Verizon Phone - Tale of Woe - Maybe

> 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.

That and if he's got all the original receipts stating he paid for it then
go to a Verizon store and talk with a manager. If he doesn't have the paper
copies then get reprints from the credit card company.

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