FedEx indicted for shipping drugs sold online

[kcchiefs6465]

FedEx was indicted Thursday for allegedly shipping prescription drugs from illegal online pharmacies to dealers and addicts , according to documents filed in federal court.

The shipping giant, however, said it is innocent and will plead not guilty.

While some Internet pharmacies are managed by well-known chains and follow proper protocol, others fail to require a prescription before filling orders. Instead, they only require a person to complete an online questionnaire, without meeting with a physician. [the horror- KC]

"The advent of Internet pharmacies allowed the cheap and easy distribution of massive amounts of illegal prescription drugs to every corner of the United States, while allowing perpetrators to conceal their identities through the anonymity the Internet provides," said U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. [they will pimp drugs all day long to your children; just follow the monopoly ensuring guidelines they have forcibly established- KC]

She added: "This indictment highlights the importance of holding corporations that knowingly enable illegal activity responsible for their role in aiding criminal behavior."

It also revealed the aggressive behavior of some recipients, who would jump on trucks, threaten drivers and demand their shipments immediately. In response, FedEx would hold packages from problematic shippers at area pick-up stations rather than deliver to recipients' addresses.

The prosecution was the result of a nine-year investigation into shipments from two pharmacies between 2000 and 2010. A spokeswoman for prosecutors would not comment on whether other shippers would face charges, too.

A conviction could mean up to $1.6 billion in fines and penalties, according to prosecutors.

FedEx (FDX), which ships 10 million packages a day, said it has provided assistance to federal authorities combating rogue Internet pharmacies.

"We continue to stand ready and willing to support and assist law enforcement," said spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald. "We cannot, however, do the job of law enforcement ourselves."

The company will appear in federal court in San Francisco on July 29.


hxxp://money.cnn.com/2014/07/17/news/companies/fedex-indictment-drugs/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

[Dr.3D]

The prosecution was the result of a nine-year investigation into shipments from two pharmacies between 2000 and 2010. A spokeswoman for prosecutors would not comment on whether other shippers would face charges, too.

So they knew for 9 years there at least two pharmacies were shipping prescription drugs without a prescription and they didn't close them down, but instead decided to go after the shipping company?

[kcchiefs6465]

So they knew for 9 years there at least two pharmacies were shipping prescription drugs without a prescription and they didn't close them down, but instead decided to go after the shipping company?
If I had to guess, the companies are overseas, are possibly CIA assets or DEA informants, or reside in a country with extradition troubles, while FedEx is a company here, easily targeted for a 1.6 billion dollar heist.

If these companies actually did ever threaten the DEA monopoly, or the prescription drug monopoly, they'd be targeted quite extensively, regardless of where they are located, or who they know.

[Working Poor]

If I had to guess, the companies are overseas, are possibly CIA assets or DEA informants, or reside in a country with extradition troubles, while FedEx is a company here, easily targeted for a 1.6 billion dollar heist.

If these companies actually did ever threaten the DEA monopoly, or the prescription drug monopoly, they'd be targeted quite extensively, regardless of where they are located, or who they know.

exactly

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump.

[fr33]

Fedex should go Galt.

[Czolgosz]

If I had to guess, the companies are overseas, are possibly CIA assets or DEA informants, or reside in a country with extradition troubles, while FedEx is a company here, easily targeted for a 1.6 billion dollar heist.

If these companies actually did ever threaten the DEA monopoly, or the prescription drug monopoly, they'd be targeted quite extensively, regardless of where they are located, or who they know.

Qft

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Well, that's one way to put a dent in the USPS' competition.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Well, that's one way to put a dent in the USPS' competition.

winner winner chicken dinner

[phill4paul]

Meh, they just need to pay off the mafia. Then things will go back to normal.

[kcchiefs6465]

Update (albeit a two month old late one):


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A judge on Thursday rejected FedEx's attempt to toss out a federal drug indictment that accuses the company of knowingly shipping illegal prescription drugs.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer said the acts alleged by prosecutors do not fall under an exemption in federal drug law for transportation companies such as FedEx.

FedEx had argued that the exemption allowed it and other so-called common carriers to legally possess drugs in the normal course of its business. The Memphis, Tennessee-based shipping giant says it cannot reasonably be expected to police the millions of packages it ships each day.

Breyer, however, said FedEx is accused of engaging in a conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs, which isn't covered by the exemption. If that behavior were covered, what would stop a drug dealer from becoming a common carrier to distribute drugs without fear of prosecution, he asked FedEx's attorney.

"It's not that it's an uphill battle," the judge said of the argument FedEx was making. "It's an impossible battle."

Prosecutors have charged FedEx with multiple drug counts alleging it conspired with two online pharmacies to ship powerful sleep aids, sedatives, painkillers and other drugs to customers it knew lacked valid prescriptions.

FedEx has pleaded not guilty.

In a statement after Thursday's hearing, FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said the company was innocent of all the charges. He called the counts an "attack on the integrity of FedEx."

Breyer noted the case was unusual for the government's decision to bring criminal charges. Rival UPS Inc. paid $40 million in 2013 to resolve similar allegations that arose from a nearly decade-long crackdown on Internet pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to customers lacking medical clearance.

Raphael Goldman, an attorney representing FedEx, said the language of the federal exemption is clear.

"The structure and the words of the statute say the exemption applies as long as the company's engaging in the usual course of business," he said.

In a victory for FedEx, however, Breyer said he would grant the company's request for an order to try to obtain its communications with numerous federal and state agencies. The company says those records will show FedEx cooperated with law enforcement efforts to crack down on rogue Internet pharmacies.

Federal prosecutors said FedEx's request was too broad and would overly burden the agencies.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/fedex-indictment-illegal-drug-shipments-forward-193521336--finance.html

[timosman]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-17/fedex-beats-u-s-case-over-illegal-online-drug-shipments


June 17, 2016

Charges that FedEx Corp. intentionally shipped illegal online prescriptions were thrown out at the request of federal prosecutors, ending a trial and killing conspiracy and money laundering counts that carried as much as $1.6 billion in fines.
The unusual decision to drop the two-year-old case abruptly during trial, before FedEx even put on its defense, marks a vindication for the package-delivery company, which maintained its innocence and said it helped law enforcement investigate pharmacies suspected of selling drugs illegally. FedEx opted for a trial after drugstore chains and companies including United Parcel Service Inc. chose not to fight allegations involving illegal drug sales and deliveries.
“The case should never have been brought,” Cristina Arguedas, a lawyer for FedEx, said Friday.“The dismissal today is an acknowledgment that there was no wrongdoing by FedEx.”
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco had voiced skepticism about the case, calling it a “novel” prosecution and raising doubts before trial that the government could produce the “essential ingredient" -- proof that FedEx knew of the illegal drugs and intended them to be distributed illegally. With less than a week before trial, prosecutors abandoned trying the case before a jury and opted instead to streamline their presentation of evidence and have Breyer decide the case himself. FedEx agreed.
Breyer had requested testimony by two Drug Enforcement Agency officers about details of their investigation. On Friday as he was preparing to hear that evidence and consider FedEx’s motion to throw out the case, a prosecutor asked that it be dropped.
"After reviewing the evidence in the case, we move to dismiss the charges,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hemann told Breyer. Hemann declined to comment on the decision.
‘Some Embarrassment’
Breyer said in court he had never seen anything like it.
“The defense was factually innocent and did not have intent,” Breyer said in court. “The act of dismissal is entirely consistent with government’s overarching obligations to seek justice, even at the cost of some embarrassment.”
The judge signed and filed his order dismissing the case minutes later.
While prescription deliveries account for only a small part of FedEx’s $47.5 billion annual revenue, the company argued it’s the government’s job to let it know which pharmacies operate illegally. FedEx has said it would cease shipping package to or from those pharmacies.
Overdoses, Deaths
At trial, the government said it would use dozens of company e-mails to show that FedEx managers knew some drivers faced shakedowns for drugs and that some online pharmacy customers overdosed and died after getting shipments.
Breyer had directed prosecutors to begin the trial by putting on evidence of FedEx’s knowledge and intent of wrongdoing and warned that he would terminate the case if the proof wasn’t sufficient.
“The government should take a very hard look at how they made the tremendously poor decision to file these charges,” Arguedas said Friday. “The power of the government was greatly misused when this case was brought, but the integrity of the government was redeemed with the decision to dismiss the charges today."
UPS agreed in 2013 to forfeit $40 million in payments from illicit online pharmacies under a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department. Walgreen Co. and CVS Caremark Corp. have paid a combined total of more than $150 million in civil fines over claims they sold medications knowing they weren’t for legitimate medical use.
The case is U.S. v. FedEx Corp., 14-cr-00380, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

[phill4paul]

Nothing but a mafia shakedown. All the other companies had capitulated and the gov. thought they had a slam dunk. I'm glad FedEx stood up to them. Now it is time to counter-sue for damages to reputation and the cost of the suit.

[tod evans]

Evisceration is too good of a fate for DA's and prosecutors.

[timosman]

Some background on the plaintiff's (U.S of A) lawyer:


http://media2.fdncms.com/eastbayexpress/imager/u/magnum/4454898/mg_legalize_3744.jpg

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/life-after-melinda-haag/Content?oid=4454899

AUGUST 12, 2015

Medical marijuana's public enemy number one in the Bay Area — US Attorney Melinda Haag — will exit stage-left in September, brightening the future for local business owners and patients, but also increasing the haze.

Haag's exit ushers in a period of legal limbo for Northern California. Locals will not know who their next permanent US Attorney will be until some time after the fall 2016 presidential election, when the next president nominates him or her. "The bigger question is not, 'Who replaces Melinda Haag?' it's 'Who replaces Barack Obama?'" said Dan Riffle, a Marijuana Policy Project lobbyist in Washington, DC.

[timosman]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/02/judge-blasts-feds-for-not-researching-fedex.htm


March 02, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A federal judge showed little patience on Wednesday for a federal prosecutor's argument that FedEx behaved in an "unprecedented" way during the drafting of a tolling agreement.
The government sought to reform the agreement as part of its case accusing the shipping company of conspiring to distribute and sell drugs from illegal online pharmacies. FedEx was indicted on the charges in June 2014.
FedEx has argued that it bears no legal responsibility for the 10 million packages it ships a day and cannot possibly monitor its deliveries for controlled substances, and at Tuesday's hearing, FedEx's attorneys continued to declare that their client is innocent.
But most of U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's attention went to eviscerating prosecutor Kirstin Ault's theory that FedEx deceived the government during the talks preceding the drafting of a tolling agreement for the case. A tolling agreement does away with a case's statute of limitations.
Ault - who is with the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco - claimed that her opponents did not make clear that FedEx Corporation, Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Corporate Services are not all different names for the same company, but distinct companies themselves.
As a result of this alleged concealment, Ault said, she did not name all of the companies in the agreement that she meant to.
FedEx moved to dismiss the counts against the unnamed entities because the statute of limitations for those companies has expired, but Ault argued that FedEx should have made sure the prosecution knew that the companies could not be taken together as one.
"It's unprecedented in a criminal case that the defendants are negotiating with the government in good faith, use the term 'good faith' over and over again, and then hide the ball and then seek to take advantage of the government's belief that they were acting in good faith to aid them in litigation," Ault said.
Breyer did not suffer the argument gladly.
"I'm trying to figure out what is unprecedented," he said. "If the government's mistaken, they're mistaken."
He added, "Are you familiar with the website SEC.org? Won't it disclose to you and everyone else what the corporate structure is at FedEx?"
Ault acknowledged that she did not consult the Securities and Exchange Commission filings for FedEx before drafting the agreement, but argued that the government treated all the companies as one entity "because that's what they told us."
Breyer said that FedEx does not have any responsibility to aid the government's criminal investigation against it.
"They're not privy to your entire investigation, they don't know what you're focusing on, and if they did they don't have a duty," he said. "I know this is a somewhat novel prosecution, but whether it's a novel prosecution or not doesn't mean the procedures ought to be novel."
Breyer then turned to Allen Ruby, the arguing attorney for FedEx.
"I thought you wouldn't have to speak at this hearing, but you're accused of deceit, of concealment," Breyer said. "I don't know how many other commandments we'll get to, but you'd better defend yourself."
Ault quickly pointed out that she was not accusing Ruby of anything personally, since he was not present at the meetings that led to the tolling agreement.
"Then who is it you're pointing your finger at?" Breyer asked.
"I only know that it was impossible for the person on the other side to believe that we were entering into a tolling agreement with only one part of the company," Ault said. "We believed that we were entering into a tolling agreement with the entire corporation."
Ruby - who is with Skadden Arps in Palo Alto - called the government's claims "preposterous."
"It's natural to harp on somebody else's mistakes, but one exception is to blame somebody else for your own mistake," he said.
And the "additional layer of preposterousness," Ruby said, was that "the government says not only did they not know these things that were publicly available, but somehow FedEx knew that the government didn't know what was available all over the Internet."
Ault contended that during the discussions prior to the agreement, the different corporate names were "constantly" used "interchangeably."
Breyer cut in. "All you're saying is that people use the term FedEx or some variation of that," he said. "Of course you're right. People don't say, 'I work for X aka Y not to be confused with Z.
"But when you prepare a document which you want to have a legal effect called tolling a statute of limitations, I have to believe that some level of competence would require a government agency to check sources - which in this case happen to be publicly filed."
Ault continued trying to cite precedence from civil cases in her defense, but Breyer would not have it.
"I guess I'd better go back to law school, because I thought in a criminal case the defendants don't have to do anything," he said. "They don't have an affirmative duty to straighten out the prosecution's misconceptions about the case."
Even after he said he would grant FedEx's motion to dismiss the counts against the companies not named in the tolling agreement, the caustic Breyer did not let up.
After he idly mentioned that he did not know how his order would affect the government's prosecution going forward, Ault - clearly just wanting it to be over - said, "It will have no effect, your honor."
Caustic to the end, Breyer said, "Well, I'm delighted to participate in a motion that has no effect. But I'm still going to write an opinion on this, because I think it's a concern when the government has an expectation that tolling agreements should be reformed in a criminal context.
"People will ignore it, because apparently it has no effect, but that's okay. I don't take it personally."
The case is set to go to trial in early June.

[tod evans]

http://media2.fdncms.com/eastbayexpress/imager/u/magnum/4454898/mg_legalize_3744.jpg


http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/0/0c/The_Wicked_Witch_of_the_West.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150824060132

[dannno]

Wow, nobody has posted it yet?

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-love-my-fed-ex-guy-cause-he-s-a-drug-dealer-and-he-don-t-even-know-it-and-he-s-always-mitch-hedberg-61-21-44.jpg

[jmdrake]

So how exactly is FedEx supposed to know the legality of the packages they ship? And if I recall correctly illegal drugs were shipped via the post office for "silk road" clients. So will the feds indict themselves?

[oyarde]

So how exactly is FedEx supposed to know the legality of the packages they ship? And if I recall correctly illegal drugs were shipped via the post office for "silk road" clients. So will the feds indict themselves?

That will raise the cost of stamps .

[ChristianAnarchist]

So sometimes the goons lose... That's nice to hear.

[angelatc]

Ault - who is with the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco - claimed that her opponents did not make clear that FedEx Corporation, Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Corporate Services are not all different names for the same company, but distinct companies themselves.

As a result of this alleged concealment, Ault said, she did not name all of the companies in the agreement that she meant to.

FedEx moved to dismiss the counts against the unnamed entities because the statute of limitations for those companies has expired, but Ault argued that FedEx should have made sure the prosecution knew that the companies could not be taken together as one.

"It's unprecedented in a criminal case that the defendants are negotiating with the government in good faith, use the term 'good faith' over and over again, and then hide the ball and then seek to take advantage of the government's belief that they were acting in good faith to aid them in litigation," Ault said.

Breyer did not suffer the argument gladly.
"I'm trying to figure out what is unprecedented," he said. "If the government's mistaken, they're mistaken."
He added, "Are you familiar with the website SEC.org? Won't it disclose to you and everyone else what the corporate structure is at FedEx?"

No shame. It's the defendant's fault that the prosecution messed up the paperwork.

[Anti Federalist]

“The power of the government was greatly misused when this case was brought, but the integrity of the government was redeemed with the decision to dismiss the charges today."

Get your tongue out of Uncle Sucker's asshole, will you please?