DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 72)


http://EducationForum.com


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

>>> "One of the silliest arguments I ever saw is DVP saying that the USPS kept a special box for people picking up merchandise from private carriers. HA HA HA" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

Until today [December 1st, 2011], I had never bothered to check on any kind of "official" United States Post Office regulations concerning the handling of C.O.D. mail by the USPS. But today I found an interesting page on the Internet that confirms that the USPS definitely DOES collect money from individuals who receive C.O.D. mail, and the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below). It evidently happens all the time.

The regulations cited below are not 1963 U.S. Post Office regulations (they're from August of 2003), and they don't deal directly with C.O.D. mail and packages sent to P.O. Boxes, but these regulations are certainly indicating that the USPS can and does handle cash and checks from people who receive C.O.D. mail.

Quoting from the "Domestic Mail Manual"; regulation "S900 Special Postal Services" ... "S921 Collect on Delivery (COD) Mail":

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer. The amount collected from the recipient may not exceed $1,000. COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the USPS. ....

4.0 Delivery

Delivery of COD mail is subject to D042. Except for Express Mail COD, a postmaster may restrict delivery of COD mail if the amount to be collected makes the carrier a potential target for theft or if previous experience indicates that the addressee will be unavailable to receive the article at the time of delivery. If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient."


===============

Let me repeat this section of the COD regulation:

"If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient."

Source Link:
http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm


==========================

ADDENDUM:

I'm sure that some conspiracy theorists will be eager to jump on this part of the above USPS regulation:

"And a delivery record is maintained by the USPS."

And the CTers will probably ask: Well, Dave, where is the Post Office record showing that Oswald forked over the C.O.D. money for his revolver? And where is the record of the Post Office forwarding the money collected from Oswald to the Railway Express Agency?

Fair enough questions.

But my follow-up question would be this:

Did anybody ever look or ask for any such "C.O.D." records from the Dallas Post Office following the assassination?

If not, then we can never know whether any such C.O.D. documents were retained by the Dallas Post Office connected with Lee Oswald's pistol purchase.


JIM DiEUGENIO:

>>> "Beside the point. The mailer was REA [Railway Express Agency]. Show me the regulations where the USPS provided fiduciary help to its competitors." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

I already did. The first two words of the USPS regulation that I cited earlier provide the proof that you're wrong on this matter (unless you can provide some proof that these 2003 USPS regulations regarding COD mail are substantially different from the ones in effect in March 1963):

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

Let me repeat that:

"Any mailer..."

It doesn't say "Any mailer (except the Railway Express Agency, because they are our competition)..."

Try again, Jim.


JIM DiEUGENIO:

>>> "Further, go down to the post office and ask them if they do it or have done it. Then go to Fed Ex and ask them if the USPS does it for them or has ever done it for them. More obfuscatory smoke from a shameless obfuscator." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

Not applicable, Jim. FedEx doesn't deliver to P.O. Boxes:

https://www.fedex.com/


And neither does United Parcel Service:

http://www.ups.com/


GREG PARKER INTERJECTED:

>>> "But David, you previously claimed the USPS defined "mailer" as "seller"... "the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below)"." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

Well, Greg, I just put "seller" in there as kind of a clarification word. That was just MY OWN interpretation of "mailer". I guess "mailer" (technically) is a better word. Which is why the USPS uses it in its official regulations.

But, yeah, REA wasn't the one "selling" the revolver to Oswald. REA was just the middle man....which, when we look at those COD regulations I cited (assuming they were about the same in 1963, and why wouldn't they be?), it certainly appears that Seaport Traders THEMSELVES could have shipped Oswald's gun COD directly via U.S. Post Office regular (COD) mail.

In such a case, REA would be taken out of the picture entirely, with Oswald's gun package then going straight to the Dallas Post Office via the USPS itself. The Post Office would have then placed a card inside LHO's PO Box 2915 saying that he had a COD package at the front desk. Oswald would then have presented the card to the USPS clerk, the clerk would have gotten some kind of I.D. from Oswald (or maybe this part was often skipped, per Harry Holmes), and Oswald would have then paid the $19.95 COD cost, and the clerk would have given Oswald his package. The USPS would have then forwarded the money collected from Oswald to the "mailer" (or seller)--Seaport Traders--and that completes the transaction.*

Now, why couldn't that very same process have been done in this case, with REA as the "mailer"?

The 2003 regulation does say, after all, that "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

* 2016 EDIT: And that might very well have been the case in the situation involving Oswald's revolver package. Perhaps the post office collected the $21.22 total COD amount from Lee Oswald, and then the post office forwarded that entire amount to the original seller (Seaport Traders in Los Angeles). And then after receiving the money from the Dallas post office, Seaport settled up with REA by sending them the amount they have coming ($1.27). That scenario would certainly have been a way for Oswald to have picked up his revolver right there at the post office in Dallas, while avoiding the situation that Jim DiEugenio thinks the USPS would never have engaged in--i.e., sending COD money to its "competitors".

David Von Pein
December 1, 2011
August 18, 2016


================================


ALSO SEE THE
RELATED DISCUSSIONS
HERE AND HERE.



================================