Curiosity Corner #101 Who owns the stamps on mail?

Saying that a stamp is an ''obligation or other security of the United
States'' seems a long way from saying that the stamp is the property of
the United States.

= Eric

LN in DC wrote:
Hi, Eric,

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






On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:59:50 -0700, Eric Bustad
wrote:

LN in DC wrote:

The replies all touched on the refulsal of the post to reimburse for
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

Interesting. Do you have any cites for these laws?

= Eric


On Fri, 28 May 2004 15:12:54 +0800, "Rodney"
wrote:

http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox...to&PhotoID=340

Courtesy Aust Stamp News 1991
Author Les Winick Chicago

Joshua Kreitzer wrote:
[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/arti...?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/tariffsa...urocalculator/

_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".

My thoughts to this .... again

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, (LN in DC)
wrote:

The replies all touched on the refulsal of the post to reimburse for
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"
wrote:

http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox...to&PhotoID=340

Courtesy Aust Stamp News 1991
Author Les Winick Chicago


(Remove gum to reply)

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! 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






On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:35:39 +0200, Erik wrote:

My thoughts to this .... again

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, (LN in DC)
wrote:

The replies all touched on the refulsal of the post to reimburse for
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"
wrote:

http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox...to&PhotoID=340

Courtesy Aust Stamp News 1991
Author Les Winick Chicago


(Remove gum to reply)

(LN in DC) wrote in message om...
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!

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:35:39 +0200, Erik wrote:

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

"Joshua Kreitzer" wrote in message
om...
(LN in DC) wrote in message
om...
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!

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:35:39 +0200, Erik wrote:

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


This is the first intelligent answer I have seen on the ownership of stamps.

Tony

On 6 Jun 2004 01:29:31 -0700, (Joshua Kreitzer)
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

Mr. Tracy Barber wrote:
On 6 Jun 2004 01:29:31 -0700, (Joshua Kreitzer)
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.

The CIA Invert is kind of different -- They were all owned by the CIA.

[snip]

= Eric

I don't think the issue was that the CIA owned them - they got the
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.

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
wrote:

Mr. Tracy Barber wrote:
On 6 Jun 2004 01:29:31 -0700, (Joshua Kreitzer)
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.

The CIA Invert is kind of different -- They were all owned by the CIA.

[snip]

= Eric

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:21:40 -0700, Eric Bustad
wrote:

Mr. Tracy Barber wrote:
On 6 Jun 2004 01:29:31 -0700, (Joshua Kreitzer)
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.

The CIA Invert is kind of different -- They were all owned by the CIA.

Who said that? Where's that wire? oops...

Tracy Barber