Curiosity Corner #101 Who owns the stamps on mail?
Rodney
Courtesy Aust Stamp News 1991
Author Les Winick Chicago
rod...@touch88gum.com.au
(Remove gum to reply)
amesh (Mette)
news:40b6e5b2$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=340
Good question! Exactly the same thing happened to me a couple of years ago,
when I sent a letter to a friend in Holland, franked with a new issue, and
cancelled on the day of issue, particularly meant for my friend's topical
collection. When the letter arrived in Holland, the stamp had carefully
been lifted off, and only the remaining part of the cancellation on the
cover itself was left! The Danish post office rejected any claim, stating
that the stamp could have fallen off during the travel to Holland. The
Dutch post office rejected any claim, stating that their job was to deliver
the mail, which they had done.
But it was still obvious that the stamp had been removed by someone
unauthorized ...
--
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
return address invalid -- contact me through
heindorffstamps at yahoo dot dk
http://www.arthistos.frac.dk
http://www.xs4all.nl/~pkv/slania
http://www.dkchristmasseals.frac.dk
Albumen
office caters to stamp collecting it would be in their interest to prevent
this kind of abuse.
It happens that certain postal employees are knowledgeable collectors. Some
of them, evidently, see the profit in lifting high-value stamps, or
anything they can get away. Dealers also provide a ready market for any
items with a potential mark-up.
Technically it's mail theft since in this case the sender and recipient are
trading in stamps. I suggest hiring a big-time lawyer and going for broke
against the government. Please keep this newsgroup posted as to your
progress. :-)
-a
--
<><><><><><><><><>
Reply? Not to above.
Use a...@ieee.org
<><><><><><><><><>
"Rodney" <rod...@touch88.com.au> wrote in message
news:40b6e5b2$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
Erik
wrote:
I read a story, about a year ago I reckon, where the postman at the
door removed the stamps from the package before handing it over.
The protest that followed was answered with something like " the
stamps are and remain property of the post, you only pay for the
tranport of the package. You are not entittled to these stamps."
If this story is true? I can't tell, but It was published in the
philatellic press. (can't recall which paper it was).
Erik
LN in DC
lost stamps on mail, not the question of who owns the stamps.
Under an obscure U.S. law, the post office owns the stamps on the
letters, even after you receive them. Technically, in this country,
the theft was from the post office, not the sender or the receiver of
the mail. In the case of international mail, which government was the
victim is yet to be deterined. If the government from which the mail
left doesn't have the same law as the U.S. does, then the victim would
be some other owner. In countries where the post offices have been
privatized, then the post office as a commercial entity and not a
government would be the victim - unless the commercial entity sells
the stamps and doesn't actually treat them as advance receipts isssued
for services provided. As governmental issues, stamps are obligations
of the state - commercial firms well products - they can't issue
official obligations like that.
In the case of Germany, when you mail a package, the stamps go on a
parcel tag, not on the package itself - and the post office keeps the
tag on arrival. You can't claim the stamps from the tag - the postal
clerk will tell you that they belong to the state (the state Finance
Ministry issues the stamps that the German privatized post office uses
and which "sells" as agent of the treasurer).
In years past, one of the best ways to get quantities of used high
value stamps was through state auctions of the mailing tags.... it was
in these auctions that the state actually sold the property rights to
the use stamps.
Technically, in countries where the stamps are obligations of the
state, and to the extent they haven't been demonetized, they state
could confiscate collections as being full of state owned property.
When Europe went to the Euro and administrations "bought" back old
stamps demonetized in the former national currencies, they were not
"buying" back anything, they were merely refunding what mailers paid
in advance for services that could no longer be given using the
"obligations to perform a service in the future through the use of the
stamps" that people had purchased in advance.
In short, getting the state to procesute someone who stole the stamps
off a letter sent to you is going to be tough - and even if your
bagatelle complaint managed to get action, the state would maybe not
be under any obligation to turn its property over to you even if it
found out who took it and managed to retreive it.
Len Nadybal
Washington DC
On Fri, 28 May 2004 15:12:54 +0800, "Rodney" <rod...@touch88.com.au>
wrote:
>http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=340
Eric Bustad
Interesting. Do you have any cites for these laws?
= Eric
LN in DC
It all starts from:
TITLE 18 US Code> PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1. > Sec. 8.
Sec. 8. - Obligation or other security of the United States defined
The term ''obligation or other security of the United States''
includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank
currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons,
United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver
certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills,
checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of
the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of
whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled
United States stamps"
---
Note "canceled US stamps - that includes used ones.
Nothing in the law intends that the nature of these things as
obligation of the U. S. shall cease, even once cancelled!
Collectors of stamps are, in legal reality, accumulators of
obligations fof the U. S.
About the German post - I'll have to research that a little.
There was an analysis of the legal property rights over German stamps
in the Deutsche Briefmarken Zeitung years ago, but I'm not sure that
it was an article I clipped. maybe.
There's an Autralian post website that makes reference to this issue -
how if you ask for personalized stamps and they print them and later
find out you plagiarized or stole someone else's image for placement
on an obligation of the Australian government, how you have committed
a crime of more than just copyright violation, but defrauded the state
by causing it to reproduce a fraudulent image on a fiscal document of
the state.
Regards
LN
LN in DC
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1. > Sec. 15. Prev | Next
Sec. 15. - Obligation or other security of foreign government defined
The term ''obligation or other security of any foreign government''
includes, but is not limited to, uncanceled stamps, whether or not
demonetized"
LN
Joshua Kreitzer
>
> Under an obscure U.S. law, the post office owns the stamps on the
> letters, even after you receive them.
I looked at the U.S. Code online at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ and was unable to locate this law,
and I wonder how such a law could be consistent with the existence of
philately. Wouldn't all the sales of U.S. stamps by private parties
be invalid if the sellers never owned the stamps?
> When Europe went to the Euro and administrations "bought" back old
> stamps demonetized in the former national currencies, they were not
> "buying" back anything, they were merely refunding what mailers paid
> in advance for services that could no longer be given using the
> "obligations to perform a service in the future through the use of the
> stamps" that people had purchased in advance.
I do not know what all of the European postal services did with regard
to refunding stamps denominated in the pre-euro currencies, but not
all of them declared that mailing services could not be provided using
stamps denominated in the old currency. According to the following
article, France, at least, continues to accept stamps denominated in
francs at the fixed franc-euro conversion rate.
http://faqphilatelie.lautre.net/article.php3?id_article=58
(article in French)
Also, Sweden's postal service would have continued to accept stamps
denominated in krona if Sweden had adopted the euro, based on the
krona-euro conversion rate which would have been fixed. As it turned
out, Sweden didn't adopt the euro so that didn't become necessary.
http://www.championstamp.com/Acrobat/ChampionSC.pdf
Other euro-using countries have different practices. Finland will
allow use of denominated stamps through 2011, for example.
http://www.posti.fi/english/tariffsandrates/pricecalculators/eurocalculator/
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
Joshua Kreitzer
>
> Other euro-using countries have different practices. Finland will
> allow use of denominated stamps through 2011, for example.
That should say "mark-denominated stamps through 2011."
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
Eric Bustad
States'' seems a long way from saying that the stamp is the property of
the United States.
= Eric
Eric Bustad
>[snip]
> I do not know what all of the European postal services did with regard
> to refunding stamps denominated in the pre-euro currencies, but not
> all of them declared that mailing services could not be provided using
> stamps denominated in the old currency. According to the following
> article, France, at least, continues to accept stamps denominated in
> francs at the fixed franc-euro conversion rate.
> http://faqphilatelie.lautre.net/article.php3?id_article=58
> (article in French)
>
> Also, Sweden's postal service would have continued to accept stamps
> denominated in krona if Sweden had adopted the euro, based on the
> krona-euro conversion rate which would have been fixed. As it turned
> out, Sweden didn't adopt the euro so that didn't become necessary.
> http://www.championstamp.com/Acrobat/ChampionSC.pdf
>
> Other euro-using countries have different practices. Finland will
> allow use of denominated stamps through 2011, for example.
> http://www.posti.fi/english/tariffsandrates/pricecalculators/eurocalculator/
_What about all those Pre-euro Stamps?_
From the Greater Eastside Stamp Society newsletter, November 2003,
by Eric Bustad
All of the countries that have adopted the euro now issue stamps with
denominations in euros. One might expect that all of the stamps that
were denominated in the older currencies would now be invalid, but that
is not always the case. Most of these countries allowed the old stamps
to be used for a limited time that has now expired. But Belgium, France
(including Andorra, Mayotte, St Pierre Et Miquelon, and TAAF), Monaco
and the Netherlands will allow the old stamps to be used indefinitely.
For France, that includes stamps denominated in the old pre-1960 franc
currency (100 old francs = 1 new franc = about 0.15 euros). Of course,
these stamps are only valid for their equivalent value in euro currency.
Pre-euro stamps issued by Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Portugal (including Azores and Madeira), Spain (including Andorra) and
the United Nations in Vienna are no longer valid. Of these countries,
only Austria still allows you to turn in old stamps for new. But this
can be done only until December 19, 2003, and you will be charged a fee
of 10% of the value, minimum 12 euros. Through the end of August 2003,
about 5.5 million euros worth of old Austrian stamps had been exchanged
for new. Note that for Germany, the stamps issued for East Germany and
Berlin have been invalid for over a decade, although I have seen some
Berlin stamps illegally used since then.
Finland still allows pre-euro stamps to be used, but only until the end
of 2011.
Two other countries/territories are using the euro as their standard money:
Montenegro, while formally still in a federation with Serbia, was using
the German Deutsch Mark in addition to the old Yugoslav/Serbian dinar.
When the Deutsch Mark went away, they switched to the euro, apparently
without benefit of any formal agreement with the EU. No DM stamps seem
to have been issued. From sometime in the Summer of 2002, until August
of this year, the Montenegro Post seems to have been using
non-denominated stamps that had been reissued in new colors and sold
there for € 0.13 and € 0.52 (domestic and European letter rates). This
August, Montenegro and Serbia made an agreement on what stamps to use in
the federation. All stamps now say "Serbia and Montenegro" in either
Roman or Serbian Cyrillic text. All commemoratives show both dinar and
euro values, at conversion rates varying from 57.4 to a bit over 68.57
dinar to the euro. In one case, different conversion rates were used on
different stamps on the same miniature sheet! In September, two sets of
new definitives were issued: One with Cyrillic text and values only in
Dinar, another with Roman text and values only in euro. Only the latter
issue is shown on the Montenegro Post web site. But I can find no
information on whether dinar-only stamps are valid in Montenegro.
Kosovo, under UN administration, had been using the DM and had a set of
stamps issued in 2000 with DM values by the UNMIK (United Nations
interim administration Mission In Kosovo). Starting in January, 2002,
they have been using only euro currency, without official agreement with
EU. A dual DM/euro currency set was issued in November 2001. Another
set, using the same design as the dual currency stamps, was issued in
May 2002 with values in euros only. No information on continuing
validity of DM-only stamps. Note that Scott lists these stamps in
Volume One, under the heading "U.N., Kosovo".
Erik
One thing is conflicting in the story.
The stamps may legally stay the property of the Post office, but how
do they want to get them back.
By removing them from the mail, they will destroy or at least leave
marks on the property of the sender/receiver, the envelope or packing
paper.
This would give the sender/receiver of the package the right to
decline the postal authorities to remove the stamps.
This law is also not intended to give the postal authorities the right
to remove stamps from our packages.
Stamps can be seen as a currency to pay a certain service.
The same as with money, this "currency" has to be protected and
therefore is owned by the authorities. Officially
I think you have the same right to your stamps as you have to your
money. Although for protection reasons it is owned by the postal
authorities, it is not reclaimable.
I would guess if it came to court the postal department would have to
give up its right to the stamps.
I give you two reasons.
By comparing it to money, like I just did before, where hell would
break loose if the state would reclaim that and point out these laws
are similar and therefore also stamps are not reclaimable, I think you
should already win this.
Secondly there is something like law by habit. (at least, in the
Netherlands)
For example, your neighbor for years uses part of your garden to get
to a tree in his garden to water it. After years you get into a fight
and you forbid your neighbor to enter your garden.
As it was tolerated for years a judge can rule that it became a habit
and therefore the neighbor has now the right to use the garden to
water his plants.
Long story.
Since the beginning of the use of stamps, there are collectors of
stamps without the postal authorities reclaiming the stamps.
This has become a habit.
Even more so, the postal authorities sell stamps, specifically to
collectors, they support the hobby.
Think of the american banknote archive that was sold through auction.
It therefore is unlikely a judge would rule that stamps that went over
the counter, even used stamps are to be given back to the postal
authorities.
Erik
On Sun, 30 May 2004 19:17:55 GMT, lnad...@bhutan.org (LN in DC)
wrote:
LN in DC
Here (USA) we say "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
How do they get them back? They can get them back as easily as they
can take your front yard for a public road! You could be accused of a
crime of fraud with your stamps, and they'd wind up in the evidence
vault! No problem. Then, who possesses them and has not only their
1/10ths of the law, but your 9/10ths, too? Their 1/10th is title -
your 9/10ths is limited to "rights of use".
Have you ever seen contracts where it says something like "just
because me don't exercise a right from time to time is not to be
construed as abandonment of any rights? The State's ownership goes on
as long as the law is on the books - it doesn't have to write you a
letter to remind you that it is "refreshing" its rights..
LN
Joshua Kreitzer
> Gewohnheitrecht?
> Here (USA) we say "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> How do they get them back? They can get them back as easily as they
> can take your front yard for a public road! You could be accused of a
> crime of fraud with your stamps, and they'd wind up in the evidence
> vault!
>
>
> >One thing is conflicting in the story.
> >
> >The stamps may legally stay the property of the Post office, but how
> >do they want to get them back.
In contrast to your opinion, there is the case of _Morris v. Runyon_
which was decided by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia in 1994.
The plaintiffs in that case had purchased sheets of the "Legends of
the West" stamp sheet which included the Bill Pickett error (the
person depicted on the stamp was Bill Pickett's brother Ben). These
stamps had been sold without the Postal Service's authorization prior
to the officially scheduled release date. When USPS recalled the
erroneous sheets, they found that some of them had already been sold,
and so decided to release 150,000 more of the error sheets for sale to
alleviate the rarity and make up for the printing costs.
The plaintiffs sued the postmaster general to stop the release of the
150,000 error sheets, but the court ruled that they did not have
standing to bring suit, and they had failed to state a claim for
deprivation of property. Specifically, the court stated, "None of
Plaintiffs' rights of ownership or possession have been affected or
curtailed. Plaintiffs are still able to do as they please with their
stamp sheets--they may keep them, give them away, frame them, burn
them, recycle them, trade them in for other stamps--or use them." So
the plaintiffs couldn't stop the USPS from releasing the additional
error sheets, but at least they still owned their own stamps.
If the USPS truly owned all stamps, then the court would not have been
so broadminded about the plaintiffs' ownership rights in the stamps.
Rather, the plaintiffs, by alerting the USPS to the fact that they
owned recalled stamps, would have risked having their stamps seized
instead. (If the USPS owned the stamps, it could have filed a
countersuit against the plaintiffs to demand that they give back the
stamps in compliance with the recall -- but it didn't.)
Also, with regard to your comments about the government being able to
"take your front yard for a public road," the government can do that,
but only by paying compensation to the owner under eminent domain.
While the amount of the compensation is not necessarily fair in all
cases, that is not the same thing as saying that the government owned
the yard *before* it paid the compensation, or that USPS owns postage
stamps after it sells them to people.
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
A.E. Gelat
"Joshua Kreitzer" <grom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:196aebc5.04060...@posting.google.com...
This is the first intelligent answer I have seen on the ownership of stamps.
Tony
Mr. Tracy Barber
wrote:
>The plaintiffs in that case had purchased sheets of the "Legends of
>the West" stamp sheet which included the Bill Pickett error (the
>person depicted on the stamp was Bill Pickett's brother Ben). These
>stamps had been sold without the Postal Service's authorization prior
>to the officially scheduled release date. When USPS recalled the
>erroneous sheets, they found that some of them had already been sold,
>and so decided to release 150,000 more of the error sheets for sale to
>alleviate the rarity and make up for the printing costs.
A crappy deal for the original collectors, a cry of relief to those
who didn't have it, and a smart move for USPS. considering they sold
them by lottery - or some such. A local PO carrier won 1 of the
sheets and asked me what they were worth.
>The plaintiffs sued the postmaster general to stop the release of the
>150,000 error sheets, but the court ruled that they did not have
>standing to bring suit, and they had failed to state a claim for
>deprivation of property. Specifically, the court stated, "None of
>Plaintiffs' rights of ownership or possession have been affected or
>curtailed. Plaintiffs are still able to do as they please with their
>stamp sheets--they may keep them, give them away, frame them, burn
>them, recycle them, trade them in for other stamps--or use them." So
>the plaintiffs couldn't stop the USPS from releasing the additional
>error sheets, but at least they still owned their own stamps.
Maybe they could have cried foul about "future value". ????? Present
value being only postage or a small increase due to "rarity".
But - who would set the precedent about *future value* ?
>If the USPS truly owned all stamps, then the court would not have been
>so broadminded about the plaintiffs' ownership rights in the stamps.
>Rather, the plaintiffs, by alerting the USPS to the fact that they
>owned recalled stamps, would have risked having their stamps seized
>instead. (If the USPS owned the stamps, it could have filed a
>countersuit against the plaintiffs to demand that they give back the
>stamps in compliance with the recall -- but it didn't.)
Which is what happened with the Curtis Jenny, CIA invert and others,
right? The govt. / USPS could have asked for them back, just like
other 100s of EFOs.
>Also, with regard to your comments about the government being able to
>"take your front yard for a public road," the government can do that,
>but only by paying compensation to the owner under eminent domain.
In real life, this does truly happen. A bridge collapsed between
Albany and Johnstown on Route 90, right over a prestigious farmer's
property. A big fight ensued, but the govt. won the battle about
eminent domain and the farmer paid a pittance.
>While the amount of the compensation is not necessarily fair in all
>cases, that is not the same thing as saying that the government owned
>the yard *before* it paid the compensation, or that USPS owns postage
>stamps after it sells them to people.
This would be unreasonable to expect it. When purchasing software,
one usually doesn't own the source code to said software nor can do
with it what they will to sell it over and over again. One usually
gets a license to use it. Usually, as MS states, a *EULA*.
It would be totally absurd to think that USPS would simply grant a
license for the stamps it sells. There is a *EULA* sort of thing
associated with it, which grants moving of postal matter with said
stamps on them - but - I have yet to see a USPS rep come knocking on
anyone's door requesting they return used stamps (or mint), in
general. Part of the *EULA* for stamps is appropriate usage of said
stamps, not appropriate possession.
Unless, of course, they are stolen property of USPS... How many of us
here have held up a post office, printing plant or carrier for stamps
lately?
Further - let's look at the Smithy and their sales of older revenue
stamps, yes? If USPS wanted to be a real ___ ___ ___ about it, don't
you think they'd go after a cash cow instead of a loss leader like us
little *collectors* ?
'Nuff Said.
Tracy Barber
Eric Bustad
The CIA Invert is kind of different -- They were all owned by the CIA.
>[snip]
= Eric
Mr. Tracy Barber
Who said that? Where's that wire? oops...
Tracy Barber
LN in DC
guys because the guys took something that was bought with someone
else's money, and replaced the items with duplicates.
My contention is that the stamps were "owned" by the post office and
the guys who replaced them with copies used copies as replacements
that they didn't own.
Re: the Legends of the West issue - I noticed the caveat at the top of
the argument that preceded all the discussion and quotes from the case
- that the purchasers EITHER owned or possessed them, without saying
which. I contend they didn't OWN them, only possessed them. The
resutls of the case could have come out the same in either instance.
Without saying which, leaves the value of that case as a poor
precedence.
Possession being 9/10th of the law around here, the post office, in a
judicial fit of equity, wasn't allowed by the court to pursue the
possessors.
I'll see if I can find a precendence that goes the other way from the
Legends result.
LN
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:21:40 -0700, Eric Bustad
<ekbu...@monmouth.com> wrote:
Dominique Stéphan
About removed stamps on letter, as strange as it seems
it's also a collection subject !
See (in french, sorry, I'm the webmaster of the site),
<url:http://amisdemarianne.free.fr/ou_sont_les_mariannes.html>
Actually, it's fun to see that something that
remove any value to a document to some people
is what make it a good item for another collector !
Other samples include perfins, heavy cancel (bad
for stamp, but the cancel may be good), damaged
letters, ...
--
Cordialement
Dominique Stéphan
http://www.timbre-poste.com/ Timbres-poste d'usage courant
http://amisdemarianne.free.fr/ Cercle des Amis de Marianne
Rodney
http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=359
PMATS5
All I can say is that the Oz Post Office has a way to go in its handling of the
mail. Look at this example from the US Post Office. They strive to be the
best in whatever category is presented.
http://members.aol.com/pmats5/oops27.jpg
Actually, I have been collecting material like this for several years and have
an exhibit entitled "OOPS" that has many of the strange things that have gone
through the postal system US and others. It all started with a cover rated at
$12.00 that had 12 - $2.00 stamps affixed by the USPO. The clerk wrote $12 on
the parcel and then put on the $2 stamps. His account was probably $12 short
at the end of the day.
George
Rodney
You need Charles McKinley in your collection.
He mailed himself to Texas.
(at the cargo rate)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3095592.stm
............"Only in America"
PMATS5
I am now going to redesign the page for this item. It just used to be an
"OOPS" Now it will be listed as a unique US bisect!
Thanks,
George
Joshua Kreitzer
>
> Re: the Legends of the West issue - I noticed the caveat at the top of
> the argument that preceded all the discussion and quotes from the case
> - that the purchasers EITHER owned or possessed them, without saying
> which. I contend they didn't OWN them, only possessed them. The
> resutls of the case could have come out the same in either instance.
> Without saying which, leaves the value of that case as a poor
> precedence.
I assume you are referring to the quote from the case, "None of
Plaintiffs' rights of ownership or possession have been affected or
curtailed." However, earlier in this thread you stated:
>Under an obscure U.S. law, the post office owns the stamps on the
>letters, even after you receive them.
If there was such a law, then the court wouldn't even have suggested
that the stamp purchasers had rights of ownership. Furthermore, the
law would certainly have been discussed in the case. The court
stated, "Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have violated their
Constitutional rights because the Postal Service's sale of 150,000
additional Pickett Error Sheets will diminish the value of those
sheets they now own." Even if you assume that the court was merely
reporting the plaintiffs' contention that they "now own" the stamps,
it would certainly have been relevant to point out that the plaintiffs
didn't actually own the stamps if in fact that had been the case.
You also cited (elsewhere in this thread) the following law:
>TITLE 18 US Code - PART I - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 8.
>Sec. 8. - Obligation or other security of the United States
>defined
>The term "obligation or other security of the United States" includes
>all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency,
>Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United
>States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates,
>fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts
>for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States,
>stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination,
>issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.
This shows that U.S. stamps are obligations or other securities of the
United States, but does not say anything about who owns them. The
definition of "obligations or other securities of the United States"
comes into play with regard to laws such as the following:
>TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 25 - Sec. 473.
>Sec. 473. - Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
>Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers
>any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other
>security of the United States, with the intent that the same be
>passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under
>this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
... which prohibits people from dealing in counterfeit stamps (among
other things), but neither this law nor any other I have seen
prohibits people from owning legitimate postage stamps.
Joshua Kreitzer
grom...@hotmail.com
LN in DC
wrote:
>lnad...@bhutan.org (LN in DC) wrote in message news:<40c3a9eb...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com>...
>>
>> Re: the Legends of the West issue - I noticed the caveat at the top of
>> the argument that preceded all the discussion and quotes from the case
>> - that the purchasers EITHER owned or possessed them, without saying
>> which. I contend they didn't OWN them, only possessed them. The
>> resutls of the case could have come out the same in either instance.
>> Without saying which, leaves the value of that case as a poor
>> precedence.
>
I assume you are referring to the quote from the case, "None of
Plaintiffs' rights of ownership or possession have been affected or
curtailed." However, earlier in this thread you stated:
Re: the above, it's a well known intention of the courts to not
address anything when they don't have to - notice today's "In God"
decision in the pledge of allegiance case. Mentioning both
"ownership" and "possession" leaves the question open.
I believe one may not own (have property title over) obligations of
the United States. The parallel is found in cases of software people
"buy" and think they "own" when they only "licensed" it, in your
passport which pay for but which says right in it is property of the
US (you can't even write in it legally), your government
identification card, your drivers license, your active credit card -
none of which you "own", all of which you must surrender when demanded
by the issuer (owner).
.
>
>>Under an obscure U.S. law, the post office owns the stamps on the
>>letters, even after you receive them.
>
>If there was such a law, then the court wouldn't even have suggested
>that the stamp purchasers had rights of ownership. Furthermore, the
>law would certainly have been discussed in the case.
Not necessarily. I can cite lots of cases where the court fully
ignored ancillary issues like that. They could have written
"ownership or possession (if any)" and I owuld put any stock one way
or another in the words with that "clarification" or inserted element
of doubt, any more than I give much weight to the fact that "rights of
ownership" was included. Doesn't mean there are any. Adding
possession to ownership means "it could be one or the other or both
that possibly exist, so we'll mention both".
>The court
>stated, "Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have violated their
>Constitutional rights because the Postal Service's sale of 150,000
>additional Pickett Error Sheets will diminish the value of those
>sheets they now own."
They should have written "...that they paid for", but needed a stretch
to make a case..
>Even if you assume that the court was merely
>reporting the plaintiffs' contention that they "now own" the stamps,
>it would certainly have been relevant to point out that the plaintiffs
>didn't actually own the stamps if in fact that had been the case.
Would have been, but I can't assign any meaning to the fact that
brevity or laziness took the day.
>
>You also cited (elsewhere in this thread) the following law:
>
>>TITLE 18 US Code - PART I - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 8.
>>Sec. 8. - Obligation or other security of the United States
>>defined
>>The term "obligation or other security of the United States" includes
>>all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency,
>>Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United
>>States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates,
>>fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts
>>for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States,
>>stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination,
>>issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.
>
>This shows that U.S. stamps are obligations or other securities of the
>United States, but does not say anything about who owns them.
I'm still looking for the citation for this. Linns Stamp News
published an article about it about 20 years ago that I saved.
I can't find it. I'm looking to other sources, but haven't lucked
upon it, yet. There are court cases denying ownership, but I didn't
want to pay for a Lexis search until I ran out of other possible
sources.
>definition of "obligations or other securities of the United States"
>comes into play with regard to laws such as the following:
>
>>TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 25 - Sec. 473.
>>Sec. 473. - Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
>>Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers
>>any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other
>>security of the United States, with the intent that the same be
>>passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under
>>this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
>
>... which prohibits people from dealing in counterfeit stamps (among
>other things), but neither this law nor any other I have seen
>prohibits people from owning legitimate postage stamps.
>
>Joshua Kreitzer
>grom...@hotmail.com
On 10 Jun 2004 18:41:33 -0700, grom...@hotmail.com (Joshua Kreitzer)
wrote:
>lnad...@bhutan.org (LN in DC) wrote in message news:<40c3a9eb...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com>...