Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 410 (c)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Timothy Patton
Junior Member

20 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2003 :  14:00:59  Show Profile
On 7/25/03 a statement was made that "A copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 410 (c). This states that the Postal Service shall not require the disclosure of identification from any postal patron". I can't find this. What Title of the Act is the person referring to? This is very important to me as I am filing a complaint with the Postal Rate Commission soon because I am being denied general delivery mail on the basis of the misunderstood 30-day limit in DMM930.1.4 As you undoubtedly know, they're trying to force me into resisdency by signing the pink card. Can you help me locate section 410 (c)? Much thanks.


Advanced Member

198 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2003 :  17:13:51  Show Profile

You MUST stick to your PRINCIPLES! You are NOT a "resident!" You do NOT have an "address!" General Delivery is a Common Right. The 30-day policy does not apply to it. It applies to forwarded mail, or some such nonsense.

Visit the other Forum Topics here. There is a wealth of information.


Edited by - doer on 30 Jul 2003 17:21:28
Go to Top of Page

Junior Member

22 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2003 :  17:50:24  Show Profile

I understand completely what you are saying, and it is all documented in my 30 page complaint to the Postal Rate Commission. There are two service restrictions in this regard. One is based on "suitable identification", and the other is "mail volume" (Domestic Mail Manual 930.1.2). Not that anyone of the restrictions is an issue in my case, but should the postal people try and force an issue such as "suitable identification", I could fall back on The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sec.410 c, but I doubt it exits. I would just like to throw it at them if I had such a law.

I think the problem I am having is that I come from a small town and the post office has only a "Acting-Postmaster" or "Officer-in-Charge", who doesn't have the authority to handle general delivery mail. So what is going to happen here is that the Acting-Postmaster will probably either get fired or she'll resign--that's better than serving a ten year prison term for conspiracy under 18 USC 241 or 18 USC 1701 obstructing passage of mail which is 6 months and a fine. The postal service in small Texas towns has been giving us a bad time. I guess we have to try and score a few victories to get the word out.

Thanks for the reply, Doer.

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © 2003-2020 Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000