Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat

from the sounds-like-a-movie dept

Fri, Jun 10th 2011 9:27am — Mike Masnick

In a story that sounds like a movie plot with a few extra twists in it, last week a man, David Voelkert, was arrested for putting a GPS device on his ex-wife's car. The backstory behind this is that the ex-wife, Angela Voelkert, had created a fake Facebook profile of a 17-year-old girl, named Jessica Studebaker, and then befriended David to try to "get him to talk" in a way that would provide her ammo in their custody battle. We've been hearing how Facebook evidence has become pretty standard these days in divorce cases, so I guess creating a fake persona to try to dig out some extra info is the obvious next step. David Voelkert was apparently extremely forthcoming with the fake teen, telling her how he had put a GPS device on Angela's car, and said something about harming Angela. He also spoke of taking his kids and "disappearing." Angela reported this to the authorities, and the FBI stepped in and arrested David over the GPS tracking while investigating the rest.

And that's where the case turned strange.

After holding him for four days, federal prosecutors have dropped all charges against David. Amazingly, he provided them with a sworn affidavit that he'd had notarized before all of the incriminating messages were sent to "Studebaker," a letter saying that he believed his wife was behind the account and was trying to "tamper" with his life:

I received a friend request from a one Jessica Studebaker. From the start of that friend request, I was under suspicion that it was not a real person, but my ex-wife or someone she knows. I am talking to this 'person' on Facebook via messages through the Facebook mail system. I am lying to this person in extent to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life. Anything said in the chat to her from me cannot be held as truth and I am chatting to this person in attempts to prove to my court that my ex-wife will not leave my personal life alone.... The lies that I am placing in this chat is for her to bring such up in court on the 8th day of June, 2011. I need proof what my ex-wife has been doing.... In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else....

Federal officials checked with the person who notarized the letter, confirming that it was indeed written and signed prior to the messages actually being sent... and realized that they had no case at all.

So how long until the movie rights to this story are sold?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: divorce, facebook, fbi, lies

76 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AJ, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:35am

Ha
owned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am

Way to go!
This one will live on forever and serve as a blueprint for others. Hopefully he doesn't copyright or patent the method!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SUNWARD (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: Way to go!
  I would be careful of using a sworn affidavit in trying to getting off charges.
  
  He still threatens his ex-wife and still put the GPS unit on her car.
  
  No defense on the GPS in my opinion. As for the threats, just because he "thought" it was his ex-wife, doesn't mean he could break the law - affidavit or not. Child services may still get involved.
  
  And what if the person was not his ex-wife?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: Way to go!
    I would be careful of using a sworn affidavit in trying to getting off charges.
    
    True, but it did work.
    
    He still threatens his ex-wife and still put the GPS unit on her car.
    
    Uhh - what? Did you and I read the same article? He *DIDN'T* threaten her, and he *DIDN'T* put a tracking device on her car.
    
    No defense on the GPS in my opinion.
    
    So - lying about a GPS has "no defense"?
    
    As for the threats, just because he "thought" it was his ex-wife, doesn't mean he could break the law
    
    Lying is against the law? He didn't threaten her, he told a lie to a fabricated entity.
    
    I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - h, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re: Way to go!
    uh, he didn't put the gps on her car, that's the whole point. he did "threaten" her indirectly, but he wrote up a letter which he had notarized prior to doing so saying it was a lie and he was only doing it to get his ex wife to admit to spying on him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve, 10 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Way to go!
    You really think he actually installed the GPS device? I think that was one of those lies he swore he'd be telling her.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am

If this were an 80's movie, I'd start a group slow-clap right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am

Damn. You have to hand it to the guy. That was brilliant. Risky, but brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:43am

That's pretty sweet, but risky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:43am

Give this man an award!
I guess he knew his ex-wife really well! =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Becker (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:45am

Somebody buy this man a pizza. Slow-clap all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:46am

Good Lord
That is the coolest **** I have seen all year. This guy is a frickin' genius, and I'd like to buy him a beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:52am

Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am

Wow.
David Voelkert is my new hero.

Just one thing I don't get. Why was he held for 4 days? If the GPS tracking was fake, that means that the FBI would not have been able to find the tracker on her car.

Did they not even look?

Or do they suspect themselves of incompetence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: Wow.
  Did they not even look?
  
  They didn't have to look, they just had to think it was there. That's because if you're an FBI agent, you're automatically right about everything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: Wow.
  What I don't understand is how can it be illegal to install a GPS device on a vehicle (probably one that HE OWNED) when the FBI do it all the time (without a warrant). So the FBI has admitted that they themselves regularly break the law when they put GPS devices on cars? And why do they refer to it as a 'listening device'? Like a 'bug'? I don't think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan Price (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:54am

Nobody knows you're a dog when you're on the Internet, and especially Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
those damn /b/tards again, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:57am

bitch got handled. David Voelkert is my boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:01am

Owned
That guy's ex-wife tried to play him and it looks like she got played instead. Now take a moment to realize that if she had been right and he was doing these things people would high fiving the hell out her for getting one over on him. Well it would seem the tables have turned and the glove is on the other foot (yes I meant to say it like that...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Donnicton, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: Owned
  Aka "You're never going to see this story featured on The View."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Danny, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: Owned
    Got it in one!
    
    Its times like this I almost wish The Man Show were still on the air...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - h, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Owned
      i don't like either of those shows because they're both horribly sexist and perpetuate the gender norm myth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SD (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:06am

It would be funny if both of their accounts were banned for the numerous TOS violations they've just admitted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  It would be funny if both of their accounts were banned for the numerous TOS violations they've just admitted to.
  
  What were his (from the story here)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  Both of them? All the hubby did was lie. TOS of facebook doesn't allow lying?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pretty sure Facebook would have to ban 90% of their user base if lying was against their TOS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - h, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      i'm pretty sure making a profile for a fake person is against their tos, but they don't enforce it much, nor can they.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Trails (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We were talking about the husband though...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SD (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If he threatened to harm his ex-wife it might be a TOS violation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that's pretty extreme.
        
        I'm torn on this one, human nature being what it is and all... I mean, what he did was pretty good overall and one could kind of say it was "self defense" of a sort, but wouldn't it have been far better to ignore the fake profile and not engage in such hideous game playing? Look at the example he's set (especially for young people/kids). Now tons of people are going to try to play this kind of game on others. Let the games begin...
        
        In other words, what can of worms did he open up? It may not all be "good".
        
        On the other hand, if it would make silly women who play these silly games think twice it could serve a good purpose. Somehow though, I can't see it working that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michelle, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am sure he did not plan on it becoming national news. Obviously his wife is trying to paint him as a pedophile and thus get sole custody of the kids.He did what he had to do to prove to the judge that he is not a bad guy. If this did not work she would have tried something else. Hopefully the judge will see her for what she is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:16am

I wonder...
How would this work for someone talking to adult cops pretending to be underage on the net? People arrested in such stings have tried to claim that they actually thought they were were talking to an adult who was just pretending, but the courts have convicted them anyways because they couldn't prove it (i.e. they couldn't prove their innocence).

The guy in this case had the forethought to make sure he could prove his innocence. Still, he was jailed for 4 days. I can't help but think that if he hadn't thought to purposely create evidence for himself beforehand, he would have likely been falsely convicted. Innocent until *proved* guilty? Obviously not. More like the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am

Owned. The guy has got a fan here. That was brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:23am

True Lies
"You're just going to walk right out the front gate?
That's ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:26am

I hate derailing the point of this story but...

The FBI can arrest you for putting a GPS on someone's car, but when they do it they consider it legal surveilance. How is that ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  The difference is between being an officer of the law, a vigilante, or a stalker.
  
  Honestly, sometimes the only difference between a cop and a crook is the badge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Honestly, sometimes the only difference between a cop and a crook is the badge.
    
    And sometimes the crook has a badge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesse (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Vigilantes can't get a warrant. Police can, but they don't want any oversight. That's the point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re:
  This is what I was referring to:
  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2011 @ 1:02am
  
  Re:
  The FBI can arrest you for putting a GPS on someone's car, but when they do it they consider it legal surveilance. How is that ok?
  
  In case you hadn't noticed, cops rarely arrest themselves when they break the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whisk33, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:31am

Bullying? Hacking?
Didn't we have a bunch of laws passed recently that she should be charged with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Bennett, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:33am

Divorced Couple's Spat
I guess they deserve each other. They should have stayed married to protect the rest of the world from the likes of the two of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:46am

warrant
It's not like you need a warrant to put a tracking device on someones car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:58am

Divorce disputes are always funny
I thought I had heard it all in Divorce Dispute Stories, but this one dropped my jaw to the ground!!!!

The only thing I question is the GPS, and not that he did or didn't do it, but that the car would have been community property at the time, so what would be illegal about the GPS????

I have GPS Trackers in all of my vehicles, and regularly let my girlfriend drive them. They are part of the anti-theft/recovery system, and just happen to let me look up where my car is anytime I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: Divorce disputes are always funny
  "but that the car would have been community property at the time"
  
  It depends on the state. Not all of them recognize the concept of "community property" in a marriage.
  
  Nonetheless, I also thought that it was ruled OK to put a GPS tracker on other people's cars.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 6:28am
  
  Re: Divorce disputes are always funny
  Oh boy - kind of has a "creepy" factor to it. Would make me feel untrusted and spied on. But each to their own.
  
  I had a car stolen in the late 70's. LEO found it by the end of the day. In other words, they did their job instead of letting a GPS tracker do it all for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chuck, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:59am

one step further...can the wife be charged with anything as a result of all this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  Criminal charges over the wife's behavior would probably involve stretching existing laws, at best (a la Lori Drew). It was a dirty, nasty trick, but there are plenty of those that are perfectly legal.
  
  But the judge in the existing divorce (civil) suit can certainly hold the wife's tricks against her, especially if it's part of a larger pattern of evil. Dirty nasty behavior (even if legal) on the part of a parent is a common reason for judges to reduce that parent's custody rights. The idea is that it's not in a child's best interest to be primarily raised by the more ethically-challenged parent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - h, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    idk, what she did could probably be considered cyber harassment, which i think they're just beginning to legislate, now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It couldn't, really. It's only harassment if you ask the person to stop and they persist anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Dan (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's only harassment if you ask the person to stop and they persist anyway."
        
        I know that's how it should work, but that's certainly not what they tell you at workplace sexual harassment training.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paula, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:13am

David's sister here
The gps charge was because it allegedly was said to also have a mic. The "discovered" device was nothing more than a car alarm. To the one who said this would never be on "The View"... actually they called and that's the one he's likely to choose if any (also called was OWN (Oprah), Inside Edition, Good Morning America & others). I'm with you though, I think it should be a lifetime movie, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: David's sister here
  Best. Ownage. Ever!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:56am

Strange?
HA, the case turned "strange" when his ex tried to trap him. It went south from there. Charges should be considered against the FBI & his ex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:32pm

She tried to trick him by creating a fake Facebook account and he guessed it and had an affidavit, then lied about planting a GPS on her car. I can't imagine why they divorced. Those people must have had an idyllic marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 7:25am
  
  Re:
  Compared to some of the crap I've seen married couples put up with, that's tame.
  
  This should tell you something of the nature of my family.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:36pm

Interesting idea....
Next time I'm thinking of putting a hit out on somebody, I'll write up one of these letters ahead of time, just in case I have to abandon the plan.

Seriously, while this was certainly sorta clever, he took a big risk. He intended to put his (ex?) wife in fear for her life. Whether he was lying about his intentions or not, there may be consequences for his threats against her. And the issue is not whether he meant it or really intended to follow through on the threat, but whether it was reasonable for her to believe it.

In any case, it sounds like they're both pretty wacked-out folks.

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paula, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: Interesting idea....
  Actually, it was "Jessica" who brought up murder. Yes, Angela advised David to kill Angela.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sassy, 10 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Interesting idea....
    Paula - u know it all don't you? Amazing what you think you know!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CrushU, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Interesting idea....
      If you look above in the comments, Paula originally posted that she was David's sister.
      
      So yes. Yes she does know it all.
      
      Reading: It's a Good Thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Paula, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Interesting idea....
      and I quote (from a 16 page printout of the FB conversations):
      
      "Jessica Studebaker" states:
      
      "Why don't you just kill all of them and make it look like an accident. That way you don't have to leave. Lol."
      
      BTW, it was also this same post where she asked David to take her with him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dont worry about it, 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Interesting idea....
      oh she knows and so do I or did you forget your not living with him no more
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting idea....
        Look daddy... matching gravitars...
        I think they've brought their craziness here!
        
        Oooh oooh oooh there is a silver box hidden in the engine compartment of your car... have your buddy rip that one out to... to prove its a device that allows the aliens to teleport you away.
        
        While I am sorry that your getting divorced and stuff, do you think you could behave like grown ups?
        
        You don't have to like each other, but going out of your way to "win" is going to fuck over your kids.
        
        I wonder if the 2 of you had put as much effort into working out how to handle parenting your kids as you did in trying to screw each other on FB how amazing your kids lives would be.
        
        When your kids are older, please work out what your going to say to them about how mommy and daddy lost their damn minds... and work on your apology.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2011 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting idea....
        The manipulation has been dealt with for a long time, and the court has ignored it. The ONLY way to prove this woman was stalking him was to set her up, it is just popular because he did so only in a way no one would think. She tried to set him up and he used that to turn the tables. This all would never have happened if she was not a manipulating little b****. He didn't go after her, stalk her, he just seen an opportunity because she was trying to stalk him, yet again, and he jumped on it. There were many factors to him not getting into trouble, not just the affidavit. You cannot just write an affidavit and commit a crime, but with that he shows that he KNEW it was her. He actually did not commit one crime, even without the affidavit. So before you think you can get out of a crime that way, think again, it won't work. He didn't actually commit a crime, and he just wanted the proof in court to show he knew it was her. Otherwise, it would be just his word against hers. He also had to make the 'crime' big enough for her to bring it up in court, I think it was big enough for her to manipulate the FBI into arresting him. I was told that a Gale Dodd from Dodd Insurance is the one that called the FBI, so he may be charged as well. The FBI should be wondering why they are so stupid to listen to these people and arrest someone on the defense of a custody battle. David Voelkert is not the one that is bringing all this out, he just wanted proof to his judge about his manipulating wife. If this isn't the proof he needed, what else does he need? Just so this is clear, he is just trying to see his kids and this manipulating little b**** has been trying to stop his visitation since HE LEFT HER for cheating. The story will all come out soon, just stay tuned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm

wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JD, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:06pm

The GPS was not a GPS it was a remote entry for her key fob.
There was no listening device.
He did not put anything in her vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MB, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:34pm

Funny but strange precedent
While the story is pretty funny, this seems like a strange precedent to be setting.

For example, conspiracy to commit a crime is a punishable offense, and agreeing to and planning a crime is conspiracy, but what if all parties have pre-signed affidavits saying that their planning to blow up a building is just a twisted game they enjoy playing and never actually intend to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 9:46am
  
  Re: Funny but strange precedent
  For example, conspiracy to commit a crime is a punishable offense, and agreeing to and planning a crime is conspiracy, but what if all parties have pre-signed affidavits saying that their planning to blow up a building is just a twisted game they enjoy playing and never actually intend to do it?
  
  And there was no bomb, they had no bomb-making materials, and never approached the building? I would say no crime was committed, what do you think?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:37pm

Angela Dawn Voelkert epic fail. Priceless win by the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:39pm

If law enforcement don't need a warrant to track a vehicle, then how is it illegal for a civilian to do so? The main difference between police and civilians is the warrant...saying that police don't need a warrant sort of implies there is no violation of anyone's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 4:36am

but
Is it me or do they give out FBI badges free these days with boxes of Wheaty Flakes?

Also if the wife tried to get the husband (via the fake profile) to kill her, thats the (admittedly stupid) wife trying to coerce someone into helping her commit suicide.
(suicide still sort of being illegal in the US), this means she could face prison time (where she'll create a fake persona and pretend she's in for murder so the other big butch prisoners don't shower-rape her!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 4:37am

Also
This woman seems to have a knack for creating fake persona's that easily get found out....I say she runs for vice president alongside Sarah Palin (they have so much in common!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Also
  I think you're giving Palin too much credit, I think that's really her and not a fake persona.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
locutus (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 5:04pm

Divorce
Another good reason not to just ban Gay Marriage, but why not ALL Marriage?? Why discriminate??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
K.E.Mort (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:46am

Classic.
So now on the GPS, yea if the car was owned by him then there's no issue. It's his property. Just like LoJack or heck OnStar...they can track the vehicle. Perfectly legal.

Now if it's her car, owned entirely by her then that's a different matter.

Interesting though the affidavit pretty much covers any matter of sins. It basically says anything I say is likely untrue, but doesn't mention the GPS issue at all.

It really was a brilliant plan, akin to entrapment on her part really but he turned it around. Pretty sweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 12 Jun 2012 @ 4:12pm

Am I the only one in the thread that got a kick out of that story? Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]