### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WAYNE R. MESSINGER, ) Complainant, )

V. ) DOCKET ID: FAA
- 2015

- 0253
CLOVER ACQUISTION CORPORTATION ) DOCKET NO: 16

- 15

- 01 d/b/a PEARLAND REGIONAL AIRPORT, ) Respondent. )



### COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL OF DIRECTOR ’ S DETERMINATION

NOW COMES Wayne R. Messinger, Complainant, with this appeal of the initial determination to the F AA Associate Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR Section 16.33 (c) and will show the following:

1. The Director’s initial agency Determination is that “the Airport has presented sufficient evidence to show that there was a reasonable basis for the actions that it took” and that “the record contained no evidence that the Airport treated Complainant in an unjustly discriminatory manner.” Complainant respectfully disagrees

.

Background

2. Complainant, Wayne R. Messinger, came to LVJ wit h the Bay Area Aero Club (BAAC) in April 2002 when Houston Gulf Airport closed.
He be gan work at LVJ in May 2002. He is a pilot, advance ground instructor, and has a Master’s Degree in management, so was promoted to Airport Operations Manager. In July 2013, EricDagley met with Messinger to inform him that TAP was taking over

management of the airport, but that the owners’ were very happy with his work and his job was assured. However, in September 2013, without warning and with no reason given , Dagley announced
that all the employees were laid off and the FBO was closed. In addition, Dagley said that the owner wanted Messinger and his aircraft off the airport!

3. Messinger first met Leah Langford in December 2012 when she walked into the FBO and asked him for help with a dead battery in her car. She was back in January 2013 asking him for help getting flying lessons and a flight instructor . He helped her apply to the BAAC. In February she asked him to join his ground
school class , but she drop ped out i n March saying she was taking
too many college classes . In May she asked him for a job at the airport, so he hired her part

- time and taught her to work line service. In August, she asked him to help her get a
full

- time job as an airport manager trainee. Although she had no aviation experience and no college degree, Messinger agreed to train her. He recommended Langford to TAP and the airport owner as a manager trainee, estimating that it would take a year to a year a nd a half to train her to be an airport manager

.

4. While Lan g ford played Messinger to get his job recommendation, she secretly made false accusations against Messinger and played Alexander at TAP to replace him . Base d on the lies of Langford, TAP gave Langford Messinger’s job a s Airport Operations Manager, even though she had no education, no experience, and no qualifications for the position, and was unable to work without direct supervision much less supervise
others

.

5. NOTE: That Langford made outrageously false accusationsagainst Messinger was a closely guarded secret that Mess inger

did not discover until he read her statement in the Airport’s response to this Part 16 filing in April 2015, more than a year
and a half later.

6. Langford’ s year and a half tenure as Operations Manager was marked by unsafe, irresponsible, and illegal practices. She failed to identify and correct serious safety issues tha t required TxDOT and FAA intervention . Her mis management and
mi sconduct required involvemen t of multiple law firms . A nd she committed several acts of on - the

- job criminal misconduct. Still, when she was replaced with an experienced and qualified
manager, TAP offered her a second chance to train under an experienced manager. She refused and quit.

HARASSMENT

7. The primary job function of an Airport Operations Manager is to maintain open communications with all members of the airport community. Langford locked herself in the closed FBO building and appeared to be afraid to talk to anyone on the airport. She
qu ickly became known on the airport as “The Crazy Lady.” (See Paragraph 38 )

8. Of fers of help are not harassment, but every communication from
M essing er was labeled harassment by Langford.

- “I would do anything I could to help you. That offer still
stands.”

– HARA SSMENT

- Asking Langford for his mail.

– HARASSMENT (See Paragraph s 32 & 33 )

- Offering Langford or TAP to write a column in the BAACnewsletter to keep the ai rport community informed about the airport.

– HARASSMENT

- Writing anything about the airport in the BAAC newsletter.

- HARASSMENT

- Offering Langford guidance on safety and operational needs.

– HARASSMENT

- Going to his aircraft, which was parked across the taxiway
from the FBO.

– HARASSMENT

- Simply being seen o n the airport was called HARASSMENT toward Langford. Messinger was told that he was not to be on the airport at an y time

. (See Paragraphs 2, 16, 17 , 18 & 37)

ALLEGATION S NOT IN EVIDENCE

9. The FAA report quotes Alexander’ s affidavit that Messinger had an office computer. He did not. The office computer was primarily used by the receptionist/clerk and she kept her pictures on that computer. “ . . photographs of women at t he Airport . . .” When she left, Sean Ahsan became the primary user of the computer, setting up a computer based fuel tracking program. Messinger, along with FAA Designated Examiners,
other airport pilots, and transit pilots, also used the computer. Langford used that computer as well. Alexander accuses Messinger of storing photos “including [of] Langford, some of which appeared to have been taken surreptitiously” on that computer. 1) Messinger did not have exclusive or even primary use of the computer. 2) Alexander submitted n o evidence of any surreptitious photos and no evidence that any photos of Langford found on the computer had any conn ection toMessinger. 3) Messinger was never questioned about these

photos and the matter had been kept secret from him until disclosed in the Airport’s submission to the Part 16 complaint

– more than a year and a half later. 4) S ome of the photos submitted as evidence by the A irport Messinger had observed on Langford’s Facebook page, which she accessed on the office computer and showed to other s in the office.

10. There is simply no evidence on the record of any surreptitious photos and no evidence that Messinger posted any pictures of Langford on the office computer. Claims by Alexander are not in evidence, are unsubstantiated and false, and should not be considered by the Administrator in his decision.

FELONY CONVICTION

11. In 1985, Messinger was a police sergeant conducting a narcotics investigation when a drug dealer accused Messinger of shooting him. Messinger maintains that he did not shoot the dr ug dealer,
but he was convicted in a jury trial in 1986 in a county with a national reputation for protecting drug traffickers . There is no nexus in time or circumstance between this conviction and Messinger’s employment at the airport. The book on the case , which shows he did n ot shoot the drug dealer , w as published in 1996. ( A Fate Worse Than Death, by Marshall Ginevan. Press

- Tige Publishing © 1996) Messinger was hired at the airport in 2002 with full knowledge of his conviction and the Airport was pleased with his work over more than eleven years. Messinger was never asked about this conviction by TAP. Only a drug trafficker would feel threatened by Messinger’s 30

- year - old conviction . It had no relevance to his work history a nd should not have been considered in any employment action.12. Langford’s claims of fear are related to her mental health

history and not taking her required psychiatric medication , not to Messinger . (See Paragraph 38 )

INFORMAL COM PLAINT

13. Due to a series of serious safety violations that Langford was unwilling to address, it became nece ssary to request the FAA
and Tx DOT Aviation intervene to correct one of the safety issue s and to explain to Langford the safety standards that need to
be ma intained by the Airport.

14. The following weekend, the TAP invited the airport c ommunity
to come to the FBO to meet the new line service employees. Langford had the day off (Sunday), so Messinger stopped in before his flight.

15. The next day he received the debarment order from Langford. Alexander states the order was to protect Langford

– who wanted Messinger to stay off the airport

– but Langford was not on the airport that day. She was just angry that she had to explain to FAA / TxDOT why she was not maintain ing the airport to the safety standards required.

16. Messinger filed the informal complaint and his first point was that he was being ordered off the airport. TxDOT ’s reply, in pertinent part, “You may operate in the public areas of the airport to include the runways, taxiways, taxilanes, roads, as well as publically and privately owned structures with the permission of the tenant or owner.”

17. Yet, following this written order, Langford tried to have Messinger arrested for being on the airport. “[Langford] h adcalled the Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office to the airport when

[Messinger] had been parked outside and remaining in his vehicle, but prior to their arrival he left the area.” Private investigator interview with Langford dated January 16, 2015. (See Paragraphs 8 & 37)

18. Brazo ria County Deputy Murdock told Messinger that he had been dispatched to the a irport where he contacted Langford

. S he told him that Messinger was not permitted to be on the airport and she wanted him arrested. (See Paragraphs 2, 8 & 37)

LANGFORD’S ATTACKS ON MESSINGER

FIRST AT TACK

19. In the fall of 2014 , Messinger was elected to the BAAC Board of Directors and began his third term as BAAC President. Langford did not want Messinger in a position of leadership in the BAAC, so held a meeting with several board members and members of TAP management. She made false allegations against Messinger, unrelated to the BAAC, and at the December Board Meeting Messinger was accused of selling jet fuel as avgas while Operations Manager, harassing Langford, and physically assaulting Langford before he hired her as a part

- time employee. The Board voted to remove Messinger as President of the BAAC. (See Paragraph 36)

20. Langfor d played the Board members and used her positio n as Airport Operations Manag er to have Messinger removed as BAAC President. Messinger filed a civil law suit for defamation against Langford and her employer, TAP, and against the Board Chairman and the BAAC. Within hours of being served with court papers, L angford sent a copy of her papers to the BAAC Chairmanand the next morning Messinger was remov ed from the BAAC in

violation of BAAC By

- laws

.

SECOND ATTACK

21. In mid

- December, Messinger sent the Formal Part 16 complaint to the FAA. As required by rules, a copy was sent to Langford.

22. Shortly a fter Langford received the Part 16 notice, t he following e

- mail exchange occurred between Alexander and Roberts, the BAAC President who replaced Messinger. “We (TAP, the airport, and the owners) are in constant contact with numerous agencies about the 'matter' . . . Wheels are in motion. Will keep you posted . . . More to come as we proceed. I'll keep you posted." Roberts’ reply back to Alexander. "BAAC and LVJ and TAP need to shed this threat. We could use your help. We are willing to help you." Roberts’ open threat

a gainst Messinger’s life involved Huguet (BAAC Chairman) and Roberts from the BAAC, Alexander and Langford from TAP, and possibly the airport owners. This exchange was kept secret until the Airport’s Response in April 2015.

23. Messinger was informed by a former Army sniper and BAAC member that he met Huguet and R oberts in the FBO in Dec ember 2014 and that they aske d him for prohibited information on sniper
te chniques. He informed them that he had s igned non

- disclosure agreements with the Army and was not allowed to disclose information on how to kill people

. H e was very concerned about the type of technical shooting information they were seeking. It appeared that Huguet and Roberts were planning to use a firearm to kill Messinger

.

24. In December 2014, a special BAAC social meeting was called (noneare held in December) for December 20th at the Club House, then

it was suddenly moved to the FBO . As part of BAAC Leadership, Messinger was expected to attend. Alexander hired a man to pose as an aircraft owner interested in joining the BAAC in order to hunt for Messinger . He mingled with those present from 12:00 nn until 2:00 pm, and reported to Alexander that he "did not observe the subject nor his vehicle in the area of the airport."
H uguet, R oberts, Alexander, and Langford planned to ambush Messinger at the special BAAC meeting at the FBO , called specifically for that purpose

. This information was kept secret until the Airport’s Response in April 2015.

25. O n December 22, 2014 , Alexander hired an investigative agency
to locate Messinger at the Baytown Airport (25 mile s from Pearland Airport) where he worked. They then followed Messinger to where he was staying in League City (15 miles from Pearland Airport) . They secretly photographed and reported the location of his car at midnight , and reported to Alexander the address in League City along with the name and vehicle description of the home owner. This was not an investigative report, but a hunting party paid to track Messinger between his work and his h ome , and provide a n attack site recon . Ale xander replied to the investigative agency , "Let me present this information to the airport owners and we'll be back in touch
ASAP!" This information was kept sec ret until the Airport’s Response in April 2015. (See Paragraph 39)

26. Langford was replaced as Airport Oper ations Manager in April
2015 and terminated her employment at t he airport. But she then joined the BAAC Leadership as Secretary.

27. In early summer 2015, Huguet and Roberts from the BAAC Leadership became Langford ’ s hunting party, making harassingand threatening telephone calls to Messinger

– always when

Messinger was at the Baytown Airport . And about this time, Baytown A irport employ ees - including Messinger

– began noticing unide ntified people just sitting in their cars in the airport parking lot watching Messinger’s movements

. Fearing for his personal safety and the personal safety of others on the airport, Messinger quit his job and moved out of Texas.

28. Huguet continued hunting Messinger through the fall of 2015

. He phoned Messinger’s parents in Pennsylvania multiple times posing as a collection agent asking where their son was staying.
He contacted the homeowner wher e Messinger had been staying , telling her he knew her address (in formation provided by Alexander) and made a threat against her if she didn’t tell him
where Messinger could be found

.

29. Messinger phoned the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office with this information and they informed him that he needed to
return to Te xas and report this to the Brazoria County Sheriff’s
office.

30. Messinger filed a detailed report against Langford, Alexander, Huguet, and Roberts for trying to have him killed and for engaging in organized crime, both felony offenses. They have access to ap proximately $130,000 of BAAC corpo rate funds and Alexander pai d approximately $2,000 in TAP corporate funds to
the investigative agency

. They are acting as a street gang, engaging in organized crime, and pose a continuing threat to Messinger’s life

. These actions are in retaliation for Messinger filing the Formal Part 16 complaint against Langford.LANGFORD’S CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT

31. Theft of BAAC Publications: Publications were delive red to the FBO for the BAAC. Langford signed for the publicati ons, then rather than deliver them to the BAAC, she was caught throwing them into the dumpster. When confronted, she stated that the BAAC President allowed her to dispose of them as she

saw fit. The President denied this. The publications were readdressed so they could be delivered directly to the BAAC.

32. Theft of Messinger’s Mail: The post office would not forward Messinger’s mail from the airport address. Messinger asked to pick up h is mail from the FBO until he could notify senders of his new address, but Langford refused. She claimed to be returning his mail to the post office marked “Return to sender. Recipient unknown.” But the post office told Messinger that no mail was being returned from the airport. Alexander said Langford would give Messinger his mail, but she did not. O n March 18, 2014, five month s after claiming she was returning his mail, Messinger took video of his mail on the seat of Langford’s personal car.

33. Burglary of an Aircraft: In an October 22, 2013, e - mail exchange with Langford, Messinger asked for his mail. Langford said she hid it in an aircraft in front of a hanger. She didn’t know who owned the aircraft and gave only a vague description of the plane . Days later, Messinger found his mail along with other property on the seat of one of the planes.

34. Theft of Photos: When the FBO closed, Messinger had approximately 300 photos of aircraft on the office computer.
He asked Langford to return them to hi m and offered to provide
her a thumb drive. B ut she said that everything had been deleted from the hard drive. The photos were never returned.35. Missing and Unrecovered Tie

- down Checks: The BAAC treasurer

mailed a check each month to the airport to pay for BAAC aircraft tie

- down fees. The TAP office in San Marcos said they did not receive any of those checks from October 2013 through March 2014. Langford had the only key to the airport mailbox and could not explain what happened to those checks each month. Thereafter, BAAC checks were mailed directly to the San Marcos office to insure delivery.

36. Falsifying Fuel Records: When the FBO closed, the airport
b reached its pre

- paid fuel agreement with the BAAC. BAAC Leadership demanded return of nearly $7,500 of their fuel funds. Langford altered fuel source records, then claimed confusion on the amount to be refunded. This delayed the refund by four
months. In December 2014 Messinger was removed as BAAC President based in part on Langford’s false accusation that Messinger was selling jet fuel as avgas

– a theft

- while he was Operations Manager. Messinger filed a defamation lawsuit and Langford’s attorneys s tat ed in a court hearing that Langford admitted she altered the fuel records. (See Paragraph 19)

37. Making a False Police Report: In the response to Messinger’s Informal Complaint, TxDOT Aviation wrote that Messinger had the right to be on the airport. Langford called th e sheriff’s office to have Messinger arrested for simply being on the airport, telling the responding deputy that Messinger was not allowed on the airport and she wanted him arrested. (See
P aragraph s 2, 8, 16, 17 & 18 )

38. Falsifying FAA Medical Application: In late June or early July 2013, Langford applied for her Third Class Student Medical Certificate. She was on a psychiatric medicine that was not approved for flying. She insiste d that she really didn't needthe medication , so would quit taking it and simply not repor t

the medication or her mental health history. On or about July 4th, 2013, she was issued a Third Class medical. In the weeks and months after she quit taking her medication, her personality began to change . By September she was becoming more withdrawn and was not showing up for work at the airport, but explained it was just her school schedule. When she returned to work in October 2013, she showed a growing hostility and spent most of her time locked in the FBO. Her behavior change was so pronounced t hat people around t he airport began calling her THE
CRAZY LADY. (See Paragraph 7)

39. Attempting to Have Messinger Killed: Langford’s interview in the investigator’s report makes it very pointed that Messinger

wa s Langford’s target and the secret midnight photos and
desc ription of where Messinger’s vehicle wa s parked in relation
to the house wa s part of her plan for “ . . . ending the contact with Mr. Messinger . . .” (See Paragraph 25)

40. Engaging in Organized Crime: Langford has been engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior as Airport Operations Manager. In Langford’s interview in the investigator’s report she details the actions of the BAAC Leadership in her attack on Messinger and having him removed from the BAAC. The e

- mail exchanges
between Alexander and Huguet and Roberts at the BAAC show coordination and cooperation between the four of them in their unlawful actions against Messinger. The total of these actions by Langford, along with Alexander, Huguet, and Roberts, were the basis of the report to the Brazoria County Sheriff’s O ffice and the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office for Engaging in Organized Crime, which is a criminal offense.RETALIATION FOR FILING FAA PART 16 COMPLAINT

41. In Langford’s December 22, 2014, interview in the investigator’s report , she specifically complains that Messinger “had filed a formal complaint under 14CFR FAR Part 16 with the FAA against her.” But for this FAA complaint, there
would have been no one trying to have Messinger killed.

L EGAL A

RGUMENT

42. The Airport has failed to show that Messinger’s communications

were in any way intended to be harassing or harmful or threatening to Langford or any other airport em ployee. The Airport has failed to show that Messinger had h is own office computer. The Airport has failed to show or present any evidence that he took pictures surreptitiously or openly of Langford or any other women at the airport, or that he stored

unw anted pictures on the office computer. The Airport has presented no evidence of any threat by Messinger, either expressed or implied, against Langford or any other person. There is no evidence of misconduct or harassment on the part of Messinger and noth ing in the record to justify the Airport to continue to ban Messinger from the FBO.

43. LVJ’s Rules and Regulations was approved on February 6, 2015, giving the Airport the authority to deny access to the FBO “for any lawful reason.” All accusation s against Messinger occurred before this date. This is an ex post facto violation, imposing a punishment for alleged misconduct eight months
before the rules were enacted.

44. The Airport unreasonably and unjust l y restricts Messinger from
the FBO. T he Airport claims the restriction is tailored “toprevent him from contacting and harassing Langford, while still

permitting him fully to use the Airport for legitimate aeronautical functions.” B ut Langford has not worked in the FBO for over a year. Why is Messinger still restricted from
the FBO? This restriction serves no legitimate purpose and is
a clear case of RETALIATION.

45. On December 5, 2014, the Airport published LVJ’s Minimum
Standards. It includes language to “ ensure that all commercial operators, tenants, users . . . are not exposed to illegal, unsafe, or irresponsible practices.” The Airport failed to meet these standards from the day they were published. 1) Illegal : Langford ’s criminal misconduct was largel y directed at Messinger over the 18 months she was employed on the airport. She then joined the BAAC Leadership and continued her illegal
conduct toward Messinger , along with Huguet and Roberts , until it became necessary for Messinger to file a police rep ort and seek law enforcement protection. 2) Unsafe : After Langford repeatedly failed to correct serious safety violations on the airport , it became necessar y to involve the FAA and TxDOT
A viation. Langford responded with retaliation, which led to
the informal complaint. Immediately following the Formal Part 16 complaint, Langford and the others engaged in organized criminal activity that put Messinger ’s personal safety at risk

. The Airport failed to maintain a safe environment under Langfo rd. 3) Irr esponsible : Langford’s pattern of lies, manipulation of men to further her predatory conduct , and irresponsible actions resulted in safety violation, informal and formal complaints, a lawsuit, and finally resulted in her being replaced as Airport Operations Manager. The Airport simply failed to meet its own standar ds and failed to insure that Messinger was not “exposed to illegal, unsafe, orirresponsible practices.”

46. Langford’s actions toward Mess inger , her bullying and
harassment , surreptitious photos of his vehicle , and the court action file d against Langford and the Airport, all violate d the standards laid out in Ashton v . FAA (04

- 1124, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., 2006) Langford’s abhorrent behavior and
outr ageous conduct resulted in a police report , as in Aero Ways,
Inc. v. Dela ware River and Bay Authority 916

- 09

- 12, August 30, 2010) The Airport recognized her overall management failure and replaced her as Airport Operations Manager.

CONCLUSION

47. The Airport has not presented any credible evidence to support its claims the Messinger harassed, threated, or posed a threat to Langford. Nor has it shown t hat the actions taken to bar
Me ssinger from the FBO were reason able or just ified. Langford no longer works at the Airport, so the continued restriction against Messinger serves no legitimate purpose. It is purely RETALIATION and should be set aside.

48. The Airport has again retaliated against Messinger for filing this Formal Part 16 complaint when they entered into an agreement with the BAAC to have Messinger killed. This plan was well underway and would have been carried out, but for its discovery in Respondent’s exhibits submitted in their Part 16 reply.PRAYER

Messinger moves to Order the Airport to set aside the FBO ban, allowing Messinger the same public services and amenities as
other customers of the FBO.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Wayne R. Messinger Wayne R. Messinger 2911 Ocean Way League City, TX 77573 Ginevan4@gmail.com 832

- 646

- 6868



### Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of June, 2016 , the foregoing was electronically filed via e

- mail filing at 9

- AWA

- AGC

- Part

- 16@fa a .gov and served via United States Postal Service, First Class Mail and e

- mailed to the following:
James F. Parker, III Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle & Topwnsend, P.C. 816 Congress Avenue, Suit e 1900 Austin, TX 78701 jparker@lglawfirm.com
Attorneys for Respondent