Moreover, the Judicial Officer does not issue advisory opinions or review and give approval to proposed advertisements. Respondents' other major argument is that the Postal Service Decision is not supported by the evidence of record. Respondents contend that Complainant did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondents made the representations alleged in the amended Complaint, or that the alleged representations were material. Their arguments in support of this position are with one exception identical to arguments contained in their Brief On Appeal and were previously considered and addressed in the Decision. They have advanced no new legal theories and rely on no facts overlooked or not considered in the Decision.
Respondents rely heavily on the existence of their advertisements' small disclaimer.
They also contend the Decision placed undue reliance both on certain words contained in the advertisements and on the similarities of their offering to United States coins. Their arguments on these points are not persuasive. Respondents' remaining arguments, previously presented in their Brief On Appeal, have again been considered and again are rejected. The only new contention presented by Respondents pertains to the false representation that their product was solid gold. Their contention is without merit.