On Wed, 07 May 2008 14:03:10 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>He GAVE her the phone, he kept it when they split, she did not
>believe nor could she have believed the phone was stolen.

And which point it becomes a pissing contest between ex-lovers. Yeah,
the cops are certainly going to believe one side's word over another
in that.

>
>> They actually have a better case against the OP for being in
>> posession of stolen property,
>
>Hogwash.

He claimed to have posession of property that was reported stolen. Do
you deny that?

>> 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.
>
>More hogwash, real world practicality says she would remove the stolen
>report when threatened with the false report charge and allow the phone
>to be registered. All that's needed is to contact the police, they'll
>do the rest.

It's obvious you have no experience in dealing with law enforcement,
prosecutors, or the courts. You're about as bad as Larry's "lawyer"
tales. If she "removes" the stolen property report, she walks *with*
the phone. After all, it was *her* phone. Verizon says so, and they
have the records to prove it.