-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
So how many folks got a call from the Postal Inspector lately?
- Thread starter spencer60
- Start date
While a I agree in spirit, but it is still arguments that can be used against anyone. Here I’m not real concerned.
Anything can be argued, whether it stands or not is questionable court by court.
Also there is always the possibility of civil action, and even if your are ultimately exonerated and the case thrown out it is expensive and very troublesome to defend.
Best to at least take articulable, and reasonable precautions to make arguments in your behalf.
And no I’m not talking BOSs.
The Bill O Sail protects you!
I promise you, the USPS absolutely does not have the ability to x-ray every package it ships period. They do, however, photograph all letters and many, if not most packages.
After 9/11, Congress wrote a law stating by 2020 all cargo being shipped on a passenger plane must be screened for explosives prior to being placed on the plane. Most all carriers asked for and received extensions to include the USPS As they are required to screen EVERY mailpiece that weighs over 16oz. They cannot even screen the packages for explosives that go on planes, there is no way in hell they can x-ray all packages.
After 9/11, Congress wrote a law stating by 2020 all cargo being shipped on a passenger plane must be screened for explosives prior to being placed on the plane. Most all carriers asked for and received extensions to include the USPS As they are required to screen EVERY mailpiece that weighs over 16oz. They cannot even screen the packages for explosives that go on planes, there is no way in hell they can x-ray all packages.
"There’s a big difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. Just because its permissible doesn't make it proper. Nor does the fact that it's legal make it ethical. "...... Michael Josephson
That's funny...they have the same name as my accountants.
In this "possession of stolen property" case, the Court approves of the prosecution's argument that the lack of a bill of sale or receipt for a commercial icemaker is allowed to be used in court to help prove the criminal intent of the accused-- it's part of the suspicious circumstances of the deal.
(of course there were several things suspicious here, some we all agree would be even more incriminating than the seller not writing out a bill of sale or receipt. But that was one bit of evidence the State could and did use to get a conviction. Even though there was no law saying restaurant equipment sold between private parties had to be done with some written record or receipt.)
(of course there were several things suspicious here, some we all agree would be even more incriminating than the seller not writing out a bill of sale or receipt. But that was one bit of evidence the State could and did use to get a conviction. Even though there was no law saying restaurant equipment sold between private parties had to be done with some written record or receipt.)
United States v. Williams, 194 F.2d 72 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read United States v. Williams, 194 F.2d 72, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Someone was really bored today 
Similar threads
- Locked
