[pct-l] Mail

[Vermilion Valley Resort]

Ron,

I certainly hope so!

Bill

Ron Dye wrote:
> Good grief!  Can we just let this go.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 4:17 PM
> To: Vermilion Valley Resort
> Cc: PCT List List
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mail
>
> Bill,
>
> Thanks for the input!  I certainly wasn't impuning VVR and I hope that you
> realize it.
>
> The regulations are pretty explicit, at least to me, and  neither applies to
> either the cafe or VVR in my opinion.  Everything in a regulation or law has
> to be taken as whole and the emphasis upon one part to the exclusion of
> another violates the rules of statutory construction.  I didn't realize that
> another point of contention had arisen about the end point of the
> regulation's applicability.
>
> The fact of the matter is that section 1703 refers to whom a post is
> "directed to," as the end point.  If the government had intended to say to
> whom the post was 'addressed to', which is much more limiting in my opinion,
> they could have, but they did not.  'Directed to' is a more expansive term
> of art and includes, again in my opinion, the person or entity to whom a
> post is sent to "in care of" for another.
>
> Another rule of statutory construction is that absent a codification of the
> intended definition of a word it carries it's normal meaning   How someone
> can maintain that a post sent to, say: "Joe Hiker in care of VVR" is not a
> post 'directed to' VVR, at which point the postal service regs washs it's
> hands of the whole matter, eludes me, but then I haven't searched for case
> law to see if there is a controlling appellate opinion that was published as
> precedent that actually addresses this point.  There could be, and if there
> is I'm betting it's busily being researched this very minute.  Stand by.
>
> I'll include the standard boilerplate disavowal of this being intended as
> legal advice and that this correspondence does not explicitly or implicitly
> create an attorney client relationship and I disavow any liability for any
> reliance on this or any other contributions to this general series of
> threads.
>
> With that said, I am 30+ year lawyer and owned my own firm for over 20 years
> before selling it and retiring a couple of years ago.  That business owner
> part gives me a little more insight, I believe, into the other side of this
> discussion.  People rarely think about the risks, efforts and sacrifices
> made by small business owners in an effort to succeed.  It's my belief that
> a fear of jeopardizing the life savings and sacrifice that such an
> enterprise entails ( how many on this thread have signed a 5 lease for which
> they will remain liable for payment even if the enterprise fails?) is the
> likely motivating factor here.  Just sayin'.
>
> Now, more importantly, would you accept a package for me this year?  (Cheesy
> grin)  You can even open it if you want; just don't leave it in a public
> place!
>
> And so with that my friends, I will yield the floor.  (OK, I guess I must
> miss the law to a degree, but please don't tell my wife!)
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>