June 23, 1997
| In the Matter of a Mail Dispute | ) |
| Between | ) |
| ) | |
| JOHN C. ISON | ) |
| ) | |
| and | ) |
| ) | |
| CLETE FERGUSON | ) P.S. Docket No. MD 97-138 |
| APPEARANCE FOR | |
| JOHN C. ISON: | John C. Ison |
| P.O. Box 170 | |
| Sandy Hook, KY 41181-0170 | |
| APPEARANCE FOR | |
| CLETE FERGUSON: | Clete Ferguson |
| HC 75 Box 275 | |
| Sandy Hook, KY 41171-9803 |
INITIAL DECISION
This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual, Issue 7, August 1, 1996, Section 616.21 which requires Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Tobacco Shed, Tobacco Discount, Discount Tobacco Shed, Tobacco Shed I, Tobacco Shed II, and Sue Ison, HC 75, Box 265, Sandy Hook, KY 41171-9604. The mail is currently being held by the Sandy Hook Postmaster.
Only Disputant Ison submitted the sworn statement required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. Disputant Ferguson made no submission in response to the Notice of Docketing. The following findings of fact are based on the material submitted by Mr. Ison and material forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Mid-Atlantic Office.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. John C. Ison and his wife, Delphia Sue Ison, are the owners of businesses known variously as Tobacco Shed, Tobacco Shed I and II, and Discount Tobacco Shed which operate at the disputed address. (Affidavits of John C. Ison and Delphia Sue Ison, and documents attached thereto).
2. Disputant Clete Ferguson is the landlord who rents the property on which these businesses are located. (Id.).
DECISION
Disputant Ferguson failed to file the sworn statement (or any statement) required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. Accordingly, he may be held in default in accordance with 39 C.F.R. §965.7.
In addition, the record in this matter demonstrates that the businesses in question are owned by John C. and Delphia Sue Ison. There is no evidence that Mr. Ferguson has an ownership interest in the businesses that might give him the right to direct the delivery of mail addressed to those businesses. Accordingly, I conclude that the disputed mail should be delivered as directed by John C. Ison.
This decision addresses only the right to delivery of mail. It does not purport to decide the question of ownership of the mail or any other disputes that may exist between the parties. If Mr. Ison receives mail intended for Mr. Ferguson, he is to have that mail forwarded to Mr. Ferguson promptly.
The attached mail delivery order should be issued.
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge