United States Postal Service(TM) 


 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 MUMMERS,
 P. O. Box 27013 at
 Philadelphia, PA 19118-7013, et al. 

 and

 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY,
 P. O. Box 703 at
 Carlisle, PA 17013-0703, et al.  

 P.S. Docket No. 22/67; P.S. Docket No. 22/99

 November 21, 1986

 James A. Cohen Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq.  Timothy J. Mahoney, Esq.  Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENTS: Judie Vickers 2831 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, FL 33577-5349 Walter Hastings 509 W. 84th Drive Suite D Merrillville, IN 46410-6249

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON

BREACH OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
On February 4, l986, Complainant filed a Petition for Orders Based on Breach of Two Consent Agreements requesting, along with other relief, that a Cease and Desist Order be issued against Respondents Judie Vickers and Walter Hastings. Complainant alleges that these individuals are acting in privity with the captioned Respondents to obtain remittances through the mail in violation of the terms of the Consent Agreements by falsely representing both the purpose and beneficiaries of certain fundraising promotions.

Discussion

On February 20, l986, copies of the Petition and the Interim Detention Order issued February 6, l986, were sent to both Respondents Vickers and Hastings. The Interim Detention Order granted a period of ten days in which to file a reply. By Order dated October 24, l986, Respondents Vickers and Hastings were informed that if they wished to oppose the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, they would have to establish, no later than November 7, l986, that they had previously filed a timely Answer to the Petition. As of the date of this Decision, neither Respondent has filed a reply to the Petition.

In the absence of a reply, the allegations in the Petition are deemed admitted. Such allegations, supported by the Exhibits attached thereto, constitute a prima facie showing that the Consent Agreements have been breached.

Conclusion

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the respective Agreements, the Cease and Desist Order sought by Complainant as authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3005 is issued with this Decision.