02/07/2011 09:3G FAX 2024935142 

01/08/2011 1:18PM FAX 

FAA •> DM S 12001/014 

§10001/0014 

Michael Selig, MD. FACC . 

2816 0retield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

::T?.RTMENTOF 

Lt ''.!^ 

cm rc'j 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON^ DC . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NEW MATTER 

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 collaborotive, 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 -
* DMS BI002/014 

02/07/2011 09:3G FAX 2024935142 FAA 0,0002/0014 

ui/oti/i:ol i 1 :l8PM FAX 

Complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated redundant and 

iterate pleadings for a case that appeared void ab 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 RegulaVion change tho^ 

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 wilh regard to her cited 

specific regulation changes. 

In Administrative Law "/n 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 on incomplete 

2-
OI/oa/2011 1 ISPM FAX 

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 made 

on behalf of the complainants. 

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

copies ot documents that were produced in the incomplete investigation file. 

that were either stricken, bloclced 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 njles of evidence of attaching referenced documents. 

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

by way of objection or production of discovery that was past the 30 day 

3-
02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS 12004/014 

" ^ ' 210004/0014 

01/06/2011 1:19PM FAX 

deadline period. 

16- Complainants failed to produce any of the additional requested 

evidence from the single initial produced investigaiion file. 

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

Is standard legal practice, claiming they are publicly available. Respondent was 

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

NEW MATTER 

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 AHeaation-Mr Daker was not 

on a Drug/Alcohol oroaram. 

19. Respondent requests the formal 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 ttie 

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

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

Limitations and thereby the complaint is time barred. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honoroble Court v/ill either dismiss 

the case on the basis of violating Rule 13.220 (d) or compel the complainants to 

-4 
02/07/201 1 09:3 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @1005/014 

01/08/201 1 1 :19PM FAX 12)0005/0014 

produce the repeatedly requested discovery. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD. FACC. 

Dote v ^ ' vv 
02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 

01/08/2011 1:19PM FAX 

FAA * DMS iaoOG/01 4 

I2]OOOG/O01.a 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Lotonya 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. CFhH, 

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

avers an d fries the following Motion for Judgment to Dismiss based on Judicial 

Estoppels an d Legal Inconsistency. The complainants have continued to fail to 

plead to specific number paragraphs. By failure to address \he specific 

pleadings an d thereby evading and circumventing respondent's specific 

allegations such as the issue of Judicial Estoppels previously disclosed, 

complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated redundanl an d 

iterate pleadings for a case that appeare d void a b initio. 

1 
•> DMS 12007/014 

02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA @!0007/0014 

01/08/2011 1:13PM FAX 

1. The complainants tiave admitted to formally releosing 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 end 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 i. 

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

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

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

a monitoring program by ERA Med from May 1, 2006- November A, 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/olcohol 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 fhe 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 Quosti, Motion to 

Strike Allegation, Motion for Deposition, Motion to compel diicovery. 

- 2 -
+ DMS 21008/01 4 

02/07/201 1 09:3 7 FAX 2024935142 FA'^ I2l0008/0014 

01/08/201 1 1 . 13PM FAX 

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/lA, tor Mr Baker, therefore, insufficiently met fhe spirit and intent of 

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

Williams followed through, she would hove 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 

stilfted ihe basis of the violation to Mr Boker not being on MRHs own companies 

monitoring program, despite alreody releasing the other Mechanic/lA from 

those regulations that were not evident, disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA 

Drug/Alcohol auditor, MRHs FAA operotions and maintenance inspectors or the 

Allentown FSDO manager. 

Q. 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 specitications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violotion, 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 oft 
* DMS @|009/014 

02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^0009/0014 

01/0B/2011 1:19PM FAX 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging 

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

standard practices in Administration low. 

In Administrative Low "In the interpretation of the 

language of regulations, where doubt exists as to the 

intent of the meaning of the fanguoge 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. 

1 ]. 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 

releosed 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 1o undue risk. 

- 4 -
+ DMS glOIO/OU 

02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA aoOIO/0014 

'J If vol L'j \ \ I . IarH r«/i 

13. It would appear inappropriate for action to be taken against a smaW 

single pilot operation who hod 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 token 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 cose that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an 

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit that locks 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 ttie routine 

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

be dismissed. 
02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS igOll/OU 

oi/oB/^on i:i9PMFAX I2looii/ooi4 

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-H f^- ^ 
02/07/2011 09:37 FAX 2024935142 

FAA 

DMS §10012/0014 

^ f,^Q / evi l I . lorm rl^A 

<d 

U.S. DepcjrtmeriT 

of TransportoUon 

Federal Aviation 

Adminlatratlon 

2895 SW 145tti Avenue, Suite 148 

Mlramar, FL 33027 

Certified Mall - Return Receipt Requested 

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 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 safely-sensitive functions. 

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

Instead, we are issuing this warning notice. 

http://www,faa.govyabout/offic«_org/Headquarter3_office9/avs/offlces/a8m/drug_Q!cohol/ 
02/07/201 1 09:3 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 121013/014 

01/08/201 1 1;19PM FAX 1210013/0014 

We continue to expect compliance with all applicable drug and alcohol regulations, 

Sincerely, 

Latc^nya B. Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

2 

U.S. Department of Transponaiion 

TorlArpi 4»,;a>,.i.. /iv—l. l ,. 
02/07/2011 09:38 FAX 2024935142 

01/08/2011 1 19PM FAX 

FAA * DMS 2)014/014 

12)0014/0014 

U.S. OCfARTMENT Op TRANSPORTATION 

federal AvlaHoo^mlnTifrbflon 

Cynttiia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Lolonyo WHiiams 

ComplQinonts 

M X. R Helicopters, LLC. 

Rospondeni 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket; 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

MOTION FOR JUDGfifiEM TO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL ESTOPPELS. LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NEW MATTER 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED REFERF^NCED EVIDENCE 

upon all parlies of record in this proceeding, in accordance with tho requirements of Rulo 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service bv first-class nnall. pgsraae prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, 5W 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Woshlngton, D.C. 2059) 

Alt: Hearing Docket Clork, AGC-430 

(^/FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/A GC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 independence Avenue, SW 

dshington, DC 20591 

1/FFAX20 A 2 267 510<S 

The Honorcsble Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Departnnent Of Transportolion 

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

1200 Now Jersey Avenue. S.E, 

Washington, DC 20590 

<—^^X 202"366 7536 

fly; 

Michael B. Selig. MD, FACC , 

2816 Ore field Rood 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 r^ .. 

610 360 3953 ^ --" ^ ^ \ 

Date: