March 12, 2004
In the Matter of the Complaint Against
ELLIOTT BRIGGS d/b/a
BUSINESS WEALTH INSTITUTE
1222 S. Dale Mabry #340
Tampa, FL 33629-5009
P.S. Docket No. FR 01-126
ELLIOTT BRIGGS d/b/a
UNITED PROSPERITY
3225 S. MacDill Ave. #129-305
Tampa, FL 33629-8171
INFORMATION UNLIMITED
4523 W. Kennedy Blvd. #450
Tampa, FL 33609-2042
FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
301 West Platt St. #310
Tampa, FL 33606-2241
INFORMATION FINANCIAL
4143 W. Waters Ave. #140
Tampa, FL 33614-8116
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
4143 W. Waters Ave. #130
Tampa, FL 33614-8116
P. S. Docket No. FR 01-356
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON BREACH OF CONSENT AGREEMENTS
On November 22, 2002, Complainant filed a Petition for Orders and Civil Penalties Based Upon Breach of Consent Agreements and Cease and Desist Orders (Petition) alleging that Respondents Elliott Briggs, William T. Fultz and Shaun Hudson had breached the terms of two Agreements Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Agreements) executed by Respondent Briggs on March 29, 2001 and March 13, 2002. In the Petition, Complainant contended that Respondents have breached the terms of the Agreements by engaging in a fraudulent money making scheme which Respondent Briggs agreed to discontinue. The names and addresses to which Complainant alleged that Respondent was then seeking remittances through the mail and against which the orders sought in the Petition were requested to be issued are United Resource Group and Worldwide Multimedia, 5364 Ehrlich Road, #355, Tampa, FL 33624-6976; Business Opportunities, c/o Michael Sanders, 4143 W. Waters Avenue, #140, Tampa, FL 33614-8116; Marketing Resources Direct, 2519 McMullen Booth Road, #510-265, Clearwater, FL 33761-4174; Universal Wealth Ind. and United Prosperity, 3665 East Bay Drive, #204-278, Largo, FL 33771-1989; Unlimited Opportunities, 13014 N. Dale Mabry, #314 and #353, Tampa, FL 33618-2808; Professional Business Marketing, 7028 W. Waters Avenue, #399, Tampa, FL 33634-2292; and United Prosperity, 405 S. Dale Mabry, #390, Tampa, FL 33609-2820.
On November 26, 2002, an interim detention order as authorized by the terms of the Agreements was issued directing the detention of mail to the above names and addresses. The interim detention order granted Respondents a period of ten days in which to file a reply to the Petition. Neither Respondent Fultz nor Respondent Hudson filed a reply within the time allowed. Respondent Briggs filed a timely reply to the Petition and entered into lengthy settlement discussions with Complainant, but did not execute a settlement agreement prior to his death in late 2003.
Complainant has now requested that the orders requested in the Petition be issued against Respondents Fultz and Hudson because they did not file a reply to the Petition, that the cease and desist order attached to the Petition be issued against Respondent Briggs, and that the mail being held in accordance with the interim detention order be returned to sender.
Since no reply on behalf of Respondents Fultz and Hudson has been filed, the allegations of the Petition as they pertain to those Respondents are deemed admitted. The unchallenged allegations, supported by the attachments to the Petition, make a prima facie showing that Respondents Fultz and Hudson have breached the terms of the Agreements in the manner alleged in the Petition. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, a false representation order as described in 39 U.S.C. §3005(a) and the cease and desist order attached to the Petition are issued against Respondents Fultz and Hudson.[1]
Although Complainant has requested the issuance of a cease and desist order against Respondent Briggs, such an order is not justified since Respondent Briggs is now deceased and Cease and Desist Order No. CD-4315, dated May 29, 2002, issued in FR 01-356, prohibits the identical conduct that is the subject of the cease and desist order Complainant is seeking in this proceeding. Accordingly, no further orders will be issued against Respondent Briggs.
Finally, the order requested by Complainant directing the return of the mail being held pursuant to the interim detention order is unnecessary because the mail will be returned in accordance with the false representation order issued with this decision.[2]
CONCLUSION
The false representation order and the cease and desist order sought in the Petition against Respondents Fultz and Hudson are issued herewith and further proceedings against those Respondents are suspended indefinitely. The Petition is dismissed insofar as it seeks the issuance of orders against Respondent Briggs.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to support the issuance of the order for civil monetary penalties sought in the Petition and, therefore, no such order has been issued.
[2] The return portion of the standard false representation order has been modified to provide “Return to Sender - No Longer in Business” as requested by Complainant.