In the Matter of the Complaint Against

RAYMOND MILO, d/b/a DIRECTORY PUBLISHING DIVISION
9000 Sunset Boulevard
at Los Angeles,CA 90069

P.S. Docket No. 12/168;

07/16/82

Cohen, James A.

APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
ThomasA. Ziebarth, Esq.
James A. Harbin, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
Law Department
United States Postal Service
Washington, DC 20260

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jerry L. Newton, Esq.
Newton & Newton
415 North Camden Drive
Suite 100
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF AMENDMENT TO FALSE
REPRESENTATION ORDER NO. 81-275

Respondent has filed a Motion for Clarification of Amendment to False Representation Order No. 81-275. In its Motion, Respondent alleges that the Postal Service has improperly refused to "deliver its bank statements, its phone bills, its general business correspondence, etc." Respondent also alleges that objectionable solicitations ended in November, 1981, and that activities engaged in by Respondent subsequent to that date are not covered by the False Representation Order. Respondent asks that an Order be issued which "clearly and specifically advises the Post Office that Order No. 81-275, as amended, only requires mail addressed to 9301 Wilshire Boulevard be detained which clearly relates to activities engaged in by Respondents up to and including November, 1981."

Complainant opposes Respondent's Motion. According to Complainant, certain of Respondent's mail cannot be determined to be unrelated to the activities covered by the False Representation Order and therefore is detained until examined by Respondent. Complainant further contends that Respondent receives remittances at the addresses covered by the False Representation Order in response to new solicitations which direct remittances to a new address, and that these customers are apparently influenced by the prior misrepresentations or they would not have mailed the remittances to the old addresses.

As Respondent contends, bank statements, phone bills and other correspondence which, prior to examination by Respondent, can be identified as being unrelated to the False Representation Order should be delivered to Respondent in accordance with normal delivery procedures. Mail which cannot reasonably be identified as unrelated to the False Representation Order should be detained for examination by Respondent.

Remittances received at the addresses covered by the False Representation Order, but which were mailed as the result of solicitations not considered in the prior proceeding, present a more difficult problem. Complainant contends that Respondent has the burden of showing that its new solicitations omit representations which have been found to violate the terms of the Consent Agreement. However, it does not specifically argue that the new solicitations include these representations. It further contends that customers are apparently influenced by the prior misrepresentations or they would not have mailed the remittances to the old addresses.

Normally, remittances to solicitations which are not even alleged to continue to make the representations which were found to violate the terms of the Consent Agreement are not covered by the terms of a False Representation Order. However, the fact that the remittances are mailed to the address subject to the Order establishes a prima facie case that the customers are, as alleged by Complainant, influenced by the representations of the prior solicitations which are subject to the Order. Accordingly, all remittances received at the addresses covered by the False Representation Order are subject to the Order.