2¢ Postage is yer right.

[dr poormouth]

This necropost just showed up over on scam.com ;
http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=857311&postcount=21

Excuse me... but the real SCAM is that the American people are paying 44 cents per envelope when the law on the books that has never been repealed, says the cost of postage via the post office is 2 cents. I mail all my letters for 2 cents, and it is 100% legal. All you have to do is write "Non Domestic Without United States". The postal service is different and has different rates than the post office. Postal service send to federal jurisdictions, and they charge 44 cents. Post office just send in between the individual soverign states. If you put a zip code or abbreviation on your envelope, that is a federal privilage, so your mailing will need postal service rate.

"[at 12 Stat. 705] SEC. 23. And be it further enacted, That the rate of postage on all letters not transmitted through the mails of the United States, but delivered through the post-office or its carriers, commonly described as local or drop letters, and not exceeding one half ounce in weight, shall be uniform at two cents, and an additional rate for each half ounce or fraction thereof of additional weight, to be in all cases prepaid by postage stamps affixed to the envelope of such letter, but no extra postage or carrier's fee shall hereafter be charged or collected upon letters delivered by carriers, nor upon letters collected by them for mailing or for delivery
Instructions:
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic...ource=activity

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Because, this will prove to many nay-Sayers:
1) that the zip code makes your address a federal zone.
2) that the 2 letter abbreviation is a "federal State"
3) That the post office is a federal corporation and is tricking the average American into using 44 cent stamps, when only a 2 cent stamp is required.
4) That all 50 states are "without the United States".
5) And that common knowledge of government is OFTEN misunderstood.
6) that the "United States" means the "federal Government"

[fortinbras]

Dr. Poormouth is, I hope, a better doctor than he is a lawyer.

That 2¢ law that he claimed "has never been repealed" is from March 2, 1863 (and, BTW, it set the rate at 3¢ per ½ ounce), and it was repealed soon enough by another law, enacted on June 8, 1872, which in turn was repealed by several successive laws until the entire collection of laws relating to the Post Office and Postal Service was re-enacted as a positive law title of the U.S. Code (title 39) in 1970, in which the USPS Board of Governors is supposed to set the postal rates at a level sufficient to defray the expenses of the USPS.

The way things happen nowadays, his 2¢ are probably slipping through the USPS system - possibly considered too picayune to throw back for insufficient postage, but the law says the USPS can refuse to deliver it, or deliver it only if the addressee pays the missing postage. IF the addressee refuses to pay, and the USPS sends the letter back to Dr. Poormouth, then it as if the letter were never sent - in terms of whatever legal effect the letter was supposed to have at its destination. So Dr. Poormouth runs the risk of his submissions missing deadlines, etc., by this cheapo stunt.

Additionally, although the use of the ZIP code is optional on individual letters, its absence very probably prolongs the time to delivery. The model forms in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure do show ZIP codes as part of addresses, so it may be suggested that the use of ZIP codes is requested, if not required, in court proceedings. Courts have held, in the case of litigants who refuse to use ZIP codes, that the court will use ZIP codes mailing its stuff out, and if the litigant refuses to use ZIP codes on the mail he sends out then he must accept the risk that his submissions may be rejected because delivered after deadlines expire.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think the Dr. was merely referencing a finding on scam.com, not endorsing it.

[Lambkin]

Dr. Poormouth is, I hope, a better doctor than he is a lawyer.

The good doctor simply failed to add quoting; the text is from the link at the top.

[Demosthenes]

All dr poormouth did was post a funny scam.

BTW, nice use of necropost, dr p.

[dr poormouth]

My apologies to fortinbras for the confusion.
Sovrun Citizens (I believe the OP is SC, from the flavor of his rant) are underrepresented on scam.com - we get wingnuts who drink a different flavor of koolaid - so this post stood out like a sore thumb; it was also waaay off topic.
Posted it here as it shows an aspect of the anti-gummint mindset I had not yet seen on Quatloos.

[fortinbras]

No, it's MY apologies for not having carefully read the opening lines of Dr Poormouth's entry.

This 3¢ postage gimmick was actually advocated as a serious thing on the SuiJuris forum about six months ago. Some people just love to see others play with fire and gasoline.

As far as I know, this 3¢ postage notion has not been mentioned in a court decision, but over the years plenty of decisions about default judgments issued because one of the litigants didn't get his mail delivered in time.

[Gregg]

I don't know if it is the law, but I have read that it is USPO policy to deliver mail with insufficient postage with a postage due notice (so the recipient could go to the posat office and pay it, but will get it even if he doesn't) but to return to sender mail with no postage and a return address, and to discard mail with no postage and no return address. Don't know where I saw it, so your milage may vary.

[bmielke]

I don't know if it is the law, but I have read that it is USPO policy to deliver mail with insufficient postage with a postage due notice (so the recipient could go to the posat office and pay it, but will get it even if he doesn't) but to return to sender mail with no postage and a return address, and to discard mail with no postage and no return address. Don't know where I saw it, so your milage may vary.

Last time I had a letter delivered with insufficient postage the mail man came into the office and said that the postage was short by 23 cents (or some similar amount) and asked if we wanted to pay it or did we want to return it.

I work at Legal Aid so if a client letter comes in we will pay the postage. The office I was in at the time was in a fairly large city (40,000) but we and the "Courthouse Square" we were on recieved little mail. I don't know how it would work with someplace that gets thousands of pieces of mail a day.

[fortinbras]

This situation is rarely mentioned in reported cases, but Recreational Properties Inc. v. Southwest Mortgage Service Corp. (5th Cir 1986) 804 F.2d 311 and Jackson v. FIE Corp. (5th Cir 2002) 302 F.3d 515, made clear that, if a legally significant letter is not delivered (or is refused by the addressee) because of insufficient postage, then, legally, it has the same effect as if it hadn't been sent at all. In fact, the Recreational Properties decisions held this, even though the sender of the letter insisted that the USPS made a mistake in marking his letter "postage due".

Not very clearly but by implication, US v. Harris (7th Cir 2005) 394 F.3d 543 cert.denied 546 U.S. 916, suggested that if the letter's delivery is delayed, because of insufficient postage, the sender has no excuse if the letter arrives after a deadline has expired.

[David Merrill]

Dr. Poormouth is, I hope, a better doctor than he is a lawyer.

That 2¢ law that he claimed "has never been repealed" is from March 2, 1863 (and, BTW, it set the rate at 3¢ per ½ ounce), and it was repealed soon enough by another law, enacted on June 8, 1872, which in turn was repealed by several successive laws until the entire collection of laws relating to the Post Office and Postal Service was re-enacted as a positive law title of the U.S. Code (title 39) in 1970, in which the USPS Board of Governors is supposed to set the postal rates at a level sufficient to defray the expenses of the USPS.

The way things happen nowadays, his 2¢ are probably slipping through the USPS system - possibly considered too picayune to throw back for insufficient postage, but the law says the USPS can refuse to deliver it, or deliver it only if the addressee pays the missing postage. IF the addressee refuses to pay, and the USPS sends the letter back to Dr. Poormouth, then it as if the letter were never sent - in terms of whatever legal effect the letter was supposed to have at its destination. So Dr. Poormouth runs the risk of his submissions missing deadlines, etc., by this cheapo stunt.

Additionally, although the use of the ZIP code is optional on individual letters, its absence very probably prolongs the time to delivery. The model forms in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure do show ZIP codes as part of addresses, so it may be suggested that the use of ZIP codes is requested, if not required, in court proceedings. Courts have held, in the case of litigants who refuse to use ZIP codes, that the court will use ZIP codes mailing its stuff out, and if the litigant refuses to use ZIP codes on the mail he sends out then he must accept the risk that his submissions may be rejected because delivered after deadlines expire.

The 2 cent rate is right there on the same page and is still in full force and effect. One needs to avoid Free Delivery or RFD. That has its limitations.

I sent general delivery to general delivery and the general delivery clerk followed me out to the street threatening to fight. I asked him if he was threatening me and he waved the 2 cent letter at me shouting, You are threatening me! I suggested we go speak with the postmaster why this letter threatened him and he said he would show it to a postal inspector, I imagine realizing he had been picking a fistfight with a patron. He returned to the building and my letter arrived fine to the general delivery recipient in california, Randy Lee.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE JOHN G. DAVIES, JUDGE PRESIDING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
vs. ) NO. CV-94 xxxx -JGD
)
RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR )
____________Defendant(s)_ )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Los Angeles, California - Monday, March 21, 1994
BEVERLY A. CASARES CSR# 8630
Official Court Reporter
312 North Spring Street, Room 440
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 617-2305

APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF(S) GREGORY A. ROTH
312 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 894-2410
FOR DEFENDANT(S) RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1994; 1:30 P.M.
THE CLERK: Item number 6, case number CV-94xxxxx, United States of America versus Randy L. Oxxxxxxxxxr.
MR. ROTH: Good afternoon, your Honor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Roth appearing on behalf of the United States, and its agency the Internal Revenue Service.
THE COURT: Is there any opposition?
MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: For the record.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: My Christian name is Randy Lee, and my family name is Oxxxxxxxxxr.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: That is spelled capital R, lower case, a-n-d-y, capital L, lower case e-e, capital O, lower case x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-r.
I have responded to this petition because it was found on the door of the place where I take up housekeeping, and attempts to create a colorable persona under colorable law by the name of capital R-A-N-D-Y L period, O-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-R, the artifice being used here to deceive this Honorable Court, must be abated as a Public Nuisance.
For the record, Randy Lee and Jesus the Christ Advocate and Wonderful Counselor are using the Right of Visitation to exercise Ministerial Powers to be heard on this matter.
I, Randy Lee, am a native Californian and a Man on the Land in Los Angeles County, not a resident in the Federal Judicial District in the Central District of California.
My Colors and Authority is the California Bear Flag with the Gold star. My Law is My Family Bible. And my Status is shown by the Seal of the People.
I am who I say I am, not who the U.S. Attorney says I am. Further I sayeth not and I stand mute.
THE COURT: All right. Please take your things off of the podium and sit down at your table. Mr. Roth, do you have any response to this alleged case of mistaken identity.
MR. ROTH: Well, your Honor, Mr. Oxxxxxxxxxr seems to think that if you spell your name in upper and lower case, it relieves him of compliance.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Roth. Please call the next case clerk.
(Proceedings concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that the foregoing matter entitled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR No. CV-94 xxxx -JGD is transcribed from the stenographic notes taken by me and is a true and accurate description of the same.
_____(signed)____________________. ____3/25/94________________.
BEVERLY A. CASARES CSR# 8630, Official Court Reporter

[Demosthenes]

Of course you obscured the name. If you'd posted the full name (Randy Lee Overholtzer) and the full case number (4-civ-884-JGD-E), people here would easily point out that Randy lost his case.


Randy Lee was found in contempt and the judge issued a bench warrant when he didn't show up for his hearing.

[David Merrill]

Of course you obscured the name. If you'd posted the full name (Randy Lee Overholtzer) and the full case number (4-civ-884-JGD-E), people here would easily point out that Randy lost his case.


Randy Lee was found in contempt and the judge issued a bench warrant when he didn't show up for his hearing.

Thank you for that Demosthenes;


I never had the full story.

Randy Lee explained he was not the man named on the Summons. And as far as I know Randy Lee is still Randy Lee, like his parents named him. Judge Roy Bean would undoubtedly call Randy Lee "Overholtzer!" - don't you think?

Good thing for Randy Lee he gave no consent for the Judge to change his name!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I picked up some transcripts from the chief judge locally here. He acknowledges on the header I am David Merrill, trustee for DAVID MERRILL (a/k/a VanPelt). In that he also acknowledges my abatement was solid, like Randy Lee's.

In a pleading misnomer of a party is ground of abatement...

He formed a new constructive trust that I might wish to use elsewhere too. The DAVID MERRILL. Now I may never need to draw up commercial contracts around the DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT ever again.

Maybe I should fetch it a Social Security Number?

[Demosthenes]

Thank you for that Demosthenes;
I never had the full story.

Yes, you did, David. Shoonra posted the same information on Suijuris last time you posted the Randy Lee case.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that Demosthenes;
I never had the full story.

Yes, you did, David. Shoonra posted the same information on Suijuris last time you posted the Randy Lee case.

Then I forgot. Or missed it. Could you link it?

I would like to post my post in effect, there. I think you made a great point. There was the man saying his true name and all the federal judge could do was have him arrested if he changed his mind about his identity some day in the future!


My point was that I have the 2 cent rate from the Congressional Record to attach - next time I get the chance. That is what I used to write to Randy Lee.

37th Congress Session III; Chapter 71; §23, page 705. Not §22 like the fellow brought up her about the original 3 cent rate that has developed into the Rural Free Delivery system everybody thinks is the whole system.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Operative]

David,

1. The 1863 act was repealed by an act of Congress in 1872. That act can be found at 17 Stat. 283. Regardless, all prior acts setting a postal rate were repealed when Congress granted the power to set postal rates to the USPS.

2. The 2-cent rate specified in §23 refers only to local or drop mail. What that means is letters that sent from one person or entity within a single post office's service area to another person or entity within that same post office's service area. If a letter has to be routed to a second post office for delivery, then it is being transmitted through the mails of the United States and would be subject to the different rate.

3. The most plausible scenario in your mailing of a letter is the postal clerk decided he or she no longer wanted to argue with a person that he or she thought was mentally deranged. The postal clerk probably did show the envelope to their supervisor. Since the letter probably had a valid mail address, the supervisor probably told the clerk to go ahead and send it marked postage due.

[David Merrill]

I asked someone with IRS connections about this case:

The defendant is Randy Lee OVERHOLTZER, the case number in the CD Calif was 94-civ-884-JGD-E.

On the date in question, March 21, 1994, Overholtzer filed a motion for leave to reply to the govt's opposition to Overholtzer's previous motion to strike. But a week later the court sent papers to Overholtzer ("a/k/a Randy Lee") and the envelope was returned unopened. For two months more, Overholtzer did not respond nor submit pleadings, and at the end of May the govt filed a motion that Overholtzer be found in contempt and penalized, a month later (Overholtzer not having responded to that motion either) the court set a hearing date of July 18. Envelopes sent to Overholtzer continued to be returned unopened to the court. On July 12 Judge Davies rescheduled the contempt hearing to August 1st; two days later the govt provided a certificate of service on Overholtzer of notice of the hearing and the motion to find him in contempt. Overholtzer continued to return mail unopened.

On August 1, 1994, Judge Davies granted the motion to find Overholtzer in contempt of court and announced a bench warrant would be issued for the arrest of Overholtzer. However, after well over a year Overholtzer had not been arrested. On Dec. 8, 1995 the judge recalled the original arrest warrant and on Dec. 19, 1995 issued a new arrest warrant.

Doesn't sound to me as if Overholtzer won his case by playing dumb about his name.

Yes he did - he was never OVERHOLTZER! Why open his mail?

Look at this transcript:

This same judge persecuted me for over six years and finally now admits I was David Merrill all along! He even opens up a possible constructive trust for me to be the trustee for. Maybe Shoonra wants me to go get a SSN for it - the DAVID MERRILL?

Simply put; Randy Lee has never been arrested for OBERHOLTZER because that is his family's name - not his.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Found it JJ.

I just missed it somehow. Actually that thread was started by somebody else - that is probably why. Shoonra is a lot like you, huh?

http://alina_stefanescu.typepad.com/totalitarianism_today/2004/12/beware_of_helpf.html

Randy Lee went through the trouble to hide his family's name and Shoonra ratted him out - 15 years later too. All the while exposing that if you just know who your are and quit opening other peoples' mail, you will be alright.

[notorial dissent]

David,

1. The 1863 act was repealed by an act of Congress in 1872. That act can be found at 17 Stat. 283. Regardless, all prior acts setting a postal rate were repealed when Congress granted the power to set postal rates to the USPS.

2. The 2-cent rate specified in §23 refers only to local or drop mail. What that means is letters that sent from one person or entity within a single post office's service area to another person or entity within that same post office's service area. If a letter has to be routed to a second post office for delivery, then it is being transmitted through the mails of the United States and would be subject to the different rate.

3. The most plausible scenario in your mailing of a letter is the postal clerk decided he or she no longer wanted to argue with a person that he or she thought was mentally deranged. The postal clerk probably did show the envelope to their supervisor. Since the letter probably had a valid mail address, the supervisor probably told the clerk to go ahead and send it marked postage due.

All that aside, since the PO no longer does within PO or local drop mail, and has not for a great many years, it would still be irrelevant since the rates changed over the years from 1863 onward, and 2¢ has not been a valid postage for anything since 1872. At this date and time 2¢ is nothing more than a denomination of stamp to be used to make up correct postage, which as has been previously pointed out is now set by order from the Postal Authority or whatever name it goes by these days. Current 1st Class postage is now set at 44¢, and that is the minimum rate you could be mailing anything for that is considered first class. So, yet again, another of your delusions.

[David Merrill]

Yet it is replicable.


I think you are wrong.

[Nikki]

David has never met a fact he couldn't either ignore or bury under word salad.

He is entitled to his opinion, as in "I think you are wrong."

However, his opinion is not the last word on the issue -- at least here where MRG isn't available to bail him out. Here, facts -- verifiable, provable facts -- count and David's opinion doesn't qualify.