Whistleblower: Catching up with 2012's stories

Article by: JANE FRIEDMANN , Star Tribune
Updated: December 29, 2012 - 9:10 PM

At year's end, we contacted some of the people we wrote about in 2012 to see whether their issues had been resolved.

1
Comments

Newest first
Oldest first

1 - 1 of 1

hoser212Jan. 3, 13 8:07 PM

With regard to the Mary Ritter story, state law requires that the buyer of the item wait 14 days after purchase before sale or meltdown of the items so that if the item is stolen, the victim has a much higher chance of recovery of the item prior to it being resold or melted down. The crook selling stolen merchandise only gets paid for the actual value of the metals and precious gems. Sentimental value and/or artistic value of the art work is lost. The intent of the law is to prevent this law. Since the city of Bloomington and Gold Guys have used this waiver to circumvent the law, the bond should be used to cover all costs above the amount paid to the crook (who is theoretically only liable for the amount paid for the jewelry). Also, if the insured value of the jewelry is above the bond value, the city of Bloomington should be held liable for any amount above the bond value (which appears to be a one-time bond). I wonder if the city of Bloomington's taxpayers and/or their insurance company (if not self-insured) realize their potential liability just to make life a lot easier for one business.