US IJEP A.RTMENT OF TRANSPORT A. TION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON DC 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

EXTRE:MR RNRRDY StJLUTfDNS IN-C. RECEIVED 

Herein known as the Respondent; DEC 1 5 2015 

FDMS NO.: FAA-2015-1322 (Civil Penalty Action) HEARING DOCKET 

Case No. 2015NM730008 

RESPONDENT'S A.NSWER TO FAA'S JUNE IJ, 2IT15 COMPLAINT. 

Notice is hereby given that Samuel K. Burlum, Sui Juris, Petitioner Defendant, in proper person, 

on behalf of EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., above named, hereby makes the 

following MOTION before THE HONORABLE JUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN, U.S. Administrative 

Law Judge, Office of Hearings, M-20, U.S. Department of Transportation, in the order entered in 

this matter in 2015. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the official court 

record. 

tlUS RESPUNSE ISliY THE RESPUNDENT in "tlte MATTER" of EXTREME ENERGY 

SOLUTIONS, FDMS NO.: FAA-2015-1322 (Civil Penalty Action), Case No. 2015NM730008, 

known herein as "the MATTER" or "this MATTER", here by PROVIDE TillS 

INFORMATION AND RESPONSE; 

WHEREAS: FAA'S ciail'n ofthe kb:sf>ONDENI tailed to respond AND the FAA MOrtoNS 

should be DENIED and/or VACATED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS stated herein; 

AND the Respondent as the Court for this Consideration in this matter, under the Good Cause 

Standard; 
WHEREAS: The RRSPONDEN'I' did in-fact respond to the FAA's Jline 9· 2015 corl1plaillt in a 

prior submitted response, in the document served to Cheryl M. Jones, Senior Attorney, Office of 

Regional Counsel, FAA, in the matter referenced herein, in the document labeled, "RESPONSE 

TO THE ALLEGEATIONS MADE IN NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY, 

REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC INFORMAL COONFERENCE AND REQUEST FOR 

HEARING," served to ilie Complainant on March, 17,2015 and received by the FAA on March 

19, 2015; (Sec Attachment 1); 

WHEREAS: The RESPONDENT not having a clear understanding of the process of the Court, 

since the RESPONDENT is not a trained legal counsel, and is acting in a limited capacity, with 

liinlted legal knowledge, was iiiiware that H had to Respond to Hie June 9, 2\lls Complaint, sii1ce 

the Respondent bad already stated its objections and response in the document previously served 

in March 17, 2015 and received by the FAA on March 19, 2015; (See Attachment I); therefore 

RESPONDENT with limited knowledge of the actual process in Responding, failed to do so; 

'\Vlt:EREAS: 1'he RESPONDENT not havii1g the opportunity to cm1siilt with a legal 

representative on their behalf in this matter, and is acting in a limited capacity for reasons 

previously mentioned, did not have the proper guidance or information on how to properly deal 

with the FAA's June 9, 2015 Complaint, therefore RESPONDENT with limited knowledge of 

the actual process in Responding, failed to do so; 

SO IN THIS DOCUMENT tm: RESPONDENT i'OVlDES TO THiS COURT THEIR 

OFFICIAL REPONSE EVEN THOUGH THE FAA ALREADY HAD THIS 

INFORMATION PRVIOUSLY SERVED TO THEM PRIOR TO THEIR JUNE 9, 2015 

COMPLAINT; 

RESPONDENT'S HEREBY OFFERS THIS ANSWER TO THE FAA'S JUNE 9, 2015 

COMPLAINT AND ITS AFFRIMED DEFENSE(S); 

1. EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS ("EES" or "the Company", also known as the 

"Respondent,") does not deny this allegation; it should be noted for the record that the Company 

did in fact engage with an authorized agent for the Shipper, aka Employee at Staples of Franklin, 
New Jersey, who was the dedicated staffer assigned to process oi·ders for United Parcel Sei-vice 

(UPS). This authorized agent for UPS did in fact engage in a discussion with the Company's 

staffer which the Company had asked for the authorized agent to check their rules, policies, and 

other regulations, if the item described in #2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, whether 

this item could even be shipped. The authorized agent checked with their rules, and replied "as 

long as you have a MSDS" it can be shipped." 

1. The t:oinpany does not deny this allegation; however ihe iicins, (12) 14 oiiiice Gold's iire:ik 

Parts Cleaner canisters, were actually packaged by the authorized agent of UPS. 

3. The Company denies this allegation and/or finding for it does not have the expertise or admit 

or deny this allegation and was not aware of such regulation. 

4. The Company does not deny this allegation; however it did provide the required MSDS as it 

was instructed by the authorized agent of UPS, and the Company provided an invoice of origin; 

also requested by UPS to accornjxiny the package. Respondent \V111 i-evea1 Its evidei1ces during 

the proper time of due diligence and discovery; 

5. The Company does not deny this allegation, however the Company, as per the instructions of 

UPS, provided an MSDS and invoice of product origin, which contain the contact information of 

the entity who offers/manufacturers the product, who would be responsible for handling any type 

of emergency situation regarding said product that was designated for shipping. Respondent will 

reveal ils evidences diifing the proper iiffie cif diie diligeilce and discovery; 

6. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information on said mentioned form in item 6 of the Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty. Company was under the advisement and instruction ofthe authorized shipping 

agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. Company will need time to perform due 

diHgence arid discovery. 

7. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information on said mentioned shipping paper, mentioned in item 7 of 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. 

Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was 

working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

8. !he Company denies this allegation for ii does nothave the pi·oofs whether ii did or did not 

provide said mentioned information on said mentioned shipping paper, mentioned in item 8 of 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. 

Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was 

working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

9. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said menHoi1ed il1forri1aiiori on said mel1tiol1ed shipping paper, incl1tiol1ed i!1 iieill 9 of 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. 

Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was 
woo'king on beha:tf ofthe shipper, UPS. Company provided to Hie shippei·, UPS all information, 

documents, and things requested by the shipper at that time upon purchasing the shipping 

services, including MSDS and invoice of origin. Respondent will reveal its evidences during the 

proper time of due diligence and discovery; 

I 0. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 10 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

and will need tiine io perfmm due diligei1ce and discoveiy Company was uiider the advisemci1t 

and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, 

UPS. 

11. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 11 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under the advisement 

and instruction ofthe authorized shipping agent whom was woi-king oil behalfofthe shipper, 

UPS. 

12. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 12 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under the advisement 

and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, 

UPS. 

13. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 13 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under the advisement 

and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, 

UPS. Company provided to the shipper, UPS all information, documents, and things requested 

by the shipper at that tilne upon ptii'chasiiig the shipping services, iiicTiidiiigMSDS iiiid iiwoice 

of origin. Respondent will reveal its evidences during the proper time of due diligence and 

discovery; 

As to items and sections (a) through (m) of the Notice of Proposed Civil Peualty; 

14. The Company hereby; 

a. denies this allegation for it does noi have the proofs whether it did or did not provide 

said mentioned information, mentioned in item 13 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will 

need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under the advisement and 

instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

Company provided to the shipper, UPS all information, documents, and things requested by the 

shipper at that time upon purchasing the shipping services, including MSDS and invoice of 

origin. Respondent will reveal its evidences during the proper time of due diligence and 

discovery; 

b. The Company is the not the shipper, but a patron of the Shipper, UPS; 
c. Whereas UPS Is the actual slilpper, providing the actual iranspoiiation, wno was hired 

by the Company to advise the Company on how to handle such a type of shipment, via their 

authorized agent whom worked behalf of the shipper, UPS; 

d. Whereas the Company is not an expert in the areas of freight, shipping, logistics, 

transfer, packaging, and/or other sub categories of freight handling, package delivery, and relied 

solely on the expertise of the authorized staff whom worked on behalf of UPS for this knowledge 

CajJihil; io advise the Company on the best practices on shipping mentioned product iii Hein 2 of 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

e. Whereas the Company does not regularly attempt to ship the type of product described 

in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; for this was the first time the Company 

attempted to ship such type of product; 

t Whereas ilie C6mpal1y is i10t a mal1l!fadu1'er or distributor of the said mel1tiol1ed 

product described in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; whereas the Company made 

the purchase of this product at the request of a third party; in which the product was proposed to 

be shipped to; 

g. Whereas the Company relied on the shipper's expertise, and the expertise of the 

authorized agent whom worked on behalf of the shipper (UPS), and had asked the party(ies) to 

verify, review, arid che& info the policies, jirocecfures, practices, arid regulations \Vheiher t)i· i16t 

theproduct mentioned in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty could even be shipped, 

and if there were any additional instructions in which the Company would have to comply with 

to make sure that the shipment made it to its final destination; 

And therefore; 

15. The Company disagi·ees with the Notice of Proposed Civil Venally; aiid the proposed civil 

penalty in the Amount of $19,400.00 (nineteen thousand four hundred dollars) by the FAA for 

mentioned herein and; 

a. The alleged shipment is the first of its kind by the Company, and therefore the 

Company finds the amount of the proposed fine grossly inflated related to the actual alleged 

offenses; 

b. the Company has not aiiel11pted to ship any other related product ovei·seas or 

otherwise since it has received the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

c. The Company believes that this is an isolated incident, and has never had any other 

type of issue, regulatory infraction, or faced any other type of investigation having products 

and/or items shipped by UPS for the Company; 

d. the Company was under the advisement of the adl!a! shipping company, who 

provided the shipping services, UPS, before the item in question, mentioned in item 2 of the 
Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, was prepared, packaged, in front of, and tii1der the adviseinent 

by UPS, later shipped by UPS; 

e. There is no actual mathematical metric provided as to how the FAA came to the final 

conclusion of the proposed $19,400 civil penalty and find that it was decided on arbitrarily, in a 

capricious manner; 

f. the Cmnpai1y, having relied on the expertise ofthe shipper, UPS, and lis authorized 

agent, would have complied with any additional policy, procedure, rule, and/or regulation if it 

was advised to do so by both the authorized agent working on behalf of UPS and the actual 

shipper UPS; 

g. The Company is willing provided additional information of its Evidences for 

consideration in the matter; 

h. The Company cannot affoi·d such a fine, for it would subject the Company illto a 

matter of undue burden, financial hardship, and could possibly cause the Company to shut down 

part or in whole its operations. Company is a start-up organization, with little or no cash flow at 

this time. Company is willing to provide its "financial proofs" within the due diligence and 

discovery period at a later date unspecified at this time; 

AFFIRMED DEFENSES 

First Affirmed llefeiise 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the Company is not the shipper; the Company hired UPS and subscribed to UPS's services to 

perform the actual shipping duties, whereas it relied on the expertise and advisement of UPS and 

its authorized agents to comply within the scope of the law regarding shipping product in 

question in this matter; and therefore it is the responsibility of UPS to make sure shipments are 

withiri the scope ()f reguhition and compliance; expertise and sei-vkes ii1 which the Corripany 

paid for, and later provided by the actual shipper UPS; 

Second Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the Company provided any and all requested information to the authorized agent working on 

behalfofUPS; See Evidences; at tne time ofpackiging the items in question mentioned iii item 

2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; and the Company had verbally requested information 

ifthere was any other documents, materials, and things required in order to have the item 

shipped by UPS; 

Third Affirmed Defense 
The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in pali cftie to the tad that 

the Company is not in the logistics, freight, shipping, handling, import/export business and 

shipping overseas is not a part of its core business; 

Fourth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact the 

Company is iioi a resellei', distributor, arid/or iiiarii.ifaciui·er oHhe product iii question il1 iieiii 2 of 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

Fifth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact the 

allegations are "stacked" and are found grossly embellished and repetitive to make the sensitivity 

of this matter seem more heightened or advanced than what it really it is; 

SiiUi Aff1rmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the FAA did not apprise the Company of the "nature and cause" of the allegation; as it states 

Under the sixth amendment of the US Constitution, "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be 

informed of the nature and cause of the allegation," in which was not afforded to Company in the 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the FAA investigation and findings are arbitrary and capricious in nature; 

Eighth Affirmed Defense 

The pi·ojxised civil penalty should be disinissedMicaied iii whole or in part due ii1 the fact the 

imposed timeline to respond did not allow the Company to seek fonnal opinion of Counsel in 

this matter; to retain counsel, or to hire counsel to represent them in this matter; therefore 

violating the US Constitutional rights of the Company afforded to it under the Sixth Amendment 

of the US Constitution; 

Ninth Affirmed Defense 

Tne proposed civil permhy should be disinissed/vacaied in whole or in part due to the 

explanation on how the FAA arrived at the monetary penalty of $19,400 proposed in its Notice 

of Proposed Civil Penalty; nor does it provide a detail evaluation of the actual matter of the 

mathematical metrics of the penalty; except in discussing the "maximum" in each penalty 

circumstance; 

Tenth Affirmed Defense 
the pi·oposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in jmi due to the fact that 

there was no violations resulting in the death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or 

substantial destruction of property, in any of the alleged accounts of violations; 

Eleventh Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

there were no physicalvkiinJs, whmn experienced a loss of bodily ill jury or property, llOt were 

there any real damages as a result of the alleged actions by the Company, or by any other party; 

Twelfth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the lack of the 

investigative findings explained in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; whereas the FAA failed 

to disclose whether or not they ii1vestigated oi· proposed a fine to the acfual shippe1', UPS, and/oi· 

the shipper's authorized agent whom worked on behalf of the shipper at the time in which the 

package was prepared for shipment; 

Thirteenth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the size oflhe penally seems to be unjust for a first o!fense; 

Fourteenth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that 

the Company cannot financially comply with the unjust penalty and would have to abandon in 

whole or in part of its operation for such a penalty would create undue burden upon the 

Company, thus the Company woiild face financial consequence ofn1agriitt1de; iii which it caiiiKit 

afford; 

Fifteenth Affirmed Defense 

The civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the application of 

doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands; 

Sixteenth Affirmed Dcfciisc 

The civil penalty should be dismissed and vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that the 

FAA cannot prove any "real" damages; 

Seventeenth Affirmed Defense 

The civil pei1alty should be disinissedlvacated ii1 whole or in part diie to the fact ofTack of facts 

presented by accompanied by any "proofs" that support the FAA investigation; findings; or 

claims; 
Eigllteeiitli Affiriiiei:I nereiisii 

The FAA has acted in bad faith and in much hast to take advantage ofthe fact that the 

Respondent lacks legal knowledge in dealing with this matter; therefore violating the US 

Constitutional rights of the Respondent afforded to it under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment of 

the US Constitution; 

The FAA main intent in the matter is "Financial Gain" under forced acceptance of a contract, 

against the will of the Respondent; therefore violating the US Constitutional rights of the 

Respondent afforded to them under of the US Constitution; in which the Fourteenth Amendment 

of the US Constitution states, " ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 

property without process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 

proieciions of the la-W," iii which the Respoiidei1t is afforded these rignts; the basis of this idea is 

explained under Section I ofthe U.S. Code; 

Twentieth Affirmed Defense 

The FAA knowingly violated the Respondent's Seventh Amendment Right afforded to them 

under the US Constitution by forcing Judgement without the Respondent being afforded its 

fights to a trial by Jury, aud slialll:ic preserved; in \VI1icli llie Seventh Amciidriieiii of ihe US 

Constitution states, " ... where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a 

trial by jury shall be reserved; 

Twenty-first Affirmed Defense 

The Respondent has not been afforded its right to discovery of information of great importance, 

by tlie court or by tlie FAA, wliei'eas tiie Respondent Tiiis tile riglit to request stich iiifoiiiiiitloii as 

to the Federal Open Records Act; 

Twenty-second Affirmed Defense 

The Company and/or Respondents to the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty reserves their rights 

under the US Constitution, also reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as 

rniiher investigation ana disCovery niay reveal; 

THEREFORE, the Respondent Respectfully Submits this RESPONDENT'S ANSWER 

TO FAA'S JUNE 9, 2015 COMPLAINT to this court within the deadline imposed by 

the Order of the COURT; dated November 2015; reference "ORDER SETTING DEADLINE 

FOR THE RESPONDENT TO REPSOND AND SHOW CAUSF:, AN{) RULING ON OTHER 

RELIEF; 
And 

THEREFORE, the Respondent Respectfully Request that its RIGHTS afforded to them under 

the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America, be fully observed and respected by all 

parties mentioned herein before this Court, and any other Court in which the Respondent's 

maHer shall be heard; 

And it is said on this date, Monday, December 14, 2015, that it has been given this 

RESPONSE to the Office of Hearings, M-20, U.S. Department of Transportation; JUDGE J.E. 

SULLIVAN, also known as the HORNORABLE JUDGE SULLIVAN, also known as JUDGE 

SULLIVAN, also known as 1.£. SULLIVAN; as to theii· OfFICIAL CAPlCITY, as weH as their 

INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL PRIVATE CAPICITY, as well as any of their agents, appointees, 

employees, assistants, peers, known as the "NOTIFIED PARTIES", collectively or as 

individuals whom represent the COURT acknowledge this RESPONSE 

AND: 

MR. GLENN H. BROWN, COMPLAINTANT'S COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL 

COUNSEL, as well as any of their agents, appointees, employees, assistants, peers, known as 

the "NOTIFIED PARTIES", collectively or as individuals whom represent the 

COMPLAINT ANt, acknowledge Hils RESPONSE; 

And it is said; The COURT has THIRTY (30) business days to respond to this RESPONSE; 

and failure to respond will automatically VACATE and DISMISS this MATTER before the 

COURT; and the case will be disposed of without any fine and or judgment against the 

RESPONDENT, and will be disposed of without PREJUDICE. Response is to be fOrwarded by 

the Court to the RESPONDENT to the said address provided in the previously filed MOTION 

OF NOTICE OF ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE with the Court; 

And it is said; The COURT has been OFFICIALLY SERVED this RESPONSE via United 

States Postal Service, regular alld/or priority mail; arid fax; 
submitted byt 

~·"' "' ~- - / -·· / c£{dt ~ '/ . . '- c / ~~~~~~>· 

Sanruel K. Burlum 

Defendant; 

Signed and served on ihis date: 

Monday, December 14, 2015; 
-J-l' 

f I C( 
Attention Cheryl M. Jones, 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel 

FAA 

In the Matter of; 

US Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration; 

Alaskan Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513 

And; 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 

150 Main Street 

Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 

RE: Case Number: 2015NM730008 

RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL 

PENALTY, REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC INFORMAL CONFERENCE. AND 

REQUEST FOR HEARING; 

1. EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS ("EES" or "the Companf') does not deny this 

allegation; it should be noted for the record that the Company did in fact engage with an 

authorized agent for the Shipper, aka Employee at Staples of Franklin, New Jersey, who 

was the dedicated staffer assigned to process orders for United Parcel Service (UPS). This 

authorized agent for UPS did in fact engage in a discussion with the Company's staffer 

which the Company had asked for the authorized agent to check their rules, policies, and 

other regulations, if the item described in #2 of the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty, could 

even be shipped. The authorized agent checked with their rules, and replied "as long as you 

have a MSDS" it can be shipped." 

2. The Company does not deny this allegation; however the items, (12) 14 ounce Gold's 

Break Parts Cleaner canisters, were actually packaged by the authorized agent of UPS. 

3. The Company denies this allegation and/or fmding for it does not have the expertise or 

admit or deny this allegation and was not aware of such regulation. 

4. The Company does not deny this allegation; however it did provide the required MSDS 

as it was instructed by the authorized agent of UPS, and the Company provided an invoice 

of origin; also requested by UPS to accompany the package. (See Evidences) 

5. The Company does not deny this allegation, however the Company, as per the 
instructions of UPS, provided an MSDS and invoice of product origin, which contain the 

contact information of the entity who offers/manufacturers the product, who would be 

responsible for handling any type of emergency situation regarding said product that was 

designated for shipping. (See Evidences) 

6. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information on said mentioned form in item 6 of the Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty. Company was under the advisement and instruction of the 

authorized shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. Company 

will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. 

7. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information on said mentioned shipping paper, mentioned in 

item 7 ofNotice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence 

and discovery. Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized 

shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

8. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information on said mentioned shipping paper, mentioned in 

item 8 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence 

and discovery. Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized 

shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

9. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information on said mentioned shipping paper, mentioned in 

item 9 of Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence 

and discovery. Company was under the advisement and instruction of the authorized 

shipping agent whom was working on behalf of the shipper, UPS. Company provided to 

the shipper, UPS all information, documents, and things requested by the shipper at that 

time upon purchasing the shipping services, including MSDS and invoice of origin. (See 

Evidences) 

10. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 10 of Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under 

the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on 

behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

11. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 11 of Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under 

the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on 

behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

12. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 
not provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 12 ofNotice ofProposed Civil 

Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under 

the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on 

behalf of the shipper, UPS. 

13. The Company denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did 

not provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 13 ofNotice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under 

the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on 

behalf of the shipper, UPS. Company provided to the shipper, UPS all information, 

documents, and things requested by the shipper at that time upon purchasing the shipping 

services, including MSDS and invoice of origin. (See Evidences) 

As to items and sections (a) through (m) of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

14. The Company hereby; 

a. denies this allegation for it does not have the proofs whether it did or did not 

provide said mentioned information, mentioned in item 13 ofNotice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, and will need time to perform due diligence and discovery. Company was under 

the advisement and instruction of the authorized shipping agent whom was working on 

behalf of the shipper, UPS. Company provided to the shipper, UPS all information, 

documents, and things requested by the shipper at that time upon purchasing the shipping 

services, including MSDS and invoice of origin. (See Evidences); 

b. The Company is the not the shipper, but a patron of the Shipper, UPS; 

c. Whereas UPS is the actual shipper, providing the actual transportation, who was 

hired by the Company to advise the Company on how to handle such a type of shipment, 

via their authorized agent whom worked behalf of the shipper, UPS; 

d. Whereas the Company is not an expert in the areas of freight, shipping, logistics, 

transfer, packaging, and/or other sub categories of freight handling, package delivery, and 

relied solely on the expertise of the authorized staff whom worked on behalf of UPS for 

this knowledge capital; to advise the Company on the best practices on shipping mentioned 

product in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

e. Whereas the Company does not regularly attempt to ship the type of product 

described in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; for this was the first time the 

Company attempted to ship such type of product; 

f. Whereas the Company is not a manufacturer or distributor of the said mentioned 

product described in item 2 of the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty; whereas the Company 

made the purchase of this product at the request of a third party; in which the product was 

proposed to be shipped to; 
g. Whereas the Company relied on the shipper's expertise, and the expertise of the 

authorized agent whom worked on behalf of the shipper (UPS), and had asked the 

party(ies) to verify, review, and check into the policies, procedures, practices, and 

regulations whether or not the product mentioned in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty could even be shipped, and if there were any additional instructions in which the 

Company would have to comply with to make sure that the shipment made it to its fmal 

destination; 

And therefore; 

15. The Company disagrees with the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; and the proposed 

civil penalty in the Amount of$19,400.00 (nineteen thousand four hundred dollars) by the 

FAA for mentioned herein and; 

a. The alleged shipment is the first of its kind by the Company, and therefore the 

Company finds the amount of the proposed fine grossly inflated related to the actual 

alleged offenses; 

b. The Company has not attempted to ship any other related product overseas or 

otherwise since it has received the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

c. The Company believes that this is an isolated incident, and has never had any 

other type of issue, regulatory infraction, or faced any other type of investigation having 

products and/or items shipped by UPS for the Company; 

d. The Company was under the advisement of the actual shipping company, who 

provided the shipping services, UPS, before the item in question, mentioned in item 2 of 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, was prepared, packaged, in front of, and under the 

advisement by UPS, later shipped by UPS; 

e. There is no actual mathematical metric provided as to how the FAA came to the 

final conclusion of the proposed $19,400 civil penalty and find that it was decided on 

arbitrarily; 

f. The Company, having relied on the expertise of the shipper, UPS, and its 

authorized agent, would have complied with any additional policy, procedure, rule, and/or 

regulation if it was advised to do so by both the authorized agent working on behalf of UPS 

and the actual shipper UPS; 

g. The Company has provided additional information of its Evidences for 

consideration in the matter; 

h. The Company cannot afford such a fine, for it would subject the Company into a 

matter of undue burden, fmancial hardship, and could possibly cause the Company to shut 

down part or in whole its operations. Company is a start-up organization, with little or no 

cash flow at this time. Company is willing to provide its "financial proofs" within the due 
diligence and discovery period at a later date UDBpecified at this time; 

AFFIRMED DEFENSES 

First Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the Company is not the shipper; the Company hired UPS and subscribed to UPS's 

services to perform the actual shipping duties, whereas it relied on the expertise and 

advisement of UPS and its authorized agents to comply within the scope of the law 

regarding shipping product in question in this matter; and therefore it is the responsibility 

of UPS to make sure shipments are within the scope of regulation and compliance; 

expertise and services in which the Company paid for, and later provided by the actual 

shipper UPS; 

Second Mfirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the Company provided any and all requested information to the authorized agent 

working on behalf of UPS; See Evidences; at the time of packaging the items in question 

mentioned in item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; and the Company had 

verbally requested information if there was any other documents, materials, and things 

required in order to have the item shipped by UPS; 

Third Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the Company is not in the logistics, freight, shipping, handling, import/export business 

and shipping overseas is not a part of its core business; 

Fourth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

the Company is not a reseller, distributor, and/or manufacturer of the product in question in 

item 2 of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

Fifth Mfirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

the allegations are "stacked" and are found grossly embellished and repetitive to make the 

sensitivity of this matter seem more heightened or advanced than what it really it is; 

Sixth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the FAA did not apprise the Company of the "nature and cause" of the allegation; as it 
states Under the sixth amendment of the US Constitution, "the accused shall enjoy the 

right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegation," in which was not afforded 

to Company in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; 

Seventh Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the FAA investigation and fmdings are arbitrary and capricious in nature; 

Eighth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

the imposed timeline to respond did not allow the Company to seek formal opinion of 

Counsel in this matter; to retain counsel, or to hire counsel to represent them in this matter; 

therefore violating the US Constitutional rights of the Company afforded to it under the 

Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution; 

Ninth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the 

explanation on how the FAA arrived at the monetary penalty of$19,400 proposed in its 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; nor does it provide a detail evaluation of the actual 

matter of the mathematical metrics of the penalty; except in discussing the "maximum" in 

each penalty circumstance; 

Tenth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that there was no violations resulting in the death, serious illness, or severe injury to any 

person, or substantial destruction of property, in any of the alleged accounts of violations; 

Eleventh Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that there were no physical victims, whom experienced a loss of bodily injury or property, 

nor were there any real damages as a result of the alleged actions by the Company, or by 

any other party; 

Twelfth Affirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the lack 

of the investigative findings explained in the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; whereas the 

FAA failed to disclose whether or not they investigated or proposed a fine to the actual 

shipper, UPS, and/or the shipper's authorized agent whom worked on behalf of the shipper 

at the time in which the package was prepared for shipment; 
Thirteenth Affrrmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the size of the penalty seems to be unjust for a first offense; 

Fourteenth Mfirmed Defense 

The proposed civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact 

that the Company cannot fmancially comply with the unjust penalty and would have to 

abandon in whole or in part of its operation for such a penalty would create undue burden 

upon the Company, thus the Company would face fmancial consequence of magnitude; in 

which it cannot afford; 

Fifteenth Affirmed Defense 

The civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the application of 

doctrines oflaches, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands; 

Sixteenth Affrrmed Defense 

The civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact that the 

FAA cannot prove any "real" damages; 

Seventeenth Affirmed Defense 

The civil penalty should be dismissed/vacated in whole or in part due to the fact of lack of 

facts presented by accompanied by any "proofs" that support the FAA investigation; 

findings; or claims; 

Eighteenth Affrrmed Defense 

The Company and/or Respondents to the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty reserves their 

rights under the US Constitution, also reserve the right to assert additional affirmative 

defenses as finiher investigation and discovery may reveal; 

REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONFERENCE WITH FAA ATTONEY 

The Company reserves its right and formally request a telephonic informal conference with 

the FF A Attorney handling this matter, to discuss the issue for possible early resolve; to be 

scheduled in about 30 days from the time of receiving service of this response; 

PRO-OFFER OF ALTERNATIVE REDUCED PENALTY 

The Company has offered an alternative reduced penalty to bring this matter to a quick 

resolve on the form of REPLY TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

(HAZARDOUS MATERIALS); in the event the FAA does not accept this offer, the 
Company suggest the FAA Attorney and the Company have a second telephonic inf01mal 

conference to bring this matter to a resolve; 

REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

In the event the Company and the FAA cannot come to a reasonable resolve to this matter, 

the Company reserves its rights and request for this Matter to be heard in Court by a Judge; 

and that the matter be heard in the Eastern Region; 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 

The Company reserves all rights to due diligence, discovery and its own ability to perform 

its own investigation including but not limited to within its discovery request; right to 

depose witnesses, documents, photographs, audio/video recordings, materials and things, 

communications (including electronic); and other items it deems relevant in providing a 

defense in this matter. The Company will make its formal motions to discovery at a later 

date unspecified herein; 

TIMELY OF REPSONSE BY FAA 

The Company grants the FAA 30 days to respond to the Company's response and request; 

and in the event the Company is not provided a response by the FAA Attorney handling the 

matter, we will move to dismiss the matter in its entirety; 

WHEREFORE; the Respondents, the Company, Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc., 

hereby respectfully request that the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, penalties, and fines 

set forth therein be dismissed without prejudice and vacated in its entirety for any other and 

further for the Court should find just and proper. 

Dated: March 17, 20J:i1 

By: c· 

~. GC•. ,., 

.· .

~~ . /(./ -~~~ 

-/~.",~~ Samuel K. Burlum, President/CEO of and on behalf of; 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 
CERTIFICATION OF TIMELY SERVICE 

I hereby have responded witlrin the time frame allotted by the FAA Attorney witlrin the 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY, and hereby serve the Company's response 

via email and certified mail through the United States Parcel Service; 

I ' 

Dated: Mar h 11,2015 

' ,/ //! 

By0 .• J~:yt···{ ~~~ .... '~ - Samuel K. Birrlum, President/CEO of and on behalf of; 

Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 


CERTIFfCATE OJ' SERVICE: 

This DOCUMENT hereby certifies and bares witness to the actions of SAMUEL K. 

BURLUM, has served proper notice to the declared parties within this DOCUMENT, has 

addressed these notices to the HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN, U.S Administrative Law Judge, 

Oll behalf ofihe Ot'fice ofHeail!lgs, M-20, u.s Department of1ral1sportaiiol1; a!ld to the office 

of Mr. Glenn H. Brov-01, Complainant's Counsel, whom have been dully notified of this 

DOCUMENT, has been served through the United States Postal Service, either by form of 

regular mail and/or priority delivery; and/or fax; 

NAME OF boti.JMENt SERVED: RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO FAA'S 

JUNE 9, 2015 COMPLAINT. 

I attest that the statement above is true and complete, and that T did in fact serve notice as to the 

declaration ab9ve, on the Date of Monday, December 14, 2015. / J ··~_/; .·' .J' ,/} 

/ .i·~···i ·' / ·' .·•· ,' ,. "/ / j1~1 . L/ .. ·. ·'/ j>z /.r 1 "··················· .. / 

Samuel K. Burlum 

()4~ Witness and Notai·ized 

DANIEL R. THOMAS 

NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY 

My Commission Expires 6/171<i!18