Richard S. Marcus

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

RICHARD S. MARCUS trading as STANTON BLANKET

COMPANY

Docket 8610. Order, March 4, 1965 Order denying respondent’s motion to reopen case on the grounds of introducing: more evidence.

Orver Denyine Peririon To REOPEN PROCEEDING The Commission issued its final order in the above-captioned proceeding on December 18, 1964 [66 F.T.C. 1290]. In the order, the Commission stated:

Especially since respondent, who is not a lawyer, has appeared throughout this proceeding pro se, the Commission has given the most careful consideration to the record of this proceeding. the initial decision of the hearing examiner, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. We are satisfied that respondent has had a fair hearing and full opportunity to conduct his defense; that he conducted his defense with vigor and skill throughout the entire proceeding; and that be was not handicapped by not having the aid of counsel. The record clearly demonstrates that respondent has engaged not only in serious, but in flagrant, violations of the Wool Products Labeling Act: and an order to cease and desist is clearly necessary in the public interest to prevent recurrence of the unlawful conduct. The Commission has concluded that the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner in the initial decision adequately and correctly disposes of all the issues of this case, and that the cease and desist order contained in the initial decision is appropriate in all respects. On February 15, 1965, after respondent had filed a petition for review of the Commiszion’s order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but before the filing of the record in the court, respondent, by counsel, filed with the Commission a motion to reopen the above-captioned administrative proceeding for the reception of additional evidence. See Section 3.28(a) of the Commission's Rules mission’s Rules should be waived and respondent be given an opportunity under §§ 2.3 and 2.4 of the Rules to execute an appropriate agreement for consideration by the Commission Accordingly,

It is ordered, That respondent’s request for informal conference and its motion to vacate be, and they hereby are, denied.

It is further ordered, That proceedings in connection with the Commission’s complaint herein be suspended for thirty (30) days following service of this order and that respondent be afforded an opportunity to dispose of this matter by the entry of a consent order.