In the Matter of the Complaint Against

NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS INFORMATION SERVICE,
Post Office Box 14199 at
Washington, D. C. 20044

P.S. Docket No. 1/145

David J. Knight Administrative Law Judge

Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.,
Consumer Protection Office,
U. S. Postal Service, for Complainant.

No appearance for respondent.

INITIAL DECISION OF DAVID J. KNIGHT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

The U. S. Postal Service, through its Consumer Protection Office, on August 7, 1972, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent, National Public Lands Information Service, is engaged in conducting a scheme for obtaining money through the mail by means of false representations which ir proscribed by 39 U. S. Code 3005.

In substance, the complaint alleges and the respondent in its answer filed September 5, 1972, admits that: The respondent advertises in a newspaper of wide circulation about public land auctions in Florida and invites inquiries by mail; in response to an inquiry, respondent mails an advertisement stating that public or government lands are available throughout Florida at bargain prices; that it will furnish descriptions of "valid public lands ready and waiting to be purchased" by anyone in any county of his choice; that acquisition of these lands is not difficult; and that it will provide the preliminary steps to acquire the property and the information to acquire title.

The answer denies other allegations in the complaint, namely that the respondent is conducting a scheme or device to obtain money through the mails by means of a false representation; that it represents (a) that it is not necessary to visit a site before purchasing; (b) that the public land in question is offered by the U. S. Government or its instrumentality; and (c) that it is an agency or connected with the U. S. Government and headquartered in Washington, D. C. It denies that the representations it makes are false as a matter of fact. The answer concludes, "Respondent may appear in person at the hearing".

In accordance with the notification to the parties, the hearing was held on September 6, 1972. The respondent was not represented nor did it appear pre se . The Complainant's evidence was received under the mandate of the Postal Service's Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. 952.11(b).

The Evidence

Three witnesses were presented by the Complainant. The first, a U. S. Postal Service Inspector, detailed the procedure he used to obtain the respondent's literature. The Inspector responded to an ad appearing on March 5, 1972, in the Chicago Tribune (Exhibits C-5A through C-5D) and returned the order form punch card indicating an interest in land in three Florida counties together with a postal money order in the amount of $15.00. He received, in turn, information on two of these counties and a statement indicating that there are no public lands available in the third county at this time (Exhibits C-8A through C-8F). All of these requests and receipts by the Inspector were by mail through the Post Office located at Otterbein, Ind., a test station used to forward and receive the above described matter. Further, although respondent's address in its ad and literature is a post office box in Washington, D. C., its responses to the Inspector's inquiries and offer to buy the information came in envelopes postmarked at Bradenton, Florida.

The newspaper ad to which the Inspector initially responded states that "some government land is now being offered" by auction in the State of Florida. And "for your opportunity to own a bit of paradise at a real bargain" reply to respondent at a post office box in Washington, D. C.

Appendix A attached hereto is received in response to the newspaper ad. It purports to provide a "no-nonsense" way to purchase public lands all over Florida which purchase need not be expensive. The acquisition of these "valid, public lands" is said to be "not difficult" and states that the information to be provided by respondent will enable a purchaser to select sites in any county or counties of his choice. Also this pamphlet purports to provide "the preliminary steps that must be taken to acquire the properties."

In this pamphlet, the respondent describes itself as an information service only with no connection whatsoever with any real estate company, or agency selling or speculating in land. It does not sell land and has no interest in any lands. But it claims to provide enough detailed information to enable "you as an astute and intelligent purchaser" to make a very sound, economical purchase. The properties are said to be for sale to anyone on bid by governmental agencies and are stated not to be listed by any real estate firm. Respondent offers to provide all necessary information for application to the proper agency and a purchaser may decide in the privacy of his own home with no speculative pressure.

A county map of Florida is also provided. The prospective purchaser is asked to show on the order form punch card those counties he is interested in and return it to the respondent. The cost is $10.00 for information on one county; $5.00 for the second to fifth counties; $3.00 thereafter; and for $195.00 the entire state is available.

Appendices B and C were received by the Inspector and contain the respondent's information sheets on Lee and Marion Counties. Each shows maps of and describes the County and lists the outstanding tax certificates available for purchase. These certificates, over two years old and not redeemed by the owner of the property, may be purchased and then the purchaser may apply to the County Circuit Court for a tax deed. The price of these certificates is the accrued taxes plus interest up to 18 per cent. The application for the tax deed -- so this information states -- forces the property to tax auction and the tax certificate is considered as the first bid. At the auction, if the purchaser of the certificate is not the successful bidder, the price of the certificate is returned to him.

On the reverse side of each of these sheets is a list of the tax certificates available and a description of the properties by metes and bounds, in some instances, and, in others, by only the lot number. No topographical description is given. The assessment of the property and value of the certificates are given for Marion Country but not for Lee County. The former shows 15 certificates available and the latter shows six.

The Complainant's second and third witnesses are employees of the Bureau of Land Management of the U. S. Department of the Interior. The first of these testified that his agency received several hundred inquiries concerning the respondent's advertise- ment and promotional material sent in response to the ad. Exhibit C-11 is said to be representative of these inquiries and these indicate that the writers questioned (1) whether the respondent was an agency of the U. S. Government or (2) whether any federally held public lands were for sale in Florida or (3) the legality of respondent's ad. In each case, the Bureau's reply^1/ was that respondent is not a federal agency and no federal lands are available in Florida -- now or in the foreseeable future.

The final witness testified that, historically, "public" lands denote those owned by the federal government or a state. Technically, these would not include those lands on which any government holds only a lien, such as a tax lien or a FHA mortgage. Rather, public land refers to national parks, forests and the like. Again, this witness knew of no federal land available in Florida. Looking at respondent's information sheets (Appendices B and C), this witness was unable to determine where the land was located within a county and could not in any way assess any value to the land based on this information alone.

Findings of Fact

I find based on the foregoing and the record as a whole that the respondent advertises a service which represents that:

(a) public or government lands are readily available for purchase by auction in

(b) any county in Florida of the purchaser's choice and

(c) that this availability is a bargain, inexpensive, not difficult and obtainable through

(d) the information that respondent can supply which -- if taken advantage of--can result in a very sound, economical purchase and

(e) based on that information, the purchaser can decide in the privacy of his home and that

(f) respondent attracts prospective purchasers of its information through a newspaper ad and mailed literature to those answering the ad and receives money and sends the information through the mails.

I further find that:

(g) Respondent's title as National Public Lands Information Service, together with its Washington, D.C. mailing address and its offer concerning "public" or "government" lands, create the impression that respondent is, in some way, an agency of a government and that this impression is not dispelled by its statement that it is an information service only, not selling land and having no interest in any land. This impression is false;

(h) Respondent's use of the terms "public land auction", "government land", "valid public lands" and "properties. . .for sale. . .by Government Agencies" which permeate respondent's literature create the impression that these lands are owned by an agency of some federal or state governmental unit and that this impression is false;

(i) There are no public or government lands readily available for sale within Florida, that is, land owned by that State or a subdivision or the federal government;

(j) The lands which the respondent does give information about are not public or government lands but are those on which a taxing authority in Florida holds only a tax lien;

(k) Even these liened lands are not available in every Florida County;

(l) Since any prospective purchaser must initiate the auction, there can be no knowledge or prediction, at the time of receipt of respondent's information, whether the purchase will be a bargain, inexpensive or not difficult or even successful contrary to respondent's representations;

(m) While a sound, economical purchase is possible, no purchaser in the privacy of his home with only the respondent's information could decide to purchase any land, for the information supplied merely indicates that tax certificates are available but the land is so vaguely identified and described only by legalistic and technical phraseology without any topographical detail that no astute and intelligent decision can be based on this, and that respondent's statement that this decision can be made in one's home is misleading and false.

Conclusion

The net impression created by respondent's newspaper ad and literature is that some sort of public land to be sold by a governmental agency is readily available in Florida wherever any purchaser wants. This is partially true if a sale for unpaid taxes at auction is viewed as a sale of public land by a governmental agency. But the evidence shows that the general populace interprets public land as land owned by the government, or something more than a forced tax sale. And the term "government land" used by the respondent surely imports an idea other than only a sale for taxes. In short, there are no valid public or governmental lands, as the public understands these terms, readily available for sale in Florida.

At best, the partial truth in respondent's pamphlet is that a Florida Circuit Court, an agency of government, will be involved in the sale. As pointed out in P. Lorillard v. FTC , 186 F.2d 52 at 58,

To tell less than the whole truth is a well known method of deception; and he who deceives by resorting to such method cannot excuse the deception by relying upon the truthfulness per se of the partial truth by which it has been accomplished.

I conclude that the respondent is engaged in a scheme or device to obtain money through the mail by means of false representations and that an order, as provided by 39 U. S. Code 3005, should be issued.

___________________

1/ As an aside, the Bureau should be complimented for the style of these replies. They are responsive, clear, sympathetic and free of "bureaucratease".