In the Matter of the Complaint Against BARGAIN HUNTER'S REVIEW 421 Center Street and P. O. Box 386 at Lewiston, New York 14092 P.S. Docket No. 5/89; 03/29/77 Lussier, Edward F.
The Consumer Protection Office, Law Department United States Postal Service, hereinafter referred to as Complainant, has filed a petition alleging breach of a Consent Agreement entered into on November 19, 1976, by Respondent identified in the above caption to this proceeding. As a result of the execution of the Consent Agreement the administrative proceeding seeking a mail stop order against Respondent was indefinitely suspended. The Complaint in that proceeding alleged that Respondent's "Bargain Hunter's Review" falsely represented federal land sale opportunities in numerous respects. The Petition for Breach of Consent Agreement attached exhibits reflecting the identical practice was continuing after execution of the Consent Agreement. In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Agreement a mail detention order was issued by the undersigned on February 23, 1977, pending resolution of the issue of the alleged breach.
Respondent was given 10 days from receipt of the Complainant's petition for a mail stop order based upon breach of the Consent Agreement in which to file a reply thereto. Respondent has filed a reply which reads in full:
"With regards to your letter of February 23, 1977, P.S. Docket No. 5/89.
Concerning the alleging breach of Consent Agreement dated November 19th, 1976. It is my desire to inform you and your office that the mailing of some Bargain Hunter's Review brochures was a mistake on the part of part-time help employed by our office and that this will not happen again. I would also like to advise you that at this time all negatives and plates involved in the printing of this material has been destroyed so that this mistake could never happen again. We do not at this time, and will not ever again in the future have this brochure to mail to enquirers of our services.
I sincerely hope that this will indeed indicate to you of our position and will await any word from you in the immediate future concerning this matter."
The Complainant has filed a further answer to this reply pointing out, as it had in its petition, that the offending advertising was mailed from Detroit, Michigan, rather than from Respondent's home office in Lewiston, New York, although it contained the Lewiston return address. Mailings previous to execution of the Consent Agreement were posted at Buffalo, New York.
The record establishes a breach of the Consent Agreement which Respondent's reply admits. The allegation that it was caused by a "mistake on the part of part-time help employed by our office" is at best unconvincing. Unless the Consent Agreement is honored it becomes worthless as a protection to the public. Respondent's reply to the petition when viewed in light of the record affords no sound basis upon which to deny Complainant's petition.
Under paragraph 3 1/ of the Consent Agreement a mail stop order is appropriate. There has been no showing that such an order is unnecessary. Even if respondent has ceased the objectionable mailings there is no indication as to when the responses to the brochures mailed in violation of the Consent Agreement will cease. The issue is one of affording fair protection to the public. At this stage of the proceedings, on the record before me and in accordance with the terms of the Consent Agreement, that protection is best afforded by the issuance of a mail stop order. Accordingly, a mail stop order is being issued concurrently with this decision.