3 ms·
>There seemed no point in returning Heilman’s check to Ameritor, which was out of business, so instead I tried to track her down. >I still have the check from
by sleepychu 9y ago
>There seemed no point in returning Heilman’s check to Ameritor, which was out of business, so instead I tried to track her down.
>I still have the check from Ameritor (signed by Carole Kinney’s husband Jerome), and I’d love to pass it along to Heilman’s survivors
Doesn't seem like the author returned it to the sender.
- astura 9y agoReturn to sender is all you're legally required to do. If you know returning to sender will go into the void so you're making a legitimate effort to track down the legitimate owner instead then I wouldn't say you're intentionally interfering with that person's mail delivery, quite the opposite, which is what is illegal. It's like when my neighbors mail ends up in my box and just drop it in their box instead of returning it.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoAnd the author was not next of kin.. The letter has obviously been opened. How is unknown but then by not returning to the postal service, and instead trying to track them down himself, I think is the crime. Has he simply left it unopened and attempted to locate this wouldn't be an issue. The violation in law arises when the envelope is opened.