In the Matter of the Complaint Against

INTERNATIONAL FRAUD SQUAD
2975 St-Charles, Suite 118
Kirkland, Quebec
CANADA H9H 3B5

HOME SHOPPING NETWORK
553 Grand Blvd.
Ile Perrot, Quebec J7V 4X4

BRIAN BRUNTON-GUERARD
447 Place Datura
Ile Perrot, Quebec
CANADA J7V 7K4

P.S. Docket No. FOR 00-304

APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:  Catherine A. Green, Esq.
                                                           Civil Practice Section
                                                           United States Postal Service
                                                           475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
                                                           Washington, DC 20260-1127

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:    Brian Brunton-Guerard
                                                           553 Grand Blvd.
                                                           Ile Perrot, Quebec
                                                           Canada J7V 4X4

On August 28, 2000, Tentative Decision and Order No. 00-10 (hereinafter Tentative Decision) was issued which concluded that Complainant had made a prima facie showing that the captioned Respondents are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005. On October 2, 2000, Respondent Brian Brunton-Guerard filed a timely reply to the Tentative Decision in which he denies that Respondents are engaged in any conduct in violation of the United States postal false representation and lottery law.

Respondent Brunton-Guerard contends in his reply that the Complaint should be dismissed because neither he nor Respondent International Fraud Squad (Respondent IFS) is engaged in a scheme or illegal conduct nor have they collected money or property by means of false representations. Respondent Brunton-Guerard also asserts that Respondent IFS is now "defunct" because of the improper "strong arm tactics" of law enforcement agencies¹ and, in addition, that he does not own Respondent Home Shopping Network (Respondent HSN).

Respondent Brunton-Guerard has not shown good cause for dismissing the Complaint or revoking or modifying the Tentative Decision. The Tentative Decision held that Respondents’ promotional materials falsely represent, directly or indirectly, in substance and effect, whether by affirmative statements, implications or omissions, that:

(a) Respondent IFS is an independent legally established non-profit entity;

(b) Respondent IFS has an office physically located at the suite address listed in the caption; [and]

(c) Respondent IFS works with the United States Postal Inspection Service and/or other police or law enforcement agencies to combat telemarketing fraud.²

Respondent Brunton-Guerard has not shown that the promotional materials for Respondent IFS do not make these representations or that these representations are not materially false. While he submitted several letters and newspaper articles with his reply which refer to Respondent IFS as a private, non-profit organization that works with law enforcement agencies to prevent marketing frauds, the attachments are clearly based on mailings or statements received from Respondents and do not persuasively establish the actual nature of Respondents’ business.

Respondent Brunton-Guerard has not denied that the International Fraud Squad solicitation was mailed while it was a viable entity. Moreover, it has been consistently held that §3005 proceedings are not rendered moot because a scheme has been discontinued prior to the filing of the Complaint.³ Finally, although Respondent Brunton-Guerard argues that Respondent HSN "does not belong to" him, he has presented no evidence to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing that he is a principal of Respondent HSN⁴ and controls its acts and practices.⁵ Accordingly, Respondent Brunton-Guerard’s argument provides no basis for dismissing the Tentative Decision.

Since the solicitation makes the misrepresentations found in the Tentative Decision, its distribution through the United States mail establishes that Respondents are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005. Accordingly, Tentative Decision and Order No. 00-10 is now the Final Decision and Order of the Postal Service.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer

¹ On October 10, 2000, Respondent Brunton-Guerard submitted a newspaper article about the arrest of an officer on the task force that investigated Respondents for telemarketing fraud. Respondent Brunton-Guerard has not shown that the officer's illegal actions had any effect on this matter.

² Tentative Decision, Conclusion of Law 1 and Finding of Fact 9.

³ See Arthur Mourad, P.S. Docket No. 37/177 (P.S.D. June 28, 1993); Dennis Smith, P.S. Docket No. 37/176 (P.S.D. June 21, 1993), and cases cited therein.

⁴ Although the actual ownership of Respondent HSN is not clearly established, the evidence does establish that it was operated at the same address and in conjunction with other entities whose activities were controlled by Respondent Brunton-Guerard and that its actions were inseparable from those entities. See Declarations of Postal Inspector Timothy J. Mahoney (July 17, 2000 ( 10) and Oct. 27, 2000 ( 6-16)).

⁵ Respondent Brunton-Guerard also denies having an ownership interest in Consumer Direct International. Although both Respondent Brunton-Guerard and the Postal Inspector assigned to this matter make reference to this entity, the Complaint did not make any allegations regarding it.