<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO SIGN SOMEONE ELSE&#8217;S NAME TO A CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:19:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/comment-page-1/#comment-216823</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 11:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/?p=6122#comment-216823</guid>
		<description>Al Franken on his best day has no respect for law and his fellow citezens.  If Al Franken did as it appears he has he belongs behind bars for a while.

If you didn&#039;t have to pay taxes a lot of us wouldn&#039;t, but we law abiding citizens fight it politically ironically battling the likes of Franken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al Franken on his best day has no respect for law and his fellow citezens.  If Al Franken did as it appears he has he belongs behind bars for a while.</p>
<p>If you didn&#8217;t have to pay taxes a lot of us wouldn&#8217;t, but we law abiding citizens fight it politically ironically battling the likes of Franken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/comment-page-1/#comment-216682</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 19:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/?p=6122#comment-216682</guid>
		<description>break little laws...break big laws</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>break little laws&#8230;break big laws</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yoni</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/comment-page-1/#comment-216673</link>
		<dc:creator>Yoni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 18:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/?p=6122#comment-216673</guid>
		<description>I am glad the MNGOP thinks that this would be an affective use of our tax dollars.  

I bet the tax payers in NY state would approve of their tax dollars being spent on a smear campaign. Rather than say fighting terrorism or homeland security.  

Its ridiculous to think that the state of NY doesn&#039;t have better things to do than investigate claims where the &#039;proof&#039; comes from some nut job with a blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am glad the MNGOP thinks that this would be an affective use of our tax dollars.  </p>
<p>I bet the tax payers in NY state would approve of their tax dollars being spent on a smear campaign. Rather than say fighting terrorism or homeland security.  </p>
<p>Its ridiculous to think that the state of NY doesn&#8217;t have better things to do than investigate claims where the &#8216;proof&#8217; comes from some nut job with a blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: el presidente</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/05/28/is-it-against-the-law-to-sign-someone-elses-name-to-certified-mail-receipt/comment-page-1/#comment-216665</link>
		<dc:creator>el presidente</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 18:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/?p=6122#comment-216665</guid>
		<description>Section 1342. Fictitious name or address

&quot;Whoever,...mentioned in section 1341...uses or assumes,or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his or her own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository or mail matter, any letter post card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his or her own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned by not more than five years, or both.&quot;

Your review could also widen, and include 18 U.S.C. 2251 Sexual Exploitation of Children, in that, you could check to see if the U.S.A. mailing of Playboy Magazine 2000 [Franken article [12 year old son, fiction] would fall under the broader definition of Child Pornography, and whether the mailing was legal or illegal.

[&quot;Mail&quot; enforcement differs from &quot;wire&quot; enforcement seems to mean things transferred &quot;electronically.&quot;]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Section 1342. Fictitious name or address</p>
<p>&#8220;Whoever,&#8230;mentioned in section 1341&#8230;uses or assumes,or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his or her own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository or mail matter, any letter post card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his or her own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned by not more than five years, or both.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your review could also widen, and include 18 U.S.C. 2251 Sexual Exploitation of Children, in that, you could check to see if the U.S.A. mailing of Playboy Magazine 2000 [Franken article [12 year old son, fiction] would fall under the broader definition of Child Pornography, and whether the mailing was legal or illegal.</p>
<p>["Mail" enforcement differs from "wire" enforcement seems to mean things transferred "electronically."]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

