United States Postal Service(TM) 


 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 ANGWIN APPLIANCE
 816 4th, Suite 107 at
 Santa Rosa,CA 95404

 P.S. Docket No. 8/169;
 
 12/04/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.
 James A. Harbin, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Randal Davis
 1730-A Ponderosa Road
 Willits, CA 95490

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

ON PETITION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

Prior proceedings in this matter led to the issuance of Mail Stop Order No. 80-174, dated August 12, 1980, against mail addressed to Respondent at the captioned address and Mail Stop Order No. 81074, dated April 13, 1981, Mail Stop Order No. 81-125, dated June 18, 1981 and Mail Stop Order No. 81-183, dated September 11, 1981, against mail addressed to Respondent at additional addresses which were the subject of prior petitions for supplemental order.

On November 2, 1981, Complainant filed a Petition for Supplemental Order, with attachments, alleging in effect that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of the previously issued Mail Stop Orders, by conducting the same or a similar scheme under a new trade style. The trade style and address at which the Petition alleges the same or a similar scheme is being conducted and against which the Supplemental Order is requested to be issued is Empire Mailing and Advertising, 1730-A Ponderosa Road, Willits, CA 95490.

By Notice dated November 3, 1981, Respondent was notified that if it intended to oppose the Petition for Supplemental Order it could file its Answer not later than 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the Petition. The Petition was served on Respondent on November 19, 1981. No Answer to the Petition has been filed within the time allowed or as of the date of this Decision.

By the attachments to the Petition, a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of the previously issued Mail Stop Orders by conducting the same or a similar scheme which is the subject of the Orders under a different trade style. Accordingly, a Supplemental Mail Stop Order against Respondent at the name and address alleged in the Petition is being issued contemporaneously with this Decision.