P.S. Docket No. MD 22-341

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Judge Rho issued an Initial Decision recommending that the mail subject to this dispute be delivered as directed by Wilson Yargee. Samuel Marshall has appealed that Initial Decision. For the reasons below, Judge Rho’s decision is affirmed. An order to the Wetumka Postmaster confirming this decision is attached.
First, I recognize the parties’ significant dispute over tribal governance and laws. But the Judicial Officer Department has no interest in the outcome of that long-running dispute. Rather, our interest in the case centers on assisting the local postmaster to ensure timely delivery of the mail. Henson v. Young, MD 16-19, 2016 WL 10572252 (April 18, 2016).
Mail disputes that reach the Judicial Officer Department are assigned to a judge for an Initial Decision, and the parties are directed to file a sworn statement in support of their position. 39 C.F.R. § 965.5. The parties may also file supporting documents and are allowed time to respond to the other party’s filings. Here, neither party filed a sworn statement or documents in response to the Notice of Docketing. Judge Rho gave the parties a second chance to do so, but he warned them that their failure to respond might result in an adverse decision based on default. In response, Mr. Yargee filed documents, but no sworn statement. For his part, Mr. Marshall did not respond. Judge Rho granted the parties yet another chance to comply with our rules, again reminding them that they could be held in default if they failed to respond. Mr. Yargee then filed a sworn statement of facts, but Mr. Marshall did not. Instead of a sworn statement, he filed more documents with no context or argument explaining their relevance.  
Based on that record, Judge Rho issued an Initial Decision in favor of Mr. Yargee. Our rules provide for an appeal to the Judicial Officer, and Mr. Marshall timely appealed. Included with his appeal, Mr. Marshall belatedly included sworn statements and supporting documents. But I will not consider them on appeal. Late evidence will be considered on appeal only if it was otherwise unavailable during the opening phase of the case, but no such argument was made here. Wilutis v. Havenor, MD 19-293, 2020 WL 532363 (January 24, 2020); Jay Enterprises of NC, Inc. v. Blanks, MD 10-57, 2010 WL 11570345 (June 14, 2010).
On the merits, Mr. Marshall’s appeal challenges Judge Rho’s interpretation of tribal law, arguing that he failed to find that Mr. Yargee was lawfully removed as tribal chief at town meetings in October and December 2021. On appeal, that argument is unavailing. I will only set aside Judge Rho’s decision if it is clearly erroneous or there is some other basis for me to exercise my discretion to overturn it. Twohatchet v. Poolaw, MD 11-264, 2012 WL 13034264 (February 1, 2012).
As noted, this case involves a vigorous disagreement over tribal law. But Mr. Yargee presented a sworn statement asserting his right to hold the office of tribal chief. In contrast, Mr. Marshall did not provide sworn testimony. Instead, he filed documents without explaining their context or relevance. Thus, given the unrebutted sworn testimony, Judge Rho properly concluded that Mr. Yargee, as the tribal chief, has a right to direct delivery of the mail. There is therefore no basis to overturn the initial decision on appeal or find that Judge Rho’s decision was clearly erroneous.
I conclude by reiterating Judge Rho’s statement that this decision and the attached order are issued solely to direct delivery of the mail. This decision does not determine the ownership of the contents of the disputed mail, and it does not attempt to resolve the disputes between the parties. If a court of competent jurisdiction directs delivery of the mail otherwise, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to that court order.