Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

import · April 30, 1999, 3:42pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:42:52:

Hi Bill!

Glad you like the book. I share your pain! I’m investigating an “executive suite” kind of thing. There are some details on www.omnioffices.com. They charge $40 per month for mail services although they are NOT a “mail receiving service”. Probably why they don’t have to comply with this new Post Office regulation (if indeed they don’t ultimately have to, like they are now saying. But they may not have been notified yet).

There are other similar places that are waiting for a decision from their legal department before calling me back with a definitive answer. They cost slightly more than $40 per month (more like $50), but they also have offices and conference rooms that you can rent by the hour, to conduct any “formal” business. I’ll let you know what I find out.

But you might be better off sticking with the “meeting room” you have in Reseda, if they will also accept your mail on a permanent basis. Just change all your stationery and literature (as though that were a simple thing).

I think this “law” is worth looking at by the ACLU. They may decide not to take it on, but this is probably the best chance. There is the issue of course, about the swindling of the elderly and “scams” being conducted through the use of these anonymous private mail boxes, so now we get down to the “greater good” theory. That makes it a “debateable” issue, indeed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all the “bad guys” were required to wear a symbol or tattoo on their forehead so that everybody could “know” they were dealing with a “crook”. That would mean the absence of such a marking would give everybody the confidence and “knowledge” that they were dealing with a “straight shooter”. Do you think that might work? And for how long? Long enough for us to get rich?

Brad

import · May 2, 1999, 12:24am

Re: A solution? - Posted by Babesy

Posted by Babesy on May 02, 1999 at 24:24:53:

Not unless they do better than they do in Chandler Arizona 85224. I have had 2 priority mail envelopes, mailed from the entity here in town which issued my Mobile Home Broker’s License and they swear neither one got there, and someone once mailed me cash in an envelope, and the envelope mysteriously opened and some of the cash got up and walked out before it was delivered to my box. Don’t trust MBE with your important documents, people. From now on, I will use it when I think signing up on the Net will result in a large inflow of junk mail. I will use it for that, it is not worth much else. I’ll find a better alternative.

import · April 30, 1999, 12:43pm

Re: A solution? - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 30, 1999 at 12:43:58:

Hope this is the case because I currently don’t put the box number and they do sort it out for me.

Simple but makes sense. Seems you would just change the lease you have with them to say your renting space their and then you would have a legitimate reason to recieve your mail their.

Hope So

David Alexander

import · April 30, 1999, 12:11pm

I like your idea…! - Posted by raelynn mitchell

Posted by raelynn mitchell on April 30, 1999 at 12:11:40:

I will definitely ask the same questions at my box. Also, I will be asking the post office personnel the same question and see what their response is when I request a copy of the new law so that I can read the whole thing for myself instead of accepting someone else’s interpretations.

import · April 30, 1999, 2:56pm

Re: Effective date… 04-26-99 … (nt) - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 14:56:46:

David,

4-26-99 is only the date most mail receiving services notified their customers.

If you fill out new applications proving you are a “real person” and provide a method whereby you can actually be found, you can continue to receive your mail after June 25,1999.

If you do not get in your paperwork (PS Form 1583) before that time, you may not get mail after June 25.

If you DO submit the required paperwork before June 25, 1999, your mail will continue to be delivered with the “old” address format until October 26, 1999. After that, the incoming mail must conform to the new Postal Service mail addressing format, or run the risk of being returned to “sender”.

Also, the Post Office will not “forward” ANY mail sent to a private mail box, under any circumstances. This last part is nothing new, that has always been their policy.

Brad

import · May 1, 1999, 3:26pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on May 01, 1999 at 15:26:11:

BankRobber,

I LOVE typing that name! See my post above, “Actual law . . .”. It is quite long.

What city are you in, anyway?

Brad

import · April 29, 1999, 11:08pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by raelynn mitchell

Posted by raelynn mitchell on April 29, 1999 at 23:08:57:

I agree with you totally. My response was, how can a corporation drive? Therefore, it cannot have a driver’s license. On the new copy of the form I have, they state that if the box is rented by a corporation or firm that they need to know EVERY person at that business that will receive mail and have a separate form filled out for EACH ONE! With each individual’s personal info.

On Bill Gates and Microsoft…if you check Microsoft’s officers list (http://sos.state.nv.us/default.asp) (yes, Microsoft is now a Nevada corporation) you will see that he is not an officer of this corporation, according to the officers list. He is just the majority shareholder, which is not required to be reported to anyone who has a Nevada corporation. (Hmmm. I wonder how many OTHER corporations he is majority shareholder, that we–and the Justice Dept that likes to attack him for antitrust laws–don’t know about?)

And yes, the form DOES ask you to list the officers if it is a corporation–and their addresses. What I had done in the past was to give my registered agent’s address, which is the same way the officer’s list was filled out. This could get interesting, as my registered agent is also a corporation…

My initial knee-jerk response to resolving this issue was shared office space, also known as executive suites, which can go for $195 and up per month in the L.A. area. A LOT more than a private mail box, but then if I went in and shared the one office with four other people/companies that each paid $50/mo. it might not be so bad. Also, since this is actual office space and the company name is on the directory, it’s not required to have forms on file for the postal service’s inspection and/or approval.

I searched the postal service web site but couldn’t find the actual law on their site. I plan to contact the local post office seeking a copy of this law in the next few days.

import · April 29, 1999, 10:57pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 29, 1999 at 22:57:49:

Hi Rob,

> What if your personal name isn’t the one on the
> mailbox? What if it is a corporation renting the
> mailbox?

As I understand it, if a corporation is involved some officer is responsible and yes, the corporation street address can be used (if there is one). But this still doesn’t get past the part of the mail being sent back to the sender unless there is a separate line on the envelope where PMB has to appear for the mail to be delivered after October 26, 1999

The point is what about a “home office”? One that has no street address other than the private mail box, which now has to give notice to the world by having them address your mail with a PMB designation? How long will it take for people to realize that “PMB” means you are operating out of a mailbox?

> I have heard of people renting out a drawer of a file
> cabinet in a title company, so that they could
> legally say they have an office there.

This sure sounds worth checking into. Thanks!

Take care,

Brad

import · April 29, 1999, 10:41pm

People milk Millions from Seniors using MBE and others - Posted by raelynn mitchell

Posted by raelynn mitchell on April 29, 1999 at 22:41:40:

At a mail receiving service I’ve had a box with for awhile I was recently informed of the new requirements. When I inquired why, the owner explained that he had recently been visited by:

The FBI
The Santa Ana Police Dept.
A joint task force between the FBI and the Justice Dept.

The reason? It seems someone unscrupulous had used one of their boxes to cheat senior citizens out of millions of dollars, and the only address the feds had was the mail receiving service. Even the address for their home address turned out to be another mail receiving service.

Yes, this is DEFINITELY a privacy issue. I am especially curious, since after visiting a different MBE establishment, I went to the post office across the street to ask questions, and the lady in the office in back told me that the post office didn’t care WHERE you got your mail delivered, that you could have your mail go absolutely anywhere and it was completely legal and above board. Also, I specifically asked her about having mail sent to someone else’s residence. She at that time told me that the US Govt didn’t care where the mail was sent.

So one of my questions that I will be asking the postal inspectors in the near future is, do I have to give MY address, or just another physical address (that could be a relative or someone that is NOT a mail receiving service)?

One thing that will definitely be key is to use the same address consistently. What happens if your drivers license and every other piece of ID has an address on it where you do NOT live? (Yet is not a MBE or other mail receiving service?) They ask for utility bills, but when I informed the gentleman at my box service that none of my utility bills have my name on them, he told me it was okay as long as the address I was giving him was there–that it was okay for someone else’s name to be on the bill.

Call me crazy, or just plain paranoid, but one of my previous jobs was in law enforcement. It’s not the outside world who is most likely to abuse information, but the very ones with the guns and badges who will be able to skirt around the confidentiality issues by simply showing a badge. I confirmed this by asking the owner of the box service if someone came in and had a gun and a badge, would he automatically give them my form with my home address or would he need court papers (search warrant, etc.). His answer? “Oh. Well I’d probably just give it to him.”

Didn’t make me too happy.

import · April 29, 1999, 9:29pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 29, 1999 at 21:29:58:

David,

The “agency” has to be the U.S. government because this is a new “Federal” law.

Could be that the IRS as well as other collection agencies are tired of not being able to locate folks in order to place their liens. Also, the administrators of “entitlement programs”, both federal and State, may have had some input on this.

Banks also have given me a hard time about not giving them my “home” address.

The guy at the Post Office told me that the government just wants everyone (or as many people as possible) to be “traceable”. He may have a point!

For me the issue is privacy. Several years ago I had a Mercedes-Benz housecall repair and maintenance service. In the beginning I used my home address on all my repair orders and stationery. One night at about 3a.m., a client knocked at my door saying, “there is a strange noise in my engine. Thought you’d like to hear it while it’s happening”. It seemed to me that he also was trying to save the $40 service call fee. The next morning I rented a private mail box and revised all my business documents. That was 30 years ago and I have come to enjoy the privacy that comes with having a private mailbox.

Guess it will be a little more expensive and inconvenient now.

Brad

import · May 1, 1999, 9:47pm

Re: Actual law found on internet - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on May 01, 1999 at 21:47:45:

BankRobber,

I “really” love typing that name! No, I was unaware of that aspect. But now that you have brought it to my attention, I will bring it up. Thanks for this. I have printed out your post so it doesn’t escape me.

Brad

import · May 1, 1999, 10:10pm

Re: To My Customers; A word about my New address - Posted by Charles (NM0

Posted by Charles (NM0 on May 01, 1999 at 22:10:08:

Apparantly you do. Your the one asking for phone numbers and addresses. You either are looking to get involved with Nationwide or looking for a date. And I told you I’m not into that type of lifestyle.

import · May 1, 1999, 9:49pm

Re: To My Customers; A word about my New address - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on May 01, 1999 at 21:49:25:

Who cares?

import · May 1, 1999, 2:41pm

probably a stupid idea - Posted by Craig

Posted by Craig on May 01, 1999 at 14:41:02:

Why can’t someone just ask a friend who owns a business, with an office whether it be a lawyer, realtor, mortgage broker, that they trust to let them have their business correspondence sent to that persons office. Maybe even lease a few feet of that persons office space so that it’s legit. Which is exactly what Mailbox’s Etc. does, but since they make a living at it it is somehow under scrutiny.

import · April 30, 1999, 4:17pm

Re: Maybe… - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 30, 1999 at 16:17:23:

Gosh No, don’t need a job. This guy has a semi system in place but wants out as he already own another. I have several people in mind to go in put management in place. For me it will give me extra cash flow, and satisfy part of my goals for the year(to buy 3 businesses outside of RE).

David Alexander

import · April 30, 1999, 4:17pm

Re: Maybe… - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 30, 1999 at 16:17:23:

Gosh No, don’t need a job. This guy has a semi system in place but wants out as he already own another. I have several people in mind to go in put management in place. For me it will give me extra cash flow, and satisfy part of my goals for the year(to buy 3 businesses outside of RE).

David Alexander

import · April 30, 1999, 3:52pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 30, 1999 at 15:52:03:

yeah I agree, punishing everyone for the misdeeds of the crooks want solve the problem. The crooks will get false I.D.'s etc, and figure out how to make PMB work for them someway. Bottom line is, it’s not about the crooks but about the Post office loosing revenue to these Mail/shipping places.

David Alexander

import · April 30, 1999, 3:52pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 30, 1999 at 15:52:03:

yeah I agree, punishing everyone for the misdeeds of the crooks want solve the problem. The crooks will get false I.D.'s etc, and figure out how to make PMB work for them someway. Bottom line is, it’s not about the crooks but about the Post office loosing revenue to these Mail/shipping places.

David Alexander

import · April 30, 1999, 12:25pm

Re: I like your idea…! - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on April 30, 1999 at 12:25:41:

Another thing you can do is address an envelope to yourself by using the MBE address without your box # and see if you get it in your box. Test the waters first to see if all is ok before taking a chance of not recieving the important stuff. Just a thought?

import · May 1, 1999, 7:01pm

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Sal

Posted by Sal on May 01, 1999 at 19:01:05:

Fort Meyers Florida is the location of Nationwide Real Estate Corporation where they have completed over 400 deals in the past 5 years in partnering with new real estate investors.