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 ofJoseph D. Barbera, FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 response to motions 5_6.docx; response.docx
Sharice, Thank you for taking the timeto follow up. Based upon the postmark dates, I believe these (attached) are the documents in question. Ifyou would like I can follow up with signed copies. Regards, Joe Barbera

· P.S. Email is the preferred method ofcommunication.

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 ofJoseph D. Barbera, FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 DearMr. Barbera: My name is Sharice Jeffersonand I amthe FAA Civil Penalty DocketClerk. The Docketdoes nothavetwo ofthe documents thatyou sentopposing counsel. The missing documents are: (1) aletterfrom youpostmarkedApri123, 2014; and (2) aletter from you sent on or about June4, 2014, marked "Correspondence." Within 2 weeks ofthis e-mail,please send copies ofthese documents to me. Youcan send themto mebyemail. My email address is sharice.jefferson@faa.gov. Oryou can send them to me atone ofthe following addresses. The Docket's mailing address is: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur WrightBuilding, Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC, 20591 Attention: Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 1The Docket's street address (which shouldbe used ifsending documents by expedited courier orpersonal delivery) is: FederalAviationAdministration 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W. WilburWright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Attention: DocketClerk, AGC-430 Finally, the Docket's FAXnumberis 202-267-1293. Thankyouinadvance for yourprompt attentionto 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 LawJudge 

### 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 ifthis 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 ofProcedural Order served 25 March required a response within 30 days, and that my response dated 19 April was in line with that. IfI 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 copytofollow 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 LawJudge 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 ofthe 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 ofdefense proposed. (sent to Mr. Shane only) 3) List ofwitnesses proposed and technical references. (sent to Mr. Shane only) 4) Questions for Judge Goodwin, concerning the operation ofthe 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, ofwhich I challenge the first. The second two logically follow or not with the establishment ofthe 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 ofthe above

.....", so this charge lives or dies with the proof ofthe previous. Point 3 reads "as a result ofthe 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 of2 To: Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge 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 Whatyou are seeing are screen shots from a Facebook link posted by a local HAM radio operator. Complete with Get Your Veterans ID Cardadvertisement in the upper right hand corner. I can send you the Facebook link ifyou would like to see the latest version ofthe data. It is totally outside the control ofeither myself orthe FAA. Exhibit 2 My personal analysis ofthe events is based up the feedback from the HAM radio operator. The source ofthe 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