06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX igoooi/oou 

"'•::T^r:^; T r^ r 

• tJ ; "i i i \l ii,-- i 

.•r.:nr\ikj.'i j 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H. 

Respondent 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS BRIEF 

AND NOW, comes Respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle for MR 

Helicopters, LLC, (shutdown since June 2007, a single pilot, owner, operated) 

who files response to the Complainants brief and in further support of the 

request for Citation Dismissal. 

1. MRH HAS NOT BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 2007 

RENDERING THE CITATION MOOT 

-1 
06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX 1210002/0014 

Complainants erred by making a point to state that MRH had an ACTIVE 

(emphasis added] certificate. How could the operation be active if it was unable 

to carry out operations because there was no qualified pilot? Respondent 

decided in good judgment for the best interests and safety of the public under 

part 119.69 to withdraw ail part 135 operations due to human factors beyond his 

control. 

Complainants tried to assert in reference In the Matter of David E. Everson 

d/b/a Nortti Valley Helicopters, inc.. FAA Order No. 2004-5 that not performing 

operations prior to commencing a drug/alcohol programs is different that not 

doing operations during a period of shutdown when the agency sought a 

violation and persisted at all costs to the taxpayer in that violation, in the Everson 

case a program was mandated to be started 60 days after approval of the 

program prior to commencing operations which apparently was not done. On 

inspection of his operations specifications no drug program was in place. The case 

was still dismissed. 

The commonality between the Everson case and MRHs case is that no 

operations were being done during the relevant period. Therefore, no presumed 

risk was presented to the public. The primary premise that initiated the violation 

was that Mr Baker was not on any program. MRH did have a drug program and 

Implemented that program for those not on an approved program and in 

accordance to the operation specification and maintenance inspector's 

knowledge, advice and in good faith. 

-2 
06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX 10003/0014 

Regulation 135.241 makes reference to Flight Crewmembers requirements 

pertaining to operations (emphasis added) under this part. Again MRH was not 

doing operations as agreed to by the agency. 

Regulation 135.255 (before it was removed along with 135.251) refers to 

the certificate holder "and" operator. The use of the conjunctive "and" indicates 

that the regulation only applies if a company is not just a certificate holder but 

also an operator, which is one performing operations or performing part 135 flights. 

In accordance with the Everson case - one may not be cited or liable for 

alleged operations violations occurring during a period in time when no 

operations actually occurred. Since MRH was not in operation, did not have a 

pilot and did not fly any part 135 flights during the relevant period of the violation, 

the citation must be dismissed. 

Furthermore, due to confirmed inconsistency, contradictions, confusion 

and complexity of these drug/alcohol regulations parts 135.251 and 135.255, with 

its reference to the appendices, they have been "Removed and Reserved 

effective July 13, 2009" by the FAA Rule makers, 

'FAA Is working on a major revision of its drug and 

olcotioi testing regulations. Given tlie complexity of ttiat 

revision and ttie time it will take to complete the 

rulemaking process, the FAA has concluded that In the 

interim it makes sense to pull the existing regulations 

together in one place'. 
i 06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX 10004/0014 

As is common law and in accordance with standard practices in 

Administrative Law 

"In the Interpretation of tt\e 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". 

Of additional note is that the Complainants have taken the egregious and 

wanton course of action to pursue a violation for a reaulation that was removed 

and rescinded in its entirety one year before the Complainants submitted their 

complaint /emphasis added) with lack of candor to the tribunal in that regard. 

These regulations remain a moving target, not properly disclosed, scattered 

at different locations, not clearly interpretable, can not be understood by .i 

reasonable persons and in this case were not even known by MRHs FAA 

inspectors, the local FSDO or by FAA official Vincent Roots during the prior 

drug/alcohol audit of MRH, and more recently identified problematic by the FAA 

Rule makers (emphasis added), who are rewriting the regulation, thereby holding 

MRH to o double standard and a higher standard than Its own FAA officials. 
06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX 10005/0014 

2. MR. BAKER IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN AN EMPLOYEE OF 

RESPONDENT- MOONLIGHTER. 

Connplainants cited in their brief that part 121, appendi x I allowed 

employers to use individuals to perform safety sensitive functions while 

being included in the drug program of another ennployer, change d "July 

13, 2009 whe n appendices I an d J were re-codified'*(emphasis added). 

The relative violation period therefore allowed use of individuals on a 

primary ennployers program (strict proof to the contrary required at trial). 

The primary premise for the violations of this case rests on the assumption 

that Mr. Baker A&P was not on a drug/alcohol testing program when performing 

safety sensitive functions on the MRH aircraft. Mr. Baker was and always has 

been a moonlighter, free lancer for the work he did on MRHs aircraft that 

occurred 1 day out of each 2 year period. Mr. Baker was not an employee of 

MRH. He did not work regularly for MRH, he did not receive regular paychecks, he 

was not provided health insurance, he was not under the control of MRH or how 

the work was to be done, rather worked independently on his own accord, not 

under the direct control of MRH as is the common law test. He was not subject to 

disciplinary action. He was not under any kind of contract. 

Mr. Baker was employed full-time by his primary employer, national 

company Air Methods who provided him a weekly paycheck and worked 40 

' Complainants Brief page 2^ 2 
06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX 110006/0014 

hours a week and received health care benefits. He was always on a random 

drug/alcohol testing program without interruption by that primary employer and 

never tested positive. 

All pertinent alleged violations, particuloriy part 121 appendices I and J 

pertain only to "employees" of a company, which Mr. Baker was not and does not 

include or mention provisions or exclusions for non-contract, free lance or 

moonlighters. As such, the citation issued must be rendered invalid and dismissed. 

3. REDACTION AND SPOLIATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT 

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT. 

On inspection of the EIR documents, there was further evidence of 

withheld information that was reguested and not disclosed earlier. 

Complainants did not describe in detail the methods used or specific regulations 

pertaining to specific reference sections that were corrupted. Complainants 

describe techniques in an evavsive, elusive, vague manner and in generalities. 

The Complainants failed to follow statute as described in § 552. Public 

information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings section 

(a) which states: 

(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, 

shall make available for public Inspection and 

copying— 

(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting 

opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of 

cases; 
06/03/2011 12:11PM FAX IgOOOT/OOl' 

(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which 

have been adopted by the agency and are not 

published in the Federal Register; 

(C) administrative staff manuals and Instructions to staff 

that affect a member of the public; 

(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, 

which have been released to any person under 

paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their 

subject matter, the agency determines have become 

or are likely to become the subject of subsequent 

requests for substantially the same records; and 

(E) a general index of the records referred to under 

subparagraph (D); 

The complainants remain non-compliant to the order of March 25, 2011 

and therefore should be held in contempt. 

4. FINANCIAL PENALTY NOT WARRANTED 

On April 30, 2011, Ms Ponto confirmed receipt of MRHs schedule C's 

2007-09, Schedules L,M,N as requested and as ordered by Judge Yoder. Mr 

Raley confirmed the financial losses and on May 10, 2011, proposed the one 

and only settlement offer by the agency that dismissed all financial penalties 

based on the validated financial losses. 

Habitually through this litigation. Complainants change their positions, 

have been legally inconsistent and willing to alter whatever needed for the 

tumbling needs of the moment. Mr Raley now changes his position^ claiming 

that the financials for MRH are limited which might demonstrate an inability to 

pay the proposed penalty but goes on to describe the Group IV sanctions 

^ Complainants Pre-Hcaring Brief page 17, ^ 2. 
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 1210008/0014 

amounts, that assumes the sanctioned company does not have losses. 

During the pre-hearing conference, Ms Ponto claimed she was not aware 

MRH was a Limited Liability Corporation despite the LLC was on almost all 

documents (approximately 60 + submitted documents) and had to be reminded 

by Judge Yoder that M&R is a Limited Liability Corporation wherein the owners of 

this LLC has the liability protection of a corporation. A principle cannot be held 

personally liable for a debt. Therefore, oil information cleariy documenting 

company losses has been provided. This information serves to further confirm the 

lack of operation, not having performed any flights and having no income during 

and after the alleged violation period. 

6. FAILURE TO SETTLE THE CASE 

On March 25, 2011 a telephone Pre-Hearing conference occurred 

before the Honorable Judge Yoder when most of the matters were discussed. 

Ms Ponto on unlicensed attorney and Ms Dominik, her supervisor was present, 

representing the FAA despite never entering their entry of appearance in this 

case. It became apparent that Ms Ponto did not read the docket information 

including the ongoing financial losses of MRH that were also sent directly to her 

by first class mail, by fox and to the docket, admitted to such and did not 

consider that MRH was not operational during the violation period as well as 

many other factors. The Honorable Judge Yoder affirmed that this case was 

"one of the least reasonable cases he had seen in his 35 years of being a judge" 

- 8 -
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 110003/0014 

and firmly advised settlement. 

Ms Ponto then recused herself from the cose and Charies Raley entered his 

appearance. On May 10, 2011, Mr Raley came forth as one in a tag team of 4 

agency attorneys, with the one and only settlement offer by the agency that 

dismissed all financial penalties based on the confirmed financial losses, if the 

respondent would agree to the flawed violation theory with its procedural morass 

be entered into the record. Therefore, all information cleariy documenting 

company losses has been provided. This information further serves to confirm the 

lack of operation and income during and after the alleged violation period. 

Ms Raley would not agree to completely dismiss the case in its entirety in good 

faith but willing to proceed to hearing despite the ongoing costs to the agency 

and taxpayers and squandering of judicial resources at time of unprecedented 

governmental deficits. 

Complainant's needless persistence and conduct in this matter has been 

unreasonable and outrageous and exceeds the bounds tolerated by decent 

society and has been done willfully, maliciously and deliberately with the intent to 

cause respondent financial damages, severe harassment, mental and emotional 

pain, distress, and anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. Complainants actions 

were done with reckless indifference to the likelihood that such behavior would 

cause such severe emotional distress, affect his practice and care of his cardiac 

patients, further putting those patients at risk and with utter disregard for the 

-9 
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 110010/0014 

consequences of such actions. Their action also delayed and tortiously interfered 

with his evolving into that business. 

This cose represents malicious, frivolous and indiscretory prosecution, 

procedural over reaching. The regulation format, changes, legal inconsistency 

and final dedaction 1 year before the complaint was filed, only encourages 

violation entrapment, confusion and non-compliance. It is antithesis to the policy 

of the FAA for full disclosure, teaching, information distribution, mutual and clear 

understanding and compliance In following evidence based concepts in the spirit 

of the public well being and safety. 

7. THE CITATION MUST BE DISMISSED BY VIRTUE OF THE 

STALE COMPLAINT RULE 

On July 28, 2010, Respondent was served with a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four Hundred Dollars) from Laura 

Ponto for a violation that first occurred on November 2, 2007; 8 months passed 

the 2 year-Stale Complaint Rule -Statue of Limitations. After Respondent 

brought up the topic of the statute of limitations, Complainant quickly changed 

the initial complaint violation using a starting date to the later July 24, 2008, so 

that the violation appeared to have been entered just one day before 

(emphasis added) the 2 year deadline. This does not change the fact that the 

initial dotes cited and therefore the starting date for the complaint on the 

violation was November 2, 2007, but the 2 eoriier dates hod to be dedacted, 

retrospectively in order for the complaint to come within the statute of limitations 

-10 -
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 110011/0014 

by one day. 

On October 25, 2010, the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty cited the 

November 2007 date (2 years, 8 months later) as the first alleged violation as did 

the subsequent complaint on November 19, 2010. 

On December 13, 2010, the complaint was then amended and served 

to respondent, this time changing the violation dotes so that they would appear 

to fall within the 2 year statute of limitations, using only the latest date of July 24, 

2008 and lowering the fine amount to $4400. 

Due to the constant re-crafting of the complaint to fit the tumbling 

needs of the moment, respondent filed a Motion for Protective Order (February 

6, 2011) requesting to stabilize the complaint or render it moot. This motion in 

addition was ignored and circumvented by Complainants yet another violation 

of § Rule 13.218(d). 

CONCLUSION 

For all of the foregoing reasons Respondent respectfully requests the 

citation be immediately DISMISSED. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFIDote 

c: 

Congressman Charies Dent 

Senator Pot Toomey 

5^ ' 

11 -
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 110012/0014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Charles Raley, Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Peter Lynch, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS BRIEF 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Sorvice bv first-class rnail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 \ndeipendence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

j^.'^AX 202 493 5142 

Charles Raley 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

.^,^AX202 267 5)06 

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 

I^^TAX 202 366 7536 

By:_ Mil 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: 

IOIU 4 
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 110013/0014 

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

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

June 3, 2011 

Senator Pat Toomey 

1150 S.Cedar Crest Blvd 

Suite 101 

Allentown, PA 18103 

Phone: (610) 434-1444 

Fax:(610)434-1844 

Case Docket Number: 2010-1211 www.regulations.gov 

Dear Mr Toomey: 

I live within your district and I am writing to you for your assistance and intervention. T 

have a part time operated and piloted pan 135 Helicopter Air Charter in addition to being 

a licensed cardiologist at Lehigh Valley Hospital Network for the last 23 years. 

1 am attaching a Brief and reply to Complainant's Brief that I filed into the docket that 

summarizes the details of the issues that 1 have encountered with the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 1 have represented myself pro-se and consider this case malicious 

prosecutorial profiling that is over reaching at the tax payers' expense. It is hard to 

imagine that the government would spend more than a fine for a non-meritorious and 

flawed case when Washington is facing an unprecedented deficit. 

As required by Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act, 1 hereby request and 

authorize for you to intercede on my behalf, including the right to review all appropriated 

documentation that you or your staff deems necessary in connection with the application 

for assistance or any otlier action 1 have pending with the FAA. 1 understand that any 

documents I provide to you or your staff may he copied and forwarded to officials of the 

FAA for review, I understand that all Federal agencies are allowed a minimum of 30 days 

to respond to congressional inquiries. 

Thank you. 

Yours 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H 
06/03/2011 12:12PM FAX 1)0014/0014 

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

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA, 18104 

June 3, 2011 

Office of Congressman Charlie Dent 

C/O Casework 

3900 Hamilton Boulevard 

Suite 207 

Allentown, PA, 18103 

Case Docket Number: 2010»12tl www.regulations.gov 

Dear Mr Dent; 

I live within your district and 1 am writing to you to for assistance. 1 have a part 

time operated and piloted FAA part 135 Helicopter Air Charter in addition to being a 

licensed cardiologist. In fact, we met at Lehigh Valley Hospital- Muhlenberg at a 

luncheon several years back. 

I am attacliing a Brief and reply to the Complainants Brief that I filed in federal 

court that summarizes the details of the issues that 1 have encountered with the Federal 

Aviation Administration attorneys. 1 have represented myself pro-se and consider this 

case malicious prosecutorial profiling that is over reaching at the tax payers' expense. It 

is hard to imagine that the government would spend more than a fine for a nonmeritorious and flawed case when Washington is facing an unprecedented deficit. 

As required by Public Law 93-579, the Privacy Act, I hereby request and 

authorivse Congressman Dent to intercede on my behalf, including the right to review all 

appropriated documentation that he or his staff deems necessary in connection with the 

application for as.sistance or any other action 1 have pending with the agency named 

below. 1 understand that any documents 1 provide to Congressman Dent or his staff may 

be copied and forwarded to officials of the agency listed below lor review. I understand 

that all Federal agencies arc allowed a minimum of 30 days to respond to congressional 

inquiries. 

Thank you. 

Yours Sincerely: 

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