Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ! 'r ^S'v^nJJ^^^^ "* 

2816 0refieldRoad ^ - ^ -iib 

Allentown, PA. 18104 --• rr- ^ - o 9. -^c 

^^^*SU^ 

HtN o\t4G^ 

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 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO 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 Reply to Complainants Response to the Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss based on Judicial Estoppels and Legal Inconsistency 

1. The complainants have 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. 
2. 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. 

3. This release pertained as well to claims that the Mechanic/IA was not 

on a drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH. 

4. Ms Williams was conveniently available to inspect the primary place 

of employment of the Mechanic/ lA, to easily affirm his credibility, credentials 

and that he was on a monitoring program. 

5. Ms Williams was unwilling to affirm that Mr Baker was on a monitoring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby. 

6. The sole and primary premise for this violation then shifted as 

documented in Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, to Ms Williams 

inability to validate any FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program 

information for Mr Baker. 

7. Ms Williams was given evidence that Mr Baker was on a program, but 

chose not to pursue primary source verification and/or confirmation of these facts 

pursuant to §13.224, before she rushed to judgment to affirm her violation was 

entered, only one day prior to the 2 year statute of limitations. 

8. In Ms Williams rush to judgment and push to get her proposed civil 

penalty entered just under the wire for the statute of limitations, she failed to see 

that the alleged violations cited by complainants were performed by Mr Baker, 

-2 
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: 

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 divorce, suicide 

risk of a minor child, custody battle, time and responsibility restraints of his 

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

above regulation, stopped operations. 

7. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was continuously (without 

break) on a monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then 

again shifted the basis of the violation to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own 

companies monitoring program, despite already releasing the other 

Mechanic/IA for the same count of those regulations that were not evident, 

disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, Mr Vincent Roots, 

MRHs FAA operations and maintenance inspectors or the Allentown FSDO 

manager. 

8. in addition, there were several factors concerning the ambiguity 
regarding 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 unclear and disputed 

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 fhe interpretation of tlie 

language of regulations, where doubt exists as to ttie 

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". 

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 

-4 
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 a goliath 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. 

13. It would appear inappropriate, trivial and frivolous for action to be taken 

against a small single pilot operation who had done no harm, was an innocent 

bystander, that has been operating in the red for years, had closed all financial 

accounts and has no assets. 

14. 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. 

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

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

18. It appears that precious scarce judicial resources ore being squandered 

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

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit that locks proper initiative, perspective or good 

judgment. 

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

legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense, since no harm 
occurred 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 

cose should be dismissed. 

20. It would appear complainants are causing more harm and risk by 

taking the respondent concentration away from his cardiology services he renders 

to the community. 

21. Complainants state that the agency only ia proceded with one 

violation even though there were 2, due to evidentiary reasons. It now appears 

that there are evidentiary reasons why the remaining allegation is also insufficient. 

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 

Date