Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

1"*^, CEIVEC 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

J 

-UJ-

-JD 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

0-3 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADLINES 

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 for more definite statement and closer examinations in 

regard to complainants perhaps malfeasant filling practices, late filing and 

objective disclosure of filing within deadlines. 

1. Complainants have referenced §13.211(d)-Date of Service. There are 

several methods listed. The first on the list is by "personal delivery". By definition, 

since complainant selected signatory delivery confirmation, by means of signed 

return receipt, this represents the most accepted and most objective date of 

1 -
service. Complainants went to extra tax payers expense at triple the cost to 

clearly validate and ensure the true delivery date for would supersede other 

subjective methods that relies on hearsay. If this had not been done, other 

methods would be acceptable. othenA^ise why expend extra governmental 

costs. 

2. A review of the EIR also shows inconsistencies regarding the date on 

the documents, in regard to the date the document was actually received. 

Exhibit one shows a letter draft date of August 14, 2009 and a Certified mail 

return receipt requested confirmation days 5 days later. Notwithstanding, this 

warrants strict proof of the repeatedly requested signed certified return mail 

receipts validating both signature and actual served dates, instead of hearsay. 

3. Complainants claim they did not file a late response to Respondents 

Motion for Judament to Dismiss -Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. This 

document was sent to complainants on December 8, 2010. A combined 

response included with a response to Respondents Motion for Judament to 

Dismiss A. was received by certified mail on December 23, 2010, 15 days late. 

4. Respondent agrees complainant did file a response to Respondents 

Motion for Judament to Dismiss- Failure to properly respond or meet filing 

deadlines on the deadline date of January 3, 2010. 

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

associated brief was faxed to Ms Pontos department on November 29, 2010, 

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

-2 
objection or response was not received or sen/ed until December 13, 2010, 

exceeding the time allotted under § Rule 13.218(d) (Exhibits previously 

presented in the Respondents Reply to Complainants Response to Judgment to 

Dismiss, Foxed 1-18-11). 

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

faxed and sent to Ms Ponto's department to which no objection or answer was 

received within the 10 day deadline pursuant to § Rule 13.218(d). A late answer 

was also provided in the collaborative correspondence received on December 

13,2010. 

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

response was actually received in her response to this matter. The subjective 

draft date indicated on the document itself does not represent an actual date 

of sen/ice and a signed authorization of receipt. 

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

called respondent personal cell phone admitting that the complainants could 

not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, would be in breach of this 

regulation, to wit she requested respondent grant complainants a continuance. 

9. Concerning the possible "misplaced" 2 year statue of limitations, a 

similar case scenario appears. Date of draft documents vs. confirmed dates of 

service. Complainants aver the alleged violation just squeaked in under the 

wire, by the skin on their teeth by a credible? ONE DAY and therefore valid. The 

requested proof of the objective date of service has still been evaded and 

3-
failed to be produced. 

10. A violation date of July 24, 2008 was sited, alleged service date of July 

23, 2010. Again, the complainants served the respondent, requiring respondent's 

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

statue of limitations. 

11. It appears Ms Williams forgot or was unable to complete her due 

diligence to ascertain that Mr Baker was on a monitoring program, because she 

just barely got the violation in as it was, within the proposed 1 day before the 2 

year the statue of limitations, if indeed that will prove to be accurate. Since she 

acted under false fundamental premises, she shifted the cause of action once she 

realized Mr Baker was always employed by large companies and on a program. 

12. It cannot be excluded that the complainants do not forward date the 

documents in order appear to be timely and thereby the subjective date of 

service cannot be trusted, requiring the strict proof to be provided. 

13. Therefore, quite to the contrary, complainants hove 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. Dismiss this case/or 

2. Have the complainants come forth evidentiary data confirming date of 

- 4 -
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

August 14, 2009 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

File Number: 2009SO950434 

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). As a result of this inspection, 

the following apparent violations were discovered: 

1. M and R Helicopters LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker (contractors) were covered under a FAA-mandated drug testing program 

and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to using their 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. 

This letter is to inform you that these matters are under investigation by the FAA. 

You may discuss these matters with me or submit a written statement, or both, 

within 10 days of receiving this letter. Please contact me at (404) 305-6175 if you 

have questions about these matters. A written statement should include all 

pertinent facts and mitigating circumstances that you believe may have a bearing on 

these matters. Send your written statement to: 

Attention: Latonya Williams, AAM-862 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

CONCURRENCEa 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohol/ 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" 

Public avaitabilitv to be determined under 5 USC 552 

ROUTfNG SYMBOL 

AAM-862 

ROUTfNG SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIALS/SIG 

LWilliams 

DiSTi 

08/14/2009 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 
a Complete'ltems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete 

item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. 

• Print your name and address on ttis reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 

or on the front If space permits. 

1. Article Addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

n Agent 

D Addressee 

r by f Printed Namai.," -

D. la dellveiy address 

If YES, enter dell' 

V 

3. iSwvlceiype ^^ v 

(^.^eitlfled Mall D Express MV 

D Registered D Return Receipt for Merehandlsa , 

• Insured Mall D C.O.D, 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Eiftrs/=:B8> a Yes 

2. Article Number 

(nansfer from serv/ce label) 7DD7 14=1D DDD2 375H =iSSH 

PS Form 3811 , February 2004 Oomestlo Return Receipt 102595-02-M-164O i 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

First-Ciass Mall 

Postage & Fees Paid 

USPS 

Permit No. Q-10 

• Sender: Jease print your name, address, and 2IP+4 in this box 

A 

IJ") 

rrr.li 

federal Aviation Administration- ' 

Industry Drug & Alcqhol Programs — ' 

1701 Columbia Avenue " 

College Park, GA 30337 

ATTN.- AAM-862/Latonva Williams 

'"^'••''""•^^"•IMM.lni,(lmln,ii,iui|ln,M.lii,i,; l 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public avallablllf\/ to be determined under 5 USC 552