### DELL'ITALIA, AFFINITO & 

### SANTOLA

JOHN P. DELL'ITALIA DAVID P. AFFINITO t ' STACY A SANTOLA

t Certified by the Supreme Court ofNJ as a Civil Trial Attorney * MemberofNJ, NY,PA&FLABars



### via certified mail return receipt requested Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW ATTORNEYS AT LAW

18 TONY GALENTO PLAZA ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07050 Tel¢phone (973)672-8000

Fax (973)672-8215



### March 27, 2014

WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 RE: JAMES MILLER/ M.T.l. TRAVEL, INC. CASE NO. 2013S0950011 Dear Sir/Madam: 301 South Livingston Ave, Suite 100 Livingston, New Jersey 07039 Telephone (973) 535-8$11 Fax (973) 672-8215 

# ;

,{ECEIVEDeply to Orange 

## APR - 1 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

I am enclosing an original and one copy ofan Answer from M.T.l. Travel, Inc., in the above captioned matter. I hereby certify that all persons on the attached service listhave been served with this documentby my placing same in the US mail on this date.

DPAbn enclosures FINITO & 

### SANTOLA FINITO, ESQ.SERVICE LIST

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Michael F. McKinley, Esq. Senior Attorney, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Hon. j.E. Sullivan, Administrative Lawjudge Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewjerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590DELL'ITALIA, AFFINITO & SANTOLA 18 TONY GALENTO PLAZA ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07050 973-672-8000

IN THE MATTER OF M.T.I. TRAVEL, INC. FAA DOCKET NO. (not assigned) (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. (not assigned) FAA CASE NO. 2013s0950011

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

## APR - 1 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

The Respondent under Certificate Number MT7)175C, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 13.208, by way ofAnswer to the Complaint says, 1. Admitted as to Paragraph One ofthe Complaint. 2. Admitted as to ParagraphTwo ofthe Complaint. 3. Admitted as to Paragraph Three ofthe Complaint. 4. Admitted as to Paragraph Four ofthe Complaint. 5. Admitted as to Paragraph Five ofthe Complaint. 6. Admitted as to Paragraph Six ofthe Complaint. 7. Admitted as to Paragraph Seven ofthe Complaint. 8. Admitted as to Paragraph Eight ofthe Complaint. 9. Admitted as to Paragraph Nine ofthe Complaint. 10. Admitted as to Paragraph Ten ofthe Complaint. 11. Admitted as to Paragraph Eleven ofthe Complaint.12. Admitted as to Paragraph Twelve ofthe Complaint. 13. Admitted as to Paragraph Thirteen ofthe Complaint. 14. Admitted as to Paragraph Fourteen ofthe Complaint. 15. Admitted as to Paragraph Fifteen ofthe Complaint. 16. Denied as to Paragraph Sixteen ofthe Complaint. 17. Admitted as to Paragraph Seventeen ofthe Complaint. 18. Admitted as to Paragraph Eighteen ofthe Complaint. 19. Admitted as to Paragraph Nineteen ofthe Complaint. 20. (a) Admitted as to paragraph Twenty ofthe Complaint, in part and denied in partbecause the Respondent has a reasonable expectation to conclude that Lucchese, who was operating as a contractor for M.T.I., by the name ofHelicopters, Inc. (b) Admitted. (c) Admitted in partbut denied in partbecause Miller was presented with blood test results by Lucchese with the name Helicopters, Inc. (d) Agreed as to American Helicopters but Lucchese was also certified underthe company, Helicopters, Inc. (f) Denied. 21. Admitted as to Paragraph Twenty-One ofthe Complaint and complied with since Miller was the only employee ofM.T.I. Travel, Inc. 22. Agreed and complied with since Miller was the only employee ofM.T.I. Travel, Inc. 23. Agreed and compliedwith. 24. Agreed and complied with. 25. Agreed to and compliedwith. 26. Agreed to and compliedwith.27.

A. 

### B. 

### c. D. 

### E. F. 

### G. H. I. 

## J. K. L. 

### M. N. 0. 

### P. (a) Agreed. (b) Agreed thatthe letters were dated as such. (c) Agreed as to completion ofthe Selection Form and complied with returning same. (d) Denied. (e) Agreed and complied with all procedures. COUNT TWO

Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The respondent compliedwith all F.A.A. Regulations. 2. Some ofthe definitions ofthe Regulations, including employee, contract employee, contract employee, contractor, sub-contractor and other regulations are void for vagueness. 3. The applicable definitions are vague and can be interpreted differently by differentpersons and are thus, ambiguous and, therefore, void. 4. The Regulations to be interpretedby "persons" under this Section are to be judgedby the reasonable person standard. No person is held to a strict liability standard for interpretingregulations which are vague, contrary to the traditional meaning ofthe words; for example. "employees" "contractor" and "contract employee". No person should be held responsible for interpretingregulations differently than the traditional, historical and common understanding ofthe words, for example: "employee" and contractor" as compared to "contract employee" and others cited in the definition section, referred to above, and differently than can be reasonably read by otherpersons are thus void for vagueness. The Respondent read the definitions ofthe regulations and compliedwith their traditional meaning. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Respondent, M.T.I. Travel, Inc., hereby seeksjudgment dismissing the Complaint in its entiretywith prejudice. .! 

### _, Dated: ) 

## ! I 1/· ,/./

,, ' i i**"+~,·'** DAVID P.**AFFtNi!f'o,\~Q.** Attorney for M:f.I. Travel, Inc.