Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 64 of 64
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,129

    Default Re: Banned from Mailbox

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    'Effectively owning' something is not the same as legally owning something, just as a virtual experience is not the same as an actually experience. But it is a form of 'owning' or 'exeriencing' just the same.
    It still grates you that I won't accept YOUR definition of "effectively own", does it? Well, sorry Harold but I'm not obligated to accept your definition.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I asked you to describe a 'private mailbox' that the Fed does not have ultimate control over and you didn't/couldn't do it, yet you mention it again.
    Actually, you did not ever ask that. But I've answered it before anyway. The USPS does not own or effectively own my private mailbox because despite the various rules it has for mailboxes it nevertheless does not have the full bundle of rights to my box that an owner has. It cannot, for example, sell or lease my box to someone else. It cannot come on to my property to remove the box or move it to a different location. What the USPS can do is tell me that my box must meet certain design requirements and be placed where it wants if I want to get mail delivered there. That's not insignificant, but it still falls far short of ownership. My city can tell me my home has be located on a certain part of my property and meet building code requirements, similar to the powers the USPS has over my mailbox, and yet the city does not effectively own my property because it lacks the full bundle of rights that an owner has. So under my definition of "effectively own" the USPS comes up short as owning my box. Now, I'm not insisting that you accept my definition of the term; I'm just explaining to you why legally the USPS' rights don't match those of an actual owner. And you've yet to disprove me on that you've never even tried to argue that the USPS effectively has all the same rights as an owner. So you did the next best thing you created your own definition of the term "effectively own" to match your argument. All well and good as far as that goes, but I don't have to accept your definition any more than you have to accept mine. You and I are, in short, looking at this in two different ways. Why you seemingly insist I must accept your view is beyond me.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    An example that is very similar to 'effectively owning' something is a rental car. A renter has ultimate control over it, even is legally responsible for damage to it and others hurt by it, yet the renter did not buy that car.
    That may be effective ownership under your definition of the term, but not mine. A lessee of a car does not have all the rights of an owner. He has the right of possession, which is significant, of course, but he lacks the power to sell or transfer the car to someone else, lacks the power to pledge the car as collateral for loan, etc. Because he lacks those significant rights he is not effectively the owner of it. And indeed because he lacks those important rights I would say he does NOT have "ultimate control" over the car because he does not have the right to dispose of the car as he sees fit. He still has to return that car to the actual owner at the end of the lease term. How can you have ultimate control over an object if you are denied the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of it in any way you want? Can you give me a compelling answer to that?

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    As for the OP, he's gone and we are onto another subject about his mailbox. But if he followed the thread now, he'd know that whoever is messing with his mail within that box is not legally allowed to do that. So, he would benefit from this thread as much as pg1067 is annoyed by it.
    And yet Harold you have never pointed out the exact federal statute that makes what the homeowner is doing illegal. Unless there is such a statute then you are wrong that the homeowner is violating the law. So what law, exactly, are you relying upon here?

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    The USPS is not a law enforcement agency which is why you recommended a futile approach like that.
    ROFLMAO. Really, Harold, you need to actually check your gut responses about the law with some research because I've observed a number of your gut reactions about the law are not right. And this is a a great example. The USPS is a law enforcement agency. It has a Postal Inspection Service which is made of up federal law enforcement officers. Their task is investigating violations of the federal laws relating to the U.S. mails. They carry guns and make arrests just like any other federal law enforcement officer.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    But they could offer legal text that contains the postal delivery law that could be shown to the homeowner. The carrier could even orally warn the homeowner. Either would likely have an impact.
    All of which could occur if the OP followed my suggestion to contact his postmaster.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Also, the OP could put up his own mailbox with is name on it.
    You know enough about the OP's living situation to know that (1) the homeowner could not prevent him from doing that and (2) that the USPS would approve that? I certainly don't know enough about his situation to know if that is possible. But I'll grant you that it is something the OP can look into.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    What I get from you is that you think you are an authority on the law because you can recite statutes and because you have a refined ability to twist words and mislead people, much like a Christian thinks they are an authority on Jesus Christ just because they can recite Scripture. However, I wouldn't trust either person to be accurate, unbiased and truthful.
    And every time you get frustrated when I point out your errors in the law eventually you trot out the lawyer bashing. That's a weak reply Harold. I already know you hate lawyers, me included. So if you ever want to save yourself some time in your replies, you can omit this stuff if you want. I already know how you feel about me.

    I think I'm knowledgeable on the law because I spent 3 years of intensive study of the law in law school and have more than two decades since then practicing the law as a lawyer. And yet for some reason you seem to be upset that someone with a lot of study and experience knows a lot more about a subject than you do when you have comparatively little knowledge of it. You are a contractor, not a lawyer, and as far as I can tell you've not spent much time studying the law or the practice of law. So why does it bother you that I would know more about it? After all, I know very little about building contracting and don't begrudge in the least that you likely know far more about that than I do since that is what you do every day for a living. I don't hate you for knowing it better than I do. I wouldn't bash you for it. IMO, that would be irrational.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: Banned from Mailbox

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    It still grates you that I won't accept YOUR definition of "effectively own", does it? Well, sorry Harold but I'm not obligated to accept your definition.

    Actually, you did not ever ask that. But I've answered it before anyway. The USPS does not own or effectively own my private mailbox because despite the various rules it has for mailboxes it nevertheless does not have the full bundle of rights to my box that an owner has. It cannot, for example, sell or lease my box to someone else. It cannot come on to my property to remove the box or move it to a different location. What the USPS can do is tell me that my box must meet certain design requirements and be placed where it wants if I want to get mail delivered there. That's not insignificant, but it still falls far short of ownership. My city can tell me my home has be located on a certain part of my property and meet building code requirements, similar to the powers the USPS has over my mailbox, and yet the city does not effectively own my property because it lacks the full bundle of rights that an owner has. So under my definition of "effectively own" the USPS comes up short as owning my box. Now, I'm not insisting that you accept my definition of the term; I'm just explaining to you why legally the USPS' rights don't match those of an actual owner. And you've yet to disprove me on that — you've never even tried to argue that the USPS effectively has all the same rights as an owner. So you did the next best thing — you created your own definition of the term "effectively own" to match your argument. All well and good as far as that goes, but I don't have to accept your definition any more than you have to accept mine. You and I are, in short, looking at this in two different ways. Why you seemingly insist I must accept your view is beyond me.

    That may be effective ownership under your definition of the term, but not mine. A lessee of a car does not have all the rights of an owner. He has the right of possession, which is significant, of course, but he lacks the power to sell or transfer the car to someone else, lacks the power to pledge the car as collateral for loan, etc. Because he lacks those significant rights he is not effectively the owner of it. And indeed because he lacks those important rights I would say he does NOT have "ultimate control" over the car because he does not have the right to dispose of the car as he sees fit. He still has to return that car to the actual owner at the end of the lease term. How can you have ultimate control over an object if you are denied the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of it in any way you want? Can you give me a compelling answer to that?

    And yet Harold you have never pointed out the exact federal statute that makes what the homeowner is doing illegal. Unless there is such a statute then you are wrong that the homeowner is violating the law. So what law, exactly, are you relying upon here?

    ROFLMAO. Really, Harold, you need to actually check your gut responses about the law with some research because I've observed a number of your gut reactions about the law are not right. And this is a a great example. The USPS is a law enforcement agency. It has a Postal Inspection Service which is made of up federal law enforcement officers. Their task is investigating violations of the federal laws relating to the U.S. mails. They carry guns and make arrests just like any other federal law enforcement officer.

    All of which could occur if the OP followed my suggestion to contact his postmaster.


    You know enough about the OP's living situation to know that (1) the homeowner could not prevent him from doing that and (2) that the USPS would approve that? I certainly don't know enough about his situation to know if that is possible. But I'll grant you that it is something the OP can look into.

    And every time you get frustrated when I point out your errors in the law eventually you trot out the lawyer bashing. That's a weak reply Harold. I already know you hate lawyers, me included. So if you ever want to save yourself some time in your replies, you can omit this stuff if you want. I already know how you feel about me.

    I think I'm knowledgeable on the law because I spent 3 years of intensive study of the law in law school and have more than two decades since then practicing the law as a lawyer. And yet for some reason you seem to be upset that someone with a lot of study and experience knows a lot more about a subject than you do when you have comparatively little knowledge of it. You are a contractor, not a lawyer, and as far as I can tell you've not spent much time studying the law or the practice of law. So why does it bother you that I would know more about it? After all, I know very little about building contracting and don't begrudge in the least that you likely know far more about that than I do since that is what you do every day for a living. I don't hate you for knowing it better than I do. I wouldn't bash you for it. IMO, that would be irrational.
    If all good lawyers knew the law then they would never disagree or argue in a courtroom.

    If a kid was annoying me by say making noise in front of my house at night, I would hate what he is doing, not hate him. If a comedian kept making fun of me with his skilled ability to do that, I would dislike what he is doing, not hate him. I despise what the defense lawyer was trained to do to me in the courtroom. It is an unethical skill that lawyers are taught. It is that scumbag skill that I despise, not the lawyer. So, when I recognize that skill being exercised by you, do not confuse my hatred of that training as being a hatred of you.

    You seem to not be able to disconnect yourself from the lawyer skills you now possess. Just as a UFC fighter would instinctually use his skills to hurt someone very badly in a fight. But unlike a UFC fighter, you use your set of skills on anyone you choose to disagree with.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,580

    Default Re: Banned from Mailbox

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    IMO, that would be irrational.
    Continuing to bloat thread with pointless bickering is also irrational.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,129

    Default Re: Banned from Mailbox

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    If all good lawyers knew the law then they would never disagree or argue in a courtroom.
    Not so, and you know it. First of all, there are issues of law that are unclear and where the law is unclear the lawyers will each argue for the judge to adopt the interpretation most favorable to his client. Second, as you yourself have said in the past, trials are not just about the law. They are also about the evidence. Attorneys will present sometimes conflicting evidence and will argue to the judge or jury that their evidence is the more compelling. Where the law and facts are pretty clear parties tend to settle pretty quickly. It's when things aren't that clear that cases go to trial.

    Quote Quoting pg1067
    View Post
    Continuing to bloat thread with pointless bickering is also irrational.
    Pointless perhaps, but not necessarily irrational. You are free to respond, or not, as you see fit. So I invite you to skip this thread if it is too bloated for your taste.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: If You're Banned from a Store Are You Banned From the Entire Chain
    By caterpuff in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 05:58 AM
  2. Vandalism and Mischief: Mailbox Vandalism
    By PandorasBox in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 04:05 PM
  3. Careless Driving: Hit a Mailbox While Speeding
    By apatel0408 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 10:21 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Got One of These in My Mailbox Yesterday
    By HonkingAntelope in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 10:56 PM
  5. Quiet Enjoyment: Non-Functioning Mailbox
    By ShuteyeBSG75 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 08:31 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources