In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 GLOBE APPLICATION SERVICE
 H. MORRIS, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR,

 and

 H. MORRIS
 at Baltimore, Maryland

 P.O.D. Docket No. 2/27; 

 APPEARANCES:
 Sheldon E. Friedman, Esq.
 36 East Lanvale Street
 Baltimore 2, Maryland
 for the Respondent

 Ralph B. Manherz, Esq.
 Office of the General Counsel
 Post Office Department
 for the Appellee

In this case the Respondent, Globe Application Service, H. Morris, Personnel Director, and H. Morris is charged with conducting a fraudulent scheme in violation of 39 U.S. Code § 4005.

"(a) Upon evidence satisfactory to the Postmaster General that any person is engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;---"

This code section provides, in substance, that the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that a fraud scheme is being conducted, issue an order directing that mail addressed to the operator of the scheme be returned to the senders thereof stamped "Fraudulent". This type of order also prohibits the payment of money orders made out in favor of the operator of such a scheme.

The Respondent placed the following ad in newspapers:

MALE HELP WANTED - Able Construction Workers. Overseas in U.S. Projects. All Trades. Write Globe Application Service, Box 854, Baltimore 3, Maryland.

When the Respondent received a letter in response to the newspaper ad he answered with a mimeographed sheet as described in the Appellant's Exhibits B-8 and C which exhibits are attached to this decision. Then when the person interested in employment sent the Respondent $4 or $5, the latter sent a list of contracts awarded on U.S. projects, giving the place, address, the cost of the project and the name of the firm building it. Also attached to this second letter of the Respondent's are the names of major contractors with names and addresses who do work in Alaska. This same sheet provides a listing of the major contractors in Alaska and also describes, in general, opportunities and employment opportunities in Alaska.

The next sheet contains a list of foreign projects and states the place, the cost, the name and address of each of the companies building them.

Exhibit B-9 refers to February and March as being big job placement months and Exhibit B-10 gives information on some of the many benefits for overseas workers and a list of jobs and wages on these overseas jobs.

The Appellant maintains that the Respondent has misrepresented the true facts. A study of fraud cases leads one to believe there is "no hard and fast rule that can be laid down as to what constitutes a fraudulent representation in any given case since this depends upon the particular circumstances and conditions involved" (37 C.J.S., Section 8).

After the Appellant's exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection at the hearing, the first and only witness called by the Appellant was Mr. Richard M. Bock, Postal Inspector, Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Bock is assigned to Mail Fraud Investigation.

Mr. Bock said that he went to the home of the Respondent on July 29, 1960, where he interrogated the Respondent who cooperated in his answers. When the Respondent was asked about his Research Department, the Respondent answered that he was his own Research Department, that the material contained in his letters to people who answered his ads was from the Engineering News Record Magazine and other publications that he looked at in the Pratt Library in Baltimore -- that the magazine contains a list of projects which are offered for bid; that when a contract is let for one of these projects it is published in this Engineering News Record Magazine from which he takes the information and puts it in the sheets which he sells to those who have answered his first letter and remitted money -- that he carries a project on his lists for six or eight months and there may have been a few that were carried longer than six or eight months.

Mr. Bock (Tr. 16) in answer to the question:

"Q. Did you ascertain any information in connection with any of these firms listed by Mr. Morris in his lists as to their availability of employment through such concerns

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What was that?

A. There have been a number of these firms canvassed and to date there have been five replies. Let me put it this way.

One firm stated that two of the projects listed by Mr. Morris in the material he sells, that there were no contracts for these projects; they had negotiated for the project but the contract was never assigned and they did no work whatsoever on these projects that were listed. In practically everyone of the firms that have been interviewed their general labor policy is to hire help in the area of the project. So far all of them have been union people ---"

Mr. Bock said there had been some investigations by other Inspectors but that he had contacted only the Consolidated Engineering Company in Baltimore and that was done a few days before the hearing was held in Washington on May 19, 1961. This contact concerning the Carling Brewery that was built by the Consolidated Engineering Company in Baltimore. Further testimony showed that this project was not in the literature being currently used by the Respondent but was used in the Respondent's literature of April 1960.

In answer to another question (Tr. 23):

"Q. What other information did you obtain from any of these firms concerning the availability of employment, Mr. Bock?

A. That I personally obtained, there has been none other than what has been objected to here from firms."

Mr. Bock said the only firm he had contacted was the Consolidated Engineering Company and that he had not investigated the rates of pay which the Respondent had described in his literature.

Later in the hearing, Mr. Bock said that he had requested other Inspectors to circularize fifty-one firms listed by the Respondent in his literature with a view to determining the employment needs and practices of these firms. Mr. Bock, himself, sent out twenty-one such circulars. From the seventy-two firms circularized there were only five replies. This small number of replies may be accounted for by the fact that the circularization took place only a week before the hearing -- twenty-one of them, only two days before the hearing. Mr. Bock said that the replies received indicated that

most companies tend to hire persons located near the site of the particular project under construction. Whether this conclusion, based upon such a scanty return to the questionnaires, is valid may be open to considerable doubt. Assuming the validity of the conclusion, however, it does not negate the well-known fact that on many, if not most, large projects workers have to be imported from places outside the local area.

Mr. Bock did say that he contacted the Martinsburg Journal in which was one of the Respondent's "Male Help Wanted" ads.

The Respondent's ad as shown above appeals to construction workers and to tradesmen. The Appellant failed to prove in the hearing that there were no jobs available for able construction workers and tradesmen in the various projects set out in the lists submitted by the Respondent ot those who had paid for them. One company told the witness it had no jobs, but there was no witness from any of the companies, Tr. 29. There was no proof as to the ad's misleading a worker who saw it. There was no proof that the information as to types of work, rate of pay, statements of benefits and what to expect if one did secure a job were false.

The Appellant bases his complaint almost solely on the exhibits. The Appellant charges that the placement of the ad, the wording of it and all of the exhibits misrepresent the true facts; that the ad and the first letter from the Respondent are culpably misleading. If they are I believe the Appellant has failed to prove them so.

Yes, the Respondent has used what may be "come-on" phrases which certainly are not unusual in this day and age, I'm sorry to say. He says in his first letter "Make those dreams come true." (37 CJS - pg. 225) For an unemployed person to get a job certainly is having a dream come true. But the Appellant says there were no jobs. This he failed to prove except in one instance. In his first letter after receiving an inquiry the Respondent says, "The Globe Application Service is NOT AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY,---." It would be underestimating the intelligence of the construction worker and the tradesman to say they did not understand this sentence set out in large letters. If they did, there should have been some proof - but there was none.

There is no proof that the Respondent has not done research to become acquainted with the projects listed in the United States and in foreign countries. "Research" according to Webster's New World Dictionary means:

"careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to establish facts or principles---"

The Appellant failed to prove that there were no high paying jobs. There was no testimony on January's and February's not being big job placement months. There was no proof that the Respondent had misrepresented pay rates for jobs and there was no proof that the information contained on the Respondent's lists were not up-to-date.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the complaint in this case be dismissed.

06/28/61

Bosone, Reva Beck