Stolen Posted Mail Peoblem.

[Full]

Thanks to the many replies and ideas.

I read parts of the Australian Postal act.
After that at around 9pm I spoke to a Constable Clancy at the
local Police in Springwood NSW. (03/05/05)

He at first said the landlord had committed no crime.

I said he has and would he like to read the act.
The penalty is 2 years in jail.

Constable Clancy then went about making excuses for the thief.
With out even questioning the alleged offender he told me that he had
forwarded the mail on or had sent it to me or he never got it.

I am sure you can follow my drift.

I later spoke to the Duty Officer. (04/05/05)
As there is no hard evidence he can't act.
I asked in the event of a bank robbery how do they get evidence.
He said we look but he is not interested in a mail thief.

So there we have it.

Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to
them.

This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::

[Heretic]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:51:53 +1000, Full wrote:

> Thanks to the many replies and ideas.
>
> I read parts of the Australian Postal act. After that at around 9pm I
> spoke to a Constable Clancy at the local Police in Springwood NSW.
> (03/05/05)
>
> He at first said the landlord had committed no crime.
>
> I said he has and would he like to read the act. The penalty is 2 years
> in jail.
>
> Constable Clancy then went about making excuses for the thief. With out
> even questioning the alleged offender he told me that he had forwarded
> the mail on or had sent it to me or he never got it.
>
> I am sure you can follow my drift.
>
> I later spoke to the Duty Officer. (04/05/05) As there is no hard
> evidence he can't act. I asked in the event of a bank robbery how do
> they get evidence. He said we look but he is not interested in a mail
> thief.
>
> So there we have it.
>
> Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to them.
>
> This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::

You really are missing the point. This is essentally a private matter
between you and your former landlord over some items of private property.
There are quite simple legal mechanisms for you to pursue the recovery of
the property if you wish to do so. There is no particular reason for the
NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
pressing things to do.

It's up to you, now.

[Full]

>NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
>pressing things to do.
>
>It's up to you, now.

Yes I noticed that as I walked into the station.
They were having a cuppa and a chat .

[Horace Tachope]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 19:22:04 +1000, Full <xxx000auREMOVE@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>>NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
>>pressing things to do.
>>
>>It's up to you, now.
>
>Yes I noticed that as I walked into the station.
>They were having a cuppa and a chat .

You just don't get it, do you?



--

My BeNcH pReSs BrInGs All ThE GirLs To ThE yArD, n ThEy'Re LiKe,
YoUr PeCs ArE LaRgE, dAmN rIgHt My PeCs ArE LaRgE, u CaN tOuCh
ThEm, bUt IlL hAv To ChArGe.

"Horace you are the biggest tosser in Australian Usenet. Fix
that totally stupid sig and get a life."
- Soixante Un Vieille Viande De Jour °º·._._.·º°`°º·._._.·º°`°º·._._.·º°`°º·._._.·º°`°º ·._._.·º°`°º.
23/04/05

[Phil Allison]

"Full"
>
>>NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
>>pressing things to do.
>>
>>It's up to you, now.
>
> Yes I noticed that as I walked into the station.
> They were having a cuppa and a chat .
>


** It is now VERY obvious that missing mail is not the issue here - you
neither want or need it .

YOU do want is that the police carry out a **revenge** on your former LL.

The police get this sort of shit brought to them all the time and ( mostly)
wisely refuse to play along.

Shame they did not say " ..... go to hell - ****head ".




............... Phil

[Hyperoglyphe]

"Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.04.09.10.03.993404@Languedoc...
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:51:53 +1000, Full wrote:
[...]
>> Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to them.
>>
>> This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::
>
> You really are missing the point. This is essentally a private matter
> between you and your former landlord over some items of private property.
> There are quite simple legal mechanisms for you to pursue the recovery of
> the property if you wish to do so. There is no particular reason for the
> NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
> pressing things to do.
>
> It's up to you, now.

A tenant at one of our properties had mail redirected at our effort for 2
years. After 6 months, I was advised the redirection address was no longer
valid. The subsequent RTS's successfully accounted for about 60%. Black
artline "stern" reminders to the RTS recipients to not bother us any longer
continued for another year or so.

I instructed staff to bin the offending rubbish. Now our standard operating
practice and we don't wait 2 years to do it!

Any bush lawyers and sundry lunatics crapping on about whether it is an
offence under Section
85, 89 or 90 of the Postal Services Act would look like absolute fools
trying to tell the NSW Police, or any official for that matter, that I am
breaking the law, because I am not.

I would suggest to the OP that the NSW Police are interested in Crimes,
regardless of effort.

However I am having a lot of trouble understanding what crime has been
committed because the OP did not maintain his redirection service.

Dave

[veritas]

Heretic wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:51:53 +1000, Full wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks to the many replies and ideas.
>>
>>I read parts of the Australian Postal act. After that at around 9pm I
>>spoke to a Constable Clancy at the local Police in Springwood NSW.
>>(03/05/05)
>>
>>He at first said the landlord had committed no crime.
>>
>>I said he has and would he like to read the act. The penalty is 2 years
>>in jail.
>>
>>Constable Clancy then went about making excuses for the thief. With out
>>even questioning the alleged offender he told me that he had forwarded
>>the mail on or had sent it to me or he never got it.
>>
>>I am sure you can follow my drift.
>>
>>I later spoke to the Duty Officer. (04/05/05) As there is no hard
>>evidence he can't act. I asked in the event of a bank robbery how do
>>they get evidence. He said we look but he is not interested in a mail
>>thief.
>>
>>So there we have it.
>>
>>Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to them.
>>
>>This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::
>
>
> You really are missing the point. This is essentally a private matter
> between you and your former landlord over some items of private property.
> There are quite simple legal mechanisms for you to pursue the recovery of
> the property if you wish to do so. There is no particular reason for the
> NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
> pressing things to do.
>
> It's up to you, now.

Yes it is!

The rest is bullshit, a crime has been committed - it is not a civil matter.... While it is state government policy not
to pursue crimes of a "minor" nature. It is still a crime! They do however, pursue petty speedsters and I would
suggest it is not because the speedster is wanted for an armed holdup somewhere.

I had a similar problem - the cops got off their arses when the police minister started breathing down their necks.

[Warren]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 11:47:14 GMT, veritas <veritas@coldmail.com>
wrote:

>Heretic wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:51:53 +1000, Full wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks to the many replies and ideas.
>>>
>>>I read parts of the Australian Postal act. After that at around 9pm I
>>>spoke to a Constable Clancy at the local Police in Springwood NSW.
>>>(03/05/05)
>>>
>>>He at first said the landlord had committed no crime.
>>>
>>>I said he has and would he like to read the act. The penalty is 2 years
>>>in jail.
>>>
>>>Constable Clancy then went about making excuses for the thief. With out
>>>even questioning the alleged offender he told me that he had forwarded
>>>the mail on or had sent it to me or he never got it.
>>>
>>>I am sure you can follow my drift.
>>>
>>>I later spoke to the Duty Officer. (04/05/05) As there is no hard
>>>evidence he can't act. I asked in the event of a bank robbery how do
>>>they get evidence. He said we look but he is not interested in a mail
>>>thief.
>>>
>>>So there we have it.
>>>
>>>Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to them.
>>>
>>>This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::
>>
>>
>> You really are missing the point. This is essentally a private matter
>> between you and your former landlord over some items of private property.
>> There are quite simple legal mechanisms for you to pursue the recovery of
>> the property if you wish to do so. There is no particular reason for the
>> NSW police to get involved in this kind of matter. They have more
>> pressing things to do.
>>
>> It's up to you, now.
>
>Yes it is!
>
>The rest is bullshit, a crime has been committed - it is not a civil matter.... While it is state government policy not
>to pursue crimes of a "minor" nature. It is still a crime! They do however, pursue petty speedsters and I would
>suggest it is not because the speedster is wanted for an armed holdup somewhere.
>
>I had a similar problem - the cops got off their arses when the police minister started breathing down their necks.

Oh you name dropper you.

[Sylvia Else]

veritas wrote:

> The rest is bullshit, a crime has been committed

The OP appears to be posting from NSW.

There remains some question about whether the postal legislation has any
applicability once the letter has been delivered to the address on the
envelope. My own view, as previously expressed, is that since the
letters were correctly delivered, albeit not to the current address of
the person named, the postal legislation is irrelevant.

The letters clearly belong to the OP, but if there's a crime here, I
haven't been able to pin it down. Exactly what offence is supposed to
have been committed here? Theft (or larcency, as the NSW Crimes Act
expressed it)?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...ndex.html#s125

If so, under which section?

The OP has grounds for civil action to recover the letters, and would
persumably win provided the tenant is willing to give evidence about
their being passed to the landlord.

However, since the OP appears to be aware of the specific nature of the
letters, there seems little point in practice in going down that path.

The OP could probably obtain an injunction preventing the current tenant
from passing the letters to the landlord, and merely pointing this out
to the tenant (with a threat of seeking costs) would probably put an end
to the problem.

If this had happened to me, I would be exceedingly annoyed, but I don't
think there's much chance of getting criminal proceedings started
against the landlord, even if he/she has committed an offence. The OP
should tell the tenant not to forward the letters, on pain of
litigation, and otherwise let the matter drop. No useful purpose is
served by continuing.

[If someone wants to point out that this is a "do as I say, not as I do"
sort of advice, I wouldn't deny it.]

Sylvia.

[Heretic]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:20:54 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
>
>
> The letters clearly belong to the OP

Although the letters were clearly intended for the OP, it may not be
so obvious that they "belong" to the OP, as a matter of property law.

However, in a legal contest for possession as between the OP and the
landlord, it would seem that the landlord has no claim to the letters (so
far as we know) whereas the OP might claim a right to possession on the
basis that the senders intended possession to pass to him.

[Full]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:32:56 +1000, Heretic
<cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:20:54 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The letters clearly belong to the OP
>
>Although the letters were clearly intended for the OP, it may not be
>so obvious that they "belong" to the OP, as a matter of property law.
>
>However, in a legal contest for possession as between the OP and the
>landlord, it would seem that the landlord has no claim to the letters (so
>far as we know) whereas the OP might claim a right to possession on the
>basis that the senders intended possession to pass to him.

If you examine the address field of any posted letter you will see
that its in fact, unlike the normal method of writing English as its
read bottom to top. Which is its path of delivery.

Starting at the bottom,

the post code.
The state
The town
The street
The street number
The person/business name.

Now if the person/business was not defined in the address field then
yes
I agree that anyone at that address could lay claim to the mail.
But including a name says it's for that person via that location.

The Postal Services Act 1975 section 89 speaks about items found when
in the course of the post.
As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
something in your letter box that is not addressed to someone else
then its lost.

In addition.
Although the landlord and myself have a past history my complaint is
not generated by that history. I moved from that home in April 2004.

In fact he loves to run around town spreading tales about me.
A part of his attacks is that I cause trouble.
Yet I say nothing as I am told its better to be passive.

I tolerated this incident twice for critical mail. (that I am aware
of)
This is critical letter 3 that he has stolen. How many times does
someone have to kick you in the balls before you say enough.
Or should I allow others to do to me as they wish until the end of
time
simply because we have a history.

Waz

[Full]

Sorry a typo.

>As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
>something in your letter box that is not addressed to someone else
>then its lost.

It should read.

As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
something in your letter box that is addressed to someone else then
its lost.

Thanks Waz

[Phil Allison]

"Full"

> Waz


** Piss off - you psycho troll.








.............. Phil

[Heretic]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:11:39 +1000, Full wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:32:56 +1000, Heretic <cathars@montaillou.com.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:20:54 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The letters clearly belong to the OP
>>
>>Although the letters were clearly intended for the OP, it may not be so
>>obvious that they "belong" to the OP, as a matter of property law.
>>
>>However, in a legal contest for possession as between the OP and the
>>landlord, it would seem that the landlord has no claim to the letters
>>(so far as we know) whereas the OP might claim a right to possession on
>>the basis that the senders intended possession to pass to him.
>
> If you examine the address field of any posted letter you will see that
> its in fact, unlike the normal method of writing English as its read
> bottom to top. Which is its path of delivery.
>
> Starting at the bottom,
>
> the post code.
> The state
> The town
> The street
> The street number
> The person/business name.
>
> Now if the person/business was not defined in the address field then yes
> I agree that anyone at that address could lay claim to the mail. But
> including a name says it's for that person via that location.
>
> The Postal Services Act 1975 section 89 speaks about items found when in
> the course of the post.
> As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
> something in your letter box that is not addressed to someone else then
> its lost.
>
> In addition.
> Although the landlord and myself have a past history my complaint is not
> generated by that history. I moved from that home in April 2004.
>
> In fact he loves to run around town spreading tales about me. A part of
> his attacks is that I cause trouble. Yet I say nothing as I am told its
> better to be passive.
>
> I tolerated this incident twice for critical mail. (that I am aware of)
> This is critical letter 3 that he has stolen. How many times does
> someone have to kick you in the balls before you say enough. Or should I
> allow others to do to me as they wish until the end of time simply
> because we have a history.

You may have misunderstood my post. It was not having a go at you, but an
observation about any letter correctly delivered to a letterbox but
intercepted or otherwise obtained by someone other than the person to whom
the letter was addressed. A legal claim to the letter by the person to
whom it was addressed may not be as straight-forward as it seems.

[Heretic]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:18:54 +1000, Full wrote:

> Sorry a typo.
>
>>As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
>>something in your letter box that is not addressed to someone else then
>>its lost.
>
> It should read.
>
> As the name in the address field is the end destination if you get
> something in your letter box that is addressed to someone else then its
> lost.

Although logical, that is not legally correct in the usual situation.

So far as the postal service is concerned, its obligation is to deliver
the letter in accordance with the address. If the address is incorrect,
that's the fault of the sender, and the postal service knows nothing about
it being incorrect. There are all sorts of reasons why people want mail
with their name on it going to different addresses, even next door.

In most situations, delivery by the postal service is made correctly when
the article is dropped in the letterbox of the nominated address.

If (as examples) the address of the person sent the article was incorrect,
or the article is stolen from the letterbox, or taken innocently by
someone living at that address and lost, that's too bad, but it is not the
responsibility of the postal service or subject to the postal legislation.

[AJS]

"Full" <xxx000auREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l33h715ethm67ogkugfpb03ig0bce0g2fi@4ax.com...

> Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to
> them.

What did you expect? I am aware of one incident where goods were illegally
removed from a premises while Police were present.
There excuse was that it was a "domestic" matter and they wouldn't
intervene. Did I mention the owner of the premises was in hospital with
another week or two to live?


AJS

[Heretic]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:07:54 +0930, AJS wrote:

>
> "Full" <xxx000auREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:l33h715ethm67ogkugfpb03ig0bce0g2fi@4ax.com...
>
>> Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to them.
>
> What did you expect? I am aware of one incident where goods were illegally
> removed from a premises while Police were present. There excuse was that
> it was a "domestic" matter and they wouldn't intervene. Did I mention the
> owner of the premises was in hospital with another week or two to live?

Shocking as it might seem, not every alleged unlawful interference with
property is a possible criminal offence. In fact, the very great majority
of unlawful interferences with property are resolved as private matters
between the interested parties. For example, car accidents where fault is
involved.

Why do people imagine that the police can or will deal with everything
under the sun? And in their favour?

[AJS]

"Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com.fr> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.04.13.49.17.862489@Languedoc...

>> What did you expect? I am aware of one incident where goods were
>> illegally
>> removed from a premises while Police were present. There excuse was that
>> it was a "domestic" matter and they wouldn't intervene. Did I mention the
>> owner of the premises was in hospital with another week or two to live?
>
> Shocking as it might seem, not every alleged unlawful interference with
> property is a possible criminal offence. In fact, the very great majority
> of unlawful interferences with property are resolved as private matters
> between the interested parties. For example, car accidents where fault is
> involved.
>
> Why do people imagine that the police can or will deal with everything
> under the sun? And in their favour?

I would imagine it's due to the same issue that causes people to selectively
ignore parts of a post so they can follow up with irrelevant and idiotic
dribble. Not being one of these people, I wouldn't know. Maybe you can have
a think and get back to us?

"illegally"



AJS

[Bluey]

"Full" <xxx000auREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l33h715ethm67ogkugfpb03ig0bce0g2fi@4ax.com...
> Thanks to the many replies and ideas.
>
> I read parts of the Australian Postal act.
> After that at around 9pm I spoke to a Constable Clancy at the
> local Police in Springwood NSW. (03/05/05)
>
> He at first said the landlord had committed no crime.
>
> I said he has and would he like to read the act.
> The penalty is 2 years in jail.
>
> Constable Clancy then went about making excuses for the thief.
> With out even questioning the alleged offender he told me that he had
> forwarded the mail on or had sent it to me or he never got it.
>
> I am sure you can follow my drift.
>
> I later spoke to the Duty Officer. (04/05/05)
> As there is no hard evidence he can't act.
> I asked in the event of a bank robbery how do they get evidence.
> He said we look but he is not interested in a mail thief.
>
> So there we have it.
>
> Crimes that require an effort by NSW Police are of no interest to
> them.

Very true.

> This is not the end of this:::::::::::::::::

Why not go around and threaten to beat seven bells of shit out of him?

As long as you don't actually do it, he won't be able to make a charge
against you.

Be convincing, and cover your tracks.

[Heretic]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:31:24 +0930, AJS wrote:

>
> I wouldn't know

Quite so.