O.T. Paging 'A' (as in A@A is A)greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Please e-mail at the address below.
I have a small personal matter relating to one of your posts I'd to discuss with you privately.
-- Yan (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 05, 1999
If this gets to fisticuffs, I GET THE TICKET CONCESSION and King of Spain will just have to wait in the line!
-- Tigger the Scalper (TheHouse@Pooh.Corner), September 05, 1999.
You'll have to get my e-mail address from your contacts in NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, INS, ATF, or Microsoft. Or you can just flame here.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 06, 1999.
I understand your reluctance to respond to a relative stranger; but you may rest assured that I have no interest in your true identity, I despise the three-letter boys at least as much as you do, and (despite the post above) I certainly have no intention of flaming you or anyone else.
My sole reason for wanting to contact you privately is to get your perspective on what I might do regarding a certain regulatory issue you commented on recently and, as best I remember, also in a lengthy rant six or seven months ago. I'd like to be more specific but I trust you'll recall my reference.
Bottom line: I'm only looking for a little help with a personal problem and I'd be most appreciative if you can see your way clear to lend me a hand.
In any case, I always enjoy your posts here and I look forward reading more in the future.
-- Yan (email@example.com), September 06, 1999.
My rants are pretty much for my personal venting purposes and incidentally to maybe raise some consciousness. Unfortunately, not a lot can be done by only a few individuals. Takes quite a few with raised consciousness to do anything. Look at Y2K, a clear and imminent probable (at least possible) danger, and consider how relatively few the number of GIs, and the greatly vaster number of people asleep or DWGI or DGI.
So, the probabilities of anything being done about subjects of my rants not connected to, or just incidental to, Y2K is negligible. That's why, in some ways, I would like to see a 9 or a 10. Clear the decks. Sometimes you got to demolish a building because it is no longer habitable, and see what you can put up in its place.
That being said, let's see if I can recall some rants that you may be talking about. Most are not connected directly with regulatory agencies, so that reduces the numbers possible.
Income tax and withholding
There there ARE some solutions, but no "silver bullet":
Even here, there are likely "civil" problems (vs. criminal), so it necessitates dealing in cash and/or entities such as trusts or corporations for banking and investments.
Related to this is the 'offshore' industry catering to privacy seekers, but the US and other countries like those in the EU, etc., are trying to clamp down on that. Sources:
Gun registration, licensing and confiscation.
We're losing the battle. Some people recommend black market, but it caught with unregistered or banned, problems. So can't use them unless TSHTF; caching is recommended. Others say buy legally, keep some and cache excess.
John Ross outlines a possible solution in his novel "Unintended Consequences" (reviews on amazon.com)
US Postal Service (USPS) National Database
Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRA) offering Private Mail Box (PMB) service are having to get very intrusive USPS Form 1583 filled out by customers. Like for P.O. Boxes themselves, you have to show picture ID plus "proof of residence" somewhere. (Like utility bill, rent receipt, etc.). Those using "executive suite" services are also included. Next, I predict, will be everyone else not on the list -- people sharing offices, roommates, etc.
Defenses against this are expensive, such as renting an office or (another) apartment/room long enough to eastablish an address then moving (but the Post Office wants you to notify them of your move). One could use a friend's or relative's address, but that could jeopardize them (the pigs would trash and/or seize THEIR property, if the pigs are after YOU, for whatever reason, such as not paying a parking ticket, and they determine that you do not have a "real" presence there).
USPS is real serious about this, but there is some fight against it. Postal Watch has a link to Senator Ron Paul who's sponsoring a bill against this.
Money and Gold
Honest money as opposed to US Gov/Federal Reserve money/credit/banking scam.
Can set up accounts as either U.S. or foreign entity.
However, this is ELECTRONIC, and of necessity interfaces with the banking system, and relies on internet communications and/or US Postal Service, so come Y2K -- ??
Know Your Customer (Bank Snooping)
There are already just about all the laws they need. They're just trying to get the banks to do even more. The thrust is to eliminate altogether all cash transactions -- so the threshhold amounts and profiling are continually expanding. Confiscation of cash is a real danger (what are you, a secretary, doing with $2000 in your purse?)
Offshore accounts accessible by ATM have been recommended, but that depends on a functioning banking system, worldwide. About the only alternative I know of is lots of cans of Spam, and midnight gardening for the excess. Yes this is seriously inconvenient. Thank all the sheeple who make this possible.
All my other rants are about things that don't directly have to do with the bureaucracy, such as religion (the stupidity thereof), population and ecology (people breed like rats, with no thought of consequence, then wonder why their water gets contaminated).
BTW, if it's about allodial title or land patents, there may be some validity to this, but **I** myself haven't seen anything real, which is not to say it isn't. Related to that -- zoning and use permits -- you're screwed, unless you can figure out who to pay off.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 06, 1999.
Thanks for responding 'A'
O.K., at the risk of some personal exposre here, it's the private mail box problem I'm looking to solve. Can you offer any viable workaround or solution? This one's got me totally stumped so far; but like most things I'm sure there's an answer out there somewhere.
-- Yan (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 07, 1999.
Yan -- not really any good solution right now -- that's the objective of the government -- to keep closing doors.
PostalWatch (see above) and Ron Paul (and for info, Cato, and the Libertarian Party) are working on it, but it's an uphill battle, and probably not gonna be successful -- this is a top priority government project -- the national database -- regardless of their denials.
http://www.sovereignsociety.com says they will address this subject in their newsletter (October issue), but it's rather pricey.
The only "solutions" involve things the government would consider illegal, naturally. Semi-legal options might be to share office space with another private person, become a "roommate" with someone. These require your name on a utility or rent agreement or maybe a notarized paper from whoever is on the utility bill or lease.
I understand that some people who have some money so they have a lawyer doing a lot for them, get their mail in care of the lawyer.
Another possibility -- assuming the USPS is gonna continue to be hard-nosed about PO Boxes and PMBs -- is to see if you can hold their feet to the fire by getting everything addressed "General Delivery." (But I don't know what the ID requirements with that to pick up your mail would be.)
The CMRA can still be used for Fedex, UPS, DHL, etc., with no problem, without a 1583.
I won't even get into "alternate ID" -- helps to be an illegal mexican immigrant for that to be done easily.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 07, 1999.
Yan -- also various offshore options. But that's a problem -- takes money. Every new tightening of the vise raises the ante required to escape the bastards. You could have all mail sent to a secretarial service offshore, and they package it up send it once a week by DHL or other non-postal international carrier to you at a CMRA here where you don't have a 1583 on file, but will receive UPS, DHL, etc. This necessarily entails delays, and with Y2K coming will your secretarial service offshore still be in business. Will DHL? Will US customs start inspecting DHL packages?
I won't be able to respond further to this thread for several days. Good luck.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 07, 1999.
An e-mail message from PostalWatch (http://www.postalwatch.org) follows, outlining what's happening. In the meantime, send them some money and get on their e-mail list. Several organizations are attempting to get these arbitrary regs reversed. A similar ploy ("Know Your Customer") by the banksters was postponed by actions led by the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), so possibly something can also be done in this case.
Dear Friends of PostalWatch,
ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS, The USPS has backed down on their demand to release personal information from form 1583 to the general public for those box renters who use their box for business purposes.
This is not however a total victory with respect to privacy issues. The USPS still wants to "water-down" considerably the privacy protections that private box holders have historically enjoyed. If you cross reference all of the citations in the new proposed "Rules," you will find that most local, state, federal, and postal officials can gain access to your personal information quite easily and without a warrant, subpoena or court order. In some cases these proposed "rules" would allow your private information to be obtained based on an "oral" request that would leave no paper trail.
Our position at PostalWatch is that (a) the Postal Service has failed to provide any evidence or analysis that justifies weakening the privacy protections afforded private mail box holders, or for that matter, for the underlying CMRA regulations themselves; (b) one of the fundamental protections afforded American citizens under the Privacy Act of 1974 is the right to know who and for what purpose private information about them is being disclosed. Without a paper trail of requested disclosures, the opportunities for abuse abound. Details and action items follow:
WASHINGTON, Thursday August 26, 1999 // PostalWatch // In a Federal Register posting appearing on pages 46630 through 46632 the Postal Service has rescinded the June 9, 1999 proposed Privacy Rule changes that would have allowed the USPS to release information from form 1583 to the general public for those private box holders who use their box for doing business. Unfortunately they replaced the June 9, 1999 proposed Privacy Rule change with a new proposed Privacy Rule change and the opening of YET ANOTHER COMMENT PERIOD (see Federal Register posting at (http://www.postalwatch.org/new_commentary_period.htm).
PostalWatch has prepared a sample "comment" letter for this latest proposed rule change which is attached below or available on our web site at (http://www.postalwatch.org/comment_19990826.htm). Comments are due no later than September 26, 1999 and everyone should send their complaint letter as soon as possible.
The deadline for the turning in of form 1583 occurred on August 26, 1997; ironically the same day the USPS opened the above comment period. We have received several emails from people desperately requesting advice on what they should do. Unfortunately, we are not in position that would allow us to provide people legal advice. CMRA customers and CMRA operators are going to have to make their own individual judgment calls based on their own risk tolerance. We can however provide the following commentary that will hopefully provide you with food for thought:
1) The last time the 1583 deadline expired (June 26, 1999) the Postal Service did not formally notify anyone of their intent to extend it to August 26, 1999 until they published Postal Bulletin 22002 on July 15, 1999, over two weeks after the expiration of the deadline. 2) We HAVE NOT heard of any instances where the USPS has demanded that the CMRA return a customer's mail for not filling out a "new" 1583. 3) We HAVE heard from some CMRAs of local Postal officials telling CMRAs to "hold" the customers mail until they receive a new 1583 from the customer. Several of these CMRAs as a precautionary measure to defend against any future litigation, have requested the Postal official put these instructions in writing stating "the CMRA is REQUIRED to withhold their customers' mail at the direction of the Postal Service." We have yet to receive confirmation from any CMRA operators that they have received any such direct written notices. 4) In keeping with their long standing "mode-of-operation" of dividing and conquering, the USPS appears to be attempting to pit the CMRA customers against the CMRA operators by coercing the CMRAs into doing the Postal Service's dirty work for them. Incidentally, if the Postal Service wanted to withhold your mail they are legally required to go through a long and involved administrative process in order to do it. 5) Several Congressional offices have made inquiries to the Postal Service as to how they can demand that someone sign the current (March 25,1999) form 1583 with a "Privacy Act Statement" on the back that directly contradicts the Postal Service's reiterated ban of release of personal information to the general public. It is ironic that the USPS announced their decision to continue prohibiting the release of information to the general public in the Federal Register on the very same day that the defective form 1583s are being demanded. 6) There are major discrepancies in the (March 25, 1999) CMRA regulations with respect to form 1583 procedures and how they affect existing CMRA customers. Nowhere in the actual language of the regulations codified into the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) and the Postal Operations Manual (POM) on March 25, 1999 does it state specifically that current CMRA customers are required to submit a "REVISED " or "NEW" (March 25, 1999) Form 1583. The terms "revised form 1583" or "new form 1583" are conspicuously absent from one of the only references about the repercussions to CMRA customers failing to provide 1583 forms. This reference is located in section DO42.2.7 (e) of the DMM entitled "Addressee and CMRA Agreement" and is mirrored in section 612.13 (d) (4) of the POM. This section attempts to dictate the terms and conditions of the (presumably NEW) "Agency Agreement" between CMRAs and their customers. It states "If the CMRA has NO Form 1583 on file for the intended addressee, the CMRA must return that mail to the Post Office responsible for delivery." However the proceeding (DO42.2.7.d) subsection states "A CMRA may not refuse delivery of mail if the mail is for an addressee that is a CUSTOMER OR FORMER CUSTOMER (within the past 6 months)." This raises the question of whether an existing customer who furnished a form 1583 upon the initial rental of the box is a "customer or former customer," in which case the CMRA is required to accept and forward their mail for 6 months. Conversely, do the regulations somehow render the existing "Agency Agreement" and the originally furnished 1583 somehow completely null-and-void as though they never existed? If the later is the case (several contract law questions come to mind) then the CMRA is required to return that persons mail to the Postal Service as if that person was never a customer. 7) The Postal Service appears to be employing the age-old technique of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to accomplish their goals here. Whatever those goals may actually be.
PLEASE NOTE: THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS NOT INTENDED NOR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ADVICE. THIS DISCUSSION REPRESENTS AN INDIVIDUALS PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUE.
PLEASE REMEMBER: CMRAs and their customers need to work together. Don't let the USPS drive a wedge between you. CMRA customers need to be sympathetic to the difficult position the USPS is putting CMRA operators in. Conversely, CMRA operators need to view the problem from their customers' point of view. NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE DIALOG AND TO TAKE ACTION!
Thank you for your continued support.
================= ACTION ALERT =================
Everyone needs to send a comment letter to the Postal Service voicing their opposition to the most recent attempts to modify the Postal Service Privacy Rules as they pertain to release of information from form 1583. The deadline for comments is September 26, 1999 but please don't procrastinate. Send your letter today!
Text of a sample letter follows or can be accessed on the web at: (http://www.postalwatch.org/comment_19990826.htm).
================ SAMPLE LETTER FOR AUGUST 26, 1999 COMMENT PERIOD: ================
September 3, 1999
Manager, Administration and FOIA United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 8141 Washington, DC 20260-5202 Dear Sirs,
I am writing to notify you of my objection to the proposed Privacy Rule changes submitted by the USPS on August 26, 1999. These changes appear on pages 46630 through 46632 of the Federal Register and pertain to release by the U.S. Postal Service of personal information from Postal forms 1583 and 1093.
I am pleased with the Postal Service's decision to rescind the Privacy Rule changes previously proposed on June 9, 1999 and their decision to continue to prohibit the release of private box holder information to the general public.
Please note my objection to any changes to the Postal Service's Privacy Rules, which would allow the release of any information about a private or P.O. box holder to ANYONE without a warrant, subpoena or court order. The Postal Service has not produced any studies demonstrating a need for, or expected benefits to be derived by these changes to the existing privacy rules. I feel the information demanded on form 1583 and these privacy rule changes violate my "expectation of privacy", my rights under the 4th Amendment and the Privacy Act of 1974
I find it unconscionable that Postal Service is currently requiring, in order for me to receive MY MAIL, that I fill out and sign a form 1583 that has an obviously defective "Privacy Statement" on the back. How in the world can any reasonable person expect someone to sign this form when the Postal Service can't even tell people what is going to happen to their private information? Sincerely, Name: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Address: ___________________________
-- Winston (Winston@BB.comx), September 07, 1999.
I'm back. Note first letter of each sentence (4) at the top of "Winston's" post.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 10, 1999.