In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 MR. BOLD COMPANY

 and
 L. S. KING
 P. O. Box 233

 and

 TERRI-L PRODUCTS
 P. O. Box 335 at
 Mantua, NJ 08051

 P.S. Docket No. 7/97;  
 
 03/26/80
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 U. S. Postal Service
 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 L. S. King Mr. Bold Company
 P. O. Box 233
 Mantua, NJ 08051

Respondent has appealed from the Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge William A. Duvall in which Judge Duvall recommends the issuance of an order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 based on his conclusion that Respondent, by means of advertisements for its product "ALPHA 1", is engaged in a scheme for obtaining money through the mail by means of false representations.

On October 17, 1979, the Consumer Protection Division, Law Department United States Service, filed a complaint alleging that Respondent is engaged in the conduct of a scheme to obtain money through the mail by means of false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. The complaint sets forth the specific representations made by Respondent which Complainant alleges are materially false.

Respondent submitted an answer to the complaint but did not appear at the hearing which was held in connection with this matter. The Chief Administrative Law Judge, in his Initial Decision, concluded that the allegations set forth in the complaint were supported by evidence in the record and that the Respondent is engaged in activities which violate 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Accordingly, the Judge recommended that the Judicial Officer issue an order to the Postmaster at Mantua, New Jersey which would authorize the Postmaster to intercept and return mail addressed to Mr. Bold Company and L. S. King, P. O. Box 233 and Terri-L Products, P. O. Box 335 at Mantua, New Jersey and, to take other related actions. Attached to the Initial Decision was a copy of the recommended order.

Respondent was advised of its right to appeal the Initial Decision and within the appeal period filed a document which the Judicial Officer treated as an appeal. In this document Respondent neither takes exception to, nor cites any alleged error in, the Initial Decision. Respondent does challenge the proposed wording of the recommended order. Respondent notes that Terri-L Products has other promotional material not related to that which was the subject of this action and that it intends to rewrite its advertisements in order to continue selling its product in conformance with Postal statutes. Accordingly, Respondent requests that the order issued provide for the return of mail pertaining to "the sale of a product called 'ALPHA 1' when this product is sold in direct relationship with only the advertising material in violation".

The nature of Respondent's advertising materials which are in the record is such that it is impossible to determine when an order or reorder for ALPHA 1 is or is not submitted in response to an advertisement which is in violation of the cited section of the cord. Accordingly, the mode of operation which Respondent has elected to employ in connection with the sale of its product precludes granting Respondent's request.

After consideration of the entire record and Respondent's request for modification of the suggested wording of the order, it is concluded that Respondent is engaged in a scheme for obtaining money through the mail by means of materially false representations and that its requested wording change cannot be accepted. Accordingly, Respondent's appeal is denied and a remedial order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.