...the FAA charges every pilot with at least two charges, the first being the actual violation they don't like and the second is 91.13. Everyone charged gets 91.13 added.
Many believe different things, but the fact is, you are incorrect. Pirker was never issued an Order of Assessment charging a violation in regards to commercial use. It was solely for violating 91.13. If you'd like to see the actual Order of Assessment, you can find it here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Documents/Pirker-CP-217.pdf (page 10-12). This is not what he "pled down to" it is precisely what he was initially, and finally fined for (subsequently the fine was reduced). To state the FAA charges every pilot with at least two charges is not true generally, and certainly not true in the Pirker case. There was not a charge in regards to the commerciality, only 91.13 (unsafe use).
So stating above, "Raphael Pirker was the first and only drone operator that the FAA charged with flying for commercial purposes without a commercial pilot certificate.", is misinformed. To date, no pilot has been charged with flying a UAS for commercial purposes without a license, including Pirker.
You go on to quote the decision of the NTSB. And state:
"The NTSB full board said that model aircraft are aircraft for the purposes of enforcing 14 C.F.R. §91.13. ONLY. No other rule was mentioned. They did not say that your Phantom has to follow every rule that a 747 pilot does.",
As if to imply had this board felt model aircraft been subject to other rules...they would have, or should have mentioned them....or the absence of such an opinion is telling in some manner. You fail to note on the decision you quote, this was an appeals board of which there was only one question....did the ALJ err in granting a dismissal, concluding a "model aircraft" was not subject to 91.13. There were no other questions before this appeals board, so of course there was no mention of the applicability to other rules. It would have in fact been unexpected, and inappropriate for them to rule any more broadly. And to be perfectly clear, this board was the Appeals Board in regards to the ALJ dismissal of Pirkers charges. Their sole task was to rule on if the ALJ had erred in his dismissal.
I think you're misinformed as to specifics of how the FAA works, in general possibly, but certainly in regards to Pirkers case...but heck, I'm sure I am too on more aspects than not.