In the Matter of the Complaint Against:

RON COOPER
d/b/a THE GOOD LIFE CLUB "TGIF",
722 W. Bristol, Suite B,
P.O. Box 177,
Elkhart, IN 46515-0177
and
722 W. Bristol, Suite B,
P.O. Box 1825,
Elkhart, IN 46515-1825

P.S. Docket No. 35/112

03/20/92

Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

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

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Ron Cooper, 722 W. Bristol, Suite B,
P.O. Box 177, Elkhart, IN 46515-0177

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By letter dated February 14, 1992, Respondent has expressed his disagreement with the Postal Service Decision dated February 7, 1992, in which it was concluded that Respondent is engaged in a lottery and a scheme to obtain money through the mail by means of a materially false representation in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Respondent's letter has been treated as a motion for reconsideration under 39 C.F.R. § 952.27. Complainant opposes Respondent's motion.

Respondent's Arguments and Discussion

Respondent contends that his multi-level marketing promotion is not a lottery or a scheme to obtain money through the mail by means of a materially false representation. Respondent also contends he is being harassed by the Postal Service and that the Postal Service has no right to detain his mail or otherwise interfere with the operation of his promotion. Finally, Respondent complains he has been mistreated by the Postal Inspectors and Complainant's counsel and that the Judicial Officer has not fairly and impartially decided his case.

In support of his contention that his multi-level marketing promotion does not constitute a lottery or make the false representation alleged in the Complaint, Respondent makes substantially the same arguments which were previously considered in either the Initial or Postal Service Decision. Respondent has offered no new arguments in support of these contentions nor has he shown that the findings and conclusions of the Initial Decision, as modified by the Postal Service Decision, are in error. Accordingly, no basis exists for reconsidering the Postal Service Decision. See Cosvetic Laboratories, P.S. Docket No. 7/38 at 3 (P.S.D. on Motion. for Recon. Dec. 9, 1980); Evelyn Taylor, P.S. Docket No. 7/145 at 2 (P.S.D. on Motion. for Recon. Oct. 22, 1980).

Respondent's contention that the Postal Service has no right to detain his mail and is improperly interfering with his multi-level marketing promotion has no merit. Under 39 U.S.C. $S3005, the Postal Service is responsible for investigating and adjudicating lotteries and schemes for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of materially false representations. Based on the evidence presented, Respondent's promotion was found to be a lottery and to falsely represent the amount which can be earned by a participant in his program. Thus, the orders authorized by 39 U.S.C. § 3005(a)(1)-(3) were properly issued in this proceeding.

Respondent's allegations of improprieties on the part of Postal Inspectors, Complainant's counsel and the Judicial Officer are also unsupported and lacking in merit. While the Judicial Officer was not privy to conversations between Respondent and the Postal Inspectors or Postal Service counsel (other than the two telephone conferences held during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration) no improprieties on the part of the Postal Inspectors or Postal Service counsel are apparent from the record. Further, Respondent has not shown, and no showing could be made, that the Judicial Officer did not act independently and impartially in deciding this case. Notwithstanding Respondent's contentions to the contrary, the Judicial Officer is an independent official within the Postal Service who is charged with the responsibility for fairly and impartially deciding cases within his jurisdiction. See The National Gold Mint, P.S. Docket No. 22/165 at 5-6 (P.S.D. May 1, 1987). The Judicial Officer was not subjected to any improper influence nor did he have any exparte communications with Postal Service officials regarding Respondent's appeal. The Postal Service Decision was based on a de novo review of the evidence included in the record n1 and the applicable legal precedents. Thus, there is no merit to Respondent's allegations of improper conduct or bias on the part of Postal Service officials.

n1 Respondent appears to believe that a hearing was held in this proceeding on February 7, 1992. Although under 39 C.F.R. $Z952.14 and 952.15 a hearing could have been held at a location convenient to Respondent, no hearing was held because the parties agreed the matter could be submitted for decision on the record as supplemented by briefs and additional documentary evidence (I.D., at 2; Order dated February 13, 1990). The February 7, 1992, date referred to by Respondent was the date the Postal Service Decision was issued.

Conclusion

Respondent has not shown any error of fact or law in the Postal Service Decision, or otherwise shown that any other basis exists for granting his request for reconsideration. Accordingly, Respondent's request for reconsideration is denied. n2 n2 By Supplement A dated March 4, 1992, the return portion of False Representation Order No. 92-14 issued with the Postal Service Decision dated February 7, 1992, was stayed during the pendency of Respondent's motion for reconsideration. Since the motion has now been denied, Supplement A is vacated and Supplement B to the False Representation Order is issued with this decision placing the Order in full force and effect.