In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 MARLIN ENTERPRISES
 P. O. Box 333
 at Warrenville, IL 60555-0333

 P.S. Docket No. 15/182;  

 07/15/83

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1100

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Dan Danielson Marlin Enterprises
 P. O. Box 333
 Warrenville, IL 60555-0333

By letter received on June 15, 1983, Respondent has requested that False Representation Order No. 83-79, issued May 4, 1983, as the result of Respondent's default, be set aside and the proceeding reopened to consider the allegations of the Complaint. Respondent alleges that it did not understand the Orders which established the time period for filing the Answer to the Complaint and that it is not making any false representations. Complainant opposes Respondent's request to set aside the default but has agreed to seek to obtain a Consent Agreement if requested to do so by the Judicial Officer.

The Complaint alleging that Respondent was in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 was filed on February 17, 1983. The Complaint, a Notice of Answer and Hearing and the Rules of Practice were received by Respondent on March 18, 1983, thus establishing the Answer due date as April 4, 1983. The Notice of Answer and Hearing and the Rules of Practice clearly advised Respondent that if it did not file its Answer within the time allowed, it would be deemed to be in default and to have waived hearing and further procedural steps. In a letter which was mailed on April 4, 1983, and received by the Recorder on April 7, 1983, Respondent wrote: "Dear Mrs. Martin

I think this nonsence (sic) should be stopped because of false charges. I will not tolerate anymore. I will send back any other mail that I receive from the Postal Service.

Thank You

Dan Danielson

Marlin Enterprises

Manager & Owner]"

The assigned Administrative Law Judge, while recognizing that this letter reflected Respondent's disagreement with the allegations of the Complaint, was unclear whether Respondent intended to present a defense. In an Order dated April 11, 1983, the Administrative Law Judge directed Respondent to file an Answer "in accordance with the requirements of 39 C.F.R. § 952.10 within 10 days from the date of this Order." The Order went on to state "If a proper Answer is not timely received, Respondent will be held in default under § 952.11."

Respondent did not file an Answer within the ten-day period and by Order dated May 2, 1983, the assigned Administrative Law Judge referred the matter to the Judicial Officer for appropriate action under § 952.11. In a letter received on May 3, 1983, which was postmarked April 30, 1983, Respondent advised he would not be able to be at the hearing and asked who was filing charges against him. By Order dated May 4, 1983, Respondent was found to be in default and False Representation Order No. 83-79 was issued.

Respondent has not established that the default and accompanying False Representation Order should be revoked and the proceeding reopened. Respondent was given two opportunities to file a proper Answer and was clearly advised on both occasions of the consequences of its failure to do so. Even though Respondent may have been inexperienced in legal proceedings it should not have been confused about the consequences of its inaction. Thus, its contention that it did not understand the Orders which were issued does not excuse its failure to file a timely Answer. See C & C Vitamins & Sundries, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 11/117 (P.S.D. Aug. 26, 1981).

Complainant has offered to undertake to contact Respondent for the purpose of obtaining a Consent Agreement. Although the parties are encouraged to pursue the possibility of a Consent Agreement, the False Representation Order will not be stayed while the parties are so engaged.

Accordingly, the request to set aside the default and reopen the proceeding is denied.