Complaint Review: Child Support Services of Atlanta Georgia - Atlanta Georgia

1

UNITES STATES POSTAL SERVICE, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CASE NO. __________________________

*

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF *

ATLANTA, INC., and it dba various names *

which include Child Support as a part of *

the name, *

*

Defendant. *

COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

2

4. The Defendant does business under names which are derivations of the name of

the corporate Defendant, most commonly including the word Child Support and/or Child

Support Services and frequently with further descriptive or identifying information appended.

5. Defendant receives mail at, and seeks remittances of money through the mail

under the name Child Support Services and variations thereon at the following addresses:

3

P.O. Box 26395

Wilmington, DE 19899-6395

- and at -

P.O. Box 15191

Sacramento, CA 95851-0191

5. On August 28, 2009, the Chief Postal Inspector of the USPS filed a Complaint

(the Administrative Complaint) with the Office of Administrative Law Judges in Washington,

D. C. The Administrative Complaint invokes 39 U.S.C. 3005 in alleging that the Defendant

has been/is engaging in a scheme to obtain money or property through the United States mail by

means of false representations. Upon a proper showing in that forum, USPS is entitled to obtain

orders of a Judicial Officer under which it and its various postmasters through whom the

Defendant receives mail of the kind described herein are forbidden to pay any Postal Money

Order drawn to the order of the Defendant unless it is clear that the Money Order does not relate

to the activities complained of herein, required to refund to the remitter the amount of any such

Money Order payment of which is refused hereunder upon presentment by the remitter of the

original of the Money Order or a duplicate thereof issued by the Plaintiff, required to hold for not

less than 48 hours (exclusive of days during which postal offices are not open to the public) all

mail addressed to the Defendants except for any mail determined by reference to the face of the

wrapper not to be related to the activities complained of herein, required to permit inspection by

the Defendants of any mail so held during the 48 hours in the presence of Postal Service

employees, permit the Defendants to receive any mail revealed in the aforementioned inspection

not to be connected to the activities complained of herein or is mail requesting a refund

connected with such activities, and required at the end of the 48 hour period just described to

write plainly or stamp on any mail of Defendants remaining in possession of the Postal Service

following inspection the words Returned to Sender Due to Addressees Violation of Postal

False Representation Law to return any such mail so marked to its senders or, if the sender

4

cannot be identified from the outside of the mail wrapper, to dispose of it under postal

regulations applicable to undeliverable mail.

A true and correct filed copy of the said Administrative Complaint is affixed to

this Complaint in this Court as Component A (it having its own exhibits and attachments) and is

incorporated herein by reference thereto just as if the facts and allegations contained therein were

restated herein verbatim.

6. The activities of the Defendant which are the subject of the Administrative

Complaint have been and are the subject of an investigation by USPS Inspector Sheryl J. Bouer.

The details of Inspector Bouers investigation are contained in her affidavit (the Bouer

Affidavit) which is affixed to this Complaint as Component B and is incorporated herein by

reference thereto just as if the facts and allegations contained therein were restated herein

verbatim.

7. The Defendant is engaged in a private business that collects child support

payments from non-custodial parents not under any court order to pay child support by threats or

intimidation and from those under court orders in accordance with those orders by fraud and

misrepresentation. The Defendant uses various methods to identify non-custodial and custodial

parents including, but not limited to, the Internet and listings in Directory Assistance wherein

Defendant is linked to a government child support collection agency. The Defendant also

obtains the names of custodial and non-custodial parents from public records.

8. The individuals identified by Defendant as aforesaid are then contacted by

telemarketers employed by Defendant and deceived and misled on the nature and substance of

the service the Defendant will provide. Persons who are enrolled in Defendants service are

required to execute an Agreement, which is misrepresented to them. The Defendant then

5

charges both the custodial and non-custodial parent significant fees that are unreasonable and

excessive.

9. The victims of this scheme are directed by Defendants agents to remit payments

of varying amounts to the addresses listed in paragraph 5, above. The address to which a

particular victim is instructed to send his/her payment is dependent on their location and/or the

state in which the person resides. Most of these addresses are located in the capital city of the

relevant state, thus reinforcing the representation that the Defendant is affiliated with a state

agency. Pursuant to the direction of the Defendant remittances to addresses outside the State of

Georgia, are forwarded to the Defendants principal place of business in Georgia or other

addresses to which there would be ready access.

10. Defendants is a scheme to obtain money through the mail based on false

representations through the following non-exclusive statements and conduct:

(a) CSS is a state agency or is affiliated with a state agency that has the authority and

responsibility to collect child support payments through various legal and extra-legal

processes;

(b) In part, the claim by CSS that it is a state agency or is affiliated with a state agency

was accomplished by misrepresentations that it had an actual presence, rather than merely

a post office box, in the capital city of a state in which it did business;

(c) CSS solicited business and defrauded those with whom it did business by

misrepresenting its fees and charges;

(d) CSS induced custodial and non-custodial parents that were already under a valid State

court ordered child support regimen to terminate their affiliation with the State of

Georgias Office of Child Support Services;

(e) In other instances, CSS committed explicit fraud by forging correspondence to state

child support collection entities to indicate the correspondence was sent by a person

being served by the state entity and to direct the state entity to close its file to allow CSS

to then serve the custodial parent whose signature it forged;

6

(f) In still other cases, the result achieved by CSS discussed in the foregoing paragraph

was achieved by phone calls by CSS employees in which they identified themselves as

the custodial parent;

(g) CSS went to fraudulent lengths to conceal the fact that it was a private business;

(h) CSS and threatened via telephone and more often by mail non-custodial parents with

non court ordered arrest warrants, license suspensions and wage garnishments to induce

them into collection contracts;

(i) CSS would send non-custodial parents official looking documents that appear to have

come from the State of Georgia courts;

(j) CSS refused to allow custodial parents to cancel their contracts after Custodial Parents

notified CSS within the 48 hour period as it states on their contracts and advertised on its

website, childsupportservicesnationwide.com;

(k) Funds obtained by CSS from custodial and non-custodial Parents were converted to

personal use;

(l) CSS further misled consumers as to its location by publishing, under the category

Child Support Collection a telephone number with the area code 404. Calls to that

number were actually forwarded to a number with a 727 area code that originated out of

St. Petersburg, Florida;

(m) CSS further misled consumers by publishing and/or so indicating in directory

assistance services that it was several different entities at several different locations; and

(n) CSS further misled consumers by publishing and/or so indicating in directory

assistance services that it was a governmental entity.

11. Plaintiff proceeds in this case under 39 U.S.C. 3007 contemporaneously with

the aforementioned Administrative Complaint, to obtain a temporary restraining order, followed

by a temporary injunction, directing the detention by it and its various postmasters through

whom the Defendant receives mail in any and all districts, of the defendants incoming mail,

which is the subject of the aforementioned proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 3005 and is described

in Component A hereto, in the Bouer Affidavit which is Component B hereto, and in the

foregoing.

7

12. Under 39 U.S.C. 3007, upon a proper showing of proof of a likelihood of

success on the merits of the proceedings in the Administrative Complaint under 39 U.S.C.

3005, the Postal Service is entitled to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction

directing the detention of incoming mail at the address where payment is received until the

administrative proceedings and any appeals therefrom are concluded. The Postal Service may

apply for such relief in any district in which mail is sent or received as part of the alleged

scheme. Upon such proper showing, the court shall enter an order directing the postmaster in

any and all districts to detain the Defendants mail which is the subject of the proceedings under

39 U.S.C. 3005.

13. As the Postal Service sets forth in its Memorandum of Law accompanying this

complaint and in the attached Bouer Affidavit, there is a proper showing of the likelihood of

success on the merits of the proceedings under 39 U.S.C. 3005.

14. Inspector Sheryl J. Bouer has received information from all of the post offices

referenced in the foregoing paragraph 5 confirming that each was receiving mail on a regular

basis addressed to the Defendant and in some cases as much as 100 pieces were being received

in a single day, most of which is believed to be remittances of child support or fees. Witnesses

have indicated that receipts by CSS are as much as $45,000 per week

15. Unless the Court grants relief under 39 U.S.C. 3007, Defendant will be free to

continue to receive the proceeds from this scheme via U.S. Mail until the close of administrative

proceedings and to thereby continue to defraud those with whom it deals.

16. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3007 (1999) and Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and

8

subsequently a temporary injunction directing the detention of Defendants incoming mail while

proceedings under 39 U.S.C. 3005 (1999) are pending.

17. The TRO is warranted because there is a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff

will succeed on the merits of its 39 U.S.C. 3005 administrative proceeding where it will prove

that Defendants are conducting a scheme to defraud in violation of 39 U.S.C. 3005.

18. 39 U.S.C. 3007 permits the Court to grant Defendant the right to examine the

detained mail and to receive any mail that clearly is not connected with the alleged unlawful

activity. Conversely, Plaintiff is obligated to return to the remitter/sender any mail of the

connected with the fraudulent practices which are the subject of this complaint.

19. In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that the terms of the TRO

requested herewith and the substance of the temporary injunction to follow will be as set forth in

the proposed TRO which is attached to this Complaint as Component C and made a part hereof

by reference thereto.

20. Plaintiffs undersigned attorney acknowledges his duty under Rule 65(b)(1)(B) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [of

the immediate request via this pleading for a TRO and the scheduling of an appearance before a

Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia of a hearing at which

to obtain the issuance of the TRO] and the reasons why it should not be required. The

undersigned will comply therewith once the case is filed, it is assigned and there is some

prospect of presenting the matter to the Court for issuance of the TRO, whereupon he will enter

the required certification into the record by addendum hereto.

9

(b) The within request for a TRO be set for a hearing at the earliest possible

opportunity,

(c) The Plaintiffs request for a TRO be granted and the proposed TRO attached to

this complaint issue as to form and substance,

(d) A time for the expiration of the TRO and a time for a hearing on the

Plaintiffs request for a temporary injunction be set therein,

(e) A temporary injunction issue following the hearing thereon, and

(f) Plaintiff have such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and

appropriate.

G. F. PETERMAN, III

ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

By: s/STEWART R. BROWN

Assistant United States Attorney

Georgia State Bar # 089650

United States Attorneys Office

Middle District of Georgia

P.O. Box 1702

Macon, Ga. 31202-1702

Telephone: (478) 621-2690

Facsimile: (478) 621-2737