I NTH E I NTH E MATE ROF : QUENTO NT . BROW N FEDERA L AVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N ) FDM S NO . FAA-2011-100 9

3:0 2 p.m . Conferenc e Room , Suit e 60 0 Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n 122 0 L Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . Tuesday , Januar y10 , 2 01 2 Th e partie s met , pursuan t t o th e notice , at":

-

BEFORE : TH E HONORABL E J.E . SULLIVA N

Administrativ e La wJudg e

APPEARANCES : (Vi a Telephone )

O nbehal f o f Complainant : MAR K G . CAMACHO , Esquir e Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Centra l Region , ACE- 7 Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 816-329-3765/816-329-377 1 (FAX ) ' 0

•F T o: - e n 

### U^yfififW

O nBehal f o f Respondent : (No Appearance. )

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82

1 PROCEEDING S 2 (3:0 2 p.m. ) 3 JUDG E SULLIVAN : --i nth e matte r o f Quento n 4 T . Brown . Thi s i s Docke t Numbe r FAA-2011-1009 . Toda y 5 i s Tuesday , Januar y10 , 2012 , an dth e partie s hav e 6 reconvene dfo r a thir dlitigatio nschedulin g 7 conference . 8 Presen t o nbehal f o f th e FA Ai s Mar k G . 9 Camacho , th e attorne yo f record . Th e pr o s e 1 0 Responden t Quento nT . Browni s no t presen t an dther e 1 1 i s n o explanatio nfo r hi s absence . I'1 1 not e tha t 1 2 prio r t o goin g o nth e recor dthi s afternoon , Dian e 1 3 Mays , m

ylega l assistant , advise dme tha t sh e ha d 1 4 trie dt o cal l Mr . Brow nthre e time s prio r t o convenin g 1 5 thi s telephon e conferenc e call . Ms . May s calle dMr . 1 6 Brow na t hi s telephon e numbe r o f recor dwhic hi s 321

- 1 7 594-8501 . Sh e calle da t 2:5 4 p.m. ; 2:5 6 p.m. , an da t 1 8 3:00p.m . Th e schedul e star t tim e o f thi s conferenc e 1 9 i s 3:0 0 p.m . an dw e di dstar t o ntime . Ms . May s als o 2 0 note dtha t sh e reache dMr . Brown' s voic e mai l an dlef t 2 1 message s bu t there' s bee nn o respons e fromhim . W e 2 2 ar e goin g t o procee dwithou t hi ma s a result . 2 3 I nterm s o f th e histor yo f thi s cas e leadin g 2 4 t o thi s thir d litigatio nschedulin g conference , I'l l 2 5 not e tha t o nDecembe r 7 , 2011 , bot hMr . Camach o an d Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8• 3

1 Mr . Brownappeare db ytelephon e fo r a secon d 2 litigatio nschedulin g conference . A t tha t time , the y 3 discusse dth e merits , t o a certai nexten t o f th e case . 4 The yals o discusse dth e proces s o f th e cas e an dthei r 5 mutua l calenda r availabilit yfo r furthe r conferences . 6 Prio r t o concludin g th e telephon e conferenc e 7 o nDecembe r 7 , 2011 , thi s Administrativ e Cour t worke d 8 wit hbot hMr . Brow nan dMr . Camach o an dthei r calenda r 9 availability , an d se t thi s thir dlitigatio nschedulin g 1 0 conferenc e o na dat e an da t a tim e whe nbot hagree d 1 1 tha t the ywoul db e available . So , Mr . Brow n 1 2 participate d i nschedulin g thi s particula r conferenc e 1 3 an dwa s directl yawar e o f th e conferenc e dat e tim e 1 4 an dho wt o appea r befor e thi s Cour t fo r th e 1 5 conference . 1 6 I naddition , o nDecembe r 8 , 2011 , th e 1 7 Administrativ e Cour t issue da norde r settin g thir d 1 8 litigatio nschedulin g conferenc e whic hwa s a three

1 9 pag e order , i f yo u includ e th e servic e lis t tha t wa s 2 0 attache dt o tha t order . 2 1 I ntha t order , th e Cour t reiterate dth e 2 2 date , plac e an d tim e o f thi s thir dlitigatio n 2 3 schedulin g conference , a s wel l a s al l othe r order s an d 2 4 ruling s an dagreement s tha t hav e bee ndiscusse dan d 2 5 decide ddurin g th e Decembe r 7 , 2011 , telephon e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 84

1 conference . 2 Thi s orde r wa s sen t t o bot hMr . Camach o an d 3 t o Mr . Brow na t thei r addresse s o f record . Th e Orde r 4 note dtha t Mr . Brow nha dspecificall yrequeste da 5 chang e o f addres s fo r al l futur e lega l mailings . A s a 6 result , th e Orde r wa s sen t t o th e ne waddres s tha t Mr . 7 Brownha drequeste dthi s Cour t use . 8 Interestingly , th e orde r sen t t o Mr . Brow n 9 wa s returne dt o thi s offic e i nlat e Decembe r a s 1 0 addres s unknown . Eventually , ther e wa s a n 1 1 insufficien t addres s an dth e Unite dState s Posta l 1 2 Servic e wa s unabl e t o deliver yth e mai l t o Mr . Brown . 1 3 A

- chec k o f th e envelop e addresse dt o Mr . Brow nshowe d 1 4 th e addres s wa s identica l t o th e addres s tha t h e 1 5 provide dt o thi s Cour t durin g th e Decembe r 7 , 2011 , 1 6 conference . 1 7 However , sinc e Mr . Brow nha dindicate d 1 8 orall yo nDecembe r 7 , 2011 , tha t h e stil l receive d 1 9 mai l a t hi s ol d address , thi s Cour t too k th e optio no f 2 0 resendin g th e Orde r tha t wa s file dDecembe r 8 , 2011 , 2 1 t o Mr . Brown' s forme r addres s o f record . Tha t wa s 2 2 resen t o nDecembe r 29 , 2011 . 2 3 Th e forme r addres s o f recor dwa s 62 2 Wes t 2 4 Mille r Street , Orlando , Florida , 32805- 4 - - 2 . Tha t 2 5 particula r mailin g ha s no t bee nreturned . Tha t orde r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 85

1 wa s resent . Thi s Cour t di dreceiv e o nJanuar y9 , 2 2012 , th e FAA' s motio nt o dee mallegation s admission s 3 admitte dan dwe'l l b e talkin g a littl e bi t abou t tha t 4 sometim e today . 5 Mr . Camacho , I' mgoin g t o tur nt o Decembe r 6 8 , 2011 , order , andI' mjus t goin g t o wal k throug hth e 7 materia l i ntha t orde r t o se e i f ther e wa s any 8 progres s sinc e th e partie s me t wit hm e o nDecembe r 7 , 9 2011 . I f yo u hav e tha t orde r i nhand , i t migh t b e 1 0 helpfu l t o tur nt o i t now . 1 1 O npag e 1 o f th e Decembe r 8 , 2011 , order , i t 1 2 indicate s a t th e botto mo f th e pag e tha t Mr . Brow n 1 3 shal l fil e a writte nanswe r t o th e FAA' s Decembe r 21 , 1 4 2011 , Notic e o f Complaint . I di dno t receiv e any 1 5 writte nanswe r fromMr . Brown . An di t appeare dfrom 1 6 you r motio nt o dee mallegation s admitte dtha t th e FA A 1 7 ha s no t receive d anyanswe r either . I s tha t - - 1 8 MR . CAMACHO ; Tha t i s correct . 1 9 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . O npag e 2 o f th e 2 0 Decembe r 8 , 2011 , Order , ther e wa s a nagreemen t tha t 2 1 wa s entere dint o b yth e partie s o nDecembe r 7 , 2011 , 2 2 i nwhic hthe ywer e goin g t o tal k t o eac hother . Yo u 2 3 wer e goin g t o tal k t o eac hothe r o nJanuar y5 , 2012 , 2 4 a t 3:0 0 p.m . Di dyo u mak e tha t cal l o nJanuar y5 , 2 5 2012 ? Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n (202 ) 628-488 85

1 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . I calle dexactl y1:0 0 2 o'cloc k an dI wa s abl e t o rais e Mr . Browna t th e phon e 3 numbe r provided , 32 1 are a code , 594-8501 . I starte d- 4 - I' msorry . Initiall yw e discusse da numbe r o f 5 things . I nothe r words , wha t I di dwa s reca p m y 6 reaso nfo r th e call , consisten t wit hth e Order , 7 consisten t wit hth e prio r discussions . I reminde dhi m 8 o f wha t w e wer e tal k t o about , an dI too k hi mbac k t o 9 hi s initia l statemen t made , I believe , durin g th e 1 0 conferenc e wher e h e state dtha t h e di dno t believ e h e 1 1 shoul dpa yanymoney . 1 2 I aske dhi mi f hi s decisio nwa s tha t h e di d 1 3 no t believ e h e wa s responsibl e fo r happene do r - - an d 1 4 then , I said , i f tha t i s - - i nterm s o f settlemen t w e 1 5 hav e t o - - eac hpart ywoul dhav e t o shif t thei r 1 6 positio nawa yfromthei r origina l startin g poin t suc h 1 7 tha t w e ca nsor t o f mee t i nth e middl e o f th e roa dand 1 8 eac hi s prepare dt o compromis e thei r positio nan dgiv e 1 9 u p somethin g i nexchang e fo r a resolutio nothe r tha n 2 0 throug hlitigation . 2 1 H e aske dm e question s pertainin g t o ho wthi s 2 2 woul dreflec t o nhi s credi t rating , whethe r thi s wa s a 2 3 Judgment , e t cetera . I explaine dt o hi mtha t h e wa s 2 4 askin g fo r a lega l opinion , tha t I coul dno t giv e hi m 2 5 a lega l opinion . I tol dhim , I said , Mr . Brown , I Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 87

1 wil l tel l yo u wha t thi s actio ni s no t an d- - bu t i f 2 yo u nee da lega l opinio na s t o whethe r i t affect s you r 3 credi t rating , I can' t addres s that . 4 So , I explaine dt o hi mtha t thi s wa s no t a - 5 a judgmen t fro m a civi l court , tha t thi s wa s a n 6 administrativ e action . Tha t i t wa s a civi l penalt y 7 an dtha t i t wa s a matte r o f recor dfo r ou r agency ; i t 8 woul db e a matte r o f publi c recor dwit hregar dt o th e 9 Freedo mo f informatio nact , assumin g tha t it' s 1 0 releasable , e t cetera . 1 1 H e onc e mor e wante dt o kno wwhethe r th e 1 2 paymen t o f anymonie s woul dreflec t o nhi s credit . I 1 3 agai ntol dhi mI coul dno t b e responsiv e t o th e 1 4 questio nbecaus e it' s no t a lega l opinio nan dtha t h e 1 5 neede dt o ge t a lega l opinion , i f h e wante dit , from 1 6 privat e counsel . I couldn' t represen t hi mi ntha t 1 7 regard . 1 8 A t tha t point , h e said , "well , I, " - - le t 1 9 m e rea dher e wha t m ynote s reflect . " I wan t t o tal k 2 0 t o someon e t o ge t hel p t o understan dwha t I' mdoin g i n 2 1 thi s cas e wit hregar dt o thi s paymen t o r settlemen t 2 2 discussions. " 2 3 I said , "Okay. " An dthe nI reminde dhi m 2 4 tha t w e ha da teleconferenc e wit hyo u o nTuesday . I 2 5 said , "Mr . Brown , that' s fine . That' s certainl yyou r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 righ t t o d o that . I understan di f you'r e no t

2 comfortabl e talkin g wit hm e abou t this . Tal k t o 3 whomeve r yo u nee dto. " I said , " I wan t t o remin dyo u 4 tha t w e hav e a meetin g o nTuesda yi ntelephon e 5 conferenc e wit hth e Judg e o nJanuar y9. " 6 H e said , I know , o r somethin g lik e that . I 7 mean , I' mparaphrasing . I di dno t pu t dow nhi s exac t 8 response . Bu t h e responde daffirmativel ytha t h e 9 understoo dwha t I wa s tellin g him . A t tha t poin t w e I D hun g up . I thin k thi s entir e conversatio nlaste dal l 1 1 of , perhaps , 9 t o 1 2 minutes , no t longe r tha nthat . 1 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I hav e a coupl e question s 1 3 t o as k you , Mr . Camacho . 1 4 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . 1 5 JUDG E SULLIVAN : YO Uindicate di nyou r 1 6 initia l statemen t tha t yo u calle dMr . Brow na t 1:00 . 1 7 MR . CTiMACHO : Yes . 1 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN ; Th e telephon e conferenc e 1 9 wa s schedule d fo r 3:0 0 p.m. , easter ntime . 2 0 MR . CAMACHO : I stan dcorrected . My 2 1 calenda r doe s indicat e 2:0 0 p.m. , mytim e here . I pu t 2 2 i t o nmycalenda r t o cal l hi ma t 2:00 . I calle dhi m 2 3 a t 2:00 , bu t whe nI looke da t m ycalenda r t o mak e m y 2 4 notes , I misunderstoo dtha t th e 2:0 0 wa s no t 2:0 0 2 5 eastern , bu t 2:0 0 central . An dI pu t dow n1:0 0 p.m . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 o nm ynote s t o reflec t tha t I ha d- - t o bac k of f on e

2 hour . 3 I nfact , poin t o f fact , th e orde r require d 4 m e t o cal l a t 2:0 0 p.m. , m ytime ; a t 3:0 0 p.m. , 5 easter ntim e an dI di dcal l hi ma t tha t time . 6 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . Than k you . 7 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Also , i t indicate dtha t yo u 9 reminde dhi mo f th e telephon e conferenc e an dyo u 1 0 indicate dtha t th e dat e wa s yesterda yo nJanuar y9 . 1 1 MR . CAMACHO ; Le t m e se e i f I sai dtha t • 1 2 correctly . I pu t conflictin g informatio no nm ynotes . 1 3 I apologize . I stat e o nm ynote , " I reminde dhi mtha t 1 4 w e hav e a teleconferenc e wit hth e Judg e o nTuesday,' " 1 5 an dthe nI entere dth e date , "1/9/2012, " o nm ynotes . 1 6 That' s wha t I rea dbac k t o you . 1 7 However , I wa s readin g of f o f m ycalenda r 1 8 whe nI spok e wit hhim . M ycalenda r whic hi s a larg e 1 9 calendar . Al l m ydes k ha s toda yindicate d- - that' s 2 0 wh yI indicate dTuesday . Again , that' s a nerro r o nmy 2 1 not e takin g an dI apologize , bu t I wa s tryin g t o d o 2 2 thi s a s I wa s goin g o nth e run . 2 3 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . Than k you . Let' s 24 the ntal k abou t wha t t o d o fro mhere . I di dreceiv e 2 5 you r motio nt o dee mallegation s admitted . I' m Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 0

1 curious , though , abou t tha t motion . Thi s appear s t o 2 b e fairl yrip e a t thi s poin t fo r a motio nfo r default . 3 An dI wante dt o as k yo u abou t that . 4 D o yo u typicall yno t fil e fo r default , an d 5 i f so , i s ther e a reaso nfo r that ? 6 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . Ther e i s a reaso nfo r 7 tha t an dth e reasonin g ma yno t b e sound , bu t i t i s 8 base di nlarg e measur e o nm yhistorica l experience . 9 Myprimar yfunctio nher e i s t o prosecut e 1 0 case s o nbehal f o f th e FA AAdministrato r i nfron t o f 1 1 NTS B Administrativ e La wJudges . 1 2 I nth e cours e o f th e prosecutio no f thos e 1 3 case , th e hearing s are , a s a matte r o f practicality , 1 4 althoug hinterwove nver ytightly , the yar e somewha t 1 5 bifurcate di nterm s o f no t onl yfinding s o f fact s an d 1 6 conclusion s o f law , bu t th e hearin g o nth e merit s i s 1 7 on e phase , o f sorts . An dthe nthere' s a naspec t o f 1 8 sanctio nwhic hca nbe , an dofte ntime s is , an dmany 1 9 time s ca nb e an d i s heavil ylitigated , t o th e exten t 2 0 tha t - - no t havin g - - eve ni f ther e i s a willingnes s 2 1 t o admi t responsibilit yan dadmi t al l th e facts . 2 2 Still , th e sanctio nissu e i s a ver yviabl e 2 3 componen t o f tha t hearing . An dt o th e exten t tha t 2 4 tha t i s th e case , som e Respondent s an dRespondent' s 2 5 counse l will , *yo u know , w e don' t wan t t o disput e th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 1

1 facts , bu t w e believ e tha t thi s sanctio ni s to o 2 severe ; no t consisten t wit hcas e law ; no t consisten t 3 wit hth e promulgate dSanctio nGuidanc e Tabl e tha t th e 4 administrato r - - FA AAdministrato r ha s mad e availabl e 5 t o th e worl da t large . 6 So , an ds o the ntha t become s a sor t o f mini

7 tria l unt o itself . An dhistoricall ywhe nI've bee ni n 8 fron t o f Judg e Goodwi no r other s an dJudg e KolK o 9 befor e him , manytime s I've foundmysel f i nth e throe s 1 0 o f th e sam e typ e o f situatio nwher e th e Judg e - - 1 1 and/o r opposin g counse l - - an dI wil l say , well , 1 2 there' s - - we'l l stipulat e t o othe r facts . So , the y 1 3 wil l stipulate , yes , m yclien t di dthi s o r that . 1 4 An dthe nth e hearin g begin s - - reall yi s 1 5 limite dt o - - an dI've ha d- - actuall ytravele dt o a 1 6 hearin g site , sa yi nIow a somewhere , wher e Judg e 1 7 Goodwi nha s shownan dwe'v e ha dth e youn g ma no r youn g 1 8 woman , whoeve r i s involved , basicall yge t up an dsay , 1 9 well , yo u know , I don' t reall ywan t t o disput e th e 2 0 facts , bu t I thin k tha t thi s amoun t i s to o severe . 2 1 Yad a yada . 2 2 A t tha t poin t the nth e hearin g basicall y 2 3 become s a hearin g o nth e sanctio nandth e 2 4 reasonablenes s o r lac k thereof , o f th e civi l penalt y 2 5 amoun t tha t wa s propose dt o b e 'assessed . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 2

1 An d so , m yevidenc e the nha s t o g o reall yt o 2 show , mor e o r les s - - it' s kin do f a - - i t reall y 3 favor s th e Respondent , o r i nthi s case , th e Appellate , 4 becaus e I basicall yhav e t o pu t o nfact s t o sho wtha t 5 there' s enoug haggravatio nt o justif yth e civi l 6 penalt ythat' s proposed . 7 Whil e then , i nturn , th e Appellan t ca nge t 8 u p andsaything s t o th e natur e of , well , Judge , yo u 9 know , I don' t kno wanythin g abou t that . I f they'r e 1 0 pr o se , o r eve nopposin g counsel . They'l l pu t thei r 1 1 clien t o nandsay : 1 2 Q "I s i t a fac t tha t yo u hav e 1 3 recentl ylos t you r job? " 1 4 A"Yes. " 1 5 Q "Ar e yo u currentl yon , yo u know , 1 6 unemployment? " 1 7 A"Yes. " 1 8 Q "D o yo u hav e a family? " 1 9 Dad a dad a dada . An dso , demonstratin g 2 0 eithe r (1 ) a hardshi p situatio no r a ninabilit yt o pa y 2 1 th e amoun t versu s a smalle r amount . An dso , i nm y 2 2 experience , I hav e com e t o se e thes e type s o f 2 3 administrativ e hearing s a s havin g tw o somewha t 2 4 distinctl yviabl e optio n- - componen t parts . 2 5 So , i f there' s n o contention , howeve r w e ge t Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 3

1 there , o nth e facts , there' s stil l th e issu e o f th e 2civi l penalt yan dI gues s I've neve r reall y 3 anticipate d--w e hav e ha dhearing s o nth e sanctio ni n 4 thi s cas e o f a penalt yamount s versu s othe r typ e o f 5 sanctio ntha t ca nb e take nagains t peopl e i nth e 6 aviatio nindustr ysuc has , yo u know , th e suspendin g o r 7 revokin g th e certificate s an dtherebypreventin g the m 8 fro mcontinuin g o nt o pu t thi s i nthi s industry . 9 An d that' s whyth e Motion , a t th e tai l end , 1 0 you'l l see , tha t I though t i t - - t o accomplis hth e 1 1 sam e objective . Becaus e I thin k h e stil l ha s a righ t 1 2 t o dispute . I thin k h e stil l ha s a righ t t o disput e 1 3 th e sanctio nwit hth e simpl e penalt yamount . 1 4 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Well , I understan dyou r 1 5 reasoning , particularl ywhe nyou'r e dealin g wit h 1 5 someon e wh o i s appearin g an drespondin g o nsom e level . 1 7 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . 1 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : W e hav e someon e wh o i s 1 9 failin g t o appear , failin g t o respond , failin g t o 2 0 compl ywit hCour t order s an dwh o ha s no t eve nfile da n 2 1 answe r - - 2 2 MR . CAMACHO : Right . 2 3 JUDG E SULLIVAN : - - despit e multipl e 2 4 attempt s t o provid e hi mwit htha t opportunit ytha t g o 2 5 beyon dth e tim e tha t h e wa s suppose dt o file . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 4

1 MR . CAMACHO ; Right . 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I t seem s t o m e t o b e a cas e 3 rip e fo r defaul t o nal l levels . An dI - - 4 (Electroni c Interference. ) 5 JUDG E SULLIVAN ; Pleas e wai t unti l I' m 6 finished . Than k you . Wha t I' msayin g is , i s tha t I 7 don' t hav e anyproble mwit hbifurcatin g somethin g an d 8 I understan dyou r practic e fo r bifurcation ; many 9 . peopl e d o that , particularl ywhe nyo u hav e a pr o s e 1 0 litigan t wh o i s upse t abou t th e fine , bu t doesn' t hav e 11 : muc ht o offe r i nterm s o f th e merit s o f th e facts . 1 2 MR . CAMACHO : Right . 13

- JUDG E SULLIVAN : Bu t i nthi s particula r 1 4 case , w e don' t eve nhav e a nanswer . An ds o I thin k 1 5 • yo u an dI nee dt o tal k abou t proces s wit hth e 16 ' government , bot ho nth e FAA' s par t an do nth e Offic e 1 7 o f Administrativ e Hearing s part . 1 8 I t i s spendin g a lo t o f taxpaye r dolla r t o 1 9 carr you t a hearin g tha t essentiall yth e Responden t 2 0 ha s defaulte d on . I' mver yaware , always , there' s a 2 1 cos t o f litigatio nbot ht o th e Responden t an dt o th e 2 2 government . An d I don' t lik e th e ide a necessaril yo f 2 3 havin g yo u an d mysel f an danywitnesse s travelin g t o 2 4 com e t o a hearin g jus t s o tha t w e ca nhav e a hearin g 2 5 i nth e absenc e o f a Responden t who' s neve r indicate da Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 5

1 genuin e interes t i nparticipating , i f tha t make s 2 sense . 3 MR . CAMACHO : Yes , i t does . O f course , i t 4 make s perfec t sense . Bu t kee p i nmind , a s a lawye r i n 5 th e case , I don' t hav e a lo t t o sayabou t thos e 6 ultimat e decisions . I d o believ e yo u hav e sufficien t 7 authorit ygrante dt o you , a s th e Judg e i nth e case , 8 too , a s I indicate dbefor e o na su a spont e basi s mak e 9 tha t determination . 1 0 I hav e sometime s file dmotion s i nfron t o f 1 1 NTS B Administrativ e La wJudges , ver ymuc haki nt o wha t 1 2 w e ar e talkin g abou t her e an dthe yhav e o nthei r own , 1 3 sor t o f respondin g to , said , yo u know , thi s i s 1 4 essentiall ya motio nfo r summar yjudgment , i na 1 5 nutshell , an dI' mgoin g t o rul e accordingly , andmak e 1 6 th e ultimat e finding , an dyo u know , an dAnswe r a n 1 7 Orde r accordingly. " 1 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Wel l - - 1 9 MR . CAMACHO : I amno t advers e t o this . 2 0 An dmyinclinatio ni s t o follo wyou r lead , becaus e I 2 1 hav e no t ha dthi s particula r experienc e befor e wher e 2 2 th e Appellant / - - i nm ycase , th e Appellant , thei r 2 3 behavio r - - onc e they'v e file dthei r appeal , thei r 2 4 behavio r i s suc htha t i t appear s t o b e eithe r totall y 2 5 disassociate dfromth e proces s o r the yhav e mad e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 6

1 themselve s disenfranchis e themselve s fro mth e proces s 2 t o th e exten t tha t the ybecom e non-existen t i nth e 3 proces s an dI'v e jus t no t ha dtha t situation . 4 I nth e situation s wher e I'v e flow nt o 5 Chicago , b ywa yo f example . Judg e Goodwi nan d 6 Respondent s haven' t showe dup . Judg e Kolko , I'v e gon e 7 i ndifferen t citie s whe nh e wa s alive , an dthe y 8 wouldn' t sho wup . An dyo u know , o f course , a t tha t 9 point , th e Judg e want s th e evidence , the nt o mak e th e 1 0 recor dbecaus e we'r e ther e an di t ca nb e done . 1 1 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Right . No . An dI - - 1 2 MR . CAMACHO ; I nthi s instance , thi s i s 1 3 reall yyou r call . Judge . I jus t follo wyou r lead . 1 4 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Well , than k you . An dI' m 1 5 goin g t o tal k t o yo u a littl e bi t abou t wha t th e rule s 1 6 ar e an dwh yI thin k defaul t i s acceptabl e an d 1 7 preferable . So , yo u hav e tha t reasonin g fo r yo u i n 1 8 th e future . 1 9 MR . CAMACHO : Okay . 2 0 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I f yo u loo k a t 1 4 CFR , Sec . 2 1 13.205 . 2 2 MR . CAMACHO : I'l l pul l i t righ t up . 132 0 - 2 3 - 13 ? 24 JUDG E SULLIVAN : .205 . 2 5 MR . CAMACHO : I' mwit hyou . Yes . Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 7

1 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Thi s talk s generall yabou t 2 th e power s o f th e Administrativ e La wJudg e i nthes e 3 type s o f action . An di t talk s abou t th e Cour t 4 requiremen t essentiall yt o dispos e o f procedura l 5 motio nan drequest s t o giv e notic e o f an dhol dpre 6 hearin g conference s an dhearings , regulat e th e cours e 7 o f th e hearin g an ds o forth . 8 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . 9 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I t als o talk s abou t 1 0 specifi c limitation s o nth e powe r o f th e 1 1 Administrativ e La wJudge , an di t doe s no t prohibi t th e 1 2 Cour t from

considerin g an denterin g defaul t judgment . 1 3 An dI loo k a t thes e rule s an dregulation s a s bein g 1 4 symbiotic , i f yo u will , wit hth e Rule s o f Civi l 1 5 Procedur e whe nthe ydon' t conflic t wit heac hother . 1 6 So , I loo k the na t C R55 , whic hi s th e rul e 1 7 fo r Defaul t Judgment . An do f course , a defaul t shoul d 1 8 b e entere dbyth e Cour t wheneve r a part yevince s 1 9 throug hbehavio r o r statemen t n o inten t t o defen d 2 0 agains t a naction , whic hseem s t o b e a classi c i nthi s 2 1 particula r cas e righ t no wwit hsomeon e wh o i s refusin g 2 2 t o fil e an danswer ; refusin g t o compl ywit hCour t 2 3 orders ; refusin g t o eve nsho wup fo r cour t whe nMr . 2 4 Brow ni nthi s cas e clearl yha dnotic e fro mthi s Cour t 2 5 itsel f abou t thi s particula r conferenc e an dhi s Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 .

1 requirement s t o fil e th e Answer . 2 The nI' dloo k a t 1 3 CFR , Sec . 13.215 . An d 3 tha t particula r sectio ntalk s abou t a part y 4 withdrawin g th e reques t fo r a hearin g an dth e Cour t 5 bein g give nth e directiv e essentiall yt o dismis s th e 6 proceeding s wit hprejudice . I thin k ther e i s a n 7 inferenc e whe nsomeon e fail s t o participate . Ther e i s 8 a presumptiv e inferenc e tha t the yjus t aren' t 9 intereste dan dtha t the yar e bythei r action s engage d 1 0 i na withdrawa l o f participatio nan da withdrawa l o f 1 1 anypreliminar yanswe r the yma yhav e filed . 1 2 I nthi s particula r case , w e don' t eve nhav e 1 3 a nanswe r t o address . W e jus t hav e wha t migh t b e th e 1 4 Reques t fo r Hearin g whic hwa s file dbyMr . Brow no na 1 5 dat e unknow nwit hyou r offic e wit hn o othe r 1 6 informatio nprovided , a t leas t t o thi s Court . 1 7 MR . CAMACHO ; Right . 1 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : An dthe nloo k a t 1 4 CFR , 1 9 Sec . 13.218 . An dI' mgoin g t o g o t o tha t s o tha t I 2 0 ca ntal k abou t i t wit hyou . Okay . 2 1 Ther e ar e lot s o f differen t section s i nthi s 2 2 particula r statute , bu t i t deal s wit hmotions . An d 2 3 on e o f th e motion s tha t i t talk s abou t i s unde r sub

2 4 sectio nF , Motio nt o Dismiss . An da part yca nfil e a 2 5 motio nt o dismis s an dsimpl yspecif yth e ground s fo r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 81 9

1 dismissal . An di na defaul t judgmen t that' s basicall y 2 wha t you'r e askin g i s fo r a dismissa l o f th e actio n 3 befor e th e Court . 4 Ther e ar e othe r sub-section s tha t tal k abou t 5 ho wt o d o that , wha t t o d o it , o r whe nth e answe r i s 6 require dan ds o forth . Ther e i s plent yopportunit y 7 withi n1 4 CFR , Sec . 13 , i nconjunctio nwit hth e Rule s 8 o f Civi l Procedur e fo r counsel , I think , t o b e makin g 9 a motio nfo r defaul t whe ncircumstance s ar e lik e this . 1 0 I nthi s particula r case , sinc e yo u hav e 1 1 alread yfile d a motio nt o dee mallegation s admitted , 1 2 let' s no t recreat e th e whee l o r caus e yo u an dyou r 1 3 clien t t o engag e i nduplicativ e efforts . I t woul d 1 4 see m

t o m e the ntha t mayb e th e easies t thin g t o d o an d 1 5 yo u ca ndisagree , bu t I' mgoin g t o sugges t it't o yo u 1 6 i s tha t w e wai t fo r th e tim e perio dfo r Mr . Brow nt o 1 7 respon dt o thi s motio nupo nproo f o f service . 1 8 An di f I recal l thi s las t page , yo u hav e a 1 9 lega l assistan t certif ytha t sh e place dthi s i nth e U . 2 0 S . Mai l t o Mr . Brown , Melbourne , Florida , addres s o f 2 1 record , whic ha s I note dbefor e earlie r i nthi s 2 2 conference , appear s t o b e a ninadequat e address , sinc e 2 3 thi s Court' s mailin g t o tha t addres s cam e bac k a s 2 4 undeliverable . 2 5 I t ma yb e helpfu l i f yo u coul dremai l you r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 0

1 motio nt o dee mallegation s admitte dt o Mr . Brown' s 2 las t addres s o f recor dwhic hwa s th e Orlando , Florid a 3 addres s tha t I rea dint o th e recor dearlier . 4 MR . CAMACHO : Yes . I hav e that . 5 JUDG E SULLIVAN ; Okay . An dfil e proo f o f 6 servic e i ntha t way . Thi s Cour t wil l the nb e happ yt o 7 sendou t a norde r t o sho wcaus e t o Mr . Browna t bot h 8 th e addresses . I hav e n o authorit yt o remov e hi s 9 requeste daddres s o f recor da t thi s point , bu t I ca n 1 0 us e bot ho f them . 1 1 An d the na t a bifurcated.level , i f Mr . Brow n 1 2 fail s t o respon dt o tha t orde r t o sho wcause , w e ca n 1 3 issue , note d earlier , findresolutio no nth e 1 4 allegation s themselves . 1 5 A t tha t point , I thin k tha t yo u woul db e i n 1 6 a ver ygoo dpositio nt o eithe r fil e a motio nfo r 1 7 summar yjudgmen t o nth e sanctio no r a motio nfo r 1 8 defaul t judgmen t pursuan t t o th e statutor yauthorit y 1 9 I've alreadydiscusse dwit hyo u an di npursuan t t o C R 2 0 55 . 2 1 An d i nC R55 , i t specificall ystate s tha t I 2 2 coul dente r a defaul t judgmen t i f th e clai mi s fo r a 2 3 sum

certain , o r a sumtha t ca nb e mad e certai nby 2 4 computation . 2 5 I nal l othe r cases , th e part ywh o want s th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 1

1 defaul t shoul dappl yt o th e Cour t fo r a Defaul t 2 Judgment . 3 Th e questio ntha t yo u hav e t o decid e fo r 4 yoursel f an dfo r you r clien t i s whethe r you r complain t 5 i s sufficien t o nit s fac e t o justif ya defaul t 6 judgmen t fo r $11,000 . I f it' s a sumcertai nandyo u 7 fee l comfortabl e tha t yo u ca nargu e tha t successfull y 8 o nappeal , the nfil e a motio nfo r default , assumin g I 9 gran t you r motio nt o dee mallegation s admitted . 1 0 I f yo u thin k i t woul db e bette r o nbehal f o f 1 1 you r clien t t o fil e a motio nfor . summar yjudgmen t an d 1 2 specif yho wyo u reache dth e $11,00 0 amount , an di f yo u 1 3 d o that , I' dd o a norde r t o sho wcaus e o nthat . Yo u 1 4 ca nd o i t tha t wa ytoo . 1 5 Bu t I thin k tha t w e shoul db e explorin g 1 6 thes e pre-tria l o r pre-hearin g option s befor e havin g 1 7 U S mak e trave l arrangement s t o g o t o a cit yi nth e 1 8 Unite dState s an dconduc t a full-fledge dhearing , 1 9 particularl ywhe nMr . Brow nha s a t bes t se t hi s ow n 2 0 threshold , i f yo u will , o f participatio ni f w e ca n 2 1 eve ncal l i t that . Doe s tha t mak e sens e t o you ? 2 2 MR . CAMACHO : I t make s perfec t sense . An d 2 3 a s a matte r o f jus t practica l strategy , that' s a n 2 4 approac hthat' s reasonable . I wil l issu e o r serv e Mr . 2 5 Brow nwit ha cop yan da ne wcertificat e o f service , a Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 2

1 cop yo f th e Motio na t hi s Orland o address . 2 Wha t I hav e i nm yfil e ar e Unite dState s 3 Posta l Servic e domesti c retur nreceipt s fo r previousl y 4 document s t o hi ma t hi s Orland o addres s an dal l o f 5 the mbea r th e signature , "Dian e Brown. " I suspec t 6 it' s eithe r hi s siste r and/o r hi s wife . I t coul db e 7 hi s wife . Bu t sinc e h e indicate dh e live dthere , 8 somebodyi s stil l there , livin g there , tha t ha s th e 9 sam e surname.an d signin g fo r hi man dreceivin g th e 1 0 mail . So , a t tha t point , I' mworkin g o nth e 1 1 presumptio ntha t we'v e go t goo dservic e sinc e - - 1 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Doe s - - 1 3 MR.

- CAMACHO : - - h e say s h e stil l get s mai l 1 4 there . H e indicate dt o u s i nth e las t g o aroun dtha t 1 5 h e actuall ystil l get s th e mai l ther e an dh e goe s an d 1 6 pick s i t up . 1 7 JUDG E SULLIVAN : That' s correct . An dsinc e 1 8 he' s give nu s a ne wmailin g addres s tha t i s no t 1 9 sufficien t fo r th e Unite dState s Pos t Office , I thin k 2 0 w e shoul der r o nth e sid e o f cautio nan dus e th e 2 1 Orlando , Florida , addres s i nconjunctio nwit hth e 2 2 Melbourne , Florida , address . 2 3 MR . CAMACHO : Right . 2 4 JUDG E SULLIVAN : T o ensur e tha t we'v e don e 2 5 everythin g w e ca nt o giv e Mr . Brow nnotice , t o giv e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 3

1 hi ma nopportunit yt o respond . 2 MR . CAMACHO : Right . Okay . A t thi s poin t 3 then , i f I understan dcorrectl ywha t yo u stated , 4 Judge , becaus e h e ha s a tim e limi t withi nwhic hh e ca n 5 respon dt o a motio nan dit' s se t ou t i nth e rule s - - 6 th e perio do f tim e fo r a respons e - - i f h e fail s t o 7 respon da t tha t point , I hear d- - 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : No . I' mgoin g t o interrup t 9 you . wha t I' mgoin g t o d o i s issu e a nOrde r t o Sho w 1 0 Cause . 1 1 MR . CAMACHO : Okay . 1 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN : T o as k Mr . Brow nt o respon d 1 3 t o thi s - - 1 4 MR . CAMACHO : Right . 1 5 JUDG E SULLIVAN : --t o dee mallegation s 1 6 admitted . An dthe nI' mgoin g t o loo k a t th e rul e an d 1 7 loo k u p th e tim e - - 1 8 MR . CAMACHO : Timeframe . 1 9 JUDG E SULLIVAN : --h e ha s t o respon dan d 2 0 I'1 1 dat e i t fro mth e tim e tha t yo u serv e hi ma t th e 2 1 Orlando , Florida , address . 2 2 MR . CAMACHO : Okay . 2 3 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Th e reaso ntha t I nee dyo u 2 4 t o serv e i t t o th e Orlando , Florida , addres s i s 2 5 becaus e mailing s thi s offic e sen t t o Mr . Brown , t o th e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 4

1 Melbourne , Florida , addres s cam e bac k a s 2 undeliverable . 3 MR . CAMACHO ; Understood . 4 JUDG E SULLIVAN : So , I hav e knowledg e tha t 5 tha t addres s i s no t a sufficien t addres s t o giv e hi m 6 notice , a nopportunit yt o respond . 7 MR . CAMACHO : Understood . I wil l d o tha t 8 then . I wil l ge t thi s accomplishe di f no t toda ythe n 9 tomorrow , firs t thin g i t wil l g o out . 1 0 JUDG E SULLIVAN : An dthe nwha t yo u an dI , I 1 1 think , shoul ddo , i f yo u woul db e s o kind , i s t o loo k 1 2 a t you r calenda r again . I' mgoin g t o tak e a loo k 1 3 myself . I' mtryin g t o decid e i f i t woul db e helpfu l 1 4 t o schedul e anothe r conferenc e o r whethe r fro ma n 1 5 appellat e standpoin t i t wil l mak e an ydifferenc e a t 1 6 al l i nterm s o f tryin g t o provid e al l th e 1 7 opportunitie s I ca nfo r a pr o s e litigan t t o respond . 1 8 MR . CAMACHO ; Yo u haven' t aske dm e fo r m y 1 9 opinion . I f yo u wan t t o hea r it , I'l l giv e i t t o you , 2 0 base do nexperienc e only . No t becaus e I hav e a 2 1 particula r o r persona l preference , eve na professiona l 2 2 preference . 2 3 Bu t experientially . Judge , I'v e bee nwith , 24 ^ a s yo u ca nimagine , a numbe r o f pr o s e appellant s i n 2 5 thes e typ e situations , an di nth e 2 2 year s I'v e bee n Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 5

1 i nthi s office , I've neve r ha dthi s kindo f a 2 schedule dhearin g wit ha cour t reporte r o na 3 repetitiv e basis . 4 W e hav e ha dsom e wher e peopl e hav e no t shown 5 up an dtha t prett ymuc hconclude s tha t wher e th e 6 Order' s bee nissue dan dha s bee nreceived , e t cetera , 7 e t cetera . 8 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . 9 MR . CAMACHO : Yo u prett ymuc hca nd o wha t 1 0 yo u want , but , yo u know , I thin k abou t - - 1 1 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I understand . 1 2 MR . CAMACHO : You'v e ben t ove r backward s fo r 1 3 thi s gentleman . H e clearl yunderstand s th e Englis h 1 4 language . H e participate dwit hu s an dth e transcrip t 1 5 show s hi s respons e an dhi s understandin g an dth e 1 6 Order s - - look s lik e i nth e Orde r tha t yo u sen t ou t t o 1 7 th e Orland o addres s di dno t ge t returned . So , I thin k 1 8 ther e i s a presumptio n- - althoug ha rebuttabl e 1 9 presumptio ntha t h e receive dservic e ther e a t hi s 2 0 address . An d a s h e indicate dt o u s h e doe s g o an d 2 1 pic k u p hi s mai l there , becaus e h e know s th e mai l doe s 2 2 ge t delivere dthere . 2 3 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Well , I thin k tha t - - I'l l 2 4 correct . I' m jus t tryin g t o decide . I mean , h e 2 5 clearl ykne wabou t thi s particula r conferenc e becaus e Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 6

1 h e participate di nschedulin g it . An di t wa s - - 2 MR . CAMACHO ; That' s on e aspec t o f it . Bu t 3 I di dals o affirmativel yremin d hi mtha t w e ha dthi s 4 meetin g toda yan dI use dth e word

- "Tuesday. " I' m 5 sure . I wa s lookin g a t m ycalendar . I miswrot e t o 6 th e date , bu t there' s n o questio ntha t I reminde dhim . 7 W e ha dth e discussion . I mad e a not e t o tha t effect , 8 an dI reminde dhi mtha t becaus e I kne ww e had , yo u 9 know , I mean , I jus t wante dt o mak e sur e h e wa s o n 1 0 boar dan dI go t a naffirmativ e respons e tha t h e kne w 1 1 and , yo u know , tha t sor t o f thing . 1 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN ; Okay . Than k you . Wha t I' m 1 3 goin g t o d o the ni s I' mno t goin g t o schedul e anythin g 1 4 els e o nou r calendar s a t thi s point . 1 5 I f Mr . Brow ndoe s contac t thi s offic e afte r 1 6 thi s conference , tha t ma ychange . You'l l hea r fro m 1 7 Ms . May s i f h e contact s an dprovide s som e indicatio n 1 8 i nsom e wa ytha t h e ha s a genuin e inten t t o defen dth e 1 9 action . An di f tha t occur s the nw e wil l b e sur e t o 2 0 le t yo u know . 2 1 MR . CAMACHO : Okay . 2 2 JUDG E SULLIVAN : I nth e interim , however , i f 2 3 yo u woul db e s o kin da s t o provid e m e a servic e t o Mr . 24 Brown' s Orlando , Florida , addres s th e motio nt o dee m 2 5 allegation s admitted , I wil l the nb e sendin g ou t a n Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 82 7

1 Orde r t o Sho wCaus e a s t o wh ytha t motio nshoul dno t 2 b e granted . Ther e wil l b e som e tim e limit s o f tha t 3 Orde r o f sho wcause . 4 I f Mr . Brow ndoe s no t respond , I'l l b e 5 issuin g a norder , presumptivel ygrantin g th e motio n 6 an da t tha t poin t yo u ca ndecid e whethe r yo u thin k th e 7 cas e i s rip e fo r a motio nfo r defaul t o nth e sanctio n 8 o r a motio nfo r summar yjudgmen t an dw e ca ng o fro m 9 ther e an dprocee di nwriting . 1 0 MR . CAMACHO : Okay , Judge . 1 1 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . I s ther e anythin g 1 2 els e tha t yo u nee dt o tal k abou t o nbehal f o f you r 1 3 clien t befor e w e conclud e today ? 14 MR . CAMACHO : No , Judge . 1 5 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Okay . Than k yo u ver ymuch , 1 6 Mr . Camacho , fo r al l o f you r assistance . I t appear s 1 7 ou r busines s i s complete . Wit hthat , w e ca ng o of f 1 8 th e recor dan dI wis hal l a goo dday . 1 9 MR . CAMACHO : Than k you , Judge . 2 0 JUDG E SULLIVAN : Than k you . By e bye . 2 1 MR . CAMACHO : Bye . 2 2 (Whereupon , a t 3:4 1 p.m. , th e telephon e 2 3 conferenc e i nth e above-entitle dmatte r wa s 24 concluded. ) 2 5 / / Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n (202 ) 628-488 82 8 REPORTER' S CERTIFICAT E

DOCKE T NO. ; CAS E TITLE : HEARIN GDATE : LOCATION ; FDM S NO . FAA-2011-100 9

Quento nT . Brow n Januar y10 , 201 2 Washington , D.C .

I herebycertif ytha t th e proceeding s an d evidenc e ar e containe dfull yan daccuratel yo nth e tape s an dnote s reporte dbym e a t th e hearin g i nth e abov e cas e befor e th e Departmen t o f Transportation .

Date : Januar y10 , 201 2

XL^££ ^ 

## Mj d Edwi nM . Wesle y Officia l Reporte r Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n Suit e 60 0 122 0 L Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 20005-401 8

Heritag e Reportin g Corporatio n

(202 ) 628-488 8