Spooky Times When Living In The Private Sector
By: JaMes CreAtive
If a "man" goes to his friend's house for a month or so or maybe more but has not entered a U.S.P.S. CHANGE OF ADDRESS and later a different party he knows sends mail for him at that new "physical address" what will happen to this newly addressed mailing piece?
Why ask this? Does he want to buck the system?
Is that possibly happening in his life?
Perhaps he owes nothing to anyone and values his freedom and privacy
Whenever a "person" temporarily stays at a friend's house for a month or even through a winter or so, without submitting a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) change of address form, any new mail sent to him at that temporary address is technically misdelivered or handled as mail for an unknown/unlisted resident at that delivery point. It should still arrive there if the postal carried has two nickles to rub together inside their brain.
Based on official postal procedures and regulations outlined in the U.S. Postal Service guidelines, here is what typically happens to that newly addressed mailing piece:
Delivery to the Address:
If the mail carrier sees the individual's name on the envelope and assumes he receives mail there—or if the carrier simply delivers all mail bearing that street address to the mailbox—the letter will be placed in the friend's mailbox.
Action by the Resident:
Because the man has not filed a temporary change of address with the USPS, his name is not officially registered in the postal database for that specific address as a current resident.
If the homeowner or the friend recognize that the person does not officially receive regular mail there (or if they are strict about matching names), they are instructed by postal guidelines to write "Not at this address" or "Return to Sender" on the envelope and place it back in the mailbox for pickup.
Return to Sender:
Once the postal carrier retrieves the marked mailing piece, it will be processed and sent back to the original sender.
Because no temporary or permanent forwarding order exists in the USPS system for that name at that address, the post office cannot redirect it anywhere else.
It is important to note that opening mail not addressed to you is a federal offense under U.S. law, even if it arrives at a home where you are currently staying, unless you have explicit permission from that person.
If a temporary guest is expecting important correspondence while away from home for a month, standard practice is to either set up a temporary USPS change of address (which covers durations from 15 days up to 1 year) or have mail sent to a secure alternative location.
Tell me the legal difference between the words: man, person. This is another private guy topic
To understand the legal distinction between the words "man" and "person," one must examine the foundations of statutory interpretation, common law, and jurisprudence. In everyday language, these terms are often used interchangeably, but in the architecture of law, they occupy entirely different categories.
1. Definitions from Legal Dictionaries
Legal lexicons make a sharp demarcation between a physical human being and a legal entity:
Man (Natural Person):
Historically and biologically, a "man" refers to a human being, a living soul of flesh and blood. In classic common law, natural beings possess inherent "natural rights."
However, the naked word "man" rarely appears as a technical term of art in modern statutory codes except when distinguishing gender or referencing human biology.
Person (Legal/Artificial Person):
In legal terminology, a "person" is a legal term of art defined by statute. According to the Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage and standard legal dictionaries like Black’s Law Dictionary, a "person" includes not just human beings (natural persons), but also corporations, partnerships, associations, trusts, and government agencies (artificial or juridical persons).
2. Statutory Inclusion vs. Biological Reality
When a legislature writes a law (such as a tax code, a motor vehicle statute, or a criminal code), it typically includes a "definitions" section.
Statutes almost universally define "person" to include both human beings and corporate/artificial entities. Therefore, in the eyes of statutory law, a human being is only subject to a specific regulation if they fall under the statutory definition of a "person" within that specific code. Jurisprudence establishes that a "person" is a creature of statute; the law creates the legal capacity, duties, and liabilities attached to that status.
3. The Distinction in Sovereignty and Jurisprudence
In certain legal philosophies—particularly those concerning constitutional rights and historical common law—a profound distinction is drawn between the living human and the legal fiction:
The Natural Being ("Man"):
Operates under common law, where rights are viewed as pre-existing, unalienable, and dependent on direct harm, contracts, or torts between living people.
The Legal Entity ("Person"):
Operates under statutory, commercial, and administrative law. When an individual interacts with administrative agencies, fills out government forms, acquires a social security number, or registers a postal address, they frequently interact with the system in the capacity of a legal person (a taxpayer, a licensee, a registrant).
As noted in foundational legal treatises such as Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, municipal and civil laws are crafted to govern legal relations, and they assign the status of "personhood" to grant capacities (such as the ability to sue, own property, or enter contracts) while simultaneously binding that entity to statutory regulations.
4. Person is open for business. Keep a payment method at the ready.
Persons can sue and be sued.
Persons may startup statutory legal fiction.
Persons do business.
PERSONS are COMMERCIAL.
Persons purchase as Customers.
What is done with a purchase is assumed to be another sale.
Did your person "sell" that bag of groceries to your "man"?
Won't those "receipts" tell the story? Hmmm.
Paid for using diminished fiat means that only an increasing debt acquired those dwindling resources.
Now what?
Concerning Administrative Law
What is the name of The Rules of Administrative Procedure?
You know, the procedural rules to defend one's self in Administrative Law Courts?
Turns out that in United States (U.S.) Administrative Law, the primary set of procedural rules governing how federal agencies adjudicate matters, conduct hearings, and issue orders is known as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), codified primarily at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559, 701–706.
Unlike judicial courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, administrative agencies operate under the APA alongside their own agency-specific rules of practice and procedure.
Key Aspects of Administrative Procedure
- The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Enacted in 1946, the APA is the foundational statute governing how federal administrative agencies propose and establish regulations (rule-making) and adjudicate disputes (adjudication). It sets the baseline standards for due process, public notice, the right to present evidence, and the availability of judicial review in federal court.
- Agency-Specific Rules of Practice: Because the APA provides a broad framework, every federal agency (such as the Social Security Administration, the IRS, or the Environmental Protection Agency) promulgates its own specific Rules of Practice and Procedure. These internal regulations dictate the exact mechanics of defending oneself, filing motions, submitting evidence, and appearing before administrative law judges (ALJs). These agency rules are typically published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
- Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJs): Administrative hearings are typically presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rather than an Article III federal judge. While these proceedings resemble trials—featuring witness testimony, cross-examination, and evidentiary exhibits—they are governed by the more flexible rules of administrative due process rather than strict judicial courtroom rules.
For the STATE DISTRICT COURTS, how about their version?
In state-level judicial systems, the procedural rules that govern civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and general proceedings in state district courts (often referred to as trial courts, superior courts, or courts of common pleas) are known as the State Rules of Civil Procedure and State Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Unlike administrative agencies or federal courts, state district courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they handle the vast majority of everyday legal disputes—such as contract breaches, property disputes, family law, torts, and state-level criminal or civil offenses.
Key Characteristics of State District Court Rules
- State Civil and Criminal Procedure: Nearly every U.S. state has adopted its own set of procedural rules, frequently modeled directly after the federal rules (the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). For example, a state might have the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court, or the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).
- Rules of Evidence: Alongside procedural rules, state district courts operate under strict State Rules of Evidence (often mirroring the Federal Rules of Evidence). These rules dictate what kind of testimony, documents, and physical exhibits can be admitted into court during a hearing or trial.
- Local Court Rules: In addition to statewide procedural rules, individual judicial districts or county courts often issue Local Court Rules. These local rules govern administrative details such as specific scheduling timelines, electronic filing requirements, courtroom decorum, and motion-practice schedules unique to that specific district judge or courthouse.
To defend oneself or navigate a state district court, a litigant must consult the specific state's compiled statutes, the state's rules of civil/criminal procedure, and the local rules of that specific judicial district.
How about a Common Law Rulebook for private men and women who haven't mistakenly invoked their PERSONHOOD?
In traditional legal history and jurisprudence, there is no single, codified "common law rulebook" that applies exclusively to living human beings ("men and women") operating outside of statutory or civil status, primarily because the common law itself is uncodified.
Unlike statutory law—which is written down by legislatures into comprehensive codes (like the U.S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations)—the common law is judge-made law derived from centuries of English and American judicial precedent, custom, and legal maxims.
The Nature of Common Law
Historically, the common law was developed through court opinions, treatises, and legal commentaries rather than a published statute book or manual. When individuals historically sought to invoke common-law remedies or defend their rights outside of statutory frameworks, they did not look to a rulebook; instead, they relied on foundational legal principles, historical writs, and established maxims.
The Role of Legal Treatises:
Rather than a rulebook, historical practitioners and scholars looked to authoritative legal treatises such as Sir Edward Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Matthew Bacon’s A New Abridgment of the Law.
These multi-volume works compiled centuries of judicial decisions regarding property, contracts, torts (wrongs), and personal security.
Maxims of Law:
Common law jurisprudence heavily relies on legal maxims—short, concise statements of established legal principles that reflect fundamental equity and reason. Examples often cited in historical legal compendiums include principles such as actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty) and that remedies exist for every injury.
The Distinction of "Personhood" in Common Law:
In historical common law, the terms "man," "citizen," "subject," and "person" were largely synonymous within the context of legal rights and duties; the modern philosophical distinction between a biological human and a legal "person" stems more from modern administrative and statutory interpretations rather than classical common-law pleading, where any living human possessing legal capacity was recognized as a party capable of suing, being sued, or holding property.
In contemporary legal systems, attempting to operate entirely outside of statutory frameworks or civil rules in a modern court generally encounters significant procedural hurdles, as modern courts derive their jurisdiction and operational procedures strictly from constitutions, legislative statutes, and promulgated rules of court.
As I'm eating some food and giving this some thought . . .
I'm at another "Aha!" moment.
Private poor people deciding to be homeless and living under a bridge or inside a cardboard box nearby their wilderness hunting and fishing campsites may get into trouble for vagrant ordinances. Then what?
Therein lies a big clue.
Lawfare 101.
Pesky lawyers! I'm just sayin!
FAT CATS! Pick on someone your own size!
There has to be a win-win in there somewhere, right?
Not the continual win-lose and more lose-lose.
