In the Matter of the Complaint Against EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERS, EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, RESEARCH, P. O. Box 4391 at Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. 20012 P.S. Docket No. 3/53June 11, 1975
Herbert L. Stewart Administrative Law Judge
APPEARANCES: Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq. Law Department U. S. Postal Service Washington, D.C. 20260 for Complainant Mr. William J. Halterman Research Data Publishers Post Office Box 4374 Silver Spring, Maryland 20904 for Respondent
This is a proceeding by Complainant against Respondent under 39 U.S. Code 3005 which authorizes action against Respondent upon evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service that Respondent "is engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations".
Complainant alleges that Respondent is engaged in such a scheme in the sale of term papers including advertisements in college newspapers, catalogs, letters and oral representations, all of which are calculated to inform prospective student customers of the nature and availability of Respondent's products and services, and to induce such persons to remit money through the mail. (Exhibits 1 and 2, attached to Complaint). Specifically, Complainant alleges that:
#(3) By and through the use of such promotional activities and materials, Respondent offers to sell and, in fact, does sell term papers, reports, and other materials - both prewritten and original - to students at colleges and universities who remit money through the mail;
"(4) By means of the scheme described herein, Respondent knowingly cooperates with its student customers by furnishing instrumentalities which enable and encourage such students to submit the papers they have purchased for academic credit, thereby falsely representing them to be the product of their own original research and writing."
Respondent, by letter of July 3, 1974, categorically denied all of the allegations made in the Complaint. It admitted advertising in college newspapers, but denied that its products were designed for use as term papers, stating "It is not our responsibility to control or advise any customer as to how he may or may not use any information purchased from us." It further denied that 39 U.S. Code 3005 was applicable to the circumstances in issue.
At hearing held herein Complainant presented testimony and documentary evidence. Respondent was not represented by counsel, but appeared on its own behalf by its principal, William J. Halterman, who cross-examined Complainant's witnesses and presented his own sworn testimony. Complainant's motion for an oral decision was denied. Only the Complainant filed a post-hearing brief.
1. Respondent is engaged in the business of selling term papers under the guise of "Research," in part through the mails. Respondent, in sworn testimony, admitted that business had been solicited throughout the country (Tr. 41, also see testimony of Postal Inspector's experience in doing business with Respondent through the mails, Tr. 6-15 and 16-27).
2. Respondent receives money for its product through the mails (Comp. Ex. 14-17).
3. Prospective customers replying to Respondent's advertisements received Respondent's "newest and most complete catalog of research topic discussions."1/ These ready-made papers can be ordered for $5.00 per page. In addition custom-made papers can be ordered for $5.00 per page (for "lower division" research) and $6.25 per page (for "upper division" research). Respondent's catalog lists approximately a thousand titles of prewritten papers indexed by subject matter generally covering courses of study found at institutions of higher learning. Each such title describes subject, number of pages and whether or not footnotes and/or bibliographies are included.
4. Complainant introduced a paper received from Respondent on the subject of "Mental Hygiene and Mental Health" (Comp. Ex. 19). This paper is twelve pages long, together with a one-page introduction, footnotes, plus a page containing five sources of bibliography.
5. Respondent advertises in student and student related ("underground") newspapers. (Comp. Ex. 1, see also Tr. 31 - 32).
6. Colleges and universities utilize term papers in many courses which are assigned to students as tests of the student's ability to research and organize subjects for presentation as the student's own efforts and work product. It is patently misleading and deceptive if students misrepresent such project assignments as their own personal endeavors, when in truth and in fact the product submitted for academic credit is substantially prepared by other persons.
Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this proceeding, I find as follows:
a. Respondent offers to sell and sells its products, prewritten and custom-made papers to students, by means of advertisements and oral representations.
b. Although Respondent refers to its products are "research topic discussions," and carefully avoids use of the expression that they are term papers, it is obvious to the student for what use the product is designed, i . e ., term papers. This conclusion is further borne out by Respondent's advertising which is placed in student newspapers, as well as the assurance by Respondent that the same paper will not be sold to two students at the same school (Tr. 38-39).
c. Respondent provides term papers to students in institutions of higher learning, which term papers are known or should be known by Respondent to be submitted by the students in their courses for academic credit, falsely representing these term papers as their own work products, while in reality they are purchased from Respondent in complete or substantially complete form. Respondent obtains money or property through the mails for such term papers.
a. Respondent is engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations in violation of 39 U.S. Code 3005.
b. The scheme or device by which Respondent obtains money from its student customers occurs by means of placing into their hands an instrumentality which the customer falsely represents to a third party, a college or university, as being the work product of the student alone. In the absence of such false representations Respondent could not accomplish its purpose of obtaining money from student purchasers of term papers.
c. Thus, Respondent's scheme is perpetrated by false representations of student customers to their schools which Respondent contemplated and knowingly assisted.
d. Respondent's scheme of false representations by its student customers to third parties is within the purview of 39 U.S. Code 3005. This interpretation of the statute was enunciated by the Court in United States v. International Term Papers, Inc. , 477 F.2d 1277 (1st Cir., 1973). The Court's position is applied in the instant matter. Respondent contemplated the use to which its term paper would be put by means of a scheme which placed into operation misrepresentations by its student customers to third parties, their colleges and universities.
e. A remedial order in the form attached as provided in 39 U.S. Code 3005 should be issued.
____________________