In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY
 288 Littleton Road
 Chelmsford, MA 01824-3361

 BAY STATE POWER LIGHT & SUPPLY
 288 Little Road

 and

 BAY STATE CORP.
 Box 259
 Chelmsford, MA 01824-0559

 S & S DISTRIBUTORS
 310 Franklin Street Box 351
 Boston, MA 02110-3108

 P.S. Docket No. 11/165;
 P.S. Docket No. 11/166;
 P.S. Docket No. 11/167  

 05/11/83

 Cohen, James A., Carroll C. Dicus, Jr.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
 Brendan J. O'Brien, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112  

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Anthony P. Mondello, Esq.
 Mondello and Mondello
 Zero Governors Avenue
 Medford, MA 02155-3007

On March 29, 1983, Complainant filed a Petition for Supplemental Order in the three captioned cases. The Petition alleges that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of False Representation Order Nos. 81-177, 81-179 and 81-182, and supplemental False Representation Order No. 82-133 by conducting the same or similar scheme using the same names and a different name at a new address, as follows:

Commercial Industrial Supply Corporation

Bay State Power & Light Supply

Dura-Bulb Lighting Products, Inc.

18 Canal Street

Medford, MA 02155-3625

Complaints in the three cases were originally filed on July 23, 1981. The Complaints alleged that Respondent was engaged in a scheme to obtain money through the mail by mailing solicitations in the guise of bills or invoices in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3001(d), which constitutes prima facie evidence of a violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. The Complaints further alleged that Respondent's solicitations made the following materially false representations:

"a. the amount of money set forth on the 'invoice' is owing and due to Respondent by the addressee.

"b. the goods or services identified on the 'invoice' were previously ordered by the addressee.

"c. the goods identified were shipped to the addressee prior to the date of the 'invoice.'"

Respondent was afforded 15 calendar days from the date of service to answer the Complaints. The answers were not received within that 15 day period and the False Representation Orders were issued on August 25, 1981, as Respondent was considered to be in default. Respondent moved to have the default set aside, and that motion was denied in a decision by the Judicial Officer on September 28, 1981. The supplemental False Representation Order was issued with a decision of the Associate Judicial Officer after a hearing on earlier Petitions For Supplemental Order.

Complainant has alleged that Respondent continues to solicit payment through the mail for goods neither ordered nor received. Complainant supports the Petition with the affidavit of Postal Inspector Jay F. Abernethy and copies of three invoices allegedly sent by Respondent. Respondent denies all material allegations of the Petition.

Before a supplemental order may be granted, Complainant must establish that the Respondent is the same, that the enterprise is the same or similar, and that the representations previously found to be false are continuing. Karfax and Karfax Industries, P.S. Docket No. 7/36 (P.S.D. March 26, 1981); 39 C.F.R. § 952.30. Thus, Complainant must prove that Respondent continues to send invoices to consumers soliciting payment for goods or services neither ordered nor received. The evidence submitted by Complainant does not meet its burden of proof.

The invoices submitted as exhibits are not accompanied by affidavits or other evidence to establish that the goods for which payment was sought were neither ordered nor received. Further, the affidavit of Inspector Abernethy does not contain a statement that any of the complaints alluded to specifically arose from receipt of bills or invoices soliciting remittances for goods nor ordered or received. The Inspector's statement that in his opinion Respondent continues to use the mail to "defraud numerous businesses by means of false representations" is inadequate to support the issuance of a supplemental order. Therefore, we conclude the evidence submitted by Complainant does not establish that the representations previously found to be false are continuing.

Accordingly, the Petition For Supplemental Order is denied.