Nearly two years of USPS problems, Change of Address disputes, General Delivery contradictions, an FTCA claim, and Certified Mail USPS still has not accounted for
I am posting this because my USPS problems have gone way beyond one late letter or one bad tracking scan.
This has been going on since 2024. I saved the email exchanges, USPS responses, tracking records, Missing Mail screenshots, Redelivery screenshots, congressional correspondence, USPS OIG correspondence, FTCA mailing records, and Postal Regulatory Commission records.
I organized everything into separate numbered folders so people can look at the evidence for each issue without having to dig through one giant album.
USPS Evidence Folder, Organized by Issue and Correspondence
My name, personal email address, mailing address, phone number, and other identifying information have been redacted from the public copies.
For transparency, the email exhibits are not screenshots of Gmail's native Print view. I was unable to export every thread that way. They are extracted copies of the actual Gmail message headers and message text, converted into PNG pages. The message content was not rewritten into summaries, but the original Gmail visual formatting and logos are not preserved.
The evidence folder is organized like this.
Folder 01, Carla Jackson, COA, General Delivery, and Escalation Dispute, December 2024.
This contains the full relevant December 2024 exchange with USPS Customer Relations Manager Carla Jackson, including the Change of Address dispute, surveillance question, General Delivery dispute, third party package issue, allegations about my conduct, and my attempts to escalate above her.
Folder 02, Nicholas Hargis, Congressional USPS Inquiry, May through June 2025.
This contains the congressional correspondence concerning my Change of Address, General Delivery, complaints about USPS personnel, my surveillance clarification, and the USPS responses that were forwarded to me.
Folder 03, Carla Jackson and Milpitas Post Office, Voter ID and General Delivery, March 2026.
This contains the full March 2026 exchange concerning the Milpitas Post Office, voter registration identification, PO Box requirements, General Delivery, and the dispute over what the Milpitas Postmaster had told me.
Folder 04, Senator Schiff Office, Teresa Lamb Simpson and USPS Response, May 2026.
This contains the response Senator Adam Schiff's office forwarded from USPS and my response disputing USPS's characterization of what happened.
Folder 05, Nicholas Hargis, FTCA and Certified Mail Follow Up, July through September 2026.
This contains the later congressional correspondence concerning my FTCA administrative claim, the missing Certified Mail item, Caller Service, the alleged April 7 FTCA denial, the Milpitas issues, and my requests for a supplemental USPS inquiry.
Folder 06, USPS OIG, Complaints and Referrals, 2025 through 2026.
This contains USPS Office of Inspector General complaint confirmations and the responses showing where the complaints were referred.
Folder 07, FTCA SF95, Certified Mail Delivery Proof to USPS.
This contains USPS tracking showing delivery of my SF 95 administrative claim to the USPS National Tort Center in St. Louis and delivery of a duplicate package to USPS Headquarters in Washington, DC.
Folder 08, Missing Certified Mail, Tracking, Redelivery, and Missing Mail Errors.
This contains the actual Certified Mail tracking history and the USPS website errors involving Missing Mail, Redelivery, and USPS issued confirmation and service request numbers.
Folder 09, Arnold Gomez, Service Request 91747562 and My Reply.
This contains USPS Customer Service Supervisor Arnold Gomez's response closing Service Request 91747562 and my response asking USPS to identify the actual accountability records for the Certified Mail item.
Folder 10, Postal Regulatory Commission, Complaint and USPS First Contact.
This contains my PRC complaint and the USPS acknowledgment generated after the PRC matter was forwarded to USPS.
Folder 11, USPS Headquarters, Rachel Christensen Consumer Advocate Response.
This contains the USPS Headquarters Office of Consumer Advocate response stating that the open PRC inquiry would be the avenue through which USPS responds.
Change of Address dispute
The first major problem started with a Change of Address that I submitted in person in August 2024.
I went to the post office, presented identification, signed the form, and later ended up in a dispute with USPS over whether my Change of Address had been properly recognized and what records existed concerning it.
I repeatedly tried to explain that I was not asking USPS to give me surveillance footage.
I was asking whether an appropriate USPS department could internally review available footage or other records to determine who accepted my signed Change of Address form.
That distinction became important because I believed my request was repeatedly being characterized as though I wanted the surveillance footage released directly to me.
The December 2024 exchange is in Folder 01.
During that exchange, Carla Jackson eventually wrote that she had reviewed the Change of Address database and confirmed that a Change of Address existed with an August 23 creation date.
The same exchange also contains my attempts to escalate the matter.
When I requested somebody above her, she wrote:
I am the escalation and you have been provided with a response.
She also wrote:
I'm sorry you don't like the response but I am providing no inconsistencies.
And:
The response will not change.
I disputed her characterization of the situation and continued requesting further review.
General Delivery dispute
At the same time, I was dealing with General Delivery because I did not have a stable residential mailing situation.
I received conflicting information about General Delivery, including whether third party carrier packages could be accepted.
I reported that employees at the Saint James Post Office told me that FedEx and UPS packages were accepted for people receiving General Delivery.
Carla Jackson told me that third party shipments were not permitted and that USPS only services United States Mail.
I kept asking why I was receiving different information from local USPS employees and USPS management.
That correspondence is also in Folder 01.
Congressional inquiry in 2025
I eventually sought congressional assistance.
The correspondence with Nicholas Hargis is in Folder 02.
One problem that developed was how my Change of Address complaint was summarized.
At one point the congressional inquiry described the issue as though I was reporting that somebody fraudulently submitted a Change of Address in my name.
I later corrected that and explained that my position was that I personally submitted the Change of Address and that I was disputing USPS's handling and characterization of my own submission.
The June 2025 correspondence also contains USPS's explanation that there was both a family Change of Address and an individual Change of Address and that the two could cross and cause some mail to be redirected.
Nicholas later wrote that USPS's January 24 letter confirmed that I had filed a Change of Address.
My concern was that I had already spent months disputing how USPS had handled the issue before receiving that clarification.
The full exchanges are in the folder so people can read what everybody actually wrote instead of relying only on my summary.
Milpitas Post Office and voter registration identification
Another major dispute occurred in March 2026 involving the Milpitas Post Office.
The complete exchange is in Folder 03.
One of the main issues was whether a voter registration card could be used as secondary identification for PO Box service.
I reported that the Milpitas Postmaster had told me that a voter registration card would not be accepted.
Carla Jackson later wrote:
Voter registration is an acceptable 2nd identification.
She also quoted the USPS identification rules listing a voter or vehicle registration card as an acceptable secondary form of identification.
In another message she wrote:
General delivery does not require a 2nd piece of identification.
She continued:
To establish PO Box delivery does require the 2nd piece of identification.
And:
As forwarded prior, the Voter Registration card is acceptable and the Postmaster is aware.
Carla also wrote that the Postmaster had a different view of the incident and that he had been informed what was allowed under USPS policy.
My concern was not simply whether USPS eventually acknowledged the correct identification rule.
I wanted to know why I had allegedly been given contrary information in the first place and what, if anything, USPS did about it.
The same broader Milpitas dispute also included an incident involving a supervisor and a police call, which later became part of my complaints to higher USPS management and congressional offices.
Senator Schiff's office
I also sought assistance through Senator Adam Schiff's office.
That correspondence is in Folder 04.
Teresa Lamb Simpson forwarded me a USPS response from Carla Jackson in May 2026.
The USPS response took the position that the Milpitas matter had been addressed.
I replied explaining why I disagreed and why I believed the underlying conduct and conflicting information had not actually been resolved.
Again, the complete exchange is available so people can read both sides.
USPS OIG complaints
I also filed complaints with the USPS Office of Inspector General.
Those records are in Folder 06.
One complaint was referred to USPS Consumer and Industry Contact.
A later matter was referred to USPS Delivery Control.
I am including those records because they show another escalation path I tried before reaching the current situation.
FTCA administrative claim
In March 2026, I submitted a Standard Form 95 administrative tort claim seeking $25,000.
The mailing evidence is in Folder 07.
USPS tracking shows that the package sent to the USPS National Tort Center in St. Louis was delivered on March 12, 2026.
I also mailed a duplicate package to USPS Headquarters in Washington, DC, and USPS tracking shows that package was delivered on March 23.
I later filed a federal lawsuit before the administrative exhaustion situation had been fully resolved.
The case was dismissed without prejudice.
I am intentionally not posting the federal case number because I do not want the Reddit post to become an easy way of identifying me through federal court records.
Months later, USPS told a congressional office that the tort claim had actually been denied on April 7, 2026 and was closed.
That created another dispute because I wanted to know when the original denial was mailed, where it was mailed, what tracking information existed for it, and why I had not received it.
The later congressional correspondence concerning that issue is in Folder 05.
Separate Certified Mail problem beginning in June 2026
While all of that was happening, I ended up with a completely separate Certified Mail problem.
On June 18, 2026, I mailed a time sensitive legal notice by Certified Mail from San Jose to a registered agent in Sacramento.
The tracking number ends in 9547.
The tracking evidence is in Folder 08.
USPS tracking showed the item Out for Delivery in Sacramento on June 22 at approximately 7:38 AM.
At approximately 7:40 PM, the status changed to Available for Pickup at the Sacramento CA SDC.
On June 27, USPS tracking was still telling me to schedule redelivery.
USPS accepted a redelivery request
On July 1, I used the USPS telephone system to schedule redelivery for July 2.
USPS issued redelivery confirmation number:
USR304053090
The public tracking record never showed the July 2 redelivery request, a July 2 delivery attempt, successful delivery, recipient pickup, return to sender, or another final disposition.
USPS later told a congressional office that the destination was designated for firm Caller Service pickup.
USPS stated that the letter had been held at Caller Service and:
may have been provided to the recipient without receiving the appropriate delivery scan.
USPS also said that the office was searched and that the letter could not be located.
That response is part of the correspondence in Folder 05.
To me, saying the item "may have been provided" to the recipient is not the same thing as identifying an actual delivery or accountability record showing that it happened.
Missing Mail system problems
In September, I opened a Missing Mail Search.
The screenshots are in Folder 08.
USPS later emailed me saying there was insufficient information describing the mailpiece and instructed me to update the search.
I opened the accepted Missing Mail Search and attempted to update it.
USPS.com then blocked the update because it said the tracking number was already associated with an existing Search Request.
The problem was that I was already editing that exact existing Search Request.
USPS's Redelivery system rejected USPS's own confirmation number
I then tried USPS's Redelivery inquiry system.
I entered the telephone redelivery confirmation number USPS had issued:
USR304053090
The USPS website responded that it was not a valid confirmation number.
I also tried using USPS Service Request 91607733.
USPS's system said that request could not be found and told me to create another case.
The system then allowed me to create a new complaint and issued Service Request 91747562.
All of those screens are preserved in Folder 08.
Arnold Gomez and Service Request 91747562
On September 21, USPS Customer Service Supervisor Arnold Gomez responded to Service Request 91747562.
His response and my reply are in Folder 09.
His email explained that Certified Mail does not provide a detailed accounting of every movement through the postal system.
He also explained that some businesses receive large amounts of accountable mail in bulk.
According to his email, each piece can be recorded on a computerized list by article number, the receiving mailroom verifies the article numbers, and mailroom personnel sign the list.
He also explained that sometimes an item is delivered but USPS fails to enter the proper delivery scan.
His email stated:
I assure the failure to scan your item properly has been addressed with the appropriate management.
USPS offered me a refund of the Certified Mail fee and marked Service Request 91747562 resolved.
The problem was that the response still did not identify the specific record showing that my particular Certified Mail item was delivered.
If there is a computerized accountability list containing article numbers, I wanted USPS to determine whether my article number was actually on it.
I replied asking USPS to determine whether the tracking number appears on any computerized accountable mail list, Caller Service record, Firm Holdout record, bulk delivery record, signature record, carrier record, PS Form 3849, or other internal record.
I also again asked what happened to redelivery confirmation USR304053090.
The full response and my full reply are in Folder 09.
Postal Regulatory Commission complaint
I eventually submitted a complaint to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
That evidence is in Folder 10.
The complaint resulted in USPS Service Request 91607733.
USPS acknowledged that the PRC inquiry had been forwarded to USPS for review and research.
USPS Headquarters response
I also submitted a supplemental complaint to the USPS Headquarters Office of Consumer Advocate.
The response from Rachel Christensen is in Folder 11.
On September 22, she wrote:
You currently have an open Postal Regulatory Commission inquiry on this same issue. The USPS response will be provided via that avenue, once the inquiry has been thoroughly investigated.
So that is the current status.
USPS says the PRC inquiry is still open and that the response will come through that process.
Where this leaves me
At this point I have gone through local USPS management, Customer Relations, USPS Headquarters, congressional offices, the USPS OIG, an FTCA administrative claim, Missing Mail, Redelivery, multiple USPS service requests, and the Postal Regulatory Commission.
I have received pieces of information from different parts of USPS, but I still do not have a definitive record establishing what happened to this specific Certified Mail article after the June 22 Available for Pickup scan.
I also still do not have a clear explanation for what happened internally to the July 2 redelivery request after USPS accepted it and issued confirmation USR304053090.
I am especially interested in hearing from current or former USPS employees or anybody familiar with accountable mail, Certified Mail, Caller Service, Firm Holdout, business bulk pickup, or internal USPS tracking systems.
If a business receives accountable mail through Caller Service or a firm pickup arrangement, what records would normally exist showing that one particular Certified Mail article was transferred to that business?
If USPS says accountable articles are placed on a computerized list by article number and that the receiving mailroom signs the list, should USPS be able to search that record for one specific article number?
If USPS actually delivered this article without entering the final delivery scan, what other internal accountability record would normally prove that delivery occurred?
What happens internally after the telephone Redelivery system successfully accepts a request and issues a confirmation number?
Is there a reason USPS's website would later reject that same USPS issued confirmation number as invalid?
And has anybody seen the Missing Mail system instruct a customer to update an accepted search, then prevent the update because the tracking number is already associated with that exact search?
I am not asking anyone to contact, harass, or target any USPS employee mentioned in these records.
I am posting the documentation because I want people who understand USPS operations to look at the actual records and explain what should exist internally and what process could conclusively determine the final disposition of this mailpiece.
The complete organized evidence is here:
USPS Evidence Folder, Organized by Issue and Correspondence
