02/04/201 1 15;1 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS lglOOI/012 

01/21/201 1 3:16PM FAX 00001/001 2 

LL B. SELIG, M.D.. FA.CC. 

LifeLine Cardiology 

= ^ 

—(C-; 

('3 •to rxj 

M & R Helicopfers "• rn^i ^ 

2816 Orefield Road 0 ''M^ ^ 

Allentown, PA. 18104 • ,j d^ ^ 

January 21, 2011 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

us Departnnent of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

SENT BY CERTIFIED MA)L> RRR 

Re: Dismissal or Procedural schedule. ^' ^ ^ ^ ' ' 

Dear Chief Judge Yoder: 

Federal Docket 2010-1211 

FAA File 2009SO950434 

This letter is in response to Ms Ponto's correspondence dated January 1 A, 

2011 ond her allegations regarding the volume of filed proceedings. 

Respondent's proceedings were made to clearly define material facts, 

the moving target of the fundamental basis for the cause of action, 

appropriateness of the respondent's positions and to demonstrate many 

procedural flaws and ill intents made by the complainants. Respondent has 

made a herculean effort to organize and present concise arguments in 

accordance with standard mandated rules of procedure at the common pleas 

and federal levels. Complainants have selectively addressed a few issues, 

therein, necessitating varying approaches by respondent to have these items 

addressed. Complainants omissions have indubitably and injuriously caused 

redundancy in the proceedings and duplicative efforts. The issues that the 

complainants did oddress were done with insufficient specificity e.g. scant. 

Impermissibly vague, inaccurate and superficial responses, cobbling together 

color of law statements that are conclusionary and collaborative. 

Complainonts mentioned matters concerning their missed deadlines. 

Missed deadlines are indeed a cause of permissible action to dismiss a case, 

- 1 -

Qateway Professional Center • 2045 Westgate Dnvs, Suite 205 • B0(hhhem, Pennsyfvenia 18017'7474 

Volce/VM 610-868'620D • Fax 610-B68-1489 • Education Service 610-868-6203 • E-Mail Hfellnacard^verlzon.net 
02/04/2011 15:19 FAX 2024935142 FAA -DM S 1002/012 

01/21/2011 3-18PM FAX (^0002/0012 

especially with recurrent frequency. Complolnant referenced §l3.2n(d)-Date 

of Service, There are several methods listed. By definition, since complainant 

selected signatory delivery confirmation, by means of signed return receipt, this 

represents the most accepted and most objective date of service. 

Complainants went to extra taxpayers expense at triple the cost to clearly 

validate and ensure the true delivery date, I his supersedes other subjective 

methods that relies on hearsay. If this hod not been done, other methods would 

be acceptable, otherwise why expend exira governmental costs. Most 

disconcerting is that respondent presented evidence that Ms Dominik actually 

called respondents cell phone to request a continuance due to late filing. That 

issue for instance was been completely evaded and circumvented. 

Complainants cited the statute of limitations, implying that respondent 

did not reference the law, when their own document page 8, in Complainants 

Response to Respondents Motion to Quash, did complainants reference 

§73.206, with the violation date of July 24, 2008, alleged service date of July 23, 

2010. Again, the complainants served the respondent, requiring respondent's 

signature for delivery after the 2 year period on July 27, 2010. 

Complainants allege thot respondent requested discovery that was 

publicly available and therefore even though respondent could not find said 

references and repeatedly requested these documents, complainant decided 

not to address or forv/ard the Information. Examples are; the dote of change of 

the appendix's I and J, certain references that they cited, without specific text. 

Complainants repeatedly mention the informal hearing not being 

recorded or transcribed. Respondent apparently misunderstood this matter and 

did not bring it up again, however complainants repetitiously recycles this issue 

by bringing it to the courts attention without further provocation. 

Any request for formal proof of service, is not unreasonable to request, 

since the stotute of limitations is in question, respondent contending that the 

complaint was delivered past the 2 year deadline. Strict proof is requested. 

Complainants claim that the redaction, spoliation of the Enforcement 

Investigatory Report is proper. Respondent is merely requesting that these 

guidelines be forthright and forthcoming; anything to the contrary is 

noncompllant with the low. 

Respondent did state that the regulations pertaining to the changed 

definition of employer, the regulation change that stated that employees 

performing safety sensitive functions needed to be on the companies specific 

drug program, regulations that were not directly contained within the signed off 

- 2 -
r*A * DMS 121003/012 

02/04/2011 15:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA 00003/0012 

operation specifications, but located somewhere else, that the FAAS own 

officers did not know about the random undisclosed change, were in effect not 

forthright ond thereby in effect hidden and concealed. Essentially, the 

complainants are attempting to hold respondent to a higher standard than their 

own FAA officers. 

In addition, by way of Judicial Estoppels and legal insufficiency already 

released the other lA/ mechanic of this regulation, once Ms W;Hiarns went 

directly to the place of employment (ABE) and confirmed a monitoring program 

was in effect. This same conclusion of law needed to be applied to Mr Baker, 

when it was confirmed that he also was on a monitoring program. 

The true irony of this complainant, in addition to being so delayed, is that 

the company had already shut down operations under regulation 119.69 to 

ensure safety to the public, for the 2 time citings of the complaint {see Motion to 

Dismiss proposed procedural schedule), another reason rendering the 

complaint moot and insufficient. This was done due to human factors of a 

tragic divorce, custody issues, children at risk of suicide and a difficult cardiology 

work schedule as a solo, private practitioner. Therefore, respondent acted 

appropriately and In good faith and judgment. 

The other paradox of this case is that the primary fundamental premise 

for this violation according to Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was 

Ms yVilliam's inability to validate FAA approved drug and alcohol testing 

program information for Mr Baker under Flight Methods. Mr Baker was not 

employed by Flight Methods, but by Air Methods Corporation, Once Ms Williams 

confirmed that Mr Baker was always on a monitoring program under his 

disclosed full time employer, she then shifted the bosis of the violation to Mr 

Baker not being on MRHs own companies monitoring program, despite already 

releasing the other Mechanic/IA from those regulations that were not evident, 

disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, MRHs FAA 

operations and maintenance inspectors or the Allentown FSDO manager. 

Page 2 of complainant's letter to you, alleges that respondent argues that 

the case should be dismissed, without any evidence or legal support for these 

contentions. However, an endless array ot evidence, legal argument and logic 

has been presented resulting in some confirmation on the port of complainants, 

but they holdfast to their positions af any cost to the government and taxpoyers, 

which seorches far beyond the fine allotment. Any subsequent appeal process 

will further outstretch precious scarce judicial resources and litigation costs to the 

government and taxpayers. 

Respondent appropriately filed an AVR complaint against Ms Williams, as 

- 3 -
02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS ^004/01 2 

01/21/201 1 3:1SPM FAX 1)0004/001 2 

to come into a cardiologist's office with walk in patients present and refer lo the 

doctor as "mike" is totally unprofessional and inappropriate on any level. Her 

excessive consumption ot 3 hours, mandating an on the spot lotter to her was 

unwarranted. She did not do the proper validation of Mr Bakers monitoring 

program before issuing the complaint, It appears Ms Williams was unable to 

complete her due diligence to find that Mr Baker was on a monitoring program, 

because she just barely got the violation in as it was. within the proposed I day 

before the 2 year the statue ot limitations, if indeed that will prove to be 

accurate. 

Respondent did request Ms Pontes attorney license number since it has 

never appeared on any document she submitted to this court, This is public 

information and is always properly displayed, just as any professional is required 

to display their credentials to the public. To not display or disclose this 

information appears suspect. For Ms Ponto to even suggest that a solo practice 

cardiologist disrupt continuity ot care of his patients, reschedule patients, 

compromise the care of his patients or even inconvenience neutral party 

persons for a remote site hearing, when the alleged violation originated and 

wos propagated by Ms Williams coming to the site of the company is 

unconscionable in the respondents mind and appears only as a malicious 

attempt to discourage further defense and inconvenience to the respondent 

and his patients. 

Complainants requested a telephone conference, however with the 

volume of documentation and arguments to be discussed a pre-trial 

conference would be better suited. Complainants claimed thot respondent did 

not propose an alternative schedule. Respondent did propose dates and 

location for deposition and hearing, using the proposed dates complainants 

have provided. It now appears that complainants are not only evading most 

subjects but appear to not be reading the documents filed. 

In the interest of judicial economy, attempts to avoid further squandering 

of precious scorce judicial resources on a case that appears frivolous, trivial, 

without merit, during a period respondent had appropriately shut down, while 

representing an aggressive prosecutorial pursuit and overreaching, that lacks 

proper initiative, perspective or good judgment, the case should be dismissed. 

If the Honorable Judge Yoder believes that this case should not be 

dismissed based on the material facts, procedural defects and inconsistencies, 

judicial economy, then the respondent proposes deposition of Ms Williams and 

Ms Dominik first be completed, followed by a pre-trial conference. Once these 

ore completed then a Hearing con be scheduled. Respondent proposes that 

these meetings occur at the original Allentown, PA site of the alleged violation. 

- 4 -
02/04/2011 15:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS gl005/012 

01/21/2011 3:18PM FAX I2l000ti/00l2 

the site the investigations look place, the original site of jurisdiction as to not 

inconvenience neutral party patents, innocent bystanders, adversely affect or 

put ot risk patient core in respondent's role of providing cordiology services to 

the community, 

Thank you for your kind considerations. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael Selig. MD, FACC , CFl 

cc. Hearing Docket, Clerk 

•H ^y -

-5 
02/04/2011 15:20 FAX 2024935142 

01/21/2011 3: lePM FAX 

FAA * DMS @00G/01 2 

glOOOG/0012 

Michael Selig. MD, FACC . 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown. PA, 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto 

Lotonyo WiHiorris 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIKAT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN, PA. 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle 

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following MOTION to Depose Cynthia Dominik, Esq. under Rule §13.225 

for a pre trial examination at Gallagher Reporting. Allentown. PA 18101, 

1. Throughout this litigation, complainants have failed to plead to 

specific number allegations and thereby making admissions of truth. By failure 

to address the specific pleadings and thereby evading and circumventing 

respondent's specific allegations, complainants hove indubitably and injuriously 

propagated redundant and iterate pleadings for a case that appeared void ab 

1 of 5 
02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS g|007/01 2 

01/21/201 1 3:19PM FAX ©0007/001 2 

initio. 

2. Throughout this litigation, the complainants have refused to address 

specific enumerated paragraphs in breach of Federal Rule 10(b). By failure to 

address a pleading that then deems that allegation an admission of the truth to 

that pleading under § 13.208(f)> 

3. Throughout this litigation, complainants have not pleated facts with 

sufficient specificity and in accordance to standard practices. Tho purpose of 

these practices is to confine th© pleading party proof to only those ads alleged, 

thus enabling a responding party to prepare their defense'. 

4. Throughout this litigation, complainants filed late responses to 

motions past the 10 day deadline motion period under § Rule 13.21ft(d), and 

have not used objective actual dotes of signed service when available in 

attempts to impair the dignity of this court. 

5. The Respondents Motion to Quash. Strike or Dismiss Complaint, with 

associated brief was foxed to Mr Pontos department on November 29, 2010, 

sent by moil on November 30. 2010. The due date was December 9, 2010. An 

objection or response was not received or served until December 13, 2010, post 

the due date under § Rule 13.218(d) (Exhibits already presented in the 

Respondents Reply to Complainants Response lo Judgment to Dismiss Faxed 1-

18-11). 

6. On November 30, 2010, respondents Motion to Strike Alleaation was 

'Baker v Ranges. 324 A.2d 498, .iOS (Pa Super Cx. 1974 

2 of 5 
02/04/2011 15:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 2)008/012 

01/21/2011 3:13PM FAX 00008/0012 

foxed and sent to Ms Pontos department to which no objection or answer was 

received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.218(d), A late answer was 

also provided in the collaborative correspondence received on December 13, 

2010. 

7. Ms Ponto failed to present any requested evidence as to when the 

response was actually received in her response to this matter. A subjective dole 

was indicated on the document itself o^ to when it was dratted, does not 

represent on oclual date of service or signed authorization of receipt. 

8. Ms Dominik of the FAA enforcement division of the chief counsel 

called respondent directly to his personal cell phone admitting that the 

complainants could not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, would 

be in breach of this regulation and thereby requested a continuance directly to 

respondent. Exhibit 1 shows call log of respondent's telephone showing Ms 

Dominiks number 202-267-7560. 

9. Respondent refused a continuance and requested the case be 

dismissed on these grounds. 

10. Ms Pontos defense is that she never filed o formal continuance, 

knowing that respondent already denied her verbal request in the telephone 

inquiry by Ms Dominik, 

11. At no time did Ms Ponto address, respond or admit to this statement 

of fact with submitted proof, as has been her practice to evode and circumvent 

items not convenient to address. 

3 of 5 
02/04/201 1 15:2 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS §1008/01 2 

01/21/201 1 3:19PM FAX g|0009/001 2 

12. Further pre-trial examination is now required, 

13. Respondent is a solo, private practice cardiologist and requires that 

the pre-trial deposition of Ms Dominik to be held at: 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

OS to not affect his clinical responsibilities, pose inconvenience or delays to his 

neutral party potients, in serving the community or put him at undue risk for 

liobility or malpractice. 

14. Complainants prior submitted dates can be utilized for this 

deposition. 

15. Alternatively, Ms Dominik can submit a written statement or 

stipulation that: 

a. she indeed colled the respondent. 

b. she did note that the complainants would be unable to submit within 

the timeframe. 

c. a contlnuonce was requested on the respondent. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Ms Dominik at the Allentown, PA location if she chooses to not 

submit a written statement of fact to the above call and discussion. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

4 of 5 
02/04/2011 15:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 0010/012 

01/21/2011 a 19PM FAX [gOOIO/0012 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

5 of 5 
02/04/2011 15:21 FAX 2024935142 

01/21/2011 3: 13PM FAX 

FAA * DMS 21011/012 

2)0011/0012 

t. 

I I 
02/04/2011 15:21 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

01/21/2011 3:1SPM FAX 

13012/012 

810012/0012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FaderdFAvlatlon Admlnlslrbtion 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainonts 

M 8, R Helicopten, LLC, 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket ; 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that 1 have this day sen/ed ihe foregoing entriejs): 

Dismissal or Procedural schedule Letter 

MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK. 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN, PA. 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 , 

Service bv first-class mail, postooe prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administrafion 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Sulte 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Att 

I/FA ) 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement OIvlslon/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington. DC 20591 

I/TAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room £12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

t^A X 202 366 7536 

J ^ vv^ 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

28l6 0refieidRoad 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: 

yJ-yW