ZIP Code is Voluntary!
Brandon Russell
Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
[Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
non-use of the ZIP Code.
Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
1) Write "c/o" before the street address.
2) Use the "postal zone" (follow the name of the city with the last 2
digits of the ZIP).
3) Spell out and underline the state.
4) Add the words ZIP EXEMPT.
5) Use upper and lower case letters with initial caps only, don't use
ALL CAPS.
6) Don't abbreviate Street, Highway, Avenue, etc. (optional)
Here is an example:
1234 MAIN ST.
PASADENA, CA 91101
becomes
c/o 1234 Main Street
Pasadena 01, _California_
ZIP EXEMPT
If the address is a post office (P.O.) Box, you might also want to write
the words "non-domestic mailing location" directly below the words "ZIP
EXEMPT."
Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
Paul Laughlin
When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
And don't be surprised if it is returned.
Brandon Russell
a "federal district of the District of Columbia." This is why the IRS
and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP
Code
when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. Though they claim
its use is to speed the mail, it is a well-planned and subtle trick. It
is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that you are a subject of Congress and a
"citizen of the District of Columbia," who is "resident" in one of the
50 several states. U.S. "residency" was, along with U.S. "citizenship,"
established by the 14th Amendment. The definition of the words
"resident" and "inhabitant" mean the same thing (27 Fed. Cas.#16,024 US.
v. Penelope (1508)). Since nearly all exercise of jurisdiction by
federal government is "Commerce Clause" based, action by the feds may
only be taken upon
U.S. residents. A resident is one who opens a store or takes any step
preparatory to business. A resident engages in buying and selling, a
commercial activity. The "step preparatory" was the "birth certificate"
(another subject, for another time).
The receipt of mail with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the
IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. The government can not
bill an American National, as he is not within the purview of the
municipal laws of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal
Revenue Service has adopted the ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue
Districts (see the Federal Register, Volume 5 1, #53, Wednesday, March
19, 1986).
By the way, return of a letter which did not utilize a ZIP Code (i.e. a
letter which was mailed in the fashion in which I stated), would be a
violation of the Postal Reorganization Act, which, in Section 403
[Public
Law 91-375], prohibits the Postal Service from discriminating against
non-use of the ZIP Code. Returning the letter could get them in serious
trouble (if I wanted to press the issue), and I am sure that they know
that.
mr._damon_kelly
In article <320D68...@datasync.com>,
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
>don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>
>
>Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
Yeah:
"The Feds" have no need to tell you anything because the regulations
governing the USPS are written down. Finding a USPS regulation is as
easy as ordering a publication from the organization itself; or taking
a trip to your local federal depository (check with your local
colleges and public institutions's libraries), and opening the
appropriate index. You can also enlist the help of your
congressperson's search staff.
There's no requirement that mailed documents include the zip code on
the envelope, but there's *also* the possibility that mail addressed
thusly risks a delay (definately, since most mail has to go to a DE
Op. entering numbers!), loss, or failure in delivery because the
sender didn't give sufficient information! The USPS is the *last*
organization in the world that you want to present inaccuracies or
omissions to.
-d
--
There's nothing *particularly* "cool" about my web page, as it focuses
on information not .GIFfed-up-the-wazoo wallpaper designed to distract
you from the well of nothingness present on other homepages:
http://research.umbc.edu/~damon
Drew Stowers
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
>know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
<steps snip>
Since, the use of a Zip codes is voluntary, ( just slows down the
delivery of your letter if you don't use them), why do you have to
'follow' the steps to exempt yourself?
If you have to 'exempt' yourself, then the Zip code is not voluntary.
Chris Kerr
Drew Stowers (dsto...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
: Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
: <steps snip>
Good point. Because SO many Citizens do this automatically, it has
become the 'normal' way. Today, if you were just to leave the ZIP off,
they would probably returned it as if it was lacking something. If the
_minority_ were using the ZIP (as should have been the situation), then
yes, we would not have to take any steps to exempt ourselves.
ckerr
--
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- MAX PLANCK
Robin D. Roberts
Onceupon a time, in a land far way, Brandon Russell
<rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>Paul Laughlin wrote:
>>
>> Brandon Russell wrote:
>> When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
>> accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
>> And don't be surprised if it is returned.
>The federal government utilizes the ZIP Code to prove that you reside in
>a "federal district of the District of Columbia." This is why the IRS
>and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP
>Code
>when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter.
[Rest of silliness deleted]
The way that the Federal gov't get jurisdiction of you is by finding
you in the United States at all. Amazingly enough writing you a
letter has nothing to do with it.
It's amazing how people buy into silliness that repeats nonsensical
assertions in long paragraphs with the addition of irrelevant
citations to statutes or regulations that have nothing to do with the
assertions.
sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Holder of Past Knowledge --- DVC
"A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
Stuart P. Derby
In article <320D51...@aracnet.com>, pla...@aracnet.com wrote:
: Brandon Russell wrote:
: >
: > Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
: > don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
[ trimmed ]
:
: When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
: accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
: And don't be surprised if it is returned.
There are some people who have the strange notion that they are ceding
some sort of personal sovereignty by using a ZIP code, and giving away
rights to the Federal government. Seeing "Postal Code" or "Postal Zone" is
often a tip-off that the person has adopted some of the ideas of fringe
groups such as the Freemen or the *extreme* edge of the tax-protestor
movement. Such folk often make other odd claims, such as that requiring a
driver's license in order to drive is unconstitutional, or that Federal
law is not applicable in the "united States", but only in the "United
States" - that is only in Federal preserves but not within the states
themselves.
One such person once posted to this group the court pleading he had
prepared to have his birth certificate revoked(!), again as some sort of
mechanism to restore his personal sovereignty... I saved that post, here's
how he addressed one of the parties in the filing:
Registry of Vital Records
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
Indianapolis, Indiana Republic
united States of America
Postal Zone: 46206
-Stu "zip-a-dee-do-da" Derby
--
Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as
a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming
for the mainstream. -Time Magazine cover story, May 6, 1991
(available at <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html> )
Walt the Wonder Boy
> Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
> don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>
> So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
> voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
> Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
> Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
> [Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
> non-use of the ZIP Code.
>
> Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
> know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>
> 1) Write "c/o" before the street address.
>
> 2) Use the "postal zone" (follow the name of the city with the last 2
> digits of the ZIP).
>
> 3) Spell out and underline the state.
>
> 4) Add the words ZIP EXEMPT.
>
> 5) Use upper and lower case letters with initial caps only, don't use
> ALL CAPS.
>
> 6) Don't abbreviate Street, Highway, Avenue, etc. (optional)
>
> Here is an example:
>
> 1234 MAIN ST.
> PASADENA, CA 91101
>
> becomes
>
> c/o 1234 Main Street
> Pasadena 01, _California_
> ZIP EXEMPT
>
> If the address is a post office (P.O.) Box, you might also want to write
> the words "non-domestic mailing location" directly below the words "ZIP
> EXEMPT."
>
> Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
If you want to waste your time writing all the stuff out, and have your
mail take longer, then fine. Go for it. Thank God and Bill Clinton that
you have the freedom to make irrational choices in this great land.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320D68...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary.
However, don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
[snip]
>Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to purposefully
take an action that will delay the mail?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320D7E...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>The federal government utilizes the ZIP Code to prove that you reside
in
>a "federal district of the District of Columbia." This is why the IRS
>and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP
>Code
claim
>its use is to speed the mail, it is a well-planned and subtle trick.
It
>is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that you are a subject of Congress and a
>"citizen of the District of Columbia,"
[snip]
Sounds like another government conspiracy nut that is out trolling.
Paul Maffia
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
Whacky theory based on no dicernible facts.
Yes, use of a ZIP code when you mail a letter is voluntary. But failure to
use it merely insures that getting your letter from point A (you) to B
(the person you address it to) will probably take longer than the normal
comparatively poor service.
Why?
Simply because if you fail to use the proper ZIP Code, the letter will
have to be removed from the normal mail stream, given to another postal
employee (whose reading skills may be questionable at best and probably
overworked to boot) who is then responsible for looking up the ZIP code
and putting it on the letter in some manner after which the letter is then
returned to the normal mail stream for processing.
>Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
>don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
>Here is an example:
>becomes
>Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
Who cares, all you have accomplished is to unnecessarily slow down the
processing of the mail stream.
BUT, assuming this fantasy of your's were true, what would you have
accomplished of any rational value by doing it?
The answer is absolutely NOTHING!!!!
--
Paul M.
Brandon Russell
Drew Stowers wrote:
> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
> >know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>
> <steps snip>
>
> Since, the use of a Zip codes is voluntary, ( just slows down the
> delivery of your letter if you don't use them), why do you have to
> 'follow' the steps to exempt yourself?
>
> If you have to 'exempt' yourself, then the Zip code is not voluntary.
You have to follow the steps because simple omission of the ZIP Code
would just result in the Post Office assigning one for you -- a delay.
This is done by the Post Office because the omission is seen as
inadvertant, an accident. You have to establish that you did not intend
to use the ZIP Code. This is how to do it without causing delay. Delay
caused by proper following of the steps would be discrimination against
non-use of the ZIP Code, and thus illegal under the Postal
Reorganization Act.
Brandon Russell
Robin D. Roberts wrote:
> Onceupon a time, in a land far way, Brandon Russell
> <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Laughlin wrote:
> >>
> >> Brandon Russell wrote:
>
> >> accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
> >The federal government utilizes the ZIP Code to prove that you reside in
> >a "federal district of the District of Columbia." This is why the IRS
> >and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP
> >Code
> >when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter.
>
> The way that the Federal gov't get jurisdiction of you is by finding
> you in the United States at all. Amazingly enough writing you a
> letter has nothing to do with it.
>
> It's amazing how people buy into silliness that repeats nonsensical
> assertions in long paragraphs with the addition of irrelevant
> citations to statutes or regulations that have nothing to do with the
> assertions.
>
> sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Holder of Past Knowledge --- DVC
> "A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
> against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
Just do one thing for me: prove that the I.R.S. has not adopted the ZIP
Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
is relevant.
Brandon Russell
Stuart P. Derby wrote:
> In article <320D51...@aracnet.com>, pla...@aracnet.com wrote:
>
> : Brandon Russell wrote:
> : >
> : > Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
> : > don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
> [ trimmed ]
> :
> : When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
> : accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
> : And don't be surprised if it is returned.
>
Prove to me that this is a bunch of crap. No one has of yet proven to
me their position. I have cited law for my position; what have you
cited for your position?
Chris Kerr
Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to purposefully
: take an action that will delay the mail?
If you are a second class citizen (fed), then yes, you can see why it
would be silly go _not_ go along with this system and hence have slower
mail. Has the appearance of one class trying to do away with the other
class, doesn't it.
ckerr
--
There is more to fear from an army of 100 sheep lead by a lion,
than an army of 100 lions lead by a sheep.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320E3E...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>
>Just do one thing for me: prove that the I.R.S. has not adopted the
>ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what
>I am saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make
>sense and is relevant.
Seems to me that you prove that they had by giving us a case or code
citations rather than sending us on a wild goose chase. Of course,
more importantly, you try explaining the relevance of Internal Revenue
District to you claims.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320E3F...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>Prove to me that this is a bunch of crap. No one has of yet proven to
>me their position. I have cited law for my position; what have you
>cited for your position?
What citations? All I have seen are some non-existent citations from
you are citation that don't fit any standard notation to enable me to
locate what you are talking about.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <ckerrDv...@netcom.com> ck...@netcom.com (Chris Kerr) writes:
>
>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to >:
purposefully take an action that will delay the mail?
>
>If you are a second class citizen (fed), then yes, you can see why it
>would be silly go _not_ go along with this system and hence have
>slower mail. Has the appearance of one class trying to do away with
>the other class, doesn't it.
No, because what you just posted makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.
What in the world are you talking about?
Walt the Wonder Boy
> Robin D. Roberts wrote:
>
> > Onceupon a time, in a land far way, Brandon Russell
> > <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Paul Laughlin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Brandon Russell wrote:
> >
> > >> When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
> > >> accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
> > >> And don't be surprised if it is returned.
> > >The federal government utilizes the ZIP Code to prove that you reside in
> > >a "federal district of the District of Columbia." This is why the IRS
> > >and other government agencies (both state and federal) require a ZIP
> > >Code
> > >when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter.
> > [Rest of silliness deleted]
> >
> > The way that the Federal gov't get jurisdiction of you is by finding
> > you in the United States at all. Amazingly enough writing you a
> > letter has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > It's amazing how people buy into silliness that repeats nonsensical
> > assertions in long paragraphs with the addition of irrelevant
> > citations to statutes or regulations that have nothing to do with the
> > assertions.
> >
> > sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Holder of Past Knowledge --- DVC
> > "A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
> > against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
>
> Just do one thing for me: prove that the I.R.S. has not adopted the ZIP
> Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
> saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
> is relevant.
Many things are organized around zip codes. They are convenient 5-number
bits of information that everyone can remember, that furnish information
about the general area where you live, and that correspond to a finite
area with a finite population. That is why they are used to do things
like:
-Establish "Internal Revenue Districts" (for all I know you're lying but
even if you're not, it's still irrelevant)
-Establish census areas.
-Help you find a theatre near you using "MoviePhone"
...and much, much more.
However, if you think that by refusing to put a zip code on your mail you
are somehow exempting yourself from inclusion of the part of the world
that is, for the purposes of federal income tax, under the jurisdiction of
the IRS, you are sadly mistaken. You are demonstrating a sophomoric
command of both logic and the law. And quite frankly, those of us who
love what this country stands for would appreciate it if you *would*
dissociate yourself from us, preferably by moving to an area of the world
in which Cholera and Malaria are endemic.
Bonne Voyage, Mr. Amateur Legal Scholar.
-Walt
Brandon Russell
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>
> Whacky theory based on no dicernible facts.
>
> Yes, use of a ZIP code when you mail a letter is voluntary. But failure to
> use it merely insures that getting your letter from point A (you) to B
> (the person you address it to) will probably take longer than the normal
> comparatively poor service.
>
> Why?
>
> Simply because if you fail to use the proper ZIP Code, the letter will
> have to be removed from the normal mail stream, given to another postal
> employee (whose reading skills may be questionable at best and probably
> overworked to boot) who is then responsible for looking up the ZIP code
> and putting it on the letter in some manner after which the letter is then
> returned to the normal mail stream for processing.
>
> >don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>
> >voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
> >Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
> >Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
> >[Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
> >non-use of the ZIP Code.
>
> >know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>
They require a ZIP Code to send you information. Use of the ZIP Code is
one of the many adhesion contracts used by the Government to get
jurisdiciton over you.
By the way, if you REALLY want evidence:
Send a letter to a relative or friend Certified Mail -- Return Receipt
requested, using the steps which I stated to be ZIP Code exempt. Have
that friend do the same. Note how long it takes the mail to travel back
and forth. Then, send another letter via Certified Mail -- Return
Receipt requested, but this time send the letter how you would normally
(i.e. with ZIP Code). Have your friend do the same. Save the return
receipts. (Note: While you are doing this, record the dates that these
messages were sent/received). Now, you will have proof that not only
what I said is true, but also discrimination against non-use of the ZIP
Code (if any).
For the tenth time, I will state that discrimination against non-use of
the ZIP Code is in violation of the Postal Reorganization Act.
Brandon Russell
contract making you a resident of a "state of the forum area", and
subject to the munincipal laws of the District of Columbia.
This is off the subject, but I must state it -- you know, Rome was at
first a Republic, like the united States of America in a way. The laws
of the Republic had a clause which would allow for this government to be
suspended in case of war (an emergency), as that would speed up the
process of gathering an army, etc., and would make the waging of war
more effective (i.e. they would be more likely to win the war). Well,
one day, a war came along, and one of the generals which had been given
the temporary title of Dictator thought that the government would be
better if it were run by him, as Emperor. Thus ended the Republic and
began the Empire. As this Empire expanded, and Emperors became crazier
and crazier, the Empire crumbled. Rome fell.
I feel that these united States of America are beginning to follow this
same line of history. The government is slowly working towards gaining
more and more power, and eventually will become a dictatorship, unless
We the People stop this from happening. Heck, even now, many of the
rules and regulations of the Government reek of Communism. If a
dictatorship arises, it will, no doubt, go the way of Rome. Think about
it.
Brandon Russell
> mail take longer, then fine. Go for it. Thank God and Bill Clinton that
> you have the freedom to make irrational choices in this great land.
refuse to compare him to God.
Brandon Russell
people) believe that he holds Communist views. I also resent the fact
that you are telling me that I am "just wasting my time" trying to "get
around the ZIP Code." I do not think so. If it frees me from the
corrupt organization which We call "Government," then, in my opinion, it
is worth it.
Brandon Russell
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>
> Whacky theory based on no dicernible facts.
>
> Yes, use of a ZIP code when you mail a letter is voluntary. But failure to
> use it merely insures that getting your letter from point A (you) to B
> (the person you address it to) will probably take longer than the normal
> comparatively poor service.
>
> Why?
>
> Simply because if you fail to use the proper ZIP Code, the letter will
> have to be removed from the normal mail stream, given to another postal
> employee (whose reading skills may be questionable at best and probably
> overworked to boot) who is then responsible for looking up the ZIP code
> and putting it on the letter in some manner after which the letter is then
> returned to the normal mail stream for processing.
>
> processing of the mail stream.
>
> BUT, assuming this fantasy of your's were true, what would you have
> accomplished of any rational value by doing it?
>
> The answer is absolutely NOTHING!!!!
> --
> Paul M.
ZIP Code.
Mark Eckenwiler
In <320EAF...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com writes:
>
>I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
>ZIP Code.
In case anyone with a brain is still reading this absurd thread, I'll
mention that informative discussions of actual laws and legal
principles (as opposed to kOok tHeOrieS about zip codes) can be found
in misc.legal.moderated. Sovereign Citizens, Admiralty Loonies, and
Gold-Fringed Kooks need not apply.
If your site doesn't carry m.l.m, ask your newsadmin to add it.
- Mark "terminate with extreme 1-207 prejudice" Eckenwiler
--
Not only the president; also a client.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com
Brandon Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> >ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what
> >I am saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make
> >sense and is relevant.
>
> citations rather than sending us on a wild goose chase. Of course,
> more importantly, you try explaining the relevance of Internal Revenue
> District to you claims.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
establish that it has jurisdiction over people. That is how it applies.
Walt the Wonder Boy
> Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
> > If you want to waste your time writing all the stuff out, and have your
> > mail take longer, then fine. Go for it. Thank God and Bill Clinton that
> > you have the freedom to make irrational choices in this great land.
In article <320EAE...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com replied:
> I resent you comparing God to Bill Clinton. I (and probably many other
> people) believe that he holds Communist views. I also resent the fact
> that you are telling me that I am "just wasting my time" trying to "get
> around the ZIP Code." I do not think so. If it frees me from the
> corrupt organization which We call "Government," then, in my opinion, it
> is worth it.
A few points:
1) As if I even care about what you do or do not resent, just for the
record, I was not comparing God and Bill Clinton. You should be able to
figure at least that much out.
2) If the reason you are giving for your resentment is that you believe
that Bill Clinton holds communist views, then for one thing you are
terribly mistaken about Clinton's views and communism, and for another
thing, you should read your bible. God ain't so anti-Communist after all,
especially in his human incarnation.
3) If you wish to free yourself from the Government, the best way to do so
is to purchase an uninhabited island in the Pacific and live there, or
simply move into the Amazin jungle. I would wager that this course of
action shall prove far more effective in freeing you from your imagined
chains than voluntarily submitting to a delay in your postal service.
Doing so will only annoy your mother on her special day and perhaps the
IRS at tax time.
And, on a side note, you seem to be harping a lot on this discrimination
thing of yours. Even if you are citing a relevant statute, delay of mail
for non-zip use can hardly be construed as discrimination. I'm sure
they'll do all they can to get your improperly addressed mail where it's
going as soon as they can. It just involves more effort, which is to be
expected. As long as they're not throwing it away or willfully delaying
it for an inordinate amount of time, I'm afraid you're SOL.
P.S. The IRS uses zip codes to get you your mail in a timely fashion, not
to watch you. If you wish, I'm sure you could ask someone to send you
your tax forms in May, however.
Walt the Wonder Boy
> I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
> ZIP Code.
An "Adhesion Contract?"
What the fuck are you talking about?
Use of the Zip code constitutes nothing that even remotely resembles a
contract. Christ man, of all the things to be paranoid about, the USPS is
not one of them.
Brandon Russell
Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
>
> > Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
> > saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
> > is relevant.
>
> bits of information that everyone can remember, that furnish information
> about the general area where you live, and that correspond to a finite
> area with a finite population. That is why they are used to do things
> like:
>
> -Establish "Internal Revenue Districts" (for all I know you're lying but
> even if you're not, it's still irrelevant)
> -Establish census areas.
> -Help you find a theatre near you using "MoviePhone"
>
> ...and much, much more.
>
> However, if you think that by refusing to put a zip code on your mail you
> are somehow exempting yourself from inclusion of the part of the world
> that is, for the purposes of federal income tax, under the jurisdiction of
> the IRS, you are sadly mistaken. You are demonstrating a sophomoric
> command of both logic and the law. And quite frankly, those of us who
> love what this country stands for would appreciate it if you *would*
> dissociate yourself from us, preferably by moving to an area of the world
> in which Cholera and Malaria are endemic.
>
> Bonne Voyage, Mr. Amateur Legal Scholar.
>
> -Walt
for. Well, I am sorry, but you are wrong. I believe in Freedom, and I
believe in the Constitution of the united States of America. No
Founding Father ever intended for things to be the way that they are
now. The imposition of income taxes was one of Thomas Jefferson's worst
fears, and one of the main things which he did not want to happen.
Well, his worst nightmare has come true. And you are stating that
because I believe in what Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers
stood for that I do not love this country? For shame, for shame!
Brandon Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> writes:
>
> >Prove to me that this is a bunch of crap. No one has of yet proven to
> >me their position. I have cited law for my position; what have you
> >cited for your position?
>
> What citations? All I have seen are some non-existent citations from
> you are citation that don't fit any standard notation to enable me to
> locate what you are talking about.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, is not a nonexistent citation. The
Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 (Public Law 91-375), which states
that the Post Office cannot discriminate against non-use of the ZIP
Code, is not a non-existent citation. The Internal Revenue Service's
adoption of ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts, documented by
the Federal Register, Volume 5 1, #53, on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, is
not a non-existent citation. I have given valid citations.
Brandon Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> >
> >Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >
> >: No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to >:
> purposefully take an action that will delay the mail?
> >
> >If you are a second class citizen (fed), then yes, you can see why it
> >would be silly go _not_ go along with this system and hence have
> >slower mail. Has the appearance of one class trying to do away with
> >the other class, doesn't it.
>
> No, because what you just posted makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.
> What in the world are you talking about?
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
citizen."
I am prepared to catch fire for the above statements, even though they
may in fact be valid. I am sure that, once again, I will be called
eccentric, retarded, ignorant, and stupid, even though these derogatory
statements may not be true in regard to me or be justified.
Mark Adler
Brandon Russell wrote:
> This is off the subject, but I must state it -- you know, Rome was at
> first a Republic, like the united States of America in a way.
Nope. Rome was at first a Kingdom. You ought to be more careful of your
facts before you rely on them like dogma.
> I feel that these united States of America are beginning to follow this
> same line of history. The government is slowly working towards gaining
> more and more power, and eventually will become a dictatorship, unless
> We the People stop this from happening.
Hmmm... okay... let's look at history, since you insist. In 1788 the
Constitution was ratified. The land owned (and controlled) by the
federal government included all the land between the Mississippi river
and the original 13 states, except for the southern stretches owned by
Spain and France. That's a lot of land under the finger of the demonic
feds in Washington (a city yet to be built). By 1803, when the Bill of
Rights and the states-rigthts 11th amendment were added, the Louisiana
Purchase was added the hegemonic despotism of the Congress. And this
was all before the 14th amendment!
Today, these lands are all states. Gee, those damned feds are
everywhere!
> Heck, even now, many of the
> rules and regulations of the Government reek of Communism.
Ah... finally you've gotten to your so-called point. All that
mumbo-jumbo about the evil ZIP code was really an ages-old
anti-Communist tirade. Well, why didn't you just say so? Then we all
could have ignored you.
> If a
> dictatorship arises, it will, no doubt, go the way of Rome. Think about
> it.
Somehow, I can see it now: Ancient Roman tax collectors ingeniously
disguised as postal carriers....
--
Mark B. Adler
Boston University School of Law
mailto:mar...@bu.edu
http://acs4.bu.edu:8001/~markles
Brandon Russell
Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
>
> > Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
>
> > > mail take longer, then fine. Go for it. Thank God and Bill Clinton that
> > > you have the freedom to make irrational choices in this great land.
>
> In article <320EAE...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com replied:
>
> > I resent you comparing God to Bill Clinton. I (and probably many other
> > people) believe that he holds Communist views. I also resent the fact
> > that you are telling me that I am "just wasting my time" trying to "get
> > around the ZIP Code." I do not think so. If it frees me from the
> > corrupt organization which We call "Government," then, in my opinion, it
> > is worth it.
>
> A few points:
>
> 1) As if I even care about what you do or do not resent, just for the
> record, I was not comparing God and Bill Clinton. You should be able >to figure at least that much out.
From the way you stated your letter, it could be implied that you were,
in fact, comparing God to Clinton.
> 2) If the reason you are giving for your resentment is that you believe
> that Bill Clinton holds communist views, then for one thing you are
> terribly mistaken about Clinton's views and communism, and for another
> thing, you should read your bible. God ain't so anti-Communist after >all,especially in his human incarnation.
The "Communist views" which you say that God has as illustrated through
the Bible is probably the idea that everyone have an equal share under
Him. At first, this sounds purely Communist. However, under God,
everybody has everything -- there is no limitation. However, worldly
Communists enforce a limitation of wealth. This is not what God
intended, in my opinion. To me, the Capitalist views, which allow
people to work to get as much as they so desire, seems quite fair.
After all, is that not what we are addressing, the "fair share"?
Clinton does hold many Socialist views about welfare (no massive
reform), Social Security (everybody should get the same amount, even
though some people may put in more money), taxes (tax breaks should only
be "targeted" [i.e. given to people earning less than $90,000 or so],
wealthier people should have to pay a higher percentage of their income
than others]. Helping out the group that is less wealthy is a good
idea, but should this not be voluntary? Besides, the current tax system
is a disincentive to working. Less people would be on welfare and more
people would be wealthy if the tax system was not set up the way it is
now.
> 3) If you wish to free yourself from the Government, the best way to do > so is to purchase an uninhabited island in the Pacific and live there, > or simply move into the Amazin jungle. I would wager that this course > of action shall prove far more effective in freeing you from your > imagined chains than voluntarily submitting to a delay in your postal > service. Doing so will only annoy your mother on her special day and > perhaps the IRS at tax time.
That is not the only way. There is a way that is valid under law, and I
will find this way. Of course, if I never do find a way, moving to
Monaco would not be a problem with me. And the chains which the
Government places upon us are not imagined -- they are real. The Rights
of Americans have been violated by the Government, no doubt about it,
and this must stop.
> And, on a side note, you seem to be harping a lot on this > discrimination thing of yours. Even if you are citing a relevant > statute, delay of mail for non-zip use can hardly be construed as > discrimination. I'm sure they'll do all they can to get your > improperly addressed mail where it's going as soon as they can. It > just involves more effort, which is to be expected. As long as they're > not throwing it away or willfully delaying it for an inordinate amount > of time, I'm afraid you're SOL.
Non-use of a ZIP Code on a letter or whatever parcels you may send
through the mail is not "improperly addressed," and never has been. I
am tired of you referring to it as such.
Brandon Russell
Chris Kerr wrote:
>
> Drew Stowers (dsto...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
> : Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> : <snip>
> : >know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>
>
> : Since, the use of a Zip codes is voluntary, ( just slows down the
> : delivery of your letter if you don't use them), why do you have to
> : 'follow' the steps to exempt yourself?
>
> : If you have to 'exempt' yourself, then the Zip code is not voluntary.
>
> become the 'normal' way. Today, if you were just to leave the ZIP off,
> they would probably returned it as if it was lacking something. If the
> _minority_ were using the ZIP (as should have been the situation), then
> yes, we would not have to take any steps to exempt ourselves.
>
> ckerr
>
> --
>
> "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- MAX PLANCK
Interesting logic. So you are, in effect, saying that, since use of the
ZIP Code has become mainstream, it has become harder for people to
assert their Rights in regard to this, correct?
Brandon Russell
Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
>
longer a full government agency. It is a quasi-governmental agency like
the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service and the United
States Marshall Service. As private corporations they are all outside
the restrictions of the Federal Constitution. They are all powerful in
their respective areas of responsibility to enforce collection for the
federal debt. This power can look to be quite formidable.
Brandon Russell
Dan Evans wrote:
>
> In <320D7E...@datasync.com>, Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>
> >The receipt of mail with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the
> >IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Using a zip code or not using a zip code has nothing to do with the
> jurisdiction of the IRS, the U.S. Government, or the federal courts,
> and claims to the contrary are routinely laughed out of court.
>
> Dan Evans ************************
> http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
> This is not a legal opinion unless
> you agreed to pay for it.
> **********************************
Whatever. You hold your opinion and I hold mine. End of story (with
respect to you).
Brandon Russell
Jol Andrew Silversmith wrote:
>
> In article <320EB8...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
>
> > So you are trying to imply that I do not love what this country stands
> > for. Well, I am sorry, but you are wrong. I believe in Freedom, and I
> > believe in the Constitution of the united States of America. No
> > Founding Father ever intended for things to be the way that they are
> > now. The imposition of income taxes was one of Thomas Jefferson's worst
> > fears
>
>
> Of course, Thomas Jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the
> Constitution...
>
> --
> Jol Andrew Silversmith ____ Preferred E-Mail Address: silv...@law.harvard.edu
> jasi...@ix.netcom.com ________________ http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html
I never stated not meant to imply that he was. He did, however, hold
many of the views which shaped the nation in its beginning years. That
was one of the views.
By the way, most of the argument against me could be considered ranting
as well.
Brandon Russell
what I said was just an anti-Communist tirade, but even if it was, are
you sympathetic to the Communist Ideology? If not, then I do not see
why a tirade against Communism would be SUCH a large problem.
By the way, the united States of America originated as parts of a
Kingdom, too, thus making a reference to Rome relevant.
Dan Evans
Jol Andrew Silversmith
Jol Andrew Silversmith
> don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>
> So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
> voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
> Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
> Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
> [Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
> non-use of the ZIP Code.
[...]
> Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
The following is the text of 39 U.S.C. s 403, incorporating the seemingly
most relevant parts of P.L. 91-375.
Note that citing to a public law is not a proper form of legal citation,
except for ones that have not been integrated into the U.S. Code, as
public laws may modify multiple sections of the U.S. Code.
Further, note that it says nothing about zip codes. Nor does any reported
case law that I could find based upon it, or later public laws except to
note the implementation date of nine-digit zip codes.
*****
39 s 403. General duties
(a) The Postal Service shall plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate
and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees. The
Postal Service shall receive, transmit, and deliver throughout the
United States, its territories and possessions, and, pursuant to
arrangements entered into under sections 406 and 411 of this title,
throughout the world, written and printed matter, parcels, and like
materials and provide such other services incidental thereto as it finds
appropriate to its functions and in the public interest. The Postal
Service shall serve as nearly as practicable the entire population of
the United States.
(b) It shall be the responsibility of the Postal
Service-- (1) to maintain an efficient system of
collection, sorting, and delivery of the mail
nationwide;
(2) to provide types of mail service to meet the needs of
different categories of mail and mail users;
and (3) to establish and maintain
postal facilities of such character and in such locations that postal
patrons throughout the Nation will, consistent with reasonable
economies of postal operations, have ready access to essential
postal
services.
(c) In providing services and in establishing classifications, rates, and
fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not, except as
specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or
unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it grant
any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.
*****
Robin D. Roberts
>The I.R.S. has adopted the ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts.
>They require a ZIP Code to send you information. Use of the ZIP Code is
>one of the many adhesion contracts used by the Government to get
>jurisdiciton over you.
There is no support for your claim that IRS jurisdiction has any
relation to zip code. Zero. Zip [pardon the pun]. None.
Robin D. Roberts
>Just do one thing for me: prove that the I.R.S. has not adopted the ZIP
>Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
>saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
>is relevant.
What you are saying is irrelevant because whatever the IRS has or
hasn't done in organizing districts has zero relevance to its
jurisdiction.
Zero. Zip [sorry again ;-)], Nada.
Dan Evans
>The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
>of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
>only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
>citizen."
Nonsense.
A citizen/Citizen of the united/United States is entitled to all of the
rights granted to citizens (regardless of punctuation) under the
Constitution.
I have challenged several people to name a single situation in which
the rights of a citizen of the United States as defined by the 14th
Amendment could possibly be superior in any way to any other type
of citizen, and have never received any coherent response.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, under the 14th
Amendment, a state cannot deny any right of state citizenship to a
citizen of the United States who resides within the state. See,
for example, Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), and Evans
v. Corman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970). If a citizen of the United States
is, under the 14th Amendment, entitled to all of the rights of a
citizen of the United States and all of the rights of a citizen of
the state in which he lives, he or she can't possibly be "second
class" because he or she is entitled to all of the rights there
are.
Robin D. Roberts
>Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32, which says that the
>use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, is not a nonexistent citation. The
>Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 (Public Law 91-375), which states
>that the Post Office cannot discriminate against non-use of the ZIP
>Code, is not a non-existent citation. The Internal Revenue Service's
>adoption of ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts, documented by
>the Federal Register, Volume 5 1, #53, on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, is
>not a non-existent citation. I have given valid citations.
None of those citations describe IRS jurisdictional limits. None.
Zero. Zip [can't resist anymore].
Brandon Russell
Robin D. Roberts wrote:
>
> Onceupon a time, in a land far way, Brandon Russell
> <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> >Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
> >saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
> >is relevant.
>
> What you are saying is irrelevant because whatever the IRS has or
> hasn't done in organizing districts has zero relevance to its
> jurisdiction.
>
> Zero. Zip [sorry again ;-)], Nada.
>
> "A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
> against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
Brandon Russell
specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or unreasonable
unreasonable preferences to such user." This means that the Post Office
cannot discriminate agaainst me for not using the ZIP Code, even though
it makes no specific reference to ZIP Code (it makes a general reference
to "undue or unreasonable discrimination").
Brandon Russell
Robin D. Roberts wrote:
>
> Onceupon a time, in a land far way, Brandon Russell
> <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> >use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, is not a nonexistent citation. The
> >Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 (Public Law 91-375), which states
> >that the Post Office cannot discriminate against non-use of the ZIP
> >Code, is not a non-existent citation. The Internal Revenue Service's
> >adoption of ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts, documented by
> >the Federal Register, Volume 5 1, #53, on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, is
> >not a non-existent citation. I have given valid citations.
>
> None of those citations describe IRS jurisdictional limits. None.
> Zero. Zip [can't resist anymore].
>
> "A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
> against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
is now using the ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts, and, as
such, I would not EXPECT it to describe IRS jurisdictional limits. By
the way, your pun is getting quite old already, and I do not see how it
is funny (even from an objective standpoint).
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EA4...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>> No, because what you just posted makes absolutley no sense
whatsoever. What in the world are you talking about?
>ZIP Code zones are Internal Revenue Districts and are an adhesion
>contract making you a resident of a "state of the forum area", and
>subject to the munincipal laws of the District of Columbia.
Uh, yeah, sure, whatever. Would you mind providing some legal
authority to support that proposition?
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EAF...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
>ZIP Code.
I wonder when you are going to quit quoting 2K of text just to post a 2
line message.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EB6...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>To me, it would appear that the I.R.S. is using the ZIP Code to
>establish that it has jurisdiction over people. That is how it
>applies.
Can you show me one instance where the I.R.S. has used the ZIP code to
establish jurisdiction over someone? I can show you plenty of
statutory and case law showing that the federal government has
jurisdiction over the people in this country. The IRS certainly
doesn't have to resort to some ZIP code skullduggery to get
jurisdiction over you. So stop delaying my mail.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <walt-11089...@lsdiala02.ls.luc.edu> wa...@walt.com (Walt the
Wonder Boy) writes:
>Use of the Zip code constitutes nothing that even remotely resembles a
>contract. Christ man, of all the things to be paranoid about, the
>USPS is not one of them.
Unless you are a USPS employee concerned for your job safety. ;)
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320E9F...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>For the tenth time, I will state that discrimination against non-use
>of the ZIP Code is in violation of the Postal Reorganization Act.
Who cares?
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EBC...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
>of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
>only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
>citizen."
Where did you go to law school? Sears?
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EE9...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>But in section c, it says that the Post Office "shall not, except as
>specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or unreasonable
>discrimination among users of the mails, no shall it grant any undue
>orunreasonable preferences to such user." This means that the Post
>Office cannot discriminate agaainst me for not using the ZIP Code,
>even though it makes no specific reference to ZIP Code (it makes a
>general reference to "undue or unreasonable discrimination").
First of all, the USPS is not discriminating against you in any way.
You are voluntarily avoiding the use of the zip code. This means that
you mail must be processed by manually rather than the normal computer
sorted mail. This takes additional time. You pay the consequences by
suffering from delays in your mail.
Second, the section only prevents "undue or unreasonable
discrimination". Even if mail delay could be considered
discrimination, a delay based on your making their job harder to
perform doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320EBA...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32, which says that
the use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, is not a nonexistent citation.
I don't think anyone is disputing you on the voluntary usage of the ZIP
code. Even the web site for the USPS states that use of the ZIP code
is voluntary. However, your reasons for not using the ZIP code don't
make any sense.
>The Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 (Public Law 91-375), which
>states that the Post Office cannot discriminate against non-use of the
>ZIP Code, is not a non-existent citation.
And your point is?
>The Internal Revenue Service's adoption of ZIP Code areas as Internal
>Revenue Districts, documented by the Federal Register, Volume 5 1,
>#53, on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, is not a non-existent citation. I
>have given valid citations.
A ZIP code is a number representing a geographic area used for
convenience. The usage of, or lack thereof, will in no way effect the
government's jurisdiction over you.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320ECC...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>By the way, most of the argument against me could be considered
>ranting as well.
Except that there is along legal history against you.
Thomas E. Rutledge
I'm just curious as to why you care to go to this level of
trouble to avoid writing a simple 5 digit code on a letter when
doing so will speed delivery?
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
>don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
>
>So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
>voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
>Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
>Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
>[Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
>non-use of the ZIP Code.
>
>Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
>know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>
>1) Write "c/o" before the street address.
>
>2) Use the "postal zone" (follow the name of the city with the last 2
>digits of the ZIP).
>
>3) Spell out and underline the state.
>
>4) Add the words ZIP EXEMPT.
>
>5) Use upper and lower case letters with initial caps only, don't use
>ALL CAPS.
>
>6) Don't abbreviate Street, Highway, Avenue, etc. (optional)
>
>Here is an example:
>
>1234 MAIN ST.
>PASADENA, CA 91101
>
>becomes
>
>c/o 1234 Main Street
>Pasadena 01, _California_
>ZIP EXEMPT
>
>If the address is a post office (P.O.) Box, you might also want to write
>the words "non-domestic mailing location" directly below the words "ZIP
>EXEMPT."
Carl H. Starrett II
Question: If the IRS is using ZIP codes to make people citizens for
the District of Columbia for tax purposes, can you explain how the IRS
had jurisdiction prior to the introduction of zip codes which is a
fairly modern idea. I mean, I can remember when they were started--it
must have been in the early '60's.
Robert Gonzalez
Walt the Wonder Boy (wa...@walt.com) wrote:
: In article <320EAF...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
:
: > I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
: > ZIP Code.
:
: An "Adhesion Contract?"
:
: What the fuck are you talking about?
: Use of the Zip code constitutes nothing that even remotely resembles a
: contract. Christ man, of all the things to be paranoid about, the USPS is
: not one of them.
Oh really?
This organization has more of its employees go bizerk(sp) than any other.
This organisation routinely sends advertisements for child pornography to
people and then prosecutes anyone who makes any inquiries.
( not justifying child pornography, but these people should be looking
into people who are already involved, not trying to do their own recruiting)
There was once case where a man received constant ads in the mail for
several years before he answered one.
He lost his house.
Robert Gonzalez
Brandon Russell (rus...@datasync.com) wrote:
: Paul Maffia wrote:
: >
: > Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
: >
: > Whacky theory based on no dicernible facts.
: >
: > Yes, use of a ZIP code when you mail a letter is voluntary. But failure to
: > use it merely insures that getting your letter from point A (you) to B
: > (the person you address it to) will probably take longer than the normal
: > comparatively poor service.
: >
: > Why?
: >
: > Simply because if you fail to use the proper ZIP Code, the letter will
: > have to be removed from the normal mail stream, given to another postal
: > employee (whose reading skills may be questionable at best and probably
: > overworked to boot) who is then responsible for looking up the ZIP code
: > and putting it on the letter in some manner after which the letter is then
: > returned to the normal mail stream for processing.
I've had things delivered without a zipcode. They don't add one, they
just deliver it. They can't refuse to deliver anything for which the
postage has been paid.
: >
: > >Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
: >
: > Who cares, all you have accomplished is to unnecessarily slow down the
: > processing of the mail stream.
: >
: > BUT, assuming this fantasy of your's were true, what would you have
: > accomplished of any rational value by doing it?
: >
: > The answer is absolutely NOTHING!!!!
: > --
: > Paul M.
Paul Maffia
ck...@netcom.com (Chris Kerr) writes:
Hey Chris, since virtually every nation on earth has adopted a postal code
system to assist in the speedy processing of the mail stream, does that
mean if you take a vacation in Europe and use the local postal code on
your "wish you were here" postcards to any friends and relatives you might
have, that you have automatically made yourself a citizen of that
country, thereby subject to their jurisdiction?
>Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to purposefully
>: take an action that will delay the mail?
>If you are a second class citizen (fed), then yes, you can see why it
>would be silly go _not_ go along with this system and hence have slower
>mail. Has the appearance of one class trying to do away with the other
>class, doesn't it.
>ckerr
>
>--
>There is more to fear from an army of 100 sheep lead by a lion,
>than an army of 100 lions lead by a sheep.
--
Paul M.
Paul Maffia
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>Just do one thing for me: prove that the I.R.S. has not adopted the ZIP
>Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. If it hasn't, then what I am
>saying is irrelevant. Otherwise, what I am saying does make sense and
>is relevant.
What you have had to say is not only irrelevant it is stupid, even if the
IRS did adopt Zip Code areas as IRS Distircts, which they have not.
--
Paul M.
Paul Maffia
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>Drew Stowers wrote:
>
>> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
>> >know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
>>
>> <steps snip>
>>
>> Since, the use of a Zip codes is voluntary, ( just slows down the
>> delivery of your letter if you don't use them), why do you have to
>> 'follow' the steps to exempt yourself?
>>
>> If you have to 'exempt' yourself, then the Zip code is not voluntary.
>You have to follow the steps because simple omission of the ZIP Code
>would just result in the Post Office assigning one for you -- a delay.
>This is done by the Post Office because the omission is seen as
>inadvertant, an accident. You have to establish that you did not intend
>to use the ZIP Code. This is how to do it without causing delay. Delay
>caused by proper following of the steps would be discrimination against
>non-use of the ZIP Code, and thus illegal under the Postal
>Reorganization Act.
Sorry, but using your system automatically delays the mail because they
cannot process the letter with the optical scanners they use and you
would be forcing some poor postal employee (who probably can't read any
better than you) to read all this garbage you wrote to get his daily laugh
quota.
--
Paul M.
Chris Kerr
Jol Andrew Silversmith (silv...@law.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The following is the text of 39 U.S.C. s 403, incorporating the seemingly
: most relevant parts of P.L. 91-375.
: Note that citing to a public law is not a proper form of legal citation,
: except for ones that have not been integrated into the U.S. Code, as
: public laws may modify multiple sections of the U.S. Code.
: Further, note that it says nothing about zip codes. Nor does any reported
: case law that I could find based upon it, or later public laws except to
: note the implementation date of nine-digit zip codes.
: *****
: 39 s 403. General duties
:
: (a) The Postal Service shall plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate
: and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees. The
: Postal Service shall receive, transmit, and deliver throughout the
: United States, its territories and possessions, and, pursuant to
Because it specified 'its territories and possessions', we know that it
is using the _second_ definition of 'United States' which is the federal
United States, and does NOT include the several states.
: arrangements entered into under sections 406 and 411 of this title,
: throughout the world, written and printed matter, parcels, and like
: materials and provide such other services incidental thereto as it finds
: appropriate to its functions and in the public interest. The Postal
: Service shall serve as nearly as practicable the entire population of
: the United States.
: (b) It shall be the responsibility of the Postal
: Service-- (1) to maintain an efficient system of
: collection, sorting, and delivery of the mail
: nationwide;
Here it uses 'nationwide' to mean the federal United States AND the
several states.
: (2) to provide types of mail service to meet the needs of
: different categories of mail and mail users;
: and (3) to establish and maintain
: postal facilities of such character and in such locations that postal
: patrons throughout the Nation will, consistent with reasonable
Here again it uses 'Nation' which means _everthing_; the several states,
United States [federal], and States which usually refers to the
federal territories and possessions.
: economies of postal operations, have ready access to essential
: postal
: services.
: (c) In providing services and in establishing classifications, rates, and
: fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not, except as
: specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or
: unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it grant
: any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.
: *****
: --
: Jol Andrew Silversmith ____ Preferred E-Mail Address: silv...@law.harvard.edu
: jasi...@ix.netcom.com ________________ http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html
ckerr
--
War is simply honest diplomacy.
Chris Kerr
Brandon Russell (rus...@datasync.com) wrote:
: Chris Kerr wrote:
: > Good point. Because SO many Citizens do this automatically, it has
: > become the 'normal' way. Today, if you were just to leave the ZIP off,
: > they would probably returned it as if it was lacking something. If the
: > _minority_ were using the ZIP (as should have been the situation), then
: > yes, we would not have to take any steps to exempt ourselves.
: Interesting logic. So you are, in effect, saying that, since use of the
: ZIP Code has become mainstream, it has become harder for people to
: assert their Rights in regard to this, correct?
Yes. Correct.
Brandon Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> In <320E9F...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
> writes:
>
> >For the tenth time, I will state that discrimination against non-use
> >of the ZIP Code is in violation of the Postal Reorganization Act.
>
> Who cares?
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
I do.
Brandon Russell
> >To me, it would appear that the I.R.S. is using the ZIP Code to
> >establish that it has jurisdiction over people. That is how it
> Can you show me one instance where the I.R.S. has used the ZIP code to
> establish jurisdiction over someone? I can show you plenty of
> statutory and case law showing that the federal government has
> jurisdiction over the people in this country. The IRS certainly
> doesn't have to resort to some ZIP code skullduggery to get
> jurisdiction over you. So stop delaying my mail.
I have a right to send mail as I please.
Brandon Russell
> A ZIP code is a number representing a geographic area used for
> convenience. The usage of, or lack thereof, will in no way effect the
> government's jurisdiction over you.
Prove it. I haven't received answers from many, so maybe you can give
me some answers.
>
> --
Brandon Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> In <320EBC...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
> writes:
>
> >The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
> >of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
> >only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
> >citizen."
>
> Where did you go to law school? Sears?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
Where did you go to college? United A**Holes of America?
Brandon Christopher, Russell
have you checked it out?
Chris Kerr
Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Hey Chris, since virtually every nation on earth has adopted a postal code
: system to assist in the speedy processing of the mail stream, does that
: mean if you take a vacation in Europe and use the local postal code on
: your "wish you were here" postcards to any friends and relatives you might
: have, that you have automatically made yourself a citizen of that
: country, thereby subject to their jurisdiction?
Let's stick to the issue Paul. Better yet, let's drop this topic, as it
assumes the participants already understands some very important
distinctions in the 'art of words', which most of the participants here
apparently do not know.
Chris Kerr
: >Drew Stowers wrote:
: >
: >> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> <snip>
: >> >Now that you know that use of the ZIP Code is voluntary, you may want to
: >> >know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
: >>
: >> <steps snip>
: >>
: >> Since, the use of a Zip codes is voluntary, ( just slows down the
: >> delivery of your letter if you don't use them), why do you have to
: >> 'follow' the steps to exempt yourself?
: >>
: >> If you have to 'exempt' yourself, then the Zip code is not voluntary.
: >You have to follow the steps because simple omission of the ZIP Code
: >would just result in the Post Office assigning one for you -- a delay.
: >This is done by the Post Office because the omission is seen as
: >inadvertent, an accident. You have to establish that you did not intend
: >to use the ZIP Code. This is how to do it without causing delay. Delay
: >caused by proper following of the steps would be discrimination against
: >non-use of the ZIP Code, and thus illegal under the Postal
: >Reorganization Act.
: Sorry, but using your system automatically delays the mail because they
: cannot process the letter with the optical scanners they use and you
: would be forcing some poor postal employee (who probably can't read any
: better than you) to read all this garbage you wrote to get his daily laugh
: quota.
: --
Yes Brandon, just stop questioning this system which has shown again and
again that it has your best interests at heart. When you stop and say
'Hey! This isn't right.', all you _really_ are doing is becoming an
obstruction to the other fish trying to follow the current. Not only
that, but you begin to confuse them too. Look at it this way, IF there was
any substance to you your argument, someone would have noticed it
already, but since the system is still here, its very existence is
_proof_ of its very validity and right!
When in trouble, keep this rule of thumb in mind: When you begin to feel
resistance, back up and find your diverging error. From there it is easy
to see where the current is and get back in it.
: Paul M.
Isn't this correct Mr. Maffia.
ckerr
Brandon Christopher, Russell
Chris Kerr wrote:
> Yes Brandon, just stop questioning this system which has shown again and
> again that it has your best interests at heart. When you stop and say
> 'Hey! This isn't right.', all you _really_ are doing is becoming an
> obstruction to the other fish trying to follow the current. Not only
> that, but you begin to confuse them too. Look at it this way, IF there was
> any substance to you your argument, someone would have noticed it
> already, but since the system is still here, its very existence is
> _proof_ of its very validity and right!
>
> When in trouble, keep this rule of thumb in mind: When you begin to feel
> resistance, back up and find your diverging error. From there it is easy
> to see where the current is and get back in it.
>
> : Paul M.
>
> Isn't this correct Mr. Maffia.
>
> ckerr
> --
>
> War is simply honest diplomacy.
It is not the duty of a citizen to assert His or Her Rights? Just
because the majority believes in something does not mean that it is
correct. Also, a principle that is correct will not always be
mainstream, and a principle that is incorrect will not always be easy to
remove from the mainstream.
kevin s. carroll
Paul Laughlin (pla...@aracnet.com) wrote:
: Brandon Russell wrote:
: >
: > Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
: > don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
: >
: > So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
: > voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
: > Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
: > Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
: > [Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
: > non-use of the ZIP Code.
: >
: > know how to exempt yourself from using it. Well, here are the steps:
: >
: >
: > 2) Use the "postal zone" (follow the name of the city with the last 2
: > digits of the ZIP).
: >
: > 3) Spell out and underline the state.
: >
: > 4) Add the words ZIP EXEMPT.
: >
: > 5) Use upper and lower case letters with initial caps only, don't use
: > ALL CAPS.
: >
: > 6) Don't abbreviate Street, Highway, Avenue, etc. (optional)
: >
: > Here is an example:
: >
: > 1234 MAIN ST.
: > PASADENA, CA 91101
: >
: > becomes
: >
: > c/o 1234 Main Street
: > Pasadena 01, _California_
: > ZIP EXEMPT
: >
: > If the address is a post office (P.O.) Box, you might also want to write
: > the words "non-domestic mailing location" directly below the words "ZIP
: > EXEMPT."
: >
: > Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
: When you have done all of this, just what the hell have you
: accomplished, outside of, maybe, irritating someone in the post office.
: And don't be surprised if it is returned.
The only thing that comes to my mind is "whats the point?"
Drew Stowers
Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> wrote:
>ZIP Code zones are Internal Revenue Districts and are an adhesion
>contract making you a resident of a "state of the forum area", and
>subject to the munincipal laws of the District of Columbia.
Gee does this mean, that when I write to a friend in Canada and use
Canadian postal codes, that I am subject to the municipal laws of
Ottawa? Funny that I've never received any Canadian Tax Forms.
Walt the Wonder Boy
In article <320ECC...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
> Jol Andrew Silversmith wrote:
> >
> > In article <320EB8...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
> >
> > > So you are trying to imply that I do not love what this country stands
> > > for. Well, I am sorry, but you are wrong. I believe in Freedom, and I
> > > believe in the Constitution of the united States of America. No
> > > Founding Father ever intended for things to be the way that they are
> > > now. The imposition of income taxes was one of Thomas Jefferson's worst
> > > fears
> >
> > [Further ranting deleted]
> >
> > Of course, Thomas Jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the
> > Constitution...
> >
> > --
> > Jol Andrew Silversmith ____ Preferred E-Mail Address:
silv...@law.harvard.edu
> > jasi...@ix.netcom.com ________________
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html
>
> I never stated not meant to imply that he was. He did, however, hold
> many of the views which shaped the nation in its beginning years. That
> was one of the views.
Waffle.
> By the way, most of the argument against me could be considered ranting
> as well.
You mean, most of it besides the huge parts that involve refuting your
arguments and demonstrating your citations of law to be misrepresentations
if not outright lies? You're hardly in a position to complain.
Walt the Wonder Boy
> Jol Andrew Silversmith wrote:
> >
> > In article <320D68...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
> >
> > > Contrary to popular belief, use of the ZIP Code IS voluntary. However,
> > > don't think that the Feds will announce this to you.
> > >
> > > So, you may ask, how did I conclude that use of the ZIP Code is
> > > voluntary? Well, just let me cite some laws. Under Domestic Mail
> > > Services Regulations, Section 122.32, use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
> > > Also relevant is that under the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403
> > > [Public Law 91-375], the Postal Service cannot discriminate against the
> > > non-use of the ZIP Code.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Anyone care to contest what I am saying?
> >
> > The following is the text of 39 U.S.C. s 403, incorporating the seemingly
> > most relevant parts of P.L. 91-375.
> >
> > Note that citing to a public law is not a proper form of legal citation,
> > except for ones that have not been integrated into the U.S. Code, as
> > public laws may modify multiple sections of the U.S. Code.
> >
> > Further, note that it says nothing about zip codes. Nor does any reported
> > case law that I could find based upon it, or later public laws except to
> > note the implementation date of nine-digit zip codes.
> >
> > *****
> >
> > 39 s 403. General duties
> >
> > (a) The Postal Service shall plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate
> > and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees. The
> > Postal Service shall receive, transmit, and deliver throughout the
> > United States, its territories and possessions, and, pursuant to
> > arrangements entered into under sections 406 and 411 of this title,
> > throughout the world, written and printed matter, parcels, and like
> > materials and provide such other services incidental thereto as it finds
> > appropriate to its functions and in the public interest. The Postal
> > Service shall serve as nearly as practicable the entire population of
> > the United States.
> >
> > (b) It shall be the responsibility of the Postal
> > Service-- (1) to maintain an efficient system of
> > collection, sorting, and delivery of the mail
> > nationwide;
> > (2) to provide types of mail service to meet the needs of
> > different categories of mail and mail users;
> > and (3) to establish and maintain
> > postal facilities of such character and in such locations that postal
> > patrons throughout the Nation will, consistent with reasonable
> > economies of postal operations, have ready access to essential
> > postal
> > services.
> > (c) In providing services and in establishing classifications, rates, and
> > fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not, except as
> > specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or
> > unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it grant
> > any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.
> >
> > *****
> >
> > --
> > Jol Andrew Silversmith ____ Preferred E-Mail Address:
silv...@law.harvard.edu
> > jasi...@ix.netcom.com ________________
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/home.html
> But in section c, it says that the Post Office "shall not, except as
> specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or unreasonable
> discrimination among users of the mails, no shall it grant any undue or
> unreasonable preferences to such user." This means that the Post Office
> cannot discriminate agaainst me for not using the ZIP Code, even though
> it makes no specific reference to ZIP Code (it makes a general reference
> to "undue or unreasonable discrimination").
Since it does specifically state that it is the duty of the postal service
to provide efficient mail service to all its patrons, it could definitely
be argued that it is reasonable to take longer to deliver non-zip
addressed letters. It is a reasonable preference to deliver zip-coded
mail faster, since to accommodate both or grant equal preference to
non-zip mail would result in a marked decline in efficiency. It is
UNreasonable *not* to use the zip code. Period.
Walt the Wonder Boy
In article <4ungat$c...@news.cyberenet.net>, go...@cyberenet.net (Robert
Gonzalez) wrote:
> Walt the Wonder Boy (wa...@walt.com) wrote:
> : In article <320EAF...@datasync.com>, rus...@datasync.com wrote:
> :
> :
> : > I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
> : > ZIP Code.
> :
> : An "Adhesion Contract?"
> :
> : What the fuck are you talking about?
> :
> : Use of the Zip code constitutes nothing that even remotely resembles a
> : contract. Christ man, of all the things to be paranoid about, the USPS is
> : not one of them.
> :
>
> Oh really?
>
> This organization has more of its employees go bizerk(sp) than any other.
>
> This organisation routinely sends advertisements for child pornography to
> people and then prosecutes anyone who makes any inquiries.
>
> ( not justifying child pornography, but these people should be looking
> into people who are already involved, not trying to do their own recruiting)
>
> There was once case where a man received constant ads in the mail for
> several years before he answered one.
>
> He lost his house.
OK, Napoleon (or is it Queen Mary?), I don't know which of the orderlies
let you have computer access, but he'd better revoke it before you get
yourself in some trouble with the
BLACK
UN
HELICOPTERS!!!!
Please provide evidence that the USPS is in the Child Porn
distribution/entrapment business. And I don't want some Soldier of
Fortune crap, either - I want the New York Times.
Dan Evans
In <320ECB...@datasync.com>, Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> In <320D7E...@datasync.com>, Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com> writes:
>>
>> >The receipt of mail with a ZIP Code is one of the requirements for the
>> >IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices.
>>
>> Using a zip code or not using a zip code has nothing to do with the
>> jurisdiction of the IRS, the U.S. Government, or the federal courts,
>> and claims to the contrary are routinely laughed out of court.
>Whatever. You hold your opinion and I hold mine. End of story (with
>respect to you).
This is not a question of opinion, but of fact. You made a statement
of law that is not only incorrect, but ridiculous.
You can state your "opinion" that the earth is flat and the
moon is made of green cheese, but calling it an "opinion" doesn't
justify your insanity if you have no rational basis for what you
claim to be true.
Dan Evans ************************
http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
This is not a legal opinion unless
you agreed to pay for it.
**********************************
Paul
Oh, for heaven's sake. The kind of things people can turn into government control.
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320F88...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>> >The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term
"Citizen
>> >of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States"
is
>> >only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a
"second-class
>> >citizen."
>>
>> Where did you go to law school? Sears?
>Where did you go to college? United A**Holes of America?
How about answering my question? Where is your legal authority to
support your theories regarding this "dual citizenship" garbage?
Carl H. Starrett II
In <320F87...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
writes:
>Prove it. I haven't received answers from many, so maybe you can give
>me some answers.
You are the one making statements that defy logic and conventional
wisdom. Don't ask me to do your work.
Jol Andrew Silversmith
> This organisation routinely sends advertisements for child pornography to
> people and then prosecutes anyone who makes any inquiries.
Sigh. Just why is it that some people feel compelled to comment on
cases/issues they probably havenąt read about and almost certainly donąt
understand?
Youąre almost certainly thinking of _Jacobson v. U.S._, 503 U.S. 540
(1992). At a time when federal law permitted such conduct, Jacobson
ordered and received from a bookstore two łBare Boys˛ magazines containing
photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys. Subsequently, the Child
Protection Act of 1984 made illegal the receipt through the mails of
sexually explicit depictions of children.
After finding Jacobson's name on the bookstore mailing list, two
government agencies sent him mail under the name of various fictituious
organizations. He was not contacted at random.
Jacobson was arrested after he ordered a magazine depicting young boys
engaged in sexual activities. He was not arrested for making an inquiry.
In fact, he had previously replied to mail sent to him on several
ocassions, expressing an interest in łteenage sexuality,˛ with no effect
other than that the government continued to send him mail.
Further, even these activities are no longer permitted; see below.
> There was once case where a man received constant ads in the mail for
> several years before he answered one.
>
> He lost his house.
Incorrect. As noted above, he responded to mailings long before the order
that resulted in his arrest.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled that Jacobson had been entrapped, and
overturned his criminal conviction. He did not - and given that it was a
criminal matter in which the house was not an instrument, could not - have
lost his house to the government directly. Although perhaps he ran up
large legal bills...
The Court held that government agents may not originate a criminal design,
implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal
act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may
prosecute.
Shadow
Mr. Russell:
Thank you for your interesting point of view regarding the use of ZIP codes
to enforce jurisdictional issues in the United States of America. I found
it very interesting, but mostly amusing.
After you state your novel theory, you ask all readers of this group:
"Anyone care to contest what I am saying?"
Then you are deluged with replies which do just that. Contest the validity
of your statements.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to be listening to your critics very closely.
Mr. Carl H. Starrett II asked:
Can you show me one instance where the I.R.S. has used the ZIP code to
establish jurisdiction over someone? I can show you plenty of
statutory and case law showing that the federal government has
jurisdiction over the people in this country. The IRS certainly
doesn't have to resort to some ZIP code skullduggery to get
jurisdiction over you. So stop delaying my mail.
You were unable to respond to his question, even though he clearly and
accurately contested your claims.
Then Mr. Starrett also asked another key question:
If the IRS is using ZIP codes to make people citizens for
the District of Columbia for tax purposes, can you explain how the IRS
had jurisdiction prior to the introduction of zip codes which is a
fairly modern idea. I mean, I can remember when they were started--it
must have been in the early '60's.
Again, you were unable to respond to this extremely pointed question which
speaks clearly to the issue of ZIP codes and jurisdiction.
You rave on and on about "the Adhesion Contract which We call the ZIP Code."
Yet when you are challenged to show where or what the contract is, you
respond lamely with:
"Oh really?
This organization has more of its employees go bizerk(sp) than any other.
This organisation routinely sends advertisements for child pornography to
people and then prosecutes anyone who makes any inquiries.
( not justifying child pornography, but these people should be looking
into people who are already involved, not trying to do their own recruiting)
There was once case where a man received constant ads in the mail for
several years before he answered one.
He lost his house."
That's very interesting Mr. Russel, but it says NOTHING relevant to the
issue of contracts. Again, you have been challenged to support your claims
with hard evidence and have been unable to do so.
Finally, your constant whining about an Adhesion Contract is pathetic. Do
you even know what that term means? Why the strange puctuation? Do you
have any clue what a contract is? I sincerely doubt it. Do you know what
consideration is with respect to contracts? Do you know the difference
between a unilateral and bilateral contract? I bet you don't even know what
the "mailbox rule" is!!!! (is it relevant to a discussion of Zip codes, Mr.
Russel?)
Let's face it - you challenged people to contest what you said - and they
did. You got your uneducated ass whipped. (or in this case, is that
"ZIPped????)
Better luck next time
Shadow
wrote:
>
>>
>> In <320EBC...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
>> >of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
>> >only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
>> >citizen."
>>
>> Where did you go to law school? Sears?
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
>> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
>
Tim Smith
Walt the Wonder Boy <wa...@walt.com> wrote:
>> Walt the Wonder Boy wrote:
>> > mail take longer, then fine. Go for it. Thank God and Bill Clinton that
...
>> I resent you comparing God to Bill Clinton. I (and probably many other
>> people) believe that he holds Communist views. I also resent the fact
...
>2) If the reason you are giving for your resentment is that you believe
>that Bill Clinton holds communist views, then for one thing you are
I thought he meant that God holds Communist views. Based on the Biblical
account of Him, that is not too farfetched.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
In article <ckerrDw...@netcom.com>, Chris Kerr <ck...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>
>: Hey Chris, since virtually every nation on earth has adopted a postal code
>: system to assist in the speedy processing of the mail stream, does that
>: mean if you take a vacation in Europe and use the local postal code on
>: your "wish you were here" postcards to any friends and relatives you might
>: have, that you have automatically made yourself a citizen of that
>: country, thereby subject to their jurisdiction?
>
>Let's stick to the issue Paul. Better yet, let's drop this topic, as it
Translation: "Hey, Paul. You've made the 'ZIP code ate my Freedom'
theorists look stupid, so let's not talk about that".
Brandon Christopher, Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> writes:
>
> >Prove it. I haven't received answers from many, so maybe you can give
> >me some answers.
>
> You are the one making statements that defy logic and conventional
> wisdom. Don't ask me to do your work.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
Brandon Christopher, Russell
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> writes:
>
> >> >The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term
> "Citizen
> >> >of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States"
> is
> >> >only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a
> "second-class
> >> >citizen."
> >>
> >> Where did you go to law school? Sears?
>
>
> support your theories regarding this "dual citizenship" garbage?
> _________________________________________________________________
> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
on the Web.
Brandon Christopher, Russell
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> >The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
> >> >of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
> >> >only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
> >> >citizen."
> >>
> >> Where did you go to law school? Sears?
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
> >> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
> >
> >
> >
2. I have written a letter under Re:Tax Protester Cases on the Web which
will address some of these issues.
Brandon Christopher, Russell
the letter which you quoted.
Chris Kerr
: Thank you for your interesting point of view regarding the use of ZIP codes
: to enforce jurisdictional issues in the United States of America. I found
: it very interesting, but mostly amusing.
Fine. Lett me step in here. If you are going to persist, you are
going to have to read some of the relevant material which is precursory
knowledge to understanding what we are talking about. I will append the
shortest article on the matter that I have.
BTW Mr. ... Shadow? You were incorrect in your quoting Brian, the parts
about 'bizerk employees' and such, were by Robert Gonzalez.
_____
by Scott Eric Rosenstiel
If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found
in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something
very interesting. The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you
get to the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868. After
that, it's no longer capitalized. This isn't an isolated occurrence
either. In the definition of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case
decided before the fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen,"
but everywhere else in the dictionary, where it refers to the laws of
today, the word isn't capitalized. As you shall see, this is just one
small indicator of many that the fourteenth amendment created a new
class of citizen. This is certainly no secret to the legal community.
In fact, under the definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States...
creates... a citizenship of the United States as distinct from that of
the states..." This class of "citizen of the United States" was new;
it was unknown to the constitution prior to 1868. This wasn't the
status of our forefathers. In the first sentence of the definition of
"United States" found in Black's, it says, "This term has several
meanings." Pursuing this further, we find that one of the definitions
is the "collective name of the states which are united by and under
the Constitution." This is what the framers of the constitution meant
by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the Citizen of one state
is to be considered and treated as a Citizen of every other state in
the union.
Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the
federal government. This is what is meant by "citizen of the United
States in the fourteenth amendment":
"Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects
only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it
does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment
created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a
privilege granted by the government:
"Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege
limited by Congress." Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd
Series, Vol. 6, Page 670 (1925)
It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the
privileges it creates. By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a
person's relationship with the government. In the legal sense,
everything else is built upon it. Therefore, since fourteenth
amendment citizenship is a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's
life could potentially be regulated. Worst of all, this new class of
citizen does not have the right to invoke the protections of the Bill
of Rights, as explained in the following supreme court case:
"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not
necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight
amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the
Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of
the Fourteenth Amendment..." Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
This isn't an idea peculiar to the turn of the century either. Going
back to the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the
courts of today saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither
incorporates any of the Bill of Rights not protects all rights of
individual citizens." Although fourteenth amendment citizens have no
guaranteed access to the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself does
state that they have certain "privileges and immunities." Here's what
the supreme court has decided they are:
"Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the
other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential
character of the national government, or are specifically granted or
secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United
States." Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436,
448, 34 L.ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152
U.S. 377, 382, 38 L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570. Thus, among the
rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court
are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada,
6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right to petition Congress for a redress
of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote
for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed.
274,4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 45 L.ed. 84, 21
Sup.Ct. Rep. 17); the right to be protected against violence while in
the lawful custody of a United States marshall (Logan v. United
States, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.ed. 429, 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 617); and the
right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws
(Re Quark, 158 U.S. 532, 39 L.ed. 1080, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 959). Twining
v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908)
As discussed in the last article, Sovereign Citizens created
government to guarantee them their rights. In contrast, it would seem
from the above that the federal government created fourteenth
amendment citizenship to guarantee its power.
As a side note, this amendment has always been controversial. Many
people over the years have questioned the amount of power it vests in
the federal government. Some have even questioned its validity. On one
occasion Judge Ellett of the Utah supreme court remarked:
"I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties,
could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and
adopted." State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540,
Page 941, 942 (1975)
However, the most important fact about this amendment is that,
although it created a new class of citizen, it did not have any effect
on Sovereign Citizens. Both classes still exist:
"When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States
were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose
posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen
of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free
persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by
birth citizens of the State and of the United States. (Mr. Calhoun in
his published work upon the Constitution denied that there was any
citizenship of the United States in any other sense than as being
connected with the government through the States.)"
The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in the
passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992, 8
United States Code Annotated section 1). The act provided that:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power are declared to be citizens of the United States."
And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, United States Code Annotated Amendment 14,
declaring:
."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside." Perkins v. Elg, Federal Reporter, 2nd
Series, Vol. 99, Page 410 (1938), affirmed by Supreme Court at 307 US
325 (1939)
Both classes of citizen still exist. It's your right to be a Sovereign
Citizen, while it's a privilege to be a fourteenth amendment citizen,
and most importantly, it's up to you to determine which one you are,
and which one you want to be.
-------
With the above in mind it is easier to see how, using the ZIP Code as
instituted, is analogous to holding up a sign to _whoever_ reads your
address, saying 'Hey! I'm a 14th amendment citizen and I want you to make
sure I get all my privileges and immunities peculiar to me'.
Do you see the situation now? A 1st class Citizen is trying not to trip
up by being confused as being a 2nd class citizens when dealing with any
government or quasi-government institutions. I'm pretty sure any 1st class
Citizen would not mind using a number system to help speed mail delivery.
But the ZIP Code system was apparently just for the 2nd class... a
'privilege' perhaps.
ckerr
--
The future is the past's revenge.
Dan Evans
>My statements may defy conventional wisdom, but not logic.
Logic? Your "argument" can be summarized as follows:
1. The U.S. Postal Service uses zip codes.
2. The IRS uses zip codes.
3. Therefore, the government is using zip codes as part of a conspiracy
to assert jurisdiction over, tax, and enslave the American people in
violation of the Constitution.
I see a bit of a leap between #2 and #3.
Woody Allen once gave the following example of logic:
All men are mortal;
Socrates was mortal;
Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Your "logic" is not quite a good as Woody Allens', and he was being
intentionally funny.
Thomas E. Rutledge
It now appears that Brandon Russell believes that the use of zip
codes constitutes an adhesion contract.
I would suggest that, if such is your belief, that you immediatly
spend many hours studying the law of contracts. Then and only
then should you be throwing around terms of art with quite
specific meanings. Until then, all you are doing is
demonstrating your ability to clutter up your postings with
words, phrases, etc. which demonstrate not the quality of your
reasoning, but rather the ill-defined base from which you begin
what has been a perilious journey in faulty "reasoning."
Paul Maffia
chs...@ix.netcom.com(Carl H. Starrett II) writes:
>In <320EBC...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
>writes:
>>The term "citizen of the United States" differs from the term "Citizen
>>of the united States of America." A "citizen of the United States" is
>>only granted Rights under Amendment XIV, and thus is a "second-class
>>citizen."
>Where did you go to law school? Sears?
Carl, the answer is that these boobs have not gone to law school and
obviously learned nothing while in grade and high school, or even beyond.
They haven't a clue!!
--
Paul M.
Paul Maffia
go...@cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez) writes:
>I've had things delivered without a zipcode. They don't add one, they
>just deliver it. They can't refuse to deliver anything for which the
>postage has been paid.
Grabanzo Bean you really are an ignoramus who is not shy about proclaiming
it to the world.
Did you notice that I said that a postal employee will add one, "... in
some manner... ." ?"
Did you examine your envelope closely and find the optical readable but
not necessarily visible to the naked eye sprayed on data?
The postal service has been using optical readable inks not visible to
the naked eye for years including the printing of postage stamps. Usually
viewable under UV light.
Now watch how these ignoramuses like Grabanzo Bean will invent some whacky
conspiracy scenario because the Post Office does this!
Oh and by the way Dufus, the PO can refuse to deliver things even if the
postage has been prepaid if they fall within the established list of
proscribed mailings.
Or didn't you notice its latest ruling that they WILL NOT DELIVER any
package deposited in a mail box, even if the correct amount of postage is
affixed? It will be returned to the sender.
That is thanks to whackos who believe the same BS as you who have gone
beyond just spouting their silliness.
>: I would be freeing myself from the Adhesion Contract which We call the
>: ZIP Code.
Sorry Grabanzo Bean, there is not such thing as an Adhesion Contract
between you and the US Government. Even if there were, (AND THERE IS NOT)
you entered it by being born a US citizen or acquiring it after emigrating
from a foreign country.
--
Paul M.
Paul Maffia
ck...@netcom.com (Chris Kerr) writes:
>Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: Hey Chris, since virtually every nation on earth has adopted a postal code
>: system to assist in the speedy processing of the mail stream, does that
>: mean if you take a vacation in Europe and use the local postal code on
>: your "wish you were here" postcards to any friends and relatives you might
>: have, that you have automatically made yourself a citizen of that
>: country, thereby subject to their jurisdiction?
>Let's stick to the issue Paul. Better yet, let's drop this topic, as it
>assumes the participants already understands some very important
>distinctions in the 'art of words', which most of the participants here
>apparently do not know.
I have, "... stuck... ." to the worthless issue you raised.
It is fairly obvious to any person whose IQ is above that of a flea, that
when you say that that the discussion of the topic, "... assumes the
participants already understands (sic) some very important distinctions in
the 'art of words', which most of the participants here apparently do not
know." you are speaking about yourself and your fellow kooks who find
meanings where none exist and create fantasies to relieve yourself of the
frustrations in your life resulting from being a loser because of your
utter ignorance and failure to face reality.
--
Paul M.
Noah Dowd
Chris Kerr wrote:
>
> Carl H. Starrett II (chs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : No, but why would you want to something so stupid and to purposefully
> : take an action that will delay the mail?
>
> If you are a second class citizen (fed), then yes, you can see why it
> would be silly go _not_ go along with this system and hence have slower
> mail. Has the appearance of one class trying to do away with the other
> class, doesn't it.
>
Actually, it has more of the appearance of a person trying to get
their mail delivered on time. If I order a pizza, it will be
delivered a lot more quickly if I tell them where I live.
-Noah
--
I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver.
And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand
it to him.
-Jack Handy
Paul Maffia
"Brandon Christopher, Russell" <rjj...@prodigy.com> writes:
>Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>>
>> In <320F87...@datasync.com> Brandon Russell <rus...@datasync.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Prove it. I haven't received answers from many, so maybe you can give
>> >me some answers.
>>
>> You are the one making statements that defy logic and conventional
>> wisdom. Don't ask me to do your work.
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Carl H. Starrett II, Esq. chs...@ix.netcom.com
>> http://www.netcom.com/~chstarr
>My statements may defy conventional wisdom, but not logic.
To the contrary they not only defy conventional wisdom, they lack any
logic whatseover and rest on a bed of pure fantasy.
Mr. Starrett is just too kind in his language.
--
Paul M.