United States Postal Service(TM) 


 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 GEORGE M. ERNST, JR., d/b/a MANY INTERESTED SAVERS, INC.
 P. O. Box 361
 at Georgetown, KY 40324

 P.S. Docket No. 13/88  

 08/31/82

 Cohen, James A.  

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

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 George M. Ernst, Jr.
 P. O. Box 361
 Georgetown, KY 40324

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

ON MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS

On July 14, 1982, Complainant filed a Motion for Supplemental Order in this case which was dismissed without prejudice because no False Representation Order had been issued at that time. On August 4, 1982, False Representation Order No. 82-112 was issued against mail addressed to Respondent at the captioned address. On August 10, 1982, Complainant renewed its Motion for Supplemental Order. The renewed Motion alleges that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of the False Representation order, by conducting the same scheme under the following names and address:

Many Interested Savers, Inc.

P. O. Box 2071

Colorado Springs, CO 80901

and

Mr. Walter Hentges, President

P. O. Box 2071

Colorado Springs, CO 80901

By Notice dated August 10, 1982, Respondent was notified that if it intended to oppose the Motion for Supplemental Order it could file its Answer not later than 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the Motion. A letter dated August 26, 1982, has been received from Respondent which opposes any action by the Postal Service and offers an "out-of-court settlement" based on payment to Respondent of $1,000,000.

By the Motion for Supplemental Order and the attachments thereto, a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of False Representation Order No. 82-112 by conducting the scheme which is the subject of the Order under different names and at a different address. Respondent's letter does not rebut the prima facie showing made by Complainant. Accordingly, a supplemental False Representation Order against Respondent at the names and address alleged in the Motion is being issued with this Decision.