In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 J. G. WALKER P. O. Box 131
 at Durand, MI 48429

 P.S. Docket No. 12/12;  

 03/16/82

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 ThomasA. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Steven B. Caver, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 J. G. Walker
 604 North Oak Street
 Durand, MI 48429

On February 18, 1982, Complainant filed a "Petition for Orders Based on Breach of Consent Agreement," in which it alleges that Respondent has breached the terms of a Consent Agreement signed by J. G. Walker on October 7, 1981. Complainant contends that Respondent has resumed making the representations which, by the terms of the Consent Agreement, it agreed to discontinue. The name and address at which Complainant contends Respondent conducts the resumed activities which constitute a breach of the Consent Agreement are J. G. Walker, 604 N. Oak, Durand, MI 48429.

In its Petition Complainant sought the issuance of an interim detention order against the above name and address. On the basis of the information attached to the Petition, the interim order was issued detaining Respondent's mail. The order granted Respondent a period of ten days in which to file a reply to the Petition. On March 3, 1982, a reply was received from Respondent. In its reply Respondent contends that the Consent Agreement does not prohibit it from distributing revised advertisements and that it has revised its advertising so that it no longer makes the representations which are the subject of the Agreement. Respondent also makes arguments relating to the truth of the representations.

Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case of breach of Consent Agreement established by Complainant in the attachments to the Petition. The promotion which is the subject of the Consent Agreement was advertised as an envelope addressing program. By the terms of the Consent Agreement, Respondent agreed to discontinue making the following representations either directly or indirectly:

(a) The work to be performed consists principally of addressing envelopes;

(b) The only cost to the participant is the initial fee for the program;

(c) Participants will earn $25.00 for every 100 envelopes they address; and

(d) The only limit on income potential is the amount of time the participant wishes to spend on the program."

While Respondent has revised its classified advertisement and follow-up circulars by the addition of the words "compiling envelopes" it nonetheless continues to make the representations which were the subject of the Consent Agreement. The overall thrust of Respnodent's revised advertising as it would be understood by an ordinary reader continues to be that the work advertised consists principally of addressing envelopes. By the Consent Agreement, Respondent agreed to discontinue making this representation. Furthermore, it directly or indirectly makes the additional representations alleged to be false in the Complaint. Thus, its current activities constitute a breach of the Consent Agreement.

Respondent's additional arguments relating to the truth of the representations is not an issue in a breach of Consent Agreement determination. American Consumers v. United States Postal Service, 42KING-BEE.341 , 591 (E.D. Pa. 1977).

Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent has breached the terms of the Consent Agreement and that the False Representation Order should issue against Respondent at the new address. Such a false representation order is, therefore, being issued contemporaneously with this opinion.