2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 John C. Doubek DOUBEK, PYFER & FOX, LLP 307 N. Jackson P.O. Box 236 Helena, MT 59624 Telephone: (406) 442-7830 Attorney for Respondent 

# RECEIVED FEB 1**~** 

## 2012 

# HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. J. RANDOLPH BABBIT, Administrator Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant, MAUREEN T. WILSON-DOUBEK

. Respondent. ) FAA DOCKET NO: CP05NM0026 ) ) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0683 ) ) FAA Case No.: 2011NM190012 

### ) ) RICHARD C. GOODWIN ) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE )



## _________________________ ) RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO

MOTION TO RECONSIDER Respondent, Maureen T. Wilson-Doubek, respectfully submits this her Response to the Motion For Reconsideration. The Complainant herein is simply trying to take another bite ofthe same apple. First ofall, it is inaccurate for the Complainant to aver at page 2 ofits briefthat Respondent's only defense was ignorance ofthe law. Rather, Respondent has pointed outthat she purchasedthe mini bottle ofwine from a vendor operating withinthe secured

area ofthe airport. It's interesting inthis case that, unlike a

### lotofairports where people go through security and then have their choiceofrestaurants, stores, etc., the Helena

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 airport is quite small. One goes through security and then immediately sits down at their gate, which is on the other side ofthe area where the TASA folks are conducting security checks. Withinthis single room thereis a vendor who sells a number ofarticles, including some pastries, pop, other small food items and, for many years, mini bottles of wine. They don't serve mini bottles ofother alcohol,just small bottles ofwine. Forthis reason, it wasn'tjust ignorance ofthe law. Respondent has previously indicated that she worked for that vendor onprevious occasions and that she and her employerboth believed that it was proper for them to sell the wine and proper for the patrons to

consume the wine once onboard. They couldn'ttake opened containers onboard but they could take unopened containers on board. One would think that ifthis was a problem that security would have so informed the vendor and the vendor intumher workers. There are affirmative defenses ofwaiver and estoppel here. It's not an "ignorance ofthe law" defense. Respondent has not found anything similar in the two

cases citedby Complainant, namely, In re Kisheln Sprague and In Re Bengry. Ifthe airport, TASA and the vendor all knew what was going on then they should all be charged with violating the rule concerning consumption ofalcohol not sold by the airline. Furthermore, Complainantraises the argument aboutjudicial economy. It's the Complainant who chose to file this complaint inthe frrst place and it's surprising that the Complainant would nowbe concerned aboutjudicial economy. This matter is not going to take a terribly long time to try and there is nojudicial economy served by granting a motion for reconsideration. Judicial economy would be better served ifComplainanthad

22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not filed this case in the first place and had not filed its motion for reconsideration after its motion for summaryjudgment was denied. Complainant not only wants the Hearing Examiner to reconsider its decision as to the violation but also at page 4 ofits motion for reconsideration tried to argue thatthere is

no other reason for any further reduction ofthe proposed sanction. There's no basis for making that part and parcel ofits motion for reconsideration and we believe the Complainant knows that full well. That aspect, as well as the rest ofthe motion should be denied. We are certainly willing, ifthe Hearing Examiner wishes, to conductthis matter bytelephonic hearing or in any other way that economizes everyone's costs and time. Certainly Respondent does have fmancial hardship. She's on social security disability. She is ofvery limited means. Moreover, we believe thatreductions ofsanctions may consider other factors such as the circumstances giving rise to the purchase ofthe mini bottle ofwine, where itwas purchased, the fact that others purchased and consumed this wine and a number ofother factors which will be presented at the hearing. Matters are not as simple and straightforward as Complainant would have them be. WHEREFORE, Respondent urges the Hearing Examiner to deny the motion to reconsider. /Ill Ill/ /Ill

3

# II

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED this

# L day ofFebruary, 2012. DOUBEK, PYFER & FOX, LLP

# ByJj~k~ Attorney for Maureen Wilson-Doubek

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on the

# _2__ day ofFebruary, 2012, I served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing upon opposing counsel via USPS at Helena, Montana, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Bldg.- Ste 2W1000 DavidF. Shayne FAA Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Ave., SW Renton, W A 98057

4