In the Matter of the Complaint Against DON JEFFERIES, 175 Fifth Avenue at New York, New York 10010 and 27 Milburn Street at Bronxville, New York 10708 P.S. Docket No. 7/94 December 4, 1979 Quentin E. Grant Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT: Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq. Consumer Protection Office Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, D.C. 20260 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Michael McQuade, Esq. Reich & Solomon 350 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10001
In a complaint docketed October 5, 1979, Complainant alleges that Respondent is violating 39 USC Section 3005 by conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations concerning a product called the "Holy Land Cross." Specifically, the complaint alleges that Respondent represents falsely that the person who wears or carries the Holy Land Cross (A) will receive large sums of money with little or not effort on his part, (B) will have success in business, (C) will have a happy family life, (D) will be assured of good health, (E) will experience good luck, (F) will have the esteem and respect of acquaintances, and (G) will be a happy person.
Respondent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint but did not appear at the hearing. Accordingly, I received Complainant's evidence and render the following decision and findings of fact.
1. Based upon Complainant's Exhibits 1 and 2 and the testimony of Postal Inspector Alan Holmes concerning a test purchase through the mails of Respondent's product, the Holy Land Cross, I find that Respondent is engaged in conducting a scheme for obtaining money or property through the mails for that product.
2. A reading of Respondent's advertisements for the product (CX-1, 2) reveals that it makes expressly, or by implication, all of the representations alleged in the complaint.
3. Inspector Holmes met with Respondent's promoter, Richard Kurtzrock, on May 17, 1979. They discussed generally the advertising representations made by Respondent concerning the Holy Land Cross. Kurtzrock said that these representations were merely puffing.
4. The representations made by Respondent concerning the Holy Land Cross are so totally preposterous and contrary to common knowledge and common experience as to warrant a finding of falsity on that ground alone.
1. Respondent is engaged in conducting a scheme for obtaining money or property through the mails for its product, the Holy Land Cross, by means of representations materially false in fact, in violation of 39 USC Section 3005.
2. Respondent's description of the representations as puffing does not detract from their obvious falsity and materiality.
3. A money-back guarantee is no defense to an action under this statute.
4. An order pursuant to 39 USC Section 3005 in the form attached should be issued against Respondent.
____________________