In the Matter of the Complaint That                         )
                                                                               )
COLLEGIATE DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY              )
THE ORDER OF METOSOPHY FOR SOLIZATION   )
                                                                               )
T.O.M.F.S.                                                              )
T.O.M.F.S. - A.C.S.R., INC.                                     )
DIRECTOR, T.O.M.F.S. - A.C.S.R., INC.                  )
SUPERINTENDENT, T.O.M.F.S.                               )
GEORGE HENRY WILKINS                                     )
GEORGE HENRY WILKINS, Ms.D.                          )
REV. G. WILKINS                                                   )
REV. GEORGE HENRY WILKINS, ADMINISTER      ) P.O.D. Docket No. 1/249
                                                                               )
at                                                                            )
                                                                               )
Sacramento, California                                           )
                                                                               )
(Hereinafter called Respondent), is                       )
engaged in conducting a scheme for                    )
obtaining money through the mails                         )
in violation of 39 U.S. Code 259                             )
and 732.                                                                 )

APPEARANCES:
George Henry Wilkins,
in Pro. Per.
P. O. Box 2487, Main Station

Sacramento 11, California
Richard S. Farr, Esq. and
Richard Hefner, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel,
Post Office Department
Attorneys for the Complainant

DEPARTMENTAL DECISION

The above entitled matter comes before the Judicial Officer on appeal from the Initial Decision of the Hearing Examiner in this cause which arose by reason of a complaint filed herein on April 18, 1960 by the General Counsel for the Post Office Department, Complainant, wherein the Respondent is charged with the operation of a fraudulent scheme in violation of 39 U.S. Code 259 and 732 ^1/ in that the Respondent was obtaining remittances of money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises.

This shall not authorize any person to open any letter not addressed to himself. The public advertisement by such person or company so conducting any such lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remittances for the same may be made by means of postal money orders to any other person, firm, bank, corporation, or association named therein shall be held to be prima facie evidence of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein; but the Postmaster General shall not be precluded from ascertaining the existence of such agency in any other legal way.

The complaint alleged more particularly that letters of solicitation were sent through the mails advertising the scheme and these were calculated and intended to induce the recipient thereof to remit money through the mails to the Respondent. Copies of the advertising matter of Respondent in the form of letters of solicitation were attached to the complaint and the Complainant charges that by means of this advertising matter the Respondent represented to the public as follows:

"a. That to any person who remits the sum of twenty-five dollars, ($25.00), Respondent will furnish information the use of which will enable any remitter to prevent himself or herself from being reincarnated again in 'body after body, IN AGES AFTER AGES, in LAND AFTER LAND - - - with lost CONSCIOUSNESS - AWARENESS *** Remember, ignorance is the ONLY PUNISHMENT GOD GIVES THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW HIS LAWS - - - WITH HIM - - YOU REINCARNATE NO MORE, HAVE PERFECT HEALTH *** WITHOUT any NEEDS, FRUSTRATIONS, SICKNESS, FAILURES]';

b. That to any remitter of two dollars ($2.00) Respondent will send a newly discovered (in Peru), 'LONG HIDDEN - COSMIC-ADEPT POWER SCIENCE' which will enable any remitter to achieve 'HEALTH HAPPINESS, and MATERIAL SUCCESS', and 'CONTROL OF NATURAL FORCES', a balance of energy, and enable any remitter to enjoy a longer life by use of Respondent's 'FOUNTAIN OF LIFE' and 'ELIXIR OF YOUTH';

c. That Respondent's enterprise is a 'non-profit' business;

d. That Respondent, George Henry Wilkins (George Wilkins), is an ordained minister;

e. That to persons who remit the sum of $6.50 Respondent will send the 'first package of lessons on 'Being A Master' *** 'which will enable any person to achieve 'LIFE-LOVE-SUCCESS *** TRUTH-HAPPINESS-SUCCESS-POWER IN MIGHT AND LIGHT *** PERSONAL POWER MASTERSHIP IN JOY INDESCRIBABLE]';

f. That the Respondent has completed a graduate course of study in and has been awarded the degree of Ms. D. by an institution of higher learning duly authorized to bestow doctorate's degrees."

g. That the information supplied by Respondent to remitters is accurate and reliable and remitters may depend and rely upon it in the conduct of their lives."

The complaint further charges that these pretenses, representations and promises are false and fraudulent.

Proper service of the complaint was obtained upon George Henry Wilkins as appears by the receipt thereof filed on April 25. On April 22 the Respondent filed a pleading dated April 20 which he entitled "counter complaint petition", and which in this cause is regarded as an answer to the complaint.

Notice of hearing was properly given and the case was set for May 17, 1960 before the Hearing Examiner and on that day the Respondent failed to appear. After full hearing an oral Initial Decision was entered by the Hearing Examiner which became a part of the official transcript of the proceedings and a copy thereof together with a Notice of Right to Appeal was mailed to the Respondent on May 25, 1960. On May 31, 1960, the Respondent filed what was entitled "Notice of Right of Appeal" and "Brief of Appeal" and on June 10, the Complainant filed his reply to this document. The Respondent's pleading herein raised the following objections to the Initial Decision of the Hearing Examiner:

"1. That the issuance of a fraud order would be an infringement of Respondent's right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

2. That the Department is discriminating against Respondent;

3. That the Respondent is entitled by 'due process of law' to be furnished a copy of any complaint against him received by the Post Office Department;

4. That the Respondent had no intent to defraud in that he offered nothing for sale, but seeks only voluntary contributions and is ready at all times to refund money upon demand."

The Respondent constantly repeats throughout the pleadings he has filed in this cause that this process and action violates the constitutional rights of Respondent to religious freedom as guaranteed by Article I of the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

It is very difficult to follow the reasoning of the Respondent but it can be gathered that it is the Respondent's contention that in the carrying on of his enterprise he is engaged in a religious endeavor and that any interference with his operation is an interference with the free exercise of religion.

A thorough examination of the record fully sustains the finding of the Hearing Examiner in his Initial Decision that the Respondent George Henry Wilkins is the only person connected with the organization; that it is not a sincere valid religious organization; that it has been given a religious sounding title but is used by the Respondent to make a profit from a scheme designed to obtain money through the mails by means of certain misrepresentations and fraud.

The fact that Respondent contends that his enterprise is religious does not make it so and even though there was an element of religion therein it does not exempt it from the application of the fraud statutes, nor for that matter from the criminal statutes. Fields v. Hannegan, 162 F.2d 17, New v. United States, 245 Fed. 710. The Complainant here is not attempting to interfere with the dissemination by the Respondent of his religious beliefs or doctrines but with Respondent's use of the United States mail for the purpose of obtaining remittances upon specific pretenses, representations and promises as set forth above which are false and fraudulent and constitute a clear violation of the Statute and should be prohibited.

Respondent's claim that he is being discriminated against cannot be taken seriously. He contends that there are others who are doing the same thing he is and therefore he should be allowed to continue. Certainly if there are others who are conducting an enterprise in the same manner as is the Respondent, action should be taken against them if proper evidence can be obtained but it is certainly no defense to the commission of an act of fraud or a crime that others are also doing the same thing.

Respondent also complains that he did not receive any copies of any complaint registered against his enterprises with the Post Office Department and thus he has been deprived of due process. He cites no authority for this contention and there is no requirement in the rules or the statutes requiring that this be done. The Complainant contends that in fraud order proceedings it is unnecessary to introduce proof that anyone has actually been defrauded citing Farley v. Heininger, 105 F.2d 79; Fairfield Floral Co. v. Bradbury, 89 Fed. 393.

There is no question but that every person who has been induced to make remittances by the false and fraudulent representations of the Respondent has been defrauded. The question of whether or not there was an intent to defraud on the part of the Respondent must be resolved and since an intent to deceive is rarely capable of direct proof because it is impossible to see into a man's mind to determine his motives, intent may be established by circumstantial evidence. In this cause the Respondent's fraudulent intent has been clearly established from the facts and circumstances surrounding his enterprise and from the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from these circumstances and from the Respondent's conduct.

The Hearing Examiner's Initial Decision was rendered orally at the close of the hearing and I find that it is correct and proper in its conclusions. There is no substantial error therein and the record sustains the findings thereof. The Initial Decision which recommends the issuance of a fraud order in this cause is hereby affirmed and the fraud order will be issued forthwith.

Raymond J. Kelly
Judicial Officer

1/ § 259. Mail of persons conducting lotteries or fraudulent schemes returned; evidence of agency. The Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is conducting any other scheme or device for obtaining money or property of any kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises instruct postmasters at any post office at which registered letters or any other letters of mail matter arrive directed to any such person or company or the agent or representative of any such person or company, whether such agent or representative is acting as an individual or as a firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, to return all such mail matter to the postmaster at the office at which it was originally mailed, with the word "Fraudulent" plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof; and all such mail matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the writers thereof, under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe. Nothing contained in this section shall be so construed as to authorize any postmaster or other person to open any letter not addressed to himself. The public advertisement by such person or company so conducting such lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, or device, that remittances for the same may be made by mail to any other person, firm, bank, corporation, or association named therein shall be held to be prima facie evidence of the existence of said agency by all the parties named therein; but the Postmaster General shall not be precluded from ascertaining the existence of such agency in any other legal way satisfactory to himself. ?732. Payment of orders issued in favor of lotteries. The Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is conducting any other scheme for obtaining money or property of any kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, forbid the payment by any postmaster to said person or company of any postal money orders drawn to his or its order, or in his or its favor, or to the agent of any such person or company, whether such agent is acting as an individual or as a firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, and may provide by regulation for the return to the remitters of the sums named in such money orders.