In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:

MARK BURNETT
and
DAVID FORWARD

CAROLYN MILLER

P.S. Docket No. MD-133

11/05/91

Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT MARK BURNETT: J. Steven Huffines, Esq.,
Huffines & Marble, 408 South Crain Highway, Suite 4,
Glen Burnie, MD 21061-3661

APPPEARANCES FOR DISPUTANTS DAVID FORWARD and CAROLYN MILLER:
David Forward, Carolyn Miller, Pro Se, 9401 Indian Head Highway,
Fort Washington, MD 20744-3643

INITIAL DECISION

The Office of Field Legal Services, Philadelphia, PA, has forwarded this mail dispute for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965.

Disputant Mark Burnett has filed a submittal pursuant to $S965.5 of the Rules of Practice. No submittal has been filed by disputants Forward and Miller. The following findings of fact are based on Mr. Burnett's submittal together with documentation furnished by the parties to the postmaster at Accokeek, MD.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The disputants are Mark Burnett, P. O. Box 810, Accokeek, MD 20607-0810 and David Forward, 9401 Indian Head Hwy., Fort Washington, MD 20744-3643. Carolyn Miller's entry into the dispute was merely as special assistant to David Forward, President of Business Information Network, in a letter written by her to the postmaster at Accokeek.

2. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Business Information Network, BIN, RTC Net, RTC Network, and David Forward at P. O. Box 810, Accokeek, MD 20607.

3. Disputant Burnett applied for P. O. Box 810 on March 24, 1987, as president of PC Consultants in the name of PC Consultants and "The Burnetts." In box "d" on the application there were added by Mr. Burnett, at a later date, the names Business Information Network, BIN, and RTC Net as organizations whose representatives were authorized to accept mail addressed to the box. Mail addressed to Mr. Burnett, Mr. Forward, and the business entities named in Finding 2, supra, was received at Box 810.

4. In late 1990 a dispute arose between Burnett and Forward which resulted in the termination of their business association. However, for three or four months thereafter they shared access to Box 810.

5. In late March or early April 1991, Burnett discovered that the box had been put "on hold" for non-payment of rent. Burnett immediately paid the rent and reactivated the box discovering thereupon that change of address orders, to 9401 Indian Head Highway, Fort Washington, MD, had been filed by a Bonnie Reemsnyder, a person unknown to Burnett, for mail addressed to disputant Forward, PCI Consultants, Business Information Network, and RTC Net at P. O. Box 810. Mr. Burnett, as the box customer, complained to the postmaster who thereupon "pulled" the change of address orders. Thereafter, all mail addressed to P. O. Box 810 was delivered as addressed.

6. Because of the ongoing dispute as to ownership interest in the business entities, Mr. Burnett states that he felt unable to authorize the post office to forward the mail described in Finding 5, above. He did, however, forward all disputed mail delivered to P. O. Box 810 to Mr. Forward's attorneys.

7. On May 1, 1991, Mr. Burnett's attorney wrote to Mr. Forward's attorney requesting that Mr. Forward notify his customers of a change of address because Mr. Burnett would discontinue forwarding the mail in question on May 15 and would direct that it be returned to sender.

8. On July 18, 1991, Carolyn Miller as special assistant to the President of Business of Information Network wrote a letter to the postmaster in which the position was taken that since Mr. Burnett had not rented Box 810 as an individual but, rather, on behalf of Business Information Network (BIN), which paid the box rental fee, BIN was the box customer under DMM § 951.122 and, therefore, had the right to order the forwarding of the disputed mail.

9. Following unsuccessful efforts by the postmaster to resolve the dispute the matter was referred to the Judicial Officer pursuant to DMM § 153.72.

10. In his submittal, disputant Burnett says he has no interest in receiving any of the disputed mail.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Disputants Forward and Miller are considered in default under § 965.7 of the Rules of Practice for failure to file submittals pursuant to § 965.6.

On the record before me, disputant Burnett is the box customer as defined by DMM § 951.122 n1 (Finding 5, supra) and, as such, has authority to file change of address orders for mail addressed to Box 810. n2

n1 951.122 The term "box customer" applies only to the following:

a. The person who signs the application as an individual; or,

b. The organization on whose behalf an individual signs the application.

n2 951.753 Who May File. Change-of-address orders may only be filed by the box customer or authorized representatives of the organization listed on the Form 1093. Forwarding of mail for other persons is the responsibility of the box customer.

Mr. Burnett has not seen fit to order a change of address for the disputed mail but, as noted in Finding 9, supra, has stated that he has no interest in receiving any of that mail.

Such statement is construed as his consent that the disputed mail be delivered to the addressees as requested by them. Presumably, the address to which disputants Forward and Miller wish such mail to be delivered is 9401 Indian Head Highway, Fort Washington, MD 20744 as reflected in the change of address orders filed by Bonnie Reemsnyder (see Finding 5, supra). Therefore, the disputed mail should be delivered to that address or as directed by disputant Forward.