April 26, 1991

In the Matter of the Petition by

STEPHEN CROUSE

P.O. Box 1654

at

Levittown, PA  19058-1654

Notice of Intent to Close P.O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA  19058-1654

P. S. Docket No. 37/92

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Stephen Crouse

P.O. Box 1654

Levittown, PA  19058-1654

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Jerry Belenker, Esq.

Law Department

Consumer Protection Division

United States Postal Service

Washington, DC  20260-1144

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

            Petitioner has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge upholding the determination of the Levittown Postmaster to close P.O. Box 1654.  The Postmaster’s determination was based on a finding that Petitioner’s use of the post office box violated 18 U.S.C. §§1341 and 1342, and that therefore Petitioner was in violation of Domestic Mail Manual §951.163(a), which prohibits the use of a post office box for or in connection with a scheme which violates any Federal, state or local law.  Respondent filed a timely reply opposing Petitioner’s appeal.

            The Administrative Law Judge found in the Initial Decision that Petitioner conducts a scheme in which he orders magazine subscriptions paid with checks drawn on bank accounts which either do not exist, have been closed, or have insufficient funds, and then cancels the subscriptions and requests a refund sent to the post office box address before the unpaid checks are returned from the banks.  Petitioner did not dispute these facts before the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he do so on appeal.

            In his appeal to the Judicial Officer, Petitioner contends that he has made restitution and paid penalties, apparently voluntarily, to some or all of the companies which were victims of his scheme; that a post office box in Bristol, PA was improperly closed without giving Petitioner notice of his right to oppose the closing; and he has “compromised the matter out with the Consumer Protection Division of the U.S. Postal Service;” and that his prepayment of the subscriptions shows that he did not intend to use the post office box improperly.

            The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner’s use of the post office box violated the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual.  The Administrative Law Judge properly concluded that Petitioner’s payments to the companies victimized by his scheme and his allegation that another post office box was improperly closed have no bearing on the issue of the legality of Petitioner’s use of P.O. Box 1654.  Petitioner’s assertion that he settled this matter which officials of the Consumer Protection Division is denied by Respondent and unsupported by the record.  Petitioner’s argument that he did not intend to use the box improperly is not supported by the record, and is not credible.

            The administrative Law Judge properly found that Petitioner’s use of P.O. Box 1654 violated 18 U.S.C. §1341 and that the Postmaster’s closing of the box was proper under Domestic Mail Manual §§951.163 and 951.82.  Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied.

                                                                                    James A. Cohen

                                                                                    Judicial Officer