October 24, 2017

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute between

EAGLE FORUM and JOHN SCHLAFLY & BRUCE SCHLAFLY

P.S. Docket No. MD 17-13

APPEARANCE FOR EAGLE FORUM:
James P. Sanders, Esq.
Jessica Powers, Esq.
Smith Amundsen LLC

APPEARANCE FOR JOHN AND BRUCE SCHLAFLY:
Edward D. Greim, Esq.
Andrew A. Alexander, Esq.
Graves Garrett, LLC

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

John and Bruce Schlafly appeal a September 15, 2017 Initial Decision issued by Administrative Judge Alan R. Caramella.  The Initial Decision recommended that I order the Alton, Illinois Postmaster to deliver the disputed mail as directed by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum, the other party to this Mail Dispute.  I affirm.¹
The parties stipulated that the issue to be decided by this Mail Dispute is “How should mail addressed to “Eagle Forum at (A) P.O. Box 618, Alton, IL 62002; and (B) 322 State Street, Suite 301, Alton, IL 62002 be delivered?”²  Much of the Schlaflys’ appeal focuses on other business entities that receive mail at those locations – that focus is irrelevant to the stipulated issue before me.  Mail directed to business entities other than Eagle Forum will continue to be delivered as addressed, as the Initial Decision concluded.
As to the mail that is in dispute – mail solely directed to Eagle Forum – the Initial Decision was based primarily on Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 508.1.1.1, which provides that “[a]ddressees may control delivery of their mail.”  Concluding that Eagle Forum is the addressee of mail sent to Eagle Forum at P.O. Box 618, Alton, IL
62002 and 322 State Street, Suite 301, Alton, IL 62002, the Initial Decision reasoned that Eagle Forum is permitted to forward that mail to its new business location. 
The Schlaflys argue, however, that this interpretation of DMM § 508.1.1.1 conflicts with DMM § 507.2.1.5.  The latter provision states in relevant part:
A change-of-address order cannot be filed or is restricted for the following:
An addressee (e.g., an individual or a business entity or other organization) may not file a change-of-address order for mail originally addressed to the addressee at an organization, business, place of employment, or other affiliation. The organization or business may change the address (but not the addressee’s name) on a mailpiece to redirect it to the addressee.
Specifically, the Schlaflys argue that the addressee in question – Eagle Forum – “may not file a change-of-address order” under this provision because the disputed mail was “originally addressed to the addressee at an organization, business, place of employment, or other affiliation.”  I see no basis for such a conclusion, which would render DMM § 508.1.1.1 meaningless in this context.
By its own terms, the word “addressee” in DMM § 507.2.1.5 means “an individual or a business entity,” not a combination of an individual or business entity to whom the mail piece is directed and the address to which it is directed.  Indeed, DMM § 507.2.1.5 deals with a situation in which mail is sent to “an organization, business, place of employment, or other affiliation” at which the individual or business entity to whom it is directed (the addressee) no longer conducts business or is employed.  That is why the second sentence of DMM § 507.2.1.5 then allows the organization or business entity currently located at the physical address written on the piece of mail to “change the address (but not the addressee’s name)” on that mail to allow it to be redirected to the addressee (that is, to the individual or business entity whose name appears on that piece of mail but who no longer is located at that physical address).
Here, the mail in dispute is being sent to Eagle Forum at a physical address (P.O. Box 618 and 322 State Street), not to Eagle Forum at Eagle Trust Fund or another of the many organizations and business entities also located at that physical address.  Therefore, DMM § 507.2.1.5 does not apply and does not prohibit the change of address sought by Eagle Forum.
The Schlaflys’ position that multiple organizations should be considered as the addressee for mail sent only to Eagle Forum incorrectly interprets postal regulations.  Unless the face of a piece of disputed mail indicates that it is directed to Eagle Forum and to another business entity, for purposes of these mail delivery regulations, only one addressee is involved.  I agree with Eagle Forum that, for purposes of DMM § 508.1.1.1, if the words on a piece of mail identify only Eagle Forum, Eagle Forum is the addressee which is allowed to control delivery of that mail.  In the absence of a piece of mail identifying Eagle Forum and another business entity as recipients, I will not infer a contrary intent because Eagle Forum shared the same physical mailing address with other business entities.
As the only mail here in dispute is that directed to Eagle Forum (or Eagle Forum, Attention:  Phyllis Schlafly), and Eagle Forum has moved, it remains entitled to redirect such mail to its present address.  After the Initial Decision was issued, Eagle Forum’s president, Eunie Smith (see Findings 5, 9), directed that all mail addressed to Eagle Forum at P.O. Box 618, Alton, IL 62002, and 322 State Street, Suite 301, Alton, IL 62002 be delivered to Eagle Forum’s current office at 200 W. 3rd Street, Suite 502, Alton, Illinois 62002.  By separate Order, I will so instruct the Alton Postmaster.  None of the alternative relief requested by the Schlaflys is appropriate, and mail addressed to other entities at P.O. Box 618 and 322 State Street, Suite 301 in Alton, Illinois will be delivered as addressed.
The Schlaflys’ appeal is denied.

Gary E. Shapiro
Judicial Officer