August 29, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by JOHN MOORE AND CAROLYN MOORE 69 S. Hamilton Street Jordan, NY 13080-9503 Appeal of Termination of Service for P.O. Box 639, Jordan, NY 13080 P.S. Docket No. POB 01-105 APPEARANCES FOR PETITIONERS: John Moore Carolyn Moore 69 S. Hamilton Street Jordan, NY 13080-9503 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Catherine A. Green, Esq. Corporate Law Section United States Postal Service 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6112 Washington, DC 20260-1135
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
Petitioners, John and Carolyn Moore, have filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting their Petition and reversing a determination of the Manager, Post Office Operations to terminate service to P.O. Box 639. Petitioners agree that their post office box service should not be terminated, however, they disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning because they believe it has the effect of improperly upholding their son’s administrative ban from the Jordan, NY Post Office. Respondent, United States Postal Service, opposes the appeal.
Background
Petitioners rent P.O. Box 639 at the Jordan, NY Post Office and their son, Don Moore, is listed as an authorized user. On March 5, 2001, the Manager, Post Office Operations (Manager) issued an Order Not To Enter (Order) which prohibited Don Moore from entering the Jordan, NY Post Office.1 The Order informed Don Moore that it was "based upon [his] conduct on the premises which impedes and disturbs Postal Service employees while they are working."2 As support for the issuance of the Order, the Manager specifically listed Don Moore’s repeated threats to engage in acts of civil disobedience and his actions of loudly reading from legal documents on postal premises, lingering at the Post Office for unreasonable periods of time after conducting business, refusing to leave when asked to do so and being argumentative with the Postmaster and disrupting her work. In a separate Determination of the same date, the Manager found that the conduct of Petitioners’ son on postal premises was "menacing, abusive and disruptive to Postal Service employees"3 and terminated Petitioners’ box service in accordance with Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)4 .
In the Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge held that since Don Moore had been prohibited from entering the postal premises where Petitioners’ post office box is located, the reason for terminating Petitioners’ service no longer existed. In reaching his decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Postal Service had not alleged any inappropriate behavior by Petitioners themselves.
Discussion
On appeal, Petitioners make several arguments concerning the legality of the Order prohibiting their son from entering the Jordan, NY Post Office. Petitioners also renew their arguments concerning their son’s right to use postal bulletin boards and his constitutional right to engage in various acts of protest on Postal Service property.5
The only issue for determination in a proceeding under 39 C.F.R. Part 958 is whether service to a post office box6 has been denied or terminated in accordance with Postal Service regulations.7 Therefore, there is no need to address the legality of the Order prohibiting Petitioners’ son from entering the Jordan, NY Post Office or Petitioners’ other arguments, which go beyond the scope of a post office box proceeding.
The applicable regulation, DMM §D910.8.2, permits termination of post office box service for the violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive conduct of a box customer or the customer’s representative.8 Since Petitioners’ son is an authorized user of Petitioners’ post office box9 and has a right to receive and pick up mail from that box, he is Petitioners’ representative within the meaning of DMM §D910.8.2. Further, the evidence establishes that Petitioners’ son has conducted himself in a violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive manner10 and that he remains a threat to continue to conduct himself in such a manner despite the administrative ban.11 Under such circumstances, it was proper for the Manager to terminate Petitioners’ post office box service.
Accordingly, the termination of Petitioners’ post office box service is upheld and the Initial Decision is reversed.
James A. Cohen Judicial Officer
2 Id.
3 Petition, Ex. A.
4 Section D910.8.2 of the DMM states that a post office box may be terminated "if the box customer or its representative…conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive manner on postal premises… ."
5 Petitioners also restate their allegation that the Manager obstructed justice by not forwarding their original Petition to the Judicial Officer. Petitioners have not shown they were prejudiced by any delay in forwarding the Petition as their post office box remained open. Petitioners, in addition, request that the Recorder forward certain case filings to other Postal Service officials. If Petitioners want copies of the case materials forwarded to anyone other than the General Counsel, they must do so themselves.
6 Post office box service is a premium service provided to any customer willing to comply with Postal Service regulations. Fred Cherry, P.S. Docket No. POB 99-71 (P.S.D. July 16, 1999); Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. Aug. 27, 1998); Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 39/14 (P.S.D. Jan. 7, 1993).
7 See 39 C.F.R. §958.2. See also Michael M. Sands, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-172 (P.S.D. Feb. 11, 1999); Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. Aug. 27, 1998).
8 See Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 99-286 (I.D. Aug. 3, 1999), aff'd, (P.S.D. Aug. 31, 1999); Michael M. Sands, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-172 (I.D. July 20, 1998), aff'd, (P.S.D. Feb. 11, 1999); Theresa A. Petrillo, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-195 (I.D. July 22, 1998), finalized, (Order Aug. 11, 1998); Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (I.D. Jan. 24, 1997), aff'd, (P.S.D. Feb. 24, 1997).
9 Initial Decision (ID), Finding of Fact (FOF) 1.
10 See ID, FOF 2 and 3 and citations therein; Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachment A, Declaration of Postmaster Barbara Weyand-Rogers, Ex. A (Jan. 12, 1994 Letter from Don Moore to Postmaster General Marvin Runyon stating "…should I…[h]old a gun to their head [or] [s]hoot them…"); Ex. D (Dec. 8, 1998 Letter from Don Moore to Ms. Ronnie Wainwrite, Inspector General's Office, stating "[e]very time I hear of [a] Postal Shooting and the comment that the person had previous mental problems I wonder what games the EAP and psychiatrist played to drive the person in to a psychosis. Unfortunately I'm not asking a rhetorical question this time."); Ex. E (Dec. 31, 1998 Letter from Don Moore to Inspector General Karla Corcoran stating Mr. Moore's intention to practice "civil disobedience" and referencing violent acts against public employees); Ex. F (Jan. 20, 1999 Letter from Postmaster Barbara Weyand-Rogers to Ms. Lisa Lynch, Employee & Workplace Intervention Analyst, outlining the negative effects of Don Moore's actions on her staff); Ex. N (Jan. 15, 2001 Letter from Don Moore to Mr. Anthony Maio, Senior Management Post Office Operations, stating "…the USPS should be grateful that I've remain (sic) peaceful for so long…").
11 See Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachment B (Feb. 21, 2001 Letter from Dr. Albert M. Drukteinis to Richard Stevens, M.D., Area Associate Medical Director, outlining Don Moore's history of threatening and abusive behavior and stating that it is his professional opinion that "there is a serious possibility that Mr. Moore's behavior could escalate into violence, or at the least into more disruptive and intimidating harassment.").