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 FAA 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 with the Bay Area 

Aero Club (BAAC) in April 2002 when Houston Gulf Airport closed. 

He began 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, Eric 
Dagley 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 dropped out in 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 and a half to train her to be an airport manager. 

4. While Langford played Messinger to get his job recommendation, 

she secretly made false accusations against Messinger and 

played Alexander at TAP to replace him. Based on the lies of 

Langford, TAP gave Langford Messinger’s job as 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 accusations 
against Messinger was a closely guarded secret that Messinger 

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 that 

required TxDOT and FAA intervention. Her mismanagement and 

misconduct required involvement of multiple law firms. And 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 

quickly became known on the airport as “The Crazy Lady.” (See 

Paragraph 38)

8. Offers of help are not harassment, but every communication from 

Messinger was labeled harassment by Langford. 

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

stands.” – HARASSMENT

- Asking Langford for his mail. – HARASSMENT (See Paragraphs 

32 & 33)

- Offering Langford or TAP to write a column in the BAAC 
newsletter to keep the airport 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 on the airport was called HARASSMENT toward 

Langford. Messinger was told that he was not to be on the 

airport at any time. (See Paragraphs 2, 16, 17, 18 & 37)

ALLEGATIONS 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 the 

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 no 

evidence of any surreptitious photos and no evidence that any 

photos of Langford found on the computer had any connection to 
Messinger. 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) Some of the photos

submitted as evidence by the Airport Messinger had observed on 

Langford’s Facebook page, which she accessed on the office 

computer and showed to others 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 drug 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 not shoot the drug dealer, was 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 and 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 COMPLAINT

13. Due to a series of serious safety violations that Langford was 

unwilling to address, it became necessary to request the FAA 

and TxDOT Aviation intervene to correct one of the safety issues

and to explain to Langford the safety standards that need to 

be maintained by the Airport. 

14. The following weekend, the TAP invited the airport community 

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 maintaining 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] had 
called 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. Brazoria County Deputy Murdock told Messinger that he had been

dispatched to the airport where he contacted Langford. She 

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 ATTACK

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. Langford played the Board members and used her position as 

Airport Operations Manager to have Messinger removed as BAAC 

President. Messinger filed a civil lawsuit for defamation

against Langford and her employer, TAP, and against the Board 

Chairman and the BAAC. Within hours of being served with court 

papers, Langford sent a copy of her papers to the BAAC Chairman 
and the next morning Messinger was removed 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 after Langford received the Part 16 notice, the 

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 

against 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 Roberts in the FBO in December 2014 and 

that they asked him for prohibited information on sniper 

techniques. He informed them that he had signed non-disclosure 

agreements with the Army and was not allowed to disclose

information on how to kill people. He 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 (none 
are 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." 

Huguet, Roberts, 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. On December 22, 2014, Alexander hired an investigative agency

to locate Messinger at the Baytown Airport (25 miles 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 home, and provide an attack site recon. Alexander 

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 secret until the Airport’s 

Response in April 2015. (See Paragraph 39)

26. Langford was replaced as Airport Operations Manager in April 

2015 and terminated her employment at the 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 harassing 
and threatening telephone calls to Messinger – always when 

Messinger was at the Baytown Airport. And about this time, 

Baytown Airport employees - including Messinger – began 

noticing unidentified 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 where Messinger had been staying,

telling her he knew her address (information 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 Texas 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 approximately $130,000 of BAAC corporate funds and 

Alexander paid 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 delivered to 

the FBO for the BAAC. Langford signed for the publications, 

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 his 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. On 

March 18, 2014, five months 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 him and offered to provide

her a thumb drive. But 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 

breached 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 stated 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 the 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 

Paragraphs 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 insisted that she really didn't need 
the medication, so would quit taking it and simply not report 

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 that people around the 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 

was Langford’s target and the secret midnight photos and 

description of where Messinger’s vehicle was parked in relation 

to the house was 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 Office 

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.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

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 employee. The 

Airport has failed to show that Messinger had his 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 

unwanted 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 nothing 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 accusations 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 unjustly restricts Messinger from 

the FBO. The Airport claims the restriction is tailored “to 
prevent him from contacting and harassing Langford, while still 

permitting him fully to use the Airport for legitimate 

aeronautical functions.” But 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 largely 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 report and 

seek law enforcement protection. 2) Unsafe: After Langford 

repeatedly failed to correct serious safety violations on the 

airport, it became necessary to involve the FAA and TxDOT 

Aviation. 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 

Langford. 3) Irresponsible: 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 standards and failed to insure 

that Messinger was not “exposed to illegal, unsafe, or 
irresponsible practices.” 

46. Langford’s actions toward Messinger, her bullying and 

harassment, surreptitious photos of his vehicle, and the court 

action filed against Langford and the Airport, all violated the 

standards laid out in Ashton v. FAA (04-1124, U.S. Court of 

Appeals, D.C., 2006) Langford’s abhorrent behavior and 

outrageous conduct resulted in a police report, as in Aero Ways, 

Inc. v. Delaware 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 that the actions taken to bar 

Messinger from the FBO were reasonable or justified. 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@faa.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, Suite 1900

Austin, TX 78701

jparker@lglawfirm.com

Attorneys for Respondent