01/11/2011 7:44PM FAX 1)0001/0014 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^"^ Com?!la?nants''^^'' ^'"'''"' ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANTS PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

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

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

files ihe following Motion to DISMISS Complainants proposed dates for 

scheduling deadlines. 

1, The violations cited by complainants should be rendered moot as 

alleged acts conducted by innocent bystander Mr Baker, occurring before 

2008, after MRH terminated operations and was no longer performing flights for 

human factor reasons affecting the single pilot operator in good faith and in 

compliance with: 

-1 -
01/11/2011 7:44PM FAX 110002/0014 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

Conducted under Part 135 of this Chapter, (a) DR 

Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and teclinical personnel to ensure the safety 

of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC must have qualified 

personnel serving in tlie follov/ing or equivalent positions: 

(1) Director of Operations. (2) Chief Pilot. (3) Director 

of Maintenance. 

Respondent was the Director of Operations, Chief Pilot and the 

Maintenance Scheduler due to the human factors of a litigious tragic divorce, 

suicide risk of minor child, time and responsibility restraints of his cardiology 

practice, respondent in good judgment and in accordance to the above 

regulation, stopped operations. 

2. Ms Ponto averred that the violation was valid as it was admitted that 

the violation was 1 day within of the 2 year statute of limitations. The date of 

service however was 3 days after the statute of limitations and therefore timebarred. 

3. Complainants have shifted the primary cause of action of their 

complaint from Mr Baker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed that 

he was), to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own employers in existent monitoring 

program, despite under Judicial Estoppels and with Legal inconsistency, 

complainants had already released the Mechanic/IA who was also found to be 

on a monitoring program by his full time employer. See Motion for Judgment to 

Dismiss-Judicol Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency. 

4. There were other defects in reference to regulation changes that no 
01/11/2011 7:44PM FAX igl0003/0014 

FAA officials were informed of, including their own FAA Drug/Alcohol inspector 

Vincent Roots and all local FSDO FAA Officials performing frequent inspections 

of MRH records and aircraft, therefore, representing entrapment on the port of 

complainants. 

5. In the proceedings of this case, complainants have continued to fail 

to plead to specific enumerated paragraphs as is common standards of 

practice, thereby failing to address the specific pleadings in a succinct manner, 

choosing what matter they want to address and thereby evading and 

circumventing respondent's specific allegations. When complainants did 

choose to respond, they did so in a short, scant, impermissibly vague and 

condusionor/ manner. This conduct by complainants has indubitably and 

injuriously propagated redundant and iterate pleadings. 

6. It appears in the process Ms Williams and Ms Ponto ore malfeasant, 

have abused their discretion, are In breach of duty and conduct to cause harm, 

ore in abuse of process, having no legally cognizable cause of action, 

attempting to migrate and cobbling together colorable changing arguments to 

make their alleged violation appear warranted, while holding steadfast at oil 

costs and without humility, dignity, moral or ethical appropriate behaviors and in 

an unconscionable manner. 

7. In the steadfast, unyielding position of complainants to this violation, 

precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered on a case that 

appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing aggressive 

3-
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 1)0004/0014 

prosecutorial overreaching and pursuit that locks proper initiative, perspective 

or good judgment, not in the spirit of governmental fund conservation, as the 

litigation costs of the complainants will for exceed the fine, assuming arguendo 

the fine will be found to have any merit or that there are any assets with which 

to pay an even reduced fine. 

8. Complainants deadlines do not allow amble time for pre-trial 

deposition of Ms Williams, a pre-trial conference, proper discovery to establish 

the Hearings in the above case. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

scheduling deadline to remain open at this time, to allow discovery to 

determine appropriate scheduling parameters or to dismiss this cose in the effort 

of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. V' ' .^ \ 

Date V 

- 4 
01/11/201 1 7:45PM FAX @10005/0014 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonyo Williams 

Complainants 

AA & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SETTLEMENT 

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 for more definite statement in reply to complainants 

filing received January 10, 2011, Complainants Response to Order of Chief 

Administrative Law Judge Establishing Procedures. 

1. To date respondent has not yet been sen/ed with an order from the 

Administrative Judge concerning a procedural schedule. 

2. In complainants above pleading, respondent disagreed with 

1 -
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX §10006/0014 

complainants statement that complainant has made reasonable efforts for 

settlement and to resolve this case at the informal stage. At the informal stage, 

the cause of action cited by complainants, was on incorrect alleged claims that 

innocent bystander Mr Baker, was on NO monitoring program while performing 

safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft in 2008. 

3. In the steadfast, unyielding position, complainants have refused to 

address this flawed fundamental fact and shifted the primary cause of action of 

their complaint from Mr Baker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed 

that he was), to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own employers in existent 

monitoring program, despite under Judicial Estoppels and with Legal 

inconsistency, complainants had already released the Mechanic/IA who was 

also found to be on a monitoring program by his full time employer. See Motion 

for Judament to Dismiss-Judical Estoppels, Leaal Inconsistencv. 

4. Therefore, quite to the contrary, complainants have been 

unreasonable and egregiously changed their complaint basis to pursue a 

violation by whatever means needed to warrant their frivolous violation in a 

moving target of changing and inconsistent color of law arguments. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

1, Serve respondent with the above order if indeed that order was issued. 

2. Have complainants confirm that they agree that Mr Baker was on a 

Drug/Alcohol program during the dates cited in the complaint /or 
01/11/201 1 7:45PM FAX @10007/0014 

3. To dismiss this case in the effort of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

MichaelB.Selig, MD, FACC. •• . i 

Date 'Hi ^ ' -

3-
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 130008/0014 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonyo Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2007SO950434 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN, PA. 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (inoperative since 2009) whom avers 

and files the following MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. 

1. On July 23, 2010, respondent was served with a Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5500, lowered to 5400 (Fifty-Four Hundred 

Dollars). 

2. There have been many filings as a result of complainant's reluctance 

to directly answer respondent's statements of fact, thereby requiring a pre-trial 

1 of 3 
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 110009/0014 

conference to gather and clarify the matters to be addressed In the formal 

hearing. 

3. It would be most appropriate, proper and reasonable that since the 

violation occurred, investigated, initiated and generated by Ms Williams by 

coming to the Allentown Location, requiring 2 visits (specifically to the joint 

cardiology/air charter office) then it would only follow suit that the pre-trail 

conference thereby be held in the Allentown location, where the alleged 

violation occurred and the location of the originating jurisdiction. 

4. The respondent's primary role in the Lehigh Community is as a solo, 

private practice cardiologist (for the last 23 years) with hospital and outpatient 

responsibilities. To leave the area would pose undue hardship to his patients. It 

would not be proper or reasonable to burden or inconvenience neutral party 

patients and a physician for an alleged violation that he did not initiate, has 

caused no harm, lacks legal merit and on ver/ weak grounds, 

5. It would also not be proper, reasonable or ethically and morally 

appropriate for the court to compromise respondents clinical responsibilities in 

his office or in the hospital in any manner that would delay, interrupt continuity 

of core, compromise patient care or impose any inconvenience to patients as 

well as pose increase liabilities or risk to respondent or his patients in his role of 

providing his emergent, acute and chronic cardiology services to the 

community. 

6. Complainant already cited availability dotes of "January 28, 

2 of 3 
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 1)0010/0014 

February 1 -4, February 8-11 or February 15-17, ". It is agreed to work with those 

dates at the present. 

7. The respondent hereby proposes the following; Assuming the prior 

suggested dates were meant to apply to 2011, using a time of 10 am, 

complainant con chose the dates most fitting to their schedule to appear at the 

Allentown location namely at : 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

Once the date is selected that best suits their schedule for the pre-trial 

deposition, respondent will firm up the other details. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant a pre-trial 

conference at the Allentown location as to further define and delineate aspects 

of this case. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. V '^ 

Date 

3 of 3 
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 1)0011/0014 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonyo Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO HEARING LOCATION IN 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 establish the Hearings in the above case, to be held 

at the US District Court located at 504 W. Hamilton Blvd, Allentown, PA, the 

place of the alleged violation origination and original Jurisdiction. 

1. It is respondents position that the most appropriate and proper 

hearing location since the violation was investigated, initiated and generated 

by Ms Williams coming to the Allentown location, requiring 2 visits (specifically to 

the joint cardiology/air charter office), the site of the alleged violation occurred 

in Allentown, would only follow suit that the hearing location should thereby also 
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 1)0012/0014 

be held in the Allentown location, being the place of origin and original 

jurisdiction. 

2, The complainants evaded and circumvented in the past the 

secondary reason respondent requested the Allentown location, as stated in 

respondents letter of November 24, 2010, namely the respondents primary role in 

the Lehigh community as a solo, private practice cardiologist (for the last 23 

years) with hospital and outpatient responsibilities. To leave the area would 

pose undue delays and hardship to his patients. It is not reasonable or proper 

to burden or inconvenience neutral party patients or o physician for a violation 

that he did not initiate, was an innocent bystander to, appears to lack legal 

merit and has already consumed on unconscionable amount of hours. 

3. It would not be proper, reasonable or ethically or morally appropriate 

for the court to compromise his clinical responsibilities in his office or in the 

hospital in any manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care, 

compromise patient care or impose any inconvenience on patients as well as 

pose increase liabilities or risk to him or his patients in his role of providing his 

emergent, acute and chronic cardiology services to the community. 

4. Ms Pontes statement that a hearing location in Philadelphia, Washington 

or Miami is more convenient locks merit, is self serving and appears to be an 

egregious and malicious attempt to discourage and inconvenience the 

respondent, his practice and his patients, when a convenient, frequently and 

-2 
01/11/2011 7:45PM FAX 1)0013/0014 

commonly FAA utilized US District Court is in Allentown. Once the complainants 

have to take air travel the differences ore Insignificant. 

5. Ms Ponto mentioned that Philadelphia is only 1 hour and 15 minutes 

away, which is also incorrect, as it is closer to 2 hours at off hours, but can be 

several more hours of hold up time during business hours due to the 

insurmountable traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway and in the downtown area. 

There is as well heavy air traffic and continuous delays in and around Philadelphia 

International Airport. 

6. The Allentown US District Court allows all the benefits of easy access, in 

an unobstructed manner, air and ground traffic and thereby more cost and time 

effective. 

7. Respondent would be led to believe that the Honorable Judge Yoder 

would agree to set up the hearings at the: 

U.S. District Court 

504 Hamilton Blvd 

Allentown, PA. 18101 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

Hearings Location at the US District Court located at 504 W. Hamilton Blvd, 

Allentown, PA. 18101. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. \ ^"^. A ^ 

7VVV^ V