The proof is the credibility of the postal carrier who has no reason to lie. There doesn't have to be anymore evidence other than the credibility of a government employee who has nothing to gain by lying. Why in God's name do you think you would have more credibility than the postal carrier?
That's just silly. The postal carrier has no more credibility than me and he has just as much reason to lie as I do, if he's stolen or even just lost the package then he's going to lie. It wouldn't be the first time a postman has stolen packages he's supposed to be delivering.
Uh, wrong. It's not silly and again, you sound like every other wise-guy who thinks they have legal background because they thought of a clever way to outsmart the system. Any professional, especially a government employee, is going to be given the benefit of the doubt over
YOU. Whether you want to believe it or not, that's the way it is.
I don't mean to sound rude here, but these really sound like arguments I used to make when I was 13. Are you really young?
I'm 7.
Obviously.
A simple lack of obtaining a signature does not amount to evidence of theft by the postal carrier any more than it would if there was no signature service.
The lack of a signature (a signature that was required) puts him at fault and not me, if he wasn't trustworthy enough to do his job and get a signature then why should his word be trusted?
Wrong again, Perry Mason. An employee who cut a corner to do a recipient a favor isn't untrustworthy. he simply made a slight error in judgment and no court or board of inquiry would ever think that such an action would put his integrity in question. You're allowed to make mistakes.
it's nothing like if it was delivered without requiring a signature, the fact it required one and doesn't have one completely alters the situation, it gives more credibility to me.
Since you have no understanding of evidence or civil procedure, let me make it simple for you; the lack of a signature is not evidence of a theft. There is no point "A" to point "B" connection on that. All it means is that a signature wasn't obtained or at worst (if true, and we've established that it's not) the package was lost. Similarly, there is no point "A" to point "B" connection if you simply claimed the package wasn't received if there was no signature required (again, it would simply be presumed lost, not stolen). However, an affidavit or testimony given by the carrier, based on his position, carries as much weight as a signature by the recipient.
But what does amount to credible evidence is the testimony of a government employee with no criminal record who will testify that he hand-delivered the package to the recipient and thought he was doing him a favor by letting him slide on the signature.
I don't have a criminal record so why is my word less credible?
Because you aren't the government employee (see above where I already covered this).
There should have been a signature, there isn't one, as far as the courts are concerned i'm missing a package and the package that was supposed to be signed for is missing a signature.
SFW??? Lack of a package or signature is not evidence of a crime but a sworn affidavit or testimony by an employee of the government can be.
Beyond the fact that your ethics are beyond questionable you're completely ignorant on the law. It's folks like you that are the reason why we have to Miranda Rights here in the U.S. because you simply wind up talking yourself right into jail with your legal expertise.
