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 of the same apple. 

First of all, it is inaccurate for the Complainant to aver at page 2 of its brief that 

Respondent's only defense was ignorance of the law. Rather, Respondent has pointed 

out that she purchased the mini bottle of wine from a vendor operating within the secured 

area of the airport. It's interesting in this case that, unlike a lot of airports where people 

go through security and then have their choice of restaurants, stores, etc., the Helena 

1 
2 

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 of the area where the T ASA folks are conducting security 

checks. Within this single room there is a vendor who sells a number of articles, 

including some pastries, pop, other small food items and, for many years, mini bottles of 

wine. They don't serve mini bottles of other alcohol, just small bottles of wine. For this 

reason, it wasn'tjust ignorance of the law. Respondent has previously indicated that she 

worked for that vendor on previous occasions and that she and her employer both 

believed that it was proper for them to sell the wine and proper for the patrons to 

consume the wine once on board. They couldn't take opened containers on board but 

they could take unopened containers on board. One would think that if this was a 

problem that security would have so informed the vendor and the vendor in tum her 

workers. There are affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel here. It's not an 

"ignorance of the law" defense. Respondent has not found anything similar in the two 

cases cited by Complainant, namely, In re Kisheln Sprague and In Re Bengry. If the 

airport, TASA and the vendor all knew what was going on then they should all be 

charged with violating the rule concerning consumption of alcohol not sold by the airline. 

Furthermore, Complainant raises the argument about judicial economy. It's the 

Complainant who chose to file this complaint in the frrst place and it's surprising that the 

Complainant would now be concerned about judicial economy. This matter is not going 

to take a terribly long time to try and there is no judicial economy served by granting a 

motion for reconsideration. Judicial economy would be better served if Complainant had 

2 
2 

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 summary judgment was denied. 

Complainant not only wants the Hearing Examiner to reconsider its decision as to 

the violation but also at page 4 of its motion for reconsideration tried to argue that there is 

no other reason for any further reduction of the proposed sanction. There's no basis for 

making that part and parcel of its motion for reconsideration and we believe the 

Complainant knows that full well. That aspect, as well as the rest of the motion should 

be denied. 

We are certainly willing, if the Hearing Examiner wishes, to conduct this matter 

by telephonic 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 of very limited means. Moreover, we believe that reductions of sanctions may 

consider other factors such as the circumstances giving rise to the purchase of the mini 

bottle of wine, where it was purchased, the fact that others purchased and consumed this 

wine and a number of other 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 of February, 2012. 

DOUBEK, PYFER & FOX, LLP 

ByJj~k~ Attorney for Maureen Wilson-Doubek 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on the _2__ day of February, 2012, I served a true and 

correct copy of the 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 

David F. Shayne 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

4