02/04/201 1 15;1 9 FAX202493514 2 FA A* DMS lglOOI/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:16P M FAX00001/001 2



## L LB . SELIG , M.D. . FA.CC . LifeLin eCardiolog y

= ^ —(C- ; (' 3 •t o rx j M & R Helicopfer s " •rn^i ^ 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d 0 ''M^ ^ Allentown , PA . 1810 4 •, j d^ ^ Januar y21 , 201 1 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r u s Departnnen to fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m E l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 FA X20 2 36 6 753 6 SEN TB YCERTIFIE D MA)L > RR

R Re : Dismissa l o rProcedura l schedule . ^' ^ ^ ^ ' ' Dea rChie fJudg e Yoder : Federa l Docke t2010-121 1 FA AFil e 2009SO95043 4

Thi s lette ris i n respons e t o M s Ponto' s correspondenc e date d Januar y1 A , 201 1 on d he rallegation s regardin g th e volum e o ffile d proceedings . Respondent' s proceeding s wer e mad e t o clearl ydefin e materia l facts , th e movin g targe to fth e fundamenta l basi s fo rth e caus e o faction , appropriatenes s o fth e respondent' s position s an d t o demonstrat e man y procedura l flaw s an d il l intent s mad e b yth e complainants . Responden tha s mad e a herculea n effor tt o organiz e an d presen tconcis e argument s i n accordanc e wit h standar d mandate d rule s o fprocedur e a tth e commo n plea s an d federa l levels . Complainant s hav e selectivel yaddresse d a fe wissues , therein , necessitatin g varyin g approache s b yresponden tt o hav e thes e item s addressed . Complainant s omission s hav e indubitabl yan d injuriousl ycause d redundanc yi n th e proceeding s an d duplicativ e efforts . Th e issue s tha tth e complainant s di d oddres s wer e don e wit h insufficien tspecificit ye.g . scant . Impermissibl yvague , inaccurat e an d superficia l responses , cobblin g togethe r colo ro fla wstatement s tha tar e conclusionar yan d collaborative . Complainont s mentione d matter s concernin g thei rmisse d deadlines . Misse d deadline s ar e indee d a caus e o fpermissibl e actio n t o dismis s a case ,

- 1 - Qatewa yProfessiona l Cente r•204 5 Westgat e Dnvs , Suit e 20 5 •B0(hhhem , Pennsyfveni a 18017'747 4 Volce/V M 610-868'620 D •Fa x610-B68-148 9 •Educatio n Servic e 610-868-620 3 •E-Mai l Hfellnacard^verlzon.ne t02/04/201 1 15:1 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A-DM S 1002/01 2 01/21/201 1 3-18P MFAX (^0002/001 2 especiall ywit h recurren tfrequency . Complolnan t reference d §l3.2n(d)-Dat e o fService , Ther e ar e severa l method s listed . B ydefinition , sinc e complainan t selecte d signator ydeliver yconfirmation , b ymean s o fsigne d retur n receipt , thi s represent s th e mos taccepte d an d mos t objectiv e dat e o fservice . Complainant s wen tt o extr a taxpayer s expens e a ttripl e th e cos t t o clearl y validat e an d ensur e th e tru e deliver ydate , I hi s supersede s othe rsubjectiv e method s tha trelie s o n hearsay . I fthi s ho d no tbee n done , othe rmethod s woul d b e acceptable , otherwis e wh yexpen d exir a governmenta l costs . Mos t disconcertin g i s tha tresponden tpresente d evidenc e tha t M s Domini k actuall y calle d respondent s cel l phon e t o reques t a continuanc e du e t o lat e filing . Tha t issu e fo rinstanc e wa s bee n completel yevade d an d circumvented . Complainant s cite d th e statut e o flimitations , implyin g tha tresponden t di d no treferenc e th e law , whe n thei row n documen tpag e 8 , i n Complainant s Respons e t o Respondent s Motio n t o Quash , di d complainant s referenc e §73.206 , wit h th e violatio n dat e o fJul y24 , 2008 , allege d servic e dat e o fJul y23 , 2010 . Again , th e complainant s serve d th e respondent , requirin g respondent' s signatur e fo rdeliver yafte rth e 2 yea rperio d o n Jul y27 , 2010 . Complainant s alleg e tho tresponden trequeste d discover ytha twa s publicl yavailabl e an d therefor e eve n thoug h responden tcoul d no t fin d sai d reference s an d repeatedl yrequeste d thes e documents , complainan tdecide d no tt o addres s o rforv/ar d th e Information . Example s are ; th e dot e o fchang e o f th e appendix' s I an d J , certai n reference s tha tthe ycited , withou tspecifi ctext . Complainant s repeatedl ymentio n th e informa l hearin g no t bein g recorde d o rtranscribed . Responden tapparentl ymisunderstoo d thi s matte ran d di d no tbrin g i tu p again , howeve rcomplainant s repetitiousl yrecycle s thi s issu e b ybringin g i tt o th e court s attentio n withou tfurthe rprovocation . An yreques tfo rforma l proo fo fservice , i s no tunreasonabl e t o request , sinc e th e stotut e o flimitation s is i n question , responden tcontendin g tha tth e complain twa s delivere d pas tth e 2 yea rdeadline . Strictproo fis requested . Complainant s clai m tha tth e redaction , spoliatio n o fth e Enforcemen t Investigator yRepor ti

s proper . Responden t is merel yrequestin g tha t thes e guideline s b e forthrigh tan d forthcoming ; anythin g t o th e contrar yis noncompllan twit h th e low . Responden tdi d stat e tha tth e regulation s pertainin g t o th e change d definitio n o femployer , th e regulatio n chang e tha tstate d tha temployee s performin g safet ysensitiv e function s neede d t o b e o n th e companie s specifi c dru g program , regulation s tha twer e no tdirectl ycontaine d withi n th e signe d of f - 2 -r* A* DM S 121003/01 2 02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FA X202493514 2 FA A00003/001 2 operatio n specifications , bu tlocate d somewher e else , tha tth e FAA S ow n officer s di d no tkno wabou tth e rando m undisclose d change , wer e i n effec tno t forthrigh ton d thereb yi n effec thidde n an d concealed . Essentially , th e complainant s ar e attemptin g t o hol d responden tt o a highe rstandar d tha n thei r ow n FA Aofficers . I n addition , b ywa yo fJudicia l Estoppel s an d lega l insufficienc yalread y release d th e othe rlA / mechani co fthi s regulation , onc e M s W;Hiarn s wen t directl yt o th e plac e o femploymen t(ABE ) an d confirme d a monitorin g progra m wa s i n effect . Thi s sam e conclusio n o fla wneede d t o b e applie d t o MrBaker , whe n i twa s confirme d tha th e als o wa s o n a monitorin g program . Th e tru e iron yo fthi s complainant , i n additio n t o bein g s o delayed , is tha t th e compan yha d alread yshu tdow n operation s unde rregulatio n 119.6 9 t o ensur e safet yt o th e public , fo rth e 2 tim e citing s o fth e complain t{se e Motio n t o Dismiss propose d procedura l schedule) , anothe rreaso n renderin g th e complain tmoo tan d insufficient . This wa s don e du e t o huma n factor s o fa tragi cdivorce , custod yissues , childre n a trisk o fsuicid e an d a difficul t cardiolog y wor k schedul e as a solo , privat e practitioner . Therefore , responden tacte d appropriatel yan d I n goo d fait h an d judgment . Th e othe rparado xo fthi s cas e i s tha tth e primar yfundamenta l premis e fo rthi s violatio n accordin g t o M s William s Inspecto rStatemen tlO P 9 record , wa s M s yVilliam' s inabilit yt o validat e FA Aapprove d dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m informatio n fo rM rBake runde rFligh tMethods . M rBake rwa s no t employe d b yFligh tMethods , bu tb yAi rMethod s Corporation , Onc e M s William s confirme d tha tM rBake rwa s alway s o n a monitorin g progra m unde rhi s disclose d ful l tim e employer , sh e the n shifte d th e bosi s o fth e violatio n t o M r Bake rno tbein g o n MRH s ow n companie s monitorin g program , despit e alread y releasin g th e othe rMechanic/I Afro m thos e regulation s tha twer e no tevident , disclosed , o reve n know n b ya prio rFA ADrug/Alcoho l auditor , MRH s FA A operation s an d maintenanc e inspector s o rth e Allentow n FSDO manager . Pag e 2 o fcomplainant' s lette rt o you , allege s tha tresponden targue s tha t th e cas e shoul d b e dismissed , withou tan yevidenc e o rlega l suppor tfo rthes e contentions . However , a n endles s arra yo tevidence , lega l argumen tan d logi c ha s bee n presente d resultin g i n som e confirmatio n o n th e por t o fcomplainants , bu tthe yholdfas tt o thei rposition s a fan ycos t t o th e governmen t an d taxpoyers , whic h seorche s fa rbeyon d th e fin e allotment . An ysubsequen tappea l proces s wil l furthe routstretc h preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d litigatio n cost s t o th e governmen tan d taxpayers . Responden tappropriatel yfile d a n AV R complain tagains tM s Williams , a s - 3 -02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX202493514 2 FA A* DMS ^004/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:1SP M FAX1)0004/001 2

t o com e int o a cardiologist' s offic e wit h wal k i n patient s presen tan d refe rl o th e docto ra s "mike " is totall yunprofessiona l an d inappropriat e o n an ylevel . He r excessiv e consumptio n o t3 hours , mandatin g a n o n th e spo tlotte rt o he rwa s unwarranted . Sh e di d no td o th e prope rvalidatio n o fMrBakers monitorin g progra m befor e issuin g th e complaint , I tappear s M s William s wa s unabl e t o complet e he rdu e diligenc e t o fin d tha tMrBake rwa s o n a monitorin g program , becaus e sh e jus tbarel ygo tth e violatio n i n a s i twas . withi n th e propose d I da y befor e th e 2 yea rth e statu e o tlimitations , i findee d tha twil l prov e t o b e accurate . Responden tdi d reques tM s Ponte s attorne ylicens e numbe rsinc e i tha s neve rappeare d o n an ydocumen tsh e submitte d t o thi s court , Thi s i s publi c informatio n an d i s alway s properl ydisplayed , jus ta s an yprofessiona l is require d t o displa ythei rcredential s t o th e public . T o no tdispla yo rdisclos e thi s informatio n appear s suspect . Fo rM s Pont o t o eve n sugges ttha ta sol o practic e cardiologis tdisrup tcontinuit yo tcar e o fhi s patients , reschedul e patients , compromis e th e car e o fhi s patient s o reve n inconvenienc e neutra l part y person s fo ra remot e sit e hearing , whe n th e allege d violatio n originate d an d wo s propagate d b yM s William s comin g t o th e sit e o fth e compan yis unconscionabl e i n th e respondent s min d an d appear s onl ya s a maliciou s attemp tt o discourag e furthe rdefens e an d inconvenienc e t o th e responden t an d hi s patients . Complainant s requeste d a telephon e conference , howeve rwit h th e volum e o fdocumentatio n an d argument s t o b e discusse d a pre-tria l conferenc e woul d b e bette rsuited . Complainant s claime d tho tresponden t di d no tpropos e a n alternativ e schedule . Responden tdi d propos e date s an d locatio n fo rdepositio n an d hearing , usin g th e propose d date s complainant s hav e provided . I tno wappear s tha tcomplainant s ar e no tonl yevadin g mos t subject s bu tappea rt o no tb e readin g th e document s filed . I n th e interes to fjudicia l economy , attempt s t o avoi d furthe rsquanderin g o fpreciou s scorc e judicia l resource s o n a cas e tha tappear s frivolous , trivial , withou tmerit , durin g a perio d responden tha d appropriatel yshu tdown , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui tan d overreaching , tha tlack s prope rinitiative , perspectiv e o rgoo d judgment , th e cas e shoul d b e dismissed . I fth e Honorabl e Judg e Yode rbelieve s tha tthi s cas e shoul d no tb e dismisse d base d o n th e materia l facts , procedura l defect s an d inconsistencies , judicia l economy , the n th e responden tpropose s depositio n o fM s William s an d M s Domini k

firs tb e completed , followe d b ya pre-tria l conference . Onc e thes e or e complete d the n a Hearin g co n b e scheduled . Responden tpropose s tha t thes e meeting s occu ra tth e origina l Allentown , PAsit e o fth e allege d violation . - 4 -02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S gl005/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:18P MFAX I2l000ti/00l 2

th e sit e th e investigation s loo k place , th e origina l sit e o fjurisdictio n a s t o no t inconvenienc e neutra l part ypatents , innocen tbystanders , adversel yaffec to r pu to tris k

patien tcor e i n respondent' s rol e o fprovidin g cordiolog yservice s t o th e community , Than k yo u fo ryou rkin d considerations . Yours Sincerely , Michae l Selig . MD , FACC , CF l cc . Hearin g Docket , Cler k 

# •

H ^y -

- 502/04/201 1 15:2 0 FA X 202493514 2 01/21/201 1 3 : leP MFA X FA A * DMS @00G/01 2 glOOOG/001 2

Michae l Selig . MD , FACC . 281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown . PA , 1810 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Pont o Lotony o WiHiorri s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V . Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docket . No : 2010-121 1

MOTIO N FOR DEPOSITIO N O F CYNTHI ADOMINIK A TGALLAGHE R REPORTING . ALLENTOWN , PA . AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB . SELIG , MD , FACC , principl e fo rM R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d file s th e followin g MOTIO N t o Depos e Cynthi a Dominik , Esq . unde rRul e §13.22 5 fo ra pr e tria l examinatio n a tGallaghe rReporting . Allentown . P A18101 , 1 . Throughou tthi s litigation , complainant s hav e faile d t o plea d t o specifi cnumbe rallegation s an d thereb ymakin g admission s o ftruth . B yfailur e t o addres s th e specifi cpleading s an d thereb yevadin g an d circumventin g respondent' s specifi callegations , complainant s hov e indubitabl yan d injuriousl y propagate d redundan tan d iterat e pleading s fo ra cas e tha tappeare d voi d a b 1 o f502/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX202493514 2 FA A• > DMS g|007/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:19P M FAX©0007/001 2

initio . 2 . Throughou tthi s litigation , th e complainant s hav e refuse d t o addres s specifi cenumerate d paragraph s i n breac h o fFedera l Rul e 10(b) . B yfailur e t o addres s a pleadin g tha tthe n deem s tha tallegatio n a n admissio n o fth e trut h t o tha tpleadin g unde r§ 13.208(f) > 3 . Throughou tthi s litigation , complainant s hav e no tpleate d fact s wit h sufficien tspecificit yan d i n accordanc e t o standar d practices . Th o purpos e o f thes e practice s is t o confin e th© pleadin g part yproo ft o onl ythos e ad s alleged , thu s enablin g a respondin g part yt o prepar e thei rdefense' . 4 . Throughou tthi s litigation , complainant s file d lat e response s t o motion s pas tth e 1 0 da ydeadlin e motio n perio d unde r§ Rul e 13.21ft(d) , an d hav e no tuse d objectiv e actua l dote s o fsigne d servic e whe n availabl e i n attempt s t o impai rth e dignit yo fthi s court . 5 . Th e Respondent s Motio n t o Quash . Strike o rDismiss Complaint , wit h associate d brie fwa s foxe d t o MrPonto s departmen to n Novembe r29 , 2010 , sen tb ymoi l o n Novembe r30 . 2010 . Th e du e dat e wa s Decembe r9 , 2010 . A n objectio n o rrespons e wa s no treceive d o rserve d unti l Decembe r13 , 2010 , pos t th e du e dat e unde r§ Rul e 13.218(d ) (Exhibit s alread ypresente d i n th e Respondent s Repl yt o Complainant s Respons e l o Judgmen tt o Dismiss Faxe d 1 - 18-11) . 6 . O n Novembe r30 , 2010 , respondent s Motio n t o Strike Alleaatio n wa s 'Bake r vRanges . 32 4 A.2 d 498 , .iO S (P a Supe r Cx . 197 4

2 o f 502/04/201 1 15:2 0 FA X202493514 2 FA A* DM S 2)008/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:13P M FA X00008/001 2

foxe d an d sen tt o M s Ponto s departmen t t o whic h n o objectio n o ranswe rwa s receive d withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e unde r§ Rul e 13.218(d) , Alat e answe rwa s als o provide d i n th e collaborativ e correspondenc e receive d o n Decembe r13 , 2010 . 7 . M s Pont o faile d t o presen tan yrequeste d evidenc e a s t o whe n th e respons e wa s actuall yreceive d i n he rrespons e t o thi s matter . Asubjectiv e dol e wa s indicate d o n th e documen t itsel fo^ t o whe n i twa s dratted , doe s no t represen to n oclua l dat e o fservic e o rsigne d authorizatio n o freceipt . 8 . M s Domini k

o fth e FA

Aenforcemen tdivisio n o fth e chie fcounse l calle d responden tdirectl yt o hi s persona l cel l phon e admittin g tha tth e complainant s coul d no tfil e response s withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e period , woul d b e i n breac h o fthi s regulatio n an d thereb yrequeste d a continuanc e directl yt o respondent . Exhibi t1 show s cal l lo g o frespondent' s telephon e showin g M s Dominik s numbe r202-267-7560 . 9 . Responden trefuse d a continuanc e an d requeste d th e cas e b e dismisse d o n thes e grounds . 10 . M s Ponto s defens e i s tha tsh e neve rfile d o forma l continuance , knowin g tha tresponden talread ydenie d he rverba l reques ti n th e telephon e inquir yb yM s Dominik , 11 . A tn o tim e di d M s Pont o address , respon d o radmi tt o thi s statemen t o ffac twit h submitte d proof , a s ha s bee n he rpractic e t o evod e an d circumven t item s no tconvenien tt o address . 3 o f502/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX202493514 2 FA A• > DMS §1008/01 2 01/21/201 1 3:19P M FAXg|0009/001 2

12 . Furthe rpre-tria l examinatio n is no wrequired , 13 . Responden ti

s a solo , privat e practic e cardiologis tan d require s tha t th e pre-tria l depositio n o fM s Domini k t o b e hel d at : Gallaghe rReportin g an d Video , LLC . 160 0 Lehig h Parkwa yEast , Sui t 1 H Allentown , P A1810 3 O S t o no taffec thi s clinica l responsibilities , pos e inconvenienc e o rdelay s t o hi s neutra l part ypotients , i n servin g th e communit yo rpu thi m a tundu e risk fo r liobilit yo rmalpractice . 14 . Complainant s prio rsubmitte d date s ca n b e utilize d fo rthi s deposition . 15 . Alternatively , M s Domini k ca n submi ta writte n statemen to r stipulatio n that : a . sh e indee d colle d th e respondent . b . sh e di d not e tha tth e complainant s woul d b e unabl e t o submi t withi n th e timeframe . c . a contlnuonc e wa s requeste d o n th e respondent . WHEREFORE , th e responden tpray s tha tthi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l gran t th e pre tria l depositio n o fM s Domini k a t th e Allentown , P Alocatio n i fsh e choose s t o no t submi ta writte n statemen to ffac tt o th e abov e cal l an d discussion . Respectfull ySubmitted . 4 o f502/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A• > DM S 0010/01 2 01/21/201 1 a 19P MFA X [gOOIO/001 2

Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . Dat e

5 o f502/04/201 1 15:2 1 FA X 202493514 2

01/21/201 1 3 : 13P MFA X FA A * DM S 21011/01 2

2)0011/001 2

t .



## II02/04/201 1 15:2 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 01/21/201 1 3:1SP M FA X 13012/01 2 810012/001 2

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N FaderdFAvlatlo n Admlnlslrbtio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Complainont s M 8 , R Helicopten , LLC , Responden t V . Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket ; 2010-121 1 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB YCERTIF

Ytha t 1 hav e thi s da ysen/e d ih e foregoin g entriejs) : Dismissa l o rProcedura l schedul e Lette r MOTIO N FO R DEPOSITIO N O F CYNTHI ADOMINIK . ATGALLAGHE R REPORTING . ALLENTOWN , PA . upo n al l partie s o frecor d i n thi s proceeding , i n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o fRul e 2 9 pursuan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1746 , Servic e b vfirst-clas s mail , postoo e prepaid , addresse d as follows : Federa l Aviatio n Administrafio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu rWrigh tAvenue-Sult e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Hearin g Docke tClerk , AGC-43 0 FA X20 2 49 3 514 2 At t I/FA ) Laur a Ponto , Esq . Enforcemen tOIvlslon/AGC-30 0 Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l FA A 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington . D C 2059 1 I/TA X20 2 26 7 510 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Departmen to fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m £12-32 0 1200 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 t^A X20 2 36 6 753 6 

# J ^ vv

^ By : Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . 28l 6 0refieidRoa d Allentown , Pa . 18104 61 0 36 0 395 3 Date : 

# yJ-y W