Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- BY U.S. MAIL 

I hereby certify that the foregoing (1) MOTION TO DISMISS, (2) RESPONDENT'S REPLY 

TO FAA'S OPPOSITION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST TO FIND OPPOSITION TIMELY 

FILED, (3)RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF 

RESPONDENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION(ERRATTAWITH EXHIBITS), and (4) RESPONDENT'S OPPOSffiON TO COMPLAINANTS MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY mDGMENT) have been served by placing the same in 

the U. S. Mail postage pre-paid to the following: 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY RECEIVED 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A v e n u e , S. W. 

Washington,DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

AUG 1 8 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000 

ONE COPY 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

Mr. Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Co- Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

The Maridon Law Finn 

50 South. Jones Blvd., Suite 102 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

D .. -~·ted:Au st1.6,2·0.~ .· 

w~/ 

/ ~- / 

JosephMaridon, Sr 

Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, WA 99206-4303 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S .. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 
1 
u.s DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REcEIvED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

JUN 0 3 2014 

In the Matter of: 

HEA-RING DOCKET 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. FAA DOCKET 

Respondent 

D ......... Admi:nistrative.LawJudge.Richard .. C . .Goodwin. 

MOTION TO DISJVIISS 

~JJG 18 2016 

H>-AFilNG DOCKET 

The Respondent files his Motion To Dismiss for failure of the allegations in the notice of 

proposed action and complaint to state a violation of the FAA Act or of this chapter 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, pursuant to the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R 13.49) This Motion is 

made and based upon the. affidavit attached hereto, argument of counsel and all of the pleadings 

and papers on file herein. Respondent states as follows: 

L Factual Background 

The complaint alleges that on or about September 29, 2012 Respondent parked his vehicle on an 

active taxiway and thereby prevented a Vision Airlines aircraft from taxiing for takeoff. It further 

alleges the vehicle would interfere with the taxiing of the aircraft and thereby interfered with the 

flight crewmembers' performance of their duties aboard the aircraft. It does not allege essential 

allegations of an entry, touching, or any contact whatsoever with the aircraft. Furthermore, it 

does not allege a safety violation. 

II. Argument 

The complaint is insufficient on its face because of an erroneous interpretation of the 

FAA's authority. The FAA lacks jurisdiction to proceed under the facts alleged. Jurisdiction lies 

with the airport operator as FAA regulations do not preempt the airport operator's jurisdiction 

over vehicles on the grounrl on an airport. The FAA should be estopped from proceeding on the 

facts and circumstances of this case .. 

The FAA bases its overly broad use of 14 C.F .R. §91.11 in this case on an interpretation 

published in 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) dealing with Interference With aCrewmember 

via Laser. That publication is limited to whether an individual on the ground can interfere with a 

Crewmember with a laser. 
"Aboard" as used in 14 CFR §91.11 and as interpreted by the complainant in this case is 

not legally sustainable. 14 CFR §91.11 states, "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or 

interfere wifh a crewrneruber in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft 

being operated." The interpretation sought by the FAA in this case is. ambiguous at best. Aboard 

is defined as "onboard a ship, train, aircraft, or other passenger vehicle". American Heritage 

Dictionary of the English Language (4fu Ed.) The issue is who must be onboard for the 

interference to be committed. The CFR 's define when someone is a crewmember. 

"Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time." 

"Flight c.rew member means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an 

· aircrafidu:dngflighttime:'' (14·CFR· §Ll~··Generaldefinitions;}(E.Tilphasisadded}tA licensed··· 

pilot in a passenger seat on an aircraft is not an aircrew unless assigned duties related to that 

flight.) Thus, it is illogical surplusage if"aboard" refers to the aircrew. 

As written, 14 C.F.R. §91.11 can refer to both the aircrew and the individual who is 

alleged to be interfering with them. However, to be a crewmember, the aircrew would normally 

already be on the aircraft. To be an aircrew they logically must be onboard the aircraft. They 

have no special status unless they are on the aircraft and have some duty related to the flight 

Consequently, and logically "aboard" must refer to the individual who is alleged to be 

interfering with the aircrew. If "aboard" is to be given its broadest possible interpretation, 

consistent with 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011), both the individual and the aircrew must 

have some physical connection to the aircraft. The individual can be outside of the aircraft and 

interfere with a flight crew tfthe individual touches the aircraft, enters the aircraft with any part 

of the individual's body or is controlling an obJect which touches or enters the aircraft. This is 

consistent with the common law, the FAA's interpretation in the Federal Register and Admr. v. 

Siegel cited therein. It is not consistent with the overbroad interpretation sought in this case. 

Thus, an individual who points a laser at an aircraft, whether it is in flight or not, is controlling 

an object that causes entrance into the aircraft thereby interfering with the flight crew by blinding 

them. Likewise, in Siegel, the individual although on the ground, clearly entered the aircraft to 

strike the pilot. 

Respondent recognizes that the agency's interpretation in 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 

2011) is entitled to deference. "We further note that the Board is required to defer to the 

Administrator's interpretation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, provided that such 

interpretation is reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. 49 U.S.C. § 44709(d)(3); see also 

Garvey v .. NTSB, 190 F.3d 571,576-79 (D.C. Cir. 1999)" Babbitt v. Krivitsky, SE-18355RM. 

The limitation on the complaint's interpretation sought by Respondent gives due deference to, 

and is consistent with the FAA's current published interpretation of the 14 CFR §91.11. 

However, the interpretation necessary to sustain the complaint is clearly overbroad and arbitrary 

and capricious. Furthermore, the complaint relies on dicta for support. The Complaint requires 

taking out of context the statement," ... support the finding that an individual does not need to 

be on board the aircraft to violate §91.11." 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). That statement 

taken out of context of the entry into the aircraft in Siegel or controlling the instrumentality that 

2 
enters the aircraft (laser beam) makes the statement mere dicta. Simply, there must be some 

physical connection to the aircraft to support a finding of a violation of §91.11. 

"An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply 

disregard rules that are still on the books. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696, 94 

S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)"cited with approval in Federal Communications 

Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738, 77 

USLW 4337 (2009) This is what the FAA is doing through its unpublished and unsupported 

interpretation of 14 CFR §91.11. Just being on the ground does not put one "aboard" the 

aircraft. Interference with a Crewmember can be committed from the ground if. there is some ··-····-·-···-·----····-······"'''''''''''''''''"'"''"'''''""'"''''""'''''''''''"''''"''''"'''''''' ______ ,, ______ , _____ ,_,,_,. __ ,, ........ _. .. ,, ........................... -----------------------------·--··· ----··---·-·· --·-· .............................................. , 

physicai connection with the aircraft from which to infer that the individual is aboard the aircraft. 

It is not sufficient simply to be on the ground doing whatever the FAA Inspector arbitrarily and 

capriciously determines to be interference. To argue that the "plain language of the regulation 

does not specify the person interfering with a crewmember must be onboard the aircraft" is 

clearly inconsistent with the history of the FAA's ovvn previous interpretation of §91.11. "In a 

later amendment to the rule, the FAA stated that this section was "clearly intended to apply to 

passengers'"** and any other'person' onboard the aircraft.'' 64 FR 1076, 1077 (Jan. 7, 1999) as 

cited in 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Indeed, to be criminally liable for interference with 

a flight crew one must be "on board" the aircrafl49 C. F. R. §46504. 

Respondent agrees that (1) a person can be on the ground and interfere with a flight crew 

if there is contact with or entry into the aircraft individually or by instrumentality. This is 

analogous to burglary where an instrument is used. " ... but if the actor was also using the 

instrument to reach some property therein, then it constituted an entry." Walker v. State, 63 Ala 

49(1873) cited in Handbook on Criminal Law, LaFave and Scott p.711, n.32 West 1972. Here, 

neither the Complaint nor the witness statements provided allege, that Respondent was onboard 

the aircraft, or had any contact, or connection with the aircraft. The complaint is therefore 

insufficient on its fuce. 

Moreover, the facts alleged in the complaint are properly within the control and 

jurisdiction of the airport operator not the FAA. The FAA regulations do not control vehicles on 

an airport and 14 CFR §91.11 does not preempt state statutes or Clark Connty Ordinances 

dealing with ground vehicles on an aLrport. 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) does not address 

vehicles on an airport, it is limited to lasers. FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, 

GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS, addresses the issue of vehicular control. 

"3. APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation of vehicles on an airport 

rests with the airport operator ... " The statement by the FAA Controllers to pilots that "Ramp is 

Uncontrolled" is clear evidence that the FAA has ceded jurisdiction to the airport operator. 

Exhibit A. Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. 

The Federal Aviation Act has no express preemption clause. The Martin ex rel. Heckman 

v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2009). The FAA has not by pervasive 

3 
regulation of vehicles on airports sought to preempt the states or counties or airport operators 

from enacting or enforcing such regulations. FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20 

clearly cedes jurisdiction over vehicles on the airport. In reliance on this Clark County, Nevada 

has enacted a pervasive statutory scheme to deal with vehicles on its airports, including penalties. 

This is consistent with the long held view of the courts, predating the FAA: 

" ... patrons of the field, whether they be owners of property abutting upon it or not, have no 

right in making use of the field to enter it with their ships except at places and in the manner 

provided by the rules and regulations of the city or its managers and agents in control of the 

field, which regulations maybe changedfromtimeto:time as.necessityandsafetymay .... 

require. City of Spokane v. Williams, 288 P. 258, 157 Wash. 120 (Wash. 1930) 

FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON 

AIRPORTS 

reiterates this view stating in pertinent part: 

a. 3. APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation of vehicles on an 

airport rests with the airport operator ... a. Airport operators should establish procedures and 

policies concerning vehicle access and vehicle operation on the airside of the airport. These 

procedures and policies should address such matters as access, vehicle operator requirements, 

vehicle requirements, operations, and enforcement and should be incorporated into tenant leases 

and agreements. 

North Las Vegas Airport, is owned and operated by Clark County, Nevada. Clark County Code 

§ 20.08.010 states in pertinent part: 

20.08.010 Traffic regulations-Vehicular movement generally. 

(a) The "Rules of the Road'' set forth in Chapter 484 of theN evada Revised Statutes at 

NRS 484.251, et seq., as amended, and Title 14 of this code shall be applicable to and 

shall govern motor vehicle operation upon the real property known as McCarran 

International Airport or upon other caunty airports as if the roadways were dedicated and 

considered highways under said statutes and Title 14 except as otl1erwise provided by 

those regulations set forth in or promulgated pursuant to this chapter. (emphasis added) 

Clark County has further established Rules and Regulations for its General Aviation Airports, 

and has promulgated the appropriate rules which state: 

No person shall operate an aircraft at a General Aviation Airport in an unsafe or 

careless manner or in disregard of the rights and safety of others. AIRCRAFT 

OPERATIONS, Rules and Regulations for General Aviation Airports pJ 

The section regarding Restricted Operations: states: 

4 
The Director, or designee, may restrict the allowable types of aircraft operations 

on certain runways during noise sensitive hours, or for other operational 

considerations. Rules and Regulations for General Aviation Airports, P.4 

Those rules provide penalties from $100.00 to $1,000.00 per violation per day for violations of 

the rules. Those failures include: 

. . . fail(ure ) to comply with applicable federal, state, local and/ or DOA safety and 

health standards, regulations, or operating directives. Director, or designee, has the 

authority to enforce compliance with all applicable standards, regulations, or operating 

directives .... 

It has long been Respondent's 1mderstanding that vehicle matters on the ground at an airport 

are within the jurisdiction of the airport operators. In fact, he specifically contacted the Airport 

Manager about the issue about the Vision Airlines pilots taking the "back way" "shortcut" to 

runway 7. He placed his reliance on prior practice and the representations in FAA Advisory 

Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS (Affidavit 

of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) 

In this case, there is no published legal authority for the interpretation necessary to expand 

the jurisdiction of the FAA to the facts alleged in the complaint. The Complaint is also 

inconsistent with the arguments and representations in the Federal Register. Without that legal 

published anthorir;, the FAA lacks jurisdiction to pursue this case and Llteir complaint is 

insufficient on its face. The FAA's decision to proceed under these facts and circumstances is 

unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. 

The FAA should be Estopped from Proceeding on the Complaint and the Complaint should 

be dismissed 

The NTSB has recognized that equitable estoppel applies in administrative cases: 

We have previously recognized that equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a 

person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position when allowing 

the new position would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous 

position to his or her detriment. Administrator v. Coughlan, NTSB Order No. EA-5197 at 

10 n.lO (20051 (citing Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996)). Blakey v. 

Coughlan, SE-17000 

Estoppel will not be applied under the following circumstances: (estoppel does not apply where 

the public interest and safety in air commerce are at stake, and where the Administrator's powers 

are so clearly granted by statute). Administrator v. Fisher, 6 NTSB 1292 (1989), affd. Fisher v. 

DOT, 917 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1990) 

5 
Respondent clearly relied on previous position of FAA that the airport operator is responsible for 

vehicle operations on the airport. (Exhibit A, Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr.) His detriment 

is that the FAA has chosen to move forward with an alleged violation of 14 CFR §91.11 when 

that allegation is. contrary to the FAA's. previously stated position in FAA Advisory Circular AC 

No: 150/5210-20 that vehicles on an airport are subject to the jurisdiction of the operator ofthe 

airport, not the FAA. Moreover, there were no safety issues at stake created by the actions 

alleged against respondent the vehicle was clearly visible to the pilots and they were able to stop. 

Safety issues if present, were caused by the pilots of Vision Airlines taking a "short cuf' with 

limited visibility for themselves and the tower. Moreover, it is in the public interest that vehicles 

·· ···onthe airportbecontrolledbytheairportoperatorand thatinterest·is clearly addressed by the 

Clark County Code. Finally, it is clear that the FAA's statutory powers do not apply in this 

factual circumstance, because they have been ceded to the airport operator. 

Conclusion 

The complaint should be dismissed because: it is insufficient on its face, the FAA lacks 

jurisdiction and it should be estopped from proceeding on the complaint based on prior 

inconsistent representations. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/S/ 7osepli q(c 'Mari£on, 7r: 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

6130 Elton Ave. 

Las Vegas. NV 89107 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respc•n'd•ent 

13435 North Whitehouse Court 

Spokane, W A 99208 

DATED:~ .Ed~ 

6 
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REcEIvED 

In the Matter of: 

JUN 0 3 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

.. Administrative Law Judge Richard C Goodwin 

AFFIDAVIT OF JO~EPH R. MARIDON, SR. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 

: ss 

COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) 

I, JOSEPH R. MARIDON, SR., being first duly sworn on oath, under penalty of petjury, deposes and 

says: 

1. I am 71 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except for those 

matters stated to be based upon information and belief, which matters I believe to be true. 

2. I am a licensed Professional Engineer. I have owned and operated an airport and have 

knowledge of the rules and regulations regarding their safe operations. I am fwther aware that vehicular 

land operations on an airport are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the operator of the airport as 

represented in FAA Advisory Circular No: 15015210-20 , GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON 

AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely. 

3. On a number of occasions before September 12, 2012 I contacted the North Las Vegas Airport 

Manager and requested that Vision Airlines not taxi by my hanger due to the excessive noise generated by 

the Do228 Dornier operated by Vision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myself and my visiting grand 

child. 

4. I also had serious safety concerns about large commercial aircraft taxiing in that area because 

there are numerous "!>lind alkys" from the rows of enclosed hangers on the right and left of that taxiway. 
I have seen small aircraft on the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircraft taxiing from 

those enclosed hanger rows to the right and left of the taxiways. (Depicted in exhibit A attached hereto 

and incorporated herein by this reference) 

5. I have owned the hanger depicted in Exhibit A before September 12, 2012. When the FAA 

Control Tower (old tower) was between rny hanger and the Vision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not 

use the route that passed next to my hanger. It was my understanding based on information and belief 

that this was due to noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller from the old tower could 

clearly see the aircraft on the taxiway in question and in the hanger rows near the taxiway. 

6. The new FAA Control Tower is now across the airfield and has a restricted view of those 

hanger rows and does not control the taxiway that passed by my hanger. The Controllers in the tower 

frequently state over the radio to pilots words to the effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" when the pilots 

request taxi instructions. The controllers at North Las Vegas Airport have also noted that their visibility 

from the new tower is limited in that area. (Exhibit B, VGT Bulletin page 2, July 2013, attached hereto 

and incorporated herein by this reference) 

7. There is a safer, alternative route that was previously used by Vision aircraft. It passes the 

open shade hangers and the fuel pumps and on to Taxiway "A" that gives the controllers in the new tower 

a fur better view of ta.'{iing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to the tenants, and gives the Vision pilots a 

better view of small aircraft and vehicles moving in and about the open shade hangers, because there are 

no blind alleys. (Exhibit A) 

8. The "back way" taken by the Do228 Domier pilots, as characteri7ed in the pilot's and copilot's 

statements, is a shorter route to the run-up area than the safer, alternative route described in paragraph 7. 

On information and belief, it is apparent that the Vision pilots were taking an unsafe short cut to save time 

and fuel since in my experience there is rarely any ~congestion" at the fuel pumps that would hinder an 

aircraft taxiing in the area of the fuel pumps at the North Las Vegas Airport. 

2 
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me, 

) -1¥, 

this.J)_ day ofMay, 2014. 

Notary Public 

State of Washington 

Jeri L. Mainer 

MY EXPIR:ES 

3 
Exhibit A to Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. 

Aerial views of North Las Vegas Airport and FAA Diagram 

LEGEND 

1. New Tower 

2. Area of alleged incident 

3. Vision Airlines Ramp 

4. Enclosed "Blind Alley" Hangers (Right and Left of Taxiway) 

5. Open Shade Hangers 

6. Fuel Pumps 

· · · · ···· 1: MaridonHiiiiger 

8. Old Tower Site 

9. Run-up area Runway 7 

"G" Taxiway G 

"F" Taxiway F 

AAA ... Shortcut "Back wai' taken by Vision Airlines pilots 

BBB ... Safer route by Shade Hangers via Ta.<'i:iway A 

Scale '1.'' to 50' (enlarged aerial view) 

Do 228 Wingspan 55'8" 


(f) 

J 

0 

~ 

;:: 

?< 

i::l 

~ 

... 

S" 

Ill 

~ 

"' 

0 

~ 

... 

13346 

AIRPORT DIAGRAM 

A TIS 

118.05 

NORTH LAS VEGAS TOWER* 

125.7 360.75 

GNDCON 

121.7 

CtNCDEl 

124.0 

JANUARY 2010 

ANNUAl. RATE OF CHANGE o.1•w 

AL-6970 

HANGARS 

RWY 07-25 

5-30 

RWY 12L-30R 

S-30 

RWY 12R-30l 

5-30 

CORPORATE 

HANGARS 

CAUTION: BE ALERT TO RUNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES. 

NORTH LAS VEGAS (VGT) 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

lWR 

* 

2230± 

A 

READBACK OF ALL RUNWAY HOlDING INSTRUQIONS IS REQUIRED. 

i i 

115•12.0'W 

AIRPORT 11!AGRA.M 

13346 

115"11.5'W 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

NORTH i.AS VEGAS (VGT) 

... 

~ 

l'l 

~ :;; 

"' 

.a "' 

... 

~ 

0 

"' 

~ :;; 

~ 

0 

1 

(f) 
Exhibit B to Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. 

North Las Vegas Airport Bulletin, July 2013, page 2, Noting Limited Visibili1y ofNorth Las 

Vegas Controllers visibility in Hanger Area depicted in Exhibit A 
. , 

STAKEHOLDERS MEETING 

The next Stakeholder meeting is 

scheduled on September 19, 2013 

at6:00p.m. 

FACILITY UPDATE - For your 

convenience there are several 

waste oil collection barrels located 

throughout the airport. Please dispose waste oil only in these collection sites. The DOA routinely has 

the waste oil removed and reprocessed. 

MEMORIAL - Larry James Siggelkow left us too soon, on April 

28, 2013 after living a very full life 

and touching so many lives along 

the way. He was born on December 24th, 1947 and grew up in 

Garden City and was very active 

in the Community Christian Center. He earned his pilot's license on 

his 16th birthday and continued to 

fly his entire life. In Las Vegas he 

joined the police department where 

he proudly served for over 30 years 

in various capacities. He was instrumental in helping the police 

force integrate with aviation assets 

and spearheaded many of its penal 

transportation programs. 

Always known as a hard worker 

who possessed many creative and 

innovative ideas, Lany would take 

his natural entrepreneurial spirit 

and focus efforts on building one of 

the mast successful charter airlines 

in the Las Vegas area. He retired 

in 2011 and returned to Boise to be 

near his family and spend what he 

called his H-A-P-P-Y years, fishing in his backyard, doing regular 

goose patrols, running on his favorite trails, and spending time with 

his beloved wife. Lany was a true 

gentleman and served as a genuine 

example of humanitv to all who 

had the pleasure of knowing him. He 

will be deeply missed. 

· · · P.ROJECT.CONCEPT 

APPROVAL -If you are planning 

any improvements to ¥OUr hangar or 

commercial facility you must receive 

approval from the DOA before 

proceeding. The Business Office will 

complete a Project Concept Approval 

form based on your complete project 

description and concept drawing (email to the Airport Manager Banez@ 

mccarran.com or submit to the 

office). 

North Las Vegas Airport 

Airport Manager 

2730 Airport Drive, Suite 101 

North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032 

DOA will respond to your request as 

soon as possible (may take a few 

weeks based on the complexity of 

the project). A Project Coordinator 

will be assigned to assist you and a 

pre-construction kick-off meeting will 

be scheduled. 

During construction, the contractor 

will work with the DOA Project 

Coordinator and Inspector to 

complete the Project Acceptance 

Checklist When all checklist items 

have been completed (including 

the submission of As-Builts), DOA 

Construction/Engineering will confirm 

that all business/ acquisition issues 

have been completed before closing 

the project. 

All projects shall be in accordance 

with the Tenant I mprovernent 

Manual located on-line at http:/1 

www.mccarran.com/Doing Busness 

/tenant_i mprovement. html. 
Keep off the Grass! More precisely, keep off the green painted 

areas in the vicinity of Rwy 7 and Taxiway G & F. In an effort 

to reduce the number of pilot deviations, many airport layout 

changes have been made or are in progress. Over the last 

decade, VGT has constantly been near the top nationwide 

for the most runway incursions annually; but we're changing 

that. Currently, we are well below are historical year to date 

,..,~ .. average and well on our way to a spectacularyeaL However, ··t······•····· ?••·····~.·teye-Si$~lal<, / \ /1 

with the change in geographical layout come some issues 

that all pilots should be aware. 

()IJ.eiss.ue.to.l!9te is)hattrere. is lif!lit<;~d.visibiHty.fromitr~ .~ontrr)ltower of 

tr~·r~iTJp .. a~tl'l<;~ .•• ~rjtrar)~~· of •.t<IXiW?Y·. G, ·.. ,1\ircr~fl:.taxiill~. iw~st~P\l!ld·P~~sin£1 taxiwaY•f{all<iairc;r~f\ tilxi.in~.eastqo.und. frQ111 .. runuP. 1'\rea .. ·.orJrof!lp~ripq·the. 

han~~rs·•rn· iJS.t.j.jseg(.lo?JiJclg!Jlent ;:ln(j .. ex~rciSe. caU!ior). as.lh<;~ ~rn.pii> a nQnmoifement area {non~controlled) and out ofthe ·line bfsiteJrom :the to\1\fer. 

Another issue to be cautious with is aircraft should be utilizing appropriate 

lights while taxiing after sunset as blue reflectors are being temporarily utilized 

to delineate taxiway edges where the green islands have been added. Third, 

the runup area is no longer a movement area; ATC may or may not be aware 

of the presence of aircraft taxiing in the vicinity. And last, the taxi clearance, 

'Runway 7, taxi via G' authorizes aircraft to cross taxiway A and up to the 

hold short marking for Runway 7. Many aircraft are stopping short of taxiway 

A and contacting Tower prior to entering the movement area. While not an 

issue in itself, during peak traffic periods, holding short of taxiway A may 

cause blockages in the taxi lane. 

As summer approaches, it is vital for pilots to stay aware of weather 

conditions and its impact to the performance of aircraft. Increased takeoff 

distance, reduced rate of climb, increased true air speed on landing and 

approach, and increased landing roll distance are all affected by density 

altitude. Additionally, thunderstorms can develop rapidly and should be cause 

for concern. Until next time, heads up, hold short, fly right. 

~C~~iation Meetin1

,, ~ ,,s 

Grand Canyon Room Conference Room 

2nd Monday - CAP - Nellis Sr. Squadron 

4th Monday - CAP - Nellis Sr. Squadron 

1stTuesday- EM Chapter 163 

2nd Tuesday - 1/4 Scale Assoc- 6:45pm 

1st Wednesday - Commemorative Air Force 

2nd Wednesday - Rebel Squadron (In 

Modular Building) 

4th Wednesday - Prop - Nuts 

Every Thurs. - Clark County 

Composite Squadron Civil Air Patrol 

4th Thursday -FAA FAST TEAM 

4th Monday - Dust Devils 

1st Tuesday - CAP 

2nd Tuesday- LV Eagles 

3rd Tuesday- 99s- 5:30pm- 7:00pm 

4th Tuesday- LV Balloon Club 

3rd Wednesday- Commemorative Air 

Force 

Every Thurs. - Clark County Composite 

Squadron Civil Air Patrol 

(All meetings are at 7PM unless otherwise noted.) 
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REcEIvED 

JUN 0 3 2014 

HEARING DOCKET In the Matter of: 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sf. 

Respondent 

Richard C. Goodwin Administrative LawJudge 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

FAA DOCKET 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

I hereby certify that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within 

action. I further certify that on the~ day of 911 a. 'J , 2014, I deposited in the U.S. 

Mail, with postage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of : 

(I) Motion To Dismiss 

(2) Affidavit Of Joseph R.Maridon, Sr 

addressed to the following: 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur· Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

ONE COPY 

Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, WA 99206-4303 

Jospeph R. Maridon,Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 
Naomi Tsuda, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region, 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7100 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

!si~L~ 
2 
U.S DEPARTMENT OJ<' TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC JUL - 7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sr., 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0116 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Respondents Reply to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Request to Find Opposition 

Timely Filed 

Comes now, Respondent by and through his counsel and submits this reply to the FAA's 

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. With leave of the Court, said Reply is made and based on all the 

pleadings and papers on file herein and the argument of counsel . 

FAA's Untimely Response Should be Denied and Stricken. 

The FAA admits that its response is untimely and argues that service by mail is only a 

presumption 13.2ll(h). It ignores the fact that 13.1l(d) states the date of mailing shown on the certificate 

of Service or if none the date on the postmark controls. The Court received and filed the original on June 

3, 2014, a full nine days before the FAA stamped its envelope. (Exhibit 1 from Hearing Docket) 

(undersigned counsel received Complainant's current pleading on June 27, 2014. It is postmarked June 

24, 2014) The argument for additional time is without merit regardless of whether counsel has 5 or 10 

days to respond. Indeed, FAA Counsel's affidavit does not state when the FAA received it. It merely 

states when it was received by regional counsels' office, as evidenced by the envelope. Furthermore, it 

does not allege who stamped received on the envelope. It is very highly likely, given the size of the FAA 

that there is an internal FAA mailroom, which either picks up or receives all mail from the post office and 

routes it internally to the regional counsel's office. This is consistent with the fact that it was sent to the 

FAA's post office box. Counsel's affidavit makes no reference to internal mail handling procedures at 

the FAA's Western Pacific Regional Office nor does it contain an affidavit from a person with knowledge 

of those procedures. There is no attempt to establish or explain an internal chain of custody. This 

omission is crucial, without further detailed explanation, the FAA has not shown good cause for an 

untimely response and the Court should presume that it was properly delivered to the FAA's post office 

box by the post office in a timely manner. 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(h) The FAA's argtJment contains glaring 

unresolved omissions. The FAA therefore bears responsibility for the delay. The response is untimely and 

should be stricken and the motion to dismiss granted with prejudice.' 

1 Respondent normally would not oppose an untbncly response, submitted within a reasonable period of several 

days and adequately explained. However, an untimely response of this magnitude that is essentially unexplained is 

unacceptable. 

1 
The Complainant's Substantive Response 

The FAA's substantive response to Respondents argument consists of legally and logically 

unsupported conclusions, misstatements and implications of vexatious litigation2 Most glaring of the 

factual misstatements is on p. 3, ~1: 

" ... because Respondent relied on publications from the airport operator that he believed reflected that 

Clark County alone, as airport operator would have sole jurisdiction over his conduct." 

That statement is blatantly misleading since Respondent clearly stated that he relied on FAA 

Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20 and cited it twice in argument and affidavit: 

"FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS, addresses 

the issue of vehicular control. "3. API'UCABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation of vehicles on an 

airport rests with the airport operator ... " (Respondent's Motion p.31f 4, p.41f4); 

"I am further aware that vehicular land operations on an airport are withio the jurisdiction and responsibility of the 

Response note 1 p.OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely." (Exhibit A, to 

Motion to Dismiss, Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. 1[2). 

Complainant attempts to assert concurrent jurisdiction, but cites no authority and makes no 

argument for that proposition. FAA simply makes a conclusory statement that there is "at least 

concurrent jurisdiction" in an attempt to salvage its delegation of jurisdiction to airport operators. 

This is contrary to the published representation in FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20 

cited above. It does not address, and thus concedes Respondents preemption argument. 

Th.e Complaint relies on an unpublished interpretation ofl4 C.F .R. §91.11 based on dicta in the 

Federal Register, 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 201 l) Interference With a Crewmember via Laser in 

an attempt to expand its jurisdiction beyond the bounds of legal elasticity.3 Indeed, the very title of 

that publication serves clear notice of the limitation on its interpretation to the use of Lasers and does 

not extend 14 C.F .R. §91.11 to the facts alleged in the complaint. As applied in the complaint, it is 

vague and does not give notice of prohibited conduct (except as to lasers) or the assertion of 

jurisdiction. In FAA v. Moesser, _ DMS No. F AA-20 11-1286 at p. 5~5 the Court stated: 

A cornerstone of the principle of due process is the duty of adequate notice. In 

the context before us, it requires affected parties to be given fair wanring of regulated 

conduct. See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside. 455 U.S. 489,503 (1982). From 

this precept the "vagueness" doctrine derives. Laws and regulations, the doctrine states, 

" [must] give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is 

prohibited, so that he may act accordingly" (Graynedv. Rockford. 408 U.S. 104, 108 

(1972)). As such, liability may not be imposed when the regulation either "forbids or 

2 More egregious is the gratuitous, footnote from which one can imply a veiled threat to engage in vexatious 

litigation. Moreover, it is a not so subtle attempt to use pressure to encourage or coerce Respondent to settle this 

case in a 111anner favorable to the FAA. Response note 1 p.4 

3 It can be argued that since the publication of Federal Register, 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) Inteiference 

With a Crewmember via Laser was "part of a specific media effort" the intent was not to prohibit even the use of 

lasers but to draw media attention to their improper use. Sec, Complainant's Response p.3 ~2 \.13 

2 
requires the doing of an act in terms so vagoe that men of common intelligence must 

necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" (US. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 

259,266-267 (1997)). 

The complaint clearly engages in an unpublished interpretive overreach that does not give 

notice or fair warning that the alleged conduct is prohibited by the FAA or has altered its official 

position on vehicular jurisdiction. 

In opposition to Respondent's estoppel argument, Complainant states, "However, 

Respondent cannot cite to any contradictory previous position taken by fue agency indicating fuat it 

will not enforce 14 C.F .R. §91.11 as it is in this case." (Response p5 1[2, 11.5). 

This statement is misleading and a strawman .Complainant does not cite to any published 

opinion fuat takes the position that it will enforce 14 C.F.R.§9l.ll as it is in this case. Complainant's 

statement is fuus misleading. The position to which Respondent was clearly referring was fue ceding 

of the jurisdiction to the airport operator set forth in FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 15015210-20 as 

cited above. 

Complainant cites City of Arlington v. F.CC 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013)for fue proposition that 

fue FAA has the authority to decide its jurisdiction. The citation is inapposite, the question here is not 

its aufuority to decide its jurisdiction but whether it has ceded it to airport operators as published in 

FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20. That is clearly a contradictory position to the one 

taken in the instant complaint . Simply, to give clear notice of prohibited conduct or a change in 

jurisdiction an interpretation must be published. 

Complainant also argues that Respondent makes an unsupported assertion that it is in fue 

public interest that vehicles on the airport be controlled by fue airport operator. Response p 51[2 llll. 

Complainant's statement .is misleading because it ignores the support for fue assertion in 

Respondent's quotation and citation to City of Spokane v. Williams, 288 P. 258, 157 Wash. 120 

(Wash. 1930) which predates the existence of the FAA. (Respondents motion p.41f2.) 

Finally, Complainant's argument that the Respondent's truck constituted a danger when the flight 

crew clearly saw it and stopped is without merit. In Smith v. Penn Line Service, Inc., 113 S.E.2d 505, 

145 W.Va. 1 f:W.Va. 1960). The court stated in syllabus: 

5. Where a truck is lawfully parked on a city street at night with sufficient light from street lights to render 

such truck clearly discernible to the driver of an approaching vehicle at such distance as to enable him to 

stop in the exercise of reasonable care and it is struck in the rear by another motor vehicle, the proximate 

cause of such accident is the striking of the truck by the other motor vehicle, and the owner of the parked 

truck is not liable in damages to a goest passenger riding in the other motor vehicle. 

See also, Duff v. Lykins, Ky.,306 S.W.2d 252 (Ky. 1957); Powell v. General Accident, Fire & Life 

Assur. Corp., La.App., 18 So.2d 921, 922; Scott v. Hoosier Engineering Co., 117 W.Va 395, 

397, 185 S.E. 553,554 (W.Va. 1936) 

3 
Thus, the danger was not from Respondent's truck (clearly visible in broad daylight) but 

from the inattentiveness of the flight crew while taking a short cut. 

Conclusion 

Complainants request to find opposition timely filed should be denied. The Opposition to Motion to 

Dismiss should be stricken and the Complaint dismissed with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/S/ Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Attomey at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

6130 Elton Ave. 

Las Vegas. NV 89107 

Walter L. Ayers 

Attomey at Law 

Counsel for RespQmd.ent 

13435 North Whitehouse Court 

Spokane, W A 99208 

DATED?-?1L~ Utj/ 

4 
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REcEIvE 0 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

JUN 03 201~ 

In the Matter of: 

HEARING DOCKET 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. FAA DOCKET 

Respondoot FAA CASE NO. 2ti12WP190142 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

...... Administt:ativeLawJudge.Richard .. C ... Goodwin .... 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

The Respondent files his Motion To Dismiss for failure of the allegations in the notice of 

proposed action and complaint to state a violation of the FAA Act or of this chapter 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, pursuant to the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R 13.49) This Motion is 

made and based upon the affidavit attached hereto, argmnent of counsel and all of the pleadings 

and papers on file herein. Respondent states as follows: 

L Factual Background 

The complaint alleges that on or about September 29, 2012 Respondent parlred his vehicle on an 

active taxiway and thereby prevented a Vision Airlines aircraft from taxiing for takeoff. It further 

alleges the vehicle would interfure with. the taxiing of the aircraft and thereby interfered with the 

flight crewmembcrs' perfonnance of their duties aboard the aircraft. It does not allege essential 

allegations of an entry, touching, or any contact whatsoever with the aircraft. Furthermore, it 

does not allege a safuty violation. 

II. Argument 

The complaint is insufficient on its face because of an erroneous interpretation of the 

FAA's authority. The FAA lacks jurisdiction to proceed under the filets alleged. Jurisdiction lies 

with the airport operator as FAA regulations do not preempt the airport oper<~.tor' s jurisdiction 

over vehicles on the ground on an airport The FAA should be estopped from proceeding on the 

facts and circumstances of this case. 

The FAA bases its overly hroad use ofl4 C.F.R §91.11 in this case on an interpretation 

published in 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) dealing with Interference With a Crewmernber 

via Laser. That publication is limited. to whether an individual on the ground can interfere with a 

Crewmember with a laser. 
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

RECEIVED 

JUL -7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

.Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. FAA DOCKET FAA-2014-0116 

Respondent 

Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judge 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI~E. rz;rj/ .. 

I certify that on thR day o~ /~-' 2014, I have sent by facsimile 

where indicated and deposi~the U. m1 where mdicated, Wlth postage fully preprud, 

certified mail a true and correct copy of: 

Respondents Reply to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Request to Find Opposition 

Timely Filed 

addressed to the following: 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

(U.S. Mail on 6/30/2014) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur-Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

ONE COPY 

Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, WA 99206-4303 

Joseph R Maridon,Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

6130EltonAve 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 
Naomi Tsuda, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region, 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7100 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

(Served by Facsimile on 6/29/2014; U.S. Mail on 6/30/2014)) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

(Served by Facsimils tlfl ~14; U.S. Mail on 6/30/2014) 

Dated: Jlme 30,2014 

Is/ 
3 
Joseph R. Maridon. Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Tel. 702·514-0102 

Fax 702-410·6396 D 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

n:DERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION H 

AUG 1 8 2016 

DOCr<ET 

In tbe Matter of: 

Joseph R. Marit:llm, Sr. FAA DOCKET NO. 2014-0116 

Respondent 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S S~QOND MOTlQN TOjJlSMISS FOR. VIOLATION OF RESPONDENTS 

RIGHTS UNDER THE LJNllfD STATES CONSTITUTION 

H:;R.B.t\TTA- \VITij£XHIBlTS) 

Respondent tlles this sez'<md motion to dismiss for violation of hls rights under the First 

Amendment to the United States Constitution based on the FAA's construction and application of 

CFR §9 U l to the facts of the instant ease. This motion is made and based on all of the pleadings 

and papers on file herein, fhe United States Constitution and the argnment of CounseL Respondent 

further renews, reaHeges and incorporates herein by reference Respondents previous motion to 

dismiss. 

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine prohibits the use of the CFR §91.11 in the instant case as 

construed and applied, berause il denies the Respondent his First Amendment rights oftreedom 

of speeeh to protest, and the right to seek a redn:ss of grievances. 
Factual Background 

The complainant summarily alleges that on September 29,2012 that Respondent interfered 

with a !light crew by parking his vehicle on a taxiway at the North Las Vegas, Nevada Airport It 

ignores the rest of the story. 

Prior to charging the Respondent, the Complainant investigated and cansed others tn 

investigate the allegations. (Exhibit l) The FAA and its inexperienced inspector knew the full 

background and nature of the alleged incident. Specifically, they were aware that the actions of 

the Respondent were a protest against the excessive noise of the Vision Air Domier DO 228 

aircraft near his hangar and that he had previously sought a redress of that grievance from the 

manager of the North Las Vega~ Airport on several occasions, to no avaiL The interviews and 

investigation by the P AA and others before charging dearly show that the inspector and charging 

official were ll\\<'ll!e of these facts. (Exhibit 1, Discovery provided by FAA as highlighted) 

The Noerr-Penning!pn DoctriM Pnwidsts Immunity to Respgndent bv Prohil:!iting the .Federal 

Aviation Administration From Using CFR §91 , 11 to Resqict Respondents First Amendment Right 

to Protest and Rig[lt tQ Seek a Redres~J2( Grievances. 

The Noerr-Permington doctrine originated in the eon text of anti-trust litigation. "Concerted 

efforts to int1uence public officials do oot violate the antitrust laws even though intended to 

eliminate competition." United Afine Workers qf.4merica v, Pennington, 38! U.S. 657,658 (1965) 

(citing Eastern R. Cmrl v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127, 669-612 (1961 )). "While any carrier has 

the right of access to administrative agencies and courts to defeat applications of competitors for 

certitlcatcs as highway carriers, and its purpose to eliminate an applicant as a competitor may be 

implicit in sueh opposition, its First Amendment rights are not immunized from .regulation when 

they are used as an integral part of conduct violative of the antitrust laws." California Motor 

2 
Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited. 404 U.S. 508, 509-515 (1972). ''If the allegations that 

petitioners combined to harass and deter respondents from having "free and unlimit<-'il aceess" to 

agencies and eeurls, and to deteat that right by massive, concerted, and purposeful group activities 

are established as fact.~, a violations of the antitrust laws v,ill have been demonstrated, and it is 

immaterial that the means used in violation may be lawful." Jd. 

The Nnerr-Pennington doctrine has expanded to virtually all areas of First aAmendment 

speech. "It is important to emphasize that a person's spoech or petitioning activity is not removed 

from the ambit of First Amendment protection simply because it advocates an urJavvful act. rhe 

First Amendment does not permit government 'to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of foree 

or of law violation except 'where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent 

lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such aetion:' White v, Lee, 227, F.3d 1214, (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citing Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 44,447 (1969)). 

"The Supreme Court has described the right to petition as '"among the most precious of the 

liberties safeguarded by the 'Bill of Rights' and 'intimately connected, both in origin and in 

purpose, with other First Amendment rights of free speech and free press." !d. at 1231 (citing 

United Mine Workers, Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass 'n, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967)). "\'Vhile the 

Noerr-Permington doctrine originally arose in the antitrust eentexl, it is hased on and implements 

the First Amendment right to petition and therefore, with one exception ... , applies equally in all 

context.~:' Id. ("The lmmm1iiy is no longer limited ttl the antitrustcontexL .. ")(dting Boulware v. 

Nevada Dep 't of Human Resources, 950 F.2d 793, 800 {9th Cir. 1992). 

"The Noerr-Pcrmington doctrine eru;mcs that those who petition the goverrnnent for redress 

of grievanees remain immtule from liability for statutory violations, notwithstanding the fact that 

their activity might othel'\vise be proscribed by the statute involved." ld.; Sec Proftssionai Real 

3 
Estate Investors, Inc v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 56 ( 1993). "Noerr-Pennington 

is a label f'Or a fnm1 of First Amendment protection: to say that one does not have Noerr· 

Pennington protection is to conclude that one's petilioning activity is unprotected by the First 

Amendment." ld. "The Supreme Court has beld that a la>¥-suit is unprotected only if it is a ''sham" 

-Le., "objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litignnt could realistically expect sueeess 

on the merits." Jd.; Sec Profession(l/ Real Estate Investors, Inc v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 

508 u.s. 49. 56 (1993). 

J.Y'hite v. Lee, 227 F.Jd 12 l 4, (9th Cir. 2000), clearly makes the Noerr-l'enningtohn doctrine 

applicable to the actions of Federal Agencies 

"a housing rights advo(cacy group filed an administrative complaint with an otlice of 

the U.S. Department of Housing nnd Urban Development (HUD) in San Fnmelsoo. 

The complaint alleged that three neighbors in Berkeley opposed the conversion of a 

motel into a multi-family housing unit because they believed that the project would 

bring people into the neighborhood who were mentally disabled or disabled through 

substance abuse. Upon receiving the complaint, the San Francisco HUD office 

initiaten an eight-month investigation into the neighbors' activities and beliefs. During 

the course of its investigation, HUD officials questioned the neighbors under threat of 

subJlOOlla about their views nnd public statements regarding the challenged project; 

directed them to produce an array of documents and information, including all 

involved parties' names, addresses, and telephone numbers and all correspondence or 

other documents relating to their e.fforts in opposition to the project; inforrned tbem 

and a major metropolitan newspaper that they had violated the Fair Housing Act; and 

advised them to accept a "conciliation proposal" that required them to cease all 

litigation nnd the distribution of "discriminau1ry" newsletters and flyers. The HUD 

officials in San Francisco recommended finding that the neighbors had violated the 

Fair Honsing Act, but officials in Washington altimaiely concluded that no violation 

had occurred and that the neighbors had engaged solely in activity prott'Cted by the 

Fh'St Amendment" 

227 F.3d 1214, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The present ease has very similar facts to White v. Lee. Respondent had originally sought 

a redress of thai grievnnce from the manager of the North Las Vegas Airp01t on several occasions 

for the excessive noise, to no avail, thereafter he protested by lawfully, peacefully, nnd 

4 
temporarily stopping his vehicle in the taxiway, intending to convey the message that he was 

opposed the excessive noise and lack of action by the North Las Vegas Airport. When asked why 

he did so he stated that it was in protest The protest was peacefuL See, NAACP v. Claiborne 

Hardware Co" 458 U.S. 886. 916, 102 S.CL 3409, 3427, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) ("The First 

Amendment does not protect violence!'); The interviews and invet>'tigation by the FAA and others 

before charging cle£rtly show that the inspector and charging official were aware of these facts. 

When he received no redress of grievance, in protest, Respondent temporarily parked his vehicle 

on a taxiway at the North Las Veg£rS, Nevada Airport ffS a symbolic form of free speech. The action 

was not lawless, because the Nmth LffS Vegas Airport regulations do not give aircraft on the 

ground the right of way over automobiles in areas not controlled by the Tower. This was clearly 

a peaceful protest because although the vehicle stopped in broad daylight with lights flashing, 

Respondent removed the vehicle from the taxiway upon being requested to do so by airport 

personnel and stated that it was a protest. Respondent was a hangar owner and in a place where 

he had a right to be. (It should be ru.lted that while Vision Air had a right to taxi their airplane ou 

the North LffS Vegas Airport, Respondent had a countervailing right under the First Amendment 

tc protest the taxiing by his hangar. See, Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3.d 1281 

(9th Cir. 2013)) 

It is critical to both cases that Federal Agencies hindered a private party's freedom to 

protest and seek redress of grievances. Both cases have different. but protected forms of protest 

tmder the First Amendment. As vvith the diserimin~ory newsletters and flyers sent out in the 

W'hite v. Lee ease, the Respondent in the present ea.«e \VliS exercising his First Amendment right to 

protest even after seeking a peaceful redress of grit,">Vance. Respondent violated no airport rules 

and engaged in peaceful protest therefore, under the Noerr·Pennington Doctrine he is immtme 

5 
from liability from statutory violations. The similarity does not end there however, in both White 

and the instant case, the Federal Agencies acted as "stalking horses" for the local entities. Jn this 

case, it is clear from the discovery provided, that the FAA is acting as a stalking horse for both 

Vision Air and the North Las Vegas Airport in charging a violation of CFR §91, 11, knowing that 

there were two violations of Respondent's first Amendment rights, The FAA's enforcement 

actions thus have a "chilling effect'' on the exercise of First Amendment right~. The FAA's 

decision to seek a civil penalty under tilese circumstances is retaliatory. Tile FAA's reaction to 

Respondent's protest is clearly excessive since another Federal Agency, Homeland Security, 

wisely declined to take any action against either the Respondent or Vision Air. (Exhibit 1, 

Discovery provided by FAA as ilighlighted). Tilerefore, the present case against tile Respondent 

should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Condusiun 

l. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should he granted 

2. Attorney fees should he assessed against tile FAA 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is! JO.)!JllJ R Maridotb. Jr. 

Joseph R. Marldon, Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

6130 Elton Ave, 

Las Vegas. NV 89107 

DAtED: January 6, 2015 

!J!l. Waltqr L. .. Jyers 

Walter L. Ayers 

Zachary LAyers 

Attumeys at Law 

Counsel tor Respondellt 

Ayers Law Fim1, P.L.LC 

1312 North Monroe Street #133 

Spokane, W A ()920 1 

DATED: January 6, 2015 
CERTlfiCA'U; OF SERVU::,'E 

I hereby certify that the foregoing RESPONDENT'S SECOl'>"D MOTION TO DJSM!SS 

eleetwnic mail on January 7, 2015, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-4 30 

Wilbur-Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 

fa11 202 49.~{202) 267-1293 FAX 

The Honorable Rlehard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, (Ell-3!0) 

!Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administl"ution 

Western-Pacific Region 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

7 
U.!l, ~~lli:l!t 

Qf1'l~JQII 

F~A~ 

Admhl\!lmttJQII 

J()SepiJ 

The Mari®n Law 

6! 30 Btwu Ave 

Las. NV 

Re: 

S<le·W;,!i C ll!id the 

brlbrruatltm reg<trdil~g ~()S lrthm' thl~Jt 

Naonli T~~c!llia 

Rll!!iOrull C<1Utll!lel 

By: 

forwll.f~ ro the 

bl.lg~h1 

ANii"l•l -NOTE: Our J:t>!ll.flll!te f!lll is fomt~rdild the .tllatyoo llllttdk 

the mf~lll col!fermce a11d ease di!pll!lm<>n. Bll~~rtr, if yon intend til retum the 

t1l!!il: t<t II~ Its HI U$1lt1 the Order. 

AWl'-240, 
L Strtc;ment: '"¢""' CI!Ptll>in, Spenc~ Gmdmw::r, 

2. $:lll!l:)mem: \n<;,,, 

&atemcnt: CotmtY De~!llWlr~tllll 
f~!!M!d <!lll'Dilll ~~ 

.As WWJturood !!Mil 

Ql!l.·!JOO'I1!! am! t.::. ll~ m~kll1; ll WI!! oouil!!d. ~rth llls v~ t~roaml 

of wl!at lll!;l t!! em lt~~llon, Altl!l' wntadlng ~roooo 

W!i1rn:rtl'il!!d.:~ur Oil~l~!!s ill'illt!!r il!1d lllss l!diiiSI!!i ·W~m <lfwllllt ~lad hap~ail, tl!at WI!! oot~ee!l 

u~d lm:!Mdu<ll t>ut \lftoo l!anpr, HI! "hooe am! a~!!d w bl! mtonllllg \l$ 

willie afss -~ at us with hls hamt He th~l1 pma~eded Ill this !!!filion fmm tb!! fml1t ofth!! all'mlft, 

mllllld too 12ft sl®, <tnd finally 

mls'tfm!! th!!re- oo 

~lldulild 
~,~Ill 

ll/Oli2M2 09:l2 AM 

Show~ 

Bl·l&$1111 

IUI!jKt!Mt 

My~ l$bl~ bl ~ '!ll!wm't ~ Hllmit i!!wrl~ *~<!lfUopy. LeltMim&lwif:ff!U nWj 

an~ele.·~J~ 

Ltt!MkMw It~-~ Otrti)L ~Ill'~. it b ll111J!Mll ~Mlpo, 

<i~Lpng> 
T~»Whom It may ~m 

Wl!id, Nov. 
to: 

1l!Ol/2fH2 09:1! AM 

Hi Tony, 

~l ~th Maseda 

Sent: P!idlly, ~ 20:12 PM 

Tol Juoo w~ 

SU~.~ fl!<lllelll: 

K!>ilh J Maseda 

Vi!IW!l Alrlltlell 

111112012 9:33:50 AM 
&lp. 2t).U Appro~:, 14:lfl the row~r ttl~ over radio 1m" a~ 

mobi1~ the tower mformmi tbat th~r~ ~ <l vihlde bl(lcldng th~ way of 

1'isilm ab:'tlraft (405\' A) bt\tw~ the h1•rs at wmpaD mad. I then 

dm~ t~ the ar.andnot~tbat~~ln ·~ {N 9) W 

p<ltkM hil trut::k on tbtl )1lllow tau w•y h~ m 

mf(!'mft w~n 

-
FW: St:!temoot 

Jliiwn Wl'l!d!m 

from~ Aill)IOOtl'l ~ 

·~M~y,~r29, 

Toi.~WH!en 

~~ Stllterrent 

Me (1\.lejalll!rult!pl*dlll 

J«!ith Ma~a wli!fl! uv'"" 11u g!Jllll;i< 

$Cl!l1!1! and SI\ilrtl!!l 

around the alral!ft r1!!C!mll•1i 

busill!'$$ (llr!l , wl1icll he 

jus1: lat•rn:lJedthe llo, $hilt Speru:er Glli'Uillli!t &lid 

~.!i!Silfl1il!rs till! C~lrl\fl:ll'l, as they wet;;: hl!alfllll rtol:lh.¢11 the 

l!mi the eme~l'IC!' flal!het 

wa!rtfl!ft; \IS tllitddnll:tllat lt 

way, l,ll:lOfll!ffllllil! the l!!rtfl!ft 

Cu!lll1\r'Siinemeu WJ!l$ ju~r on: tile 

Mli!l!n\!ii!Jl•l<\' <lllt>l:tl!!!t M$1'1 W~s Wl!ldlll! 

Ills; 
Frcmt 

Sent: 

To: 

ll.lbjecti 

On tn~ dll¥ of the otturren~re we\Alejar1dto Zepeda am:! t) hlld. Jl!tH'IcMd me fin~! plaM of the to do a pa~ 

pickup wlli!o Wli!'te oomil11l !nslde we there was a red trw:k lo the way of the plane. Wte didn't know what was 

going on $0 we got C!n tllte gate!rto see proi:ll¢m was. f!r~t had brol«!!l down 

becau>l! f! h<!d Its op<~n and l!!'llergencv lights on, shnwed up llllli wM 

alk!llg tlllllnerof~ red up" Meanw!1lle the ain!llin~a, HIHtlefl 

him 11 "'"'""""" 
Onllm~fi'J!'fi11~;~~,;jt~a Villi~m~~mi~toKVOT 

Orwnd Ct~nll,'ol Ed 11m Cnttlpmy'$ Sylt~<m ~ C<ml:rol{SOO), The·repmlb SOC wall 

tbllta "~l~" wallona!Dl wayl:ro~~ ~t<lf~~-~ 

~.Wheml!d~ TbcCll~npay~er-givmoo~J~~, The 

·~4!$~uml!imiVOT0roimdCnmrol.S'MI!I~y~abklm~mt + 

.~the.~mvea1itw,mr~~"fK!!CN>~c~~-s~ 

1be~I'Uol:, klllbertSWI!lh! <lf1ila~t. The C~ Y.'l:!lllldmed to ~areptmt>f!lm 

m~mughthe~'s WBAT~4!$f~:r~sy~. 

if Jlll~l:llru~ ~ thllt ~.not 

ma:nmst 
frmtl 

~: 

i<>: 

Subj«:t: 

'lll'J (Vi sian) ~~el!d tC! 

1\illy, aloog with 

Ex~lil!: SE!rtll the inf't>!'lnat:ion """'"rdl:m£ 

COfittl'l~l Wi!lli .notUi.ed, 

seturity related, 

ttl!! hlture ~otification to rsoc 

N!lated: intident Onct~ you !t;wl! 

thoJte iru:lividual 

!>arb<! CulllflrliOO 

Transportlltix:in Sl!c:ur!ty Im;.pectc:r 

10l~:UJJHJ:Z!Il Ct~ll, 

702. 571·1102!1 
L<ldios: 

l'l!!i151 Sernl ill!! 

nou~s in writing, 

tlarba Culberson 

Transportation 5eturlt;' lt>!>f)l!ttllf' 

1fil2·23liHl291 Call. 

llffitl!!. 

lll!:l1l£!flt1 tO!'I'lllttli,VI! "'"+inn >lithin lli!X"t 24 

ro;.r!ltrr•d url!ler prOJ!rD. 

:t 
Fmm: 

Sll!lt: 

TO! 

&lbJ~ 

»~Ill' tll~ of ~ttll:lom 

IJ~lon~ 

210!>~01' 

~ !..m!J~.NII$32 

m~~Offa 

,~~7~~~~ 

1t>M1~!l- Fellt 

Is my b!i!lllrt tl'l<~t *""imn \lii~irnrthl'l\t*" 

notlflt:atillrt at tl'le time the lm:ldent 

A tfl!t:h<•t! is me OOfl'f 

anything fu rtl'ler, 
Di!'~Q:~ of St~ 

VmMt Alrlin'" 270SA~Or 

Nl>lth La1 v~ NV 

702·!!99-'li!Wf· ~ 

10l..S7,~201l- Clift 

7U:1-97~~1~!! • f'W< 
Antlmny Pad<!lla 

FAA Aviation Sakty IMI>i!ctl:lt 

Vega11.FSDO 

'IU!l Am.lgo Stre2t, Suite 180 

V.s, NVU9119 

Th.is ts to describe my !nvol.vl!!ment in ;u1 im:ld!!'nt in September 2012 that occurred 

on thE! VGT airport as our D<:~ 2:215 aim-aft was ta;d.ing from the Visil:ln ramp to·. the 

dfrparture runway. An t<:tl1int, Mr. is operating a malnte!lance 

businells from .lil nearby M.r, Sl'. llt<:lppoo nut llircrnft a ~W<IY 

by \llilllli 1:! is personat ttl acces,; to too . From ~ wl!ere the 

alrtraft .hat! talded, !:her£ Wllll not another to m:;r! due the me of the aircraft; 

and other building. 

l!llme time :Mf, St. $J:J:Ippe~ our .aircraft 

Mattdol'!, walked <1round our parked with it$ !>ngi~.s amitook:>a video 

of the indde;n~. 

l explalm;.d Mr. that such in wall enough and Wl;!S elli!Vllted 

to the LAS FSDO and they be In t:ontsct with hint soan, told Mr, Matido!'l, Sr. 

tnet our Da 22S ~nnut Uf£lly ·t;OO sing!<fl engine tu d(1parture due to thermal 

to tak:ei!l'E 
AJ11l1My Pacl.,lli 

HJOS/1:!{)1.2 3 PM 

AlU!! Bmml<>n. Ia"''n W:ald®, ~ 

11!5!2012 J:4S;ll PM 

l Mked hbn ~!bout his l!t!nlett the cm'dfor ~ "'"' ""' ""'"'·""'$(Ill bad·~ \ide01 !l'f~ p-~ 11 

Mlllllttlppext 1 did Ullt contact Mr. M!lridon, .. JdQr Ull] ~!Is. 

I wasglvl!n 11 buslMS$ can:! from Jl.lsepl'l Ma!i®n, In VGi tlpjll<ltltlns. I wall\ecl-r b:l M!', M!ll'ldt.m'$ 

l'!!IJ11ier tn. ll!trtlllw;!! myself, but i!l'lllt Jo§J!!ph M<ll'i!lon, .!1;\ !s a fl!l!mtl1ll!l!ll~e ~.>nsmess oot of the 

1\angt!t, anl'll11Hon off tlw soo tM! Madll:oo .IJ!w 'Jt:l:Hi14· 

01()1, A tJJmmonname Mr. Joesflh Marillnll, 
(L"" ~oottrnool 

of1~mlo11 

~ AW:IIloo A~ 

REGtJLAWCERTlFll!~D ''~""''""' ~ Rl!~TUL'"'I RE~::il:Uwt R.EQIOESiTI:11l 

FILENO. 
DATE, TIME 

FAX NO./NAME 

DURATION 

PAGE(S) 

RESULT 

MODE 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's CoMse! 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegu, NV 89107 

Tet 702·514-0!02 

Fa:!!: 702-410-6396 

fu tile Matter of: 

TRAI'lSMISSION 'JERlF!CATION REPORT 

TIME : 131107/2015 09:28AM 

NAME : MARlllON 

FAX : 7u24106396 

TEL : 7l'l25140Hl2 

SER.# : U63400D3N405001 

U.S DEl' ARTMENT 011' TRA-NSPORTATION 

fEDERAL AVIATION ADMINIST!MlloN 

Joseph R. M:arldon, Sr. 

Respondent 

Respondent files lhls seeoud motion to dismiss for violmion of his rights under the Firm 

Amendment to the Uni~ States Constitution based on the F M's constructkln and applicetiM of 

CFR §9 L I I to the filets of the instant Cli.'le. This motioo ill made and based oo all of the ple&lings 
DATE, TIME 

Ft:iX NO. It-lAME 

DURATION 

PAGE(S) 

RESULT 

MODE 

Joseph R. Matldon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 :Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Tel. 702~5!4-0102 

fax 702-410-6396 

In the Matter of; 

TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT 

TIME : 81/07/2015 89:19/!.M 

NAME : MARIOON 

FAX : 71124106396 

TEL : 71125140102 

SER.# : U63401'lD3N4!lSllal 

01/ll7 l!l9:14AM 

12822571293 

!l!l:!J4:45 

24 

OK 

STANDARD 

ECM 

U.S DEl' A:RTMENT OF 'IRAJ"<Sl'O:RTAllON 

li'EDERAL A VIA1l0N AD:MINISTRATION 

FAA DOCKET NO.l01~1Hi 

RESPQNllm'U'S SECOND MQTIQN TO DISMISS FOR VlOIATlON OF &ESPONIJEN!S 

~ .. !Jl:IDER 11:m UNITED STATES QQNSTffiJTION 

~TIA wrrn EXH1BITS) 

Respondent fil<ls this second motion to distniss for violation of his rights under the Fitst 

Amendment to the United Ststes Consti.tntion based on the FAA's construction and application of 

CFR §91.11 tu the faets <:>f the instant case. This wtioo is made and based on all of the plead.ingll 

a:nd papers on file herein. the United States Cons+.itution and the argumant of C01.111Sel. Resportdant 
llATII,TIME 

FAX NO. /NAME 

DURATION 

PAG£(5) 

RESULT 

MODE 

Joseph R. Maridoo, Jr. 

Respondent's O:nmseJ 

6130 Elton Ave 

Llls Vegas, h'V 89107 

TeL 702-514·0102 

Fax: 702410-6396 

TRANS!·4ISSION VERIFICATION ~<t~WK I 

TIME : 01107/2015 09:33AM NAME : MAR!DON FAX : 7024106396 TEL : 7025148102 SER.# : UG341il0D3N406081 

!Jl/07 09:23AM 

14252271007 

00:03:46 

24 

OK 

STANDARD 

ECM 

U.S DEl' AR'l:'MENT O:F 'l':liA~OR.TATIOl'i! 

FEDERAL A'VIATIOl'i! AD~l'RATION 

.Joseph R. Maridoo, Sr. 

:Rapol!dent 

RESPONPENT'SSEQQND MOTIQN.IQJlJ;SMISS FQR VIOlATION OF RESfONDENIS 

RlQHTS tl:t:iuER THE UNlim!STATES CONSTITUTION 

CER.RATIA- WITH BXt!JHITID 

Respondent :files this second motion to dis:mlss for violation of lllil right!! under lhe First 

Amendment to lhe United States Cofilitltution l:las.ed on the F M 's .oonstruction l!lld applioation of 

and papers on file herem, the United States Constitution and lhe etglllltent of Counsel. Respondent 
4 
Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89!07 

TeL 702-5!4-0102 

Fax 702-410-6396 

In the Matter of: 

U.S DEPAlHMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERc-\LAVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Joseph R. l\iaridon, Sr. FAA. DOCKET NO. 2014-6116 

Respondent 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

RES\:ONDENI:S Ol'POli[rlO_N TCL(QMPLA!MNTS MQI!ON FORPAl{[lAL DEC!SlON 

(;l..IJM!i;!ARY JUD(h'\1f';Nl] 

The Respondent fi!es his Opposition to Complainants Motion for Partial Deeision (Summary 

Jurlgment) pursuant to !4 CFR § !3218 (1)(5) and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(FRCP) and renews and rea!leges Respondent's ptevioos Motion lo Dismiss herein. 

1. Backgmund and Argumeut 

The Complainant alleges there is no genuine dispute of fact and that this case d:oos not require a 

hearing. This is incorrect. The motion is based on an unpuMished and speeious iuterprellttion of 76 FR 

7661 l, 76612 (Dee. 8, 20ll}which is based from 14 CPR §9Lll. The gravamen of the complaint is 

whelher respondent's parked vehicle interfeEJJ! with the flight cre>~members performance of their durie.!! 

~an aircraft. Simply, complainant cannot establish that the material fact of interference as lhe 

evidence now stands. Complainant asks the court to make a legal interpretation and finding unsupported 

on any facts in the record. 

Page 1 of1 
Complainant's motion and paragraph 4 of the complaint stales in a conc!nsory fashion that "the 

respondent's parked vehicle .iJ:lJetfere.Q. with ihc flight crewmemhcrs performance of their duties aboard 

that aircraft" 

Complainant cites Respondent's statements in the requests to admit that he blocked the path of an 

oncoming aircraft. They do not state or admit interference. 

Moreover, the evidence does not show how long the alleged blocking took place, whether the 

vehicle was voluutarily removed, whether the airport rules of the road were complied with, whether the 

pilots were able tD see and avoid the vehicle 01' the extent of physical coutllci, if any, respondent had with 

the aircraft. Consequently. C<>mp!aiuant has not established that there was illterference, the crucial 

material issue of fact. What he seeks by motion is 11 judicial reaffirmation of a specious unpublished 

interpretation of an inex~"rienced FAA d.iLlJ!Prthine)i!i Inspector. 

Furthermore, there are other issues that were completely ignored by the 0Jmpla:inant, namely, 

what were the duties of the crewmembers and exactly how were these dmies allegedly lmertered with. 

The Flight Crew had a duty to operate the aircrail in a manner that was consistent with their training and 

experience in a safe and careful manner, keepi.ng a proper look out and avoiding obstacles in their path. 

Nothing alleged in the Complaint or the instant motion suggests that the Flight Crew lost the ability to 

control the aircraft or that the control of the aircraft was inter!ered with in any manner.lt is apparem that 

the Flight Crew could see both inside and outside of the aircra!l, they were able to maintain directional 

oontrol and the still had full use of the brakes at all times, Thus, none of the duties of the erewmembers 

were interfered with. 

The pilot on board the aircraft bad a duty as a matter of law to not operate the aircmt1 "on any 

part oftbe surface of[thc] airport ... in a careless t1f reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property 

of another!' 14 CF.R. 9l.l3{b), At the time of the incident alleged, the pilot was attempting to operate 

the alrcralt in a manner that would bring the aircraft in such close proximity to tile Respondent's hangar 

so as to endanger the life, health and slrtety of ResJ!DndenL See RestJ<mses to Complainant's Requests 

for Admissions, Numbers One and Two attached hereto as EXHIBIT I, see also Respondent's 

Page 2 of'7 
Affidavit previously filed with Rtll!pmulent's Monon to .Dismiss, attached ltereto as EXHffiiT ::t 

Furthermore, it is believed that the llight crew had been directed through training and should have known 

through experience to avoid the area around Respondent's hangar because the specific route that this 

flight crew had chosen had proven to he dangerous, IIIith numerous blind alleys and out of sight of the 

control. tower. Id. As the crewmembers were apparently avoiding the duty to not operate the aircraft in a 

reckless or careless manner in contradiction of their training at the time of the alleged incident, it cannot 

not be said that their duties were interfered with, 

Indeed, the discovery shows that FAA Aitworthiness Inspector Padolla had never before alleged 

or charged anyone with a violation of 14 CFR §9U 1: 

iNTE1U{{)(JATORY No. W: Stale whether or not FAA l"irworthiness lnspei.-i:or Anth-ony 

PacioUa has investigated 

2012. 

viokttlons of14 CF.R. 9Lil ru: any time- prior to September 29, 

RESPONSE: To the best of tmder:sigtled's knr•wl•e<.lge, he hfls not. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. I: Admit thru FAA Airworthiness Safety lnspecwr An!h1>ny Padnlia bas not 

cun<iucted 1nvestlgatio·ns nf alk:gatin:ns of violations of 14 C.F.R 91. i i prior to Stzpternher 29, 2-0!2. 

REPLY: Admit 

.Indeed, the Complainant was more coy in discovery responses when asked 10 admit if the FAA 

had prosecuted a case under I 4 CF:R. § 91. J l with the set offacts alleged in the complaint and it 

is a unique case of first impression for the FAA: 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.2: Admit that the FAA hilll not prosecuted a case oodc'r !4 

C.F,R, 91,11 with the set of fac!S :aik:ged in the cornplait:lt .and lt is a unique case of first impress.km for the FAA 

Page 3 of1 
REPLY: Objection, calls tbr a legal co:nc1us1on. RespondJ.~m is j-ust as capahte as conducting legal research into this 

i&'Uc. NotwHhsta.'1ding and while not waiving this n~}ection, undersigned lack:s sufficient information to admit or 

deny and therefore d<mics. 

REQUEST FOR ADMJSSION No. 3: Admit that the FAA did nm publish any opinion regarding or prosecute any 

alieged violation of 14 C.f,R. 19,11 that tildnot involve th-e t.'lltry imo an air-craft by an individual or an object 

{such as a l~-;er beam) .;;:ontroHed by an individual prlor w this case. 

as conducting legal research into this 

this objedion" llllck:twigmxi lacks sumdc-nt irt1hrmatinn to admit t)r 

The undersigned has researched and caused to be researched this issue and finds no case as 

described by the requested admissions. Thus, it now appears that the Complainant has invented a new 

way of violating 14 C.F .R. § 9 Ll J withoutpublication, precedent or legal research and wants this 

court to sanctify its actions without hearing all ofthe facts. 

Every case cited by complainBilt shows some physical IXJrmection to or entry into the aircraft 

Jn re Abrams, FA-A order 2008·2 (2008} (Improperly operating a Portable 

Eleetronic Device on a flight and interference with a flight crew) In re. Wallesa FAA order No. 

2013·2{2013)( finding that Wallaesa violated 14 C.F.R.§§ l2L3l7(f),' l21.3l7(k),' and 121.580," 

while he wgs a passenJ:!l! onl1!2t1nl a Southwest Airlioes flight). The complainant mlsdlreets !he 

court stating there need be no actual physical contact with crewmembers,(Complainant's. Briefp.6, 

L3) C..omplainant ignores the !act that in each ofthe cases complainant cites, the individual was on 

board the flight and had actual phvsical contact wit/1 !he alrcratLRespondenf s position has always 

been that there must be some conlaet wi!h the aircraft not necessarily the crewmembel'!l for 14 C.F .R. 

§ 91,11 to apply, (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.) Respondent's position is consistent with aU 

published interpretations of 14 C.F.R. § 9U L 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec.ll, 20ll ), Moreover, none 

Page 4of7 
ofthe cases cited by Complainant address a first amendment right to prutesi of the failure of a 

governmental unit to redress a grievance with ex post fado interpretation and due process 

consequences. The !actual basis which have been recognized in the discovery materials provided by 

complainant and adopted by him in his use of them to suppmt his position in his position in the 

instant motion. (Complainant's Motion pJ citing Respondent's admissions) (those constitotkmal 

issues wlll be further addressed in a subsequent motion to dismiss, if necessary) 

Complainant asks the Court tbr deference to an unpublished, ex post facto interpretation of 

14 CFR 19.11 particularly when complainantis unwilling to concede or admit thatthls is a unique 

case of first impression where there is no contact of any sort with the aircraft 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No, f< Admit that al no time did Hespnndctll move tnwurd. tou-ch, ent-er or cause 

REPLY ;Obje-etlort, vague as to "\/l;.;ion Airlines\ de. Nt1twithsrond!ng: the -t)~jcctiorL admit Respond.:mt did not 

physkal iy enter tht: airc1JfL 

The complainant again argues that the "plain langUJJ.ge" of !4 CFR § !9. ll, the FAA's 

unpublished interpretation and legal precedent establish rhat the acts of the Respondent fall under the act. 

Simply the FAA's unpublished interpretation is ex post facto to justify irs position that is unsupported by 

publication, precedent or plain language. The interpretation therefore should be disregarded and the 

Complaint dismissed. 

To argue that the "plain language of the regulation does not specifY the person interfering with a 

crewmember mllSt be onboard the aircraft" is clearly incmJsistent with the hisie:ry of the FAA's own 

previous interpretation of§9Ll L "In a later amendmentto the rule, the FAA stated that this st-'etion was 

"clearly intended to apply to passengers* • *and any other 'person' onboard the aircraft." 64 FR 1076, 

Page 5 of7 
1077 (Jlln. 7, 1999) as cited in 76 FR 76611, 766!2 (Dec. 8, 20Jl)(Exhibit l ). The individual need not 

be ooboard the aircraft, but there must be some physical connection to the aircraft whether by touch or by 

ol:\ject controlled by the respondent The ease cited in 76 FR 76611, 766 !2 (Dec. 8, 201 l ), (Admr. v. 

Siegel) and the danger sought to be prevented {laser beams) involved entry into or connection with lln 

aircraft. The purpose of the use of the plain language or plain meaning rule in 76 FR 7661!, 76612 

(Dec. 8, 20! l) was clearly to justifY 14 CFR § l9J l's application to lasers regardless of whether they 

were used from the ground or another aircraft. It was not intended to extend to legitimate acts of 

protest hy further unpublished ex post facto interpretation. lf it had been intended to extend beyond 

lasers, the plain language would have dearly stated soW give notice of additional applications of 14 

CFR §! 9.1.1. lt. should not be extended tn Respondent in the instant circumstances. "An agency may not, 

for example, depart from a prior policy snb silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books. 

See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,696,94 S.Ct. 3090,41 L.F.d.2d 1039 (1974)"cited with 

approval in ·Federal Communicatiom Commission v. Fox TelevL~ion Stations, Inc, 556 U.S. 502, 129 

S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738, 77 USLW 4337 (2009). 'fhe interpretation sought by Complainant clearly 

violates the notice, due process and ex post facto clauses of the United States Con;,i:itu!ion. 

Conclusion 

L Complainants motion should be denied; ll!ld 

2. the Complaint should he dismissed for the reasons set furth herein and in Respondent's Motion 

to Dismiss 

Res_R~;ctfully;;ubmitted, 

~cc,cC?_~~-=::c::;o:;;;;:;;.:.._ 

lsi Joseph R. Moridon, Jr. 

Joseph R. Maridon, JL 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

6130 Elton Ave. 

Las Vegas. NV 89107 

DATEO:October30,2014 

lsi Wolter L Avers 

Walter L. Ayers 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

13435 North Whitehouse Court 

Spokane, WA 99208 

DATED: October 30, 2014 

Page 6 of i 
CERTIFiCAIE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that Respondent's RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO 

COMPLAINANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) has 

been served viw Facsimile and/or electronic rnail this date, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur-Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

Fax 202-493-5142 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTranspm1ation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Eil-3 1()) 

WashinJ,Jfon, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staif Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

(s! Joseph R. A1aridon, Jr. 

Page 1of7 
EXHIBIT 1 
Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 891 07 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

1N THE MATTER OF JOSEPH MARIDON, SR. 

FAA Case N<.l. 2012\VPl90l42 FDMS NO. Flv\ 2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

JUDGE RJCHARD GOODWIN 

R£SPONDENT'S RESfONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DlSCQYERX &EOUESTS 

To: Complainant through his attorney, David Shayne. 

In accordat1ce with 14 C.f.R.§ !3.220 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Respondent responds to the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, 

lllld Request for Admissions, Submitted by Complainant" 

JNTERRQGATORUkS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

INTERROGATORY No, l: Des;;:ribe with specificity all of the fact' and arguments which you 

anticipate preaenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this 

matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of the sanction sought by fhe FAA in fhis case, 

I have owned and operate4 an airport and have knowledge of the rules and re!,'lllations rc!,>arding their 

safe operations. l am further aware fhar vehicular land operations on an airport are within the jurisdiction 

and responsibility offhe operator of the airport as represented in FAA Advisory Circular No: 15015210·20 

, GR01JND VEHICLE OPEJV\. T!ONS ON AIRPORTS on wllich l have telied and t'Ontinue to rely. 

On a numbet of occasions before s~'Ptember 12, 2012 l contacted the North Las Vegas Airport Manager 

and requested that Vision Airl.ines not taxi by my hanger due to the excessive noise generated by the 

1of7 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAfNANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
Do228 Dornier operated by Vision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myself and my vL~i!ing grand child. 

Despite my requests to tim AiJport manager, Vision Air!ines continuod to trud by my hangar. 

I am 72 yeats of age and retired. The excessive Mise generated by Vision Airlines Domier 228s was 

sufficiently piercing to cau.~e me to have to remove my hearing aids and cover my cars. Normally,l am in 

my hangar, working on my personal airplanes aud the removal of my bearing aids is dlfncult as my 

hands are dirty and/or greasy from working on my airplanes m1d must be washed prior to fhe removal of 

my hearing aids, by which time the Vision Airlines aircrnft have passed my hangar. 

1 have mvned the hanger depicted in Exhihit A bciore September 12. 2012. When the FAA Control Tower 

{old tower)was between my hanger and the Visirm Airlines ramp, Vision aire:raft did not use the route that 

passed next to my hanger. It was my wrderstanding based on information and belief that this was dne to 

noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller .fmm the old tower oould dearly see the aircraft 

on tlle taxiway in question and in fhe hanger rows near the taxiway. 

The new FAA. Control Tower is now across the nirt!cld and has a restricted view aftllose hanger rows llfid 

docs not oontrol the taxiway fhat paosed by my hanger. The Cnntmllers in the tower frequently state over 

the radio to pilo!!J words to the effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" when the pilots request taxi instru.ctious. The 

controllers at Nor'.h Las Vegas Airport have aiso noted that their visibility from the new tower is limited in 

that area. (VGT Bulletin page 2, July 2013,) 

I also had serious safety e()ncems about large commercial aircraft taxiing in that area because mere are 

numerous "blind alleys" from the rows of enclosed hangers on the right and !eft of that taxiway.! have 

seeu small aircraft on the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircrall: taxiing from those 

enclosed hanger rows ro the right and kfl of the taxiways. There is a safer, alternative rome that WM 

previonaly used by Vision aircraft. lt passes the open shade haogers and the f\lel pumps and on to Taxiway 

"A" fhat gives the ccntrollers in the new tower a far better view of taxiing commercial aircraft, is less 

noisy to the tenants, and gives the Vision pilots a better view of small aircraft and vehicles to moving in 

and about the open shade lllmgers, because there are no blind alleys. 

.RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES 'W 

COMPLAINANT'SINJT!AL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

2of7 
The "back way" taken by the Do228 Domicr pilots (as described in the pilot's and copilot's statements) is 

a shorter route to ihe runup area than the safer, alternative route described in paragraph 7" On information 

and belief, it is apparent that the Vision pilots wetc raking au unsafe abort cut to save !hue and fuel since in 

my experience there is rarely any "congestion" at the fuel pumps that would hinder an aircraft taxiing in 

the area of the fuel pmnps at the North Las Vegas Ai!l'Urt" 

INTERROGATORY ~'<o.2; Identify by name, address and telephone nnmlxr all persons whom you 

know to have personal knowledge of the matters alleged ill. the Complaint 

See attachment A 

1NTERROQA TORY No. 3~ Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

docm:nenJs, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to i:he 

assertions in the Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any afilrmative &fenses which you 

anticipate raising in this matter" 

See Attachment A 

i.J:l.TERRQGATORY No" ::f; Identity by name, address aud telephone number, all persons whom 

you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witlless in your defense at the hearing in this matrer, and tor tactual witoesses, provide a detailed sommary of each persons antidpared testimony, 

Joseph Maridon, JL, see Attachment A 

Joseph Maridon, Sr", see Atrechmeut A 

!NTERROQATQRY No" 5: IdentifY by title, date, author, preselli custodian, and content, all 

docm:nents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and lhrougb 

which witness or witoesses" 

See Attachment A 

JNIERROGATOB, Y No",~ 6: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to 

Interrogatory No. 4, above, specify their sped tic area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their 

creoontials, background, training and experience. 

See Attachment A 

3of7 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S JNlTlAL lJlSCOVERY REQUESTS 
INTERROGATORY No.7: With respect to each expert you exped to call as a witness, state the 

subject matter on which the expe1t is expected to testily. and state the substance of the facts and 

opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summruy of the grounds fur each such 

opiuion. 

See Attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No.8: State by name, address, telephone number, date of conversation, and 

substance of conversation, all persons [other than legal counsel or spouse] with whom you have 

discussed the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

Gary Gabbard 

5212 Rambling Rd. 

Las Yegas, NV 89120 

702~592-5732 

Rich Martin, M.D. 

8853 W. Rio Verde Ave. 

Las V ogas, NV 89147 

702-3714941 

Mike Scalera 

17229 E. Temple Rd. 

Spokane, WA 99217 

509-99841() l 

I .have no way to date these conversations. They described that the FAA had charged me with 

interfering with a flight crew at VGT on an uncontrolled area of the ramp by using my pioktl!l 

truck to block the taxi path and lhal it wns a way to get the a!!en!ion of the airport management to 

resolve a noise problem. 

The result was no response from the airport management but this charge from the FAA. I also 

explained to them that this looked like Vision Airlines was using the FAA to harass me. I ruu sure 

I related other details like the Vision chief pilot visiting my hangar and rather than trying to 

resolve the issue he informed me that the issue had been tumed ovc:r to the FAA and TSA. Some 

of these converaations go back two years and I cannot provide more details or dates. If I can recall 

others that 1 had any substantive conversations with I will add them to the list. 

INTERROGATORY No. 9: lf you deny any or all of Request< for Admissions 1 and 2, please 

explain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied. 

Resp(lndent objects to request for admission 1, because it is noll'specific and does not identicy the 

aircraft. Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the l1o<.1d up and hazard lighL~ flashing in the vicinity 

of hls hanj:;ar on the North Las Vegas Airport preventing an aircraft from proc-eeding past his hanger. Respnrulent denies blocking the torwanl motion of !he aircraft since it was able to proce~'<l forward, and 

alter its rourse and North Las Vegas airport mles do not give aircraft on the ground the right of way and 

the aireraft had the obligation to see awl avoid any hazat•ds. Airport Manager was previously informed of but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONsES TO 

COMPEAlNANT'SlNIT!AL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

4of7 
As to request for admission 2, RespondeJJt objects to the non-specific reference to "one or more persons" 

and the "aircraft," both of which remain unidentified in this request for admission, other than Vincent 

Rivas. Respondent admits telling Vincent Rivas an liirport emp!Dyee that respnooent perked his !ruck in 

front of the aircraft to protest fhe overly noisy aircraft travelling in the area directly adjacent to 

Respondent's hangar alter the airport manager had been notified of the noise and taxi issues North Las 

Vegas Airport Rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right of way and the nir<.'faft had the 

obligation to see and avoid potential hazards. Airport Manager was previously informed of but did not 

resolve the ta.--zi, !l.lld noise issues. 

JmOUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 1: Provide a copy of all doouments referred to in your 

answer to the preceding interrogatories No. l through No.9. 

See Attachrnent A 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

REQUEST FQ..lLA(lc'\11SMOl'LlJ9_1. Atlinit that_ on or ubout September 9, 20!2, you intentionally 

park<Xl a vehicle on a portion of the North Las Vegas Airport in the vicinity of a hanger you either 

owned, rented, or were otherwise using at the time an aircyaft was attempting to travel along the 

same portion of the airport in mtlrmer preventing the fOrward rno'~.tement of the aircraft. 

Respendent objeclll to this request !(Jr admission becalllle it is notHpeciftc and does not identify the 

aircraft Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the hood up and hazard lights flashing in the vicinity 

of his hangar on the Nnrtl1 Las Vegas Airport preven!ing an aircra1l: !rom proceeding past his hanger. 

Respendoot denies blocking the forward motion of the airerall since it \~ali able to proceed forward, and 

alter its course and North Las Vegas airport rules do not give aircraft on the grouod the right of way and 

the aircraft had the obligation to see illld avoid any hazards. Airport Manager was previously inforeaed 

ofbu:t did nu:t resolve me taxi, and rloise issues . 

. REQUEST FOR AD.MlS.SIQ}l NO ?. Admit that, tol!owiug the incident referenced in Request tor 

Admission No. I, you stated to onc or more persons, including Vincent Rivas, that you parked your 

tmck in front of the ilircraft in order to protest lhc ilircrnft travelling in the area near your hangar. 

Respondent objllt:ts to the non-spcdfic referenc<: to "one or more persons" and the ''aircraft," both of 

which remain unidentified in this request for admission, other than Vincent Rivas. Respondent admits 

telling Vincent Rivas an aitport employee that respondent parked his truck in front of the ait'Cntft to 

protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling i11 the area directly adjacent ro Respondent's hangar after the 

5 of? 

RESPONDENT'S RF.Sl'ONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S !NtTlAL D!ScX>VFR Y REQUESTS 
airport manager had been notified of the noise and taxi tS$Ues North Las Vegas Airport Rules do not 

give aircraft on the ground the right of way and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potantial 

hazards. Ail]Jort Manager was previously informed of, hul did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. 

DATED this_ day 

Joseph R. Maridon,SL, Respondent 

DATED this3,0day (lf JSep.iamooL 2014. 

6of7 

RF.SPONDBNT'S RB$1'0NSES TO 

COMPLAINANTS INITIAL DISCOVERY RLQlJESTS 
I hereby certify that the toragoing Complainant's lni!ia! Discovery Request has been served via 

Facsimile and/or electronic mail this daie, to the lollowiug: 

David Shayne 

FAA Office of Regional Cou11sel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, Washingtml 98057 

Telepho11e: (425) 227-2165 

Facsimile: (425) 227-1007 

Dated Septemher 1/J, 

RESPONOENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANTS !N!T!AL OlSCOVERY REQUESTS 

7of7 
IJ~~m;!dlt 

afT~ 

~ 

A~ 

Allltllloll 

Mr. Joseph R M<!rk!OO, Jr . fllq. 

The Mmidon Law Firm 

1>130 Eltoo Avenue 

Ll!s V~as, Nevada 89107 

l)eat Mr. Marioorr 

1'~0. &lx lil!007 

l~• i\!11J"l!>S, Ci\ 000011-2007 

Thl$ !eltBt m in rel!lponse to yout F~om of lnlormm!OO Act (FOIA) lllq~ dl!l~ 

October 31, 201 it You requii!s~ iiW~ii!Iigmive t<Opotliii al~OM of \llolaiiOO!i 

of 14 CFR 91 in the !UUen years~ 

A ll!Ell!lfllt'l record\\! was J::OOductoo at the Lalli Vegu Flight Standlllrds Dl~rict Office. 

There were no investlga.!iva records condooted by l!l!ilpecior Al1loony PacicUa, tol'l<ll!lrnifllll 

$llegatiooll of viOlation of 14 CFR 91.11, In ihe last ten yeari!>. 

Thare are no filii!!$ -odaied will1 !h!s lllquest 

Tire undersigned t~nd Nidlolal!l Ri!r)'li!!l, Manager, l"llgh! Standard!~ Division,. are ~<~!lpmlllibie 

for thm oo r~otds deierminmion Yoo mayrequE~str<IOOnsiderat!OO . deiemlJnaOOnby 

writing to the AE!sililtani Mmlnistrmor for Finmoo and Managament (AFf\1.1 ), F~rll!l 

AViJ!ltton Administration. aoo looapendenceAvenue. SW, Washington, OC, 2059t Your 

requast for recoolilidl:!rtltlon must be made irrwrlting wUhln dsys from !he dele of recelp! 

df !his .~et~ar end include 1111 informe!ion and argumsnhl retied upon. Your Ieder mu~~:t 

stale th!it it !s an appeal from the abnve.described denial of ll r~~qUast msoo und5r 100 

FO!A The. envelope contwnlng tho apoew should be marked *FOIA '' 

ATTACHMENT A 
EXHIBIT 2 
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMOOS'mATION 

In the Matter of: 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwiu 

FAA DOCKET 

FAAC~NO.lliUWPl%142 

{Civil Penalty Adion) 

AfFIDAViT OF JQSEPJI R, MARJOON. SR. IN SUPI'QRT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 

:ss 

COUNTY OF SPOKAJ\'E ) 

li:oowledge af!he rules and regulatians regarding their safe opMt!ians. I atrt further aware !hat vellicullll' 

land ~tious on lin airport m witllin till! jurisdiction and responsfuillty of the opm~tor of the aiqlott all 

teptesentnd in f'AA Advisory Citl:ulat No; 1$0/5210.20 , GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON 

AIRPORTS on wllich I !lave relied and <Jontinue to rely. 

Manager lllld requsstatl !hat Vision Airlines not taxi by my hanger due !tl the ex®Sf!ive ooise genera1lld by 

the Do22!! Dotniet operated by Vision Airlines due 10 i!S adverse effect on myself ood my visiting grand 

child. 

there m numerous "blind alleys" from the rows of enciased hangers on the right and left of !hat taxiway. 
I have s15en small aircraft oo the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircraft t!IXiing from 

those endosed hanger rows to me right tmd left of the taxiways. (Depicted in exhibit A attecned nerete 

and inoorpor;tted herein by this reference) 

5. 1 have owned me hanger deJ'l<:ted in Exhibit A before September !2, 2012. When the FAA 

Control Tower (old tower) was bet\veen my hanger and the Vision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not 

use the rome !bit passed next to rny hanger. It was my ooderelllnding besed oo infotrnlllion and belief 

that this was due m noise llbetement am! safety issues, allhoogh me controUer from the old t()wer could 

oleatly see the lllreraft on the ta.'!iway in question !llld in the hanger rows near me ll!Xiway. 

6. The new FAA Control Tower is .now across the airfield and has a reslricted view of those 

hanger rows and does not contr<ll. the t!IXiway the! passed by my hanger. The O:!ntrolle11l in the tower 

freqnently state <lVer the I!ldio to pilot~ w<lfds to the effe<;t, "Ramp is unoontrolled" wh~'fl the pilots 

request t!IXi instru<;tions. The controllers at North Las Vegas Airport hav~; al~ noted !bit their visibility 

from !he new tower is limited in that aras, {Bxhibit B, VGT BnlllOtin pa;ge 2, July 2013, attached hereto 

and inoorpomted herein by thill reference) 

1. There is a safer, altem>ttive route that was pre11ioosly used by Vlslcrn aireraft it passas the 

open slll!i:!e hangers and the fuel pumps tmd on to Taxi\wry "A" tha:t gives the eootr<lllers in the new tower 

a far bett!Jr ¥lew <lf taxiing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to thee tenants, and gives the Visioo pilots a 

better view Qf S!llilll aircraft and v~hiclas moving in and about the open shade htmgers, because there are 

no blind alleys. (Exhibit A) 

$.The "beekWlly" taken by the De22S Doolier pilots, as clmra<1telized in the pi!<lt's and copilot's 

statements, is a shorrer mute to the run..up area than the safer, altemaiive route described in paregraph 7. 

On l~tioo and belief, it is apparent that the Vision pilots were mking 1m unsafe short wt to save ~ 

artd fuel ~>illee in my experience there is mely any "congestloo" at the fuel pumpa the! woold.hin®r an 

;~iroraft t!IXiing in the area of me fuel Plll!:l!l> at the North Las Vep Airport 
SIJUCR$ED lll'l(i SWOR:.-.. to befOre me, 

thl~,2,~ ~nfMay,2?l4, 
Exhibit A to Affidavit t~f Joseph R. Mllridoo, Sr. 

Allrial views ofNorth Las V egu Airport and FAA Diagram 

LEGEND 

1. New Tower 

2. Area, of alleged Incident 

3. V!Slon Airlilltlil Ramp 

4. Eliciosed "Blind Alley" Hangers (Right and Left ofT !lSi way) 

5. Open ShadeHilllgers 

6. Fuel Pump!; 

1. Mllridm Hanger 

8. Old Tower Site 

9.~mmRllllWlly7 

"G"f~G 

"P Taxiway F 

AAA.,. Shortcut "Bl!i:k way" taken by Visloo Airlines pilots 

BBB .•• Safer roote by Slll!de Hangers vla Taxiway A 

Stale w· to 50' (enlarged aerial view) 

Dfi 2::!8 Wingspan SS'&" 


133,.16 

AiRPORT DIAGRAM 

AJIS 

llS.tlS 

·~lAS VEGAS TClW!l!"' 

125:7 360,75 . 

GNOCON 

l2L7 

C!NCDEL 

1:!.4.0 

AiRPORT DIAGRAM 

133A6 

RW'IIJ7·25 

§.3() 

RW1' 12t<JOO 

5-:lll 

RW'f 12Rc:llll 

S.:lll 

NORTH tAS VEGAS (VGT) !AS~,NEVAllA 

ll5"1l.5'W 
ExhibitB tiiAffitla'\litofJosephR. Marld~ Sr. 

, . Vegas Airpo«Bl!!ietin;.JU!y 2Q13, paw: 2, l'J,;,tlng,<Umi~'Visl~irtty<tf.N~w 

yontroliercl1 Vis!bilit}'~ H~ Area depic~ in ~itA · · 
r~~F~~~~~-,,,,,,,,,,,"'"" ,,,~,~~'f'fll ,. .... 1M V.AI.,., l~$'l.IJFfM(~: ,, .. ' STAKEHOLDERS MEETING 

The next Slal<ellolder meeting Is 

sctteduied oo Sepler!iber HI, 2013 

aHl:!JO p.m. 

FACIUTY UPDATE - For your 

convenience there are several 

wall!e oil collection barrels located 

throughout the airport Please .dispose ~ oil Q!11y ln these oe!leetion sties. The DOA routinely has 

me waste oil removed and reprocessed. 

MEMORIAL • Larry James Sig· 

gelkow left us too soon, on April 

28, :2013 after living e very fUll life 

aoo touching SG many ilvas along 

me way. He was born on Decembet 24th, 1947 Md grew up. In 

Gartlen Clly and was very active 

In me Community Christian Can· 

ter, He earned his pilot'!! lit::en!!l! on 

his iSm birlhdlly and conllnued to 

fly his entire life. !11 Las Vegas he 

joined thE? police department >vhere 

he proudly seNed tor over 30 year~> 

in various cspacltleJ>. He wa~> ln· 

strumental In helping the pollee 

rorce integr~~te with aviation aase~s 

and speilrheaded msny of lt!i penal 

transportalioo programs. 

Always known as a hart! worker 

who posaessed many creative and 

lnnovathle ideas, larry wocrid tel<e 

his natural entrepreneurial iaplrlt 

and fooua efforts on bulldlng one o1 

me most sucoessru! cl1arter airlines 

In the Las Vegas area. He retired 

in 2011 and ralumed to Boise to be 

near his family aoo sPMd What he 

called ills H..A-P·P-Y years, f~t~hing in his biiokyartl, doing regular 

gocee patrols, rurming oo his favorila trails, and spending time wl!h 

his beloved wife. Larry was a true 

gentleman and served as a genuine 

example of humanitv to all who 

had the j:)leasure of knowing him. He 

wlll be deeply miased. 

PROJECT CONCEPT 

APPROVAL-·If you are planning 

any improvaments to your hangar or 

commsrclsil facilll:y you mus! racelve 

spproval from the OOA before 

procee<jing. Tha SU1!1ness Office will 

complete a Project CooceptApproval 

ful11l blll!ed on your complete projeG:t 

description and concept drawing (""' 

msll to the Airport Mal'l1ilget Benoz@ 

mooarran.com or $Ubmlt to the 

ol'!lt::e)" 

North Las Vsgas Airport 

Airport Manager 

273\JAlrport 0~, Suilll101 

North Las Vegas, Nevada .80032 

DOA will respond to your requea! as 

l>OO!l ae poaslble (may lake a few 

weeks ba!!l!d on me <»mptsxij:y of 

!he project). A Project Coordlnator 

will be assigned to tii!>Sis! you and a 

pre-ct:ll1Slruction kjol<.'"(lff meeting wm 

be schedUled. 

During 0011struction, the 0011tractor 

will work With the OOA Project 

Coortlinramr and !nspsctcr to 

Clll'llplats the Project Aoo!iplafll)e 

Checldist When all chacl<llst items 

Mve been . completed {Including 

the submls.sion ol As.-Bulile }, OOA 

Construction/Englnelllingwlll.(;!)nfirm 

thai all buelnessl acqu1si!ion lssuss 

have been completed lletore <;losing 

ltla project 

All projects shall be in accordance 

wlth me Tenant lmprovemsnt 

MMual loceted on-line at http:// 

www.mccerrl!ll1.COm10olng Bustll!Ss 

/tenantjmprovemsnt.htrn!, 
Keep off the Grassl More precisely, keep off the green painted 

areas in !he viclnity of Rwy 1 and Taxiway G & F. In an effort 

to reduce the number of pllo! deviations, many airport layout 

changes have been made or are ln progress. Over the last 

decade, VGT has constantly been near !he top l1a!ionwide 

for !he most runway incutsions annually; bur we're changing 

that Currently, we are wail below are historical year to date 

average and well on our way to a spectaculat year. However, 

with the change in geographical layout come some issues 

that all pilots should be aware, 

lights white taxiing after sunset as blue reflectors are being temporarily utllized 

to deYneate taxiway edges where the green islands have bean added. Third, 

the runtip area ls no longer a movement atl!la; ATC may or may not be aware 

ofthe prasenre of aircraft taxiing in the vicinity. And last, tha taxi clearenre, 

'Runway 7, taxi lila G' authorizes aircraft to cross taxiway A and up to the 

hold short mamng for Runway 7. Many aircrmt are stopping short of taxiway 

A and contacting Tower prior to entering the movement area. Whlle not an 

i$$:Ue in itself, during peak traffic periods, holding short of taxiway A may 

cause hloekagesln !he taxi lane. 

As summer $j:!proaches, lt is vital for pil®! to stay aware of weather 

conditions and its impact to the perlotmance of aircraft Increased takeoff 

distanre, redtil)ed rate of climb, increased tnJl!l air speed on laMing and 

approach, and increased landing roll distance are all affected by demity 

altitude. Additlonaliy, lhunderntorms can develop rapidly and should be cause 

for concern. Untu next tlme, heads up, hole! short, ffy right 

1).'4iatlon Me&tlflg$: 

Gtlllttd Canyon Room Confwem::e Room 

211<i MOI'!(!ay ·CAP· Nell$ Sr. Squadron 

4th Mon(lay • CAP -Nellis $r. Squadron 

1st tuesdaY -I:AA Chapter 163 

2oo Tuesday· 114 Scale Assoc -5:45pm 

il!t Wednesday. Commemo!'l!!ive Air ForcE! 

2nd Wedn6li\lay • Rebel Squadron (In 

Modular Building) 

4!h Wednesday- Ptop - Nuts 

Every Thurs. - Clark Collnt;l 

Composite SQtiadron CMt Air Patrol 

4!h Thursday· FAA FAST TEAM 

4!h Monday - Dust Devlis 

111! Tuasday- CAP 

2nd Tuesday. LV Eagles 

:ltd Tuesday - 99s • 5:30pm- 7:00pm 

4!h Tuesday - LV Balloon Club 

3rd Wednesday -Commemorative Air 

Force 

Evety Thurs. -Clark County Compo~SM 

Squadron CMl Air Patrol 

(All mlletlng$1 are at 7PM ullle5s <li:IH>rwllle notlld.)