In the Matter of the Complaint That

 KATHIE WAULKER,
 also known as:
 KATHY WAULKER,
 CATHIE WAULKER,
 CATHY WAULKER,
 KATHIE WALKER,
 KATHY WALKER CATHIE WALKER,
 CATHY WALKER, and other variations thereof.
 at P. O. Box 2014,
 Van Nuys, California

 is engaged in conducting an unlawful enterprise through the mails
 in violation of 39 U.S. Code 259a.  

 H.E. Docket No. 5/192

 05/02/58

 ABLARD, CHARLES D.  

An oral Initial Decision was rendered by the Hearing Examiner in this case on February 25, 1958. He found that the Respondent was violating 39 U.S. Code 259a by depositing in the mails information as to where obscene matter may be obtained.

The Respondent has excepted to the finding of the Examiner on the grounds that Stanard v. Olesen, 227 F.2d 785 is controlling in this case and that, based upon that decision, this proceeding should be dismissed. There is no merit in this contention since Stanard v. Olesen is distinguishable from the instant case as the charge in the complaint is different. In Stanard the charge and the departmental order were based upon the theory that the merchandise offered by the Respondent was obscene and that the advertisements constituted sufficient evidence of that fact. In this case the allegation is that the advertising offers what would, to a reasonable person, be assumed to be obscene matter. It is not essential that the merchandise be introduced into evidence as the advertising standing alone is sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute on this theory of the law. U.S. v. Hornick, 229 F.2d 120; Klaw v. Schaffer, 151 F. Supp. 534, affirmed Ct. App. 2nd Cir. January 31, 1958; also, Glanzman v. Schaffer, 143 F. Supp. 243, affirmed Ct. App. 2nd Cir. February 7, 1958. The exception is disallowed.

Since the filing of the appeal briefs in this case, the Post Office Department has changed its organization, establishing a Judicial Officer vested with the responsibility of making final adjudications in all administrative proceedings before the Department. Vol. 23, Federal Register, No. 83, page 2817, April 26, 1958. New Rules of Practice, at page 2794 supra, have also been promulgated, which bring the departmental practice into compliance with the above-mentioned reorganization. The Judicial Officer took no part in the preparation or prosecution of this case.

An appropriate order will issue.