10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 

### MARIDON Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. Respondent's Counsel 6130 Elton Ave 

### Las Vegas, NV 89107 Tel. 702-514-0102 

### Fax 702-410-6396


### In the Matter 

### of: U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATlON ADMINlSTRATION 

### JosephR.Maridon, Sr. FAADOCKETNO. 2014-0116 

### Respondent Judge Richard C. Goodwin PAGE 01/27

RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS MOTION FORPARTIAL DECISIQN (SUMMARY JUDGMENTI The Respondent files his Opposition to Complainants Motion for Partial Decision (Srunmary Judgment) pursuant to 14 CPR§13.218 

### (f) (5) i.Uld Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure (FRCP) and renews and realleges Respondent's previous Motion to Dismiss herein. I. Backgi'OUnd a11,d Argume11,t The Complainant alleges there is no genuine dispute offact and thatthis case does not require a hearil:lg. This is incorrect. The motion is based on an unpublished and specious interpretation of7 6 FR 76611, 766!2 (Dec. 8, 201!) which is based from 14 CFR §9U1. The gravamen ofthe complaintis whetherrespondent's parked vehicle interferedwiththe flight crewmembers performance oftheir duties

**~an** aircraft. Simply, complainant cannot establish that the material fact ofinterference as the evidence now stands. Complainant asks the courtto make a legal interpretation and finding unsupported on any facts in the record. Pagel of?10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 02/27 Complainant's motion and paragraph 4 ofthe complaint states in a conclusory fashion that "the respondent's parked vehicleinterfered withthe flight crewmentbers perfonnance oftheir duties aboard that aircraft." Complainant citesRespondent'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 longthe alleged blocking took place, whetherthe vehicle was voluntarily removed, whether the airport rules ofthe road were complied with, whether the pilots were able to 

### see and avoid the vehicle orthe extent ofphysical contact, ifany, respondent had with the aircraft. Consequently, complainant has not established thatthere was inte1ference,the crucial material issue offact. Whathe seeks by motion is ajudicial reaffinnation ofa specious unpublished interpretation of

### an inexperienced FAAAilworthiness Jnspector. Furthennore, there are other issues that were completely ignored 

### by the Complainant, namejy, what werethe duties ofthe crewmembers and exactly how were these duties allegedly interfered withTheFlight Crew had a duty to operate the aircraft in a mamter thatwas consistentwith their traini!lg and experie!lce in a safe and careful manner, keeping a proper look out and avoiding obstacles in theirpath. Nothillg alleged in the Complaint 

### orthe instant motion suggests that the Flight Crew lost the ability to control the aircraft or thatthe control ofthe aircraft was interfered with in any manner. 

### It is apparent that the Flight Crew could see both inside and outside ofthe aircraft, they were able to maintain directional control and the still had full use ofthe brakes atall times. Thus, none ofthe duties ofthe crewmembers Were interferedwith. The pilot on board the aircraft had a duty as a matter oflaw to not operate the aircraft "on any part ofthe surface of [the] airport ... 

### in a careless or reckless manner so 

### as to endangerthe 

### life orproperty ofanother." 14 C.F.R. 91.13(b). At the time ofthe incident alleged, the pilotwas attemptingto operate the aircraft in a manner that would bringthe aircraft in such close proximity to the Respondent's hangar so as to endanger the life, health and safety ofRespcmdent. See Responses to Complainant's Requests for Admissions, Numbe.-s Oue and Two attached hereto as EXJDBIT 1, see also Respondent's Page 2 of710/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395

**f~ARIDON** PAGE 03/27 

### Affid:wit previously filed with Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2. Furthennore, itis believed that the flight crew had been directedthrough training and should have known through experience to avoid the area around Respondent's hangar becausethe specific route that this flight crew bad chosen hacl provento be dangerous, with nwnerous blind alleys and out ofsight ofthe controltower.Jd. As the crewmembers were apparently avoiding the duty to notoperate the aircraft in a reckless or careless manner in contradiction oftheir training atthe time ofthe alleged incident, it cannot not be said that their duties were interfered with. Indeed, the discovery shows thatFAA Airworthiness Inspector Paciolla had never before alleged or charged anyone with a violation of 14 CFR §91.11: INTERROGATORY No. 1 O: State whether or not FAA Airworthiness Inspector Anthony Paciolla has investigated alleged violations of 14 C.f.R. 9l.ll at any time priorto September 29, 2012. RESPONS)3: To tho best ofundersigned's knowledge, he has not. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. !: Admit that FAA Airworthiness Safety lospector Anthony Paciolla has not conducted invo5tigations ofallegations ofviolations of 14 C.F.R. 91.11 prior to Septem.bet· 29. 2012. REPL Yo Admit Indeed, the Complainant was more coy in discoveryresponses when asked to admit ifthe FAA hadprosecuted a case under 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91,11 with the set offacts alleged inthe complaint and 

### it is a unique case offirst impression for the FAA: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.2: Admit that the FAA has not prosecuted a case under 14 C.!'.R. 91.11 with the set offacts alleged in the complaint and itis a unique case offirs\ impression for the FAA. Page 3 of710/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 04/27
REPLY:

**Objcctio~** cans for a legal conclusion, Respondent isjust as capable as conducting legal n:::seatch in-w this issue. Not\vithstanding

**~d** while not waiving this objection! undersigned lacks sufficient information to admit or dony and therefore denies. J,UlQUEST FOR ADMISSION No, 3; Admit that the J'AA did not publish any opinion '"garding or prosecute any alleged vtolation of 14 C.P.R. 19.11 that didnot involve tl;J,e entry into an aircraft by M individual or an object (such as a laser beam) controlled by au individual prior to this case. REPLY: Objection" calls for a legal conclusion. Respondent isjust as capable as conducting legal research into this issue. Notwithstanding and while not waiving tbjs objection, undersigned looks sufficient information to admit or deny and therefore denies. 

### The undersigned has researched and caused to be researchedthis issue and finds no case as described by 

### the requested admissions. Thus, it now appears thatthe Complainant has invented a new way ofviolating 14 C.F.R. § 

### 91,11 without publication, precedent or legal research and wants this comt to sanctifY its actions without hearing all ofthe facts. Every case cited by complainant shows some physical connection to or entry into the aircraft

**~f.** 

### In re A.broms, FAA order 2008-2 (2008) (Improperly operating a Portable Electronic Device on a flight and interference with a flight crew) ln re. Wal/esa FAA orderNo. 2013-2(2013)( finding that Wallaesa violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 121.317(£),' 121.317(k:),' and 121.580," while he was a passencyr on board a SouthwestAirlines flight). The complainant misdirects the cowt otating there needbe no actual physical contact with crewmembers,(Complainant's. Briefp.6, l.3) Complainant ignores the fact that in each ofthe cases complainant cites, the individual was 011 

### boardthe flight and hadactual physical contact with the aircraft. Respondent's position has always been thatthere must be some contact with the aircraft not necessarily the crewmembers for 14 C.F.R. § 

### 91.11 to apply. (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.) Respondent's position is consistent with all published interpretations ofl4 C.P.R. § 

### 91.11. 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Moreover, none Page4of710/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395

**I~ARIDDN** PAGE 05/27 

### ofthe cases cited by Complainant address a first amendmentright to protest ofthe failure ofa governmental unit to redress a grievance with ex post facto interpretation and due process consequences. The factual basis which have beenrecognized in the discovery materials provided by complainant and adopted by him in 

### his use ofthem to support his position in his position in the instantmotion. (Complainant's Motion p.3 

### citing Respondent's admissions) (those constitutional issues 

### will be further addressed in a subsequent motion to dismiss, ifnecessary) Complainant asks the Court for deference to an unpublished, ex post facto interpretation of 

### 14 CFR 

### 19.11 particularly when complainant is unwilling to concede or admit that this is a 

### unique case offirst impression where there is no contact ofany 

### sortwith the aircraft REQUESI FOR ADMISSION No. 6; Adroit that at no time did Respondent move toward, touch, entet' or cause any object under his control to enter the Vision Airlines Domier Do 228 on September 29, 2014. REPLY:Objection, vague as to "Vision Airlines'\ etc_ Notwithstanding the objection, adroit Respondent did not pbyska11yenter the aircraft. 

### The complah1ant again argues that1he "plain language" of 

### 14 CFR 

### §19.11, the FAA's unpublished interpretati0!1ll)ld legal precedent establish that the acts ofthe Respondent fall under the act. Simply the FAA's unpublished interpretation is ex post facto tojustify its position that is unsupported by publication, precedent or plain language. The 

### interpretation therefore shouldbe disregarded and the Complaint dismissed. To argue that the "plain language ofthe regulation does not specify the person interfe1ing with a crewmember must be onboardthe ail·craft" is clearly inconsistent with the history ofthe FAA's own previous interpretation of §91.11. 

### "In 

### a later amendment to the 1ule, the FAA stated thatthis section was "clearly intended to apply to 

### passengers• • *andany other 'person' onboardthe aircraft." 64 

### FR 1076, Page 5 

### of710/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053g5 MARIDDN PAGE 05/27 1077 (Jau. 7, 1999) as cited iu 76 FR76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) (Exhibit 1). The individual neednot be onboatd the aircraft, but there mustbe some physical connection to the aircraft whether by touch orby object controlled bythe respondent. The case cited 

### in 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011), (Admt•. v. Siegel) and 

### the danger sought to be prevented (laser beams) involved entry into or connection with an aircraft. The purpose ofthe use ofthe plain language 

### or plain meaning rule in 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) was clearly 

### tojustify 14 CFR §19.11 

### 's application to lasers regardless ofwhether they were used from the ground 

### or another aircraft. 

### It was not intended to extendto legitimate acts of protestby further illlpublished 

### ex post facto interpretation. Ifithadbeen intended to extend beyond lasers, the plain language wouldbave clear:ly stated so to give notice ofadditional applications of 14 CFR 

### §19

### .11. It should not be extended to Respondent in the instant circumstances. 

### ''An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub 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.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)"cited

### with approval inFederal Communicarions Commission 

### v. Fox Television Stations, inc., 556 U.S. 502, 129 

### S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738, 77 USLW 4337 (2009). The interpretation sought 

### by Complainant clear:ly violates the notice, due process and ex post facto clauses ofthe United States Constitution. 

### Conclusion L Complainants motion should be denied; and 2. the Complaint should be dismissed for the reasons set forth herein and in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss



### Is/ Joseoh R. Mar/don. 

### Jr. Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. Attorney 

### at Law Counsel for Respondent 6130 Elton Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89107 DATED: October 30, 2014 

### /s/ Walter L. Avers Walter L, Ayers Attorney at Law Counsel for Respondent 13435 North Whitehouse Court Spokane, WA 99208 DATED: October 30, 2014 Page 6 of710/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 07/27 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that Respondent's RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) has been served viw Facsiullle and/or electronic mail 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 2Wl000 Fax 202-493-5142 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal AviationAdministration Western-Pacific Region 1601 Lind Ave., SW Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2165 FAX:425-227-1007



## (~.----·····

**~:=::--~:** 

### !sf Joseph R. Maridon, Jr.

Page 7of7**1~/3~/2~14 ~3:~5PM**  **7~241~5395** MARIDDN PAGE

**~8/27**



# EXHIBIT 110/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 Joseph K Maridon, Jr. Respondent's Counsel 6130 Elton Ave Las Vegas, NV 89107 MARIDON

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASI:IINGTON D.C. IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH M.<\RJDON, SR. FAA Case No. 20l2WP190142 FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0116 (Civil Penalty Action) JUDGE RJCHARD GOODWIN PAGE 09/27

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS To: Complainant through his attomey, David Shayne. In accordance with 14 C.F-R-§13.220 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent responds to the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production ofDocuments, and Req!l<'st for Admissions, Submitted by Complainant.. INTERROGATORIES AND BEQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION INTERROGATORY No. 1: Describe with specificity all of the facts and argmnents which you anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of 'fransportation (DOT) hearing in tins matter pertainingto the avoidance or mitigation ofthe sanction sought bythe FAA in this case. l have owned and operated an ahport and have knowledge ofthe rules ond regulations regarding their safe operations. I am further aware thatvehicular land operations on art airport are 

### w:ithin thejurisdiction and !'esponsibility ofthe operator ofthe ahport as represented in FAA Advisory Circular No: 150/5210-20
, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely.

On a nmnber ofoccasions before September 12, 20 12! contacted the Nortl1 Las Vegas Airport Manager and requested th.atVisionAirlines not taxi by my hanger due to the excessive noise generated by the 1 of7 RESPO!-lDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPL-AJNA.l-I'T'S INIT!J\L DISCOVERY REQUESTS10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 10/27
Do228 Domier operated by Vision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myselfand my visiting grand child. Despite my requests to the Airport manager, Vision Airlines continued to taxiby my hangar.

I am72 years ofage and retired. The excessive noise generated by Vision Airlines Dornier 228s was sufficiently piercing to cause me to b.ave to remove my hearing aids and cover my ears. Normally, I amin my hangar, working onmypersonal airplanes and the removal of my hearing aids is difficult as my hands are dirty and/or greasy from working on my airplanes and mustbe washedpriorto the removal of myhearing aids, bywhich time the Vision A.iJ:lines aircraft have passedmy hangar. I have owned the hanger depicted in EwibitAbefore September 12, 2012. Whenthe fAA Control Tower (oldtower)was betweenmy hanger andthe Vision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not use the route that passednextto my hanger. 

### Xt was my understanding based on infonnation andbeliefthat this was du.e to noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller fromthe old tower could clearly see the aircraft on the taxiway in question andin the hangerrows near the taxiway.

The new FAA Control Tower is now across the airfield and has a restricted view ofthose hanger rows and does not control the taxiway thatpassedby myhanger. The Controllers inthe tower frequently state over the radio to pilots words to the effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" wh.en the pilots request taxi instructions. The controllers at North Las Vegas Airporthave also noted that their visibility from the new tower is limited in th.at area. (VGT Bulletinpage 2, July 2013,)

I also b.ad serious safety concerns about large commercial aircraft taxiing inthat areabecause there are t.mrnerous "blind alleys" from the rows ofenclosedhangers onthe right and left ofthat taxiway. I have seen small aircraft on the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircraft taxiing from those enclosed hanger rows to the right and left ofthetaxiways. There is a safer, alternative route that was previously usedby Vision aircraft It passes the open shade hangers andthe fuel pumps and ontoTaxiway "A" that gives the controllers inthe new tower a far betterview 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 hangers, becausethere are no blindalleys. 2of7

**RES~ONDENT'S** RESPONSES TO COMJ'LAJ:NANT'S INITIAt- DISCOVERY REQUESTS10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 11/27
The "backway" taken by the Do228 Dornier pilots (as described in the pilot's and copilot's statements) is a shorter route to the runup areathan the safer, alternative route described in paragraph 7. On iofm:mation and belief, it is apparent that the Vision pilots were taking an tmsafe short cut to save time and fuel since in my experience there 

### is nrrdy any "congestion" at the fuel pumps that would hinder an 

### aircraft taxiing in the area ofthe fuel pumps at the North Las Vegas Airp011.

INTERROGATORY No.2: IdentifY by name, address and telephone number all persons whom you know to have personal knowledge ofthe matters allegedinthe Complaint. See attachment A INTERROGATORY No. 3: IdentifY by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the assertions in the Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you anticipate raising in this matter. See Attachment A INTERROGATORY No. 4: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hearing in this matter, and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summaryofeach persons anticipatedtestimony_ Joseph Ma:Iidon, Jr., s<::e Attachment A Joseph Maridon, Sr., see Attachment A INTERROGATORY No. 5: IdentifY by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through which witness or witoesses. See Attachment A INTERROGATORY No. 6: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4, above, specify their specific area ofexpertise, and provide a synopsis oftheir credentials, background, training and experience. See Attachment A 3 of7 RESPONDllNT'S !illSPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY lillQlJESTS10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 12/27
INTERROGATORY No.7: With respect to

**~ach** expert you expect to call as a witness, state the subject matter on w)J.ich the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the 

### facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a sunnnary of the grounds fur each such opm1on. See Attachment A INTERROGATORY No.8: State by name, address, telephone number, date of conversation, and substance of conve<Sation, all persons [other than legal counsel or spouse] with whom you have discussed the matters alleged in the Complaint. Gary Gabbard 5212 Rrunbling Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89120 702-592-5732 Rich Martin, M.D. 8853 W. Rio Verde Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89147 702-371-4941 Mike Scalera 

### 17229 E. Temple Rd. Spokane, WA992l7 509-998-410I 

### I have no way to date these conversations. They described that the 

### FAA had chargedme with interfering with a flight crew at VGT on an uncontrolled area ofthe ramp byusing my pickup tmck to block the taxi path andthat it was a way to gct the attention ofthe airport management to resolve 

### a noise problem. The result was no response from the airport managementbut this charge from the 

### FAA. I also explained to them thatthis looked like Visiou Airlines was using the FAA to harass me. I arn sure 

### I related other details like the Vision chiefpilot visiting myhangar and ratherthau trying to resolve the issue he informed

### me that the issue had beenturned over to the 

### P AA and TSA. 

### Some ofthese conversations go backtwo years and 

### I cannot provide more details or dates. 

### Ifl can recall others that 

### I had any substantive conversations with 

### I will add them to the Jist. INTERROGATORY No.9: Ifyou deny any or all ofRequests for Admissious 

### l and 

### 2, please el(p\ain in detail the 

### specific reason for each and every fact denied.

Respondent objects to request for admission 1, because 

### it is uon-specific 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 North Las Vegas 

### AiJport preventing 

### an aircraft 

### froro proceeding past his hanger. Respondent denies blocking the forward motion ofthe aircraft since 

### it was able 

### to proceed forward, and alter its course and North

### Las Vegas airport rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right ofway 

### and the 

### aircraft b,ad the obligation to 

### see and avoid any hazards. 

### AiJport Mllllllger was previously informed ofbut 

### did not resolve the tfL"<i, and noise issues. 4of7 RESPONDENT'S .RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S !NIDAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 13/27

As to request for admission Z, Resl'ondent objects to the non-specific reference to "one or more persons" and tbe "aircraft," both ofwhich remain unidentified in this request for admission, other than Vincent Rivas. Respondent admits telling Vincent Rivas an airyort employee that i't'SlJOndent parked his truck in frol\t of the aircraft to protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling in tbe area directly adjacent to RespondOI\t's hangar after the airPott manager had been notified of the 1\0ise and taxi issues North Las Vegas Airport Rules do not give aircraft on tbe ground the right of way and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potential hazards. Airport M:mager was previously infonned ofbut did not resolve the

**taxi~** and noise issues. 

### REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to 

# myour answer to the preceding interrogatoriesNo. 1 throughNo.9. See Attachment A 

### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

REOlmST FOR ADMISSION NO 1. Admit that, on or about Sevtember 9, 201Z, you ll\tentionally parked a vehicle on a portion of the North Las Vegas AirPort in the vicinity of a hanger you either · owned, rented, or were otherwise using at the time an aircraft was atten)pting to travel 

### along the same portion ofthe airport in manner preventing the forward movement ofthe aircraft. Respondent objects to this request for admission because it is non-specific al\d does not identify the aircraft. Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the hood up and hazard lights flashing in the vicinity of his hangar on the North Las Vegas Aiqlort preventing an aircraft from proceeding past his hanger. Respondent denies blocking the forward motiol\ ofthe aircraft since it was able to proceed forward, and alter its course and North Las Vegas airyort rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right ofway and the aiJ:craft had the obligation to see and avoid any hazards, AirPort Manager was previously infonned ofbut did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. REQUEST FOR ADMISSTON NO 2. Adroit that, following the il\cident referenced in Request for Admission No. 1, you stated to one or t.nore persons, including Vil\cent Rivas, that you parked your truck in frol\t of the aircraft il\ order to protest the aircraft travelling il\ the area neat your hangar. Respondent objects to the non-specific reference to "one or more persons"' and the "aircraft," both of which remain unidentified in this request for adrnissiol\, other than Vincent Rivas. Respondent admits telling Vincent Rivas an aiJ:port employee that respondent parked his truck ill front of the aircraft to protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling in the area directly adjacent to Respondent's hangar after the 5 of7 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS1B/3B/2Bl4 B3:B5PM 7B241B53g5 MARIDDN PAGE 14/27 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 ofway and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potential hazards. Airport Manager was previously informed of, but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. DATED this_ day of_____ 2014. Joseph R. Maridon,Sr., Respondent

DATED this30day of September 2014.



# s::;2--

**,~;_--·** 

# '"• . 

# ""'

Attorney(s) for Respondent

6of7

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INTIIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395

**I~ARIDDN**
CERTIFICATE OF SEBYJCE I hereby 

### certifythat the foregoing Complainant's Initial Discovery Request has been served via Facsimile and/or electronic mail this date, to the following: David Shayne 

### FAA Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Ave. SW 

### Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: (425) 227-2165 Facsimile: ( 

### 425) 227-1007 Dated September 

## :;JJ, 2014.

**c;;;?---~--·····** 

# ........... '"Foseph R. Maridon, 

### Jr.

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S !NillAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS7 of7 PAGE 15/2710/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395
u.s,. oepoilJnent
**otT~tl** 

### Fiod<nol **AV~d!!Ct1** A,drrtlnl$\rdll<!ll'



### Mr, J()saph R 

### Marldon, Jr., 

## esq,

**Th~** 

### ME!rii;loi1 Law f'lttn 6130 Eillotl Avenue Las.

### Vf.II'J$ll. Nevada 89101 Dear Mr. MaridQl).: **~IARIDON**



### ~e: 

## Freedom ()f.infrom;rtlon 

### AsHFOIAl ReaueJ>t#2013-W!§!5WP PAGE 15/27



### Thblletter

### I!'!·in 

### response to your Freedpm of **hifoqn~tlon** 

### Ac;t
**{FQI~)** 

### requ!*ltdated ·. Octob§r31 , 2012. You 

### requested irllfe&tif!.;ltive raportlil concerlliflS 

### allegations. of

### violations. 

### of 14 CFR 

### $t11, 

### in tl:te 

### !asHen 

## years. · A 1;earch 

### fonecords was 

## oonc!ucte(l 

## at.th.e·.LasVegas 

### fljg'ht standar<l!3 l;li$ttict Office. Thetawere no hwestlgatlva **records<:ol'lducte«;~** 

### b)i.li111Jpact()rAnthony 

### Paciolla, concemins all!19atlcms ofviolation of

### 14 CFR9U'1, In 

### the last ten years. 

### ·Tl'l,er'll·

**~ra** 

### no fees associated With this

### request. )];e undatsigMd

**~nd Niche~**  

### Reyes, 

### Manager, Flight **Stan~args** 

### Pivislon,. are 

### responsible forthiS n_o (eCO£dS d.etermina\i(lQ, YQU.JTiay.

### reque;'it **reconsiqet~tlol'l** 

### ottt)i:;i **det~rmln~tion** 

### by 

### wliting 

# to the.;f'.sslst.)ntAdmlnistratl)r

## for
**Finan~ ~nd**  

### Management (AFN•1), Federal 

### Aviat!Qn Admil'liStra\ion, 

### ao.o tl'ldepenclence Avenue. sw,Washington, DQ, 20591, Your request fot 

### reconsl.deratiori must be 

## made in'Wiiting 

### williin 30 days from 

### the date Of 

### receipt. of

### thl.s letter

**~ild lrlt,~st**  

### include all 

### information and **a~guments** 

### relied upon, Your 

### lettet must s!'!te thatlt 

### is·M **~WpeaiJrom**

### tile **itbt;~~escribed** 

### denilll of

# arequest made under

**~he** 

### FQIA. the envel()pe 

### containing tlie appeal !lhould b;! 

### marked 

### 'FOIA.' $ihC!!!rtillY. "-..........
**~** .., " ,,.,.... 

# wJ.4~c~~~~

**W~llam** 

### C. 

### Wrtl'!yroiribe ··

**Fl.~icm$1**

### Atlmini.strator 

## ATTACHMENT A10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 17/27



# EXHIBIT 210/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 18/27



## -~ p_$DEJ'AAlmNT011 'I.'RANSPORT<\TION FJtDERALAVIATION

## ADMJNJSTRATION Inthei\.h:tternfl

**Jo~b** 

### R. 

### Maridon, Sr. Relipondent Mwiiiisttative Law

### Judge Richard C. (.ilx}dwill . FAADOCKET FAA CASE NO. lll12WP1!1014Z (Civil Penaltr

### Aet.{nn) AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPf! R. 

### MARIDQN. SK 1N SU:PPORT OFMOTION TO DISMISS .STATEOFWASHINGTON ) ; ss 

### COUNTY OF 

### SPOJ<ANE ) I, JOSEPH R. MARIDON, SR., l>t<il:ig

**fir~(luly** SWQ)n 

### on

**o~th, ~der**  

### pen11lty ofpetjury, \.leposes and 

### says; ). I 

### am 71

**y~ar:s** 

### ofage. 1have perwnlll 

### knowledge ofthe fat::ts s.et

**fu~ jl~ein,.** 

### except 

### .ful:those.

**ma:~rs**

### st:atedto

### be based upon :information

### ,Bl:ufbelief; which matters I belleveto 

### b¢ ttue. 2.. I am a licensed Profes$i:(>JI(!l 

### Englneetc, Ihave owned aridoperate\1

**~·** 

### alrpol't ,I!Dd haye knowledge 

### eftberules and regulationsrtlglftdirig their safe

**op~ratioPS'.l** iltn 

### further a;wlU:e 

### tbat vehh;ular 

### land ol'erations onan

# a:tr.,ortare

### within theJurisdiction and 

### responsihmty ofthe epetatorof

### the airport ru; 

### repres·enttd jn

### f 

## M Advisory CJ.icul>¥ No; 

### 150/52.1

**0-~0** 

### , GROUND vEHICLEOP:ltltATIONS ON 

### .AJRI>ORTS on

### whiCh 1have relied !ll1d <;(tnt)nueto 

### rely, 3. 

### On anumber o:f'occ&iOlls\b!lfure Septetnber 11, 20121.

### contal)tedthe NQrth Ltw 

### VegllS Airport Managerand requested that

### Vision Airlines

### nottaxi by

### IllY hariger

### due fi> 

### the

**~ce_E;Si;ve**

### Mise geneynf!'d by 

### l;h:e Do228 Do!1lier 

### operated

### by VisiOnAlrliney due to. its 

### advet'S() effeCt WI myselfand 1\l)'

### vi$iting g;rand cllild. 

### 4, 

### 1also ha(! 

### serious

**~e;ty ¢tln~m~~** 

### 11\>ofit.larg<: conwerci!ll 

### aircra_tltl\xiins 

### inth(lt

### areabecause there are·numeroUs ''blind alll:!y»" from 

### :th!i rows ofenclosed

**h$lge~** 

### onthe

**rig!!.~ ~**  

### h•fl of

### thattaxiwey.10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 19/27 

## 1have $el$ 

### SIIUIII 

## aircraft oo the 

### taxiway 

## in question come nose to 

### nose

**W~th** 

### other

**~~jj:**

## taxiingfrwn !hos:e

**~n¢losed** 

### hanger 

### rows t!) 

### ti).e. rigll\ 

### M4leftofthe

### taxiways. (Depict<:din.exhfuit
**A.~W\ched**

### hereto and incolJlorated bo;rein by

### thisl"'ference) 5. I 

### have owno;d the haliger depicted 

### l.rCEldlibitA before
**Se)Mmb~r** 

### 12, .2.012. When the F

### A.A (]!oQ.irdl Tower (old toW<:r) was betwe.en

### .m,yb.anget 

### and the Vision

**Airlil\~** f'>fllP, 

### Visi<>p; l!ircraft did not 

### l):le the route that passednel>tto t!l;yhanger: It

### w.ascmy **und~rstanding ba~ed**  **on.infotma~on.and** 

### belief 

### that

**tbi~** 

### was due to 

### noise
**ab~t<;IIlent**

### Md $llfety 

### issues, although the oontrollcr frpmthe.o!d

**to~t** 

### could 

### clearly see till' 

### aircraft on.the t:ruci\.vay 

### i!1

**q,1w~ti.On** 

### and 

### in the hange;noW» 

### near the

**f~!Xiway.** 

### 6.. The newFAA 

### Control Tower is 

### now actOss the

**;~.irfield** 

### and.hM!l r¢stricted view ofthose hangerrows and dol's 

### notcontrol'tile taxiway 

### thatpassed by

## myhanger.. 

## TheCOil):!'ollers :ix; 

### the tower 

### ti:egnently state 

## owrthe radio to

### pilots wOJ'dl; 

### to tb,e effect, 

### "Ramp is 

### uncontrQll¢d'' 

## when the.pilots request

### .taxi instmctlQns. 

### The corittollers atl;'lorth 

### L.as Vegas A,irpol;t 

### have

### .alil<!Ynoted that

### their 

### visibility fi:orn the
**n~~Wtower** 

### is limited in.

### that

### area..

### (ExhibitB, VGT Bulletinpage 

### :2, 

### Jufy 2013, aWJc;IJ:ed hereto and inc<:\!po.ratedlwrein by

### tl\is (efl'fencc) 7. 

### ·There is 

### a safer,
**al~v~ rpJ,~te**  th'l.t.

**~** 

### previously 

### used by

### V)siQil a$ta.t1:. 

### ltpasses the

**~n ~Q.ade**  

### hangers and 

### the 

### fue1pumps Mdon.,to

### J:I!Xiway "A''that

**~dves ~e**  

### controllersinthe. new tower a 

### fatbettlli'

### ¥lew oftaxiing **co~~lll**

### .aircraft; ilf

### lessnoisyto 

### the tenahfl>, ll!:ld 

### gives tbe

### Vision.pilot& a

. betterviewofsma!J aircraftmd

**V<~hicl!:$** 

### inPvlt!g 

### .in. mdaboutthe 

### open shade hangers, 

### becyusethere

**~**

UQ.

**b~ind l\ll~y!>.**  

### (ExhibitA) !L 

### The ''ba!'kway"

### fuken by 

### the 

### Do228 Dtltnierpilots, l!S 

### cbara¢terized in

### the

### pilot's and copilot's statements, is a shortenout<; to the

**run~up** 

### areathanthe safer, alteroative 

### t(:J\)te descrij)ed inparagraph 

### 7, ·On 

### infotllllitioo and 

### belief, it ia

**app~nt**

### that

### the Vision pilots were taking 1m

### unsafe shQrtcUl; to 

## saw time



## B,Itclfuel.since in

### my experieuce:the(f.l is

## rarely IIDY **"con~stion"** at

### the fuel pumps that

**:Wo~ld.**

### hinder B,Il 

### ·aircraftfal<.iing 

### in the 3rea oftlJe.fuef

### pnrops at

### th<l North LasVegas

### Airj;lort.



## .. , ..,,.. 

# ... 210/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% MARIDON 

### PAGE 20/27

-··. ···,,:'10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON 

## F.xlu'bitA 

### toAf!:id!lvit ofJO$ep)l

## JLMl!rldoll. Sr. AM;ii

**Vlew~** 

### ofNorth, Ll!.s

**V~** 

## Airport and·FAA Diagram 

## L$<JENp 1.

## N.ewTQwet 2.

**~ef**

### allege\\ incident .

**~. Y~on**  

### Airlines Ramp 

# 4.Enclosed''Blind.Alley"


### ~gers 

### (RigJ'ltM4

## Le:ft .ofTaxlway) 

## 5. Ojleil

### Shade Hangel'S 

### 6. 

### Ftu:l Pl,lm,ps 

## 1. M<ltiJlon Hllpger 3.OlqToWill' Site ••



## ~- **B.~**

# areaRunway 7 1 • 

### ·~· .fi:::. 

### ..:.~· 'r • • ,


### "G~~. ·
**···~F'**

### J)vctway F · 1·••· ., .,,,,,

**-~-** ,.,,,, '""''



## :AAA.,. Shortcut

**"B~k**

### waf'

## takenby

### VlsiM Airlines pilots BBQ.... Sa.fer

## route by 

### SWe

**Ra!Ig~** via

### Taxiway A



# •~\4''tQ 50'

# (enl~edae!,i!jl.vl~).. 

## 11<ti21Wingspan 

## 5S'.8''

'·· ,.

_

## .. :.· ·,

,, . ' . '.:.' PAGE 21/27

. .. ,.,·

··'10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 22/2710/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% 

### MARIDON PAGE10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 

### NORll! I,AS'Vl;GA:>

**T6W~;R*** 125.7 360;75 GNOCON

**j~l?** . Cl.NCOE\ 124;()



### J.!I.NuAwt 2lllil ANNUAL AAll' Of CHANGe 

### o:J•w MARIDDN

CAUTION' SE-AtERT TO ll!JNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES. PAGE 24/27

REAOSACKOP.All RUNWAY'fiOLDING INS!RUOlONS IS IU'QLJIREO_ 

# i i

... DIAGRAM NORTH lAS VEGAS (VGT)10/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% 

### MARIDON

' ,, -.,.;!i:·!::'·',•,' ':!·.:,,:,

..;·..-·:·' "·,'..·..,,;::'''' ·:.,, 

### PAGE 25/27

·.!'

' \:· '..·, ', '·i'.:10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN 

# Alrs:u'

**STAKEHOLDER~** 

### MEETING The next 

### Stakeholder meeting is scheduled on $eptember 19, 2013. ate:OO p.m. · PAGE 25/27

hallfue. pleasure of knowing oim,

**r.t~** 

## wm

**bed~:~eply** missed. 

### PRQJECJC()NCEPT FAClllf' UPDATE - For your 

### APPROVAL -Ifyou are plannivn conyemenoe· 

### there are S!3YE!ral

**;:~ny** 

### improVI;)ITientl>to your hangar or Wl!sti;l (lil collection barrels iocated cotntnert:Jai facility



### y<;~u must receive. tt>roqghout the airport. Please dis- approval from the · DOA before



### -~-,.,-wasttoiHmiY **in·tl!ese·oolfee..-·-·--@??!'l!l.cJ.1!19o_::rh~ E!lls.i!'i~.~s**  **Offi~** 

### win tion s1te.s. The DOA



### rou~nely has complete aProject ConceptApproval tile



### wa~e oil removed and repro- form l:!a:ed O!il.yourcornptete project c.esaed. descnpt1on and concept drawmg {e

### MEMORIAL - Larry 

### James Sig- 

### !Jalkow left 

### us too soon, 0

### n April 2!}, ;w.13

**<!l~r** living a ver; full lire an(j tqucl:ilng so many lives along the Way. 

### He ·Was 

### bol'll on December 

### 24th, 1947 and grew up In G$tden City an(j was vecy active In 

### the 

### community Christian can-. 

### !Em

**H•N~amE!d** hi1;1 pilot:s license 

### on his 

### 1tlth

**~lrthd!!Y** and continued to 

### fly his. 

### t>ntlre life. In Las Wgas. hfl 

### joined ,the< 

### police departrr\el'lt Where 

### he proudly

**'s.~.tVed** for over

### 30 years. 

### ih

**~~tlol.l~** '<!!Pacitief<, 

### He was i.n· strumental'

**lr~'** helping the polk:i3. fore!"' integrate wJth aviation il!Jsets and speaih!i!aded many of

### its penal transportation Ptotlr<ims.. AlWaY$ kllQWn as a hard worker who posli.e.lll!$d many

**c~flve** and Innovative Ideas, 

### Larry wow.ld tak.e

**hi~** nalj.Jral e:ntrepreoeurial spirit

**,andii:>~us~$** 

## on buUd!ng one of th9 most succ.essful ch.11rter airlines in the Las 

### Vegas 

# area. He retired

**in2011~:~ncf** ff)tl,imed 

### to Boise to be near 

### hi$ 

### fiimily anti spend what. he called his H-A-P-P-Y years, fish

### ing in bls backyard, doing regular 9Pt\S$ 

### patrt\ls. ru·oning on his 

### fa• Vbtlte,

**trail~.** 

### and

**spe~dlhg tim~<**  with his beloved wife. Larry was a true 9!!.!lllr:>man and served' as ,a,genuine 

### exarnoiEI of humatHtv to all who mail to the.Airport Manager

**B~<ru:i@** 

## .mcc.arfl!n,com or submit 

### to the office). · ·· 

### 'Nqrth Las Vegas Airport 

### AirportManaQE!r 2730 Alrpbrt Drive, $uite 1M

**Nq~** 

### Lei:;; Vegas, Nevada 89032 

### DQA wlll respo11d 

### to 

### your reqt<est.as soon •as pqssJple (mEiy take a fl'.w 

### weei<S based 

### on tile

**compl~xity** 

### of the project). A Pro]Mt Coordinai:Qr: will be assigned to assist 

### you and

**,~** .pr&-eof'lstru9tlon l<lck-off meeting 

## wiil be. Sl!1heduled. Duling construction, the cbntraotor 

### Will

**~qrk** 

### With the DOA Project Coordina!Dr 

### and lnspeGtor 

## to complete the 

### l>rq)acl 

## Aeoeptance C.heckllst.- Vllhen 

### all cheoklist

**i~ms** ha>.re been completed 

### (includWi the submiUjon 

### cif

**As~Builts**

### ), DOA ConstruooowEnglneeiingwill confin;n that all business/ acquisition issues have been 

### \10mpletelil t)efore (:losing 

### .\he projeot. All Pri:!jecl$ shall be Jn accordahse with 

### ihe Tenant lmpmvemellt 

## Manual located



### on~llne ·

# ai http;(/ 

### www.mPilartllll..comJDoing Bushess 

### /tenant.lmprqvement.htmt10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN 

## VGT CONTROLLER TALK

**K~ep** 

### offthe Gr:assl More

**precis~ly,** 

### kf:lep offthegreenpainted areas 

### in the vicinitY ofRwy 7 ahd Taxiway 

### G & 

### F. In :.)n

**~ffort** 

### to reduce the 

## number ofpilot qevlatlonl!, 

## many airport.l<!yout c:hanges 

### have l:)een made or

**an'~** 

### in progress. Over 

### the last decade, VGT has

**const<:~ntly** 

### been. 

### near the top 

### nationwide for the m.ost runwayfncutsiOrts.

**aqnu;;~l!y;** 

### but we're 

### changhig th!lt. currently, we· are 

### well below are historical

### year to date average and well 

### on ovrW<!Y to a spectacular

### year. However, With the change in g®graphloal layout 

### come. some issue!;l that.aU pilots shoJ,Jj(j l;le aware.. lights while taxiing after sunset as blue reflectors are being temporarily utiliti!d to delineate taxiWay edges where 

### the (lreen il!l<imds 

### have been added. Third,, the rurit:ip

**ar~a** 

### is no longer a movement

**area~** 

### ATC 

## may orr;nay not be

**all{ar~** 

### ofthe

**pre.seh~.** 

### of aircraf< 

## @Xiing in the

**ylclt:~ity**

### .. 

### And last, 

### the

**t:;~xi** 

### cle?ranc"!, 

### 'Runway 

### '7, taxi. 

### via G' authorizes. airor11ft 

### to cross taxiway A at\d 

### up to 

### the hold 

### short marking for 

### RunV!Iay 

### 1, Many

**~ircrqft** 

### are stopping short ottaxiway A and contaotirig Tbwar prjor ta 

## .emtering the movement

**an~a.** 

### While not :<In issue In itself, during 

### peak traffic 

### periods, 

## l:rol\iing short of taxiway A may !<ause

**bloo~ges** 

### in the 

### taxUane. · As summar approaches, I! is vital fot pilots 

## t.o sta)! aware of

**w~ther** 

### canditicms anc! 

### its impa.ct to. the p:erformance 

### ohircraft lncraa$ed V!keoff distam;.e, 

## reduced rnte of 

## climb, increased true air speed on landing 

## aM approaeb, 

### and

**!nc:r~aseci** 

### ian(ling roll distan.ce are all affected by density 

### altitude. Additionally, 

### thundersh;mns

**car,~** 

### develop rapidly anct sho,uld be cause

**fo~** 

### concern, Until nexttime, 

### heads.·yp, hOld' short, 'IIY right. 

### Fra.tarne!ly,

**At:~thony** 

### V?ifl.f'iO, VGTCc;ntrofler 

## · **p..'lll~~on M~tlrrg.s** 

**·~ra,nd** 

## c;a"yon

**~oo!1l** · 

## Ccmferenee Ro.om 

### 2nd l\ii9!Jday- 9AP- 

### NelliS Sr. squadron All) 

### Mol'\day -GAP •Nellis Sr. Squadroll 

### 1sttueSllay- 

## !=MChapter t63 2nd

**Tuesday~** 

### 1/4

**ScaleA.s~o.::** -6:45pm 

### t\>t \IVerlnesdSIY - 

### CommemorativeAir Force 2nd Wedt.'esday- :RebefSquadron 

### (lh Mod1.ilar 

### Bliiltfing} 4th 

### Wl3Qne&tay - P,r<Jp -

**Nut~** .Eyacy TJ:IU(8. • Clelrk

**Co~llty** 

### oompqs!te ,:Sq!1Mf011 CiVIl AirPatrol 4th Thursday'- FAA FASTTEAM 

### 4ih Monday - Dust Devils 1stTuesday- CAP 2r)d

**Tu~s.day-** 

### LV Ea!Jies 3f!l:

### T-uesday - 99s - **5~30pm** 

### -7:00pm 4th TU.ell;d!>y- LV Ball(}on :G!ub

**.3~·** 

### Wednesday - 

### co.mrnemorative Air 

### Force

**t:\i:J!iryl'hut~;,** 

### - Cl!llrk County Composite S(luadron 

### CivitAir Patrol: (All 

### meetingS

### an!J at 7PM unless otherwlsll noted.) PAGE 27/27