REFUSED

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30010


REFUSED
Submitted by danielifearn on Fri, 2008-01-11 00:17. IFPJ

I mailed a postcard to the Speaker of the House, Madame Nancy Pelosi, on 17 December 2007. Twenty-five (25) days later it was returned to me.



Delivery Refused
The United States Postal Service indicates that the postcard was "REFUSED". I sent it to the address listed on the contact page of the official web site of the Speaker of the House.

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Why did the Speaker's office refuse my postcard? Because I dared to remind the Speaker of her oath of office?

"Please remember you took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. That oath doesn't mean only when convenient or if it get me elected."

Or, has the hubris of the Imperial Presidency rubbed off on the leader of what was once known as the "People's House'? Do we now have to deal with a UNITARY EXECUTIVE in the Congress as well as in the White House?

Long ago, in my innocence, I urged people to vote and to write to their representatives. Somewhere along the line in my political education, I became informed enough to realize my representatives didn't want to see my position papers. They didn't even want to see an envelope from me. I started sending one sentence statements of support or non-support on postcards. When the anthrax scare slowed down all communications with my elected officials; I congratulated myself on my foresight. Postcards, I reasoned, would be less likely to be assumed to be suspicious and more likely to make it to my representatives' offices in a reasonable amount of time.

What a fool I am. "REFUSED". I knew Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about my opinion, but I thought the Democrats..Pelosi would at least go through the motions of representative democracy. I WAS WRONG.

And now I'm wondering if my vote will count. It's seems likely that it won't. It seems likely that no matter who I vote for, my ballot will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. Will it be Hillary? Will it be Obama? McCain? Who knows? I don't. But, I believe the corporations and the top 1% do.

If you are interested in what was on the front of the postcard Nancy Pelosi refused, you'll find it here:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29261

[onehandle]

1. Odds that they actually read your postcard: 0%

Odds that it was a postal or clerical error: 100%

[xultar]

38. Ahh.. they sifted through all the mail to get to this tiny card, to refuse...just that one.

BUHWAWAWAWAWA

[Occulus]

51. As a USPS employee, I agree 100%

See my other post on this thread for a detailed explanation of why that is likely to be the case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. "..the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - John F. Kennedy (from a 1962 speach at the white house) ...

[liberalmuse]

3. I've had the same problem.

She returned my letters, too. Perhaps it is because I am not one of her CA constituents.

[gateley]

7. Well now I'm changing my mind about it being a postal error. Did you guys

use the same address?

[davidwparker]

4. Vote! Her! Out!

[Buzz Clik]

8. She's no different than the rest --- they all must go. No exceptions.

[davidwparker]

9. that's true too.

[gateley]

5. Thank you for your effort. I'm of the mind that it was a postal error as well.

If she'd received it, her staff probably would have just tossed it - not go to the trouble of refusing it. :shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

6. That was disappointing, to say the least.

[kurth]

10. You forgot the salutation: "Her Grace"

So uncouth. Try:

"May it please Your Grace to accept this postcard"

[CorpGovActivist]

11. Thanks for Posting This! K&R

[Zodiak]

12. Not surprised if she is hiding from people.

Maybe she only wants to hear from her direct constituents, which makes her a poor Speaker for hiding.

Maybe she doesn't want anything so conspicuously anti-war and pro-impeachment on her desk, which also makes her a bad Speaker.

Could be a postal error, I guess....but do postal errors lead to refusals?

Regardless of how letters get refused from her office, she is still the biggest political disappoitment of my lifetime.

[monmouth]

13. Bear this in mind also, a clerk/secretary in her office, who may not

have wanted to be "bothered with this stuff" may have just thrown it back in the "out" box...

[Skinner]

14. Did anyone inquire to Pelosi's office to find out why the sticker says "refused"?

I worked on Capitol Hill about a decade ago, and offices never "refused" mail that was sent to them. I'm highly doubtful that Pelosi's office received the post card, considered the content, and then decided to send it back. If they didn't want the postcard, wouldn't it be easier and less politically risky to simply toss it in the trash can?

I think there has to be an explanation for this. If someone wants to figure it out, I would be curious.

[IndyOp]

16. The address is exactly what she has on her website...

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

26-cent stamp is adequate. I very much doubt that anyone read the postcard and put a "refused" sticker on it.

Maybe there was just a glitch in the automated mail system?

[Dorian Gray]

45. I was just going to say the same thing...

I just received a Christmas Card back from my aunt and uncle with a big "REFUSED" stamp on it. I guarantee that they didn't receive it, bring it back to the post office and stamp REFUSED on it.

It was a postal error.

[redqueen]

56. The "Unable to Forward" thing has me thinking

that it was a screwup at the post office. I'd check with the post office about what that means first.

[intheflow]

15. To the Greatest Page with a bullet!

Sad to say, I'm not even really surprised. I'm certainly not shocked. This is truly a sign of the times. :(

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. How did they return it to you with that yellow label covering your address?

hmmmmmm.....

[truedelphi]

23. I wondered that too. Maybe postal workers with X ray vision n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. I wonder if the codes on the label send it right to your door?

Could be... :shrug:

[truedelphi]

58. Whoa. Now that is interesting.

[CGowen]

18. Who writes postcards and uses two different pens to write the text and address? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

24. Brazillions of people

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

28. Simple explanation:

Writer wrote out the card and set the pen down to go look for the address. Came back and picked up another pen lying nearby to put in the address. It's not very complicated, really.

[sam sarrha]

19. politicians law enforcemen and judges dont sign their oaths of office, that way when they get caught

in fraud, larceny or what you said.. they plead 'impersonating' a judge/politician/etc which is only a misdemeanor. i kid you not.. go to your courthouse and request any judge or politician of any level and it wont be filed.. bet you a paycheck, i have done it on local and state level never found anyone that ever signed their's

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Unbelievably disturbing. Arg.

:banghead: :banghead:

[blondie58]

21. I'm a postal employee and I am gonna go with the postal error

theory, also. Mainly as there is such a high volume of cards to be returned and if it was put in the wrong pile? However, if the address was correct, it should have been delivered. If they would have see it and refused it, I would think that you would see REFUSED hand written on it. Some of the endorsements that we use are no such number, unknown (for addresses whose forward has expired or who are not known, deceased, insufficient address. You should try sending another- that was an excellent message and let us know if you ever find the real answer.

[Occulus]

50. Another postal emplyee here- aren't we using PARS now, instead of CFS?

PARS= Postal Automated Redirect System

CFS= Computerized Forwarding System

PARS is supposed to make things much faster, but at the same time, if something gets put in the wrong container (I could be wrong on this) I don't think the machine is able to tell.

It's very possible that the card got put into the container that held mail being returned to the sender. PARS is more complex than the normal run on a DBCS, and it's easy to make an error like this.

Also: expect more of this as the USPS management continues the incremental move from employing full-timers who are in a union and are trained very well to the use of "casuals" who get paid less than half what the full-timers make, have no sick leave, no vacation time, no medical benefits, a constantly-shifting SINGLE day off, and who often work 10-12-14 hours per shift, and can be utilized anywhere in a facility with substantially less training than full-time regulars or even part-time flexibles.

How did this happen? The APWU et al dropped the ball. This should have ended up in court coast to coast, but the unions spines collectively dissolved over the use of casuals. Once upon a time, casuals could only be employed during the December "exception" period; management decided to violate that, and a spate of "casuals-in-lieu-of" grievances were filed. Those should have been class action lawsuits over breach of contract (it was black-letter in the previous contract to the one we're under now), but the unions actually had the stunning lack of... intelligence? perception?... to fail to realize that postal managers do not and will not bargain in good faith.

The end result is, management repeatedly violated that part of the contract, the APWU and other unions won multimillion dollar arbitration judgments... and THEN, stunningly, caved when negotiations started on the new contract, and actually allowed management to employ casuals all year long.

This is NOT a slam on the USPS in general, or even the casuals. Management can't afford to train them well, at least in my facility, because being an on the job instructor (OJI) gives the instructor a higher pay grade during training, AND requires that the OJI be instructing and not doing the job at that time, thereby requiring three people on a machine that normally only has two.

If I ever own my own business, I will be able to look at my time with USPS as a lesson in how NOT to run/manage a business. I can't think of a single postal manager I have ever worked under in over ten years of employment who would survive even as much as a single year as a manager if they were not with USPS, and I say that in all seriousness. The USPS is a fundamentally mismanaged organization, because it needs its competent people on the floor doing the work rather than managing the place. The end result is a block of managers who are no good at anything else, including the jobs their employees are doing.

I often hear "well, it's like that everywhere". No, it's not. I've worked at other places besides the postal service, everything from the HQ of a major bank to a print shop in a pet food factory. Every job I've ever had, including fast food, was managed better than the USPS.

[Recursion]

60. Wasn't USPS the original model for the Peter Principle?

Incompetence gets "fired upwards" because it does less damage in management than on the production floor.

[blondie58]

76. yep, the post office is the most dysfunctional place that I have ever worked

but I love it- it pays the bills and I have a met a lot of wonderful people. But I also strongly believe that we need to protect the P.O. to have universal mail service for all. If the organization were split apart and privatized, it would cost $$$ to get that letter to Grandma in Podunk, IA- if there were any service at all.

Now, I don't really know how PARS works, as I am not a clerk, but a carrier. All I know is that there is a big rack for us to put our mail that has been endorsed for one reason or another. I thought that the PARS only worked on COA's that had been submitted?

THey seem to be doing away with clerks at my facility, also. They are so dependent on the APC machines that can do the work of an actual human.

It saddens me deeply to see the changes that have come along, it seems to me that the ones up at the top are trying to make the P.O. commit suicide, so to speak.

With your past job experience, I am surprised that you stick it out. Now me, on the other hand, I've only been a stay at home mom- and a travel agent- both extremely low paying ventures!

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Have you considered that it may have been a freeper postal worker?

That's what my money's on. Especially since your message was visible for anyone to read.

[Swamp Rat]

25. k&r

[EFerrari]

26. She's refused to meet with her district for over a year now.

This looks like just more of the same.

Although, in fairness, it could have been a USPS goof. They goof sometimes.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Her entire district?

Or just a few select wackos?

[EFerrari]

42. She hasn't had a townhall for over a year, Freddie. It might

be closer to two now. That is why us wackos had to find a different way to try to communicate with her in the first place. :hi:

[jgraz]

68. Dontcha know, her entire district is a bunch of wackos?

They insist on crazy shit like ending the war and upholding the rule of law. It's impossible to work with extremists like that.

[EFerrari]

70. We're not as wacko as those guys across the bay.

They protest in daylight and everything.

:toast: from Cal '87 and Beach Impeach media hooligan

[jgraz]

71. No shit. Sometimes I even scare myself.

[cboy4]

29. Maybe she believes receiving postcards that make sense

is off the table. :puke:

[marmar]

30. Remember all the high hopes when she took the gavel?.....

.... We've been played like a Nintendo Wii.

[chascarrillo]

31. Yes, Pelosi personally refused your postcard just to spite you,

Whatever.

[Senator]

32. Kick

[riverdeep]

34. There's no 'there' here.

I highly doubt Pelosi has some policy of refusing unfriendly postage. It's so much easier and practical to throw it away. This is a little too tinfoil. I'm sure she has staffers that filter her mail that winds up getting to her anyway. She's got a lot of problems, those are enough without inventing others to fret over.

[Echo In Light]

35. Yet another glaring reminder of how of rep govt doesn't rep us, but their corporate pay masters

[robcon]

36. Yet another reminder that people avoid Occam's Razor

The simplest explanation, consistent with all the facts, is that no one at the speaker's office ever saw this, and the post office returned it for some reason.

[Echo In Light]

37. I'm including a host of other applicable criteria as well

[MissDeeds]

39. It is rather symbolic, isn't it?

Voice of the people, concerns of populace, request to defend the Constitution: "REFUSED"

[Snarkturian Clone]

40. Make a mega-giant version of the postcard

that is maximum U.S. Postal size (i could be wrong but I believe 71" is the limit) and send it. Might cost a little more than 26 cents, but someone will definitely take notice.

[earth mom]

41. That's NO mistake. What's that word that rhymes with witch?

:grr:

[Skinner]

46. OH, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

This is *really* starting to piss me off. COME ON! You just called Nancy Pelosi a "bitch" -- and for what, exactly? People need to start using their critical-thinking skills.

I was polite higher up in the thread. Not surprisingly, most people chose to quietly pretend they didn't see my inconvenient post. THINK! Why on earth would Nancy Pelosi mark a postcard "refused" and send it back? WHY? Because someone spoke the truth? Get over yourselves! The Speaker of the House receives hundreds or even thousands of pieces of mail every day, most of it full of "truth." What makes this postcard so special? It is patently absurd to think she or her staff would refuse a postcard and send it back. Why not just throw it in the trash if the content is so offensive?

And now she's being called a bitch because some people are utterly incapable of critical thought. Nice.

You should apologize.

[whopis01]

61. Don't jump to conclusions... he could have meant 'glitch'...

As in it was a glitch in the postal system that prevented the postcard from getting through.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[iamthebandfanman]

43. i think it was the stamp

its sexually suggestive.

grrr baby, very grrrr....
meeeeowww.
lol


but seriously, thats pretty messed up if her office isnt taking letters from anyone.

[codeindigo]

44. nancy is such a huge disappointment and..

she really must go!:grr:

[Duncan Grant]

47. Entertaining -- however unlikely.

This is a fun (yet educational) thread, isn't it? :tinfoilhat:

[tandot]

48. Yes, the speaker personally reads each and every single piece of mail

and all the ones she doesn't like, she returns back to sender as "refused"

:crazy:

You guys are making me laugh.

[northofdenali]

49. Looks like the Post Office pulled this one --

I've had much more luck with a regular mailed, sealed legal-size and typed letter. That way, they gotta open it, and some staffer may (or may not) read it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

52. Year before last a card I sent my daughter was returned "refused"

It was a "good luck on your finals" card so I know I sent it some time in December.

It was mailed to the same address that she receives mail at regularly.

It took around 6 weeks for the card to be returned to me and the post office had no explanation other that that it's a very busy time of year for them.

[CK_John]

53. It was your postmark in MN. Your not in her district, she is not your Rep, n/t

[berni_mccoy]

55. BINGO! Wow, I can't believe it took this many posts for someone to notice that.

[redqueen]

57. It's sent to the Office of the Speaker...

not her office.

I thougt as Speaker she was responsive to all Dems, not just those in her district.

:shrug:

[Richard Steele]

54. There's a picture worth far in excess of a thousand words about Nancy Pelosi. nm

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. I called my Postmaster and spoke with them about this

I suggest others here do the same and see if they're told the same thing.

He said if it was not sent certified mail and the addressee refused receipt then there would have to be a written/stamped/printed label of some sort indicating it was refused on the letter/postcard from the addressee. That is in addition to the sticker shown in the image above with the postal date and route number.

He also said the label would be next to or over the addressee's address and not the return address.

[Skinner]

62. Thank you.

"That is in addition to the sticker shown in the image above"

In other words, Pelosi's office didn't refuse the postcard.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

63. That's correct. Pelosi's office didn't refuse the postcard.

Oops! I was so intent on getting the details of what he said correct I failed to add that important point to my post.

[EFerrari]

72. It's sad that the relationship has deteriorated to the point where

a post office goof could be interpreted this way.

Thanks for the info.

[crispini]

69. Thank You!

Of course, at least half the folks on this thread would PREFER the :tinfoilhat: or "Pelosi is an asshat" explanation.

Honestly.

[EFerrari]

73. Maybe the 29%ers would prefer it. But for some of us

it would resonate even if it's wrong.

And THAT is a shame. :(

[tridim]

64. You might want to photoshop your scan..

Because anyone can read your address.

If you're not worried, just ignore me. :)

[begin_within]

65. She only saw the other side:

[dkofos]

66. Here's hoping she looses her next election.

[rhett o rick]

67. With respect, hoping ain't gona cut it. Unless we do something major, the current system guarantees

her a victory in the primary. It is extremely, I said extremely unlikely for anyone to challenge her in the primary. And if they dare, they would be cutting their political throat in the "party". The "party" will back her to the very end. A challenger to an incumbent will not get any big money.

We must stop the "hoping" and get busy. Get involved in local and state organizations. Voting ain't enough, emails ain't enough, get active.

Please

[martymar64]

77. In other words, we're stuck with this royalist

Nancy, I hope the ghosts of all the iraqis and the american soldiers that your complicity has helped to kill haunt your dreams every night.

[Faux pas]

74. Last week I had an email I sent to Pelosi was returned too. Guess

she doesn't want to hear from anyone about anything. Uh Nancy, think it's time to hang up the gavel.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Obviously, Daniel Fearn Is One Hell Of A Friggin Moron LOL. My God The Melodrama.

What an overly dramatic little crybaby. Holy cow.