DEA Desperatingly seeking funding ?

2 Responses

1. 

   Coonhound, on August 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm said:

   I’m not sure if everyone was aware of this but I thought I’d add these excerpts and links for those who didn’t. Very interesting stuff……..

   “For FedEx and UPS, the costs are lower to deliver in urban areas, and higher in rural ones,” Del Polito says. “For the Postal Service, that cost structure is the exact opposite. So FedEx and UPS use the Postal Service for ‘last-mile’ delivery in many areas where it would cost them too much to deliver that mail — they prepare it for re-entry via the Postal Service which then walks it out for final delivery.” (To put a number on this, Alan Robinson determined in 2011 that “30.4% of FedEx Ground shipments are delivered by the United States Postal Service.”)
   http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/postal-service-usps-post-office-post/8/3/2012/id/42951

   1st off, if these internet pharmacies were known to provide illegal services to the extent that Federal Express, in no way shape or form a law enforcement entity, should know not to take their business, why exactly were they still IN business?

   Secondly, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? IF the internet pharmacy is still operational and sending out products they could (and reasonably should) be considered legitimate by Federal Express until proven otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. IF they are so blatant in breaking laws, that a DELIVERY COMPANY should be able to distinguish them from all the other legit pharmacies out there that they deliver for then why aren’t the DEA agents at their door closing them down?

   This case stinks to high heaven. Let’s see, the Justice Dept hears the case brought forth by an agency within the Dept of Justice itself against a delivery company that not only services millions of legit patients, and legit pharmacies, but the occasional illegitimate ones as well. NO conflict of interest here of course.

   Also the USPS, unlike FedEx and UPS, has postal inspectors (basically LE officers), so how many packages (of those 30% that USPS delivered for Fed Ex, were intercepted by this arm of USPS? I’m fairly certain, unless some new law was passed, that the USPS needs a warrant to open/inspect mail. Fed Ex does NOT need a warrant and it appears that the DEA is wanting to take advantage of this loophole (among other things)*. See excerpt and link at bottom.

   Of particular interest is the fact that USPS delivers up to 30% of Fed Ex’s ground service delivery packages. Its hard to imagine that NONE of these deliveries by ‘rouge pharmacies’ involved USPS to SOME extent. Where is the liability on THESE deliveries being placed? Conveniently left out. It would be nice to get the complete story once in awhile amidst all this drug hysteria and money grabbing.

   *”Despite the fact that the Controlled Substances Act contains an exemption that protects common contract carriers like FedEx from being prosecuted for someone else’s attempt to sneak drugs through the mail, the Department of Justice has indicted the popular shipping company on 15 criminal counts for servicing orders for illegal online pharmacies. However, online pharmacies are a legal type of GOVERNMENT-regulated business”…..more here:

   http://benswann.com/fedex-indicted-on-15-criminal-counts-for-drug-trafficking/

   Every week it seems now that there is another new case in the media involving a blatant money grab by the DEA. Usually preceded by yet another overextension of their legitimate reach and authority. I admire Fed Ex for standing up to this kind of strong arm tactic, though it would have been easier to take the path of least resistance like UPS did. UPS ‘settled’ for ‘training’ and a fine of ONLY $40 million dollars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQfPSSOkpE

   *Containers Searched by Non-Law Enforcement:

   http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/856

   Contraband found by a civilian in a container, such as when a United Parcel Service (“UPS”) or Federal Express employee opens and inspects the contents of a package being shipped through their respective businesses, is not subject to suppression. When law enforcement is subsequently notified after such an inspection, the contents of the package may be field tested by a law enforcement officer, seized, and submitted to a law enforcement lab for further testing; all without a warrant. (People v. Warren (1990) 219 Cal.App.3rd 619; see also United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109 [80 L.Ed.2nd 85]; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1998) 153 F.3rd 1079.)

   Why? Once a private party (i.e., non-law enforcement) has made a search and revealed his findings to the police, the defendant’s expectation of privacy has been destroyed to the extent of the private search. Thus, where employees of a private freight carrier found apparent narcotics during the search of a package, then returned the substance to the package and informed narcotics agents, the agents’ removal of the substance from the package did not constitute a search, because it did not exceed the scope of the earlier private search. (United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at p. 116, 119 [80 L.Ed.2nd at p. 96, 98] see also People v. Yackee (1984) 161 Cal.App.3rd 843; cocaine found by airline agent.)

   Reply
2. 

   Tye K Lawson CPhT, on August 13, 2014 at 5:20 pm said:

   Do not understand how FedEx could possibly find all contraband that is sent via their transportation effectively. Some has to find it’s way though.

   Reply