ECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. JAN t 8 201! 

2816 Orefield Road trAaiKir^m^^^ 

Allentown, PA. 18104 • 'CARIN G DOCKE T 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

<~;-:M' ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration '' 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams --

Complainants en 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO95d'434 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. . 

Respondent fpp, 201^^"'^^ 

' . . . - f- l 

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 

of 3 
3 ECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. JAN J 8 2011 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 EARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

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 
RECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H JAN 1 8 2011 

^ilntowl^ PA'r8fo4 ^-iEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^"^ Com°Jla?r;ants''''^'' ^""'''^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

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 served with an order from the 

Administrative Judge concerning a procedural schedule. 

2. In complainants above pleading, respondent disagreed with 

1 
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 Judgment to Dismiss-Judical Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency. 

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 
RECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H JAN 1 8 2011 

Silnto^n'pAMsro^ HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^"^ Com^a?nants°''^'' ^""'''^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docl<et: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

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 Low Judge Establishing Procedures. 

1. To date respondent has not yet been served with on order from the 

Administrative Judge concerning a procedural schedule. 

2. In complaingnts above pleading, respondent disagreed with 
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 progrom (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-Judical Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency. 

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 

2-
3. To dismiss this case in the effort of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

3-
••"^ £ ^ 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

CEIVED 

JAN 18 2011 

EARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complaingnts 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

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) whom avers and 

files the 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: 
prosecutorial overreaching and pursuit that lacks proper initiative, perspective 

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

litigation costs of the complainants will far 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 case in the effort 

of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

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

\ 

Dote 

4-
119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

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

Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure the safety 

of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC must have qualified 

personnel serving in the following 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-Judical Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency. 

4. There were other defects in reference to regulation changes that no 
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 part 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 

conclusionary 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 are malfeasant, 

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

are 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 all 

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 
CEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H j^ig ] g onil 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 ^ {EARIN G DOCKE T 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^"^ Com°pJa?nants°''^'' ^""'''^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

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 
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 lost 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 a physician for a violation 

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

merit and has already consumed an 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 lacks 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 
t 

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. \ ^ ,x\\. ^ 

- 3 -
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Willianns 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Doclcet: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO HEARING LOCATION IN ALLENTOWN. PA 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SETTLEMENT 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, PA. 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANTS PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

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

pursuant to 28U.S. C. § 1746. 

Service by first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

tt: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

:V/FAX20 2 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

(^A X 202 366 7536 

Vi. 

> \ ^ ..n 

By: ^ 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road A 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 . \ •—V ^ 

610 360 3953 V 

Date: 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

BCEIVED 

JAN 1 8 2011 

EARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL ESTOPPELS, LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom 

avers and files the following Motion for Judgment to Dismiss based on Judicial 

Estoppels and Legal Inconsistency. The complainants hove continued to fail to 

plead to specific number paragraphs. By failure to address the specific 

pleadings and thereby evading and circumventing respondent's specific 

allegations such as the issue of Judicial Estoppels previously disclosed, 

complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated redundant and 

iterate pleadings for a case that appeared void ab initio. 

1 
1. The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior lA 

mechanic found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by Ms 

Williams letter of September 23, 2010 (Exhibit 1). 

2. The sole and primary premise for this violation then shifted according 

to Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, to Ms Williams 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'. 

3. Mr Baker has always been employed since 1996 by the regions 

University Medevac Hospital service and always without interruption, was on a 

drug and alcohol program. Evidence submitted confirms that Mr Baker was under 

a monitoring program by ERA Med from May 1, 2006- November 4, 2007. He then 

became employed by Air Methods Corporation, from November 5, 2010 to the 

present, when he came onto their drug/alcohol program. In addition, Mr Baker 

was concurrently on the National Guard drug/alcohol program in his capacity as 

a National Guard A&P and Helicopter pilot. 

4. Ms Williams was given this evidence, but selected not to pursue 

primary source verification and/or confirmation of these facts pursuant to 

§13.224, wherein the burden of proof is on the agency, not respondent. 

5. Ms Williams did thoroughly investigate the other mechanic/IA doing 

safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft and she confirmed that the information 

' Please refer to pleadings entitled Preliminary Objections, Motion and Brief to Quash, Motion to 

Strike Allegation, Motion for Deposition, Motion to compel discovery. 
given was correct as stated and withdrew all violations, similarly, on that behalf 

and accordingly. 

6. Ms Williams did not follow the same procedure she did for the 

mechanic/IA, for Mr Baker, therefore, insufficiently met the spirit and intent of 

§13.224, wherein the burden of proof is on the agency, not respondent. Had Ms 

Williams followed through, she would have arrived at the same conclusion and 

no violation would have been found. 

7. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was always on a 

monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then again 

stiifted \he basis 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. 

8. There were in addition, several factors concerning clear and 

undisputed disclosure of regulations, regulations that were not clearly contained, 

listed, spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance in the 

spirit of safety. 

9. There were several factors concerning clear and undisputed 

interpretation of the language and meaning contained within the signed off 
compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging 

violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contrary to 

standard practices in Administration law. 

In Administrative Law "In the interpretation of ttie 

language of regulations, where doubt exists as to f/ie 

intent of ttie meaning of the language written and 

enacted by a governing body, the language shall be 

interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

extension of a restriction". 

10. Ms Williams as well has tried to hold MRH liable for not having Mr 

Baker on its own companies monitoring program, despite Mr Baker being on his 

full time employers monitoring program, during the time when respondent 

recognized in good judgment to withdraw all operations of MRH and in 

accordance to regulations in order to not impose risk to the public. 

11. By way of Judicial Estoppels and to be legally consistent, 

complainants should follow suit by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full 

time employer's drug/alcohol program, just as the mechanic/IA was formally 

released from those violations, thereby voiding the legitimacy of the complaint. 

12. It would appear inappropriate for action to be taken against a small 

single pilot operation who had long stopped operating in due diligence, good 

judgment and good faith, according to regulations due to human factors of a 

tragic divorce case scenario and cardiology practice time constraints in order to 

not expose the public to undue risk. 

4-
13. It would appear inappropriate for action to be taken against a small 

single pilot operation who had done no harm, that has been operating in the red 

for years, had closed all financial accounts and has no assets. 

14. It would appear an inappropriate course of action to violate an 

operator under the circumstances, whose operations had already stopped for the 

time of the alleged violations. 

15. It would appear inappropriate for action to be taken when changes 

were rapidly initiated, once respondent became aware in good faith, despite not 

performing operations for years prior. 

16. It would appear inappropriate to take action against respondent when 

the case appeared past the statute of limitations and time barred. 

17. It appears that precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered 

on a case that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an 

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit that lacks proper initiative, perspective or good 

judgment. 

18. In good judgment and with proper perspective it would appear this 

legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's since no harm has been done 

and when operations were being preformed prior to the violation, they were done 

good faith, in accordance to the close guidance and supervision of the routine 

FAA inspectors, therefore in the light of efforts of judicial economy, the case should 

be dismissed. 

-5 
WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

Motion for judgment to dismiss this case on the grounds of Judicial Estoppels, 

Legal Inconsistency and in efforts for judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI 

Date 

.H J^V''^ 

V-

.i-^\ 
^ 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Fedwai Aviation 

Administration 

2895 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 148 

Miramar, FL 33027 

Certified IViail - Return Receipt Requested 

September 23, 2010 

File Number: 2010SO950353 

Dr. Michael 6. Selig 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we inspected M And R Helicopters, LLC's drug and 

alcohol testing programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR 

part 120, (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J). This letter addresses 

which issue described in the letter of investigation that is still under investigation 

and which issues we will close with administrative action. 

The following Issue included in our August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File 

Number: 2009SO950434) will be addressed in separate correspondence: 

• M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Edward Baker, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior 

to using his services. 

We have reviewed all available information concerning the following issues from our 

August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File Number: 2009SO950434): 

1. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to 

using his services. 

2. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not conduct pre-employment drug tests and 

receive verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

We have decided not to tai^e legal enforcement action for these apparent violations. 

Instead, we are issuing this warning notice. J 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offlces/avs/offices/aam/drug_aicohol/ 
• I T AA i-a-j ^ .TTJWe continue to expect compliance with all applicable drug and alcohol regulations. 

Sincerely, 

y ' " 

Latc^nya B. Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

U.S. Department of Transportation 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominilc, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

AA & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Doclcet: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY thiat I hiave thiis day served ttie foregoing entrie(s): 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL ESTOPPELS, LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NEW MAHER 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED REFERENCED EVIDENCE 

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

pursuant to 28U.S.C.§ 1746. 

Service by first-class mail, postaae prepaid, addressed as follov^s: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Aft: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

(_/fAX202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

l/FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

t--FAX 202 366 7536 

By: 

Mictiael B. Selig, MD, FACC 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: 

V^^\ 
3 

u ECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. j^ ^ | g ymi 

2816Orefield Road rr-» ^ 

Allentown, PA. 18104 ' iEARIN G DOCKE T 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

.. ^. . „ , .. ^ ^- Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NEW MAHER 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED REFERENCED EVIDENCE 

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 to Compel Discovery due to failure to produce 

prior requested evidence in accordance to Rule 13.220 (d). When 

complainants did respond, they failed to plead facts with sufficient specificity in 

a collaborative, conclusionary manner, failed to provide discovery, evaded and 

circumvented specific requests and pleadings, thereby adding redundancy 

and repeated pleadings, squandering scarce judicial resources, in malicious 

and frivolous prosecution, therefore the complaint should be dismissed. 

1 
Complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated redundant and 

iterate pleadings for a case that appeared void ob initio. 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for the initial inspection. 

2. Ms Williams disclosed that there was a Regulation change that 

occurred in February 2004, requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company 

specific drug program. 

3. Ms Williams failed to provide evidence for the requested specific 

regulations, language, details, references or training with regard to her cited 

specific regulation changes. 

In Administrative Law "In the interpretation of the 

language of regulations, where doubt exists as to the 

intent of the meaning of the language written and 

enacted by a governing body, the language shall be 

interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

extension of a restriction". 

4. On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter informed MRH that possible 

violations were under investigation. 

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

Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty-Four Hundred Dollars). 

6. On September 25, 2010, respondent requested a copy of the 

complete investigative report via telephone communication with Ms Ponto. 

7. On October 22, 2010, respondent was served with an incomplete 
investigative file which included several altered, redacted and spoliated 

documents. 

8. On October 27, 2010, a letter was addressed to Ms Ponto requesting 

a complete physical copy of all the Regulations referenced in her complaint, 

inclusive of adoption dates and revision dotes to confirm prior statements mode 

on behalf of the complainants. 

9. In the letter of October 27, 2010, respondent requested full, unaltered 

copies of documents that were produced in the incomplete investigation file, 

that were either stricken, blocked out, redacted or spoliated. 

10. In the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to provide the 

physical reference of Jordon v Department of Justice that Ms Ponto cited in her 

correspondence. 

11. In the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to provide the 

physical reference for regulations on disclosure restrictions. 

12. In the letter of November 24, 2010, the above items were requested 

a second time, in addition a change of hearing location to Allentown, PA. 

13. In the letter of November 27, 2010, respondent a third time reminded 

complainants of the outstanding discovery. 

14. The complainants failed to follow the standard practice pertaining 

to rules of evidence of attaching referenced documents. 

15. In violation of Rule 13.220 (d) the complainants hove not responded 

by way of objection or production of discovery that was post the 30 day 
deadline period. 

16. Complainants failed to produce any of the additional requested 

evidence from the single initial produced investigation file. 

17. Complainants failed to produce their references in their pleadings, as 

is standard legal practice, claiming they ore publicly available. Respondent was 

unable to locate the history and dates for instance of the regulation changes. 

NEW MAHER 

18. Respondent requests the formal evidence of the dates of signed 

service in regard to the 2 late responses: Respondents Motion to Quash. Strike, or 

Dismiss complaint and Respondents Motion to Strike Alleaation-Mr Baker was not 

on a Drug/Alcohol program. 

19. Respondent requests the formol evidence of the dates of signed 

service in regard to the Statute of Limitations referred to in Complainants late 

response to the Motions to quash and Motion to strike received December 13, 

2010. In complainants response it was alleged that the complainants entered the 

complaint ONE DAY before the 2 year Statute of Limitations, however the 

respondent claims that complaint was not served until after the Statute of 

Limitations and thereby the complaint is time barred. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will either dismiss 

the case on the basis of violating Rule 13.220 (d) or compel the complainants to 
produce the repeatedly requested discovery. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Dote 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

3 ECEIVED 

JAN 1 8 20tt 

EARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

FAILURE TO PROPERLY RESPOND OR MEET FILING DEADLINES 

AND NOW. comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, CFl-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom 

avers and files the following Reply to complainants response to the motion for 

JUDGMENT pertaining to the ongoing complainants failure to properly respond 

or answer filing deadlines in accordance to §13.218(d). When complainants did 

respond, they failed to plead facts with sufficient specificity in a collaborative 

conclusionary manner, evaded and circumvented specific pleadings, thereby 

adding redundancy and repeated pleadings, squandering scarce judicial 

resources, in malicious and frivolous prosecution, therefore the complaint should 

1 
be required to be dismissed. 

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

specific numerated paragraphs in breach of Federal Rule 3. 

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

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

these standard practices is to confine the pleading party proof to only those 

acts alleged, thus enabling a responding party to prepare their defense'. 

3. Complainants have filed late responses to motions past the 10 day 

deadline period under § Rule 13.218(d), for example, not using actual dates of 

service in attempts to impair the dignity of this court. 

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

associated brief was faxed (Exhibit 1 fax confirmation sheet) to Mr Pontes 

department on November 29, 2010, sent by mail on November 30, 2010. The 

due date was December 9, 2010. An objection or response was not received or 

served until December 13,2010, past the due date under § Rule 13.218(d) 

(Exhibit 2). 

5. Ms Ponto failed to present any evidence as to when the response 

was actually received in her response to this matter. A date was indicated on 

the document itself as to when it was drafted, does not represent an actual 

date of service. 

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

'Baker v Rangos, 324 A.2d 498, 505 (Pa Super Ct. 1974 

-2-
called respondent directly to his personal cell phone admitting that the 

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

breach of this regulation and thereby requested a continuance directiv to 

respondent. Exhibit 3 shows call log of respondent's telephone showing Ms 

Dominiks number 202-267-7560. 

7. Respondent refused a continuance and requested the case be 

dismissed on these grounds. 

8. Ms Pontes defense is that she never filed a formal continuance, 

perhaps knowing that respondent already denied her verbal request in the 

telephone inquiry by Ms Dominik. 

9. On November 30, 2010, a respondents motion to Strike Allegation was 

faxed and sent to Ms Pontes department to which no objection or answer was 

received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.218(d) (Exhibit I'-fax 

confirmation sheet) A late answer was also provided in the collaborative 

correspondence received on December 13, 2010 (Exhibit 4). 

11. There is no reason for counsel to not be able to respond to any of 

the above deadline dates in accordance to the FAA Rules of Civil Penalty 

Proceedings 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and subpart G, as the Office of Chief Counsel 

employs many attorneys, handles thousands of violations yearly and therefore 

alternatives are readily available to cover or substitute for vacation, illness or 

other reasons as is evidenced by Ms Dominik calling directly the respondent. 

12. This cose does not have exclusive authority of only Ms Ponto, as 

3-
there have already been other intervening attorneys that have reviewed or 

been involved in the case, including Peter Lynch, Esq., (letter October 21, 2010, 

(exhibit 1), Charles Roley, Esq. (October 1, 2010 telephone hearing, transcripts 

outstanding), Ms Cynthia Dominik, Esq. (Telephone call December 8, 2010). 

13. Respondent avers there is no excuse or reason for late filing of 

objections or answers. 

14. By complainants not addressing all numerated paragraphs, thereby 

selectively answering some and evading and circumventing other pleadings or 

using insufficient specificity in their pleadings, complainants have added 

redundancy and repeated pleadings, squandering scarce judicial resources, in 

malicious and frivolous prosecution, therefore the complaint should be required 

to be dismissed. 

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

Motion for judgment to dismiss the case due to late filing and other procedural 

defects in accordance to Rules 13.218(d). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFIDate H ^^ " 

Y^ 

^ \ 
2-010 6 :14PM FAX 1210002 

.art Time 

.1/19 12:53 

> 11/21 05:44 

-rd ^ 24 06:05 

11/27 07:26 

, 11/27 10:04 

11/29 10:03 

11/30 06:13 

PM 

PM 

PiM 

AM 

AM 

PM 

PM 

Address 

610 770 9894 

6104340520 

12022675106 

12022875106 

12022675106 

12022675106 

12022675106 

O^A^ 

^AKe , 

No. 

5003 

0071 

0072 

0073 

0074 

0075 

0076 

Mode 

Auto RX 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

Page 

4 

4 

2 

2 

19 

43 

7 

Result 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

00'41 

00'42 

00'27 

00'25 

02'44 

06'30 

00'56 

CY. .ki>i1 (\ 
4 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

fo^cc^ NOV 2 9 2010 

^epiy ^oe^ l ^[^:>d(' 0 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS COMPLAINT 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) whom overs and files the following 

MOTION TO QUASH, STRICKEN OR DISMISS THE COMPLAINT submitted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration associate Laura Ponto, Esq. hereby asserting by 

respondent that the allegations mode in the complaint ore not proper or 

reasonable and thereby the complaint should be Quashed, Stricken and 

Dismissed. 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for the initial scheduled inspection at the joint office of Lifeline 

1 of 8 ^vUrf ^ 
*»«*»**»W««*i^«.MtV,., i,.i<rt.Awf.«v*.,.»...;«.,,,«a,,, 

•!«*W5WSjlS*i **V^J«<*,-J»«jil^SeJW*:i.S * 

.•tsev,-^«=-*^^^3S(^5j!^^JS^|g^^a^ 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

\P 

l^Jftf*^ ^ 

\ > 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONMR BAKER WAS NOT ON A DRUG/ALCOHOL PROGRAM 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH), {no longer existing) whom avers and 

files the following MOTION to Strike the Allegation claimed by Ms Latonya 

Williams that Mr Baker was not on an approved Drug/Alcohol program during 

the stated period. 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for an inspection of the drug and alcohol abatement records at the 

prior office of MR Helicopters, LLC. 

2. On July 23, 2009, FAA Officer, Latonya Williams returned alone for the 

of 3 ^u-^ i 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

v. 

Honorabie Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Doclcet: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day setved the foregoing entrie(s): 

Deposition of Latonya Williams and Federal Hearing Location 

MOTION FOR HEARING LOCATION IN ALLENTOWN. PA 

MOTION TO HAVE THE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN. PA. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

FAILURE TO PROPERLY RESPOND OR MEET FILING DEADLINES 

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

pursuant to 28U.S.C.§ 1746. 

Service by first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

X 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

tt: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

t^A X 202 366 7536 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

iXFAX 202 267 5106 

^ ^ ' 

,un 

By:_ 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: \-TH. \ 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

RECEIVED 

JAN 1 8 2011 

tEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorabie Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom 

avers and files the following Motion for Judgment for complainants failing 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 initio. 

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

-1 
specific numerated 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). The complainants thereby admit by default to 

the following truths: 

a. That Vincent Roots the FAA auditor in January 2004, was not aware of 

the drug/alcohols programs new definition of employer and did not inform 

respondent. 

b. That the complainants ore trying to hold the respondent liable for a 

regulations that even its own FAA officers were not aware of and thereby an 

admission of truth. 

c. That the complainants ore therefore trying to hold the respondent to 

a higher standard than their own FAA officers, thereby voiding the legitimacy of 

the complaint and demonstrates malicious prosecution. 

d. By way of Judicial Estoppels and legal inconsistency, the 

complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior lA mechanic found 

to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by Ms Williams letter of 

September 23, 2010 (Exhibit 1), thereby complainants should follow suit with legal 

consistency by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full time employers 

drug/alcohol program, voiding the legitimacy of the complaint. 

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

associated brief was faxed on November 29, 2010 and sent to Mr Pontes 

department on November 30, 2010. The due date was December 9, 2010. An 

2-
objection or response was not received or served until December 13, 2010, past 

the due date under § Rule 13.218(d). Complainants failed to provide proof of 

when that document was received and sen/ed. 

f. On November 30, 2010, respondents motion to Strike Allegation was 

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 correspondence received on December 13, 2010. 

2. Throughout this litigation, complainants hove not pleated facts with 

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

these practices is to confine the pleading party proof to only those acts alleged, 

thus enabling a responding party to prepare their defense'. 

3. Throughout this litigation, complainants filed late responses to 

motions past the 10 day deadline motion period under § Rule 13.218(d), for 

example, net using actual dotes of service in attempts to impair the dignity of 

this court. 

4. In summary, 

a. It has become apparent that the conduct by Ms Williams and Ms Ponto 

represents procedural and prosecutorial overreaching. 

b. That the complainants ore trying to hold the respondent to a higher 

standard than their own officials in regard to regulations that were not evident or 

known. 

'Baker v Rangos, 324 A.2d 498, 505 (Pa Super Ct. 1974 

-3 
I ' 

c. There ore issues of judicial estoppels, legal inconsistency and procedural 

defects. 

d. That inappropriate action has been taken against a small single pilot 

operation that has been operating in the red for years and had long stopped 

operating in due diligence, good judgment and good faith, according to 

regulations due to human factors of a tragic divorce cose scenario in order to not 

expose the public to undue risk. 

e. Rapidly initiated the appropriate changes once respondent became 

aware in good faith, despite net performing operations for years prior. 

f. That precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered on a case 

that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing on aggressive 

prosecutorial pursuit that locks proper initiative, perspective or good judgment. 

g. The legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense or for 

judicial economy. 

f. The statue of limitations was exceeded. Respondent makes note of the 

complainant confirmation and admission that the lost alleged violation of Mr 

Baker occurred on July 24,2008 and further alleges the notice of proposed Civil 

Penalty was sen/ed on July 23, 2010, stating that it was 1 day before the 2 year 

statue of limitations. The complaint was served and received on July 27,2010,3 

days past the statute of limitations. The complaint is therefore time barred. 

Complainants failed again to respond, evaded and circumvented these facts 

presented in respondents brief supporting complaint dismissal foxed 12-20-2010. 

-4 
g. Also of note is that the operations hod already stepped for the time of 

the alleged violations. 

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

Motion for judgment to dismiss this case in efforts of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

Dote V r\-\\ 

-5 
o 

2895 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 148 

Miramar, FL 33027 

Certified IMail - Return Receipt Requested 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

September 23, 2010 

File Number: 2010SO950353 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem. PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we inspected M And R Helicopters, LLC's drug and 

alcohol testing programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR 

part 120, (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J). This letter addresses 

which issue described in the letter of investigation that is still under investigation 

and which issues we will close with administrative action. 

The following issue included in our August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File 

Number: 2009SO950434) will be addressed in separate correspondence: 

• M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Edward Baker, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior 

to using his sen/ices. 

We have reviewed all available information concerning the following issues from our 

August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File Number: 2009SO950434): 

1. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to 

using his services. 

2. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not conduct pre-employment drug tests and 

receive verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

We have decided not to take legal enforcement action for these apparent violations. 

Instead, we are issuing this warning notice. 

http.7/www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohol/ 
We continue to expect compliance with ail applicable drug and alcohol regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Latdnya B. Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Rood 

^^ECEIVED 

AM + DA lomx -iAN 18 2011 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

EARING DDCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

'"''CompVdr^ints'"'^'' ^""'"^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

MOTION TO HAVE THE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN, PA. 

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

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

files the following Motion to have the pre-trial Deposition of Latonya Williams 

under Rule §13.225 at the Gallagher Reporting and Video in Allentown, PA. 

1. On December 1, 2010, respondent faxed and filed a Motion for 

Deposition of Latonya Williams to Ms Ponto, to take place in Allentown, PA. 

2. Complainants failed to respond to the motion within the 10 day 

deadline. 

3. In complainants response doted December 20, 2010, complainant 

agreed to moke available Ms Williams for Deposition and cited erred dates of 

1 of 4 
availability for the pre-trial deposition of "January 28, 2010, February 1-4, 2010, 

Februory 8-11, 2010 or February 15-17, 2010". 

4. The meeting place of Washington, DC was mentioned. At no time 

did respondent request or agree to a hearing at the Philadelphia, PA or 

Washington, DC locations. 

5. On December 21, 2010, respondent filed a motion to specifically 

request the deposition to be in the Allentown Location. 

6. On January 13, 2011, complainants ser/ed their response 13 days 

later. In that reply, Miami, Florida was mention as a suggested location, which 

also is unacceptable to the respondent. 

7. 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 

cordiology/oir charter office) then it would only follow suit that the deposition, 

defense and substantiation of claims thereby be held in the Allentown location, 

where the alleged violation occurred ond the location of the originating 

jurisdiction. 

8. Ms Williams standard practice is to travel to remote locations to 

perform inspections with the only intent to find and impose civil penalties against 

operators. She stated to the respondent that she "travels all over os port of her 

job", therefore it would not be on inconvenience for her to come once again to 

the Allentown area as she did to initiate the violation. 

2 of 4 
9. The complainants again evaded and circumvented the main 

reason for respondents request for the Allentown location, as stated in his letter 

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

Community as a solo, private practice cardiologist (for the lost 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 o physician for an alleged violation 

that he did not initiate, has caused no harm, locks legal merit and on very weak 

grounds. 

10. It would not be proper, reasonable or morally or ethically 

appropriate to compromise a physicians clinical responsibilities in his office or in 

the hospital in o manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of core or 

compromise patient core and potentially increase liabilities or risk to him or his 

patients in his role of providing emergent, acute and chronic public heath core 

services to the community 

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

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

con chose the dote most fitting to her schedule to appear of the Allentown 

location namely at: 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit ] H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

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

3 of 4 
deposition, respondent will firm up the other details. 

12. Respondent agrees to cover the costs pertaining to the meeting 

area and court reporter directly with Gallagher Reporting. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Latonya Williams in Allentown, PA, the originating location and 

jurisdiction of the alleged violation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Dote Y 

4 of 4 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ' xECEl VED 

2816 Orefield Rood 

Allentown, PA. 18104 JAN 1 8 2011 

f EARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

MOTION FOR 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 overs and 

files the following Motion to establish the Hearings in the above cose, to be held 

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

place of origination and original Jurisdiction. 

1. On October 1, 2010, on the informal hearing was held with Ms Ponto at 

which time it was discussed a court location for a future hearing in Allentown, PA, 

at the US District Court. It was confirmed to as on option and jointly agreed to. 

1 of 3 
2. While there were many discussions concerning the Deposition 

location of Latonya Williams, few details were discussed concerning the actual 

hearing location. 

3. 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 suite that the hearing location should thereby 

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

jurisdiction. 

4. The complainants evaded and circumvented in the post the main 

reason for requesting the Allentown location, as stated in respondents letter of 

November 24, 2010, namely the respondents primary role in the Lehigh 

community as o solo, private practice cardiologist (for the lost 23 years) with 

hospital and outpatient responsibilities. To leave the area would pose undue 

hardship to his patients. It is not reasonable or proper to burdened or 

inconvenience neutral party patients or o physician for a violation that he did 

not initiate, was an innocent bystander to and that appears to lock legal merit. 

5. 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 a manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care or 

2 of 3 
MICHAEL B. SELIG, M.D., F.A.C.C. 

LifeLine Cardiology 

bCblVbD 

M & R Helicopters JAN 18 2011 

2816 Orefield Rood 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

January 6, 2011 

[REARING DOCKET 

Federal Docket 2010-1211 

FAA File 2009SO950434 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

L/FAX 202 366 7536 

Re: Deposition of Latonya Williams and Federal Hearing Location 

Dear Judge Yoder: 

This letter is in response to Ms Ponto's correspondence dated December 

30, 2010. In her letter she mode several misrepresentations that I would like to 

correct at this time. At no time did I request or agree to o hearing location in 

Philadelphia, PA or Washington DC. In fact, during the informal hearing of 

October 1, 2010, Ms Ponto stated that there was o court location in Allentown 

PA, which was confirmed to as on option and jointly agreed to. 

Ms Ponto also evaded and circumvented the main reason for requesting 

the Allentown location, as stated in my letter of November 24, 2010, namely my 

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

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

a hardship to my patients and myself. Nevertheless, it was in her letter of 

November 17, 2010 that she on her own accord, requested the Philadelphia 

hearing location. 

Ms Ponto mentioned^Jhat Philadelphia is only 1 hour and 15 minutes away, 

which is also incorrect, as it closer 2 hours of off hours, but can be several 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 Philadelphia as compared to the easy access to 

Allentown both in air and ground traffic. 

It is as well, appropriate, proper and follows suit that since the violation 

Gateway Professional Center • 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 205 • Bethletiem, Pennsylvania 18017-7474 

VoiceA/M 610-868-6200 • Fax 610-868-1489 • Education Service 610-868-6203 • E-Maillifelinecard@verizon.net 
was investigated, initiated and generated by Ms Williams coming to the 

Allentown location requiring 2 visits (specifically to my joint cordiology/oir charter 

office), then it would only follow suite that under the circumstances, the hearing 

should thereby be held in the Allentown location as to not in addition, 

inconvenience my patients, disrupt the continuity of core, put them at risk or 

odd additional liability or malpractice. 

Ms Ponto agreed to a deposition of Ms Williams and cited erred dotes for 

pre-trial deposition of Ms Williams in her response doted December 20, 2010 of 

"January 28, 2010, February 1-4, 2010, February 8-11, 2010 or February 15-17, 

2010". Respondent does agree to these dates except as the dotes apply to the 

year 2011 of 10 am, as fitting to Ms Williams schedule in the Allentown, location 

namely of: 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC, 

1600 Lehigh Parkway Eost, Suite 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103. 

Once I om notified of the date that best suits Ms Williams schedule for the 

pre-trial deposition, I con firm up the other details. I will of course cover the costs 

pertaining to the room and court reporter. 

I am led to believe that your office would need to set up the heoring of 

the US District Court located at 504 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA. 18101, in the 

event that you believe this case should proceed. 

1 am hopeful that this court will find: 

1. The conduct by Ms Williams and Ms Ponto to be procedural and prosecutorial 

overreaching. 

2. That the complainants ore trying to hold the respondent to a higher standard 

than their own officials in regard to regulations that were not evident or known. 

3. Issues of judicial estoppels, legal inconsistency and procedural defects. 

4. That inappropriate action has been taken against o small single pilot 

operation that hos had negative cosh flow and hod long stopped operating in 

due diligence, good judgment and good faith due to human factors of a tragic 

divorce case scenario in order to not expose the public to undue risk. 

5. Rapidly initiated the oppropriote changes once respondent became owore, 

despite not performing operations. 

6. That precious scarce judicial resources ore being squandered on o cose that 

appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an aggressive 

prosecutorial pursuit that locks proper perspective or good judgment. 

Thank you for your kind considerotions. 
Yours Sincerely, 

V 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H \ 

cc. Hearing Docket, Clerk 
/ 

M 85 R Helicopters, LLC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

November 24, 2010 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Please file a written 

response to the enclosed 

document within (20) days 

of service. 

DOT Docket No. TBA 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Sent by FAX 202-267-5106 

Re: Allentown DOT Hearing/ Outstanding Discovery 

Dear Ms Ponto: 

Pursuant to your correspondence dated November 17, 2010, telephone 

communicaliion on October 1, 2010 and my letter of October 27, 2010, please 

be advised that MR Helicopters is requesting a venue change to Allentown, PA 

DOT court. This topic was discussed during our most recent conversation, 

wherein you stated and confirmed that Allentown DOT court was available. 

Accordingly, I ask that we move the hearing from Philadelphia to Allentown, PA 

since it would be a hardship on my schedule as a solo private practice 

cardiologist. 

In addition there were several items in my October 27, 2010 letter which 

were not addressed including the following: 

1. Full and complete copies of every regulation referenced as a violation, 

inclusive of all adoption dates, as I have found them difficult to access on the 

FAA website or using several search engines. You have been extremely kind 

providing 3 copies of the penalty proceedings regulations, however to date I 

have not received copies of referenced regulations that you claim are in 

violation. 

2. While portions of the investigation report were provided to me, a complete 

report is needed at this time. There was one page that was dedacted and 

spoliated, please provide the complete unaltered document. The other 

documents given were already in my records. Omitted was the reference for 
case Jordon v Department of Justice, as well as the specific regulation 

regarding the allowance of your disclosure restriction. 

Thank you for your kind considerations. 

Yours Sincerely, "^ 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

cc. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorabie Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docl(et: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

Deposition of Latonya Wiliiams and Federai Hearing Location 

(Letter) 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service by first-class mail, postaae prepaid, addressed as follov^s: 

^ 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 wCo'^ ^ 

Date: ^ 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

/-FAX 202 366 7536