Man owns ex who plotted against him via a fake facebook persona

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,745
42
91
owned.gif


A woman pretended to be a 17-year-old to draw out incriminating evidence from her ex-husband via Facebook. But an investigation after his arrest showed that he was the true online mastermind. Oh, the e-intrigue!
(LIST: Crimes of the Century)

According to the Smoking Gun, 29-year-old Angela Voelkert created a fake account for 17-year-old “Jessica Studebaker," complete with a trashily attractive photo, and friended her ex-husband. Then, in an attempt to gain information she could use against him in a custody battle, she chatted him up. He said he put a GPS tracking device on his ex-wife's car, the more easily to monitor her every move. And he told "Jessica" that "you should find someone at your school…that would put a cap in her ass for $10,000." He had plans to "take care of" old Angela, he said. Heavily based on the exchanges, the FBI arrested 38-year-old David Voelkert on Friday, but did he ever have a surprise for them.

Suspecting it was Angela all along, David Voelkert had gotten a notarized affidavit shortly after Jessica came online. In it, he said that he believed this was not a real person but rather his ex-wife or someone she knows. He said he was engaging with this person and lying in order to gain proof that his ex-wife was tampering with his personal life, proof he would then use himself in court. "In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else," he wrote above the Indiana notary's stamp. He then kept one copy and gave another to a relative for backup.

The timeline worked, his affidavit coming days before he said anything incriminating. The notary was interviewed, the document authenticated, and his case was dismissed. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/10...leads-to-facebook-double-sting/#ixzz1OtXlya2a
 

Soundmanred

Lifer
Oct 26, 2006
10,784
6
81
Haha, that's hilarious.
That would have been my defense if I was him (telling the cops he knew it was her and he was just messing with her).
He really raised the bar by getting it notarized beforehand.
Awesome.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
It is times like this that I wished I knew a notary public so I can make claims and have legal proof I made them.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,659
198
106
So the thought that he created this affidavit to cover his ass in case he got caught, all the while really intending to kill his ex, never occurred to the police/judge?

-KeithP
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,459
854
126
I get these friend requests from time to time from complete strangers, they are always young attractive women I've never met but I've never friended any of them. Probably my Mother-In-Law or something...:p
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
So the thought that he created this affidavit to cover his ass in case he got caught, all the while really intending to kill his ex, never occurred to the police/judge?

-KeithP

Independent Notary Public confirmed. A big part of our "legal" system sits squarely on the idea that when sworn, it is the truth.

A Notary is the legal time keeper. They swear that said thing happened when and if they sign and stamp it did.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,713
12
56
That is good... too bad there wasn't a bullshit-o-meter we could get to work over the internet to catch anyone who is trying that crap.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,315
5,738
136
Independent Notary Public confirmed. A big part of our "legal" system sits squarely on the idea that when sworn, it is the truth.

A Notary is the legal time keeper. They swear that said thing happened when and if they sign and stamp it did.
Around here, it's just confirming the person's ID/date of sig. Content of doc is irrelevant.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,151
5
61
How is the wife not charged with computer fraud?

Probably because the law doesn't mean what you think it means:

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Criminal offenses under the Act

  1. Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data
  2. Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain:
  3. Information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer.
  • Information from any department or agency of the United States
  • Information from any protected computer if the conduct involves an interstate or foreign communication
4. Intentionally accessing without authorization a government computer and affecting the use of the government's operation of the computer.
  • Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value.
5. Knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command that causes damage or intentionally accessing a computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage that results in:
  • Loss to one or more persons during any one-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value.
  • The modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of one or more individuals.
  • Physical injury to any person.
  • A threat to public health or safety.
  • Damage affecting a government computer system
6. Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization.