In the Matter of the Petition by	) December 22, 1992
					)
 DAVID S. DERIEMER			)
 P.O. Box 312				)
					)
 at					)
					)
 Nassau, DE 19969-0312			)
					)
 Termination of Mail Box Service	)
 for P.O. Box 312, Nassau, DE		) P. S. Docket No. 39/141

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		David S. DeRiemer
					P.O. Box 312
					Nassau, DE  19969-0312

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Jeannine H. Walter, Esq. 
					Consumer Protection Division
					Law Department
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, DC   20260-1144

A Postal Service Decision was issued on November 10, 1992, upholding the termination of Petitioner's post office box service. Filings were received from Petitioner on December 3, 7, and 16, 1992, expressing his disagreement with the Postal Service Decision. These filings have been treated as a petition to revoke, amend or modify the order to terminate Petitioner's post office box service. See 39 C.F.R. § 958.13. Respondent, the General Counsel of the United States Postal Service, has filed a reply to the petition in which it opposes Petitioner's request to revoke, amend or modify the order to terminate his post office box service.

Petitioner contends that he did not intentionally or knowingly violate any regulation or condition relating to the use of his post office box, and demands proof that Congress has repealed the two-cents postage statute. Petitioner also contends that mailings containing improper postage and/or rubber-stamped or adhesive markings do not violate any postal law or regulation. Petitioner further claims that his constitutional rights have been violated since he has a "natural right" to post office box service, and that the Administrative Law Judge is liable to Petitioner for damages in the amount of $50,000 for deprivation of those rights. Finally, Petitioner contends that Respondent's failure to file a reply to his appeal from the Initial Decision serves as an admission of his assertions on appeal and estops Respondent from terminating his post office box service.

In support of his contention that he has not violated any postal law or regulation relating to the use of his post office box, Petitioner makes many of the same arguments con- sidered and rejected in either the Initial or Postal Service Decision. Since Petitioner has not offered any new arguments in support of his contentions nor established any change of circumstance sufficient to provide a basis for revocation, amendment or modification of the order to terminate his post office box service, no basis exists for reconsidering the Postal Service Decision. Moreover, while Petitioner now claims that he did not knowingly violate any postal laws or regulations, the record establishes that he continued to mail letters containing improper postages^*/ and/or rubber-stamped or adhesive markings imitating official postal marks, despite repeated warnings from postal officials that such mailings were illegal.

Petitioner's contention that he has a "natural right" to post office box service, and that the Administrative Law Judge is liable for damages for deprivation of that right has no merit. As stated in the Postal Service Decision, post office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service regulations. David S. DeRiemer, P.S. Docket No. 39/141 at 4 (P.S.D. Nov. 10, 1992), and cases cited therein. Since it has been determined that Petitioner has violated postal laws and regulations, he is not entitled to continue to have the use of a post office box. Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Petitioner's constitutional rights have been violated or that he is entitled to the damages he is claiming.

Respondent's failure to file a reply to Petitioner's appeal from the Initial Decision does not serve as an admission of the allegations presented on appeal nor does it estop Respondent from terminating Petitioner's post office box service. Although Respondent is permitted to file a reply to exceptions on appeal, such a reply is not required by the Rules of Practice. See 39 C.F.R. § 958.10.

Petitioner's filings establish no change of circumstances sufficient to provide a basis for revocation, amendment, or modification of the order to terminate his use of post office box service. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for revocation, amendment, or modification is denied.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer

*/ Petitioner's demand for proof that the two-cents postal statute has been repealed was specifically addressed in the Postal Service Decision, and no further discussion is necessary in this decision. See David S. DeRiemer, at 5 (P.S.D. Nov. 10, 1992).