January 3, 2005

In the Matter of the Withholding of Mail Addressed to:

THE SURNAME RICHARDS

Post Office Box 248307

at

Columbus, OH 43224-8307

P.S. Docket No. WM 04-80

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Paul R. Hairston, Jr.

3155 E Hudson Street

Columbus, OH 43219-1632

APPEARANCE FOR GENERAL COUNSEL:

J. James Perkins, Esq.

Consumer Protection Law

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6102

Washington, DC 20260-1135

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

On October 20, 2004, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision upholding the withholding of mail to THE SURNAME RICHARDS at P.O. Box 248307, Columbus, OH 43224-8307. Petitioner, Paul Richard Hairston, Jr., has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision in which he contends that the evidence relied on by the Administrative Law Judge was illegally obtained because the affidavit used to support a warrant to search Petitioner’s premises includes information that could have been obtained only after the search was performed. As a result, Petitioner asks that this withholding of mail proceeding be dismissed and that he be allowed to receive mail addressed to the surname Richards at the Columbus, OH address.

The Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that mail to the surname Richards should be withheld because Petitioner is using a false or fictitious name to conduct a scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341 and 1342 at P.O. Box 248307, Columbus, OH 43224-8307 is supported by the evidence presented. Although Petitioner was given a full opportunity to present a defense, he has not shown that he is entitled to receive mail addressed to the surname Richards, that he is not engaged in an equity skimming scheme, or that the Initial Decision is otherwise erroneous as a matter of fact or law. Petitioner’s evidence establishes that his middle name is Richard but he has not demonstrated that he is legally entitled to use the surname Richards in furtherance of his business activities. Moreover, Petitioner has not even attempted to rebut the prima facie showing made by the General Counsel that Petitioner is engaged in an equity skimming scheme. Finally, there is no basis for concluding that the evidence presented in this proceeding was illegally obtained or that it should not have been relied on by the Administrative Law Judge in reaching his conclusion that an appropriate withholding of mail order should be issued.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Order authorized by 39 U.S.C. §§3003 and 3004 is issued herewith.

James A. Cohen

Judicial Officer