In the Matter of the Complaint Against:

 ABDALLA, DICKINSON, RICHARDS & TIMEK,
 Suite C, P.O. Box 3359,
 Scranton, PA 18505-3359
 and
 JAM MARKETING SERVICES, INC.,
 115 New Street,
 Hughestown, PA 18640-2148 
 and
 1530 Wyoming Avenu,
 Scranton, PA 18509-2354;
 and
 ANN MARIE RICHARDS,
 1530 Wyoming Avenue,
 Scranton, PA 18509-2354

 P.S. Docket No. 35/180

 10/18/90

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 Appearance for Complainant: Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq.,
 Consumer Protection Division, Law Department,
 United States Postal Service, Washington, DC  20260-1144 

 Appearance for Respondents: Brian J. Cali, Esq.,
 103 East Drinker Street, Dunmore, PA  18512-2494

Complainant has filed a Petition for Supplemental Order alleging that Respondents are violating the terms of a previously issued cease and desist order by using a new address to conduct an unclaimed funds scheme prohibited by the order. Respondents have filed an answer to the Petition in which they deny that their current promotion is in violation of the terms of the cease and desist order.

On February 12, 1990, the General Counsel of the United States Postal Service initiated this proceeding by filing a complaint alleging that Respondents were conducting an unclaimed funds scheme to obtain money or property through the mail by means of materially false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. On the same date, an action on behalf of the Postal Service was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Respondents under 39 U.S.C. § 3007.

On February 20, 1990, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which they agreed the Judicial Officer could issue the proposed cease and desist order attached to the agreement, Respondents would abide by the terms of the order, and the Court would suspend proceedings indefinitely while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement by whatever means it deemed appropriate for the protection of the public. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court issued an order on March 2, 1990, suspending further proceedings indefinitely.

Complainant filed a motion in the § 3005 proceeding on March 14, 1990, requesting issuance of the cease and desist order attached to the agreement and suspension of further administrative proceedings. On Complainant's motion and in accordance with the parties' agreement, Cease and Desist Order No. CD-2854 was issued on March 20, 1990, and further administrative proceedings were suspended indefinitely.

On April 25, 1990, the Postal Service filed a Petition for Contempt of Court alleging that Respondents had violated the terms of the settlement agreement. The Postal Service brought an action in the United States District Court on May 3, 1990, seeking civil penalties under 39 U.S.C. § 3012 as the result of Respondents' violation of the terms of the settlement agreement. By order dated May 17, 1990, the District Court denied the Petition for Contempt and issued a preliminary injunction under 39 U.S.C. § 3007 allowing the Postal Service to detain mail addressed to Respondents at Suite C, P. O. Box 5400, Scranton, PA 18505-5400, the address which is the subject of the Petition for Supplemental Order.

On May 31, 1990, Complainant filed its Petition for Supplemental Order, alleging that Respondents are violating the terms of Cease and Desist Order No. CD-2854 by using the P.O. Box 5400 address to conduct substantially the same unclaimed funds scheme challenged in the Complaint. The Petition requested the issuance of a false representation order against Respondents at that address.

The Petition was served on Respondents on June 4, 1990. Accompanying the Petition was a notice advising Respondents that if they desired to oppose the issuance of the false representation order requested in the Petition, they were to file their answer with the Recorder no later than ten calendar days from the date of receipt of the Petition, or on or before June 14, 1990. On June 20, 1990, Complainant filed a Motion for Default Judgment, requesting the issuance of the proposed false representation order based on Respondents' failure to file an answer within the time allowed. While action on the motion for default was pending, Respondents' answer dated June 26, 1990, was received by the Recorder on June 28, 1990.

Respondents' answer was not timely filed and no excusable cause for the untimely filing has either been alleged or shown. Accordingly, Respondents' untimely answer will not be considered as expressing their opposition to the Petition.

Although the Petition is deemed to be unopposed, the false representation order sought in the Petition is not appropriate for issuance under the circumstances presented in this case. Section 952.30 of the Rules of Practice provides for the issuance of a supplemental order when a person "is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of any such orders by conducting the same or a similar enterprise under a different name or at a different address...." While the phrase "any such orders" could be construed to refer to either a cease and desist order or a mail stop order the "different name or at a different address" language used in $S952.30 contemplates the prior issuance of a mail stop order as described in 39 C.F.R. § 952.28(a), since only a mail stop order is issued against a specific name and address.n2 As no initial mail stop order has been issued, Respondents cannot be found to be evading or attempting to evade the provisions of any such order. Accordingly, Complainant's Petition for Supplemental Order is denied.

n1 A mail stop order may be a false representation order, a lottery order, or a combination of both.

n2 A cease and desist order generally prohibits conduct by a specified person, or persons, his (their) agents, employees, representatives, successors and assignees without regard to any specific address.

n3 Although a supplemental order may not be issued, Complainant is not without a remedy. The settlement agreement entered into by the parties provides for enforcement of the agreement by whatever means the Court deems appropriate for the protection of the public. Complainant has initiated court enforcement proceedings and a preliminary injunction detaining mail addressed to Respondents at their new address has been issued.