words as pure fact. Shoulda been a wash...
Her son looked embarrassed as well. 😢
The secondhand embarrassment I feel watching this is absolutely brutal. Don’t do drugs kids.
I felt embarrassed for the son! That lady is an embarrassment and they should not have gave her anything
They are both lying about something that is going unsaid. The plaintiff refused to answer a simple question and I can’t believe she actually won. They are both cracked.
He’s her C-rack dealer! She put the dog up for some dope and she didn’t pay him
The plaintiff is obviously hiding something and yet the judge goes against the defendant, based on nothing but her feelings. Not one ounce of evidence at all.
A witness, her son. 🤷🏻♀️
@@StephiiLoVa90 her son could have lied you never know
I love it when people think they know better than the judge lol
Both parties are shady characters
@@VladmirPoopN that part is true 😅
@@VladmirPoopN Nancy is that you?
The most far fetched case involving one or 2 dogs that I ever heard, as told by the litigants and the son. Who buys a dog when the owner is "in between apartments"?
Unfortunately a lot of people do get an animal when "in between apartments". Or at least a lot more do that than should (which should be zero) because many people only care about their own needs and not the fact they have a living breathing animal that requires more than just love and cuddles.
With that said, there is definitely something shady going on...
@@davidswick8571 Thank you, for your thoughtful reply!
The moment she walked in she seemed like she didn't know where she was. She definitely has a problem with something. Once she said the other person is being investigated for the second dog I thought JM would have ruled with the defendant. There is something wrong with the plaintiff.
The only reason I think the defendant had the dog was because he didn't try hard to convince the judge otherwise. I would have done as much as I could to convince the judge.
He took it, but there is a lot more to this story.
I believe him wow smh . She shouldn’t of won .
I would never trust an old dude covered in spray tan lol
The plaintiff’s cracked out and her brain’s fried.
Judge missed the call on this case in my opinion. The police went to the defendants house within days and the dog wasn’t there.
HOW IN THE HELL DID SHE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. No evidence of payment. Wow!!!!!!!!
How ironic is it that Judge Milian says the defendant made a, "preachy kinda, I know better than you, I can play God in this situation and decide who gets to keep the dog statement" when that's the "legal" role she's played her whole career being in the position she's in as a judge! She was wrong on this one and it makes me wonder if she's had a personal experience with male relatives/community "thinking they're right" based on the condescending impersonation of the defendant and his accent...Judges aren't God either and regular citizens are wrongly accused/convicted and ruled against everyday depending on the authority figure's mood/opinion for the day! The defendant seemed sincere and was teary eyed, and the plaintiff was out of her mind from jump! There are definitely missing pieces to this case!
IS SHE ON MEDICATION, TALK ABOUT BEING ZONED OUT, WOW 🤨💯
I didn't believe the plaintiff and tough as he is, I *DO* believe the defendant. I think Judge Milian was unduly swayed by the defendant's moral position that the plaintiff was unfit to have a dog. I'm sure he's formed that opinion of others in the past but didnt 'snatch' their dogs like some pied piper. I'm guessing if he's hanging on the boardwalk a lot himself- he doesn't have resources to be running a doggy day-care in his apartment. The judge never cross examined the plaintiff about the exchange of phone numbers and the story of her kidnap was unbelievable.
The way the son is acting, I think the defendant is telling the truth. If someone was lying on my mother Iike that, I would be saying SOMETHING. Son was just standing there shaking his head. That defendant was telling the truth!!
I worked at an SPCA clinic & the judge can harp property all she wants but the shelter I worked for had a cruelty investigator who was deputized. Cruelty goes hand & hand with neglect. When she said I was never homeless BEFORE the defendant even mentioned she was living in her car, was the clue she was an unfit dog owner that was letting them run loose. 😢
I believe the defendant 100%
Plaintiff has some issues for sure
The judge is wrong on this one.
See I don't understand this if somebody took my pet no amount of money would be good enough I wouldn't be happy with anything other than my pet back
And kept calling the dog “it” too. What dog owner does that? She needed money for drugs. I’m convinced.
I think this was a drug debt. She owed money and gave the dog as collateral. Explains why no one wants to tell the truth on why he had the dog.
All she cared about was the money and winning. She said it herself in her answer to Doug. She didn't care about those dogs at all and that man totally did the right thing! She doesn't deserve to have any pets!!!
The plaintiff is on something, she is confused.
This is the first time I don't agree with her decision. This woman is an addict/alcoholic and is lying about the whole thing.
Honestly I believe the defendant. Bc the woman can't even think yet remembers what's going on. It took the son to come up to answers the judges question to which she asked the lady about 6 times if not more and wasn't getting steady answers.
Everything in this case was hear say and she made a ruling based on what she thinks happened then knowing what actually happened.
This is a very bad ruling and I lost some respect for her.
As far as this is going the lady could of said anything and won and the son could of been in on it too.
Can't rule with no facts.
The only fact and evidence that was given was a statement of how much the dog costs
Also to the government and law our pets may seem like PrOpErTy but to us are our kids and family and nothing more PERIOD!!!!
The son seems like he has issues too
@@lillianbrown7543 gimme a break, he is just fine.
This should have been thrown out. The plaintiff couldn't answer why she gave her dog to some guy for a day and she couldn't stop interrupting. She was looking for a pay day and she got it
The expression on the plaintiff’s son’s face, and the way he keeps looking down at the table, tells me there’s more to this story than she’s admitting. I think she was homeless and sold the dog to the defendant for drugs.
I believe the defendant. The plaintiffs inability to answer WHY she gave him the dog did it for me. Judge M messed up.
I didn’t like how she judged him negatively for having empathy for the dogs. Case should’ve been dismissed
I’m very disappointed with Judge M on this one. Usually she requires at least a shred of evidence and in this case she just did whatever she wanted. Plus, she’s advocating for a woman with no money, no home and clearly has some type of abuse problem to own two dogs. You think those dogs would be getting appropriate vet care? “He drugged me and stole my dog” aka “I bought meth from him, did a huge amount and when I sobered up my dog was gone”
I don’t think he took the dog honestly . I think the plaintiff is on drugs
Having dogs for last 30 years I would never, ever give my dog to anyone. Ever.
Even doug was like what was the judge thinking.😂
JM just gives money away. The plaintiff can't answer a simple question.
That's new. I've seen most people saying she makes it too difficult for people to win the full amounts they're asking for.
@Doug Avila said no one ever. She awards money like it’s coming directly out her bank account lol
She couldn't articulate any reason at all why she gave up the dog. That's reason enough not to find for the plaintiff. For all we know she said he could keep the dog. Her story made no sense.
I don’t think he took the dogs. It was obvious to me that the lady had some issues. His only fault was ever talking to her from the beginning. I totally disagree with this judgment.
She reminds me of my mom. My mom has mental issues and she says delusional stuff like the plaintiff did. I believe the judge got this one wrong. I believe the guy didn't take the dog
Plaintiff is crazy. She can't even answer simple questions. The son is just lying to back up his mom. Defendant never had the dog.
What am I missing??? Wow!!!!
Even Doug was surprised by the ruling
Oh for Petes sake. The platiff really needs professional help. Alittle looney in her head. The dog should have stayed with the defendant. The platiff should be in a looney hospital 😅
I found a tiny dog on my street on a very hot day. I brought her inside and called my vet to bring her in, she was dehydrated and had an abscess in her mouth. Also covered in fleas. I called two police precincts to check if she had a chip.
Meanwhile the owner Is looking all over for her. They live across the street, I have never met her.
Anyway they came in to get her and I suggested they let her stay, I had more time to be with her cuz she was truly suffering.
They said no, I gave the dog to them and they called the police on me! They said I abducted the dog. The police had my messages regarding a chip and my vet said I called to have her checked out.
Waste of time for the cop and they never thanked me for saving her .
No good deed.
Oh good, she gets money for more drugs & alcohol!
The plaintiff’s son looked 👀 a little bit embarrassed. Hearing all those stories about his mom. The reason her story didn’t sound right so because she left some details out lmfao😂 You don’t just give your dog to a stranger. She never denied what the defendant was saying about her being a table hopper and a boardwalk bum.
@ 11:02 she says: "And the dog was 4 months old when I ga..."
I think she was about to say when she gave him the dog, but the judge interrupted her.
The look on her son's face tells me she drinks.
That Plaintiff is INSANE!!! How does that crazy lady not know the lady who took the second dog didn’t take the first dog? They probably took the first one, realized the lady didn’t remember and took the second one & now she don’t know who has them. I think the defendant didn’t do anything wrong. He could answer questions the best he could vs the crazy lady who had to be asked multiple times and still couldn’t give a straight answer.
i do hope someone introduces her to the concept of karma. she is a liar.
He definitely not just took that dog but took BOTH dogs, no question! Listen to his ending comments
iCAUGHT THAT TOO. 😂
I believe the defendant. Very wrong ruling. Very surprised she ruled that way.
Why give your dog to a virtual stranger🤷 she's a desert short of a cactus!
"Desert short of a cactus" I'm stealing that.
@@benjie128 be my guest🤣🤣
@@benjie128 I've plenty more where that came from too....tree short of a forest, cistern short of a toilet, bristle short of a toothbrush, take your pick😂😂
@Ninja Manatee depends which country you live in😋😂
@@tracylangsley4064 I've also heard a "French fry short of a happymeal"
OMG like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer from this women. So why did your dog move from your hands to his hands ? It's a good thing the son was their to translate.
Terrible ruling! That guy does not have nor did he take the dog. I feel for him. A while back, some lady accused my boys of taking her dog, and it turned out the lady never even had a dog to begin with. She talked just like this lady here. When you can't answer a straight question, you're lying about something. I really don't think that guy meant anything when he said, "If they were kids, cps would have taken them away," except he didn't like the way she was treating the dogs. You can object to how someone is doing something without stealing it from them. Judge is jaded concerning this because some people have used it as their excuse why they stole something. To bad for this guy.
it’s a shame for the son of the plaintiff bc she is whacked and his face when the defendant is talking about the outfit she “unproperly” wore & chasing her away said to me that she absolutely was wearing that and she’s been embarrassing him and doing this kind of stuff for a LONG time, he’s sick of it, && his eyes look herartbroken….that look in his eyes at that moment really broke my heart and told me so much about this lady and the life he’s lived with her as his mother
This is so clearly 100 percent drug related and possibly mafia related im surprised it showed up at peoples court because neither of them will tell the truth.. millian shoukd have thrown this case in the trash immediately after she realized the plaintiff couldnt even explain why she handed it over
Lights on but a little dim. HELLOOO LADY, WHY DID YOU GIVE HIM THE DOG? 🤪
Two and a half minutes in, and this woman has almost all of my nerves frazzled! 🤦🏽♀️ Either she is avoiding saying something that she doesn’t want the judge to know, or she can’t tell a succinct, sensical story to save her life!
She gave me her dog....
I never had the dog...
Both of them are lying.
I think this case has a lot to do with drugs. Bad ruling on the judge. Judge Judy would of thrown this case out. 🤦♂️
It’s crazy how in one breath she can say the plaintiff shouldn’t have dogs but when the defendant says it he’s guilty. Make it make sense judge lol
Wtf how do you hand down a verdict with no evidence? The plaintiff's story about giving him the dog doesn't even make since smdh
Her last answer was the most cohesive thing she has said yet. 😯
Dawg. I love the way they talk. (I’m from Texas)
Why didn't the judge ask for a letter from this vet that supposedly saw him with the dog at their practice, that also knows the son?
This lady is off her rocker.
She did not pay 1,200 for a mutt.... period. This case is a joke
Who gets a dog while in between homes? Her blank stare at JM’s question really irked me, and when she kept interrupting. Disappointed JM, you were wrong this time.
Usually when something doesn't make sense, it's a lie and the plaintiff wasn't making a lot of sense.
I actually believe the defendant but I believe the plaintiffs son as well. Idk how I feel about his because the plaintiff herself was acting weird.
" he traded me drugs for my dog, I mean, he drugged me and took my dogs."
crazy case and a crazy ruling to match
Judgements without proof based on feelings!? REALLY! 😒😏
I cant get over the defendant's tan 😂😂😂
I think the defendant was lying, but I'm not sure why.
WTF!!! This Plaintiff is very strange- nicely put.
The case should have been dismissed for no evidence whatsoever!!!! The plaintiff is clearly off her rockers 🤯
She should've thrown the case out. Absolutely no evidence. If I had been the defendant, I would've said " The cops searched my house and didn't find a dog. I don't know what else to tell you. She's drugged up and homeless , clearly looking for a payout from this."
Those poor dogs.
This whole case is fishy..She’s lying, he’s lying... I’m surprised she ruled in her favor ..
so since he made a "preachy statement", that caused him to lose? the police didn't even find a dog...