United States Postal Service(TM)
Administrative Law Judges 


In the Matter of the Complaint		) April 22, 1997
Against					)
					)
DELL M. NEWBOLD				)
2753 E. Broadway, Suite #101		)
P.O. Box 9058				)
Meza, AZ 85214-9058			)
	d/b/a				)
FREEDOM FUNDING OF AMERICA		)
2753 E. Broadway, Suite #101		)
P.O. Box 9058				)
Mesa, AZ 85214-9058			) P. S. Docket No. 39/116

APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:		Rodney Gould, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					Law Department
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, DC 20260-1147

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Dell M. Newbold
					2753 E. Broadway, Suite #101
					P.O. Box 9058
					Mesa, AZ 85214-9058


POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
ON PETITION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER



Prior proceedings in this matter lead to the issuance of False Representation Order No. 97-13 against Respondent on January 22, 1997.(1) On February 21, 1997, Complainant filed a Motion for Supplemental False Representation Order, with supporting documentation, alleging that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of the False Representation Order.(2) According to Complainant, Respondent is currently conducting the same or similar scheme under the same name, American Consumer Service, by referring consumers through a tape recorded message to a new address at 4533 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 581, Newport Beach, CA 92660-2059. Complainant requests that a Supplemental False Representation Order be issued against the new address to prevent Respondent from circumventing the effect of False Representation Order No. 97-13.

By Order dated February 21, 1997, Respondent was granted ten days to respond to Complainant's Motion. The Order and a copy of Complainant's Motion were mailed, in separate envelopes, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, with delivery of both attempted on February 25, March 6 and March 12, 1997. The Order and Motion were subsequently returned unclaimed and resent regular mail on March 20 and March 24, 1997, respectively. Respondent returned the Order to this Office on March 28, 1997 with a hand written statement asking how he could respond in ten days when he had not received a copy of the Motion.

Service on Respondent was obtained at the latest on March 12, 1997, and Respondent's reply to the Motion was required to be filed on or before March 24, 1997. Respondent has not filed his reply within the time allowed or as of the date of this Decision. Moreover, Respondent may not obtain an extension of the period for responding to Complainant's Motion by refusing to claim his certified mail.(3) Accordingly, Respondent is deemed to have elected not to contest the issuance of the supplemental False Representation Order.

By the Petition and the attachment thereto, a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of False Representation Order No. 97-13 by conducting the same or similar scheme under the same name at a different address. Accordingly, a supplemental False Representation Order against Respondent under the name and at the address alleged in the Motion is issued with this Decision. 

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer
1 Proceedings in this matter initially led to the issuance of Cease and Desist Order No. CD-3487 after Respondent had executed an Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist. Three other False Representation Orders have been issued against Respondent for the same or similar schemes following the filing of Petitions For Orders Based Upon Breach Of Consent Agreement by Complainant.

2 The Motion has been treated as a Petition for Supplemental Order under 39 C.F.R. 952.30.

3 See Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, Inc., 822 F.2d 939, 944-46 (10th Cir. 1987), and cases cited therein. Any other result would allow Respondent to continue to violate the previously issued False Representation Order by his refusal to accept proper service.