04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 

### FA A * DM S gjOOI/OO T U,S , DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON . DC . Offic e O fRegiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ComplaJna m Vs . 

### Helicopte r

Flit e Responden t #CPO9EA001 5

,.1. . 

### i J l,,r j 1

1„ ]

BEIE F O F RESPONDEN T



# ««• ; 3 0 201 0 ^EmiH GDOCKF T 'l-~- .'^taJ014 2 F,1 A 

### QM S ®002/00 7



### ^^BlEOFCONTENTeNT S ^ABL£0FAl/r40R/TIE S 5TATEMENT0 F TH E ISSUE S STATEMENTO F TH E FACT S M ^ • > n^

• K.-. ' \• -



### ARGUMEN T "'ECOURTERBEoiNviOuriO N ^«rHM,E«PMeNT/.ORTONT„ . 'AMENDEN T04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 FA A• > DM S 0003/00 7

TABL E O F AUTHORITIE S

(SIXT H AMENDMENT ) POWEL LV5 , ALABAM A JOHNSO N vs . ZERB5 T BETT S vs . BRAD Y31 6 us . 45 5 GIDEO N vs . WAINWRIGH T37 2 U S 35 5 ALABAM Avs . SHELTO N 53 5 US , 65 4

( FOURTEENT H AMENDMENT ) SOLEBE E vs . BALKCO M 39 9 us . 9,1 6 SNYDE R vs . MASSACHUSETT S 29 1 us . 97,10 5 JACKSO N vs . ROSENBAU M 26 0 US . 22,3 1



### iHMiii i04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @|004/00 7 STATEMEN TO F TH E FACTS Th e decisio n i n thi s civi l penalt ycas e i s whether , durin g th e perio d fro m Februar y12,200 6 t o Septembe r15,200 8 th e Responden tha d exclusiv e us e an d contro l o fth e onl yaircraf t liste d i n it' s operation s specifications, ' a bel l mode l 40 7 helicopte rbearin g identificatio n numbe rN4072 .

ARGUMEN T Th e analysi s start s wit h a tabl e calle d FIGUR E B-l-C , thu s listin g th e type s o fviolation s pertainin g T o operation s specification s o fdomesti cai rcarriers . Th e abov e states , ther e i s a violatio n disput e I n regard s t o EXCLUSIV E US E AN D CONTRO L.Thi s howeve ri s NO Tliste d a s a violation . I n fa a accordin g t o th e abov e figur e N O violatio n occurred .

STATEMEN TO F TH E FACT S O n Januar y21,2010 , fiv e day s befor e th e hearin g wa s schedule d t o begi n th e Respondent s counse l File d a motio n withdrawin g fro m th e cas e an d advise d thi s cour t th e Responden t wishe d t o represen t himself . ARGUMEN T Th e Respondent s counse l informe d thi s Honorabl e cour t b ystatin g th e Responden t woul d b e representin g himself . Th e fac ti s th e Responden tha d a conflic t o finteres t wit h counsel , an d wa s attemptin g t o retai n NE Wcounsel . Th e Responden t ha d t o endur e thi s hearin g pro-se , Th e sixt h Amendmen tguarantee s tha tth e accuse d H t o hav e th e assistanc e o fcounse l (SE E CAS E QTE S NOTE D AS SIXT H AMENDMENT ) I n powel l vs . Alabama , Justic e Southerlan d said , fo rth e cour t t o alway s requir e th e people s fundamenta l persona l right s associate d wit h a hearin g i e th e righ t t o counsel . Withou t counse l th e Responden tface d a losin g battl e .becaus e th e Responden t di d no t hav e th e guidin g han d o fcounse l i n ever yste p o fhi s hearing . Th e Respondent s sixt h Amendmen t right s wer e violated .04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 FA A* DM S 31005/00 7 STATEMEN TO F TH E FACT S Thi s Honorabl e cour tdi d no tallo wth e Responden tt o introduc e int o evidenc e valuabl e evidenc e Tha twoul d hav e cleare d thi s entangle d moras s o ffac tan d fiction . ARGUMEN T Thi s Honorabl e cour tha s a dut yt o weig h AL Levidenc e an d decide s o n evidence . Wit h respec t t o thi s Honorabl e court , valuabl e testimon ywa s no theard . Ha d thes e witnes s bee n abl e t o testif yth e followin g fact s woul d hav e com e int o light . 1 . Ther e wa s a verba l agreemen tbetwee n Ai rchoppe ran d Helicopte rFlite . 

### 2 . Ai rchoppe rwoul d have stated . Helicopte rFlit e di d hav e exclusiv e us e an d contro l ove rth e ai rcraf t I n question . Howeve rthi s di d no ttak e place . Thi s i s a violatio n o fth e Respondent' s Fourteent h Amendment . STATEMENTOF TH E FACT S Mr . McCoyth e (complainant ) testifie d a moderat e t o maximu m penalt ywa s appropriate Instea d a $11,00 0 dolla rpenalt ywa s imposed . Thi s amoun tWAS Increase d fro m th e norma l $10,00 0 dolla rpenalt yunde r4 9 use 4630 1 (a) (5 ) th e amount s ar e liste d a s follows . MAXIMU M $4,40 0 $11,00 0 MODERATE $ 2,20 0 S 4,39 9 MINIMU M $ 55 0 - $ 2,19 9 Thi s Honorabl e cour tthe n state d " I woul d normall yreduc e thi s figur e t o tak e accoun to f Mitigatin g factor s an d th e technica l natur e o fthi s violation , a s wel l a s th e realization tha tth e Responden tis , afte ral l a smal l busines s owner. "04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12006/00 7

ARGUMENT /

CLOSEIN G /

ARGUMEN T Wha treall ydrive s th e u.s . economy ? Smal l busines s owner s wit h fewe rtha n 50 0 employee s Drive s th e u.s . econom yb yprovidin g job s fo rove rhal fo fth e nation s prive tworkforce . Th e lates tfigure s fro m th e (sba ) sho wtha tsmal l businesse s wit h FEWE R tha n (20 ) employee s Increase d employmen tb y853,07 4 durin g 2005<2008 . Th e smal l busines s drive s th e America n economy , sai d Dr . cha d Montray , chie feconomis tfo rth e offic e o fadvocac yi n a pres s release . Smal l businesse s ar e jo b creator s durin g thi s har d crunc h o n ou reconomy , w e can' taffor d t o loos e thes e smal l businesses , an d th e number s prov e it . Th e Responden tI S a smal l busines s owner . Th e Responden tha s bee n i n busines s sinc e 196 9 (41 ) year s h e i s a productiv e membe r o fou rsociety . Thi s violatio n i s hi s firs tviolatio n an d las tviolation . Th e complainan tMr . McCo y testifie d a moderat e t o maximu m penalt ywoul d b e appropriate . Thi s Honorabl e cour tstate d

" h e woul d normall yreduc e th e penalt yo f$11,00 0 dollars , afte ral l th e Respondan tI s a smal l busines s owner. " Wit h today' s econom yca n w e reall yaffor d t o driv e awa yanyon e o fou r nation s smal l businesses ? afte ral l smal l businesse s increase d employmen tb y853,074 . Th e penalt yimpose d o n th e Responden tWOUL D i n fac tclos e hi s door s o fa 4 2 yea rol d business . An d fo rtha treaso n an d al l th e abov e state d thi s cas e shoul d b e relooke d at . REQUES T Fo rth e abov e reason s th e penalt yo f$11,00 0 shoul d b e reduce d t o somethin g mor e reasonable . Th e Responden ti s leavin g I tu p t o th e court s discretio n Ahearin g i n thi s matte ri s requested . Fo rth e forgoin g reasons , th e decisio n o fthi s cour tshoul d b e reversed .04/01/201 0 13:5 1 FA X202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0007/00 7 

### Respectfull ySubmitte d thi s ^^da yo fmarch , 2010 .

Q ^ Floy d Hoffma n Marc h ^ > 201 0 Atru e an d correc tcop ywa s maile d t o th e prope rperso n o n March ' 2010 .

^^= - FJoy d Hoffma n