In the Matter of the Complaint Against

DAMIAN HAWKINS

and

FEDERAL REDEMPTION CENTER at
2895 Biscayne Boulevard, Suites 523 and 274,
Miami, FL 33137-4537 and at
2898 Biscayne Boulevard,
Miami, FL 33137-4536

P.S. Docket No. 25/167

James A. Cohen Judicial Officer

APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq.
Donald A. Potter, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
Law Department
United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENTS:
Stephen H. Broudy, Esq. Second Floor
2919 East Commercial Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308-4207

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON
BREACH OF CONSENT AGREEMENT

On April 9, 1987, Complainant filed a Petition for Orders Based on Breach of Consent Agreement alleging that Respondents have breached the terms of a Consent Agreement (Agreement) executed on November 25, 1986, by Damian Hawkins, individually and as owner of Federal Redemption Center. Complainant contends that Respondents have breached the terms of the Agreement by failing to provide monies to establish a restitution fund as required by paragraph 6. Complainant therefore requests that a False Representation Order be issued against the following name and addresses: Federal Redemption Center, 2895 Biscayne Boulevard, Suites 523 and 274, Miami, FL 33137-4537 and 2898 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33137-4536.

On April 13, 1987, an Interim Detention Order as provided for in paragraph 11 of the Agreement was issued against the requested name and addresses. On April 22, 1987, Respondents filed a reply to the Petition in which they alleged they had experienced "unforeseen delay in acquiring monies for the restitution account", communication difficulties occasioned by illness of counsel and improper actions of Postal Inspectors. As a result, they requested that the Interim Detention Order be vacated, the Consent Agreement be reinstated with stipulations for amendment, and costs of the escrow agent be borne by Respondents. Alternatively, Respondents requested that they be granted a hearing.

On May 7, 1987, an attempt was made to schedule a telephone conference with the parties to explore the possibility of an informal resolution of this matter. However, Respondents' counsel was unavailable until May 12, 1987. The telephone conference was scheduled for 2:00 P.M., May 12, 1987, but cancelled on that date because Respondents' counsel was again unavailable, this time until May 27, 1987. Thus, because of the nonavailability of Respondents' counsel, it has not been possible to obtain resolution of this matter by agreement of the parties.

The attachments to the Petition make a prima facie showing that Respondents have breached the terms of the Agreement in the manner alleged in the Petition. Respondents have not rebutted the allegations of the Petition insofar as they pertain to the existence of a breach of the obligation to establish a restitution fund. While Respondents allege reasons for their failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement, they have not established that any of their reasons constitute a legally excusable basis for the breach. In addition, Respondents have not established that there exists a genuine and material issue of fact in dispute or that good cause otherwise exists for granting a hearing.

Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondents have breached the terms of the Consent Agreement in the manner alleged in the Petition. Moreover, Respondents have not shown that a hearing should be held. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Agreement, an Order described in 39 U.S.C. 3005(a)(l) and (2) is being issued with this decision.