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 January 8, 1987 James A. Cohen Judicial Officer APPEARANCES 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: Robert Verbeem 34 N. George Street York, PA 17401-1214
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 Robert Verbeem, the president of Respondent Tickets America, Inc. Complainant alleges that Mr. Verbeem, who signed the agreements on behalf of Respondent Tickets America, Inc., is a participant in promotions which seek remittances through the mail in violation of the terms of the Consent Agreements by falsely representing both the purpose and beneficiaries of certain fundraising activities. Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition which included as one of the signators Mr. Verbeem on behalf of Tickets America, Inc. In the Answer Respondents denied that they had violated the terms of the Consent Agreements and requested a hearing on the issues raised in the Petition.
Subsequent to the filing of the Answer these matters were placed in a suspense status while the parties engaged in lengthy settlement discussions. By notice received October l, l986, Complainant advised that the parties had not been able to resolve their differences and requested that the matters proceed to decision. Thereafter, the request for a hearing included in the Answer to the Petition was granted and the parties were directed to advise the Judicial Officer by November 7, l986, of a mutually convenient time and place for the hearing. Instead of furnishing the hearing information, Respondents' counsel filed an application to withdraw from these proceedings. By Order dated November 14, l986, the application was granted.
In the Order permitting withdrawal of counsel, Respondents were granted until December 15, 1986, to obtain new counsel or file an appearance on their own behalf. At the same time Respondents were directed to advise whether they continued to oppose the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order sought by Complainant and whether they continued to desire that a hearing be held. If a hearing was still desired, Respondents were directed to confer with Complainant and advise the Judicial Officer of a mutually convenient time and place for the hearing. Respondents were notified that a failure to provide the information required by the Order would result in the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order requested by Complainant.
Respondents have not responded to the Order of November 14, l986. In the absence of a response, it is concluded that Respondents no longer desire a hearing or oppose the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order sought by Complainant. Further, the allegations of the Petition are supported by the exhibits attached thereto and constitute a prima facie showing that the Consent Agreements have been breached.
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.