In the Matter of the Compliant Against ) February 1, 1977
		    			)
 SHORE PRODUCTS 			)
 at					)
 Box 174				)
 Edison, New Jersey 08817		) P.S. Docket No. 5/97

 and at 				)
 P. O. Box 427 				)
 Bronxville, New York 10708 		)

 and 					)
 TAM COMPANY 				)
 at 					)
 1 Wolfs Lane 				)
 Pelham, New York 10803 		)

 SHORE PRODUCTS 			)
 at 					)
 Box 174 				)
 Edison, New Jersey 08817 		)

 and 					)
 SHORE PRODUCTS 			)
 at 					)
 Box 214 				)
 New Hampton, New York 10958		) P.S. Docket No. 5/98

Edward F. Lussier
Judicial Officer


 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT:
 Conrad J. Lynn, Esq.

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Janice B. Adams, Esq.
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, D.C.  

 New York, New York

Respondent in these proceedings has filed a timely appeal from the Initial Decision issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge William A. Duvall which decision found that Respondent was engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations within the meaning of Title 39 United States Code § 3005.

Respondent raises two exceptions to the Initial Decision. The first exception is to the extension of the decision to Shore Products at P. O. Box 427, Bronxville, New York 10708, and Tam Company at 1 Wolfs Lane, Pelham, New York 10803. This amendment to the pleadings, and consequently to the scope of the decision, was granted by Judge Duvall at the hearing of this case upon proper motion by Complainant based upon evidence showing those addresses were being used by Respondent as return addresses when mailing out the products in response to orders based upon the advertising found false. The record indicates the propriety of the ruling and Respondent's exception thereto is disallowed.

Respondent's second exception is that the decision should be reversed because Complainant has not proven that its institution of the proceedings was not racially motivated. Judge Duvall's decision covers the point at some length in responding to the Memorandum of Law filed by Respondent on this allegation prior to the hearing in the case. The record provides absolutely no basis to support the allegation. Moreover, there is no basis to conclude that the negative of the proposition must affirmatively be established by the Complainant in every case at the risk of fatal error in the proceedings. I find no denial of procedural due process and, accordingly, Respondent's second exception is disallowed.

The Initial Decision is hereby affirmed and a remedial order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.

Edward F. Lussier

Judicial Officer