Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson

                              in the Matter of
                      U.S. Consumer Protection Agency

                              File No. X980085
     _________________________________________________________________

   The Commission voted to approve filing in federal district court a
   consent agreement that settles allegations against the defendant,
   Robert M. Oliver, doing business as U.S. Consumer Protection Agency,
   and Consumer Protection Agency of Bay County. The complaint alleged
   that Robert M. Oliver violated both Section 5 of the FTC Act by
   deceptively implying an affiliation with the U.S. government and other
   local governments, and the Commission's Franchise Rule by failing to
   provide important disclosures, including required important earnings
   information. Specifically, Robert Oliver offered to consumers over the
   Internet phony franchise opportunities to purchase their own local
   "U.S. Consumer Protection Agency." In effect, the defendant falsely
   held himself out as a government agency and offered that sham
   opportunity to others.

   The order -- which the defendant accepted in a settlement agreement --
   is directed at the very heart of Robert Oliver's deception. It
   prohibits him in any way from masquerading as a government official.
   In particular, the order permanently bars the defendant from
   misrepresenting that he is affiliated with any governmental entity,
   and from using words and visual representations in connection with a
   commercial activity that are commonly suggestive of a government
   entity. I believe these provisions provide reasonable fencing in
   relief to prevent future violations by the defendant, who has already
   demonstrated a proclivity for acting under the guise of government
   authority in derogation of the important public responsibilities of
   federal, state, and local governments. Further, I believe that this
   strong relief will both serve to deter others from engaging in similar
   egregious conduct and have the indirect benefit of preserving
   consumers' confidence in bona fide governmental entities. For these
   reasons, I voted in favor of the order in this matter.
     _________________________________________________________________

                  Statement of Commissioner Orson Swindle

                              In the Matter of
                       US Consumer Protection Agency

                              File No. X980085
     _________________________________________________________________

   In this case, the Commission filed a complaint alleging that the
   defendant, Robert Oliver, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by
   deceptively implying an affiliation with the U.S. government, as well
   as state or local governments. Although not a government official or
   employee, Oliver operated a web site offering privately-owned consumer
   protection agency franchises under the name "US Consumer Protection
   Agency." I agree with my colleagues that strong relief is needed in
   this case, in which the alleged deception sought to exploit the
   public's confidence in government in general and consumer protection
   agencies in particular. I also agree that most of the relief contained
   in the order is necessary and appropriate. I wish to stress, however,
   that such relief should focus on remedying and preventing the type of
   violations alleged in the complaint. I see no need for a broad-brush
   restriction on any tangentially related -- or, even worse, unrelated
   -- business activity by a defendant.

   I have no objection to Paragraph I of the settlement agreement, which
   permanently enjoins Oliver from "misrepresenting, directly or by
   implication, that he is in any way affiliated with or acting on behalf
   of any governmental entity." Indeed, I strongly support it since it
   prohibits Oliver from deceiving consumers with his façade of
   government affiliation and would reach any variations on Oliver's
   previous misrepresentation.

   The settlement agreement, however, contains additional broad conduct
   restrictions that are not tied to remedying false representations of
   government affiliation. Specifically, Paragraph II.A enjoins Oliver,
   in connection with the advertising or sale of any product or service,
   from "using the initials 'U.S.,' the words 'United States,' or
   'Federal,' or any word or term commonly referring to the U.S.
   government or any bureau, . . . or any state or local government" in,
   among other things, his "Internet web page, . . . promotional scripts
   or materials, or other advertising." Paragraph II.B enjoins him from
   using coats of arms, seals, pictures, logos, or other visual
   representations commonly identified with the government in connection
   with the advertising or sale of any product or service.

   Paragraphs II.A and II.B are extremely broad and could reach
   activities such as advertising truthfully that a garment was "made in
   the USA" or that a cut of meat was "USDA prime;" they could even be

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                             PENSACOLA DIVISION

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Plaintiff

                                     v.

                             ROBERT M. OLIVER,
                      individually, doing business as
                      U.S. CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY,
                      and, CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY
                               of BAY COUNTY,
                                 Defendant.

   COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, CONSUMER REDRESS, PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
                         AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

   Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and
   authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission
   ("FTC" or "the Commission"), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the
   Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for
   its complaint alleges:
    1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(A),
       13(b), 16(a) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1),
       45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a), and 57b, to secure civil penalties,
       permanent injunctive relief, consumer redress, and other equitable
       relief for the defendant's deceptive acts and practices in
       violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the
       FTC's Trade Regulation Rule entitled "Disclosure Requirements and
       Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity
       Ventures" ("the Franchise Rule" or "the Rule"), 16 C.F.R. Part
       436.
                             JURISDICTION AND VENUE
    2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
       §§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(a),
       53(b), 56(a), and 57b. This action arises under 15 U.S.C.
       § 45(a)(1).
    3. Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern
       District of Florida is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and 28
       U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1395(a).
                                   DEFENDANT
    4. Defendant ROBERT M. OLIVER ("Oliver"), an individual, does
       business as U.S. Consumer Protection Agency ("USCPA") and as
       Consumer Protection Agency of Bay County ("Bay County CPA"). USCPA
       and Bay County CPA are unincorporated entities. Oliver conducts
       business from his residence located at 428 McKenzie Avenue, Suite

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                            PANAMA CITY DIVISION

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

                                     v.

      ROBERT M. OLIVER, individually, doing business as U.S. CONSUMER
      PROTECTION AGENCY, and CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY of BAY COUNTY,
                                 Defendant.

                          Case No. 5:98cv00160/RH
                         STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT
                     AND ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION

   Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and
   authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission
   ("FTC" or "Commission"), has commenced this action by filing the
   Complaint herein. Defendant ROBERT M. OLIVER d/b/a U.S. CONSUMER
   PROTECTION AGENCY and CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY OF BAY COUNTY has
   been served with or waives service of the Summons and Complaint. The
   parties have appeared pro se or have been represented by attorneys
   whose names appear hereafter; and the parties have agreed to
   settlement of this action upon the following terms and conditions,
   without adjudication of any issue of fact or law and without defendant
   admitting liability for any of the matters alleged in the complaint;

   THEREFORE, on the joint motion of plaintiff and defendant, it is
   hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

                                  FINDINGS

   1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties
   pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. § 45, 53(b) and
   57b.

   2. The complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted
   against the defendant under Sections 5(a)(1), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), and
   19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), and 57b.

   3. Entry of this Final Order is in the public interest.

   4. The defendant enters into this Final Order freely and without
   coercion. Defendant further acknowledges that he has read the
   provisions of this Final Order and is prepared to abide by them.

   5. The parties hereby waive all rights to appeal or otherwise