UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CIVIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. and COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC., corporations, and SCOTT PASCH and DAVID KEEZER, individually and as officers of Civic Development Group, Inc., and RICHARD MCDONNELL, individually and as an officer of  Community Network, Inc.

DOCKET NO.
COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Civic Development Group, Inc. and Community Network, Inc., corporations, and Scott Pasch and David Keezer, individually and as officers of Civic Development Group, Inc., and Richard McDonnell, individually and as an officer of Community Network, Inc. (“respondents”), have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

  1. Respondent Civic Development Group, Inc. (“CDG”) is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office or place of business at 655 Florida Grove Road, Hopelawn, New Jersey. By itself or in concert with others, CDG controls the acts or practices of Community Network, Inc., including the acts or practices alleged in this complaint.
  2. Respondent Community Network, Inc. (“CNI”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business at 655 Florida Grove Road, Hopelawn, New Jersey.
  3. Respondent Scott Pasch is an officer of CDG. Individually or in concert with others, he formulates, directs, or controls the policies, acts, or practices of CDG and CNI, including the acts or practices alleged in this complaint. His principal office or place of business is 655 Florida Grove Road, Hopelawn, New Jersey.
  4. Respondent David Keezer is an officer of CDG. Individually or in concert with others, he formulates, directs, or controls the policies, acts, or practices of CDG and CNI, including the acts or practices alleged in this complaint. His principal office or place of business is 655 Florida Grove Road, Hopelawn, New Jersey.
  5. Respondent Richard McDonnell is an officer of CNI. Individually or in concert with others, he formulates, directs, or controls the policies, acts, or practices of CNI, including the acts or practices alleged in this complaint. His principal office or place of business is 655 Florida Grove Road, Hopelawn, New Jersey.
  6. Respondents have solicited consumers by telephone and direct mail to contribute to a non-profit organization, the American Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (“ADSA”).
  7. The acts and practices of respondents alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act.
  8. Respondents have solicited consumers by telephone and direct mail to contribute to the ADSA. During these solicitations, respondents have represented, expressly or by implication, that:

A. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers in the past had benefitted law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside;

B. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers had been used in the past to purchase bullet-proof vests for law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside; and

C. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers had been used in the past to pay death benefits to the survivors of deceased law enforcement officers who resided or worked in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside.

  1. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances:

A. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers in the past had not benefitted law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside;

B. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers had not been used in the past to purchase bullet-proof vests for law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside; and

C. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers had not been used in the past to pay death benefits to the survivors of deceased law enforcement officers who resided or worked in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside.

Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 8 were, and are, false or misleading.

  1. During the solicitations described above, the respondents have also represented, expressly or by implication, that:

A. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers would be used to benefit law enforcement offices in the town, city, county or state in which the consumers reside;

B. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers would be used to purchase bullet-proof vests for law enforcement offices in the town, city, county or state in which the consumers reside; and

C. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers would be used to pay death benefits to the survivors of deceased law enforcement officers who resided or worked in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside.

  1. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances:

A. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers is not used to benefit law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside;

B. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers is not used to purchase bullet-proof vests for law enforcement offices in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside; and

C. Money contributed to the ADSA by consumers is not used to pay death benefits to the survivors of deceased law enforcement officers who resided or worked in the town, city, county, or state in which the consumers reside.

Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 10 were, and are, false or misleading.

  1. The acts and practices of respondents as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this day of 1998 has issued this complaint against respondents.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark
Secretary