In the Matter of the Complaint Against: 

 JUDY HARRIS PEARSON,
 341 Heneritte,
 Ruleville, MS 38771-3409

 P.S. Docket No. 34/73

 1/18/91

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT: Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq.,
 Kenneth F. Innes, Esq., Consumer Protection Division,
 Law Department, United States Postal Service,
 Washington, DC  20260-1144 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  Judy Harris Pearson,
 341 Heneritte, Ruleville, MS  38771-3409

Respondent has filed a request for revocation of False Representation Order No. 89-51, issued on June 13, 1989. Complainant opposes Respondent's request.

On May 11, 1989, the United States Postal Service (Complainant) filed a Complaint alleging that Respondent was a participant in an altered postal money order scheme by which she obtained money through the mail by means of materially false representations in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Complaint within the time allowed and on June 13, 1989, Respondent was deemed to be in default, and the Orders requested in the Complaint, including False Representation Order No. 89-51, were issued.

In her request for revocation, Respondent alleges that she did not knowingly participate in the altered postal money order scheme and in any event that the illegal activity has ceased and there is no longer any need for the False Representation Order to remain in effect. Respondent asserts that she is seeking revocation of the Order only because it is inconvenient for her to go to the post office and pick up her mail, not so she can play a role in a further false representation scheme. Complainant opposes Respondent's request. In a reply filed on December 27, 1990, Complainant argues that Respondent's alleged lack of intent to deceive is irrelevant and Respondent has failed to shown that she will not resume her participation in the scheme if the Order is revoked.

False representation orders will not be modified or revoked unless there has been some showing that the orders have completely served their purpose, or that an agreement of the parties obviates the need for such orders. George M. Ernst, Jr., d/b/a Many Interested Savers, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 13/88 (P.S.D. May 1, 1984). The burden is on the party seeking modification or revocation to show that the scheme resulting in the issuance of the order has been discontinued, that there is no possibility of recurrent false representations, and that there is no risk of future harm to the public. See Erwin Koltay et al., P.S. Docket Nos. 26/101 & 30/82 at 3 (P.S.D. Sept. 29, 1989), and cases cited therein. Even if all of Respondent's assertions are accepted as true, the abandonment of the illegal activity and the promise that it will not be resumed is insufficient to show that there is no cognizable danger of recurrent violation without a showing of a change in circumstances which would make resumption of the activity impractical or impossible. Professional Opportunity Magazine, Inc., et al., P.S. Docket No. 33/55 (P.S.D. Sept. 14, 1990). Further, inconvenience or hardship to the individual whose mail is being detained is not a sufficient basis to modify the protection to the public afforded by a false representation order. Erwin Koltay, et al., supra. See also Keith Edward Maydak, P.S. Docket No. 31/88 at 12 (P.S.D. May 4, 1990).

Respondent fails to demonstrate any change in circumstances since the Order was issued. Moreover, she has not persuasively demonstrated that there is no risk of future harm to the public if the False Representation Order is modified or revoked. Accordingly, Respondent's request for revocation of False Representation Order No. 89-51 is denied.