In the Matter of the Complaint Against:

ERWIN KOLTAY d/b/a TELEMATIC &
EPSON PRECISION WORKS,
4880 49th Street, No.,
St. Petersburg, FL 33709-3860;

ERWIN KOLTAY d/b/a E. KOLTAY,
HERBERT BUTLER,
LEE D. KING,
E-Z RENT &
MARK WALKER,
5085 49th Avenue, North,
St. Petersburg, FL 33709-5913
and
4910 49th Avenue, North,
St. Petersburg, FL 33709-5912
and
323 South Franklin Bldg., Suite E-138,
Chicago, IL 60606-7007
and
369 East 900 South,
Salt Lake City,
UT 84111-4331
and
P. O. Box 990,
Calexico, CA 92231-0990

P.S. Docket Nos. 26/101 and 30/82

Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT: H. Richard Hefner, Esq., Alan
B. Ostroff, Esq., Consumer Protection Division, Law Department,
United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1144

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Erwin Koltay, 5085 49th Avenue,
North, Kenneth City, FL 33709-5913

 POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION FOR MODIFICATION

Respondent has filed a Motion for Modification in which he requests that the portion of False Representation Order No. 88-91 directing detention of mail addressed to his home be modified so that his personal mail may be delivered as addressed. Respondent also has filed two notices of taking deposition and a combined motion for contempt of court and appointment of a special master. Respondent's motions and notices be denied.

Motion for Modification

Respondent contends that his personal mail, including Christmas cards, has been returned to sender since 1982, causing tremendous hardship for himself and his family. Complainant argues that under the terms of the previously issued False Representation Order, mail which can be identified from its outside cover as being unrelated to Respondent's prior promotions is being delivered as addressed. According to Respondent, mail which cannot be identified as being unrelated to the prohibited activity is held for a minimum of forty-eight hours for Respondent's review, but Respondent has refused to inspect any detained mail.

Respondent previously requested modification of False Repre- sentation Order No. 88-91 in order to allow normal delivery of mail to his home address. By Postal Service Decision dated September 29, 1989, Respondent's motion was denied because Respondent had not made a prima facie showing that "he has discontinued the distribution of solicitations which make the representations previously found to be false, that there is no possibility of recurrent false representations, and that there is no risk of future harm to the public." Erwin Koltay, P.S. Docket Nos. 26/101 & 30/82 at 3 (P.S.D. Sept. 29, 1989). Respondent's arguments in support of his present motion are no more persuasive than those presented in support of his prior motion. Moreover, as Complainant points out and as was stated in the prior Postal Service Decision, False Representation Order No. 88-91 already provides for normal delivery of mail which is unrelated to Respondent's prior promotions. n* Accordingly, Respondent's motion for modification is denied.

n* Since False Representation Order No. 88-91 was issued on December 16, 1988, mail addressed to Respondent's home has been detained pursuant to an order of the Judicial Officer only since late 1988, not 1982 as Respondent contends.

Motions for Contempt of Court and to Appoint a Special Master

Respondent contends that counsel for Complainant made false accusations concerning Respondent's previous motion for modification and that Postal Inspector Kinnebrew committed perjury at his "trial." As a result, Respondent contends that a special master should be appointed to investigate his allegations and that a "contempt of court" citation be issued in this proceeding. Complainant argues that Respondent's motions are inappropriate and without legal bases since they do not pertain to a pending proceeding and the Judicial Officer has no authority to grant the relief sought.

The record does not reflect any false accusations by Complainant in connection with the previous motion for modification. In fact, the record does not reveal, and Respondent has not established, that improprieties of any sort exist which would justify reopening the record for the taking of additional evidence by any official authorized to preside at Postal Service administrative proceedings. Respondent's assertion that Postal Inspector Kinnebrew committed perjury at his "trial" is not supported by either credible arguments or a proffer of evidence which would raise even a suspicion of wrongdoing. Further, Respondent has not shown that any of Complainant's employees have conducted themselves in a manner warranting a finding of contempt or the imposition of any other sanction. Accordingly, Respondent's motions for contempt and to appoint a special master are denied.

Notices of Taking Deposition

Respondent has presented no arguments to support the need for depositions of two Postal Service officials. Since no basis has been shown to order the taking of depositions, Respondent's requests for depositions are denied.