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 Av e n u e , S. W. Washington,DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

## AUG 1 82016 

## HEARING DOCKET Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000 ONE COPY Mr. 

### David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590

# 1

## u.s DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

# REcEIvED FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## JUN 0

## 3 2014 IntheMatter of: 

## HEA-RING DOCKET JosephR.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 ofthe allegations in the notice of proposed action and complaint to state a violation ofthe FAAActor ofthis chapter 14 ofthe Code ofFederalRegulations, pursuant

### to the Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R 13.49) This Motion is made and based upon the. affidavit attached hereto, argument ofcounsel and all ofthe pleadings and papers on file herein. Respondent states as follows: 

### L FactualBackground The complaint alleges that onor about September 29, 2012 Respondent parked his vehicle on an active taxiway andthereby prevented a Vision Airlines aircraft from taxiing for takeoff. It further alleges the vehicle would interfere withthe taxiing ofthe aircraft andthereby interfered with the flight crewmembers' performance oftheir duties aboardthe aircraft. It does not allege essential allegations ofan entry, touching, or any contact whatsoever withthe aircraft. Furthermore, it does not allege a safety violation.
II. 

### Argument The complaintis insufficient onits face because ofan erroneous interpretation ofthe FAA's authority. The FAA lacksjurisdictionto proceed under the facts alleged. Jurisdiction lies with the airport operator as FAA regulations do notpreempt the airport operator'sjurisdiction over vehicles onthe grounrl on anairport. The FAA should be estopped from proceeding on the facts and circumstancesofthis case .. The FAAbases its overly broaduse of 14 C.F.R. §91.11 

### inthis case onan interpretation published in76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) dealing withInterference With aCrewmember viaLaser. That publication is limitedto whether anindividual onthe ground can interfere with a Crewmember with a laser.

### "Aboard" as used in 14 CFR §91.11 and as interpretedbythe complainant in this case is notlegally sustainable. 14 CFR §91.11 states, "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere wifha crewrneruber inthe performance of

### the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated." The interpretation soughtby theFAA inthis case is. ambiguous atbest. Aboard is defined as "onboard a ship, train, aircraft, or other passengervehicle". American Heritage Dictionary ofthe EnglishLanguage (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 flighttime." 

### "Flight c.rew 

### membermeans a pilot, flight engineer, orflight navigatorassigned to duty 

### in an ·aircrafidu:dngflighttime:'' (14·CFR· **§Ll~··Generaldefinitions;}(E.Tilphasisadded}tA**

### licensed··· pilot ina 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 canreferto boththe 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. Tobean aircrew they logically mustbe onboard the aircraft. They have no special status unless they are on the aircraft andhave some duty relatedto the flight Consequently, and logically "aboard" mustrefer to the individual who is alleged to 

### be interfering withthe aircrew. If"aboard" 

### is to be given its broadest possible interpretation, consistent with 76 FR76611, 76612 (Dec. 

### 8, 2011), boththe individual and the aircrew must have some physical connectionto the aircraft. The individual canbe outside ofthe aircraft and interfere with a flight crewtfthe individual touches the aircraft, enters the aircraft with any part of

### the individual'sbody

### or is controlling an

### obJectwhich touches or

### enters the 

### aircraft. This is consistent with the common law, the FAA's interpretation intheFederal Register and

### Admr. v. Siegel cited therein. It is not consistent withthe overbroad interpretation sought inthis case. Thus, an individual who points a laser at an aircraft, whether it is in flight ornot, is controlling an object that causes entrance into the aircraft thereby interfering withthe flight crewby blinding them. Likewise, in

### Siegel, the individual although onthe ground, clearly entered the aircraftto strike 

### the pilot. Respondentrecognizes that the agency's interpretationin 76 FR76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) is entitledto deference. "We further note that the Board is requiredto deferto the Administrator's interpretation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, provided that such interpretation isreasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. 49 U.S.C. 

### §44709(d)(3); see also Garvey v.. NTSB, 190F.3d 571,576-79 (D.C. Cir. 1999)" Babbittv. Krivitsky, SE-18355RM. The limitation onthe complaint's interpretation soughtby Respondent gives due deference to, andis consistentwiththe FAA's current published interpretation ofthe 14 CFR §91.11. However, the interpretation necessary to sustainthe complaint is clearly overbroad and arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the complaint relies on dicta for support. The Complaint requires taking out ofcontextthe statement,"... supportthe 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 ofcontext ofthe entry into the aircraft in

### Siegel or controlling the instrumentality that
2enters the aircraft (laser beam) makes the statement mere dicta. Simply, there mustbe some physical connectionto the aircraft to support a finding ofa violation of §91.11. 

### "Anagency may not, for example, depart from a priorpolicy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still onthe books. See United States v. Nixon, 418U.S. 683, 696, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)"citedwith approval in 

### Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 

### U.S. 502, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738, 

### 77 USLW4337 (2009) This is whatthe FAA is doing through its unpublished and unsupported interpretation of 14 CFR §91.11. Just being onthe ground does notput one "aboard" the aircraft. Interference with a Crewmember can be committed from the ground

### if. there 

### is some ··-····-·-···-·----····-······"'''''''''''''''''"'"''"'''''""'"''''""'''''''''''"''''"''''"'''''''' ______ ,, ______ , _____ ,_,,_,.__ ,,........ _... ,, ........................... -----------------------------·--··· ----··---·-·· --·-· .............................................. , physicai connection withthe aircraft from whichto infer thatthe individual is aboard the aircraft. 

### Itisnotsufficientsimplyto be onthe ground doing whateverthe FAAInspector arbitrarily and capriciously determines to be interference. To argue thatthe "plain language ofthe regulation does not specify thepersoninterfering with a crewmember must be onboard the aircraft" is clearly inconsistent withthe history ofthe FAA's ovvn previous interpretation of §91.11. "Ina later amendment to the 

### rule, the FAA statedthat this section was "clearly intended to apply to passengers'"** and any other'person' onboardthe 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 onemustbe "on board" the aircrafl49 C. F. R. §46504. Respondent agrees that (1) a person canbe onthe ground andinterferewith a flight crew 

### if

thereis contact with or entry into the aircraft individually or by instrumentality. Thisis analogous to burglary where an instrument is used. " ... but 

### ifthe actor was also using the instrumentto reach some property therein, then it constituted an entry." 

### Walker v. State, 63 Ala 49(1873) cited in Handbook on Criminal Law, LaFave and Scottp.711, n.32 West 1972. Here, neither the Complaint northe witness statements provided allege, thatRespondentwas onboard the aircraft, or had any contact, or connection withthe aircraft. The complaint is therefore insufficient on

### its fuce. Moreover, the facts alleged in the complaint are properly within the control and jurisdiction ofthe airport operator not the FAA. TheFAAregulations do not control vehicles on an airportand 14 CFR §91.11 does notpreempt 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. FAAAdvisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ONAIRPORTS, addresses the issue ofvehicular control. "3. 

### APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility forthe operation ofvehicles on an airport rests with the airport operator..." The statementby the FAA Controllers to pilots that "Ramp is Uncontrolled" is clear evidence that the FAA has cededjurisdictionto the airport operator. 

### ExhibitA. Affidavit 

### of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. The FederalAviationActhas no express preemption clause. 

### The Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 

### (9th Cir. 2009). TheFAA has notbypervasive 3

### regulation ofvehicles on airports sought to preemptthe states or counties or airport operators from enacting or enforcing such regulations. FAA Advisory Circular ACNo: 150/5210-20 clearly cedesjurisdiction over vehicles onthe airport. Inreliance onthis Clark County, Nevada has enacted a pervasive statutory schemeto 

### deal withvehicles onits airports, including penalties. This is consistent withthe longheldview ofthe courts, predatingthe FAA: " ... patrons ofthe field, whether they be owners ofproperty abutting upon it ornot, have no right in making use ofthe field to enter 

### itwith their ships except at places and inthe manner provided

### by the rules and regulations ofthecity or its managers and agents in control ofthe field, whichregulations maybe changedfromtimeto:time as.necessityandsafetymay.... require. 

### City of Spokane v. Williams, 288 P. 258, 157 Wash. 120 (Wash. 1930) FAAAdvisory Circular ACNo: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS reiterates this view stating in pertinent part: 

### a. 

### 3. APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation ofvehicles on an airport rests withthe airport operator... a. Airport operators should establish procedures and policies concerning vehicle access and vehicle operation on the airside ofthe airport. These procedures and policies should address such matters as access, vehicle operator requirements, vehicle requirements, operations, and enforcement and should 

### beincorporated into tenant leases and agreements. NorthLas Vegas Airport, is owned and operated by Clark County, Nevada. Clark County Code 

### § 20.08.010 states inpertinentpart: 20.08.010 Traffic regulations-Vehicular movement generally. (a) The "Rules oftheRoad'' setforth in Chapter 484 oftheNevada Revised Statutes at NRS 484.251, et seq., as amended, andTitle 14 ofthis code shall be applicable to and 

### shall governmotorvehicle operation uponthe real property known as McCarran International Airport 

### or upon other cauntyairportsas ifthe roadways were dedicated and considered highways under said statutes and Title 14 except as otl1erwise provided by thoseregulations setforth 

### in orpromulgated pursuant to this chapter. 

### (emphasis added) Clark Countyhas further established Rules and Regulations for its General AviationAirports, and haspromulgated the appropriate rules which state: Noperson 

### shall operate an aircraft 

### at a General Aviation Airport in an unsafe or careless manner or in disregard ofthe rights and safety ofothers. 

### AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, Rules and Regulations for General AviationAirports pJ The sectionregarding Restricted 

### Operations: states:

4

### TheDirector, or designee, may restrict the allowable types ofaircraft operations on certain 

### runways during noise sensitive hours, or for other operational considerations. Rules and Regulations for General AviationAirports, 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 applicablefederal, 

### 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.... Ithas long beenRespondent's 1mderstanding that vehicle matters on the ground at an airport are 

### within the jurisdiction ofthe airport operators. In

### fact, he specifically contacted the Airport Manager aboutthe issue about the Vision Airlines pilots taking the "back way" "shortcut" to runway 7. He placedhis reliance on prior practice and the representations in FAAAdvisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS (Affidavit ofJoseph 

### R. Maridon, Sr. attached hereto and incorporated hereinbythis reference) In

### this case, there is no published legal authority for the interpretation necessary to expand thejurisdiction ofthe FAAto the facts alleged in the complaint. The Complaint is also inconsistentwith the arguments and representations in the Federal Register. Withoutthat legal 

### published anthorir;, the FAA lacksjurisdictionto pursue this case and 

### Llteir complaintis insufficient on its face. The FAA's decisionto 

### proceed under these facts and circumstances is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to 

### law.
The FAA should beEstopped from Proceeding on the Complaint and the Complaint should be dismissed 

### TheNTSB has recognized that equitable estoppel applies in administrative cases: Wehavepreviously recognized that equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from adopting a newpositionthat contradicts a previous position when allowing thenewpositionwould unfairly harm another person who has relied onthe previous position to his orher detriment.Administratorv. Coughlan, 

### NTSB OrderNo. EA-5197 at 10 n.lO (20051 (citing Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ofLaw (1996)). Blakey v. Coughlan, 

### SE-17000 Estoppel will notbe applied under the following circumstances: (estoppel does not apply where the public interest and safety in 

### air commerce are at stake, and where theAdministrator'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 onpreviousposition ofFAAthatthe airport operator is responsible for vehicle operations onthe airport. (Exhibit A, Affidavit ofJoseph R. 

### Maridon, Sr.) His detriment is thatthe FAAhas chosen to move forward with an alleged violation of 14 CFR §91.11 when that allegation is. contrary totheFAA's.previously stated positioninFAAAdvisory Circular AC 

### No: 150/5210-20 thatvehicles on an airport are subject to thejurisdiction ofthe operator ofthe airport, not the FAA. Moreover, there were no safety issues at stake created bythe actions alleged against respondent the vehicle was clearly visible to the pilots and they were able to stop. Safety issues ifpresent, were causedbythe pilots ofVision Airlines taking a "short cuf'with limited visibility forthemselves and the tower. Moreover, itis in the public interestthatvehicles
·· ···onthe airportbecontrolledbytheairportoperatorandthatinterest·is clearlyaddressed bythe Clark County Code. Finally, it is clear that the FAA's statutory powers do not apply inthis factual circumstance, because they have been ceded to the airport operator. 

### Conclusion The complaint shouldbe dismissed because: itis insufficient on its face, the FAAlacks jurisdiction and

### it should be estopped from proceeding onthe complaintbased onprior 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, WA 99208



# DATED:~ **.Ed~**

6U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

# REcEIvED

IntheMatterof: 

## JUN 0 3 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. Respondent FAADOCKET FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (CivilPenaltyAction)

.. AdministrativeLawJudge 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 ofpetjury, deposes and says: 1. I am 71 years ofage. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts setforth 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 ofthe rules and regulations regardingtheir safe operations. I am fwther aware thatvehicular land operations on an airport are within thejurisdiction and responsibility ofthe operator ofthe 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 ofoccasionsbefore September 12, 2012 I contactedtheNorth Las VegasAirport Manager and requestedthatVisionAirlines not taxi bymyhanger due to the excessive noise generatedby the Do228 Dornier operated byVision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myselfand myvisitinggrand child. 4. I alsohad serious safety concerns about large commercial aircraft taxiing in that areabecause there arenumerous "!>lind alkys" from 

### therows ofenclosed hangers on theright and left ofthattaxiway.I have seen small aircraft on thetaxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircraft taxiingfrom those enclosed hangerrows to the right and left ofthetaxiways. (Depicted in exhibit A attached hereto and incorporatedhereinbythis reference) 5. I have owned the hanger depicted in Exhibit A before September 12, 2012. When theFAA Control Tower (oldtower) was between rny hanger and theVision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not use the route that passed next to my hanger. Itwas my understanding based on information and belief thatthis 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 andhas a restricted view ofthose hanger rows and does not control the taxiway that passedby my hanger. The Controllers in the tower frequently state overthe radio to pilots words to the effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" whenthe pilots request taxi instructions. The controllers atNorthLasVegas Airport have also notedthat their visibility from the newtower is limited inthat area. (Exhibit B, VGT Bulletin page 2, July 2013, attachedhereto and incorporated herein by this reference) 7. There is a safer, alternative route that was previously used byVision aircraft. It passes the open shade hangers andthe fuel pumps and on to Taxiway "A" that gives the controllers inthe newtower a fur betterview ofta.'{iing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to the tenants, and gives theVision pilots a betterview ofsmall aircraft and vehicles moving in and aboutthe open shade hangers, because there are no blind alleys. (ExhibitA) 8. The "backway" taken by the Do228 Domierpilots, as characteri7ed in the pilot's and copilot's statements, is a shorter route to the run-up areathan the safer, alternative route described inparagraph 7. On information and belief, it is apparentthattheVision pilots weretaking an unsafe short cutto savetime and fuel since in my experience there is rarely any

**~congestion"** atthe fuel pumps that would hinder an aircrafttaxiing in the area ofthe fuel pumps at the North Las Vegas Airport.

2SUBSCRIBED and SWORNto before me, ) -1¥, this.J)_ day ofMay, 2014. Notary Public 

### State ofWashington 

### Jeri 

### L. 

### Mainer MY EXPIR:ES

3ExhibitA to Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr. Aerial views ofNorthLas Vegas Airport and FAA Diagram LEGEND 1. New Tower 2. Area ofalleged incident 3. Vision Airlines Ramp 4. Enclosed "BlindAlley" Hangers (Right and Left ofTaxiway) 5. Open Shade Hangers 6. Fuel Pumps 

### ·· · ····· 1:MaridonHiiiiger 8. Old Tower Site 9. Run-up areaRunway 7 

### "G" Taxiway 

### G "F" Taxiway 

### F AAA... Shortcut "Back

### wai'taken by Vision Airlines pilots BBB... Saferrouteby ShadeHangers viaTa.<'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 ofJoseph 

### R. Maridon, Sr. NorthLas Vegas Airport Bulletin, July 2013, page 2, Noting Limited Visibili1y ofNorthLas 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 -Ifyou 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 ConceptApproval 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/Engineeringwill confirm that all business/ acquisition issues have been completed before closing the project. All projects shall be in accordance with the Tenant Improvernent Manual located on-line at http:/1 www.mccarran.com/Doing Busness /tenant_i mprovement. html.Keepoffthe Grass! More precisely, keep offthe 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 ourway 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 ofthe 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 oftaxiway 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 nexttime, 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- 

### EMChapter 163 2nd Tuesday - 1/4 Scale Assoc- 6:45pm 1stWednesday - 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 1stTuesday - 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 AVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

# REcEIvED JUN 0 

## 3 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET In theMatterof: Joseph R. Maridon, Sf. Respondent


### Richard C. GoodwinAdministrative LawJudge DocketNo. FAA-2014-0116
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FAADOCKET FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (Civil Penalty Action)



### I hereby certify that 

### I am 

### over the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within action. 

### I further certify that on



### the~ day of 

# 911 a. 

# 'J ,2014, 

### I deposited 

### inthe U.S. Mail, withpostage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of : 

### (I) MotionTo Dismiss (2) Affidavit Of Joseph R.Maridon, Sr addressed to the following: ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur· Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 ONE COPY Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 9212 E. FrederickAve 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 ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536



# !si~L~

# 2U.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 LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0116 FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (CivilPenaltyAction)

RespondentsReply to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Requestto Find Opposition Timely Filed Comes now, Respondentby and through his counsel and submits this replytotheFAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. With leave ofthe Court, said Reply is made and based on all the pleadings and papers on file herein andthe argument ofcounsel . FAA's Untimely Response Should be Denied and Stricken. The FAA admits thatits response is untimely and argues that serviceby mail is only a presumption 13.2ll(h). Itignores the fact that 13.1l(d) states the date ofmailing shown on the certificate of Service or ifnone the date on the postmark controls. The Courtreceived andfiled 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 currentpleading on June 27, 2014. Itis postmarked June 24, 2014) The argument for additional time is without merit regardless ofwhether counsel has 5 

### or 10 days to respond. Indeed, FAA Counsel's affidavit does not state when the FAAreceived it. It merely states when it was receivedby regional counsels' office, as evidenced by the envelope. Furthermore, it does not allege who stamped received on the envelope. It isvery highly likely, given the size oftheFAA that there is an internal FAA mailroom, which either picks up orreceives all mail from the post office and routes itinternally to the regional counsel's office. This is consistentwith the fact that itwas sentto the FAA'spost office box. Counsel's affidavit makes no reference to internal mail handling procedures at theFAA'sWesternPacific Regional Office nor does it contain an affidavit from a person with knowledge ofthose procedures. There is no attemptto establish or explain an internal chain ofcustody. This omission is crucial, without further detailed explanation, the FAA has not shown good cause for an untimelyresponse and the Court shouldpresumethat itwas properly delivered to the FAA's post office box bythe post office in a timely manner. 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(h) The FAA's argtJment contains glaring unresolved omissions. TheFAA therefore bears responsibility for the delay. The response is untimely and shouldbe stricken andthe motion to dismiss grantedwith prejudice.'

1 Respondent normally would not oppose an untbncly response, submitted within areasonable period ofseveral days and adequately explained. However, anuntimely response ofthis magnitude that is essentially unexplained is unacceptable. 1The Complainant's Substantive Response The FAA's substantive response to Respondents argument consists oflegally and logically unsupported conclusions, misstatements and implications of vexatious litigation2 Most glaring ofthe factual misstatements is on p. 3,**~1:** " ... because Respondent relied onpublications from the airport operatorthat he believed reflectedthat Clark County alone, as airport operatorwould have solejurisdiction over his conduct." That statement is blatantly misleading since Respondent clearly statedthat he relied on 

### FAA Advisory CircularACNo: 150/5210-20 and cited ittwice in argument and affidavit:

"FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS, addresses the issue ofvehicular control. "3. API'UCABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation ofvehicles on an airport rests with the airport operator... " (Respondent's Motion p.31f4, p.41f4); "I amfurther aware that vehicular land operations on an airport are withio thejurisdiction and responsibility ofthe Response note 1p.OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely." (Exhibit A, to Motion to Dismiss, Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr. 1[2). Complainant attempts to assert concurrentjurisdiction, but cites no authority and makes no argument for that proposition. FAA simply makes a conclusory statement that there is "at least concurrentjurisdiction" in an attempt to salvage its delegation of jurisdictionto airport operators. This is contrary to the publishedrepresentation in FAA Advisory CircularAC No: 150/5210-20 cited above. It does not address, andthus concedes Respondents preemption argument. Th.e Complaint relies onan unpublished interpretation ofl4 C.F .R. §91.11 based on dicta inthe Federal Register, 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 201 l) Interference With a Crewmember 

### via Laser in an attemptto expand itsjurisdiction beyond the bounds oflegal elasticity. 3 Indeed, the very title of that publication serves clearnotice ofthe limitation on its interpretationto the use ofLasers 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 ofprohibited conduct (except as to lasers) or the assertion of jurisdiction. In FAA v. Moesser, _ DMS No. FAA-20 11-1286 at p.**5~5** the Court stated: A cornerstone ofthe principle ofdue process is the duty ofadequate notice. In the context before us, it requires affected parties to be given fair wanring ofregulated 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 ofordinary intelligence areasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly" (Graynedv. Rockford. 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972)). As such, liability may notbe imposed when the regulation either "forbids or 2 More egregious is the gratuitous, footnote from which one can imply a veiled threat to engage invexatious litigation. Moreover, itis 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 1p.4
3 It can be argued that since the publication ofFederal Register, 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) Inteiference With a Crewmember via Laser was "part ofa 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 2requires the doing ofan act in terms so vagoe that men ofcommon 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 onvehicularjurisdiction. In opposition to Respondent's estoppel argument, Complainant states, "However, Respondent cannot citeto any contradictory previous position taken byfue 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 opinionfuat takes the position that it will enforce 14 C.F.R.§9l.ll as it is inthis case. Complainant's statement is fuus misleading. The position to which Respondent was clearly referring was fue ceding ofthejurisdiction to the airport operator set forth in FAA Advisory CircularACNo: 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 itsjurisdiction. The citation is inapposite, the question here is not its aufuorityto decide itsjurisdiction but whether ithas ceded itto airport operators as published in FAA Advisory CircularACNo: 150/5210-20. That is clearly a contradictory position to the one taken inthe instant complaint . Simply, to give clear notice ofprohibited conduct or a change in jurisdiction an interpretation mustbepublished. Complainant also argues thatRespondentmakes an unsupported assertion that itis in fue public interest that vehicles onthe airport be controlled by fue airport operator. Responsep 51[2 llll. Complainant's statement .is misleading because it ignores the supportfor 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 ofthe FAA. (Respondents motionp.41f2.) Finally, Complainant's argumentthat 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 lawfullyparked on a city street at night with sufficient light from street lights to render such truck clearly discernible to the driver ofan approaching vehicle at such distance as to enable himto stop inthe exercise ofreasonable care and itis struck inthe rear by another motor vehicle, the proximate cause ofsuch accident is the striking ofthe truckbythe other motor vehicle, and the owner ofthe parked truck is not liable in damages to a goestpassengerriding in the other motor vehicle. See also, 

### Duff v. Lykins, Ky.,306 S.W.2d 252 (Ky. 1957); Powell v. GeneralAccident, 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 ofthe flight crew while taking a short cut. Conclusion 

### Complainants request to find opposition timely filed should be denied. The Opposition to Motion to Dismiss shouldbe 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 NorthWhitehouse Court Spokane, W A 99208

# DATED?-?1L~ 

# Utj/

4U.SDEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

# REcEIvE0 FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

## JUN 03**201~** In theMatter of: 

## HEARING DOCKET Joseph R.Maridon, Sr. 

### FAA DOCKET Respondoot FAACASE NO. 2ti12WP190142 (Civil PenaltyAction)



### ......Administt:ativeLawJudge.Richard..C...Goodwin.... MOTION TO DISMISS The Respondent files 

### his Motion To Dismiss for failure ofthe allegations inthe notice of proposed action and complaintto state a violation ofthe FAA Actor ofthis chapter 14 

### ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, pursuantto the Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R 13.49) This Motion is made and based upon the affidavit attached hereto, argmnent ofcounsel and all ofthe pleadings and papers on file herein. Respondent states as 

### follows: L Factual Background 

### The complaint alleges that 

### onor about 

### September 29, 2012 

### Respondentparlredhis vehicle onan active taxiway 

### andthereby prevented a VisionAirlines aircraft 

### fromtaxiing for takeoff. It

### further alleges the vehicle would interfure 

### with. the taxiing ofthe aircraft and thereby interfered withthe 

### flight crewmembcrs' perfonnance oftheir duties 

### aboard the aircraft. 

### It does not allege essential allegations ofan entry, 

### touching, or any contact whatsoeverwiththe aircraft. 

### Furthermore, it does notallege a safuty violation.
II. Argument 

### The complaintis insufficient on its 

### face because ofan 

### erroneous interpretation ofthe FAA's authority. The FAA lacksjurisdictionto proceed under the filets alleged. Jurisdiction lies with the airport operator as FAA 

### regulations do notpreemptthe airport**oper<~.tor'**

### sjurisdiction 

### over vehicles onthe ground on

### anairport The FAA should be estopped from proceeding onthe facts and circumstances 

### ofthis

### case. The

### FAAbases its overly hroad use ofl4 C.F.R §91.11 

### inthis case onaninterpretation published in76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) dealingwithInterferenceWith a Crewmernber viaLaser. 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 Matterof: 

# RECEIVED JUL -7 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET .JosephR.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 onthRday

# 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 2Wl000 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 ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant 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 18 2016 

## DOCr<ET

In tbe Matterof: Joseph R. Marit:llm, Sr. FAA DOCKETNO. 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 ofhls rights under the 

### First Amendment to the United States Constitution based on the FAA's construction and application of CFR §9U l 

### to the facts 

### ofthe instant ease. This motion is made and based on all ofthe pleadings and papers onfile herein, fhe United States Constitution and the argnment ofCounseL Respondent further renews, reaHeges and incorporates herein by 

### reference Respondents previous motion to dismiss.
The Noerr-Pennington doctrine prohibits the use ofthe 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 ofgrievances.

### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthese facts. (Exhibit 1, Discovery provided by FAA as highlighted)
The Noerr-Penning!pn DoctriM Pnwidsts Immunity to Respgndent bv Prohil:!iting the 

### .Federal Aviation AdministrationFrom Using CFR §91 ,11 to ResqictRespondents FirstAmendmentRight to Protest 

### and Rig[lt tQ 

### Seek a

**Redres~J2(**

### Grievances. TheNoerr-Permington doctrine originated intheeontext ofanti-trustlitigation. "Concerted efforts to int1uence public officials do oot violate the antitrust laws even though intended to eliminatecompetition." 

### UnitedAfine Workers qf.4merica v, Pennington, 38! U.S. 657,658 (1965) (citing 

### Eastern R. 

## Cmrl v. NoerrMotors, 365 U.S. 127, 669-612 (1961 )). "While any carrier has the right ofaccess to administrative agencies and courts to defeat applications ofcompetitors 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 rightby massive, concerted, and purposeful group activities
are established as

**fact.~,** 

### a violations ofthe 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 ofFirst aAmendment speech. "It

### is important to 

### emphasize that a person's spoech or petitioning activity is not removed from the ambit ofFirst Amendment protection simply because it 

### advocates an urJavvful act. rhe 

### First Amendment does not permit government 'to forbid or proscribe advocacy ofthe 

### use offoree
or oflaw 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 Courthas described the right 

### to petition as 

### '"among the most

### preciousofthe 

### 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 BarAss '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). "TheNoerr-Pcrmington doctrine eru;mcsthatthose who petitionthe goverrnnent for redress ofgrievanees 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 beldthat a 

### la>¥-suit is unprotected only

### ifit

### is a ''sham" -Le., "objectivelybaseless

### in the sensethatno reasonablelitignntcouldrealisticallyexpectsueeess
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 

### 12l4, (9th Cir. 2000), clearly 

### makes the Noerr-l'enningtohn doctrine applicable tothe actions ofFederal Agencies 

### "ahousing 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 ofa 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 aneight-monthinvestigation into theneighbors' activitiesandbeliefs. 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 hadviolated 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 ofthai grievnnce from the manager ofthe 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 ofaction 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 ofthese facts. When he received no redress ofgrievance, in protest, Respondent temporarily parked his vehicle
onataxiway atthe North Las Veg£rS,Nevada Airport ffS a symbolic form offree speech. The action was not lawless, because the Nmth LffS Vegas Airport regulations do not give aircraft on the ground the right ofway 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 ahangar 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 ofgrievances. Both cases have different. but protected forms ofprotest 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 ofgrit,">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 ofCFR §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 WalterL. 

### 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-430 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 ofTransportation 

### 1200 NewJersey Avenue, (Ell-3!0) 

### !Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 

### 202-366-7536 David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe 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®nLaw 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: OurJ:t>!ll.flll!te f!lll is

**fomt~rdild** 

### the .tllatyoo 

### llllttdk the

**mf~lll** 

### col!fermce a11d 

### easedi!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**  

### ofwl!at lll!;l t!!

### em

**lt~~llon,** Altl!l'

### wntadlng

**~roooo**

**W!i1rn:rtl'il!!d.:~ur Oil~l~!!s**  ill'illt!!ril!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

**-~** atuswith hls hamt He

**th~l1 pma~eded**  Illthis !!!filion fmm tb!! 

### fml1tofth!!

### all'mlft, mllllld

## too 12ftsl®, 

### <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'~.** itb 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!lAlrlltlell 

## 1111120129:33:50 AM

## &lp. 2t).U

**Appro~:,** 

## 14:lflthe

**row~r ttl~**  

## over radio

## 1m"

**a~**

**mobi1~**

## the towermformmi tbat

**th~r~ ~**  <l 

## vihldebl(lcldng

**th~** 

## way 

## of 

## 1'isilm ab:'tlraft (405\' A)

**bt\tw~** 

## the h1•rsatwmpaD

## mad.

## I then

**dm~ t~**  

## the **ar.andnot~tbat~~ln ·~**  

### {N 

### 9) 

## W p<ltkM hil

## trut::kon tbtl 

## )1lllow 

## tauw•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 

### thealral!ft r1!!C!mll•1i busill!'$$ (llr!l , wl1icll he jus1: lat•rn:lJedthe llo, $hiltSperu:erGlli'Uillli!t &lid

**~.!i!Silfl1il!rs** till!

**C~lrl\fl:ll'l,** as they 

### wet;;: hl!alfllll rtol:lh.¢11 the l!mithe

**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¥ ofthe

**otturren~re** 

### we\Alejar1dto Zepeda am:! t) 

### hlld.Jl!tH'IcMd

# me

**fin~!**

### plaM ofthe to do a

**pa~** 

### pickup wlli!o Wli!'te 

### oomil11l !nslde we therewas a red trw:klo the way ofthe plane. Wte 

### didn'tknowwhat 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 SOCwall 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:nmstfrmtl

**~:** 

### 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 attl'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<

### AntlmnyPad<!lla FAAAviation 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 ofthe aircraft; and otherbuilding.
l!llme time :Mf, 

### St.

**$J:J:Ippe~** 

### our 

## .aircraft Mattdol'!, walked <1round ourparked with it$

**!>ngi~.s** 

### amitook:>a 

### video ofthe

**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:ontsctwith 

### hint soan, told Mr, Matido!'l, Sr. 

## tnet our Da 22S

**~nnut**

### Uf£lly ·t;OO 

### sing!<fl engine tu d(1parture 

### due tothermal to

### tak:ei!l'E

### AJ11l1My Pacl.,lli 

### HJOS/1:!{)1.2 3PM 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 

### 1did Ullt

### contact 

### Mr. M!lridon,..JdQrUll]

**~!Is.**



### Iwasglvl!n 11

### buslMS$ can:! fromJl.lsepl'l Ma!i®n, InVGitlpjll<ltltlns. Iwall\ecl-rb: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 offtlw 

### 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 Matterof: 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 AVIATIONADMINIST!MlloN
Joseph R. 

### M:arldon, Sr. 

### Respondent



### Respondent files lhls seeoud motion to 

### dismiss for violmion ofhis rights under the 

### Firm 

### Amendmentto

### the

**Uni~** 

### States Constitutionbasedon the 

### F M'sconstructkln 

### and applicetiM of CFR §9

### LII to 

### the filets 

### ofthe instant Cli.'le. 

### This motioo ill 

### madeandbased oo all of the

### ple&lingsDATE, TIME Ft:iX NO. It-lAME DURATION 

### PAGE(S) RESULT 

### MODE



### Joseph R. 

### Matldon, Jr. Respondent's Counsel 6130 :Elton Ave 

### LasVegas, NV 89107 Tel.**702~5!4-0102** 

### fax 702-410-6396

IntheMatterof; 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 VIA1l0NAD:MINISTRATION



### FAADOCKET**NO.l01~1Hi**



### RESPQNllm'U'S SECOND MQTIQN 

### TO DISMISS FOR VlOIATlON OF 

### &ESPONIJEN!S**~**

## ..!Jl:IDER11:m

# UNITED STATES QQNSTffiJTION**~TIA** 

# wrrn EXH1BITS) Respondent fil<ls this second motion to distniss for violation ofhis rights 

### under the Fitst Amendmentto

### the United Ststes Consti.tntionbased

### onthe 

### FAA's constructionand application of CFR §91.11 tu the faets <:>f

### the instantcase. This wtioois made andbased 

### on all 

### ofthe 

### plead.ingll a:nd

### papers onfile herein. the United States Cons+.itution andthe argumantofC01.111Sel. ResportdantllATII,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!** 

### FEDERALA'VIATIOl'i!
**AD~l'RATION** 

### .Joseph R. 

### Maridoo, Sr. :Rapol!dent 

### RESPONPENT'SSEQQND MOTIQN.IQJlJ;SMISS FQR VIOlATION 

### OF RESfONDENIS 

## RlQHTS tl:t:iuERTHEUNlim!STATES CONSTITUTION 

## CER.RATIA-WITH BXt!JHITID Respondent :files this second motion to dis:mlss for violation oflllil right!! 

### under 

### lhe First Amendmentto 

### lhe United States Cofilitltution

### l:las.edontheF M 's

### .oonstructionl!lld

### applioation of andpapers onfileherem, the 

### United States Constitutionand

### lhe etglllltent ofCounsel.

### Respondent

# 4Joseph 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 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil 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 offact and that this case d:oos not require a hearing. This is incorrect. The motion is based on an unpuMished and speeious iuterprellttion of76 FR 7661 l, 76612 (Dee. 8, 20ll}which is based from 14 CPR §9Lll. The gravamen ofthe complaint is whelher respondent's parked vehicle interfeEJJ! with the flight

**cre>~members** performance oftheir durie.!!

**~an** aircraft. Simply, complainant cannot establish that the material fact ofinterference 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 of1Complainant's motion and paragraph 4 ofthe complaint stales in a conc!nsory fashion that "the respondent's parked vehicle .iJ:lJetfere.Q. with ihc flight crewmemhcrs performance oftheir duties aboard that aircraft" Complainant cites Respondent's statements in the requests to admit that he blocked the path ofan 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 ofthe road were complied with, whether the pilots were able tD see and avoid the vehicle 01'the extent ofphysical coutllci, 

### ifany, respondent had with the aircraft. Consequently. C<>mp!aiuant has not established that there was illterference, the crucial material issue offact. What he seeks by motion is 11judicial reaffirmation ofa specious unpublished interpretation ofan **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 ofthe 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 theirpath. Nothing allegedin the Complaint or the instant motion suggests that the Flight Crew lostthe ability to control the aircraft orthatthe control ofthe aircraft was inter!ered with in any manner.lt is apparem that the Flight Crew could see both inside and outside ofthe aircra!l, they were able to maintain directional oontrol and the still had full use ofthe brakes atall times, Thus, none ofthe duties ofthe erewmembers were interfered with. The pilot on board the aircraft bad a duty as a matter oflaw to not operate the aircmt1 "on any part oftbe surface of[thc] airport ... in a careless t1f reckless manner so as to endangerthe life or property ofanother!' 14 CF.R. 9l.l3{b), At the time ofthe 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 asto endanger the life, health and slrtety ofResJ!DndenL See RestJ<mses to Complainant's Requests for Admissions, Numbers One and Two attached heretoas EXHIBIT I, 

### see also Respondent's Page 2 of'7Affidavit 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 crewhad chosen had proven to he dangerous, IIIith numerous blind alleys and out ofsight ofthe control. tower. Id. 

### As the crewmembers were apparently avoiding the duty to not operate 

### the aircraft in a reckless or careless manner in contradiction oftheirtraining atthe time ofthe 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 oftmder: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 nfalk:gatin:ns ofviolations 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 ifthe FAA had prosecuted a case under I 4 CF:R. § 91.

### Jl with the set offacts alleged in the complaint and it is a unique case offirst 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 offac!S :aik:ged in the cornplait:lt .and lt is a unique case of first impress.km for the FAA
Page 3 of1REPLY: Objection, calls tbr a legal co:nc1us1on.

**RespondJ.~m** isj-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 ofviolating 14 C.F.R. § 

### 9LlJ 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 reAbrams, 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 orderNo. 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 

### andhadactualphvsicalcontact 

### 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. § 

### 9UL 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec.ll, 20ll), Moreover, none Page 4of7

### ofthe cases cited by Complainant address a first amendment right to prutesi ofthe failure ofa 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 ofthem 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 oradmit thatthls is a 

### unique case offirst impression where there is no contact ofany 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 physkaliyentertht: airc1JfL 

### The complainant again argues thatthe "plain langUJJ.ge" of !4 CFR §

### !9.ll,the FAA's unpublished interpretation and 

### legal precedent establish rhat the 

### acts of

### the Respondent fall 

### underthe 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 ofthe 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 of71077 (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 orby 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 

### ofthe use ofthe plain language orplain meaning rule 

### in 76 FR 7661!, 76612 (Dec. 

### 8, 20! l) was clearly 

### tojustifY 14 

### CFR §

### l9J l's application to 

### lasers regardless ofwhetherthey 

### 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. lfit had been intended 

### to extend beyond 

### lasers, the plain language 

### would have dearly stated 

### soW give notice ofadditional 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 UnitedStates 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 1hereby 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 Avenue, 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTranspm1ation 1200 NewJersey 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 

### ofthe 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 1Joseph 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 ofDocuments, lllld Request for Admissions, Submitted byComplainant" 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 ormitigation ofthe sanction sought by fhe FAA in fhis case, I have owned and operate4 an airport and have knowledge ofthe rules and re!,'lllations rc!,>arding their safe operations. l am further aware fhar vehicular land operations on an airport are within thejurisdiction and responsibility offhe operator ofthe 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 ofoccasions 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 REQUESTSDo228 Dornier operated by Vision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myselfand my

**vL~i!ing** grand child. Despite my requests to tim AiJport manager, Vision Air!ines continuodto trud by my hangar.

I am 72 yeats ofage 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. 1have 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. Itwas my wrderstandingbased on information and beliefthatthis was dne to noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller .fmm the old tower oould dearly see the aircraft on tlle taxiway inquestion and infhe 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 notoontrol 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 toweris 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 ofenclosed hangers on the right and !eft ofthat 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 ofthe 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 oftaxiing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to the tenants, and gives the Vision pilots a better view ofsmall 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 2of7The "backway" taken by the Do228 Domicrpilots (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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofeach 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 orwitoesses" 

### See Attachment A JNIERROGATOB,Y

**No",~** 6: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, above, specify their spedtic area ofexpertise, and provide a synopsis oftheir creoontials, background, training and experience. See Attachment A 3of7 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S JNlTlAL lJlSCOVERY REQUESTSINTERROGATORY 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 ofthe grounds fur each such opiuion. See Attachment A INTERROGATORY No.8: State by name, address, telephone number, date ofconversation, 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 Vogas, 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 chargedme with interferingwith a flight crew at VGT on an uncontrolled area ofthe ramp by using my pioktl!l truck toblock the taxi path and lhal 

### it wns a way to get the a!!en!ion ofthe 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 chiefpilotvisiting my hangar andrather than trying to resolve the issue he informed me that the issue had been tumed ovc:rto the FAA and TSA. Some ofthese converaations go back two years and I cannot provide more details or dates. IfI canrecall others that 1had 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 everyfact 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 ofhls 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 ofway and the aireraft had the obligation to see awl avoid any hazat•ds. Airport Manager was previously informed ofbut did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. RESPONDENT'S RESPONsES TO COMPEAlNANT'SlNIT!AL DISCOVERY REQUESTS4of7As to request for admission 2, RespondeJJt objects to the non-specific reference to "one ormore persons" and the "aircraft," both ofwhich 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 ofbut did not resolve the ta.--zi, !l.lld noise issues.

JmOUEST FORPRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 1: Provide a copy of all doouments referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatoriesNo. 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 ofa hanger you either owned, rented, or were otherwise using at the time an aircyaft was attempting to travel along the same portion ofthe airport in mtlrmer preventing the fOrward

**rno'~.tement** ofthe 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 ofhis hangar on the Nnrtl1 Las Vegas Airport preven!ing an aircra1l: !rom proceeding past his hanger. Respendoot denies blocking the forward motion ofthe 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 ofway 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 ofthe 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>VFRYREQUESTSairport manager had been notified of the noise and taxi tS$Ues North Las Vegas Airport Rules do not give aircraft onthe ground the right ofway and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potantial hazards. Ail]Jort Manager was previously informed of, hul did notresolve the taxi, and noise issues. DATED this_ day
Joseph R. Maridon,SL, Respondent

DATED this3,0day (lfJSep.iamooL 2014.

6of7 RF.SPONDBNT'S RB$1'0NSES TO COMPLAINANTS INITIAL DISCOVERY RLQlJESTSI hereby certifythat 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 ofRegional 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 REQUESTS7of7**IJ~~m;!dlt**

**afT~**

**~** Allltllloll

**A~**
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.** &lxlil!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!ilpeciorAl1loony PacicUa, tol'l<ll!lrnifllll $llegatiooll 

### of viOlation of 14 

### CFR 91.11, In ihe last ten yeari!>. Thare are no filii!!$ 

### -odaiedwill1 !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 

### Mmlnistrmorfor 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 anappeal 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 OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERAL 

### AVIATION ADMOOS'mATION
In 

### the Matterof:



### Administrative Law

### Judge Richard C. Goodwiu FAA DOCKET

**FAAC~NO.lliUWPl%142** 

### {Civil PenaltyAdion)


### AfFIDAViT OF JQSEPJI R, 

### MARJOON. SR. IN SUPI'QRT OF MOTION 

### TO DISMISS STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 

### :ss COUNTY OF SPOKAJ\'E )

li:oowledge af!herules and 

### regulatians regarding their safe opMt!ians. I atrt 

### further aware !hat

### vellicullll' land

**~tious** 

### on linairport 

### m witllin till!

### jurisdiction and responsfuillty ofthe

**opm~tor** 

### ofthe 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. 

### Managerlllld 

### requsstatl !hat Vision Airlines nottaxi by my hanger 

### due !tl

### the ex®Sf!ive ooisegenera1lld by 

### the 

### Do22!! 

### Dotniet operated by 

### Vision 

### Airlines due 10 i!S 

### adverse effect on myselfood my 

### visiting grand child.


### there m 

### numerous "blind alleys" from the rows ofenciased hangers on 

### theright and leftof!hat

### taxiway.

### I have s15en 

### small aircraft oo 

### the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other 

### aircraftt!IXiing from 

### those endosed hangerrows to 

### me right tmd 

### left ofthe 

### taxiways. (Depicted in exhibit Aattecned nerete and 

### inoorpor;tted herein by 

### this reference) 5. 1have owned me hanger deJ'l<:ted 

### in Exhibit Abefore 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 

### !bitpassed next to rny hanger. 

### Itwas my ooderelllnding besed oo 

### infotrnlllion and belief 

### thatthis was due 

### m noise llbetement am! safety issues, allhoogh 

## me controUerfrom the old t()wer could oleatly see thelllreraft 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 andhas 

### a reslricted view ofthose hangerrows 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 atNorth Las Vegas Airport

**hav~; al~**  

### noted 

### !bittheir visibility from !he

### newtower 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

### passasthe 

### 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 

### farbett!Jr¥lew <lf

### taxiing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to thee tenants, and gives theVisioo pilots a betterview 

### QfS!llilll aircraftand

**v~hiclas** 

### moving in and about the open 

### shade htmgers, becausethere are no blind alleys. (ExhibitA) $.The "beekWlly" taken by the De22S Doolier pilots, as clmra<1telized inthe 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 apparentthat

### the Vision pilots were mking 1m 

### unsafe short wt

### to save

**~** 

### artd fuel

**~>illee** 

### in my 

### experience there is melyany "congestloo" atthe fuel 

### pumpa the! 

### woold.hin®r an

**;~iroraft** 

### t!IXiing in the area of

## me fuel Plll!:l!l> at the North Las VepAirport

### SIJUCR$EDlll'l(i

### SWOR:.-.. to

### befOre me,



## thl~,2,~ **~nfMay,2?l4,**

### ExhibitAto Affidavit

**t~f**

### Joseph R. Mllridoo, Sr. Allrial views 

### ofNorth Las V eguAirport 

### and FAA Diagram 

### LEGEND 1. New

### Tower 2. Area, of alleged Incident 

### 3. V!Slon Airlilltlil Ramp 

### 4. 

### Eliciosed "Blind Alley" Hangers (Right

### and LeftofT !lSi

### way) 

### 5. Open 

### ShadeHilllgers 6. Fuel Pump!; 

### 1. Mllridm

### Hanger 8. OldTower Site

**9.~mmRllllWlly7**



### "G"f~G "PTaxiway F 

### AAA.,. Shortcut "Bl!i:kway" 

### taken 

### by Visloo Airlines 

### pilots BBB.••Saferroote 

### 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 Decem

### bet 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~h** ing 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 Officewill 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 VsgasAirport 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 offthe Grassl More precisely, keep offthe 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 ourway to a spectaculat year. However, with the change in geographical layout come some issues 

### that all pilots should be aware,

lights 

### whitetaxiing 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 forRunway 

### 7. Many aircrmt are stopping 

### short oftaxiway 

### 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:AAChapter 163 

## 2oo Tuesday· 114 ScaleAssoc -5:45pm il!tWednesday. 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 

### CMtAir Patrol 4!h Thursday· FAA FASTTEAM 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 CMlAir Patrol (All mlletlng$1 are at 7PM ullle5s <li:IH>rwllle notlld.)