In the Matter of the Complaint Against

CONTINENTAL
P. O. Box 908 "CREDIT"-7
P. O. Box 908

and

ARROW all at
Niceville, Florida 32578

P.S. Docket No. 2/169;

APPEARANCES:
For Complainant:
Lee H. Harter, Esq.
Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.
Washington, D.C.

For Respondent:
Sumner H. Woodrow, Esq.
Balliro and Woodrow
Boston, Massachusetts

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

This proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 3005 was commenced by the complaint seeking a remedial order against mail addressed to Continental at P. O. Box 908, Niceville, Florida 32578, and Arrow, Niceville, Florida 32578. At the commencement of the hearing, Complainant moved orally to amend the complaint to include mail addressed to Credit-7, Box 908, Niceville, Florida 32578. Upon Respondent's Counsel's stating he had no objection, the presiding Administrative Law Judge allowed the amendment.

The complaint charged the following false representations in the promotion of the pamphlet "How to Have 'Triple A' Credit Within Thirty Days":

"(a) That a recent bankrupt or welfare recipient can, by following Respondent's methods, obtain credit fast and easily; (i.e., that little or no initial working capital is required);

"(b) That the Respondent's product contains 'instructions and methods that are 100% legal';

"(c) That the Respondent's product contains information on 'how new laws help a person in credit and collection';

"(d) That Respondent's product contains information on how to obtain 'the best possible credit reference in the United States;' and,

"(e) That Respondent's product contains information on how to obtain credit cards without a credit investigation."

Following the hearing and briefing the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent makes all the foregoing representations and that all are false but that the falsity in (c) is not material.

He accordingly recommended the issuance of a remedial order against mail in furtherance of the promotion including that addressed to Credit-7 at Niceville, Florida.

On appeal Respondent objects to the inclusion of Credit-7 at Niceville in the proposed order. He contends that address is beyond the scope of the complaint. But, as stated above, the complaint was amended on Complainant's motion to which Respondent's Counsel stated he had no objection.

Respondent also objects to the following language of the Initial Decision: "Those who 'bite' receive a two-page circular". The contention is that the foregoing passage demonstrates the Administrative Law Judge was prejudiced against Respondent. The word "prejudice", of course, is derived from the Latin for "prejudge". It is not understood how the language he uses after having considered the evidence and briefs could indicate the Administrative Law Judge had prejudged any facet of the matter before him. In any case, it would be unfortunate if decisions were required to be written in an absolutely colorless style.

Respondent contends that the Complainant's witness Vaughan was not competent to testify about consumer loan procedure. Mr. Vaughan is vice president in charge of the consumer credit division of a bank having 110 million dollars of consumer loans outstanding and is a member of various committees and organizations concerned with consumer and installment loans. the exception borders on the frivolous and is denied.

Respondent further excepts to Mr. Vaughan's qualifications to testify concerning issuance of credit cards, since he is not himself engaged in such transactions. However, through the various organizations of which he is a member, Mr. Vaughan is familiar with those procedures. Moreover, finding 10(d) to which the objection refers does not depend upon Mr. Vaughan's testimony, but on the documentary evidence presented.

Respondent contends he makes no representation concerning obtaining credit cards without a credit investigation. But the juxtaposition of the statement "How to get new credit without any investigation" with the words "credit cards" in eyecatching type in Exhibit A clearly brings credit cards within the charged representation.

Respondent also questions the Administrative Law Judge's understanding of what a credit card is. The Administrative Law Judge's understanding clearly comports with the common understanding of the term and therefore with what is represented to the public.

It is clear that the Administrative Law Judge based his findings that the representations were made on the examination of promotional material sent prior to the remittances by the customers. To judge the truthfulness of the representations, it obviously was necessary to examine the pamphlet received in exchange for the remittances. Other exceptions, including those going to the weight to be given particular evidence, have been considered and found to be without merit.

While the instant appeal was pending, Complainant sought and obtained an order to show cause why certain additional names and addresses used by the promoter should not be included in any order issued by the Judicial Officer. Respondent's answer to the Show Cause Order admits having used the names and addresses in the same promotion. He contends that while advertisements using them are still appearing, he has cancelled any further advertising using those names and addresses. Since it is evident that the effect of the advertising could not yet have dissipated, inclusion of the additional names and addresses in a remedial order is justified.

For the reasons stated above, Respondent's exceptions to the Initial Decision are denied and the Initial Decision is affirmed. Respondent is engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money through the mail by means of false representations under the names and addresses shown in the complaint as amended and the names and addresses given in the order to show cause. A remedial order under 39 U.S.C. 3005 is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.

06/19/74

Wenchel, Adam G.