Jefferson, Sharice (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Joe Barbera < barberaj@tds.net> 

Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:26 PM 

Jefferson, Sharice (FAA) 

Cc: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

RE: In the Matter of Joseph D. Barbera, FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 

response to motions 5_6.docx; response.docx 

Sharice, 

Thank you for taking the time to follow up. 

Based upon the postmark dates, I believe these (attached) are the documents in question. If you would like I can follow 

up with signed copies. 

Regards, 

Joe Barbera 

· P.S. Email is the preferred method of communication. 

From: sharice.jefferson@faa.gov [mailto:sharice.jefferson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:41AM 

To: barberaj@tds.net 

Cc: David.F.Shayne@faa.gov 

Subject: In the Matter of Joseph D. Barbera, FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 

Dear Mr. Barbera: 

My name is Sharice Jefferson and I am the FAA Civil Penalty Docket Clerk. 

The Docket does not have two of the documents that you sent opposing counsel. The missing documents are: 

(1) a letter from you postmarked Apri123, 2014; and 

(2) a letter from you sent on or about June 4, 2014, marked "Correspondence." 

Within 2 weeks of this e-mail, please send copies of these documents to me. 

You can send them to me by email. My email address is sharice.jefferson@faa.gov. Or you can send them to 

me at one of the following addresses. 

The Docket's mailing address is: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC, 20591 

Attention: Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

1 
The Docket's street address (which should be used if sending documents by expedited courier or personal 

delivery) is: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 

Attention: Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Finally, the Docket's FAX number is 202-267-1293. 

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. 

Sharice Jefferson 

2 
2014-12-10 11:11 DOT 1» 

28 April 2014 

FDMS No. FAA 2013 - 1083 

From: Joe Barbera, Respondent 

To: David Shane, Complainants Counsel 

To: The Honorable Richard Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

To: Pat Matthews, Staff Assistant, via email only 

2024935142 p 15/15 

Response to Complainant'$ MQ!;ion To Deem Allegations Admitted and t.o 

Dismiss Appeal, dated 18tn April, submitted by David Shane. 

My apologies in advance if this is not the standard format as address such 

communications. 

I would like to make it clear that I had no intentions of letting this matter rest or admit 

guilt by non-response. 

My interpretation of Procedural Order served 25 March required a response within 30 

days, and that my response dated 19 April was in line with that. If I have error'd in 

that, I apologize. 

My intention is to continue with the discovery phase and preparation for my defense. 

Joe ' Barbera 

Emailed on 28 April, hatd copy to follow on 29 April 
19 April 2014 

FDMS No. FAA 2013 - 1083 

From: Joe Barbera, Respondent 

To: David Shane, Complainant's Counsel 

To: The Honorable Richard Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

To: Pat Matthews, Staff Assistant, via email only 

First Response to Procedural Order served March 25th 2014 

Please find the following: 

1) General response, denial of the complaint 

To Follow: 

1) Questions for Mr. Shane, regarding information the FAA has or intends to use 

against me. (sent to Mr. Shane only) 

2) Disclosure of defense proposed. (sent to Mr. Shane only) 

3) List of witnesses proposed and technical references. (sent to Mr. Shane only) 

4) Questions for Judge Goodwin, concerning the operation of the hearing. Also 

sent to Pat Matthews. 

1) General Response 

I have received the Procedural Order dated 25 March 2014, relating to the Final Notice 

of Proposed Civil Penalty: FAA Case No. 2013NM090056, dated 18 February. 

The complaint has three parts, of which I challenge the first. The second two logically 

follow or not with the establishment of the first. 

More specifically, the complaint says that I operated an ultra light vehicle at an altitude 

higher than 18,000 ft. While I do not deny that the flight took place, I seriously 

question whether or not there is ample evidence to prove the flight violated the 18,000 

ft. boundary. We can get into the specifics at the hearing. 

Point 2 reads "as a result of the above ..... ", so this charge lives or dies with the proof 

of the previous. 

Point 3 reads "as a result of the above .... ", so again, this hangs with the establishment 

of 18,000 ft transgression. 

My assumption is that this statement meets the criteria of 14 CFR § 13.209 (e) . 
2 June 2014 

Correspondence 2 of 2 

To: Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Cc: David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Reference: FDMS No. FAA 2013-1083 

FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

Reference: Complainant's Motion for Decision (Summary Judgment) dated 6 May 2014. 

Sir, 

Some relevant and important information you may want to consider in context with the Exhibit's 

1 and 2 presented by the complainant's counsel. 

Exhibit 1 

What you are seeing are screen shots from a Facebook link posted by a local HAM radio 

operator. Complete with Get Your Veterans ID Card advertisement in the upper right hand 

corner. I can send you the Facebook link if you would like to see the latest version of the data. 

It is totally outside the control of either myself or the FAA. 

Exhibit 2 

My personal analysis of the events is based up the feedback from the HAM radio operator. 

The source of the data is not an altimeter, but a hobby craft GPS bought on the internet. Made 

into "an instrument" with spare parts, an unregulated power supply and soldered together on 

my kitchen table, it is neither calibrated nor certified. Yes, during the informal administrative 

track I cited "numbers". 

Sincerely, 

Joe Barbera