In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 LAW ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
 266 Pearl Street
 at Hartford, CT 06103-2113

 P.S. Docket No. 14/10;  
 
 05/16/83
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 ThomasA. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Steven B. Caver, Esq.

 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 U.S. Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 John D. Murray, Esq.
 633 West Wisconsin Avenue
 Suite 1717
 Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918

On March 29, 1983, 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 executed on its behalf by Jeff Hindin on September 7, 1982. Complainant contends that Respondent has resumed the activities which it agreed in the Consent Agreement to discontinue and has failed to make the affirmative representations which are required under the terms of the Consent Agreement. The name and address under which Complainant contends Respondent conducts the activities which constitute a breach of the Consent Agreement are the same as those contained in the caption of the proceeding.

In its Petition, Complainant sought the issuance of a temporary detention order against the captioned name and address. On the basis of information attached to the Petition, a temporary detention order was issued on March 31, 1983. The Order authorizing the temporary detention of Respondent's mail granted it a period of 10 days in which to respond to Complainant's Petition. On April 11, 1983, a timely reply was filed by Respondent.

In its reply Respondent denies that it is conducting an "identical alleged scheme or device in violation of the Consent

Agreement as alleged in the Petition." Rather it contends it has complied with the terms of the Consent Agreement and requests that the Petition be dismissed.

Neither party has requested that a hearing be held. Accordingly, the issues raised by the Petition are decided on the record.

Complainant has attached to the Petition an affidavit which is persuasive that Respondent continues to make telephone solicitations. It has also attached copies of invoices or statements of account which are the same as those which were attached to the Complaint. The invoices or statements of account solicit remittances to the captioned name and address and were sent subsequent to the execution of the Consent Agreement. They do not contain the date the telephone solicitation was conducted, the identity of the telephone solicitor or the name of the individual who approved the placing of the advertisements. By paragraph 5 of the Consent Agreement, this information was required to be included on Respondent's invoices. Thus, a prima facie case has been established that Respondent has breached the terms of the Consent Agreement. Respondent's reply to the Petition does not rebut the prima facie case established by Complainant. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Agreement, an Order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued with this decision.