dnewton3
Staff member
The Postal employee is wrong. There is no requirement regarding the ID other than it being "valid" at time of presentation; she's either making it up, or been improperly trained. However, depending upon how soon you need the passport application processed, you may have to comply with their stupidity in the short term. But ... I'd follow up with them (the employee and that person's boss) and not let them continue this garbage. Perhaps you can at least save the next person some grief by educating the Postal employees.
This is just another example of government people who have authority and make stuff up when they don't know the full aspects of their job. As a LEO, it always irked me on a personal level; it's their job to know the job fully. When I told someone that "X" was illegal or improper, I could quote the IC statute from memory for common citations, or provide the statute on scene from a code book.
It's a problem, but not a new problem. It happens in nearly every aspect of public services. It isn't limited to government service folks, either; it's just some idiots who work in a capacity that serves the public in some manner.
Some examples which have happened to me:
- Notary Public refused to authenticate a document for me because I had signed it ahead of time. I had to have him pull up the official SoS webpage which specifically states that the officiant need only verify the identity and signature by acclimation/testament, not actually "witness" the signing.
- Notary Public refused to authenticate a document for me and my son because I used my passport card as proof of identity. She claimed I needed to provide a "driver's license". Again - I had this person open the webpage of the IN SoS and read the full ID requirements. She said "Well, that's our bank policy; you have to show your license." To which I replied "Get your manager and we'll settle this." Once the manager showed up, I informed them that if she refused to process the document with the proper ID presented, I would report her to the SoS office as a non-compliant Notary. He read the requirements and told her to process the document (which is not really proper, because she's supposed to make her own independent decision as a Notary, but I figured if she's going to make up rules, she's also dumb enough to not know she doesn't have to do what he says ...)
- a bank employee initially refused to open an HSA account for me because I gave my work address for the establishment of the account. I was told that the "law" required a home address. But, as informed consumer, I know better. The "law" isn't really a law, but a "ruling" by the federal OCC (Office of Comptroller of Currency). This "rule" is the effect of the 9-11 aftermath regarding clandestine accounts, money laundering, etc. I was told by the bank employee that they had to have my home address, to which I replied "No; you're ill-informed." What the OCC ruling ACTUALLY states is that a "physical home address, or physical street address where the person can be reliably located." The bank does not get to choose which address I supply for establishment of the account; I get to choose. I had them pull up the formal Federal Register webpage where the official OCC ruling is posted, and gave them the page number to look at. Lo and Behold! I was right and they were wrong. So they finally relented and used my local law enforcement physical address for the validation address (not the mailing address for the account). They also didn't want to accept my LEO ID as proof of identity, until I shamed them once again with the OCC ruling details for proof of identity (it merely stated that a form of "government ID with photo" was necessary.
The issue is not new. When people don't know the true aspects of their job, they make stuff up. And it's maddening.
This is just another example of government people who have authority and make stuff up when they don't know the full aspects of their job. As a LEO, it always irked me on a personal level; it's their job to know the job fully. When I told someone that "X" was illegal or improper, I could quote the IC statute from memory for common citations, or provide the statute on scene from a code book.
It's a problem, but not a new problem. It happens in nearly every aspect of public services. It isn't limited to government service folks, either; it's just some idiots who work in a capacity that serves the public in some manner.
Some examples which have happened to me:
- Notary Public refused to authenticate a document for me because I had signed it ahead of time. I had to have him pull up the official SoS webpage which specifically states that the officiant need only verify the identity and signature by acclimation/testament, not actually "witness" the signing.
- Notary Public refused to authenticate a document for me and my son because I used my passport card as proof of identity. She claimed I needed to provide a "driver's license". Again - I had this person open the webpage of the IN SoS and read the full ID requirements. She said "Well, that's our bank policy; you have to show your license." To which I replied "Get your manager and we'll settle this." Once the manager showed up, I informed them that if she refused to process the document with the proper ID presented, I would report her to the SoS office as a non-compliant Notary. He read the requirements and told her to process the document (which is not really proper, because she's supposed to make her own independent decision as a Notary, but I figured if she's going to make up rules, she's also dumb enough to not know she doesn't have to do what he says ...)
- a bank employee initially refused to open an HSA account for me because I gave my work address for the establishment of the account. I was told that the "law" required a home address. But, as informed consumer, I know better. The "law" isn't really a law, but a "ruling" by the federal OCC (Office of Comptroller of Currency). This "rule" is the effect of the 9-11 aftermath regarding clandestine accounts, money laundering, etc. I was told by the bank employee that they had to have my home address, to which I replied "No; you're ill-informed." What the OCC ruling ACTUALLY states is that a "physical home address, or physical street address where the person can be reliably located." The bank does not get to choose which address I supply for establishment of the account; I get to choose. I had them pull up the formal Federal Register webpage where the official OCC ruling is posted, and gave them the page number to look at. Lo and Behold! I was right and they were wrong. So they finally relented and used my local law enforcement physical address for the validation address (not the mailing address for the account). They also didn't want to accept my LEO ID as proof of identity, until I shamed them once again with the OCC ruling details for proof of identity (it merely stated that a form of "government ID with photo" was necessary.
The issue is not new. When people don't know the true aspects of their job, they make stuff up. And it's maddening.
There have been several other replies here such as alternate location suggestions and suggestions to renew my driver's license, but that wasn't my question. I simply wanted to know if I was missing something on the gov't website, and if perhaps the clerk was correct (though I was quite sure she wasn't). Like you mentioned, if nothing else, it would be nice to save others the inconvenience I've endured (having to take more time off work for a second, unnecessary appointment).
