In the Matter of the Complaint ) July 27, 1995 Against ) ) KEITH EDWARD MAYDAK ) 613 Cross Street ) at ) East McKeesport, PA 15035-1307 ) ) and ) ) ANY AND ALL OF VARIOUS NAMES ) 519 Penn Avenue ) at ) Turtle Creek, PA 15145-2057 ) P. S. Docket No. 31/88 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT: Wendy A. Hocking, Esq. Consumer Protection Law United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1147
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Keith E. Maydak Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501-1000
Respondent has filed an Application for Revocation in which he requests that Cease and Desist Order No. CD-2062 and all subsequent orders be revoked and the Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Agreement), which he executed on July 27, 1988, be stricken and the entire record dismissed and expunged. Complainant opposes the Application and requests that it be dismissed.
Complainant, the General Counsel of the United States Postal Service, initiated this proceeding on August 12, 1988, by filing a Motion to Suspend Proceedings accompanied by a Complaint and the Agreement executed by Respondent and his mother, Christine Maydak, on July 27, 1988. The Complaint alleged that Respondent was engaged in a scheme or device in which he used false statements on credit card applications to solicit money or property through the mail in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005. The Agreement provided that Respondent would permanently discontinue the practice of submitting credit card applications in various fictitious and assumed names and abide by the terms of the Cease and Desist Order attached to the Complaint in consideration for Complainant's agreement to move to suspend further proceedings under the postal false representation and lottery statute. Complainant's agreement to have this proceeding against Respondent suspended was satisfied by its Motion to Suspend Proceedings which was granted by Order dated August 17, 1988. The Cease and Desist Order referred to in the Agreement was issued with the August 17, 1988 Order and directed Respondent to cease and desist from falsely representing "Respondent's true identity, employment status or credit history."
Thereafter, Complainant filed a Petition for Orders Based on Breach of Consent Agreement and Violations of Order to Cease and Desist (Petition) which alleged that Respondent had resumed making the false representations he had agreed to discontinue. As a result, Complainant requested that a false representation order be issued against the names and addresses then being used by Respondent. In response to the Petition, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, an Answer to Complainant's Petition and supporting declarations, all of which challenged the validity and enforceability of the Agreement and the Cease and Desist Order.
Respondent's motions and contentions were addressed
in a Postal Service Decision in which it was concluded that a
false representation order should be issued because Respondent
had breached the terms of the Agreement in the manner alleged
in the Petition. In arriving at that conclusion the Judicial
Officer determined that Respondent's allegations pertaining to
the validity of the Agreement were without merit, that the Agreement
was a valid and binding document and that Respondent had not shown
that there were any violations of his rights.
Respondent's Application includes a supporting declaration from his mother and a reply to Complainant's response to his Application all of which again challenge the validity and enforceability of the Agreement, the same issues which Respondent raised in his response to the Petition and which were found to be without merit. Since those issues have been fully litigated and finally decided in the Postal Service Decision they will not be considered in connection with the present Application.
Even if these issues were to be considered,
Respondent's current arguments do not establish that the prior
conclusions were erroneous, that he entered into the Agreement
involuntarily, that he was coerced into signing the
Agreement by either his mother or the Postal
Inspectors, that the Agreement which he was admittedly shown did
not clearly advise him of the actions being taken, or that any
other basis exists for questioning the validity of the Agreement
or the Orders issued thereunder. Further, Respondent has not
shown that any changed circumstances exist, that the orders have
fulfilled their purpose, that the public would be adequately protected
if the orders were revoked or that there are any other grounds
to support his Application. Thus, there is no proper basis for
revoking the previously issued orders or granting any other relief
requested by Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent's Application
is denied.
James A. Cohen Judicial Officer