Appeal of ANY AND ALL OF VARIOUS NAMES OTHER THAN JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT

In the Matter of the Withholding  	)  March 17, 1997
of Mail Addressed to 			)
					)
ANY AND ALL OF VARIOUS NAMES 		)
OTHER THAN JAMES EDWARD 		)
SCHMIDT 				)
7072 Fenton Road 			)
					)
	at 				)
					)
Fenton, MI 48430-9594 			)  P. S. Docket No. WM 96-418


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  		Maretta Markin
					7072 South Fenton Road
					Fenton, MI 48430-9594


APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  		Wendy A. Hocking, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					Law Department
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, DC 20260-1127

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

An initial Decision upholding the withholding of mail to ANY AND ALL OF VARIOUS NAMES OTHER THAN JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT at 7072 Fenton Road, Fenton, MI 48430-9594 was issued on January 28, 1997. In an undated letter received on February 28, 1997, followed by an undated letter received on March 14, 1997, Maretta Markin appealed⁽¹⁾ the Initial Decision. Ms. Markin claims she is the personal representative of Karl James Schmidt and therefore entitled to obtain delivery of all mail to the address in issue, regardless of name.⁽²⁾

The Administrative Law Judge's holding in the Initial Decision that false or fictitious names are being used in a failure to pay scheme at 7072 Fenton Road, Fenton, MI (or variations thereof) is supported by the record. The documents attached to Ms. Markin's letters do not establish that she is entitled to receive mail at that address⁽³⁾ or that the Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law. Accordingly, Ms. Markin's appeal is denied and the Order authorized by 39 U.S.C. §3003 is issued herewith

						James A. Cohen
						Judicial Officer

1. Ms. Markin does not specifically state that she is appealing the Initial Decision. However, since her letters were received after the issuance of the Initial Decision, they are being considered as if they are an appeal.

2. Ms. Markin also requested copies of all correspondence sent to Postal Inspector David W. Bosch regarding the withholding of mail at the address in issue. Ms. Markin's untimely request for discovery will not be considered at this stage of the proceeding.

3. Ms. Markin was given a full opportunity to present evidence of her right to receive mail at the address in issue. However, no such evidence was presented to the Postal Inspector or the Administrative Law Judge.