On Thu, 08 May 2008 18:48:46 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:

> On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:48:10 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>No, he has documentation to prove he purcheased the phone. He says
>>it's lost but there's always cancelled checks, credit card receipts
>>or, if necessary, he can contact the original seller and get
>>documentation from them.
>
> Just because you can prove you bought it doesn't necessarily mean you
> can prove you own it. I still have the receipt where I purchased an
> MP3 player for my daughter, but that doesn't mean it's mine. Someone
> can purchase something, keep the receipt, and sell or otherwise
> transfer an item to another person. Their posession of the original
> receipt isn't proof positive of their ownership. And the OP stated,
> the boyfriend did not have the receipt, so even that point is moot.
> But even if he did, the girlfriend would get the phone back and both
> will be told it's a civil matter, that there's nothing the police can
> do about it. You said it yourself above, "He GAVE her the phone."
> End of story.
>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>>He can prove ownership, see above.
>
> He can't prove shit. See above.
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>I have a LOT of experience it that area, I was just about to say the
>>same about you, you've certainly proven it.
>
> You sure couldn't prove it by your posts in this thread. You think
> the cops should automatically take someone's word for something with
> no proof offered. How pathetic.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Wrong again, as always, he has or will have the records to prove
>>purchase. Try keeping up, OK?
>
> I guess you failed to read where the guy didn't have the receipts,
> huh? And what about VZW's records showing the phone belonged to *her*
> account?
>
>>I hope the guy with the phone pays attention to someone who knows what
>>he's talking about and not the "Ghost of General Ignorance."
>
> I'm beginning to think you believe my posts here are because I think
> the girlfriend did nothing wrong. Far from it. I just know what
> levels of proof are needed to prove ownership or theft/filing a false
> police report. They are two different levels. One is by
> preponderance of the evidence, the other is beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> I might remind you that *you* are the only one here trying to tell the
> OP that the boyfriend has some legal right to have the cops use
> coercion to get a cell phone transferred to him which he has no legal
> right to. If he did have a right to it, the matter would have been
> settled long before the OP posted here. Again, you've admitted he
> GAVE it to her. Beyond that, there's nothing left to discuss.
>
>>I'm done here. Go spout your wrong information to others.
>
> Yeah, you're done, because you don't know your ass from a hole in the
> ground. You lack basic understand of criminal law, civil torts, and
> evidentiary requirements. I take it back, you are worse than Larry.
> At least his half-truths sound somewhat convincing.

I work in law enforcement. General Lee is correct. The OP is screwed.

No cop is going to waste his time on a stolen item valued at a couple
hundred dollars. The OP's best option is small claims court, but without
the supporting paperwork no magistrate will rule in his favor.

Its best to pick your girlfriends cautiously.