On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:39:28 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 10:38:15 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:19:59 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
>>>> <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> She decides to get even and tells Verizon the phone is stolen.
>>>>>> So now it cannot be used.
>>>>>
>>>>>So file a police report. She's commited fraud.
>>>>
>>>> How? She didn't commit fraud. The worst she did was filing a
>>>> false police report, which is a completely different crime. But
>>>> she won't get charged with that, either. The phone service was in
>>>> her name, ergo, the phone was presumed to belong to her.
>>>
>>>But she KNEW the phone wasn't stolen, ergo, filing a false report.
>>
>> In the absence of a confession by her, proving it would be next to
>> impossible. She'd never be charged.
>
>Why not? Her ex-boy friend can provide all the evidence necessary if
>he were irate enough to do so.

How is he going to provide evidence of her intent? She had to have
*KNOWINGLY* filed a false report, not just filed a report that later
proved to be in error. As long as she states she believed at the time
that the phone was stolen, there was no proven intent, and therefore,
no case. They actually have a better case against the OP for being in
posession of stolen property, but obviously he hasn't been charged.
Cops don't have the time to run around chasing bullshit crimes without
sufficient evidence a crime was actually committed. That's the
difference between theoretical law and real world law.