[pct-l] Paradise Corner Cafe

[Timothy Nye]

Interesting.  So all of the mail that was opened by my receptionist or
secretaries addressed to others in the office made them and myself federal
criminals.  Who knew?

I disagree with the above post which overlooks and does not address (oops,
did I say that?) the ability of each individual to freely dispense with
rights or legal obligations owed to them by others or otherwise possessed by
themselves through consent or oral contract.  I would note as well that
while the federal constitution provides for the creation of a postal system
you are not compelled to use it.  You are a voluntary participant in a
contractual arrangement with the postal service subject to their rules and
regulations; this is separate and distinct from your arrangement with the
Paradise Cafe.

But let's look at the actual situation.  We're dealing with a bailment.
Either with consent, ( you called the cafe and asked them to accept and hold
the package and they agreed subject to the condition of inspection of the
contents and that they would not accept contraband or dangerous materials );
or you thoughtlessly presumed to send the package without obtaining their
consent.  Either scenario creates a voluntary bailment.

Where, as here, there is no benefit to the holder of the bail, in this
instance the package, there is a lessor standard of care than the situation
where you as a bailee take an item in for repair which creates a financial
benefit for the bailor.  This higher standard of care doesn't protect
someone who is a wrongdoer  Thus we have the situation where pedophiles take
their computers in for repair, a technician searches the hard drive and
finds kiddie porn and the surprised pedophiles enjoy lengthy federal
vacations at tax payor expense.  In each case there is an inspection of the
bail that exceeds the expectation of the bailee, the opening of the package
by the thoughtless hiker or the computer's hard drive.  Believe me, there's
plenty of bleating about privacy rights by pedophiles in that situation.

As for the proposition that a sheriff or other officer of the law can be
summoned and they could inspect the package, well, no.  We have a
constitutional, not merely statutory or the even lessor standard of
regulatory, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by
governmental agents.  This is a higher standard of protection and there
would be no evidence that would support obtaining a search warrant.

To me, this whole thing boils down to the shift in societal view that
anything that may benefit someone becomes not just something they feel
entitled to, but has somehow been transformed into a 'right', a 'right' that
can never be divested or lost, voluntarily or involuntarily, even if it was
originally granted through consent, ordinance, regulation or statute, not
through a constitutional provision and the provision granting the 'right' is
subsequently bargained away, revoked or subject to conditions.  It's always
about them.

This post is not intended to be construed as legal advice or guidance and
any party relying on it a such does so at their own risk.  No
attorney-client relationship is to be construed from receipt of this
communication and no obligations of any kind by the poster may be assumed.






There is a duty of care created by a bailment.  However, it is

The cafe is within it's rights in this instance.