- 13 -
piece of mail at issue was deposited in the U.S. mail on or
before the last day of the period prescribed for filing
petitioners’ petition.
(2) Was the Delay in Receiving Petitioners’ Petition
Due to a Delay in the Transmission of Mail?
The Court, at trial, received into evidence a letter from
the U.S. Postal Service dated August 26, 2004. The letter
indicates that from May 13 through May 25, 2004, the piece of
mail at issue was delayed due to the fault of the U.S. Postal
Service. Mr. Wong, an employee of the U.S. Postal Service,
interpreted the terms in this letter to mean that on May 13,
2004, the piece of mail at issue was incorrectly scanned as
delivered. He also testified that a piece of mail sent from
Hazlet, New Jersey, to Washington, D.C., usually does not go
through Clarksburg, New Jersey, where it was received and
incorrectly scanned as delivered. According to Mr. Wong, the
piece of mail at issue should have been scanned as missent. A
missent piece of mail is one that arrives at the wrong
destination. When a missent piece of mail is properly scanned as
missent, the post office that incorrectly received the piece of
mail is identified.
Respondent contends that the delay in the Court’s receipt of
the piece of mail containing petitioners’ petition was not the
result of a delay in the transmission of the mail. Specifically,
respondent points to the U.S. Postal Service letters dated June 9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011