Ex wont give me my pitbull back!!!

[RyanRoss]

I'll make this simple:

My ex has my pitbull and we had an agreement that she could keep her, as long as she'd let me see her. First weekend comes and I want to pick my dog up, ex won't answer her phone. I go knock on the door, ex calls the cops and say I'm trying to break in!!!

This pitbull is my little baby. She's in my name, I bought her. All the papers are in my name......

Is there any way of getting my dog back? Or is it too late since it's been a year. If you're wondering why I haven't tried to get her back for a year, its because I'm afraid the nut will call the cops again, and I haven't had money for an attorney (if that's an option).

I just want my baby back......

Edit: we weren't married, not sure if that matters.

Should I call the police, come to them with the papers and if they see the papers, can they make her give my dog back?

[Ernst]

You waited a year? You might have lost her, papers or not. You don't need an attorney for that stuff, you just call the cops and prove ownership and they force girl to relinquish. Still worth a try I guess.

[RyanRoss]

You waited a year? You might have lost her, papers or not. You don't need an attorney for that stuff, you just call the cops and prove ownership and they force girl to relinquish. Still worth a try I guess.

Fack......i'll call tomorrow and ask.

[SunHangDo]

Definitely notify the police. If you paid for her, and you signed the papers, it's your dog.

What a ***** ****ing ****, I can't believe she lied saying you were breaking in. Women would be absolutely nothing without men. Here's a tip for next time: But a small video camera. They're pretty cheap. A video recorder can go for 100 bucks or less. Bring it with you when you go to ask for the dog back. If she goes nuts and calls the police, you will have evidence that she is lying. This will begin to ruin her credibility, and begin to build yours. The police will see that she is a lunatic and a liar, and that you are just a guy who wants his dog back.

It might sound paranoid, but I take my camera with me everywhere. You never know when a cop might want to power trip on you, or an ex might want to start making up stories. Video evidence can save your ass.

[drdeath613]

Many states prohibit the audio or video recording of someone without their knowledge and consent none of it would be seen by a judge and if the cops gave him his dog based on a tape they seen she could have it over turned in court

best bet is to go to your local cop shop tell them your ex is holding your dog that u have all the papers to prove u own it and that everytime you try to go over there she says shes calling the cops on you that your trying to break in

[SunHangDo]

Many states prohibit the audio or video recording of someone without their knowledge and consent

Are you certain of that? Most states fully allow photography in a public place. What you've stated would mean that it is illegal to film myself in a public place if I were to catch anyone in the background on film.

I've seen a cop tell a person that he doesn't have permission to film him, to which the person replied, "That's alright, I don't need your permission to film you." Check to see if you can find the exact statute which states public photography is illegal. Police work with intimidation tactics. They'll lie to you in a heartbeat if they think it will get you to comply with them.

[Ernst]

Indeed. And don't most of those laws only apply when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a person to person phone conversation?

[drdeath613]

FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 (A) PROVIDES in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v. McKeever,*1* and upheld in cases such as United States v. McMillan.*2* In McMillan the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice .of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.
In United States v. Kandiel,*3* the court ruled that any question concerning the credibility of a witness who identifies voices on a tape recording admitted into evidence simply goes to the weight which the jury accords the evidence, not its admissibility. Referring to McMillan the court said:

Applying [the McMillan case], we conclude that the government laid a proper foundation for introduction of the two cassette tapes into evidence. The tapes were found at appellant's home. Ahmed Kandiel [defendant's brother] testified that the tapes were made in Egypt and sent to appellant by their mother and father while Ahmed was living with appellant. The contents of the tape recordings have numerous references to people, places and activities that were corroborative of other testimony in the record. We believe the government has offered sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the prima facie authenticity and correctness of the tapes. Furthermore we find that the government sufficiently established the identity of the speakers through the testimony of Ahmed Kandiel. Appellant's argument that Ahmed's credibility was suspect, and that therefore his testimony was insufficient to establish foundation for the admission of the tapes is with out merit. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, may be made "by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker." Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(5). Any question concerning the credibility of the identifying witness simply goes to the weight the jury accords this evidence, not to its admissibility. United States v. Kirk, 534 E2d 1262, 1277 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 907, 97 S. Ct. 2971, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1091 (1977). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that proper foundation was laid for admitting the tapes. See United States v. Johnson, 767 E2d 1259, 1271 (8th Cir. 1985).*4*The cases are, therefore, now in general agreement as to what constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a sound recording and indicate a reasonably strict adherence to the rules prescribed for testing admissibility of recordings, as set forth in McMillan.*5*

These rules can be summarized as follows:

* The recording device must have been capable of taking the conversation now offered in evidence
* The operator of the device must be competent to operate the device
* The recording must be authentic and correct
* Changes, additions or deletions have not been made in the recording
* The recording must have been preserved in a manner that is shown to the court
* The speakers must be identified
* The conversation elicited was made voluntarily and in good faith, without any kind of inducement.*6*

THE BASIC PROCESS

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS, ATTORNEYS HAVE UTILIZED THE basic process set forth in McMillan to create cases for admission of tapes or, on the opposition side, to deny admission of tape evidence.

This process involves the following elements:

* Capability of the recording device:this first requisite may be fulfilled simply. The very existence of the tape recording proves that the recording device was functioning and capable of duplicating sounds.*7*
* Competency of the operator:today most people know how to operate a tape recorder so this step is almost automatic. In United States v. McCowan,*8* the agent merely testified that he learned how to use the recorder on the day he made the tapes. The fact that he successfully made the recordings satisfied the competency requirement.
* Authenticity and correctness of the recording:authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is "what its proponent claims,*9* as decreed in Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The standard for correctness of a recording is whether "the possibility of misidentification and adulteration [is] eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability."*10*
* Preservation of the recording with no additions, deletions or changes:an aural overview of the tape allows the court to hear signs (i.e., gaps) which might indicate tampering. If there exist signs of tampering, a forensic expert is often consulted. If there are no signs of tampering, a proper chain of custody documentation may suffice.*11*
* Chain of custody:
this fifth step has created stumbling blocks for proponents of admissibility. The proponent for the tape's admittance can assure the court that the item offered as evidence is substantially the same as it was originally by documenting its "chain of custody." A proper chain of custody begins with consecutively numbered and dated tapes. Careful logs are then kept which note the time of particular conversations and the locations on the tapes at the time of occurrence. These evidence tapes are sealed and stored in separate envelopes and appropriate chain of custody records are maintained by the evidence custodian. *12*
* Identification of the speakers:Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) states that: "Voice identification is adequate if made by a witness having sufficient familiarity with the speaker's voice." The rule goes on to clarify that familiarity may be obtained previous to or after listening to the recorded voice. This standard for voice identification has been upheld in cases such as United States v. Rizzo, United States v. Bonanno, and United States v. Hughes)*13*
* Voluntary elicitation of the recorded conversation:as long as one participant in the conversation is aware that he is being recorded, the tape fulfills this final requirement. This means that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the conversation is electronically monitored by a government agent with consent of the government informant in the investigation.*14*

ADMISSIBILITY OF INAUDIBLE SOUND RECORDINGS

IT IS A GENERAL RULE THAT A sound recording is admissible unless the inaudible portions or omissions are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy as evidence.*15* It has further been established that the question of admissibility of audible portions of tape recordings, when certain portions were inaudible, was properly addressed to the discretion of the-trial court.*16*

RECENT COURT RULINGS

THE HISTORICAL PROCESS SET OUT ABOVE, AS FIRST ESTABLISHED in United States v. McMillan, is widely used today even though several recent court decisions provide more relaxed rulings on admissibility. For example, in United States v. Traficant*17* the court stated that:
"Recent cases have developed more flexible standards for the admission of tape recorded conversations. The most important criterion for admission is that the tapes accurately reflect the conversation which they purport to record .... This evidence may be circumstantial or direct, real or testimonial, and need not conform to any particular mode." Therefore, according to the more liberal admission rulings, a tape recording may be admitted into evidence if a proper chain of custody is proven. Or, if the chain is not strong enough, the proponent of the tape may submit it to a qualified forensic expert for authentication. In United States v. King,*18* the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit characterized the elements of the process as "useful, but not dispositive guidelines for determining when a proper foundation for the introduction of sound recordings has been made." The Ninth Circuit said that the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the recording is accurate, authentic and generally trustworthy.

EXAMINATION REQUESTS AND REQUIRED EQUIPMENT

WHEN AN AUDIO TAPE IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN TAMPERED with, it may be forwarded to a qualified forensic audio specialist for authentication. Prosecutors often request investigation of deficiencies in the previously mentioned process.

Examples of such problems are:

* Credibility questions relating to the tape recorder operator
* Chain-of-custody contradictions
* Differences between the content of the tape and testimony of what was said.

Most often, however, a forensic expert is contacted when the tape is believed to have been altered or tampered with. Due to the nature of the allegations surrounding tampering issues, the examiner will requirements specific items from the party.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, has a protocol of required information, including:

* The original tape
* The tape recorders and related components used to produce the recording
* Written records of any damage or maintenance done to the recorders, accessories and other submitted equipment
* A derailed statement from the person or persons who made the recording, describing exactly how it was produced and the conditions that existed at the time, such as: 1. Power source, including a portable generator or drycell batteries; 2. Input, such as telephone, radio frequency transmitter/receiver, miniature microphone, etc.; 3. Environment, such as telephone transmission line, restaurant, apartment, street, etc.;4. Background noises, such as television, radio, unrelated conversations, computer games, etc.; 5. Foreground information, such as number of individuals involved in the conversation, general topics of discussion, closeness to microphone, etc.;6. Magnetic tape, such as brand, format, when purchased, whether previously used;7. Recorder operation, such as number of times turned on and off in the record mode, type of keyboard or remote operations for all known recorded events, use of voice-activated features, etc.
* A typed transcript of the entire recording or, if that is not available, transcriptions of the portions in question. The items listed above are examples of what is required by a forensic expert as she begins an examination of questioned audio recordings

Extraneous voices: background voices which at times appear to be as near as the primary voices (these can, at times, even block the primary voices).

TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS

CERTAIN TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD by prosecutors and others in considering the technical process of examining sound recordings. They include the ones listed below.

FALSIFICATION OF TAPES

A QUALIFIED FORENSIC EXPERT DETERMINES AUTHENTICATION by performing a number of scientific tests which detect evidence of tampering or falsification. The four basic types of tampering are these:

* Deletion: the elimination of words or sounds by stopping the tape and over-recording unwanted areas
* Obscuration: the mixing in of sounds of amplitude sufficient to mask waveform patterns which originally would show stops and starts in inappropriate places
* Transformation: the rearranging of words to change con- tent or context
* Synthesis: the adding of words or sounds by artificial means or impersonation.

ELECTROMECHANICAL INDICATIONS OF FALSIFICATION

THESE ARE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS "ANOMALIES" AND include the following:

* Gaps: segments in a recording which represent unexplained changes in content or context (a gap can contain buzzing, humming or silence)
* Transients: short, abrupt sounds exemplified by clicks, pops, etc. (transients may indicate tape splicing)
* Fades: gradual loss of volume (fades can cause inaudibility and are considered gaps when the recording becomes fully inaudible)
* Equipment sounds: inconsistencies of context caused by the recording equipment itself (common equipment sounds include hums, static, whistles, and varying pitches)

DETECTING FALSIFICATIONS

A FORENSIC EXPERT IS TRAINED to detect falsifications and to authenticate sound recordings. The expert correlates his observations of anomalies with machine functions to interpret events in the following ways.

* Critical listening: this involves the use of human analytical capabilities to locate anomalies. The forensic expert listens with proper headphones to the original tape using high-quality analytical equipment. He first performs a preliminary overview of the original tape and notes events, including starts, stops, speed fluctuations, and other variations requiring further investigation. He then examines recorded events and categorizes them as environmental or non-environmental. After examining recorded events, the expert analyzes background sounds. He listens for abnormal changes, absences or the presence of environmental sound. The final phase of critical listening is an extensive audit of the foreground information. He concentrates on voices, conversations and other audible sounds. Here anomalies include sudden changes in a person's voice, abrupt unexplained topic change or strong foreground interruptions indicative of obscuration. The initial forensic process of critical listening provides foundation and direction for later intensive instrumental tests.
* Physical inspection: the forensic expert next inspects for tampering with thorough visual inspection of the tape itself. She inspects the housing for pry marks, welding, size, label and date, consistent with the alleged recording date. She also measures the tape and assures that the splicing of the magnetic tape to the leader is consistent with a normal manufacturing process. Any other splices are noted as possible alterations.
* Magnetic development: direct visual observation of the "developed" tape is conducted to find track widths, the type of recorder used and the presence or absence of residual speech signals.
* Spectrum analysis: specialized computer equipment and programs to produce a visual interpretation of a frequency- versus-amplitude and frequency-versus-amplitude-versus-time displays. This allows the expert to view the entire spectrum or to zoom in on an area of particular interest thereby helping to characterize the acoustic quality of anomalies and identify their source.
* Waveform analysis: a computer generated display representing time-versus-amplitude of recorded sounds in graphic form. With such analysis the expert can often measure signal return time, which reveals how long a recorder had been turned off. He can identify record- mode events, including the measurement of record-to- erase-head distance, determination of the spacing between gaps in multiple-gap erase heads and inspection of the signature shape and spacing of various record event signals.
* Recorder performance: various electrical and mechanical measurements of standard and modified recorders for use in finding possible origins of buzz sounds, hum, etc.

CONCLUSION

IN ORDER TO SUBMIT SOUND RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE IN court, a prosecutor or other attorney must establish that the tape is an authentic representation of the conversation it is said to record. The traditional method of establishing authenticity involves maintaining a chain of custody which logs all persons, times and locations concerned in the creation of the tape. Then, the tape must be officially sealed and stored to complete a proper chain of custody. However, even if this procedure is strictly observed, there may still be challenges to the tape's authenticity.

[space]The recording may contain inconsistencies suggestive of tampering. In such cases, a prosecutor may consult a qualified forensic examiner to inspect the tape. The examiner would initially listen critically for signs such as gaps, transients fades, equipment sounds or extraneous voices which indicate tampering. Then she would utilize other methods like physical inspection, magnetic development, spectrum analysis and waveform analysis to discover anomalies.

It is relatively easy to change the content of a recording by deleting words or sections, by obscuring meaning with over-recorded sounds, or by transforming context through rearrangement of selected phrases or by adding additional words through synthesis. Nevertheless, falsifications normally leave detectable magnetic and waveform acoustic signatures which can lead to forensic individualization of the evidential recorders and tapes.

End notes:

1 United States v. McKeever, 169 E Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), rev'd on other grounds, 271 E2d 669 (2d Cir. 1959).
2 United States v. McMillan, 508 E2d I01,104 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 42 1 U.S. 916 (1975); see also United States v. Kandiel, 865 E2d 967,973-974 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210 (1988); Todisco v. United States, 298 E2d 208 (9th Cir. 1962).
3 United States v. Kandiel, 865 E2d 967,973-974 (8th Cir. 1988),cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210 (1988).
4 Kandiel, 865 E2d at 974.
5 McMillan, 508 E2d at 104.
6 Id. at 104.
7 United States v. Moss, 591 E2d 428, 433 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. McCowan, 706 E2d 863 (8th Cir. 1983).
8 McCowan, 706 E2d at 863.
9 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electrical Industries Co., 505 E Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980), and Finance Co. of America v. Bankamerica Corp., 493 E Supp. 895 (D.C. Md. 1980).
10 Gass v. United States, 416 E2d 767,770 (D.C. Cir. 1969); United States v. Haldeman, 559 E2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
11 United States v. Faurote, 749 E2d 40 (7th Cir. 1984).
12 United States v. Craig, 573 E2d 455 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 820 (1978).
13 United States v. Rizzo, 492 E2d 443 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 944 (1974); United States v. Bonanno, 487 E2d 654 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Hughes, 658 E2d 317 (5th Cir. 1981).
14 United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); United States v. Bonanno, 487 E2d 654 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Bishton, 463 E2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1972); United States v. Quintana, 457 E2d 874 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877 (1972); United States v. Holmes, 452 E2d 249 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1016 (1972).
15 United States v. West, 948 E2d 1042 (6th Cir. 1991); People v. Rogers, 543 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. 1989); State v. Rodfiguez, 583 N.E.2d 795 and. 1972).
16 United States v. Enright, 579 E2d 980 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v. Gordon, 688 E2d 42 (8th Cir. 1982).
17 United States v. Traficant, 558 E Supp. 996, 1002 (N.D. Ohio, 1983).
18 United States v. King, 587 E2d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 1978)

[drdeath613]

this is a list of states concerning the status on one party/ two party telephone tape recording law with footnotes, federal law coverage and extensive remarks.

Definations:
A one party state means one party to the telephone conversation has to have knowledge and give consent. In a two party state, all parties must have knowledge and give consent.

Addresses:
The e mail address after each state is the address of the person who provided that information. It has not been checked. If more than one e mail address is listed, two people reported the same information.



A NOTE ON FEDERAL LAW
It would appear that, if a telephone conversation crossed state lines, federal law would have jurisdiction.



STATE BY STATE LIST

NOTE: At the present time, we have information from ALL 50 STATES provided by private investigators. These have NOT been verified and user should do so. The e mail address after the information is the party that supplied the information. By using the list, you hereby agree to hold all parites involved harmless from any actions or causes for actions. State laws on this change from time to time. Statest that are blank, we currently have no information on. If you have information on a state not listed or more current information, e mail to [email protected] and we will update the list every month. This infformation has not been verified. All parites should check the actual state law and obtain opinion from an attorney-at-law before recording any statement over a telephone line.

Alabama: One Party <[email protected]>
Alaska: One party <[email protected]>
Arizona: One Party <[email protected] (Matthew Cummings)> <[email protected]>
Arizona: No party consent for person owning telephone service. <[email protected]>
Arkansas: One Party <[email protected]>
California: Two Party <[email protected]> (3)
Colorado: One party <PZenner104>
Connecticut Two Party <[email protected]> (STEVE FREDERICKSEN) (9)
Delaware: Two Party <[email protected]> E. Moreland
District Of Columbia One Party <[email protected]>
Florida: Two Party <[email protected]>
Georgia One Party (8.)
Hawaii ::One Party <[email protected]>
Idaho: One Party <[email protected]>
Illinois One Party <[email protected] (Bob Hrodey)> (1.)
Indiana One Party <[email protected]> (5)
Iowa One Party <[email protected]>
Kansas: One Party <[email protected]>
Kentucky One party <[email protected]>
Louisiana One Party <[email protected] (Patrick Adams)> <[email protected]>
Maine: One Party <[email protected]> E. Moreland
Massachusetts Two Party <[email protected]> (11.)
Maryland Two Party <[email protected]> (10.)
Michigan One party <[email protected]> < [email protected]>
Minnesota One Party <[email protected]>
Mississippi One Party <[email protected]> (ron crowe)
Missouri One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Minnesota One Party <[email protected]>
Montana Two-party <[email protected]> (Warren Levicoff) (12.)
Nebraska One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Nevada: One Party <[email protected]> E. Moreland
New Hampshire Two Party <[email protected]> (13.)
New Jersey One Party <[email protected]>
New Mexico: One Party <[email protected]>
New York One Party <[email protected]><[email protected]> (6)
North Carolinia One Party <[email protected]>
North Dakota One Party <[email protected]>
Oklahoma: One Party <[email protected]>
Oregon One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected] (Phil Agrue)> (14.)
Ohio One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Pennsylvania Two Party <[email protected]> (15.) <[email protected]> (7) <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Rhode Island: One Party <[email protected]> E. Moreland
South Carolina One Party <[email protected]>
South Dakota: One Party <[email protected]>
Tennessee One Party <[email protected]> (ron crowe)
Texas One Party <[email protected]>
Utah One Party <[email protected]>
Vermont One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Virginia One Party <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
West Virginia: One Party <[email protected]>
Washington Two Party <[email protected]>(4)
Wisconsin One Party (but only two admissable)<[email protected]> <[email protected] (Bob Hrodey)> (2)
Wyoming: One Party <[email protected]>

[SunHangDo]

All of that is regarding hidden cassette tapes. It doesn't touch on public video recording where the device is in plain view. I'd be willing to bet that it is legal to record video in public without a person's permission, and that it would be admissible in court as well.

The point is though, if the police ever came to your door saying your ex told them you were trying to break in, you could tell them that you had video evidence of the event. They'd take a glace at the video, see what really happened, and leave you alone. This will build credibility with them, and take away credibility from her, and help with any future interactions between you two should she ever decide to involve the police. And all of that is long before anything goes to court.

[drdeath613]

taping out in the public u dont need consent but this wont allow him to do this cause he wouldnt be in public unless he was on the street or sidewalk during the taping even in the case of a apartment he would be on private property and needing consent


but if its a tape ur making to try and discredit someone with the intentions of going to court and theres no consent they have to throw it out

now u might be able to get away with a taping in court if the taping was during the time they were together cause then she would have given consent to be taped

[drdeath613]

im telling u this cause iv done this when i went to court for my kids and i taped her going into bars from parking lots and going home with other guys at apartments

all tapes were thrown out based on the fact it wasnt in a public setting and on private property with no consent from the owners or from my ex i even went to my old house to prove she was leaving them at home alone to do this all thrown out but lucky enough i found out tapes of us when we were together would work long story short i won my kids due to knowing that

[Bojangles69]

Well if thats the case, kidnap the dog and give it to a friend for a year. Then take ownership back after that year, call your ex and tell her to suck your fvckn cock.

I'm serious. Dogs are not difficult to steal. Ill do it for yah if the price is right. =]

[Bojangles69]

And if you havent talked to your ex in a year better not to call her if you plan on pupnapping.

[Friend]

I can take care of your problem for a small fee.

[DSM4Life]

Heres my baby. Please don't stare he is very self-conscience about his hair...

[FranciscoG]

Women hold on to your ´stuff´ to keep in touch.

Is there a deeper issue here?

[Mooseman33]

this is an easy one..

get the dog out of the house, then burn the fvkin house to the ground.
fvk this bitch, get off ur ass and go get ur fvking dog bro........

side note: u have some wild fvking luck brother...

[sigman roid]

this is an easy one..

get the dog out of the house, then burn the fvkin house to the ground.
fvk this bitch, get off ur ass and go get ur fvking dog bro........

side note: u have some wild fvking luck brother...

I couldnt agree more Moose, you always have some kind of drama going on ryan.

[MotoLifter]

had the same thing happen to me about 9 months ago.

i managed to get the dog through som means i wouldnt recommend.

but the funny part about it is (Moose youll appreciate this) she ended up burning down half the house about 3 months later! left the stove on and went shopping.

Karma coming back to bite her in the ass.


Moto

[Mooseman33]

love to hear it brother....

[dangerous dan]

Well if thats the case, kidnap the dog and give it to a friend for a year. Then take ownership back after that year, call your ex and tell her to suck your fvckn cock.

I'm serious. Dogs are not difficult to steal. Ill do it for yah if the price is right. =]

Bo with a title like that i dont think he will be taking you up anytime soon on your offer

[spywizard]

Should I call the police, come to them with the papers and if they see the papers, can they make her give my dog back?

yep, although possession is part of the law, it's still only part of the law. If you tell the DA that you allowed her to keep him "as long as you could see him" then he will probably tell you it's a civil matter...

and there ya go..

[J-Dogg]

2 things,

1. The Police can not help you, they can not arrest her, they cannot force her to return the dog. It's a civil matter.

2. If her door is not locked, you can take the dog.


I had to go through all this before. I was out on a date with a girl, when I came home, my ex was in my house. Breaking shit, and tearing shit up. I called the cops. She told the cops she lived with me 12 months ago, and was just getting her belongings. Honestly, the house was trashed. The officer told me, the door was not locked, she says the stuff is hers, even if I say it's not, his hands were tied.

I had to wait till she went out side and lock the door behind her.

[Bojangles69]

2 things,

1. The Police can not help you, they can not arrest her, they cannot force her to return the dog. It's a civil matter.

2. If her door is not locked, you can take the dog.


I had to go through all this before. I was out on a date with a girl, when I came home, my ex was in my house. Breaking shit, and tearing shit up. I called the cops. She told the cops she lived with me 12 months ago, and was just getting her belongings. Honestly, the house was trashed. The officer told me, the door was not locked, she says the stuff is hers, even if I say it's not, his hands were tied.

I had to wait till she went out side and lock the door behind her.

I'm curious what would happened if you pretended to be sleeping, grabbed a shotgun and blew her fvckn head off?

Then claimed you thought it was a burglary? Thats so fvcked up though I can't believe they allow that shit. Was her name on the deed? She doesn't technically live there and I think by law she would need your permisson regardless of having belongings there. Just seems incredibly weird imo.

[Nooomoto]

Is this the chick in FL? I'll go get the dog back, if it is.

[BG]

Go get a puppy and use it to pick up a new hotter girl.

[J-Dogg]

I'm curious what would happened if you pretended to be sleeping, grabbed a shotgun and blew her fvckn head off?

Then claimed you thought it was a burglary? Thats so fvcked up though I can't believe they allow that shit. Was her name on the deed? She doesn't technically live there and I think by law she would need your permisson regardless of having belongings there. Just seems incredibly weird imo.

Well I was extremely upset and frustrated, to the point a female officer said I had to settle down or they would have to place me in the squad car.

Imagine, coming home to your front door wide open, all your lights on. A car in the drive way with some of your belongings in it. Your house tore apart.

Obviously, with her being 5'5 and 110lbs, be being 6' and 210lbs, I could throw her out with ease. Again obvious, if she called the cops, guess who would be going to jail?

So to me, i felt the only thing I could really do was call the police.

Her name was never on anything for the house, she moved 80 miles away a year prior, thats when we broke up. She never moved back in, her Michigan ID showed a different address.

The girl i was seeing at the time, had a brother in law who was an officer also, and he said too, the laws hands are tied in that situation.

She never forced her way in (my door was unlocked) and even if I say the stuff is not hers, it's my word against her and I'd have to take her to civil court to redeem anything.

She was upset because I started seeing someone else. At the time, she was seeing a girl also (she went lesbian after me).

Finally one of the male officers pulled me aside, and said, "don't tell anyone I said this, but all you have to do is go lock the door".

She can't force her way in, or break in to get what she feels is "hers".

The best part? We were together 5 years, she made 20k a year, I supported everything making 80K+ a year. Everything she had short of clothing, I bought.

[kalspic]

better not let diablo see this... he'll come over and kill her. speaking of which, where is he?