UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASfflNGTON, D.C. 

*^' % i;-<*»a»ff 

IN THE MATTER OF JUL t 3 2010 

KYLEPONSFORD HEARING DOCKET 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0007 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0729 

AGENCY'S MOTION FOR DECISION REGARDING VIOLATIONS 'c5 

Pursuant to § 13.218(f)(5) of the Rules of Practice and based on the facts and 

circumstances as more fully set forth below, Complainant moves for a decision regarding the 

violations. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The complaint in this matter was served on July 27, 2009. In it Complainant alleges that on 

or about August 27,2008, Respondent was a ticketed passenger for a flight fi-om Juneau, Alaska, 

to Ketchikan, Alaska; that prior to the flight he checked three bags; and that one of the bags 

contained a 3.53-ounce canister of Jetboil Jetpower Isobutane/Propane Fuel mix and two 

canisters of Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix. The complaint further alleges, in essence, that 

these canisters of fuel are hazardous materials that are forbidden on passenger aircraft; that 

Respondent's bags were not accompanied by the shipping papers specified in the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter C; and that the bag containing 

these fuel canisters was not marked or labeled to indicate the presence of them. Based on these 

facts, the complaint alleges Respondent violated various provisions of the HMR. In its cover 

1 
letter submitting the complaint. Complainant requests that the hearing be held in Anchorage, 

Alaska. In his Procedural Order served on August 20,2009, the assigned administrative law 

judge (ALJ) indicates venue will be in Anchorage. 

Respondent did submit a letter dated August 2, 2009, in which he objects to having the 

hearing in Anchorage, but he did not timely submit an answer to the complaint or a motion as 

required by § 13.209(a). Thus, on October 5, 2009, Complainant moved for an Order deeming 

the allegations admitted. On October 22,2009, the ALJ issued an Order to Show Cause in which 

he gives Respondent until October 30, 2009, to respond. 

Respondent did send to the Hearing Docket a two-page response dated October 28, 2009. 

In it he makes a number of statements regarding the process to date, and that he was confused by 

it. He also alleges that Complainant had seized a portion of his 2009 Alaska Permanent Fund 

Dividend (PFD).' Regarding the allegations, he declines to answer each line item because, in his 

view, it would take too much time. He does conclude, however, by contending that "$1000 is an 

unreasonable fine for a simple oversight which did not actually lead to a potentially hazardous 

event." He also alleges that no dangerous goods were transported on the airplane, and that he is 

not guilty of a crime. Lastly, he promises greater detail at a later date. While this response is 

addressed to the ALJ, he did not send it to the ALJ, and did not send a copy to Complainant's 

counsel. 

Unaware of his timely response to the Order to Show Cause, the ALJ granted 

Complainant's motion to deem the facts admitted and limited the hearing to the consideration of 

the sanction. By subsequent Order the ALJ set the hearing for June 29, 2010, in Juneau, Alaska. 

' Respondent is mistaken. A review of the paperwork reveals that it was the State of Alaska's Attorney General's 

Office that seized the funds, and a check with the State of Alaska's Court System's on-line records indicates the case 

numbers cited in the seizure paperwork were for traffic offenses in Fairbanks, Alaska. 
On March 24,2010, Respondent appealed to the FAA Decisionmaker. While the appeal 

was dismissed because it was not authorized by the Rules of Practice, the fact Respondent had 

timely responded to the Show Cause Order came to light. Thus, in the remand order, the ALJ 

was instructed to consider the response and determine whether it established good cause for his 

failure to file an answer. 

In his Order Following Remand, the ALJ receives the October 28* response as 

Respondent's answer, authorizes Respondent to address at the hearing the substantive allegations 

of the complaint, and vacates his Order Deeming Allegations Admitted "to the extent required by 

the previous paragraphs." 

On May 4, 2010, Complainant served a discovery request on Respondent. It consists of 18 

requests for admission that essentially track the language of the allegations in the complaint. 

Also included are interrogatories and requests for production which essentially seek the names of 

his witnesses and copies of the exhibits he intends to offer. Respondent objected to the 

discovery request, so on Jime 8, 2010, Complainant moved for an Order compelling Respondent 

to respond. The ALJ promptly granted this motion, and on June 14,2010, Respondent submitted 

the attached response (Exhibit A). 

At the date, time, and place set for the hearing. Complainant appeared with its witnesses, 

and was prepared to present its case. When Respondent had not shown up by 9:15 a.m., the ALJ 

went on the record. Complainant moved for an Order deeming Respondent's failure to appear as 

a withdrawal of his request for a hearing, and for a decision finding the violations alleged in the 

complaint and assessing a $1000 civil penalty. The law judge announced that this motion was 

granted, but further indicated that he would be issuing a written decision to this effect. Several 

Respondent served a discovery request on Complainant on May 22, 2010, and Complainant responded to it on June 

18,2010. 
hours after the hearing was adjourned, Complainant's counsel became aware that on June 23, 

2010, Respondent had submitted a document entitled, "Defendant's Notice of Appearance." In 

it Respondent asks that the ALJ allow his written appearance under § 13.204 of the Rules of 

Practice. 

II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS 

The first issue is whether the ALJ still has jurisdiction to consider Respondent's 

submission. See In the Matter ofBarnhill, FAA Order No. 92-32 (May 5, 1992) (An order that 

disposes of the issues in a case and assesses a civil penalty is an initial decision, which 

terminates the ALJ's jurisdiction). Having considered the matter Complainant is satisfied that 

despite the use of the present tense in granting Complainant's motion during the hearing, it is 

clear from the ALJ's statement regarding a written decision that his announced ruling on the 

record should not be construed as a final disposition of the case. Hence, Complainant is satisfied 

that the ALJ still has jurisdiction in this matter. 

The next issue is how to treat Respondent's submission. While there are a number of 

points that could be made, the submission is essentially his arguments regarding the application 

of the law to the facts. The contentions he does make that could be construed as testimony relate 

to matters that Complainant does not contest.'' Thus, his "Defendant's Notice of Appearance" 

should be construed as a motion for decision.'* 

' Specifically, Complainant has no reason to challenge Respondent's assertion that he was not, at the time of the 

incident, consciously aware of the HMR or that the fiiel canisters in his survival kit were forbidden on passenger 

aircraft. In this regard. Complainant agrees with Respondent's characterization of the event as "a simple oversight." 

Complainant also acknowledges that these fuel canisters were discovered during baggage screening and removed 

from his baggage before his baggage was loaded onto the aircraft. 

* Respondent does raise two additional issues in his submission. In addition to repeating his claim regarding the 

seizure of a portion of his PFD, he contends that the Agency's action was "untimely and unequal." He does not offer 

any basis for his conclusions or contend he was somehow prejudiced by what he contends was excessive delay. 
III. ARGUMENT 

A. FACTS 

The facts alleged in the complaint should be deemed admitted. Section 13.209(e) of Rules 

of Practice specifically provides that any allegation not specifically denied can be deemed 

admitted. Respondent has had ample opportunity to deny each of the specific allegations in the 

complaint, but has chosen not to do so. Rather, he essentially admits them. Included with his 

written submission is a copy of his September 25, 2008, response to the letter of investigation in 

which he states 

I work remote jobs all over Alaska, and when the environment warrants, I take with 

me my emergency survival kit which contains a 2 cup cooker and the small fuel 

cells to run it. ... I was in transit to a new job drilling foundations for a power line 

through the rugged mountains north of Ketchikan when my fuel cells were taken 

fi:om my checked bags." 

Given these facts and circumstances, it is clearly appropriate to deem the facts admitted.^ 

B. VIOLATIONS 

Where the parties disagree is in the application of the law to the facts. Respondent 

apparently believes that he cannot be found to have knowingly violated the HMR unless he was 

actually aware of the regulations at the time. While his position is at least understandable, it is 

not legally correct. The FAA Decisionmaker has determined that "knowingly" refers to actual 

knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation. In the Matter ofSmalling, FAA Order No. 

94-31 (September 30, 1994). As the ALJ points out in his initial decision in Federal Aviation 

Administration v. Raggon, FAA Docket No. CP06NM001 at footnote 1 "The legislative history 

' Respondent does state on page 4 of his submission, "I did not knowingly pack the fiiel cells." He does, however, 

go on to acknowledge that fiiel cells were in a bag that he checked, which is precisely what the complaint alleges. 

Whether he was consciously aware of the fiiel cells at the time he grabbed his survival kit and packed it in his bag is 

irrelevant. A person has a duty to know what is in the baggage he checks or carries onto an aircraft, In the Matter of 

Ian G. Koblick, FAA Order No. 1992-51 (July 23, 1992), and at a minimum, had Respondent exercised reasonable 

care he would have realized that his survival kit contained the ftiel cells. 
of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act confirms that Congress intended to impose civil 

penalties on persons who knew about the act constituting the violation but did not know about 

the law." Thus, the fact Respondent was not actually aware of the HMR does not preclude a 

finding that he knowingly violated the regulations as alleged in the complaint.^ 

Respondent has also contended at various times that he was a passenger and not a shipper, 

and that there was no violation because the items were removed before they were transported. In 

response to similar contentions in Respondent's discovery request. Complainant provided the 

following: 

Airline passengers are shippers when they check bags or carry items onto an 

aircraft, and must comply with all applicable requirements for the shipment of 

hazardous materials. For example, § 172.200(a) specifically provides, "[E]ach 

person who offers a hazardous material for transportation shall describe the 

hazardous material on the shipping paper in the manner required by the subpart." 

When a passenger checks a bag, it is with the expectation that the airline will 

transport that bag and deliver it to the passenger shortly after he arrives at his 

destination. The bag obviously does not arrive at the passenger's destination 

unless it is transported there by the airline, so when a passenger checks a bag, he 

is clearly offering it for transportation by air. 

In short, the violation of the regulations occurred in this case when Respondent checked his bags 

for the flight to Ketchikan. The fact the hazardous materials in his bags were removed during the 

pre-flight screening process does not make any difference. 

Based on the foregoing, Respondent's legal arguments are without merit and should be 

specifically rejected. The factual allegations in the complaint establish each of the regulatory 

violations set forth in the complaint, and Complainant is entitled as a matter of law to an Order 

Finding that Respondent violated the HMR as set forth in the complaint. 

* 44 U.S.C. § 1507 provides that the publication of a document in the Federal Register is sufficient to give notice of 

the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it. 
C. SANCTION 

Respondent's pleadings to date certainly raise the possibility that he lacks the ability to pay. 

So far, however, he has not offered the sort of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence 

necessary to carry his burden of proof in this regard. In the Matter ofGiuffrida, FAA Order No. 

1992-37 (December 17,1992). That he hasn't focused on the sanction issue is understandable 

given his/7ro se status and apparently honest belief that he did not knowingly violate the 

regulations. Despite his unflattering contentions regarding Complainant's motives, Complainant 

is concerned about fundamental fairness in a forum in which Respondent is obviously quite 

inexperienced. Complainant recommends, therefore, that Respondent be afforded an opportunity 

to supplement the record with a sworn statement and appropriate documentation regarding his 

assets, income, and other factors bearing on his ability to pay. Complainant should be afforded 

the opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence as well as argument regarding any submission and the 

sanction to be imposed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing. Complainant is entitled to a decision finding that Respondent 

violated the HMR as set forth in the Complaint. The ALJ should issue an Order to that effect, 

and limit further proceedings to the consideration of the sanction as outlined above. 

Respectfully submitted this 2"*^ day of July 2010. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Covmsel 

By:_ 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED y^ ^ ^ j j Q QCOO 7<;(H ZUH J 

Howard L. Martin, Jr. 

Regional Counsel , ?. »(5? 4^y fS ^ 

FAA Alaskan Region .i^^'^- ^ --~ 

222 West 7* Avenue #14 „„, ;010 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 '^ ' 

"A •.$^ 

RE: Case 2008AL700072 %. , .^^ ^ 

June 14, 2010 

Dear Mr. Martin, Jr. 

I have received your First Discovery Request letter on May 18,2010 

And have received the June 10 rejection of my appeal from the Judge. 

Enclosed please find my reply to your First Discovery Request. 

My reply has answered each line item in your request as accurately as possible under the 

circumstances. 

Be advised my answer of your letter in this way does not imply or admit that I have 

waved my argimient that your requests are in violation of DOT rules regulating this 

dispute. 

It is not my intent to be flippant or disrespectful, and have answered your questions as 

accurately as possible within the time frame allowed. Your demand of me to answer your 

questions, require that I read volumes of Hazardous Material Shipping Rules to 

accurately reply. This would dramatically reduce my time in preparation of my defense. I 

regret that you did not send this Discovery Request within the first year of this dispute, 

which may have given me the time needed to give you the answers you seek. 

Sincerely, 

Kyle Ponsford 

Defendant. 

End: Defendant's Reply To Agency's First Discovery Request 

hUk^ A 
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST 

To: Regional Counsel Howard L. Martin, JR 

Copy 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(0 Limiting discovery. The administrative law judge shall limit the frequency and extent of discovery 

permitted by this section if a party shows that (1) The information requested is cumulative or repetitious; 

(2) The information requested can be obtained from another less burdensome and more convenient source; 

(3) The party requesting the information has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through other 

discovery methods permitted under this section; or (4) The method or scope of discovery requested by the 

party is unduly burdensome or expensive. 

From the beginning of this case I have been confused by this Agencies "polite desire" 

that I submit myself to their judgments. They have "requested" and "proposed" and 

suggested a list of harmful things to me. I cannot willingly in good conscience "place my 

own neck on your chopping block" simply because you ask me to do so, nor can the law 

require that I do so. I remind this Administration and the court that the Burden of Proof is 

with the accuser. Deeming me Confessed is a violation of my right to be considered 

innocent until PROVEN guilty. If this court is not capable or prepared to hear my case 

under the protection of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then this 

court is unqualified to hear my case. 

In the court's ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dated June 10, 2010 the court identified the 

purpose of the Compleiinant's First Request was an effort "to determine the issues on 

which the parties differ and to determine Respondent's defenses." If this is a case based 

on emotion and feelings I might be more inclined to answer these line item requests. But 

according to the law, neither the opinions of myself, nor of the Agency should affect the 

facts of law. As an example, if; "the HMRs assign to Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix 

the proper shipping name of "petroleum gas, liquefied'" as the Agency claims in line 

item 9a, then my opinion on this is virtually irrelevant. If I flew on the specific aircraft of 

that specific flight number on that specific date which the Agency claims, then my 

confession or denial of such a fact is hrelevant. The agency has the burden of proof to 

provide the facts verifying such a claim. The defendant cannot be compelled to witness 

against himself, and his refusal to admit to such an accusation cannot by law be 

determined to be a confession. It concerns me that the DOT rules of practice would 

violate such lawful protections, and further concerns me that the court would not show 

the authority allowing these rules to violate such laws. According to the DOT rules; 

allowing the court to deem me confessed if I do not confess, makes me effectively guilty 

unless I can prove I am innocent. This violates the very foundation of the United States 

Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

In response to the courts recent ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dated June 10, 2010 and in 

an effort to proved the accuser the issues on which the parties differ, and to provide the 

accuser my defense, 

I submit the following answer to the Agencies First Discovery Request as fully as 

possible within the Laws protecting me. 
Defendant's reply addressing each line item of your Discovery Request as follows: 

1 I received a letter stamped with the date Dec, 3,2008 that most accurately 

represents your claim. That letter was unclear as to the agency of authorship, with 

an address on the upper right of the page having no identity. The signature only 

identified the Senior Attorney under "Regional Counsel" of an unnamed 

authority. In that letter was the imclear, seemingly powerless "proposal" to 

nobody specific, of an "assessed" civil penalty. After reading that letter several 

times I was still unclear as to what it actually meant or the process of law 

governing such a vague declaration of intent. In this letter were a significant 

nimiber of false statements. And all of the statements sighted were of rules I had 

no way of knowing or reviewing. 

This was the second letter received, and I was still imder the impression this issue 

was an attempt to determine if I was a terrorist or not. I was more than willing to 

provide all the information I thought they were seeking under this impression. 

My reply to that letter was based in this confusion. 

2 According to the Law, the burden of proof is laid on the accuser. My confession 

to this line item is irrelevant to the facts; if I did or did not fly on flight #64 on a 

specific date. Therefore the courts willingness to deem this confessed if it does 

not feel I have answered to their satisfaction, is a violation of the Law. I refuse to 

do the Accusers job by providing him with his argument. 

If the accuser needs my confession in this matter to build his case against me, then 

his claim is invalid. 

Further, if you can find in my previous correspondence my confession to such a 

claim, it would prove this question is also in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(f)(l)(2)(3) 

Frankly this case is now nearly 2 years old, I cannot yet find the ticket stub 

identifying the specific flight # or the specific date, and cannot therefore 

accurately admit the accuracy of this line item. 

3 As long as I was under the impression the Agency was attempting to seek the 

truth based on nationally important concerns, I was eager to provide them the 

information I thought they were seeking. Since then, this agency has shown a 

willingness to violate the law by seizing funds from niy accoimt without due 

process, and has shown an attempt to harm me by applying rules which do not 

apply to me, I caimot ignore the apparent fact that they will artfully attempt to get 

me to confess to sentences structured to harm me. Therefore I am no longer 

willing to simply assume their statements are correct, nor am I still inclined to 

provide any further information which can be used against me, which they may or 

may not have. 

According to the Law, the burden of proof is laid on the accuser, therefore this 

courts willuigness to deem this confessed if it does not feel I have answered to 

their satisfaction is a violation of the Law and my rights protected by the United 

States Constitution. I refuse to do the Accusers job by providing him with his 
argument. If the accuser needs my confession in this matter to build his case 

agaitist me, then his claim is invalid. 

Further, if you can find in my previous correspondence my confession to such a 

claim, it would prove this question is also in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(f)(l)(2) 

Being uncertain as to the accuracy of allegation 3,1 cannot agree or confess that 

my bags contained a 3.5-ounce canister of Jetboil Jetpower Isobutane/Propane 

Fuel Mix. Since I have no such fuel in my possession, I cannot verify the volume, 

or manufacture, or the DOT rules under which it may have been manufactured. 

For the same reasons I catmot confess to the other gases you allege I offered in 

my checked baggage on the date you specify. If you can find in my previous 

correspondence my confession to such a claim, it would prove this qtiestion is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(l)(2) 

I caimot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the HMR. You 

provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently involved in 

organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to read all the HMR 

rules in order to provide an accurate reply within the time allowed. Further, 

whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the facts, if this 

rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in violation of 14 

C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

a I caimot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the HMR 

You provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently 

involved in organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to 

read all the HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. Further, 

whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the 

facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4) 

b I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the HMR. 

You provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently 

involved in organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to 

read all the HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. Further, 

whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the 

facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

c I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the HMR. 

You provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently 

involved in organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to 

read all the HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. Further, 

whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the 

facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4) 
d I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the HMR 

You provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently 

mvolved in organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to 

read all the HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. Further, 

whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the 

facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R, 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4) 

I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding rules of the DOT Special 

Permit 12562. Until your First Discovery Letter, I did not know such a permit 

existed. I do not possess a copy of it, and cannot review it to provide you an 

accurate answer. Further, whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is 

irrelevant to the facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this 

question is in violation of 14 C.F.R 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding how the HMR classifies 

Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix. You provided no line specification for me to 

review. I am currently involved in organizing my defense and I do not have the 

time needed to read all the HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. 

Further, whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the 

facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this question is in 

violation of 14 C.F.R, 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4) 

a I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding what name the 

HMR assigns to Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix. You provided no line 

specification for me to review. I am currently involved in organizing my 

defense and I do not have the time needed to read all the HMR rules in 

order to provide an accurate reply. Further, whether or not I agree to the 

truth of this statement is irrelevant to the facts, if this rule says what you 

claim it does. Therefore this question is in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(f)(2X3X4) 

b I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding in what class the 

HMRs place Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix. You provided no line 

specification for me to review. I am currently involved in organizing my 

defense and I do not have the time needed to read all the HMR rules in 

order to provide an accurate reply. Further, whether or not I agree to the 

truth of tills statement is irrelevant to the facts, if this rule says what you 

claim it does. Therefore this question is in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(f)(2X3)(4) 

c I cannot confess to the accuracy of this claim regarding the identification 

number the HMRs assign to Primus Power Gas 4 Season Mix. You 

provided no line specification for me to review. I am currently involved in 

organizing my defense and I do not have the time needed to read all the 

HMR rules in order to provide an accurate reply. Further, whether or not I 

agree to the truth of this statement is irrelevant to the facts, if this rule says 
what you claim it does. Therefore this question is m violation of 14 C.F.R 

13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4) 

d I got ail excited that I might be able to review the HMR column 9A of 

172.101 table you identify in an effort to give an informed answer, but you 

did not provide that HMR in any of your letters or correspondence, and I 

do not possess a copy by which I may review it in order to provide you an 

accurate answer. By now I imagine you are fhastrated by my lack of 

confession, but frankly, whether or not I agree to the truth of this 

statement is urelevant to the facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. 

Therefore this question is in violation of 14 CF.R, 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

10 How am I supposed to admit to such a claim? Until your First Discovery Letter I 

did not know DOT exemption 10677 even existed. You did not proved me a copy, 

and I do not possess it for reading. I cannot confess to your claims regarding this 

exemption. Further, whether or not I agree to the truth of this statement is 

irrelevant to the facts, if this rule says what you claim it does. Therefore this 

question is in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

11 I cannot confess to your claim imder Admission 3 for the reasons provided there, 

but in an effort to show I am not intending to be defiant, I am going out on a limb. 

On the fight of which I took prior to the origination of this case, I admit the bags I 

checked were not accompanied by a shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods. 

No such shipping papers were available or offered at the baggage check counter, 

and having no knowledge of restricted items in my bags as I told you in my 

second letter, I was unaware such papers were required. There are no signs within 

view anywhere in the passenger terminal suggesting the need of papers for 

unknown restricted items. Since I cannot verify the date and flight you specify, I 

cannot verify the validity of this confession. Further, whether or not I agree to the 

truth of this statement is irrelevant to the facts, if the facts show what you claim it 

does. Therefore this question is in violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4) 

12 

I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to this admission. In 

good faith I will admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not 

accompanied by shipping papers containing proper shipping names of 

hazardous materials. No such shipping papers were available or offered at 

the baggage check counter, and having no knowledge of restricted items in 

my bags, I was unaware such papers were required. There are no signs 

within view anywhere in the passenger terminal suggesting the need of 

papers for unknown restricted items. Further, such properly filled out 

shipping papers would not have made the bags any more acceptable to the 

administration, and therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes 

Admission 12 a violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (fXl) as accumulative. 

I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to this admission. In 
good faith I will admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not 

accompanied by shipping papers which contained the hazard class of any 

materials. No such shipping papers were available or offered at the 

baggage check counter, and having no knowledge of restricted items in my 

bags, I was unaware such papers were required. There are no signs within 

view anywhere in the passenger terminal suggesting the need of papers for 

imknown restricted items. Further, such properly filled out shipping papers 

would not have made the bags any more acceptable to the administration, 

and therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 12 a 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(1) as accumulative, 

c I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to this admission. In 

good faith I will admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not 

accompanied by shipping papers which contained a basic description of 

any hazardous materials. No such shipping papers were available or 

offered at the baggage check counter, and having no knowledge of 

restricted items in my bags, I was unaware such papers were required. 

There are no signs within view anywhere in the passenger terminal 

suggesting the need of papers for unknown restricted items. Further, such 

properly filled out shipping papers would not have made the bags any 

more acceptable to the administration, and therefore this line item is 

irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 12 a violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 

(f)(1) as accvmiulative. 

d I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

I therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to this admission. In 

I good faith I will admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not 

I accompanied by shipping papers which contained the total quantity of any 

I hazardous materials. No such shipping papers were available or offered at 

I the baggage check counter, and having no knowledge of restricted items in 

I my bags, I was unaware such papers were required. There are no signs 

I within view anywhere in the passenger terminal suggesting the need of 

I papers for unknown restricted items. Further, such properly filled out 

1 shipping papers woxold not have made the bags any more acceptable to the 

I administration, and therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes 

I Admission 12 a violation of 14 C.F.R 13,220 (fXl) as accumulative, 

I 

I 13 I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and therefore 

I am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 13, In good faith I will 

i admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not accompanied by 

] shipping papers which contained an emergency response telephone number. No 

such shipping papers were available or offered at the baggage check counter, and 

< having no knowledge of restricted items in my bags, I was unaware such papers 

I were required. There are no signs within view anywhere in the passenger terminal 

I suggesting the need for such papers. Further, such properly filled out papers 

I would not have made the bags any more acceptable to the administration, and 
therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 13 a violation of 

14 C.F.R 13,220 (f)(1) as accumulative. 

14 I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and therefore 

am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 14. In good faith I will 

admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not accompanied by printed 

shippmg certification. Further, having no knowledge of the restricted items m my 

bags. It was impossible to certify, by printed shipping pe^rs, the condition of any 

restricted items. Further, such proper shipping certification would not have made 

the bags any more acceptable to the administration, and therefore this line item is 

irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 14 a violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (f)(1) as 

accumulative, 

15 I am tmcertain to the acciiracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and therefore 

am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 15, In good faith I will 

admit that the bags I identified in Admission 11 were not accompanied by two 

copies of shipping certification papers. Further, having no knowledge of the 

restricted items in my bags. It was impossible to provide two copies of shipping 

certification for items I did not know were in ray bags. Further, two copies of 

proper shipping certification would not have made the bags any more acceptable 

to tiie administration, and therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes 

Admission 15 a violation of 14 C.F.R. 13.220 (fXl) as accumulative. 

16 I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and therefore 

am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 16, Having no 

knowledge of the restricted items in my bags, it was impossible to mark or label 

the bags to indicate the presence of items imknown. Further, such markings or 

labels would not have made the bags any more acceptable to the administration, 

and therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 16 a violation 

of 14 CF.R, 13,220 (f)(1) as accumulative. 

17 

a I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 17a. 

Having no knowledge of the restricted items in my bags, It was impossible 

to mark the bags with the proper shipping name and assigned 

identification number of unknown items. Further, such markings would 

not have made the bags any more acceptable to the administration, and 

therefore this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 17a a 

violation of 14 C.F.R. 13,220 (f)(1) as accumulative, 

b I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and 

therefore am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 17b, 

Having no knowledge of the restricted items in my bags. It was impossible 

to affix English-language markings required by the HMRs to the surface 

of each bag. Further, such markings would not have made the bags any 

more acceptable to the administration, and therefore this line item is 
irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 17b a violation of 14 C.F.R, 13,220 

(fXl) as accumulative, 

18 I am uncertain to the accuracy of your allegations in Admission 3, and therefore 

am not sure how accurate would be a reply to Admission 18. Having no 

knowledge of the restricted items in my bags, It was impossible to label the bags 

with "Flammable gas" or "Cargo aircraft only". Further, these markings would 

not have made the bags any more acceptable to the administration, and therefore 

this line item is irrelevant. This fact makes Admission 18 a violation of 14 C,F,R 

13.220 (f)(1) as accumulative. 

Defendant's reply to your INTERROGATORIES 

1 Frankly sir, I am trying to gather my defense, and this letter of discovery is a 

poorly veiled attempt to consume my time unnecessarily. For me to answer most each 

line item will take hours of reading in order to make an informed answer. The problem is 

further exacerbated by your nearly two year delay in sending this First Discovery Letter 

until just weeks before the hearing. Since you already have the answer to each line item 

you are attempting to "discover", I can conclude nothing short of an intent to disrupt me 

in my defense, 

I appealed to the administrative Judge to disallow this letter of Discovery in its entirety as 

a flagrant disregard to the rules of 14 CF.R But was denied. I have therefore answered 

each line item to the best of my ability retaining my lawful right to not incriminate myself 

and require you to bear the burden of proof. 

1 am willing to answer an actual question seeking a legitimate true discovery. But as I 

have shown, my answer to any of these "questions" has no bearing on the facts of the 

case, and are therefore not discovery. 

2 I have no persons I intend to call as witnesses at this time. I may attempt to call 

the lady at the ticket coimter whom I called to request shipping information. But at this 

time I am unable to proved a name or contact. If I so choose and have time, to take this 

course, I will inform you ASAP. 

3 No information available at this time as your discovery letter came far too late for 

me to address. Until your letter, I was not aware you had the ability to restrict the 

preparation of my defense beyond the date of the hearing. Until your discovery request, 

my defense has been growing with the only known deadline as the date of the hearing. 

4 I do contend that I lack the ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

Frankly I do not have the physical or financial ability to copy each of the docimients you 

require. I am in the process of collecting them now. As my defense develops I have and 

will continue to adjust my direction and the material I intend to use in my defense. At this 

time I choose not to include my abundant evidence proving my inability to pay your 

proposed civil penalty, because I do not wish to take the "reduced fine" approach. I am 

not guilty of wiUfiil wrong doing and my defense is based on this fact. 
Defendants reply to your REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

I the defendant submit as exhibit (A) the United States Constitution to be called upon as 

needed in my defense. 

I provide here the web address of said Constitution as exampled to me by the agency: 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html 

I the defendant submit as exhibit (B) the United States Bill of Rights to be called upon as 

needed in my defense. 

I provide here the web address of said Bill as exampled to me by the agency: 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html 

I the defendant submit as exhibit (C) the DOT 14 C.F.R. 13 rules to be called upon as 

needed in my defense. 

I provide here the web address of said code as was provided to me by the agency: 

http://cfr, vlex.com/vid/acting-engineer-mechanic-repairman-19560788 

I the defendant submit as exhibit (D) the 49 U.S.C. A. 5123 code of rules to be called 

upon as needed in my defense. 

I provide here the web address of said code as was provided to me by the agency: 

http://vlex.com/vid/sec-civil-penalty-19260540 

I the defendant submit as exhibit (E) the primary wristwatch of the accusing attorney at 

the hearing, to be called upon and produced, if needed in my defense. 

Kyle Ponsford Defendant 

HC 60 Box 3394 

Haines AK 99827 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Kyle Ponsford 

FAA Docket No. CP09AL0007 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0729 

I hereby certify that on this date I have served a copy of the AGENCY'S MOTION FOR 

DECISION REGARDING VIOLATIONS by postage-prepaid, certified mail, rettim receipt 

requested to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20; 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Kyle Ponsford 

HC 60 Box 3394 

Haines, AK 99827 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original of the AGENCY'S MOTION FOR 

DECISION REGARDING VIOLATIONS by postage-prepaid, certified mail, rettim receipt 

requested, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

DATED: (^c<J- 4 ^O/ ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration /j A 

Office of Regional Coimsel O 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587