U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 02:58 PM
 
19,632 posts, read 12,879,783 times
Reputation: 13363

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
You don't know how to interpret laws, and continue to be in a state of ignorance despite the many here explaining to you why this MA law does NOT apply to this case.

"But as soon as it is evident that you are being questioned about a crime, you have to lawyer up."

People watch too many movies. This dummy had a perfect chance to get out of this once the cops showed up. If at that time he had come clean and pleaded ignorance and offered to give back or pay for the tv I bet it would have ended there. Instead, he did the stupid thing and didn't answer or try to work with the cops. Huge mistake.

No, that is not true.


LE showed up with a warrant; that means the time for pleading "ignorance" was long over.


https://www.wcvb.com/article/extra-t...ng-it/26906629


What was he going to do/say when asked why the television in question was unboxed and mounted onto wall of his home? "But Officer Krumcake, I don't know how that tv got there, I certainly didn't put it up there...."




Fact that so many of you twist things around to give this eejit the benefit of doubt is staggering.


Case is open and shut:


Delivery company in error gave Nick Memmo *two* television sets. Upon realizing their error said delivery company make a good faith effort to reclaim misdirected property. Nick Memmo evaded, refused and otherwise was uncooperative so delivery company went to LE. Police also got no where with Mr. Memmo so went to a judge for search warrant. That was the end of things, game over.


Judges don't give out search warrants just because. LE had to establish probable or at least highly likely a crime and or evidence of such was committed.


Only "perfect chance" Nich Memmo had of "getting out of this" was to give that tv back to delivery company when they made repeated requests, but prior to search warrant being obtained and executed.


For the last GD time, please stop with the FTC rules or whatever. They do not apply in this situation. Nick Memmo did not receive unsolicited merchandise (we still do not know who the second set was addressed to; and or name on waybill he signed), but something that was given to him in error. Once that mistake was found and company wanted to correct said error that was end of things.


If Amazon or whoever truly wanted to "give" Nick Memmo that television set they would have instructed their delivery company to cease all recovery actions, and noted their records accordingly.


Personally given the rather low quality of telephone customer service these days I highly doubt whoever Memmo reached out to at Amazon fully understood what had happened. That and or they certainly lacked authority to cancel the transaction and "give" Nick Memmo that television.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 03:13 PM
 
21,414 posts, read 27,379,551 times
Reputation: 15552
So .... has it been established that the TV was actually addressed to someone else, or did the mistake originate at the distribution center (as in both TVs somehow got addressed to him)? Does anyone know if it was actually addressed to the guy?

Last edited by Metlakatla; Yesterday at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,409 posts, read 386,707 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
No, that is not true.


LE showed up with a warrant; that means the time for pleading "ignorance" was long over.


https://www.wcvb.com/article/extra-t...ng-it/26906629


What was he going to do/say when asked why the television in question was unboxed and mounted onto wall of his home? "But Officer Krumcake, I don't know how that tv got there, I certainly didn't put it up there...."




Fact that so many of you twist things around to give this eejit the benefit of doubt is staggering.


Case is open and shut:


Delivery company in error gave Nick Memmo *two* television sets. Upon realizing their error said delivery company make a good faith effort to reclaim misdirected property. Nick Memmo evaded, refused and otherwise was uncooperative so delivery company went to LE. Police also got no where with Mr. Memmo so went to a judge for search warrant. That was the end of things, game over.


Judges don't give out search warrants just because. LE had to establish probable or at least highly likely a crime and or evidence of such was committed.


Only "perfect chance" Nich Memmo had of "getting out of this" was to give that tv back to delivery company when they made repeated requests, but prior to search warrant being obtained and executed.


For the last GD time, please stop with the FTC rules or whatever. They do not apply in this situation. Nick Memmo did not receive unsolicited merchandise (we still do not know who the second set was addressed to; and or name on waybill he signed), but something that was given to him in error. Once that mistake was found and company wanted to correct said error that was end of things.


If Amazon or whoever truly wanted to "give" Nick Memmo that television set they would have instructed their delivery company to cease all recovery actions, and noted their records accordingly.


Personally given the rather low quality of telephone customer service these days I highly doubt whoever Memmo reached out to at Amazon fully understood what had happened. That and or they certainly lacked authority to cancel the transaction and "give" Nick Memmo that television.
You have a reading comprehension problem.

"The delivery service said it had delivered two TVs to Nicholas Memmo's home at 13 Rounsevell Dr., but one of those was a mistake.

"The delivery service contacted police after several unsuccessful attempts to recover the television," police said.

Officers also visited Memmo, but said he refused to cooperate.

Police obtained a search warrant and returned to Memmo's home Monday, and said they found the 86-inch LG television mounted to a living room wall."

This moron accepted 2 tvs, when he OBVIOUSLY knew one of them was a mistake. Then he pulled a total scumbag move and blew off the shipping company. When police came by to question him he played stupid instead of what he should have done, apologized and tried to make things right. THEN...................... police came back with a warrant. Memmo was given many opportunities to do the right thing and he rejected all of them, after all efforts were exhausted he was arrested. GET IT?

Last edited by duke944; Yesterday at 03:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:52 PM
 
3,172 posts, read 1,745,687 times
Reputation: 8338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
LOL I'm definitely not a sovereign citizen. I follow written laws, I don't make up my own. Which apparently you do. Regardless of if the FTC has authority, or not, that is why I also posted the Massachusetts state law, which says exactly the same thing. He is being prosecuted in Massachusetts, so Massachusetts state law is certainly relevant.

But I get it. Your mind is made up, that he is a bad guy. So it really doesn't matter how many laws I quote that show he was just following the law. Nothing is going to change your mind. I just hope that none of you people are chosen for his jury.
Of COURSE hes a bad guy! If a GOOD guy is delivered something by accident that absolutely does NOT belong to him, When the delivery company comes to get it back, he gives it back. End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,409 posts, read 386,707 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugrats2001 View Post
Of COURSE he’s a bad guy! If a GOOD guy is delivered something by accident that absolutely does NOT belong to him, When the delivery company comes to get it back, he gives it back. End of story.
I knew this thread would degrade into a hundred pages of bickering. I think there may be paid trolls on this forum to yank people's chains, this story is ripe for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:02 PM
 
19,326 posts, read 15,913,698 times
Reputation: 36351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
So .... has it been established that the TV was actually addressed to someone else, or did the mistake originate at the distribution center (as in both TVs somehow got addressed to him)? Does anyone know if it was actually addressed to the guy?
The guy ordered a tv but a smaller one. They delivered that one to him as well as this one which should have gone to someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
20,259 posts, read 11,059,316 times
Reputation: 30054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
So .... has it been established that the TV was actually addressed to someone else, or did the mistake originate at the distribution center (as in both TVs somehow got addressed to him)? Does anyone know if it was actually addressed to the guy?
Yes, that's been my question as well.

I still don't think the rules about sending unsolicited goods and then trying to get the recipient to pay for them or make a donation are applicable here, but it's even more clear cut if it's obviously misdelivered and the person's name wasn't even on the package.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:30 PM
 
21,414 posts, read 27,379,551 times
Reputation: 15552
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
The guy ordered a tv but a smaller one. They delivered that one to him as well as this one which should have gone to someone else.
I'm aware that the guy ordered a smaller TV, but I can't find a source saying that the larger TV was actually addressed to someone else at a different address or whether the Amazon employee made a mistake. Do you — or anyone else — have a source for that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:58 PM
 
19,632 posts, read 12,879,783 times
Reputation: 13363
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
You have a reading comprehension problem.

"The delivery service said it had delivered two TVs to Nicholas Memmo's home at 13 Rounsevell Dr., but one of those was a mistake.

"The delivery service contacted police after several unsuccessful attempts to recover the television," police said.

Officers also visited Memmo, but said he refused to cooperate.

Police obtained a search warrant and returned to Memmo's home Monday, and said they found the 86-inch LG television mounted to a living room wall."

This moron accepted 2 tvs, when he OBVIOUSLY knew one of them was a mistake. Then he pulled a total scumbag move and blew off the shipping company. When police came by to question him he played stupid instead of what he should have done, apologized and tried to make things right. THEN...................... police came back with a warrant. Memmo was given many opportunities to do the right thing and he rejected all of them, after all efforts were exhausted he was arrested. GET IT?


And what? That is exactly what I have been saying. So just how do I have a "reading comprehension" issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:06 PM
 
19,632 posts, read 12,879,783 times
Reputation: 13363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I'm aware that the guy ordered a smaller TV, but I can't find a source saying that the larger TV was actually addressed to someone else at a different address or whether the Amazon employee made a mistake. Do you or anyone else have a source for that?


Amazon used a contract third party delivery service in this instance; it was *NOT* one of their employees who delivered television sets.


So far no one has come out with just who the larger set was addressed to; but seeing as the man was arrested for "misleading a police officer" and larceny by fraud there is obviously more to come out.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/freet...1661543917150/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top