OST-1995-272
Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
OST-1995-272
OST-1995-272 - Enforcement Proceeding
June 1, 1998
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) respectfully moves The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, the presiding administrative law judge in this proceeding, to issue a decision on the Enforcement Office's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc.,d/b/a Republic Air Travel ("Republic") as soon as possible.
By: Samuel Podbersky, Aviation Enforcement
OST-95-272 | Served June 30, 1998
1. AEP's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
2. Respondents' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
3. On or before July 30, 1998, the parties shall submit separate or joint requests concerning a proposed hearing date in this matter.
4. The parties shall continue to consider the possibility of settlement and compromise of this matter. Any motion to approve a consent order must address the proposed disposition of the issues raised at the preheating conference concerning the January 10, 1994, document, discussed above, supra, pp. 4-7.
By: Ronnie Yoder, Administrative Law Judge
OST-95-272 | July 30, 1998
| OST-95-272 49233 |
September 30, 1998 |  Motion for a Four-Week Extension of Procedural Dates |
|
| Order Extending Procedural Dates | |||
| Service List |
In support of this Motion, we submit that Counsel for Travel Group, Inc., d/b/a Republic Air Travel ("Republic") and Scot Spencer are engaged in settlement discussions with the Enforcement Office. Further, settlement would permit the enforcement issues remaining in this proceeding to be resolved by consent without lengthy delays or costly arrangements to assure the presence of respondent, Scot Spencer, who presently is serving a 51-month sentence.
Counsel: Michael Nolan, 202.366.9342
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST 95-272 | 49233 | Served October 1, 1998 | Order Extending Procedural Dates |
ORDERED that the date by which Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel are required to submit separate or joint recommendations of a proposed hearing date (or a proposed settlement) in this Enforcement Proceeding is hereby adjourned until October 28, 1998.
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST-95-272 49233 |
October 28, 1998 | Order of Administrative Law Judge |
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST-95-272 49233 |
November 12, 1998 | Joint Motion of Scot
Spencer and Travel Group for Extension of Procedural Dates |
|
| Order Extending Procedural Dates - By Ronnie Yoder |
UPON CONSIDERATION of the Joint Motion by Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel and the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) for an extension of time from November 12, 1998, to November 30, 1998, for the parties to submit separate or joint recommendations of a proposed hearing date (or a proposed settlement) in this Enforcement Proceeding, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the date by which Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel and the Enforcement Office are required to submit separate or joint recommendations of a proposed hearing date (or a proposed settlement) in this Enforcement Proceeding is hereby adjourned until November 30, 1998.
Counsel: Judd Burstein, 212-974-2400
| OST-95-272 49233 |
Issued November 27, 1998 Served November 30, 1998 |
Order of Administrative Law Judge |
|
| Captured PDF | |||
| Service List |
UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion by Scot Spencer ("Spencer") and Travel Group, Inc., d/b/a Republic Air Travel ("Republic"), for an extension of time from November 30, 1998, to December 18, 1998, for the parties to submit separate or joint requests concerning a proposed hearing date in this matter, said motion being made with the consent of counsel for the Office of Aviation Enforcement Proceedings, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the date by which the parties are required to submit separate or joint requests concerning a proposed hearing date in this matter is hereby adjourned until December 18, 1998.
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST-95-272 49233 |
December 18, 1998 | Joint Motion for Extension of Procedural Dates |
Counsel: Jill Schechterman for Scot Spencer and Travel Group, 212.974.2400 and Michael Nolan, Office of the Asst. General Counsel for Aviaiton Enforcement and Proceedings, 202.366.9342
| OST-95-272 49233 |
December 18, 1998 | Order Extending Procedural Dates |
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST-95-272 49233 |
February 16, 1999 | Joint Motion Scot Spencer and Travel Group for
an Extension of Procedural Dates |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices |
| February 16, 1999 | Order Extending Procedural Dates |
The mail between Scot Spencer and his counsel takes several days resulting in about a two-week turnaround. In addition, Scot Spencer has limited telephone privileges. He cannot receive incoming calls and his outgoing calls are limited to 15-minute time periods whenever they can be scheduled. However, officials at the Lewisburg facility have given the Enforcement Office permission to use the facility's facsimile machines for written communications to Scot Spencer. Accordingly, if the parties are able to reach a settlement, counsel expect it to occur within the next month.
| OST-95-272 49233 |
February 16, 1999 | Order Extending Procedural Dates |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices |
| Service List |
UPON CONSIDERATION of the Joint Motion by Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel and the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) for an extension of time from February 16, 1999, to March 16, 1999, for the parties to submit separate or joint recommendations of a proposed hearing date (or a proposed settlement) in this Enforcement Proceeding, and the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the date by which Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel and the Enforcement Office are required to submit separate or joint recommendations of a proposed hearing date (or a proposed settlement) in this Enforcement Proceeding is hereby extended until March 16, 1999.
By: Ronnie Yoder
| OST-95-272 49233 |
March 15, 1999 | Joint Motion for Tentative
Hearing Date |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition and Violations of Public Charter Rules |
| Order Setting Hearing Date | |||
| Service List |
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Department's Rules of Practice, 14 CFR 302.18, Respondents Scot Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel (Republic) and the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) move Your Honor to schedule hearing dates in this enforcement proceeding commencing the third Tuesday in March 2002 or the fourth Tuesday after Scot Spencer's release from incarceration, whichever is later.
By: Samuel Podbersky
| OST-95-272 | March 31, 1999 | Order |
Unfair and Deceptive Practices |
Order of Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge advising that the Notice of Enforcement
Proceedings and Proposed
Assessment of Civil Penalties filed on November 1, 1993 by the Office of Aviation
Enforcement Proceedings.
By: U.S. DOT/OST Ronnie A. Yoder, Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
| OST-95-272 49233 |
April 29, 1999 |  Motion for
an Extension of Time to Submit Brief |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition and Violations of Public Charter Rules |
| Attachment: Order of Administrative Law Judge | |||
| Service List |
Counsels: Samuel Podbereski and Michael Nolan, 202.366.9342
| OST-95-272 49233 |
May 17, 1999 | Motion to Issue Corrected Order |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair & Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules - Enforcement Proceeding |
| Attachments: Corrected Order of Administrative Law Judge |
| OST-95-272 | May 20, 1999 Filed May 21, 1999 |
Brief of The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings | Unfair and Deceptive Practices |
By: Samuel Podbersky
Served: February 26, 2004
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge
On March 15, 1999, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Scot Spencer filed a Joint Motion for Tentative Hearing Date, recommending a three-year delay in holding a hearing. The Joint Motion stated, inter alia, that settlement negotiations had been unsuccessful but were still continuing, that Spencer’s tentative release date from prison was January 12, 2002; and that the hearing should be tentatively scheduled for two months after Spencer’s tentative release from prison.
To elicit additional information in setting a hearing date, on March 31, 1999, we ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing various questions concerning the implications of the requested delay. Spencer and AEP responded on May 12, and May 20, 1999, respectively, raising, inter alia, logistical and legal obstacles to holding the hearing during Spencer’s incarceration.6 Since the tentative date for the Spencer’s release has passed, there is no longer any apparent impediment to setting this matter for hearing.
On or before March 31, 2003, the parties shall submit the following: (1) Spencer's current incarceration status; (2) Any restrictions on Spencer's ability to travel under his supervised release program; (3) The status of settlement negotiations, and the likelihood of success of any future settlement negotiations; (4) Any preliminary issues which need to be resolved prior to the hearing; (5) A statement of issues and material facts at issue; (6) Any proposed stipulations; (7) A list of witnesses and a summary of their proposed testimony; (8) Any amendments to the Service List in this proceeding; (9) A proposed schedule; and (10) A proposed location for the hearing.
By: Ronnie Yoder
March 5, 2004
Re: Letter Clarifying Representation
It is my understanding that the firm of Kuchta & Brinker now represents Express One International, Inc. They are located at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, telephone number 202/331-8488, attention Joseph D. Kuchta. Based upon the foregoing, this is notice to you and all parties that this firm will not be participating in this proceeding on behalf of Express One International, Inc. and we request that this firm's name be removed from the service list.
Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill
March 31, 2004
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings' Reply to the Order of Chief Judge Ronnie Yoder
The status of settlement negotiations set forth in the parties' Joint Motion for Tentative Hearing Date has not changed. The parties are unable to agree on a proposed settlement of this matter and have not resumed direct negotiations since Mr. Spencer's release from prison. However, as part of settlement negotiations in connection with AEP's ongoing investigation of the unlawful activities of Ascend Aviation Group and its related entities, with which Mr. Spencer is again a central figure, Mr. Spencer made an offer through Ascend Aviation Group's counsel to settle that matter and the offer included a provision involving settlement of this proceeding. AEP is willing to engage in further settlement discussions but at this time we appear far apart in settling this matter with Mr. Spencer as it pertains to him personally.
By: Samuel Podbersky
Served April 5, 2004
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Correcting Erratum
The following correction is hereby made in Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge in this case, served February 26, 2004:
PAGE LINE READS SHOULD READ
2 1 March 31, 2003 March 31,2004
By: Chief Administrative Law Judge, Ronnie Yoder
April 13, 2004
On April 6, 2004, trial attorneys from the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings spoke by telephone with Michael R. Cox, Senior Probation Officer, United States Probation Department, Southern District of New York. Mr. Cox is Scot Spencer's probation officer, and he confirmed that Scot Spencer resides at 10 E. 29th Street, Apartment No. 6B, New York, NY 10016.
During the April 6 discussion, Mr. Cox informed AEP that the court did not place any restrictions on Mr. Spencer's ability to travel but that Mr. Spencer was required to advise him in advance of any travel plans. However, in a subsequent telephone conversation with AEP attorneys on April 12, 2004, Mr. Cox advised AEP that due to recent circumstances, he has restricted Mr. Spencer's travel to New York City. Mr. Cox also informed AEP that Mr. Spencer's parole supervision terminates on January 10, 2005.
Counsel: AEP, Samuel Podberesky
Served July 7, 2004
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge for Modification to Service List and Briefs
Respondents other than Republic and Mr. Spencer have settled with AEP and have not filed pleadings thereafter. Except for AEP and Mr. Hill, no party has submitted amendments of the service list. The attached service list incorporates changes requested by counsel, as well as names and addresses from the service lists accompanying AEP’s last two filings. Any other requests to modify the service list shall be filed by Tuesday, July 13, 2004.
AEP requests resolution of the admissibility of affidavits presented by witnesses (some reportedly unavailable and others apparently available), including (1) that of Mr. Bernard, now deceased; (2) those of former employees of Express One, previously filed on January 25, 1994, and May 3 1, 1996; and (3) those of consumers, filed on May 3 1, 1996.
By: Ronnie Yoder
July 12, 2004
Re: Request to be Removed from the Service List
I am writing to request that our firm be removed from the service list in this matter. Additionally, we request that Lawrence H. Brinker, President of Express One International, Inc., also be removed from the service list.
Counsel: Kuchta & Brinker, Joseph Kuchta, 202-331-8488
July 13, 2004
Re: Letter Reporting Lawrence Wasko No Longer Represents Airlift Group and Mr. Bernard
I am writing to report to you that this firm no longer represents Airlift Group, Inc. and Richard Bernard.
Our last contact with Airlift Group and Mr. Bernard was in May, 1996. It is my understanding that Mr. Bernard is deceased.
Based upon the foregoing, this letter will serve to notify you and all parties that this firm will not be participating in this proceeding on behalf of Airlift Group, Inc. and Richard Bernard and we request that this firm's name be removed from the service list.
Counsel: Lawrence Wasko, 202-862-4370
July 21, 2004
The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings requests certified copies of the following statements, declarations and affidavits. Chief Administrative Law Judge, Ronnie Yoder, by Order Dated July 7, 2004, requires AEP to submit the following affidavits along with our brief seeking their introduction into the matter. The originals were filed with pleadings in this matter.
By: Stephanie Catros
July 26, 2004
The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings requests certified copies of the following statements, declarations and affidavits. Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie Yoder, by Order dated July 7,2004, requires AEP to submit the following affidavits along with our brief seeking their introduction into evidence. The originals were filed with pleadings in this matter.
We request that these certified copies be delivered no later than Friday, July 30,2004. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either Damon Whitehead at (202) 366-1743 or myself at (202) 366-9353.
By: Stephanie Catros, 202-366-9353
July 23,2004
Re: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Request to be Removed from the Service List
I respectfully request that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ("Skadden, Arps") be removed from the service list in the above-referenced case. Skadden, Arps is not representing Travel Group, Inc, d/b/a Republic Air Travel, or Scot Spencer in this or any proceeding.
I apologize for the late notice of this request, but the Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge for Modifications to Service List and Briefs was only recently brought to my attention.
Counsel: Skadden Arps, Keith Krakaur, 202-735-2809, kkrakaur@skadden.com
August 3, 2004
Brief in Support of Admittance of Affidavits
The Enforcement Office seeks to introduce affidavits of witnesses as testimony against Republic and Scot Spencer in the above captioned enforcement proceeding. On November 1, 1993, the Enforcement Office filed a complaint against Republic Air Travel, Scot Spencer, who controlled Republic’s actions, Airlift and Richard Bernard, who was then president of Airlift, alleging that the Respondents engaged in unauthorized air transportation in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41101; committed various violations of the public charter regulations as set forth in 14 CFR Part 380, engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712: and that Express One, the direct air carrier for the charter program, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and violated the Department’s charter regulations applicable to direct air carriers, 14 CFR Parts 208 and 380.
Counsel: Damon Whitehead
August 5, 2004
The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings submits the attached errata to its brief to the Administrative Law Judge filed on August 3, 2004. The errata corrects a word processing error that resulted in a misnumbering of the footnotes in the brief.
By: Ann Gawalt
July 23, 2004
Re: Request to be Removed from the Service List
Counsel: Judd Burstein, 212-974-2400
July 22, 2004
Re: Request to be Removed from the Service List
Counsel: Sidley Austin, Thomas Green, 202-736-8069, tcgreen@sidely
September 15, 2005
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge
On July 7, 2004, we ordered the parties to submit- (1) by July 13,2004, any requests to modify the service list based on resolution of proceedings and changes in representation; (2) by August 3, 2004, any affidavits that AEP would offer in lieu of witnesses, along with a brief supporting their admissibility; and (3) by August 24, 2004, any reply briefs by Spencer or any other party.2o Having considered the responses to the Order, we have modified the attached service list and have found that AEP may offer the proffered affidavits and declarations into evidence, subject to later determination of their credibility, probity, and weight.
By: Ronnie Yoder
Served December 14, 2005
Order Supplementing Service of Order Served September 15, 2005
No party has responded to the Order. However, on September 26, 2005, the envelope containing a copy of the order addressed to Kevin H. Good, Esq., the former president of a former Respondent, arrived in this office, marked “RETURN TO SENDER/NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED.” Additionally, in connection with a motion filed on his behalf in another proceeding before another judge: Respondent Scot Spencer, the former president of Respondent Travel Group, Inc., d/b/a Republic Air Travel, stated under oath that he no longer lives at the New York address shown for Spencer on the Order’s Service List, has sometimes lived at the New Jersey address of his father, but often spends “extensive time” on business in California.
If Mr. Good fails to respond, we may conclude that he no longer wishes to be informed about this proceeding. If Respondent Spencer fails to respond, we may conclude that he no longer wishes to contest the Amended Complaint of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
By: Ronnie Yoder
Served January 19, 2006
Order of Chief Administrative Judge Establishing Hearing Site and Deadlines
By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge, served December 14, 2005, we re-served our Order served September 15, 2005, because of indications that the Order had not reached Kevin H. Good, Esq., the former president of a former Respondent, or Respondent Scot Spencer, the former president of Respondent Travel Group, Inc., d/b/a Republic Air Travel. We ordered that, on or before January 17, 2006, Mr. Good and Respondent Spencer were to provide current mailing addresses and, if applicable, phone and fax numbers; and Respondent Spencer was to provide any objections he has to the matters stated in the Order.
Mr. Good has not responded to the Supplemental Order; therefore, we conclude that he has abandoned his request to be kept informed about this proceeding and have deleted his address from the service list. Complainant Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has not responded to the Order or Supplemental Order. In pleadings served January 16, 2006, Respondent Spencer responded to the Supplemental Order through counsel, who entered an appearance.
In the Response to our Order, Respondent Spencer stated that he received the Order and the Supplemental Order on or about December 21, 2005, and retained counsel on January 13, 2006; that he intended to call as witnesses many of the affiants in the Express One Affidavits and/or the Consumer Declarations; that he requested until February 6, 2006, to submit his proposed witness list; and that he otherwise agreed to the matters stated in the Order, including the Washington, D.C., hearing location and the schedule proposed by AEP.
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
1. The service list changes detailed in the Order are confirmed.
2. The following schedule for pre-hearing filings is adopted:
By: Ronnie Yoder
February 2, 2006
Motion to Schedule a Pre-Hearing Conference
This case was filed on November 1, 1993, over 12 years ago and prior to Scot Spencer's January 17, 2006, reply to your December 14, 2005, order, Respondents Mr. Spencer and Travel Group, Inc. d/b/a Republic Air Travel had not made an entry into the record for over six years.
In a separate proceeding, the Enforcement Office has obtained a Default Judgment against Respondent Scot Spencer personally. That decision permanently banned Mr. Spencer from the aviation industry and fined Respondents including Mr. Spencer personally, $1,000,000. The Department is currently reviewing a motion and petition filed by Respondents relating to that decision. If that decision is upheld, the Enforcement Office will have achieved the remedy that it is seeking in this case; therefore, it would be beneficial to discuss the prudence of preparing for and holding a hearing in this matter while the Ascend Proceeding is under review.
A pre-hearing conference will also present the opportunity to set forth plainly for Mr. Spencer personally the Department's jurisdiction and authority, as well as the procedures that apply in this case, and to clarify any remaining procedural issues for all parties prior to the hearing. This would be beneficial as respondent Scot Spencer has a history of failing to respond to or comply with procedures in matters before the Department, of changing addresses without notifying the Department and of juggling counsel during a proceeding, and of then claiming immediately prior to or after an adverse action that he was unaware of process or unrepresented.
We have conferred with counsel for Respondent Scot Spencer and he does not oppose scheduling a pre-hearing conference.
By: Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Samuel Podberesky
OST-1995-272 - Enforcement Proceeding
OST-2004-17486 - Enforcement Proceeding
February 28, 2006
By: Blane Workie
January 16, 2006
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, Allen Libow, 561-367-7300
January 16, 2006
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, WILLIAM M. SHAHEEN, ESQ., will be appearing as counsel on behalf of Respondent, SCOT SPENCER, in the above-styled cause.
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
March 9, 2006
Pre-Hearing Teleconference Transcript
By: Ronnie Yoder
March 16, 2006
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen
March 17, 2006
Motion for Stay of Proceedings
Enforcement Office respectfully requests a stay of this proceeding until the U.S. Department of Transportation rules on the pending motions in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket No. OST-2004-17486. We have conferred with counsel for Respondent Scot Spencer and he does not oppose a stay in this proceeding until the Department rules.
A default judgment was entered against the Respondents in Ascend Aviation Group, including Scot Spencer, a respondent in this matter. That decision permanently bans Mr. Spencer from the aviation industry and fined Respondents in that matter $1,000,000. The Department is currently reviewing motions filed regarding that decision; however, if that decision is upheld, the Enforcement Office will have achieved the remedy that it is seeking in this case. In light of the pending deadlines in this matter and the default judgment against Mr. Spencer, the Enforcement Office believes that it would be a prudent use of the Department’s limited resources to stay this matter until the Department has ruled in the Ascend case. If the Department upholds the default judgment against Mr. Spencer, then, irrespective of any subsequent appeal of the Department’s ruling and of the outcome of such appeal, the Enforcement Office would then move to close this case with prejudice, thereby disposing of this matter without the need and expense of holding a hearing. The filing of such a motion would be contingent upon Respondents agreeing not to institute an Equal Access to Justice Act proceeding against the Department with respect to the instant case. Moreover, counsel for Mr. Spencer has expressed an interest in proposing a settlement. While we have not agreed to a settlement, a stay will permit the parties to explore this option. Grant of the requested stay is in the public interest because, among other things, it will conserve the resources of the Enforcement Office and the Office of Hearings, as well as those of the Respondents.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Served March 21, 2006
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Staying Proceeding
Enforcement and Proceedings moved to stay this proceeding until the Department of Transportation rules on the motions filed, on October 12, 2005, by Respondents, including Scot Spencer, in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket No. OST-2004-17486. Complainant recites that Respondent Scot Spencer does not oppose the motion to stay this proceeding. For good cause shown, this proceeding is hereby stayed until the Department rules on the pending motions in Ascend Aviation, or until our further order. Additionally:
By: Ronnie Yoder
March 30, 2006
Notice of Filing of Corporate Status of Travel Group, Inc.
Spencer conducted a search of the corporate records of the Delaware Department of State, Division of Corporations, pursuant to which he determined that a certain “Travel Group, Inc.” was formed as a Delaware corporation on September 14, 1992, and that 1992 was the only year for which said “Travel Group, Inc.” filed an annual report or other form to maintain its corporate charter in good standing with the State of Delaware.
Spencer further believes that Travel Group’s legal charter in Delaware was forfeited based on the May 25, 1994 filing of a Certificate of Resignation of the registered agent without the appointment of a new registered agent within the designated period of thirty days and that, as such, Travel Group has not been in good standing in the State of Delaware since that time.
Spencer’s undersigned counsel made a telephone inquiry to a representative of the Delaware Department of State, Division of Corporations on or about March 24, 2006, wherein said representative informed same that Travel Group was, in fact, forfeited under the above-described circumstances.
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
March 39, 2006
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, Ashley Sawyer, 561-367-7300
April 6, 2006
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
April 17, 2006
Opposition to Respondent Scot Spencer's Motion for Protective Order
Everyone involved in this case agrees that settlement would spare the scarce resources of all concerned and, as Your Honor alluded to at the most recent Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference, the question of Mr. Spencer’s ability to pay is a necessary ingredient in determining the size of any civil penalty in this proceeding. That holds true whether one is speaking about settlement discussions or the consideration of a civil penalty upon a finding of a violation otherwise warranting a civil penalty.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Served April 20, 2006
By "Motion for Protective Order," served April 6, 2006, Respondent Scot Spencer acknowledges our order and his agreement, at the March 8, 2006, Prehearing Conference, that he would submit an individual financial statement by April 7, 2006, in connection with Respondent's ability to pay contention.' Spencer asserts now, however, that disclosure of an individual financial statement need not occur until after liability is found and "would be premature in light of the stay of proceedings that is in effect as of March 22, 2006.2 Complainant Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings opposes the Motion, pointing out that "production of Mr. Spencer's financial information clearly is not premature at this time and is not affected by a stay in these proceedings."
Spencer's pleading is not, in fact, a Motion for a Protective Order, but a request that we excuse his noncompliance with the order issued at the 8 Mar 06 PHC. As should be clear from the PHC transcript, Spencer's financial data were to be submitted on the issue of ability to pay and thus facilitate settlement discussions, as part of the parties' request to stay the proceedings. Spencer contends that such disclosures need not be made because (1) the March 21 Order stayed the proceeding and (2) ability to pay should not be addressed until after the hearing if liability is found. As we indicated at the PHC, there was no intention to stay all activities in this proceeding and there was a specific intent to require various acts by specific dates, including providing the financial information by April 7, 2006. As we have previously noted, these proceedings are not conducted in phases, and information on ability to pay must be presented during the hearing if that issue is to be addressed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
By: Ronnie Yoder
April 27, 2006
Response to Order to Show Cause and Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which to Comply
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
April 28, 2006
Office of Aviation Enforcement Status Report
By: OAI, Samuel Podbersky
May 8, 2006
The Enforcement Office has expended substantial resources in an attempt to negotiate a settlement with Mr. Spencer. The absence of a settlement today is a matter solely of Mr. Spencer's making, as it is he that has refused to execute agreements as his prior counsel represented he would. This information is contained within the record and was conveyed to Mr. Spencer's current counsel, who was also informed that for the Enforcement Office to further consider settlement negotiations, Mr. Spencer would have to present a credible settlement offer, be forthright and honest, and be willing to execute an agreement, if reached. Mr. Spencer, however, has chosen to continue his obstructionist behavior and violate two additional orders and not produce documents necessary to support his request for a substantial reduction in assessed civil penalties from the previous agreed settlement
By: OAEP, Samuel Podberesky
Served May 10, 2006
Although Spencer again asserts that the individual financial statement should not be required prior to a finding of liability, that assertion was rejected during an earlier PHC and in the Show Cause Order, and Spencer has not shown cause for his failure to file the individual financial information by April 7, 2006, as agreed and ordered." Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 302.9(a), we find that Spencer has not complied with the Show Cause Order by April 27, 2006, but we conclude, subject to receipt of the further filing required herein, that Spencer has shown good cause for his failure to timely comply with that Order.
By: Ronnie Yoder
May 24, 2006
Status Report of The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
By: Samuel Podbersky
May 23, 2006
Affidavit of Scot Spencer - Automobile Accident
June 30, 2006
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
The Enforcement Office is still waiting for Scot Spencer to comply with Your Honor's order to submit his current financial information utilizing Department of Justice Form OBD-500 Financial Statement of Debtor. On May 24, 2006, Mr. Spencer filed an affidavit setting forth the circumstances of an alleged automobile accident and a vague and nondescript location of his financial records. Your Honor’s May 10, 2006, Order provided, inter alia, that if Mr. Spencer filed an affidavit on or before May 24, 2006, that he would be granted a ten week extension to file his personal financial information making it now due on or before July 6, 2006. The Enforcement Office will evaluate Mr. Spencer’s settlement offer and respond after he submits the required financial data.
By: Samuel Podberesky
July 7, 2006
Notice of Filing of Financial Disclosure
Respondent, Scot Spencer, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that he has served a Financial Disclosure to the DOT and to the Honorable Judge Yoder on this 7th day of July 2006.
Counsel: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
July 28, 2006
Status Report and Request for Confidential Treatment
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
Settlement negotiations between the Enforcement Office and Respondent Scot Spencer have essentially ended with very little or any chance of settling this matter. The Enforcement Office has not received a response to its final offer to settle this matter.
After reviewing the financial disclosure form, the Enforcement Office can only conclude that Mr. Spencer filed the motions for a protective order and to enlarge the time to comply to delay and obstruct this proceeding; that he has no intention to negotiate a settlement in good faith or to execute an agreement if one could be reached; and that it would be a waste of time and resources to devote any further effort to settlement discussions.
We request that the attached Financial Disclosure Form submitted by Mr. Spencer be granted confidential treatment. The reason for our request is that it contains personal and financial information that would not normally be available to the public.
By: Samuel Podberesky
August 25, 2006
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There is nothing further to report since the Enforcement Office filed its last status report on July 28, 2006. As we pointed out in that report, settlement negotiations between the Enforcement Office and Respondent Scot Spencer have effectively ended with very little chance of settling this matter. The Enforcement Office has not received a response to it final offer to settle this matter. In addition, as is fully detailed in our July 28 report, we submit that Mr. Spencer should be required to show cause why he should not be barred form asserting ability to pay as an issue in this proceeding.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Served September 27, 2006
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Correcting Transcript
Names, dates and spelling errors corrected from transcript of the pre-hearing telephone conference held on March 8, 2006.
By: Ronnie Yoder
Served September 27, 2006
Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Denying Complainant's Request for Confidential Treatment
On July 7, 2006, counsel for Respondent Scot Spencer served on other addressees on the attached Service List a Financial Disclosure. On July 28, 2006, Complainant Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings requested confidential treatment for “the attached Financial Disclosure Form submitted by Mr. Spencer.” No answer to the Request has been filed.
By filing its Request at least 15 days after the filing of the Financial Disclosure Form and providing no detailed showing of either of the two required justifications for confidential treatment, Complainant has not complied with Rule 12. Moreover, no answer or support for the Request was filed by or asserted for Respondent, the purported beneficiary of the Request, who filed and thereby disclosed the information without a request for confidentiality. Accordingly, we deny the Request.
By: Ronnie Yoder
September 18, 2006
Libow & Shaheen LLP's Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel
The law firm of LIBOW & SHAHEEN, LLP respectfully gives this Court notice of its withdrawal as counsel for Respondent, SCOT SPENCER in the above-styled proceeding.
The Respondent has been given a lengthy period of notice of the Firm's intent to withdraw representation, and the Respondent understands the reasons for the withdrawal The Firm has advised the Respondent to seek replacement counsel promptly. Accordingly, the Firm respectfully requests that Your Honor grant it leave to withdraw as counsel for Respondent.
By: Libow & Shaheen, William Shaheen, 561-367-7300
September 29, 2006
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
As previously reported, settlement negotiations between the parties have ended with no chance of settlement.
On September 18, 2006, Respondent Scot Spencer's counsel served a notice requesting permission to withdraw as counsel on the Enforcement Office. We received the document on September 25,2006. The Notice was posted in this docket on September 28, 2006. Pursuant to 14 CFR 302.3(2), documents are "deemed to be filed on the date on which they are actually received by the Department" and posted to the official docket of the proceeding on that date. Therefore, the official filing date of the Notice is September 28, 2006. We will file a response to Counsel's Notice within the appropriate time.
By: Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Samuel Podberesky
October 6, 2006
Enforcement Office Response to Libow & Shaheen LLP's Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel
The Enforcement Office does not object to counsel's request for leave to withdraw. The Enforcement Office requests, however, that prior to granting leave to counsel to withdraw, Your Honor require Mr. Spencer to state within 15 days whether he intends to retain new counsel for this proceeding and, if so, take affirmative steps within 30 days thereafter to retain such counsel. The Enforcement Office further requests that, in any event, Your Honor direct Mr. Spencer to immediately submit to the docket and serve notice of a current address where he may properly be served.
The steps requested by the Enforcement Office, while perhaps somewhat unusual in Department proceedings, are nonetheless required in order to try to avoid further unnecessary delay in this proceeding by Mr. Spencer. Mr. Spencer has been represented by numerous counsel throughout this matter, a pattern, together with his having proceeded at times pro se, that he has repeated throughout his enforcement history at the Department.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Served October 25, 2006
On October 6, 2006, Complainant Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation requested: (1) that we order Spencer to state within 15 days his current mailing address and whether he intends to retain new counsel, to take affirmative steps to obtain any such new counsel within 30 days, and to provide notice of any future address change within 10 business days; and (2) if Spencer failed to comply, that we order that service to his last address of record was presumptively proper and that Spencer could not assert defective service when matters were served there. No answer to the Request has been filed.
The Rules of Practice permit a respondent to challenge, at a formal hearing, a proposed enforcement action by complainant. Such a hearing is provided for the benefit, and at the option, of the respondent. To preserve this opportunity, a respondent must comply with the Rules of Practice and the Judge's orders. The Rules of Practice provide that an administrative law judge may regulate the course of the hearing and hold prehearing conferences with the parties to explore settlement possibilities and to clarify the issues involved. To facilitate this process, a respondent must keep the judge apprised of his or her whereabouts. By failing to do so, a respondent forfeits the opportunity to challenge complainant's proposed action at a hearing.
We so advised Spencer on December 14, 2005,12 and he acknowledged that advice on January 16, 2006. Therefore, Spencer already has both constructive and actual notice that, if he does not communicate or otherwise participate in this proceeding, he does so at his peril. In view of the withdrawal of Spencer's counsel from this proceeding, Spencer shall: (1) no later than November 15, 2006, file and serve notice of any correction of his address, and (2) continue to update such information if and when it changes.
By: Ronnie Yoder
October 26, 2006
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
The next scheduled deadline is November 15, 2006, by which Scot Spencer is to file and serve any correction of his address as per your October 25, 2006, order. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Samuel Podberesky
November 22, 2006
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
The Enforcement Office has not been served with any response to Your Honor's October 25, 2006, order that Mr. Spencer file and serve any correction to his mailing address by November 15, 2006, nor is there any such filing recorded by the Docket Section as of 2:30 p.m. today.
By: Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Samuel Podberesky, 202-366-9342
December 29, 2006
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Ronnie Yoder
January 25, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podbersky, 202-366-9342
February 23, 2007
By: Samuel Podbersky
March 29, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
April 27, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Served May 18, 2007
The U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations will be closed to the public on Friday, May 25, 2007, through Tuesday, May 29, 2007. Effective May 30, 2007, the address of the U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations will be:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations, M-30
West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
The Docket Management System will be unavailable for use from Wednesday, June 13, 2007, through Sunday, June 17, 2007.
Effective June 21, 2007, the address of the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hearings will be:
Office of Hearings, M-20
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
East Building Ground Floor
Room E12-320
Washington, D.C. 20590
TEL: (202) 366-2142
FAX: (202) 366-7536
By: Ronnie Yoder
May 23, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
June 28, 2007
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcernent Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Damon Whitehead
July 26, 2007
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
August 29, 2007
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
September 28, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
By: Samuel Podberesky
October 26, 2007
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
November 30, 2007
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
December 28, 2007
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
By: Samuel Podbersky
January 29, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006 Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
This report was due the last Friday of the month, or January 25, 2008. The Enforcement Office apologizes for having inadvertently missed that submission date.
By: Samuel Podberesky
February 29, 2008
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
By: Samuel Podbersky
March 28, 2008
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
April 25, 2008
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
May 30, 2008
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486. There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky, 202-366-9342
June 28, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
By: Samuel Podberesky
July 25, 2008
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no fiirther settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
August 29, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
September 26, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
October 31, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiations.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
November 28, 2008
The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and settlement negotiation.
The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-17486.
There have been no further settlement discussions.
By: Samuel Podberesky
Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar