Certificate of Service 

In the matter of: 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

v. 

BRIAN W ALLAESA 

Complainant, 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ____________________________) 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 

Docket No. CPlOWPOOlO 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder 

I hereby certify that I have sent on this date by FedEx a copy of all motions and 

filings contained herein addressed to the following: 

John C. Stuart, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W; 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-9958 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 
Respondent 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

(570) 778-1335 

Dated May 19,2012 
.. 

I 

"' 

In the matter of: 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

V; 

BRIAN W ALLAESA 

BRIAN A WALLAESA 

Complainant, 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

lOll 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 

Docket No. CPlOWPOOlO 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder 

__________________________ ) 

RESPONDENT'S POST HEARING BRIEF 

Pursuant to the May 22, 2012 Order of the Chief AdministrativeLaw Judge (ALJ) 

at the close of the hearing of the above matter, Respondent hereby submits this brief. 

1. Statement of Respondent concerning interpretation of the Rules of Practice 

for FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and Subpart G. 

It is the humble opinion of the Respondent that the legal interpretation of 

the Rules of Practice for FFA Civil Penalty Proceedings specified in 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.16 and Subpart G is that matters concerning ci vii penalties are specified 

within the document. If a civil penalty is sought after by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA or Complainant), then the FAA Rules of Practice for Civil 

Penalty Proceedings are the instruction manual, if you will, on how that function 

is to be performed. 

!I• 0() ··t·~ l) 
In the Rules of Practice for FFA Civil Penalty Proceedings handout there 

are many instructions, however there are two important passages in reference to 

the proceedings: 

A §13.16 (a) "The FAA uses these procedures when it assesses a civil 

penalty against a person other than an individual acting as a pilot, 

flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman for a violation cited in the first 

sentence of 49 U.S.C. 46301(d)(2) or in 49 U.S.C. 47351, or 

implementing rule, regulation, or order." 

B § 13.224 "Burden of Proof 

(a) Except in the case of an affirmative defense, the burden of 

proof is on the agency, 

(b) Except as otherwise provided by a statute or rule, the 

proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of 

proof; 

(c) A party who has asserted an affirmative defense has the burden 

of proof." 

It is the Respondent's interpretation that the Complainant is responsible 

for the Burden of Proof as either 'the agency' or 'the proponent of a motion' and 

that the rules of procedure are governed by 14 C.F.R. §13.16. 

2. Statement of Respondent concerning FAA Order 2150.3 B. 

Within the Complainant's own document entitled "Rules of Practice for 

Civil Penalty Proceedings" and the Complainant's Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, both 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A) are specified as 
being the guidelines of how to assess the proposed civil penalty. In fact, the FAA 

handout Rules of Practice for FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings 14 C.P.R. §13.16 

and Subpart G is provided along with the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty so the 

Respondent is given 'the rules to the game.' Nowhere in any document is FAA 

order 2150.3 B mentioned, nor is it provided. FAA order 2150.3 B was not even 

brought to light during two informal meetings with the Complainant and 

·Respondent in the FAA's own building, several conference calls, and multiple 

orders and notices. FAA order 2150.3 B was not even mentioned to the 

Respondent until a full year and seven months into the proceedings. 

Order 2150.3B clearly states in Chapter 1, sections 2 (b) and (c) that the 

order is a "Staff Manual. .. " and that the order "does not give any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at any law by any party against the FAA, 

its officers, or its employees ... " On this basis, it is the Respondent's position that 

FAA Order 2150.3B is intended to be a guideline for employees of the FAA on 

how to act, e.g. where to find the cafeteria, not to wear open toed sandals in the 

building. This is especially evident through the use of the term "Staff Manual." 

It is the position of the Respondent that in defining FAA Order 2150.3B as 

a "Staff Manual", it has no legal basis in U.S. Code. It is the Respondent's belief 

that FAA Order 2150.3B is essentially a set ofguidelines outside of the U.S. 

Code. In two cases that received national attention, State v. Hogan 336 N.J.Super. 

319, 764 A.2d 1012 (NJ Super 2001) and State v. Kenna 167 N.J. 635, 772 A.2d 

937 (NJ Super 2001), the existence of a code of operation outside of codified law 
was highlighted as how greatly negative such actions could become, and lead to 

further oversight, and an implementation of permanent codified changes to law: 

FAA Order 2150.3B, i.e. the Staff Manual, provides simple, easy to read 

graphics and tables for FAA attorneys to use to guide them through their everyday 

life. Much like USA Today is to the New York Times, or Highlights is to Moby 

Dick, the Staff Manual provides a glossy, simplistic picture of how to handle 

these proceedings. I do not understand why someone would require a law degree 

in order to use it. I suggest that the FAA handout Rules of Practice for FAA Civil 

Penalty Proceedings 14 C.P.R. §13.16 and Subpart G be retired and that FAA 

Order 2150.3B is to be used in place. Since the Staff Manual does not require a 

law degree, we can save the taxpayers a great deal of money by releasing all FAA 

attorneys from thekduties and hiring paralegals in their place. After about five 

years or so of paralegals handling cases, then we can further save taxpayer money 

by outsourcing the function of Civil Enforcement to contractors outside the 

continental United States. I used to work in outsourcing for a former employer; 

this is at least $1 to $3 million of free consulting advice. 

Through the use of the Staff Manual as a guideline, a person who has a 

mental condition is treated the same as a sane person. Through the use of the Staff 

Manual as a guideline, someone who is having a heart attack is treated with the 

same consideration as a person intending to hijack a plane. There is no 

consideration given to the background of the situation, or the circumstances 

involved during the incident. 
Yi 

Currently we are in the midst of a Presidential election, and one of the 

candidates is Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney has a history of performing Leveraged 

Buyouts of corporations in financial trouble. If we elect Mr. Romney, maybe he 

can bring his experience with him, and he can institute a Leveraged Buyout of the 

Federal Government, as we know, the United States currently has a high budget 

deficit. Maybe he could help with the outsourcing. 

FAA Order 2150.3B is not mentioned in. the FAA handout Rules of 

Practice for FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings 14. C.F .R. § 13.16 and Subpart G. 

FAA Order 2150.3B is not mentioned in 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A). It is the 

position of the Respondent that FAA Order 2150.3B has no basis in U.S. code, 

and therefore, any presumptions, arguments or positions based on FAA Order 

2150.3B are invalid, and therefore, any argument made by the Complainant using 

the Staff Manual as a basis is an invalid statement, and thereby itself invalid (just 

.as house build on no foundation cannot stand, the Complainant's argument has no 

basis). 

3. Statement of Respondent concerning 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A). 

Since FAA Order 2150.3 B is invalid for discussion, we must then focus 

on 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A). The Respondent sates the following section to be 

worded as the following: 

"An individual (except an airman serving as an airman) or small 

business concern is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than 

$10,000 for violating-
------------------------------------~------------

(i) Chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d)), 40105, 40106(b), 40106, 

and 40 117), section 44502 (b) or (c), chapter 44 7 (except sections 44 717-

44723), or chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, and 

44907-44909) of this title." 

After the Respondent had reviewed each section of code, the Respondent 

makes the following assessment: 

1) Chapter 401 applies to Economic Regulation and Duties of the Secretary of 

Transportation. 

2) Chapter 44502 (b) and (c) Applies to Conformity of Airports and Airspace to 

Government Standards. 

3) Chapter 447 Applies to requirements of Pilots and Aircraft to Conform to Safety 

Standards. 

4) Chapter 449 List the requirements of Airlines and Airports to provide the proper 

security standards to passengers on aircraft. 

It is the Respondent's Understanding after review of the code that taken 

in their entirety, the Chapters and Sections of Code Listed within 49 U.S.C. 

46301(a)(5)(A) apply to Airports, Airlines, the employees of said entities, the 

contractors ofsaid entities, and the employees and contractors of the FAA and 

Department of Transportation that oversee said entities (if the Administrative Law 

Judge wishes, the Respondent can give further discussion on the individual 

chapters). In other words the code specifies the legal responsibility of those 

providing the service, and not those using the service (passengers). 

J 
.. 

Based on the review 46301(a)(5)(A), the code was written in respect to the 

operators of Air Travel, while the passengers who use the service were given all 

of the consideration as the material used to cover the seats of the aircraft. As a 

result of the vague interpretation of" ... a person other than an individual acting as 

a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman .. ", the FAA has usurped, or 

hijacked if you will allow, 46301(a)(5)(A). The use ofthe terms person, 

individual, are vaguely implied to mean passenger, while the terms small business 

concern, pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, and repairman are all specific terms. 

Furthering the Respondent's standing that 46301(a)(5)(A) does not apply 

to passengers, the Respondent states this lack of codification of passenger rights 

and responsibilities are partly addressed by U.S.C. 49 §41706 and §46303 which 

specify prohibitions against smoking on scheduled flights and carrying a weapon 

on board respectively, which are passenger responsibilities. Also of note is while 

§46303 states that "the individual. .. is liable to the United States Government for 

a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation", §41706 does not 

specify an amount of civil penalty while U.S.C. 49 §46301(b) "Smoke alarm 

device penalty" defines a penalty in subsection (2) as the following: "An 

individual violating this subsection is liable to the Government for a civil penalty 

of not more than $2,000." In other words the code with respect to passengers is 

unclear, inconsistent, and ill-defined. Again, passengers are given as much respect 

as seat fabric, or in consideration of the TSA, baggage. 

It is the Respondents firm belief that all coding of 49 U.S.C. be rewritten 

to remove the statement of individual, and that 49 U.S.C. 46301 be solely focused 
& • 

I' 

on the operators of the service. A separate section of 49 U.S.C. should be 

introduced to regulate the actions of passengers, and to specifically mention 

· passengers in the coding, and not individuals (or users/consumers of the service). 

Again, the Respondent has given the Federal Government $3 million of free 

consulting advice. 

In summation, it is the Respondent's position that the assessment 

under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A) by the Complainant is invalid, and no actual 

codified guidelines in 49 U.S.C. exist for the violations as cited. 

4. Statement of Respondent concerning facts centered on events of Flight #3049. 

Given the results of the filings and !estimony provided by witnesses, the 

Respondent gives his summation of the facts of Flight #3049. 

The Respondent, prepared for Flight #3049 by packing his baggage 

overnight and travelling to the airport early in the morning. The respondent 

without sleep travelled to the airport. The Respondent was under treatment for 

depression and social anxiety, and took medication to that effect prior to leaving 

for the airport. 

Once in the terminal, and at the airport gate, the Respondent and a female 

passenger, Ms. Tomchik, were the only passengers in the Business Select 

boarding line for Southwest Airlines Flight #3049. A conversation began between 

the Respondent and Ms. Tomchik while in line prior to boarding and continued at 

least an hour into an approximately four hour flight. This conversation lasted long 

enough that the Respondent and Ms. Tomchik exchanged personal information 

with one another. During this time frame, Southwest Airlines flight attendants 
offered the Business Select passengers a complimentary alcoholic beverage. The 

Respondent ordered and drank an Irish Coffee. 

Ms. Tomchik, and some point began to tire of the conversation, but did not 

specify this to the Respondent. Ms. Tomchik moved during the flight, and this 

began the interaction of the Respondent and Ms. Tomchik with the fight crew of 

Flight #3049. 

After several interactions, the Respondent met with the flight attendants of 

Flight #3049 at the rear of the aircraft, and a gentleman's agreement was reached 

amongst the Respondent and the flight crew. The Respondent agreed to be 

reseated at the back of the plane, would allow the·flight crew to perform service, 

as long as Ms. Moorman would return to the rear of the plane and speak to the 

Respondent. Little did the Respondent know that Ms. Moorman had no intention 

of returning to speak to the Respondent. When it became clear to the Respondent 

that Ms. Moorman was not going to return to the re.ar of the plane, the Respondent 

sought out Ms. Moorman at the front of the aircraft. 

The Respondent can provide evidence to the fact that he had a prescription 

for medication. The Respondent cannot prove that the medication or beverage was 

ingested, as no blood or urine samples were taken by officials at the Las Vegas 

airport. Also, the drink tickets were handed out to the Respondent in line prior to 

boarding the aircraft, and were taken in exchange for the beverage, so the 

Respondent cannot prove that a beverage was served. It is the Respondent's 

position that once the Flight crew served the Respondent a complimentary 
beverage, for which the Respondent did not request, nor purchase, the Flight crew 

became responsible and liable for any and all actions of the Respondent. 

5. Statement of Respondent concerning pre-hearing conference with FAA 

representative Jim Conneely. 

When the Respondent was first issued the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, the Respondent's first interactions with the FAA were handled through 

Jim Conneely. The Respondent initially was issued a Violation of 121.580 and a 

proposed fine of $5,500 on 2/25/2010. At this time the maximum fine was stated 

as $11,000. The Respondent requested an informal in-person conference on 

4/5/2010, which was confirmed by the FAA. On 4/7/2010, a mere two days later 

. the Respondent was issued an Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty stating 

that the Respondent " ... appears ... " to have violated Section 121.317(f), 

121.317(k) and 121.580. The maximum total now being $33,000, as each 

violation carried an $11 ,000 maximum penalty. The Respondent maintains that 

the Complainant used this Amended notice as intimidation as to say 'just pay the 

$5,500 and all of this will go away', otherwise we can make it worse on you. 

The Respondent then entered into informal, in-person conferences with the 

Complainant's counsel. During these conferences it was revealed by the 

Respondent to the Complainant that the Respondent was being treated for anxiety 

and that the Respondent had wished, and begun training, for his own Private 

Pilot's license (if the court wishes, the Respondent can supply documentation as 

to the fact that the Respondent was seeking a Private Pilot's License). It was the 

Complainant's counsel's suggestion that the Respondent not use this information 
in his defense, otherwise it would make it at least difficult, or impossible, for the 

Respondent to achieve certification for a Private Pilot's License. Since this was· an 

informal, in-person conference, the Respondent cannot provide documentation to 

this effect. 

The Respondent has maintained his innocence and continued to pursue 

clearing his name. It is the Respondent's belief that the Complainant had taken the 

position of "just pay the $5,500 and this will all go away" and continued to 

attempt to intimidate the Respondent by adding charges and increasing the 

potential fine. Also, the Complainant continued this tactic by issuing the Motion 

for Protective Order against the Respondent when the Respondent sought no 

further interaction with Ms. Tomchik 

6. Charges that apply, and evidence of the hearing that support the charges were not 

violated. 

a. The Respondent was initially charged with Section 121.580, and it is the 

Respondent's position that this is the only applicable charge. 

i. If the Respondent had not requested an informal in-person hearing 

the Complainant would have never issued violations for 121.317(t) 

and 121.317(k). This is evident in the fact of the Complainant's 

counsel issuing additional charges and emphasizing the increase in 

the maximum possible penalty, and the Complainant's issuance of 

the Motion for Protective Order. 

b. The Respondent is not a lawyer by trade. 
i. The Respondent has not attended law school or attempted a bar 

exam in any way shape or form. 

11. The Respondent has maintained innocence throughout these 

proceedings and has not agreed that he violated the charges in any 

way. 

c. The Complainant's own witnesses have disproven the Complainant's 

allegations. 

i. When asked about the interactions of Mr. Wallaesa leading up to 

the end of the flight, a trained FBI Special agent of nine years 

testified to the fact that the seat switching Tr. pg107.1-107.9 

"It looked like it was up in front of me. Since Southwest, there is 

no ... you know assigned seating, I assumed that it was maybe, two 

people that got on, and couldn't sit next to each other, but were ... 

you, know, trying to sit next to each other. You know, just asking 

... you know, if somebody would switch, or something, so they 

can ... you know, if they knew each other, they could sit there and 

talk." 

ii. When Ms. Tomchik was asked how she indicated to the 

Respondent she no longer wanted to have contact with him she 

responded Tr. pg 27.12-27.15 

"For one, I got my book out, thinking that would give him the 

point that I was done talking. Once that didn't work, I go my iPod 
out and figured that would give him the point if I have headphones 

on that I'm finished speaking to him." 

When Ms. Tomchik was asked if Mr. W allaesa had attempted to 

contact her as he walked toward the front of the plane at the end of 

the flight Tr. pg.30.13.-30.14 

"As I previously stated, he walked by and did not look at me or say 

anything." 

Ms. Tomchik agreed that after Mr. Wallaesa's attempt to contact 

Ms. Tomchik which lead to the conference at the back of the plane, 

Mr. Wallaesa did not attempt to make any further contact with her. 

iii. When Ms. Moorman was asked if Mr. W allaesa threatened her she 

stated Tr. pg 61.1 

"Mr. Wallaesa did not physically threaten me ... " 

iv. When Mr. Dumond was asked if Mr. Wallaesa threatened him, his 

physical person, or the plane itself, his answer was Tr.pg.99.17-99-

20 

"No" 

When further asked if Mr. Wallaesa threatened any other flight 

attendants, his response was Tr.pg99.23 

"I was not witness to that if he did" 

FBI Agent Mollica, Ms. Wendy Moorman, and Mr. Robert Dumond, the 

three main witnesses at the hearing all stated that the Respondent did not threaten 

them, anyone on the plane, or the plane itself. The FBI Agent specifically stated 
that his observations of the interactions of Mr. Wallaesa with the flight crew and 

passengers on board of the flight appeared normal for a Southwest airlines flight. 

So therefore, how interference cannot be considered if the interactions were 

considered normal and non-threatening by the Complainant's own witnesses. 

Taken in the fact that the testimony of the Witnesses state that Mr. 

Wallaesa did not threaten them, the passengers or the plane in any way, and that 

the interactions appeared normal by observation of a Law Enforcement Offical, 

the entire middle section of the flight is taken out of consideration for violation of 

49 u.s.c. 

At the close of the hearing, the ALJ stated that Tr.pg158.19-158.25 

" ... All of this other stuff about interactions with Mr. Mollica, and 

communications with Mr. (sic) Tomchik are not directly relevant to that 

allegation" 

Based on that information, the beginning and end of the flight are removed from 

consideration. 

Given that the witness testimony eliminates the middle of the flight, and 

the beginning and end of the flights were eliminated by ALJ decision. There was 

no interference that occurred on the flight, and no Civil Penalty is warranted. 

7. Discussion of Testimony of Hearing as it applies to fines. 

Throughout the hearing several of the Complainant's witnesses stated that 

there were circumstances in which passengers would be moved while the Fasten 

Seat Belt sign is illuminated. Several circumstances were brought to light where 
passengers could apparently violate the FAA code, but would be excusable and no 

fines would be sought. 

When Ms. Moorman was asked if she had experienced any medical 

emergencies prior to November 6, 2009 she stated Tr.pg62.5 and Tr.pg62.7-62.9 

" ... probably had five or six medical emergencies." 

"Heart attack, stroke, I had a lady that fainted, a lady was hyper 

hyperventilating at one point, the last one was a child choking." 

When Mr. Dumond was asked if he had experienced any medical 

emergencies prior to November 6, 2009 he stated Tr.pg.92.16-92.26 

" ... she told the crew she was allergic to certain perfumes and colognes, 

and she needed to make sure she wasn't seated near anyone that had a lot of 

colognes on. So, she moved several times during the flight. The lavatory was 

sprayed with a certain deodorizer and that affected her, so we had to take her 

to the front of the plane, and had to administer oxygen, and call our medical 

consultant to get advice. That is how that was handled." 

Based on this testimony, there are situations that arise outside normal 

procedures on flights that would cause the Flight Crew to divert their attention. 

Further testimony demonstrates how much of the Flight Crew's time this would 

occupy. 

When Ms. Moorman was asked about the time required to attend to a 

passenger in distress, her answer was Tr.pg.62.17 -62.18 

" .. .I have to take care of that person until it is resolved." 

When Ms. Moorman was asked about the duration of time taking the entirety 

of the flight, her response was Tr.pg63.5 
"Possibly." 

When Mr. Dumond was asked about the duration of time it took for his 

medical emergency he stated Tr.Pg93.8-93.9 

"Percentage-wise, probably about 50 percent of that flight." 

Based on the testimony of the Flight Crew a passenger emergency may 

require 50 percent to 100 percent of the flight attendant's time. 

8. Discussion of Precedent Cases and level of Penalty. 

In the Complainant's brief, the Complainant reiterates conversations with 

Ms. Tomchik and Mr. Mollica, reintroduces FAA Order 2150.3B, continues to list 

non-precedence cases, and includes 121.317(t) and 121.317(k), even though the 

Complainant never assigned monetary penalty. The ALJ had directed the 

Complainant not consider these cases. 

The Respondent does not believe that the evidence presented by the 

Complainant is enough proof that a violation did occur. Furthermore the 

Respondent respectfully asks for clarification of which section of code he is 

officially charged of violating, if any. The Respondent believes that the 

Complainant can only cite 121.580 and that the evidence suggests in the hearing 

that the Respondent did not violate that section through the testimonies of the 

flight crew or special agent Mollica. 

CONCLUSION 

It is the Respondent's position that the facts presented by the Complainant do not 

warrant a civil penalty, and that the conclusion should be that no penalty should be 

assessed. In the Complainant's notice, 121.580 is the first, and only, cited violation, and 

therefore can be the only one that is argued upon. It is the Respondent's request that the 
.. 

focus be centered on 121.580, that FAA Order 2150.3 B be ruled as inadmissible by the 

ALJ, and that discussion should be focused on what the ALJ has decided. 

In the Complainant's brief, a claim has been made that the Respondent sought his 

own interests over the interests of the other 'individuals' on board Flight #3049. The 

Respondent maintains that this is untrue. The Respondent claims that the FAA, and 

therefore the Federal Government regards passengers on board Aircraft with no more 

regard than the baggage stowed in the belly of the Aircraft. The Respondent claims that 

the FAA disregards the medical condition of mental impairment and as a result of tragic 

events, regards all passengers as potential terrorists. It is the Respondent's belief that any 

discussion to change these opinions and beliefs is met with great resistance. The 

Respondent's own interaction with the Complainant's counsel shows the level of 

intimidation that the agency will use in order to propagate current beliefs. FAA Order 

2150.3 B demonstrates the Complainant's intentions to subvert the actual legal process to 

institute its own beliefs, procedure be damned. 

The Respondent has been taught throughout his life that if he believes something 

is incorrect, he must raise his voice to correct it. Citizenship is actually a difficult thing; it 

requires vigilance by all involved. However, the legal system in this country is an 

adjustable entity, and allows us to make changes as the majority sees fit. All of the legal 

proceedings regarding Flight #3049 have taken nearly three years to resolve. They have 

cost the Respondent way in excess of $5,500 or even $33,000 in time effort, and actual 

monetary cost. 

The Respondent is not a lawyer, and has chosen to represent himself in these 

proceedings so everything may have not been fully formal. However, the Respondent is 
.. 

familiar with, and has experience in, the law. The Respondent has chosen to represent 

himself for no other reason than to point out the errors, inconsistencies, and issues he has 

seen in interaction with this system. The Respondent requests any leniency available to 

him as a layperson, and would like to reply to the Court in the best way possible. I not 

that in the transcript, the due date for the Respondent is not listed Tr pg.158.7. I also 

request that the Respondent have an opportunity to reply to the Complainant's filing on 

8110112 by 8/24112 and the Complainant have an opportunity to respond to that filing on 

917/12. 

Whatever the outcome, the Respondent has wished to point out the issues in the 

Federal Code, the issues with the Actions of the FAA, and the fact that passengers are 

regarded as another object on board the plane, and not as breathing, functioning human 

beings. Whatever is decided in the case, the Respondent feels satisfaction that these items 

have been uncovered and that future discussion may correct them. 

Dated July 26, 2012 

Respondent 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

(570) 778-1335