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.
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.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
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.
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.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
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.
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.
> They actually have a better case against the OP for being in
> posession of stolen property,
Hogwash.
> 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.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
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.
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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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'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 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 done here. Go spout your wrong information to others.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
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.
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.
> I work in law enforcement. General Lee is correct. The OP is
> screwed.
General Ignorance is seldom correct and the OP isn't screwed, he's not
the one with the phone who's ex-girlfriend filed the stolen phone
report, all the OP has to worry about is buying a phone somewhere.
> No cop is going to waste his time on a stolen item valued at a
> couple hundred dollars.
You believe the police won't follow up a complaint of filing a false
report? They'd become an ex-cop here very quickly.
> The OP's best option is small claims court, but without the
> supporting paperwork no magistrate will rule in his favor.
He'll have the supporting paperwork, of course. He'll have to get it
but there IS a paper trail unless he bought the phone for cash from a
guy in a dark alley.
> Its best to pick your girlfriends cautiously.
People never do, do they?
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
> You believe the police won't follow up a complaint of filing a false
> report? They'd become an ex-cop here very quickly.
It's very hard to prove someone "willingly" filed the false report, which in
most states is required to proceed with the charges. Your state might vary
on this, but I personally know of none that do.
If the complaintent has no evidence to support his accusations the officer
must make a judgment call on whether it's worth it to proceed with what
could be a time (and tax dollars) consuming effort. Many police reports are
filed for small dollar losses for insurance company purposes. Very few are
pursued for false filings.
The phone is worthless. Pursuing this would be a waste of time for everyone
involved. All for a $35 used LG. Geez...
In regard to the false report BS....I don't even want to know how one would
plan to prove the report was false WHEN IT WAS FILED....you gotta be kidding
me.....
For cryin' out loud, donate the paperweight to the local battered women's
shelter, take the tax deduction, break down and spend a few dollars.
I have a mint used LG with a CLEAN ESN. If I cleared $25 on it from eBay,
I'd think Christmas came early!!!.
Dean
"Strongbox" <strongbox@no.mail> wrote in message
news:10cm33sfukyuj.1npx4julztx1v$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:04:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>
>> You believe the police won't follow up a complaint of filing a false
>> report? They'd become an ex-cop here very quickly.
>
> It's very hard to prove someone "willingly" filed the false report, which
> in
> most states is required to proceed with the charges. Your state might
> vary
> on this, but I personally know of none that do.
>
> If the complaintent has no evidence to support his accusations the officer
> must make a judgment call on whether it's worth it to proceed with what
> could be a time (and tax dollars) consuming effort. Many police reports
> are
> filed for small dollar losses for insurance company purposes. Very few
> are
> pursued for false filings.
>
>
>
>
On Fri, 09 May 2008 09:04:39 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote:
>Strongbox <strongbox@no.mail> wrote:
>
>> I work in law enforcement. General Lee is correct. The OP is
>> screwed.
>
>General Ignorance is seldom correct
Translation: "He proved me to be wrong and I'm pissed about it."
You're just pissed because your knowledge of the law is limited to
what you've seen on television or the movies. If I am "seldom
correct", then I'm sure you can point out a few examples where I was
supposedly wrong. Go ahead, I'll wait...
>and the OP isn't screwed, he's not
>the one with the phone who's ex-girlfriend filed the stolen phone
>report, all the OP has to worry about is buying a phone somewhere.
>
>> No cop is going to waste his time on a stolen item valued at a
>> couple hundred dollars.
>
>You believe the police won't follow up a complaint of filing a false
>report? They'd become an ex-cop here very quickly.
Let's see if you can wrap your head around an example.
I go to Sears and buy a set of Craftsman wrenches and put them on my
Sears credit card. I have the receipt that proves I paid for them. A
few days later, you do some work on my car and we agree that in
exchange for your labor, I'm going to give you the wrenches. Nothing
is in writing, because after all, it's just a set of wrenches.
Being a nice set of wrenches, you engrave your driver's license number
on them so they can be uniquely identified if they are lost or stolen.
A couple of years later, you do some more work for me and when you are
done, you accidentally leave the wrenches at my home. Upon seeing
those nice wrenches again, I decide I want them again, so I keep them
and refuse to give them back. You go to the police and claim that the
wrenches belong to you, as proved by your DL number on them. And
since I have them and won't give them back, you consider them stolen
and file a report.
When they question me about the wrenches, I show them the receipt and
the cops tell you since I have the receipt, the wrenches must be mine.
Is that fair? I have a receipt, but you have a unique number on them
which ties them to you. Then they tell you since I have "proven" they
are mine, unless you rescind the complaint, you will be charged with
filing a false police report. Again I ask, would you consider this to
be fair to you? Now, with all else the same, let's imagine I paid
cash for them, and lost the receipt, but I still claim them as mine.
According to your logic, my claim is all that matters, and even though
they have numbers on them that 3rd party records prove are linked to
you and you alone, you lose your wrenches. Still want to continue
with this line of argument?
>> The OP's best option is small claims court, but without the
>> supporting paperwork no magistrate will rule in his favor.
>
>He'll have the supporting paperwork, of course. He'll have to get it
>but there IS a paper trail unless he bought the phone for cash from a
>guy in a dark alley.
What supporting paperwork? It's been pointed out to you previously
that the BF said he did NOT have a receipt, and that he likely paid in
cash. So where is this magical paperwork going to come from? And how
does this negate the fact he GAVE the phone to her, a fact to which
you've already admitted? Please tell us, Mr. Lawyer?
>
>> Its best to pick your girlfriends cautiously.
>
>People never do, do they?
>
I think the more important advice here is never allow a phone you
purchased to be activated on someone else's account unless you are
willing to lose it. If you want to secure the future ownership of a
cellular phone, in the absence of a written agreement, only activate
it on *your* account.
Re: Verizon Phone - Tale of Woe - Maybe 
Linear Mode
