- 6 -
first letter was returned as undeliverable. Respondent then sent
out a postal tracer, and on January 11, 2002, respondent sent an
additional letter to petitioner again informing petitioner of the
examination and requesting that petitioner make certain documents
pertaining to its business and the workers in question available
for inspection. The letter also requested a meeting with
petitioner on January 31, 2002, to conduct an interview. After
sending the second letter, respondent followed up with a
telephone call to confirm the meeting and left a message on
petitioner’s answering machine to that effect.
When a representative of respondent arrived at the address
listed for petitioner on January 31, 2002, she was greeted by
Carmel’s wife. Neither Carmel nor Damigos was present. After
being contacted by his wife by telephone, Carmel informed the
representative that a response from petitioner to the notice had
already been mailed.
Ultimately, petitioner did not comply with respondent’s
request to make its documents available for inspection. At
trial, Carmel testified that the records were previously
subpoenaed by a Federal grand jury, and there is no evidence to
the contrary in the record.
Respondent then used the records previously summoned from
petitioner’s banks to help determine the status of petitioner’s
workers. Petitioner eventually did meet with respondent once for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011