UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASfflNGTON , D.C . *^' % i;-<*»a»f f 

### I N TH E MATTE RO F JU

L t 3 201 0 KYLEPONSFOR

D HEARIN G DOCKE T FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09AL000 7 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-072 9

AGENCY' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N REGARDIN G VIOLATION S 'c 5 Pursuan t t o § 13.218(f)(5 ) o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e an d basedo n th e fact s an d circumstance s a s mor e full y se t fort h below , Complainan t

move s for

adecisio n regardin g th e violations . I . PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y Th e complain t

i n thi s matte r

wa s serve d o n Jul y 27 , 2009 . I n i t Complainan t

allege s tha t

o n o r abou t Augus t 27,2008 , Responden t

wa s atickete dpassenge r for afligh t fi-omJuneau , Alaska , t o Ketchikan , Alaska ; tha t prio r t o th e fligh t

h e checke d thre e bags ; an d tha t on e o f th e bag s containe d a3.53-ounc e caniste r o f Jetboi l Jetpowe r

Isobutane/Propan e Fue l mi x an d tw o canister s o f

Primu s Powe r

Ga s 4 Seaso n Mix . Th e complain t furthe r alleges , i n essence , tha t thes e canister s o f

fuel ar e hazardou s material s tha t ar e forbidde n o n passenge r aircraft ; tha t Respondent' s bag s wer e no t accompanie d b y th e shippin g paper s specifie d i n th e Hazardou s Material s Regulation s (HMR) , 4 9 C.F.R . Chapte r I , Subchapte r

C ; an d tha t

th e ba g containin g thes e fuel canister s wa s no t marke d o r

labele d t o indicat e th e presenc e o f them . Base d o n thes e facts , th e complain t

allege s Responden t

violate d variou s provision s o f th e HMR . I n it s cove r 1lette r

submittin g th e complaint . Complainan t request s tha t

th e hearin g b e hel d i n Anchorage , Alaska . I n hi s Procedura l Orde r serve d o n Augus t

20,2009 , th e assigne d administrativ e la w judg e (ALJ ) indicate s venu e wil l b e i n Anchorage . Responden t

di d submi t

alette r date d Augus t

2 , 2009 , i n whic h h e objects t o havin g th e hearing i n Anchorage , bu t h e di d not

timel y submi t

an answe r

t o th e complain t

o r amotio n a s require d b y § 13.209(a) . Thus , o n Octobe r 5 , 2009 , Complainan t

move d fo r

an Orde r deemin g th e allegation s admitted . O n Octobe r 22,2009 , th e AL J issue d a n Orde r t o Sho w Caus e i n whic h h e give s Responden t

unti l Octobe r

30 , 2009 , t o respond . Responden t

di d sen d t o th e Hearin g Docke t atwo-pag e respons e date d Octobe r 28 , 2009 . I n i t h e makes anumbe r

o f statement s regardin g th e proces s t o date , an d tha t h e wa s confuse d b y it . H e als o allege s tha t

Complainan t

ha d seize d aportio n o f

hi s 200 9 Alask aPermanen t Fun d Dividen d (PFD). ' Regardin g th e allegations , h e decline s t o answe r eac h lin e ite mbecause , i n hi s view , i t woul d tak e to o muc h time . H e doe s conclude , however , b y contendin g tha t "$100 0 i s an unreasonabl e fin e for

asimpl e oversigh t

whic h di d not

actuall y lea d t o apotentiall y hazardou s event. " H e als o allege s tha t n o dangerou s good s wer e transporte d o n th e airplane , an d tha t h e i s no t guilty o f acrime . Lastly , h e promise s greate r detai l at alate r date . Whil e thi s respons e i s addresse d t o th e ALJ , h e di d no t sen d i t t o th e ALJ , an d di d no t

sen d acop y t o Complainant' s counsel . Unawar e o f

hi s timel y respons e t o th e Orde r t o Sho w Cause , th e AL J grante d Complainant' s motio n t o dee mth e fact s admitte d an d limite d th e hearin g t o th e consideratio n o f th e sanction . B y subsequen t Orde r th e AL J se t

th e hearin g for

Jun e 29 , 2010 , i n Juneau , Alaska .

' Responden

t i s mistaken . A review of

th e paperwor

k reveal s tha

t i t wa s the Stat

e of Alaska' s Attorne

y General' s Offic e tha t seized the funds , and achec k wit h the Stat e of Alaska' s Cour

t System' s on-line record s indicate s the cas e numbers cited i

n th e seizur

e paperwor

k wer e fo r traffic offense s i

n Fairbanks , Alaska .O n Marc h 24,2010 , Responden t appeale d t o th e FA A Decisionmaker . Whil e th e appea l was dismisse d becaus e i t wa s not authorize d b y th e Rule s o f Practice , th e fac t

Responden t

ha d timel y responde d t o th e Sho w Caus e Orde r cam e t o light . Thus , i n th e reman d order , th e AL J wa s instructe d t o conside r th e respons e an d determin e whethe r i t establishe d goo d caus e for hi s failur e t o fil e an answer . I n hi s Orde r

Followin g Remand , th e AL J receive s th e Octobe r 28 * respons e a s Respondent' s answer , authorize s Responden t t o addres s at

th e hearin g th e substantiv e allegation s o f th e complaint , an d vacate s hi s Orde r Deemin g Allegation s Admitte d "t o th e exten t require d b y th e previou s paragraphs. " O n Ma y 4 , 2010 , Complainan t serve d adiscover y reques t o n Respondent . I t

consist s o f

1 8 request s for

admissio n tha t

essentiall y trac k

th e languag e o f

th e allegation s i n th e complaint . Als o include d ar e interrogatorie s an d request s for productio n whic h essentiall y see k th e name s o f hi s witnesse s an d copie s o f th e exhibit s h e intend s t o offer . Responden t objecte d t o th e discover y request , s o o n Jim e 8 , 2010 , Complainan t move d for

a n Orde r compellin g Responden t t o respond . Th e AL J promptl y grante d thi s motion , an d o n Jun e 14,2010 , Responden t submitte d th e attache d respons e (Exhibi t A) . A t th e date , time , an d plac e se t for th e hearing . Complainan t appeare d wit h it s witnesses , an d was prepare d t o presen t it s case . Whe n Responden t ha d not show n u p b y 9:1 5 a.m. , th e AL J wen t o n th e record . Complainan t move d for

an Orde r deemin g Respondent' s failur e t o appear a s awithdrawa l o f

hi s reques t

for ahearing , an d for

adecisio n findin g th e violation s allege di n th e complain t an d assessin g a$100 0 civi l penalty . Th e la w judg e announce d tha t thi s motio n wa s granted , bu t

furthe r indicate d tha t

h e woul d b e issuin g awritte n decisio n t o thi s effect . Severa l Responden t served adiscover

y reques t o n Complainan

t o n Ma y 22 , 2010 , an

d Complainan

t responde d to i

t o n Jun e 18,2010 .hour s afte r th e hearin g wa s adjourned , Complainant' s counse l becam e awar e tha t o n Jun e 23 , 2010 , Responden t

ha d submitte d adocumen t entitled , "Defendant' s Notic e o f Appearance. " I n i t Responden t

ask s tha t th e AL J allo w hi s writte n appearanc e unde r § 13.20 4 o f

th e Rule s o f Practice . II . PRELIMINAR Y MATTER S Th e firs t issu e i s whethe r

th e AL J stil l ha s jurisdictio n t o conside r Respondent' s submission . Se e I n th e Matte r ofBarnhill , FA A Orde r

No . 92-3 2 (May 5 , 1992 ) (A n orde r tha t dispose s o f

th e issue s i n acas e an d assesse s acivi l penalt y i s an initia l decision , whic h terminate s th e ALJ' s jurisdiction) . Havin g considere d th e matte r Complainan t

i s satisfie d tha t despit e th e us e o f

th e presen t

tens e i n grantin g Complainant' s motio n durin g th e hearing , i t i s clear fro mth e ALJ' s statemen t regardin g awritte n decisio n tha t hi s announce d rulin g o n th e recor d shoul d not

b e construe d a s afinal dispositio n o f th e case . Hence , Complainan t i s satisfie d tha t th e AL J stil l ha s jurisdictio n i n thi s matter . Th e nex t issu e i s ho w t o trea t

Respondent' s submission . Whil e ther e ar e anumbe r o f point s tha t

coul d b e made , th e submissio n i s essentiall y hi s argument s regardin g th e applicatio n o f th e la w t o th e facts . Th e contention s h e doe s mak e tha t coul d b e construe d a s testimon y relat e t o matter s tha t

Complainan t

doe s no t contest.' ' Thus , hi s "Defendant' s Notic e o f Appearance " shoul d b e construe d a s amotio n fo r decision.' *

' Specifically , Complainan

t ha s n o reaso n to challeng e Respondent' s assertio n tha t he wa s not , a

t the tim e of the incident , consciousl

y awar e of th e HM Ro r tha t the fiiel canister s i

n hi s surviva

l ki t wer e forbidde n o n passenge r aircraft . I n thi s regard . Complainan

t agree s wit

h Respondent' s characterizatio n o f th e even t as " asimple oversight. " Complainan

t als o acknowledge s tha

t thes e fue l canister s wer

e discovered during baggag e screenin g an d remove d fromhi s baggag e befor

e hi s baggag e wa s loaded ont o the aircraft . * Responden

t doe s rais e tw o additiona

l issue s i n hi s submission . I

n addition t

o repeatin g hi s claimregarding th e seizur e of aportion o f

hi s PFD , he contend s tha

t th e Agency' s action wa s "untimely an d unequal. " H

e doe s not offe r an y basi s fo r hi s conclusion s o

r contend he was someho

w prejudiced b

y wha t h e contend s wa s excessiv e delay .III . ARGUMEN T A . FACT S Th e fact s allege d i n th e complain t shoul d b e deeme d admitted . Sectio n 13.209(e ) o f Rule s o f Practic e specificall y provide s tha t an y allegatio n no t

specificall y denie d ca n b e deeme d admitted . Responden t

ha s ha d ampl e opportunit y t o den y eac h o f th e specifi c allegation s i n th e complaint , bu t

ha s chose n no t

t o d o so . Rather , h e essentiall y admit s them . Include d with hi s writte n submissio n i s acop y o f hi s Septembe r

25 , 2008 , respons e t o th e lette r o f investigatio n i n whic h h e state s I wor k remot e job s all ove r

Alaska , an d whe n th e environmen t warrants , I tak e wit h m e m y emergenc y surviva l ki t whic h contain s a2 cu p cooke r an d th e smal l fue l cell s t o ru n it . .. . I wa s i n transi t t o ane w jo b drillin g foundation s for apowe r lin e throug h th e rugge d mountain s nort h o f Ketchika n whe n m y fue l cell s wer e take n fi:o mm y checke d bags. " Give n thes e fact s an d circumstances , i t i s clearl y appropriat e t o dee mth e fact s admitted. ^ B . VIOLATION S Wher e th e partie s disagre e i s i n th e applicatio n o f th e la w t o th e facts . Responden t apparentl y believe s tha t

h e canno t

b e foun d t o hav e knowingl y violate d th e HM Runles s h e wa s actuall y awar e o f

th e regulation s at

th e time . Whil e hi s positio n i s at leas t understandable , i t

i s no t legall y correct . Th e FA A Decisionmake r ha s determine d tha t

"knowingly " refer s t o actua l knowledg e o f

th e fact s givin g ris e t o th e violation . I n th e Matte r ofSmalling , FA A Orde r No . 94-3 1 (Septembe r

30 , 1994) . A s th e AL J point s ou t i n hi s initia l decisio n i n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n v . Raggon , FA A Docke t No . CP06NM00 1 at

footnot e 1 "Th e legislativ e history

' Responden

t doe s stat e o n pag e 4 o f

hi s submission , " I did no t

knowingl y pac k the fiiel cells. " H

e does , however , go o n to acknowledg e tha

t fiie l cell s wer e i n aba g tha t he checked , whic

h i s precisely wha

t th e complain

t alleges . Whethe r h e wa s consciously awar

e o f the fiie l cell s a t th e tim e h e grabbed hi s surviva

l kit an d packed i t i n hi s ba g i s irrelevant . A person ha s adut y t o know wha

t i s i n th e baggag e h

e check s o r carrie s ont

o a n aircraft , I n the Matte

r of Ian G . Koblick , FA A Orde r No . 1992-5 1 (Jul

y 23 , 1992) , an

d a t aminimum , ha

d Responden

t exercise d reasonable car e h e woul d hav e realize d tha

t hi s surviva

l kit containe d th e ftiel cells .o f

th e Hazardou s Material s Transportatio n Ac t confirm s tha t

Congres s intende d t o impose civi l penaltie s o n person s wh o kne w abou t th e ac t constitutin g th e violatio n but di d no t kno w abou t th e law. " Thus , th e fac t

Responden t

wa s no t actuall y awar e o f

th e HM Rdoe s no t

preclud e a findin g tha t

h e knowingl y violate d th e regulation s a s allege d i n th e complaint. ^ Responden t

ha s als o contende d a t

variou s time s tha t

h e wa s apassenge r

an d not ashipper , an d tha t ther e wa s n o violatio n becaus e th e item s wer e remove d befor e the y wer e transported . I n respons e t o simila r

contention s i n Respondent' s discover y request . Complainan t provide d th e following : Airlin e passenger s ar e shipper s whe n the y chec k bag s o r carr y item s ont o a n aircraft , an dmus t

compl y wit h al l applicabl e requirement s for th e shipmen t

o f hazardou s materials . Fo r example , § 172.200(a ) specificall y provides , "[E]ac h perso n wh o offer s ahazardou s materia l for transportatio n shal l describ e th e hazardou s materia l o n th e shippin g pape r i n th e manne r

require d b y th e subpart. " Whe n apassenge r

check s abag , i t

i s wit h th e expectatio n tha t th e airlin e wil l transpor t tha t ba g an d delive r

i t t o th e passenge r

shortl y after

h e arrive s at

hi s destination . Th e ba g obviousl y doe s no t arriv e at th e passenger' s destinatio n unles s i t i s transporte d ther e b y th e airline , s o whe n apassenge r check s abag , h e i s clearl y offerin g i t

for transportatio n b y air . I n short , th e violatio n o f

th e regulation s occurre d i n thi s cas e whe n Responden t checke d hi s bag s for th e fligh t t o Ketchikan . Th e fac t

th e hazardou s material s i n hi s bag s wer e remove d durin g th e pre-fligh t screenin g proces s doe s no t mak e an y difference . Base d o n th e foregoing , Respondent' s lega l argument s ar e withou t meri t an d shoul db e specificall y rejected . Th e factua l allegation s i n th e complain t establis h eac h o f

th e regulator y violation s se t

fort h i n th e complaint , an d Complainan t i s entitle d a s amatte r

o f la w t o an Orde r Findin g tha t

Responden t

violate d th e HM Ra s se t fort h i n th e complaint .

* 4 4 U.S.C . § 150

7 provide s tha

t the publicatio n o

f adocumen

t i n the Federa

l Registe r i s sufficien

t to give notic e o

f th e content s o f

th e documen

t t o aperso n subject

t o o r affecte d b y it .C . SANCTIO N

Respondent' s pleading s t o dat e certainl y rais e th e possibilit y tha t h e lack s th e ability t o pay . S o far , however , h e ha s no t offere d th e sort

o f reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidenc e necessar y t o carr y hi s burde n o f proo f i n thi s regard . I n th e Matte r ofGiuffrida , FA A Orde r No . 1992-3 7 (Decembe r

17,1992) . Tha t

h e hasn' t focuse d o n th e sanctio n issu e i s understandabl e give n his/7r o s e statu s an d apparentl y hones t belie f tha t h e di d not

knowingl y violat e th e regulations . Despit e hi s unflatterin g contention s regardin g Complainant' s motives , Complainan t i s concerne d abou t

fundamenta l fairnes s i n aforu mi n whic h Responden t i s obviousl y quit e inexperienced . Complainan t recommends , therefore , tha t Responden t

b e afforde d an opportunit y t o supplemen t

th e recor d wit h aswor n statemen t an d appropriat e documentatio n regardin g hi s assets , income , an d othe r factor s bearin g o n hi s abilit y t o pay . Complainan t shoul d b e afforde d th e opportunit y t o offer

rebutta l evidenc e a s wel l a s argumen t regardin g an y submissio n an d th e sanctio n t o b e imposed . IV . CONCLUSIO N Base do n th e foregoing . Complainan t i s entitle d t o adecisio n findin g tha t Responden t violate d th e HM Ra s se t

fort h i n th e Complaint . Th e AL J shoul d issu e a n Orde r t o tha t effect , an d limi t further proceeding s t o th e consideratio n o f th e sanctio n a s outline d above . Respectfull y submitte d thi s 2"* ^ da y o f Jul y 2010 . HOWAR D L . MARTIN , JR . Regiona l Covmse

l By: _ Glen n H . Brow n Senio r Attorne yVI

A CERTIFIED MAIL , RETUR N RECEIP

T REQUESTE

D y^ ^ ^ j j Q QCOO 7<;( H ZU H J Howar d L . Martin , Jr . Regiona l Counsel , ? . »(5 ? 4^ y f S ^ FA A Alaska n Regio n .i^^'^- ^ -- ~ 22 2 Wes t 7 * Avenu e #1 4 „„ , ;01 0 Anchorage , Alaska99513-758 7 ' ^ '

" A •.$ ^ RE : Cas e 2008AL70007 2 %. , .^^ ^ Jun e 14 , 201 0 Dea r Mr . Martin , Jr . I hav e receive d your

Firs t Discover y Reques t letter o n Ma y 18,201 0 And hav e receive d th e June 1 0 rejectio n o f m y appea l fro mth e Judge . Enclose d pleas e find m

y reply t o your

Firs t Discover y Request . M y reply ha s answere d eac h lin e itemi n you r reques t a s accurately a s possibl e unde r th e circumstances . B e advise d m

y answe r o f you r lette r i n thi s wa y doe s no t impl y o r admit tha t I hav e wave d m y argimien

t tha t your request s ar

e i n violatio n o f

DOT rule s regulatin g thi s dispute . I t i s no t m y inten t t o b e flippan

t or disrespectful , an

dhav e answere dyou

r question s a s accurately a s possibl e withi n th e tim e frame allowed . You r demando f

me t o answe

r your questions , require tha

t I read volume s o f

Hazardou s Materia

l Shippin g Rule s t o accurately reply . Thi s woul d dramatically reduc e m y tim e i n preparatio n o f

m y defense . I regre t tha t yo u di d no t

send thi s Discover

y Reques t withi n th e first

yea r o f thi s dispute , which ma y hav e give n m

e th e tim e neede dt o giv e yo u th e answer s you seek . Sincerely , Kyl e Ponsfor

d Defendant . End : Defendant' s Repl

y T o Agency' s Firs t

Discover y Reques t 

# hUk ^ A

### DEFENDANT' S REPL Y T O FIRS T DISCOVER

Y REQUES T To : Regiona

l Counsel Howar

d L . Martin , JR Copy 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 ( 0 Limitin g discovery . Th e administrativ e law judg e shal l limi t th e frequenc y an d exten t o f discover y permitte d b y thi s sectio n if apart y show s tha t

(1 ) Th e informatio n requeste d i s cumulativ e o r repetitious ; (2 ) Th e informatio n requeste d can b e obtaine dfro manothe r les s burdensom e an d mor e convenien t source ; (3 ) Th e part y requestin g th e informatio n ha s ha d ampl e opportunit y t o obtai n th e informatio n throug h othe r discover y method s permitte d unde r thi s section ; o r

(4 ) Th e metho d o r

scop e o f discover y requeste d b y th e party i s undul y burdensom e o r expensive . Fro mth e beginnin g o

f thi s cas e I hav e bee

n confusedb

y thi s Agencie s "polite desire " tha t I submit myself to their judgments . They hav e "requested " and"proposed " an d suggeste d alis t

o f harmfu l thing s t o me . I canno t

willingl y i

n goo dconscienc e "plac e m y own neck on your choppin g block " simply becaus e you ask m e t o d o so , nor

ca n th e la w requir e tha t I d o so . I remind thi s Administratio n an d th e cour t tha t th e Burden o

f Proof i s wit h th e accuser . Deeming m

e Confessedi s aviolatio n o f m y right t o b e considere d innocent unti l PROVE

N guilty . I f thi s cour t i s not capabl e or

prepare dt o hea

r m y cas e unde r th e protectio n o

f th e UnitedState s Constitutio n andth e Bill o f Rights , then thi s cour t i s unqualifie d t o hea

r m y case . In th e court' s ORDE

RT O SHO

W CAUS E date dJun e 10 , 201 0 th e cour t identifie dth e purpos e o f

th e Compleiinant' s Firs t

Reques t wa s a n effor t "to determin e th e issue s o n whic h th e partie s diffe

r and t o determin e Respondent' s defenses. " I f thi s i s acas e base d o n emotio n and feeling s I migh t b e mor e incline dto answe

r thes e lin e itemrequests . But accordin g t o th e law , neithe r th e opinion s o f

myself , nor of th e Agenc y shoul daffec

t th e fact s o f law . A s a n example , if

; "th e HMR s assig n t o Primu s Powe r Ga s 4 Season Mi x th e proper shippin g nam

e o f "petroleu mgas , liquefied' " a s th e Agenc y claim s in lin e item9a , the n m

y opinio n o n thi s i s virtuall y irrelevant . If I flew o n th e specifi c aircraf t o f tha t specifi c flight

numbe r o n tha t specifi c dat

e whic h th e Agency claims , then m y confessio n o r

denia l o f such afact

i s hrelevant . Th e agenc y ha s th e burde n o f proo f to provid e th e fact s verifying such aclaim . Th e defendan t canno t b e compelle dt o witnes s agains t himself , and hi s refusa

l to admit t o suc h a n accusatio n canno t

b y la w b e determine d to b e aconfession . It concern s m

e tha t th e DOT rule s o f

practic e woul d violate suc h lawfu

l protections , andfurthe

r concern s m

e tha t th e cour t woul dno t

sho w th e authorit

y allowin g thes e rule s t o violate such laws . Accordin g t o th e DOT rules ; allowin g th e cour

t t o dee mm e confesse di f

I d o no t confess , make s m

e effectivel y guilt y unles s I ca n prov e I a

minnocent . Thi s violate s th e ver y foundatio n o f

th e Unite dState s Constitutio n and th e Bil l o f Rights . In respons e t o th e court s recen t ORDE RT O SHO

W CAUS E date dJun e 10 , 201 0 an di n a n effor t t o prove d th e accuse

r th e issue s o n whic h th e partie s differ , andt o provide th e accuse r m y defense , I submit th e following answe

r t o th e Agencie s Firs t

Discover y Reques t a s full y a s possibl e withi n th e Law s protectin g me .Defendant' s reply addressin g eac h lin e itemo f you r Discover y Reques t a s follows : 1 I receive d alette

r stampe dwit

h th e date Dec , 3,200 8 tha t mos t accurately represent s your

claim . Tha

t letter wa s unclea

r a s t o th e agency o f

authorship , wit

h a n addres s o n th e uppe

r right o f th e pag e havin g no identity . The signatur e only identifie d th e Senior

Attorne y unde r "Regiona l Counsel " o f

a n unname d authority . I n tha

t letter wa s th e imclear , seemingly powerles s "proposal " t o nobod y specific , o f

a n "assessed " civi l penalty . Afte r readin g tha

t letter severa l time s I wa s stil l unclea

r a s t o wha t i t actually mean

t o r th e proces s o f

la w governin g such avagu e declaratio n o f intent . In thi s lette

r wer e asignifican

t nimibe r o f fals e statements . Andal l o f th e statement s sighte dwer e o f rule s I ha d n o wa y o f knowin g o r

reviewing . Thi s wa s th e second lette

r received , andI wa s stil l imde r th e impressio n thi s issu e wa s a n attemp t to determin e i f

I wa s aterroris t

or not . I wa s mor

e tha n willin g to provid e al l th e informatio n I thought they wer e seeking unde

r thi s impression . M y reply t o tha

t letter wa s base di n thi s confusion . 2 Accordin g t o th e Law , th e burde n o f proo f i s lai do n th e accuser . M

y confessio n t o thi s lin e itemi s irrelevant to th e facts ; i f

I di do r di dno t fly o n flight

#6 4 o n a specifi c date . Therefor

e th e court s willingnes s to dee mthi s confessedi f

i t doe s no t fee l I hav e answere d t o thei r

satisfaction , i s aviolatio n o f th e Law . I refus e to d o th e Accuser s jo b b

y providin g himwit

h hi s argument . I f th e accuse

r need s m y confessio n i n thi s matte

r to buil dhi s cas e agains t

me , then hi s clai mi s invalid . Further , i f you ca n fin d in m y previou s correspondenc e m y confessio n t o such a claim , i t woul d prov e thi s questio n i s als o in violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(l)(2)(3 ) Frankl y thi s cas e i s no w nearly 2 year s old , I canno t yet find th e ticke t

stu b identifyin g th e specifi c flight #or th e specifi c date , andcanno t therefor e accurately admit

th e accurac y o f

thi s lin e item . 3 A s lon g a s I wa s unde r th e impressio n th e Agency wa s attemptin g t o see k th e trut h base d o n nationall y importan t concerns , I wa s eage

r t o provid e the mth e informatio n I though

t they wer e seeking . Sinc e then , thi s agency ha s shown a willingnes s t o violate th e la w by seizin g fund s fromniy accoim t without du e process , and ha s show n a

n attemp t t o har mm e by applyin g rule s whic h do no t appl y t o me , I caimot

ignor e th e apparent

fac t tha t the y will artfull

y attemp t t o ge t me t o confes s to sentence s structure dt o har mme . Therefor

e I a mn o longe

r willin g t o simpl

y assum e thei r statement s ar

e correct , nor

a mI stil l incline dt o provid e an y furthe r informatio n whic h ca

n b e use dagains t

me , whic h they ma

y o r ma y no t have . Accordin g to th e Law , th e burden o f proo f i s lai do n th e accuser , therefor e thi s court s willuignes s t o dee

mthi s confessedi f

i t doe s not fee l I hav e answere dt o thei r satisfactio n i s aviolatio n o f th e La w an dm y right s protecte dby th e Unite d State s Constitution . I refus e t o d o th e Accuser s jo b b y providin g hi mwit

h hi sargument . I f th e accuse

r need s m y confessio n in thi s matte

r t o buil dhi s cas e agaitis t me , then hi s clai mi s invalid . Further , i f you ca n fin d i n m y previou s correspondenc e m y confessio n t o suc

h a claim , i t woul d prov e thi s questio n i s als o i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(l)(2 ) Bein g uncertai n a s t o th e accurac y o f allegatio n 3, 1 canno t

agre e o r confes s tha

t m y bag s containe d a3.5-ounc e caniste r o f Jetboi l Jetpowe

r Isobutane/Propan e Fue l Mix . Sinc e I hav e n o such fue l i n m y possession , I canno t

verif y th e volume , o r manufacture , o r

th e DO T rule s unde

r which i t ma y hav e been manufactured . Fo r th e sam e reason s I catmot

confes s to th e othe

r gase s yo u alleg e I offere

di n m y checke d baggag e o n th e dat e you specify . I f

you ca n find i n m

y previou s correspondenc e m

y confessio n t o such aclaim , i t woul dprov e thi s qtiestio n i s i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(l)(2 ) I caimot confes s t o th e accurac y o f

thi s claimregardin g rule s of th e HMR . You provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r me t o review . I a

mcurrently involve di n organizin g m

y defens e andI do no t

hav e th e time neede dto readal l th e HM R rule s i n orde

r t o provid e a

n accurat e reply withi n th e tim e allowed . Further , whethe r or no t I agre e t o th e trut

h of thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i

f thi s rul e say s wha

t yo u clai mi t

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 )

aI caimot

confes s t o th e accuracy o f

thi s clai mregardin g rule s o f th e HM R Yo u provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently involve d i n organizin g m

y defens e an

dI d o no t hav e th e time neede dt o rea d al l th e HMRrule s i n orde r t o provide a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe r or no t I agre e to th e trut

h of thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f thi s rul e say s wha

t you claimi

t does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4 ) b I canno t

confes s t o th e accurac y o f

thi s clai mregardin g rule s o f th e HMR . Yo u provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r m e to review . I a

mcurrently involve d in organizin g m

y defens e an

dI do no t hav e th e time neede dt o rea d al l th e HMRrule s i n orde r to provide a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe r o r no t I agre e t o th e trut

h of thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

to th e facts , i f thi s rul e say s wha

t you claimi t

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s in violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 ) c I canno t

confes s t o th e accurac y o f thi s clai mregardin g rule s o f th e HMR . Yo u provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r me t o review . I a

mcurrently involve d i n organizin g m

y defens e andI d o no t

hav e th e time neede dt o rea d al l th e HM

Rrule s in orde

r to provide a

n accurate reply . Further , whethe r o r no t I agre e to th e trut

h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

to th e facts , i f thi s rul e say s wha

t you claimi

t does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s in violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4 )d I canno t confes s t o th e accurac y o f

thi s clai mregardin g rule s o f th e HM R Yo u provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently mvolve d i n organizin g m

y defens e andI do no t

hav e th e tim e neede dt o read al l th e HMRrule s in orde r to provid e a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe r or no t I agre e t o th e trut

h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f thi s rul e say s wha

t you clai mi t

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i

n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R , 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4 ) I canno t confes s t o th e accurac y o f thi s clai mregardin g rule s o f th e DOT Specia

l Permit 12562 . Unti l your

Firs t Discover y Letter , I di dno t

kno w such apermi t existed . I d o no t

posses s acopy o f

it , andcanno t

revie w it to provide you a

n accurat e answer . Further , whethe

r o r no t I agre e t o th e trut

h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant to th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say s wha

t yo u clai mit

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F. R13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 ) I canno t confes s t o th e accurac y o f thi s clai mregardin g ho w th e HM Rclassifie s Primu s Powe

r Ga s 4 Season Mix . Yo

u provide dn o lin e specificatio n fo r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently involve din organizin g m y defens e andI do no t

hav e th e tim e neede d t o read al l th e HM Rrule s in orde

r t o provide a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe

r or no t I agre e t o th e trut

h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f thi s rul e say s wha

t you claimit

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s in violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R , 13.22 0 (f)(2)(3)(4 )

aI canno t

confes s t o th e accurac y o f

thi s clai mregardin g wha

t nam e th e HM Rassign s t o Primu s Powe

r Ga s 4 Seaso n Mix . Yo

u provide dn o lin e specificatio n fo

r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently involve di n organizin g m y defens e an d I do no t

hav e th e time neede dto rea dal l th e HM

Rrule s in order t o provid e a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe

r o r no t I agre e to th e trut h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say s wha

t yo u clai mi t does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3X4 ) b I canno t

confes s t o th e accurac y of

thi s clai mregardin g i n wha t clas s th e HMR s plac e Primu s Powe

r Ga s 4 Seaso n Mix . Yo

u provide dn o lin e specificatio n fo

r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently involve di n organizin g m y defens e an d I do no t

hav e th e tim e neede dt o readal l th e HM Rrule s in order t o provid e a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe

r o r no t I agre e t o th e trut h o f tills statemen

t i s irrelevan

t t o th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say s wha

t you clai mit does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 ) c I canno t

confes s t o th e accuracy o f

thi s clai mregardin g th e identificatio n numbe r th e HMR s assig n to Primu s Powe r Ga s 4 Season Mix . You provide d n o lin e specificatio n fo r m e t o review . I a

mcurrently involve d i n organizin g m

y defens e and I d o no t

hav e th e time neededt o rea dal l th e HMRrule s i n orde

r t o provide a

n accurat e reply . Further , whethe

r or no t I agre e to th e trut

h of thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say swha t you clai mi

t does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s mviolatio n of 1 4 C.F. R 13.220 (f)(2)(3)(4 ) d I go t

ai l excite d tha

t I migh t b e abl e t o revie w th e HM

Rcolum n 9 A o f 172.10 1 tabl e yo u identif

y i n a n effor t t o giv e a n informedanswer , but

yo u di d no t provide tha

t HMRi n an

y o f your letter s o r correspondence , and I do no t posses s acopy b y whic h I ma y revie w it

in orde r t o provide yo u a

n accurat e answer . B y no w I imagine yo u are fhastrate dby m y lack o f confession , but

frankly, whethe

r o r no t I agre e t o the trut

h of thi s statemen t i s urelevan t

t o th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say s wha

t yo u clai mit

does . Therefor e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f 1 4 CF.R , 13.22 0 (f)(2X3)(4 ) 1 0 Ho w a

mI suppose d to admit

to such aclaim ? Unti l you r Firs t Discover y Letter I di d no t kno w DO T exemptio n 1067 7 even existed . Yo u di dno t prove dm e acopy , an d I do no t

posses s it fo r reading . I canno t

confes s t o you

r claim s regardin g thi s exemption . Further , whethe r or no t I agre e t o th e trut

h of thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant t o th e facts , i f

thi s rul e say s wha

t yo u claimit

does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s in violatio n of

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 ) 1 1 I canno t

confes s t o you

r clai mimde

r Admissio n 3 fo

r th e reason s provide dthere , bu t i n a n effor t t o sho w I a

mno t intendin g t o b e defiant , I a mgoin g out

o n alimb . O n th e fight

o f whic h I too k

prio r t o th e originatio n o f

thi s case , I admit

th e bag s I checke d wer

e no t accompanie db y ashipper' s Declaratio n fo r Dangerou s Goods . N o such shippin g paper s wer e availabl e or

offereda t th e baggag e check

counter , and havin g n o knowledg e o f restricte ditem s i n m

y bag s a s I tol dyo u i n m

y second letter , I wa s unawar e such paper s wer

e required . Ther

e are n o sign s withi n vie w anywher

e i n th e passenge

r termina l suggestin g th e needof

paper s fo r unknow n restricte d items . Sinc e I canno t verif y th e dat e andfligh t yo u specify , I canno t verif y th e validit

y o f thi s confession . Further , whethe r or no t I agre e t o th e trut h o f thi s statemen

t i s irrelevant

t o th e facts , i f

th e fact s sho w wha

t yo u clai mit does . Therefor

e thi s questio n i s i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(2X3)(4 ) 1 2 I a

muncertai n t o th e accurac y of your allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , and therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e arepl

y t o thi s admission . In goo d fait h I will admit

tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie d by shippin g paper s containin g prope r shippin g name s o f hazardou s materials . N o such shippin g paper s wer e availabl e or

offere d a t th e baggag e check

counter , andhavin g n o knowledg e o f restricte ditem s i n m y bags , I was unawar

e suc h paper s wer

e required . Ther

e ar e n o sign s withi n vie w anywher

e i n th e passenge

r termina l suggestin g th e nee do f paper s fo r unknown restricte ditems . Further , suc h properly filled out shippin g paper s woul dno t

hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , an

d therefor e thi s lin e itemi s irrelevant . Thi s fac t make s Admissio n 1 2 aviolatio n of 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (fXl ) a s accumulative . I a muncertai n to th e accurac y o f your allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , and therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e arepl

y to thi s admission . I ngoo d fait h I wil l admi t

tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie d b y shippin g paper s which containe dth e hazar dclas s o f an y materials . N o such shippin g paper s wer e availabl e o r

offereda t th e baggag e check

counter , andhavin g n o knowledg e o f restricte ditem s i n m

y bags , I wa s unawar

e such paper s wer

e required . Ther

e are n o sign s withi n vie w anywher

e i n th e passenge

r termina l suggestin g th e nee do f

paper s fo r imknow n restricte ditems . Further , such properly filled out shippin g paper s would no t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , and therefor

e thi s lin e ite

mi s irrelevant . Thi s fac

t make s Admissio n 1 2 a violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative , c I a muncertai n to th e accurac y o f you r allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , and therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul dbe arepl

y t o thi s admission . I n goo d fait h I wil l admi t

tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie d b y shippin g paper s which containe dabasi c descriptio n o f an y hazardou s materials . N o such shippin g paper s wer e availabl e or offere d a t th e baggag e check

counter , andhavin g n o knowledg e o f restricte d item s i n m

y bags , I wa s unawar

e such paper s wer

e required . Ther e ar e n o sign s withi n vie w anywher e in th e passenge

r termina l suggesting th e nee do f

paper s fo r unknow n restricte ditems . Further , such properl y filled out

shippin g paper s woul dno t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , andtherefor e thi s lin e itemi s irrelevant . Thi s fac

t make s Admissio n 1 2 aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(1 ) a s accvmiulative . d I a muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f you r allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , and I therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e arepl

y t o thi s admission . In I goo d fait h I wil l admi t

tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t I accompanie d by shippin g paper s which containe dth e tota l quantit y o f an y I hazardou s materials . N o such shippin g paper s wer e availabl e o

r offered a t I th e baggag e chec k counter , andhavin g n o knowledg e o f restricte ditem s in I m y bags , I wa s unawar

e such paper s wer

e required . Ther

e are n o sign s I withi n vie w anywhere in th e passenge r termina l suggestin g th e nee dof I paper s fo r unknow n restricte ditems . Further , such properl y filledout 1 shippin g paper s woxol dno t hav e mad e th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e I administration , andtherefor e thi s lin e ite

mi s irrelevant . Thi s fac

t make s I Admissio n 1 2 aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F. R13,220 (fXl ) a s accumulative , I I 1 3 I a muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f your allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , andtherefor e I a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e areply to Admissio n 13 , I n goo dfait h I will i admit tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie db y ] shippin g paper s whic h containe da n emergency respons e telephon e number . N o such shipping paper s wer

e availabl e or

offere da t th e baggag e check

counter , and < havin g n o knowledg e o f restricte ditem s i n m

y bags , I wa s unawar

e suc h paper s I were required . Ther e ar e n o sign s withi n vie w anywher e i n th e passenge

r termina l I suggestin g the nee d fo r such papers . Further , such properly filled out paper s I woul d no t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e to th e administration , andtherefor e thi s lin e itemi s irrelevant . Thi s fac t make s Admissio n 1 3 aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F. R13,220 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative . 1 4 I a muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f your allegation s in Admissio n 3 , andtherefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurate wouldb e arepl y t o Admission 14 . In goo dfait h I wil l admi t tha t th e bag s I identifie di n Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie db y printe d shippmg certification . Further , havin g n o knowledg e of th e restricte ditem s mm

y bags . I t wa s impossibl e t o certify , by printe dshippin g pe^rs , th e conditio n of an y restricte d items . Further , such proper shippin g certificatio n woul dno t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e to th e administration , an dtherefor e thi s lin e ite

mi s irrelevant . Thi s fac

t make s Admissio n 1 4 aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative , 1 5 I a mtmcertai n to th e acciirac y of your allegation s in Admissio n 3 , andtherefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e areply t o Admission 15 , In goo dfait h I wil l admi t tha t th e bag s I identifie din Admissio n 1 1 wer e no t accompanie dby tw o copie s o f shippin g certificatio n papers . Further , havin g n o knowledg e of th e restricte d item s i n m

y bags . I t wa s impossibl e to provide tw o copie s o f shippin g certificatio n fo

r item s I di dno t

kno w wer e i n ray bags . Further , tw o copie s o f proper shippin g certificatio n woul dno t hav e made th e bag s an

y more acceptabl e t o tiie administration , and therefor e thi s lin e ite

mi s irrelevant . Thi s fact

make s Admissio n 1 5 aviolatio n of 1 4 C.F.R . 13.220 (fXl ) a s accumulative . 1 6 I a muncertai n to th e accurac y of you r allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , andtherefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e areply to Admissio n 16 , Havin g n o knowledg e o f

th e restricte ditem s i n m

y bags , it wa s impossibl e t o mar

k o r label th e bag s t o indicate th e presenc e o f item s imknown . Further , such marking s or label s woul d no t

hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , and therefor

e thi s lin e ite

mi s irrelevant . Thi s fac

t make s Admissio n 1 6 aviolatio n o f 1 4 CF.R , 13,22 0 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative . 1 7 aI a

muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f you r allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , and therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e wouldb e areply t o Admissio n 17a . Havin g n o knowledg e o f

th e restricte ditem s i n m

y bags , I t wa s impossibl e t o mar k th e bag s wit

h th e prope

r shippin g nam

e an dassigne d identificatio n numbe

r o f unknown items . Further , such marking s would no t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , an d therefor e thi s lin e ite mi s irrelevant . Thi s fact make s Admissio n 17 aa violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13,22

0 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative , b I a muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f your allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , an

d therefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e arepl

y t o Admissio n 17b , Havin g n o knowledg e o f

th e restricte ditem s i n m

y bags . It wa s impossibl e t o affi x English-languag e marking s require db y th e HMR s t o th e surfac e of each bag . Further , such marking s woul dno t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , andtherefor e thi s lin e itemi sirrelevant . Thi s fact make s Admissio n 17

b aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R , 13,22

0 (fXl ) a s accumulative , 1 8 I a muncertai n t o th e accurac y o f you r allegation s i

n Admissio n 3 , andtherefor e a mno t sur e ho w accurat

e woul db e arepl y to Admissio n 18 . Havin g n o knowledg e o f

th e restricte ditem s in m

y bags , I t wa s impossibl e t o label th e bag s wit h "Flammabl e gas " or

"Carg o aircraf

t only" . Further , thes e marking s would no t hav e made th e bag s an

y mor e acceptabl e t o th e administration , andtherefor e thi s lin e itemi s irrelevant . Thi s fact make s Admissio n 1 8 aviolatio n of 1 4 C,F, R 13.22 0 (f)(1 ) a s accumulative .

Defendant' s repl y to your

INTERROGATORIE S 1 Frankly sir , I a

mtryin g t o gathe

r m y defense , andthi s lette

r o f discover y i s a poorly veile d attemp t

t o consum

e m y time unnecessarily . For

m e to answe r mos t eac h lin e itemwil l take hour s o f readin g i n order

t o mak e an informedanswer . Th e problemi s furthe r exacerbate d by your

nearly tw o yea

r dela y i n sending thi s Firs t

Discover y Lette r unti l jus t week s befor

e th e hearing . Sinc e yo u alread y hav e th e answe

r t o eac h lin e item yo u ar e attemptin g t o "discover" , I ca n conclude nothin g shor

t of a n intent t o disrup t m e i n m y defense , I appeale d to th e administrativ e Judg e t o disallo w thi s lette r o f Discover y i n it s entiret

y a s aflagrant disregar d to th e rule s o f

1 4 CF. RBu

t wa s denied . I hav e therefor e answere d eac h lin e itemto th e bes t

o f m y abilit y retainin g m

y lawfu l right t o no t incriminate myself and require you t o bea

r th e burde n o f proof . 1 a mwillin g t o answe

r a n actua l questio n seekin g alegitimat e tru e discovery . But

a s I hav e shown , m

y answe r t o an y o f thes e "questions " ha s n o bearin g o n th e fact s o f th e case , and ar

e therefor e no t discovery . 2 I hav e n o person s I inten d t o cal l a s witnesse s a t thi s time . I ma

y attemp t to cal l th e lad y a t th e ticke t coimte r whomI calle dt o reques t

shippin g information . But a t thi s time I a munabl e to prove d anam

e or contact . I f

I s o choos e andhav e time , t o tak e thi s course , I will infor

myou ASAP . 3 N o informatio n availabl e a t thi s time a s you

r discover y letter cam e fa r to o lat e fo r me t o address . Unti l your

letter , I wa s no t

awar e you hadth e abilit

y to restric t

th e preparatio n o f

m y defens e beyond th e dat

e o f th e hearing . Unti l your

discover y request , m y defens e ha s been growin g wit h th e only know n deadlin e a s th e dat e of th e hearing . 4 I do conten d tha

t I lack th e abilit y to pa y th e propose dcivi l penalty . Frankly I do no t

hav e th e physica

l or financia l abilit y t o copy eac h o f

th e docimient s yo u require . I a

min th e proces s o f

collectin g themnow . A s m y defens e develop s I hav e and wil l continu e to adjus t

m y directio n andth e materia

l I intendto us e i n m

y defense . A

t thi s time I choos e no t

to include m

y abundan t evidenc e provin g m

y inabilit y to pa y your propose d civi l penalty , becaus e I d o no t wis h to tak

e th e "reduce dfine" approach . I a m no t guilt y o f wiUfii l wrong doing andm

y defens e i s base do n thi s fact .Defendant s repl y t o you r REQUES T FORPRODUCTION I th e defendan

t submit a s exhibi t (A ) th e Unite dState s Constitutio n t o b e calle dupo n a s neede d i n m

y defense . I provide here th e we

b addres s o f

sai dConstitutio n a s example dto m e b y th e agency : http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm l I th e defendan

t submit a s exhibi t (B ) th e Unite dState s Bil l o f Right s t o b e calle dupo n a s neede d i n m

y defense . I provide here th e we

b addres s o f

sai dBil l a s example dt o m e by th e agency : http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.htm l I th e defendan

t submit a s exhibi t (C ) th e DO T 1 4 C.F.R . 1 3 rule s t o b e calle dupo n a s neede d i n m

y defense . I provide here th e we

b addres s o f

sai dcode a s wa s provide dt o me by th e agency : http://cfr , vlex.com/vid/acting-engineer-mechanic-repairman-1956078 8 I th e defendan

t submit a s exhibi t (D ) th e 4 9 U.S.C . A . 512 3 code o f rule s t o b e calle d upo n a s neede d i n m

y defense . I provide here th e web addres s o f sai dcode a s wa s provide dt o m e by th e agency : http://vlex.com/vid/sec-civil-penalty-1926054 0 I th e defendan

t submit a s exhibi t (E ) th e primar

y wristwatc h of

th e accusin g attorney a

t th e hearing , to b e calle d upon andproduced , i f neede din m

y defense . Kyl e Ponsfor

d Defendan

t H C 6 0 Bo x 339 4 Haine s A K 9982 7CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Re : Kyl e Ponsfor d FA A Docke t

No . CP09AL000 7 DM S No . FAA-2009-072 9 I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e serve d acop y o f th e AGENCY' S MOTIO N FO R DECISIO N REGARDIN G VIOLATION S b y postage-prepaid , certifie d mail , retti mreceip t requeste d t o th e following : Th e Honorabl e Richar d C . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 ; U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun d Floor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Kyl e Ponsfor d H C 6 0 Bo x 339 4 Haines , A K

9982 7 I further certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e serve d th e origina l o f th e AGENCY' S MOTIO N FO R DECISIO N REGARDIN G VIOLATION S b y postage-prepaid , certifie d mail , retti mreceip t requested , addresse d a s follows : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 

## DATED : (^c<J

- 4 ^O/ ^

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n / j A Offic e o f Regiona l Coimse l O 22 2 Wes t 7t h Avenue , Bo x 14 , AAL- 7 Anchorage , Alask a99513-758 7