US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON DC 

IN THE MATTER OF: RECEIVED 

EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS INC. 

Herein known as the Respondent; 

FDMS NO.: FAA-2015-1322 (Civil Penalty Action) 

Case No. 2015NM730008 

DEC 1 5 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO FAA'S SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 MOTION. 

Notice is hereby given that Samuel K. Burlum, Sui Juris, Petitioner Defendant, in proper person, 

on behalf of EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., above named, hereby makes the 

following MOTION before THE HONORABLE JUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN, U.S. Administrative 

Law Judge, Office ofHearings, M-20, U.S. Department of Transportation, in the order entered in 

this matter in 2015. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the official court 

record. 

THIS MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY OF OATH OF OFFICE in "the 

MATTER" of EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, FDMS NO.: FAA-2015-1322 (Civil Penalty 

Action), Case No. 2015NM730008, known herein as "the MATTER" or ''this MATTER", here 

by request; 

WHEREAS: FAA'S claim of the RESPONDENT failed to respond AND the FAA MOTIONS 

should be DENIED and/or VACATED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS stated herein; 

AND the Respondent as the Court for this Consideration in this matter, under the Good Cause 

Standard; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT did in-fact respond to the FAA's June 9· 2015 complaint in a 

prior submitted response, in the document served to Cheryl M. Jones, Senior Attorney, Office of 

Regional Counsel, FAA, in the matter referenced herein, in the document labeled, "RESPONSE 
tO tHE ALLEGEAtr6NS MADE IN NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY, 

REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC INFORMAL COONFERENCE AND REQUEST FOR 

HEARING," served to the Complainant on March, 17, 2015 and received by the FAA on March 

19, 2015; (See Attachment 1); 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT not having a clear undershiiidfug of the process ofthe Cocii·l, 

since the RESPONDENT is not a trained legal counsel, and is acting in a limited capacity, with 

limited legal knowledge, was unware that it had to Respond to the June 9, 2015 Complaint, since 

the Respondent had already stated its objections and response in the document previously served 

in March 17, 2015 and received by the FAA on March 19, 2015; (See Attachment I); therefore 

RESPONDENT with limited knowledge ofthe actual process in Responding, failed to do so; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT not having the opportunity to consult with a legal 

representative on their behalf in this matter, and is acting in a limited capacity for reasons 

previously mentioned, did not have the proper guidance or information on how to properly deal 

with the FAA's June 9, 2015 Complaint, therefore RESPONDENt with limited knowledge of 

the actual process in Responding; failed to do so; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT also expressed to the FAA and its representative in this 

matter that it (the Respondent) was engaged in another unrelated legal matter which took priority 

over this Matter, and the burden of both matters in litigation at the same time would create undue 

burden to the Respondent, thus forcing the Respondent to have to consider filing for bankruptcy 

and additional protections; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT has repeatedly expressed its argument and denial of 

allegations with the FAA, yet the FAA has continually tried to take adva11lage of lhe fact that the 

Respondent has limited infom1ation, knowledge, and legal expertise in handling this matter 

without having the support of legal counsel and/or advice; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT expresses that its lack of response to the AGENCY 

MO'flON 1'0 DEEM ALLEGATIONS AM11'TED AND FOR DECISION REGARDING 

THE VIOLATIONS, does not qualify the FAA to make a decision of admitted guilt on behalf 
of Hie Respondent, in- whidi violates the toiistiiulioiial Rights ofthe Respondent afforded to 

them under the Constitution of the United States of America; 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT expresses that its lack of response to the AGENCY 

MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS AMITTED AND FOR DECISION REGARDING 

tHE VIOLA !IONS; the 'Respondent has provided a list of Affirmed Defenses in its i·espoi1se 

to the June 9, 2015 Complaint filed by the FAA; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is attempting to try to win a decision in this Matter without having to 

provide any and all evidences of proofs, proofs, documents, testimony of witnesses, materials, 

arid iiiformaiioi1 relevant to this Matter, discoui1ting ai1d violating Rights ofthe Respondent; 

afforded to them under the Constitution of the United States of America; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is attempting to act as a self-imposed body in the capacities of either 

/and JUDGE, JURY, AND EXCUTIONER, and as the COLLECTION AGENT in this matter, 

and has asked the Cotirl to be an ENFORCER OF THE SELF-IMPOSED COLLEtTtoN 

AMOUNT also known as the Fine and/or Penalty, clearly a violation of the Rights of the 

Respondent; afforded to them under the Constitution ofthe United States of America; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is attempting to deem a Judgement based on their own arbitrary and 

capriciilus standards, without due pi·ocess ofthe Law, clearTy a violation ofthe Rights ofthe 

Respondent; afforded to them under the Constitution of the United States of America; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is providing nothing more to the court than its own opinion and 

assumptions of the Respondent's circumstances and situations, without all of the complete 

knowledge of these circumsiaii.ces aiid situations foririaJ!y disclosed fo this Coi.irt dl.lrillg a 

conference call taken place on November, 17,2015 with the Court; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is providing nothing more to the court than its own opinion and 

assumptions of the Respondent's personal nature, without all of the complete knowledge of these 

circumstances and siiua1ions formally ilisdi.ised to this Court iliir1iig a conference call talcei1 

place on November, 17, 2015 with the Court; 
WHEREAS: The Respondent has provided a response for good cause foi· their failure to respoi1d 

to the FAA's Motion, which has not yet been considered by the Court; 

WHEREAS: The FAA is attempting to win this CONTEST to strip the Respondent of its 

property by way of "Papering" the Respondent with undue burdens within unreasonable 

i:lmel1ries; 

THEREFORE, the Respondent Respectfully Submits this RESPONDENT'S ANSWER 

TO FAA'S SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 COMPLAINT to this court within the deadline 

imposed by the Order of the COURT; dated November 2015; reference "ORDER SETTING 

DEADLINE FOR THR RESPONDENT TO REf>SOND AND SHOW CAUSE, AND RULING 

ON OTHER RELIEF; 

And 

THEREFORE, the Respondent Respectfully Request that its RIGHTS afforded to them under 

the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America, be fully observed and respected by all 

parties mentioned herein before this Court, and any other Court in which the Respondent's 

matter shall be heard; 

And it is said on this date, Monday, December 14, 2015, that it has been given this 

RESPONSE to the Office of Hearings, M-20, U.S. Department of Transportation; JUDGE J.E. 

SULLIVAN, also known as the HORNORABLE JUDGE SULLIVAN, also known as JUDGE 

SULLIVAN, also known as J.E. SULLIVAN; as to their OFFICIAL CAP I CITY, as well as their 

INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL PRIVATE CAPT CITY, as well as any of their agents, appointees, 

employees, assistants, peers, known as the "NOTIFIED PARTIES", coUedively or as 

individuals whom represent the COURT acknowledge this RESPONSE 

AND: 

MR. GLENN H. BROWN, COMPLAINTANT'S COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL 

COUNSEL, as well as any of their agents, appointees, employees, assistants, peers, known as 
the ''fil(JTJFJEJJ PARTlES", coHective!y or as iiidividtuils whorl1 represent the 

COMPLAINT ANT, acknowledge this RESPONSE; 

And it is said; The COURT has THIRTY (30) business days to respond to this RESPONSE; 

and failure to respond will automatically VACATE and DISMISS this MATTER before the 

COURT; aiid the case will be disposed of wilhotii aiiy fi11e and oi· judgirieni against ilic 

RESPONDENT, and will be disposed of without PREJUDICE. Response is to be forwarded by 

the Court to the RESPONDENT to the said address provided in the previously filed MOTION 

OF NOTICE OF ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE with the Court; 

Aiid it is said; 111e COURT has been OFFICIALLY SERVED tnfs MOTION via Ui1ited 

States Postal Service, regular and/or priority mail; and fax; 

Samuel K. Burlum 

Defendant; 

Signed and served on this date: 

Monday, December 14, 2015; 

Notarized by: 

(-~~?« - IJANlEl R THOMAS 

f~OIARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY 

My Comml:>~ion Expires 611712016 
CERTIFICATE UF SERVICE: 

This DOCUMENT hereby certifies and bares witness to the actions of SAMUEL K. 

BURLUM, has served proper notice to the declared parties within this DOCUMENT, has 

addressed these notices to the HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN, U.S Administrative Law Judge, 

on behalf of the Office of Hearings, M~20, U.S Department of Transportation; and to the office 

of Mr. Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel, whom have been dully notified of this 

DOCUMENT, has been served through the United States Postal Service, either by form of 

regular mail and/or priority delivery; and/or fax; 

NAME OF boctJMENt SERVED: RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO FAA'S 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 MOTION 

I attest that the statement above is true and complete, and that l did in fact serve notice as to the 

declaration~Jlbove, on the Date of Monday, December 14,2015. 

d .f'") /7 /> ,•']/ / ~// (;?)l /{ ········ .~· J 

Samuel K. Burlum 

Respondent 

Witness and Notarized 

DANIEl R. THOMAS 

NOYARY PUBUC OF NEW JERSEY 

My Commlsgioo E~plre3 &111:!01~