Agriculture Decisions

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that James Brandon Garretson, hereafter the Respondent, willfully violated the Act.

The complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R.§§ 1.130-1.151,were served on the Respondent by ordinary mail on June 27, 1996.' Respondent was informed in the letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation.

The Respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by Respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

1. James Brandon Garretson, dba Garretson Enterprises, hereinafter referred to as respondent, is an individual whose address is 300 West Wintergreen, Apt. 416, De Soto, Texas 75115.

2. The respondent, at all times material herein, was operating as a dealer and an exhibitor, as defined in the Act and the regulations.

3. From June 11, 1994, and continuing to the present, respondent has been operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent offered for sale and sold numerous exotic animals in commerce. The sale or offer for sale of animal constitutes separate violation.

4. On June 11, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported two lions. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation.

'The Hearing Clerk attempted service on respondent James Brandon Garretson by certified mail on May 15, 1996. Upon return of the complaint as "Unclaimed" on June 18, 1996, the Hearing Clerk served respondent by ordinary mail as per § 1.147 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136).

55 Agric. Dec. 1095

5. On June 26, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported one tiger. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation.

6. On August 8, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported one lion. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation.

7. On November 10, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two lions and one tiger. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

8. On March 1, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent transported one tiger. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

9. On May 2, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two tigers. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

10. On May 5, 1995, respondent operated as an exhibitor as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent exhibited two tigers. The exhibition of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

11. On May 6, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two tigers. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

12. On June 16, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.

§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported one black bear. The sale transaction of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

13. On June 27, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent sold one black bear. The sale transaction of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

14. On July 3, 1995, respondent operated as an exhibitor as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent exhibited two tigers. The exhibition of each animal constitutes a separate violation.

Conclusions

1. The Secretary has jurisdiction in this matter.

2. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances.

Order

Respondent, his agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist violate the Act and the regulations issued thereunder, and in particular, shall cease and desist from engaging in any activity for which a license is required under the Act and regulations without being licensed as required.

2. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $ 11,000, which shall be paid by a certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of United States.

3. Respondent is disqualified for a one year period from becoming licensed under the Act and regulations.

The provisions of this order shall become effective on the first day after service of this decision on the Respondent.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, this decision becomes final without further proceedings 35 days after service as provided in section 1.142 and 1.145 of the Rules of Practice,

7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 and 1.145.

Copies of this decision shall be served upon the parties.

[This decision became final and effective October 28, 1996-Editor]

55 Agric. Dec. 1099

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT

In re: GERALD A. KLEIN.

FCIA Docket No. 96-0001

Decision and Order filed August 22, 1996.

Admission of material allegations - Filing false and inaccurate information with the FCIC Disqualification.

Kimberly Arrigo, for Complainant.

Orell D. Schmitz, Bismark, North Dakota, for Respondent.

Decision issued by Victor W. Palmer, Chief Administrative Law Judge.

The respondent, Gerald A. Klein, admitted that he filed false and inaccurate information with the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and agreed to be disqualified.

Pursuant to section 506 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. § 1506) (the Act), respondent, and any entity in which he retains substantial beneficial interest after the period of disqualification has commenced, is disqualified from purchasing catastrophic risk protection or receiving noninsured assistance for a period of two years and from receiving any other benefit under the Act for a period of 10 years. The period of disqualification shall be effective 35 days after this decision is served on the respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer in accordance with § 1.145.

If period of disqualification would commence after the beginning of the crop year, and the respondent has a crop insurance policy in effect disqualification will commence at the beginning of the following crop year and remain in effect for the entire period specified in this decision.

[This Decision became final and effective September 30, 1996.-Editor]

In re: TED JOHN WAGGONER.

FCIA Docket No. 96-0002.

Decision filed September 6, 1996.

Failure to file an answer - Providing false and inaccurate information to FCIC or to an insurer with respect to an insurance plan or policy - Disqualification.