3 ms·
From the indictment: http://i.imgur.com/RnLKlRk.png http://i.imgur.com/RnLKlRk.png The indictment doesn't seem very well-written, because it's hard to figure o
by sillysaurus3 12y ago
From the indictment: http://i.imgur.com/RnLKlRk.png http://i.imgur.com/RnLKlRk.png
The indictment doesn't seem very well-written, because it's hard to figure out precisely what their "smoking gun" evidence is. They seem to assert:
1. "FedEx employees visited the fulfillment centers of Company X, where they witnessed controlled substances being packaged."
2. "FedEx ships packages from Company X."
3. "Therefore FedEx knowingly shipped controlled substances."
- chrissnell 12y agoI'll be surprised if this sticks, though FedEx may settle out of court. FedEx employees visit e-commerce companies all the time but not to inspect product. They are there to sell shipping and service the shipping computers. Is a FedEx salesperson or computer serviceperson supposed to be an expert on drug identification? Does that person really know that the stuff in those pill bottles is a controlled substance?
- Zancarius 12y agoIs it possible that perhaps the FedEx employees may have seen these so called "pill bottles" and were either told 1) they're legal supplements/medications or 2) had no clue what they were when they were observing the operation since they were only interested in the shipping logistics? With just a cursory glance, it seems that it was written up by an overzealous federal prosecutor who wants to make his/her career's achievement busting a big company like FedEx as part of a massive drug ring with conflated charges.