January 22, 2008

                                                                                   

In the Matter of the Complaint  Against                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                   

PETER B. LAMERS  d/b/a MIDWEST DATA SERVICES                                              

 

P.S. Docket No. FR 05-47

 

APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:    

Peter B. Lamers                                                                   

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Kathleen E. Herzog Evans, Esq.

Inspector Attorney

United States Postal Inspection Service

                                                                       

 

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON BREACH OF AGREEMENT

CONTAINING CONSENT ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

 

 

On November 28, 2007, Complainant filed a Petition alleging that Respondent, Peter B. Lamers, has breached the terms of an Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Agreement), executed by Respondent on February 23, 2005, by engaging in a work at home scheme using representations which he agreed to permanently discontinue.  The name and address to which Respondent currently seeks remittances and against which a false representation order is requested to be issued are:

CONTINENTAL DATA SERVICES

4089 S. 84th Street, PMB 222

Omaha, NE 68127-1701

 

On December 4, 2007, an Interim Detention Order as authorized by Paragraph 7 of the Agreement was issued directing the detention of mail to the above name and address.  The Interim Detention Order granted Respondent a period of ten days in which to file a reply to the Petition.  On December 15, 2007, Respondent filed a reply in which he asserted that he had discontinued the scheme underlying this matter and that he had recently filed for bankruptcy.  Based on this assertion, the Judicial Officer suspended the matter for thirty days to allow the parties to discuss the possibility of settlement.  On January 10, 2008, Complainant advised the Judicial Officer that, based on Respondent's reply, Complainant was only seeking the issuance of a False Representation Order and was no longer requesting the issuance of a Civil Monetary Penalties Order.

Although Respondent asserts that he has discontinued the scheme underlying this matter, he did not deny the allegations of the Petition or present any supporting evidence to show that he has not breached the terms of the Agreement.  The allegations of the Petition, supported by the attachments thereto, make a prima facie showing that Respondent has breached the terms of the Agreement in the manner alleged in the Petition.

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 7 of the Agreement, a false representation order as described in 39 U.S.C. §3005(a) is issued with this Decision.

 

 

                                                                                

William A. Campbell                                                            

Judicial Officer