02/14/2011 10;09 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS glOOI/OI I 

@)00OV0011 

Michael Selig, MD. FACC. CFI-H 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Alleniown. PA. 18104 

"'•PARTMENTOF 

• ••;V''!GPORT/\T!ON 

VT'jQPERMiONS 

- "rn il l A :0:0S 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Oominik, Laura Ponto, 

Lafonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE 

•INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR BAKER 

ESTOPPEL aV INCONSISTENT POSITIONS 

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 Rule to Show Cause why complainants 

aver the reason for insufficient evidence does not apply to Mr Baker. 

1. The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior 

lA/Mechanic on all counts, found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol 

program by Ms William's letter of September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in 
^ QMS 121002/011 

02/14/2011 10:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA giOOO'^/OOl 1 

her revised letter of Januory 21, 2011, (apparently signed in Ms William's, 

absence by someone else -signature unidentifiable). 

2. This release also included as well claims that the Mechanic/IA was 

not on a drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH or prior to 

MRH using him to perform his services. 

3. Ms Williams was unwilling to visit Mr Bakers place of employment (as 

she did with the other mechonic) or affirm that Mr Baker was on a monitoring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby. 

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

documented in Ms Wiliiams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record; to Ms Williams 

inability to validate any FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program 

information for Mr Baker. 

5. Ms Williams was given evidence that Mr Baker was on a program prior 

and during, but chose not to pursue primary source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §13.224, before she rushed to judgment io 

finalize her violation so that i1 could be entered just under the deadline, by the skin 

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

6. 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 also failed to 

identify that the alleged violations cited by complainants were performed by Mr 

Baker, after MRH terminated operations and was no longer performing flights for 

human factor reasons affecting the single pilot operator in good faith and in 

- 2 -
r-** -s- DMS g|003/01 1 

02/14/201 1 10:09FA X 2024935142 FAA ^0003/001 1 

/ ^ t lu/iv t I I .CfCiftM r^ A 

compliance with: 

119.69 Management Personnel Required fur Operations 

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

Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure the safety 

of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC mu.si have qualified 

personnel serving in tlie tbilowing or equivalent positions: 

(1) Director of Operations. (2) Chief l»ilot. (3) Director 

ofMaintcna.nce. 

Respondent was the Director of Operations, Chief (only) 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 

obove 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 shitted 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 exact 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. Ms Williams again shifted and re-crafted her nnovlng target alleged 

violation with legal inconsistency and breach of judicial estoppels by stating 

that MRH did not determine that Mr Baker was on an FAA drug and alcohol 
+ QMS il004/011 

02/14/2011 10:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^0004/0011 

program prior to using his services, which was after MRH had already shut down 

operations. This was another incorrect statement, since Mr Baker was always on 

a monitoring program before respondent used his services. 

9. The same exact same case scenario pertains to the Mechanic/IA 

whom Mr Williams released on all counts due to "Insufficient evidence". 

10. The same exacf "Insufficient evidence" also follows suit as it applies 

to Mr Balcer as he also was on o program prior to performing services for MRH. 

11. In pleading received February 11, 2011, complainants avers to 

prosecutoriol discretion in regard to the other mechanic. 

12. However, this line of logic affects the same sei of conditions 

differently and therefore legally inconsistent and with inconsistent positions. 

13, Estoppel by Inconsistent Positions or Judicial 

Estoppel: is a common-law rule that a party will not be 

allowed to maintain Inconsistent positions in Judicial 

actions and proceedings, it applies not only in the 

course of the same proceeding, but also in 

supplemental proceedings and separate actions. The 

doctrine seelcs to preserve the sanctity of the oath by 

demanding truth ond consistency in sworn positions. 

Second, the doctrine seelcs to preserve judicial integrity 

by avoiding the risl< of inconsistent results. The results 

and application In this case would thereby be 

inconsistent. 

14, The respondent already has shown how the complainants are willing 

to continue to shift their claims at will, responding to new discovery In order to 

keep the complainf afloat This is another reason why the pleadings hove 

become voluminous, the governmental cost to litigate now exceeds the tine 
•> QMS BlOOS/OII 

02/14/201 1 10:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA glOOOS/OCII 

I . ij J n It r n /s 

amount, not by the fault of the respondent but by the choice and judgmeni of 

the complainants. 

15. Since the complainants continue to shift there positions, irripairing 

the dignity of the court, the respondent has asked the court for a protective 

order to narrow, finally freeze and stop the changing claims. At the state and 

federal levels this conduct Is prohibited and the cause of action are locked in at 

the onset. 

16. It appears that precious scarce judicial resources and governmental 

funds continue to be completely disregarded, abused and squandered on a case 

that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, inconsistent, procedurally defective, 

while representing an aggressive prosecutorial pursuit and overreaching that lacks 

proper initiative, perspective or good judgment. 

20. It now appears that there are evidentiary reasons why the remaining 

allegation is also insufficient. 

WHEI^EFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant: 

1. Have complainonts to describe in detail how the same logic and case 

scenarios for the 2 mechanics is not identical and on Ihe grounds of Judicial 

Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency how the same insufficient evidence does apply 

exactly to Mr Baker. 

2. Freezing the moving target of changing claims, causes of action and 

allegotion violations, as is not permissible under common rules of civil 

5-
02/14/2011 10:08 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS iOOG/OII 

..., ,...,„ r.^ ^0006/0011 

procedures at the state or federal levels and in efforts for judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

Michael B. Sellg, MD, FACC, CFl-H 

Date 

6-
02/14/2011 10:09 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0007/01 1 

[gooor/ooii 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Admlnistrotlon 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponlo, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION TO DEriNE AND ENTER 4 TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

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 Motion to Define and Enter irito the Record -Truths 

of Admissions by the Complainants. 

1. On January 24. 2011, respondent faxed to complainanis 5 different 

Motions for Definite Statements. 

2. On February 7, 2011. respondent received by signature confirmed 

Certified Mail, a lote enclosure making mention to the 5 Motions. 

3. The complainants have consistently failed to address with any 

-1 
r d d ^ DMS 21008/01 1 

02/14/201 1 10:1 0 FAX 2024835142 FAA ^0008/001 1 

I I . -J J rt ni r H A 

specificity any of the enumerated allegations in the pleadings, 

4. Respondents addressed statement requests collaboratively as a 

whole, claiming that "respondent has failed to set forth, in detail, any allegations 

of any particular pleading that are indefinite or uncertain"^. No further 

statement or comment was made on the subject matter of 4 of the motions. 

5. Complainants only responded in any monner to the statement of 

evidential insufficiency addressed separately. 

6. By not addressing or specifically responding to the other 4 motions for 

definite statement, it can now be entered into the record as fact the following; 

A. THE FAA IS TRYING TO HOLD THE RESPONDENT TO A 

HIGHER STANDARD THAN ITS OWN FAA OFFICERS, THEIR 

OWN OFFICERS NOT KNOWING OR INFORMING THE 

RESPONDENT ABOUT THE NEW REGULATIONS SET FORTH 

IN FEBRUARY 2004 AND THEREBY WARRANTS THE 

DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT. 

B. THE FAA IS PURSUING A VIOLATION DURING A TIME 

THAT WHEN RESPONDENT WAS NOT OPERATIONAL, 

DOING FLIGHTS AND SHUT DOWN CAUTIOUSLY AND IN 

GOOD JUDGMENT UNDER 119.69 DUE TO HUMAN 

FACTORS BEYOND HIS CONTROL, THEREBY THE 

COMPLAINT IS MOOT, REPRESENTS PROSECUTORIAL 

OVERREACHING AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

C. THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ACTION WAS 

DEFECTIVE, WAS CHANGED AND HAS BEEN A MOVING 

TARGET ONCE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY HAS BEEN 

REALIZED, THEREBY THE COMPLAINT IS RENDERED 

DEFECTIVE AND REPRESENTS PROSECUTORIAL 

OVERREACHING AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

D. THE COMPUINANTS HAVE FILED LATE RESPONSES 

' This is not a typographical error on die ruspondeiws pan. The phrase does not proceed with any funher detail as lo tlic 

subject tnsiter of the 4 molions. 
BEYOND THE 10 DAY DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS, 

FAILED TO RESPOND TO MS DOMINIK ADMISSION TO 

LATE FILING WHEN SHE CONTACTED RESPONDENT 

DIRECTLY ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE THEREBY 

ACTING WITH MISCHIEF, LACKING CANDOR, NOT 

ACTING IN EQUITY AND THEREBY GROUNDS TO BE 

DISMISSED. 

7. Respondent alleges that complainants have responded only to 

what is convenient for them to onswer, and have not responded and evaded 

the many items that may show the complainants in true their true light or show 

malfeasance. 

8. It appears that precious scarce judicial resources and governmental 

funds continue to be completely disregarded, abused and squandered by the 

complainants on a case that appears outrageous, frivolous, trivial, withoul merit, 

inconsistent, procedurally defective, while representing an aggressive 

prosecutorial pursuit and overreaching thot lacks proper initiative, perspective or 

good judgment. 

9. The Pleadings have become voluminous; the governmental cost to 

litigate now exceeds the fine amount, not by the fault of the respondent but by 

the choice and judgment of the complainants, by ignoring, evading and 

circumventing the issues presented before them. 

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

following statements as admissions of truth and herealter fact in the defense of 

- 3 -
02/14/2011 10:10 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DM S 21010/011 

©OOIO/OOII 

this case to dismiss. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Sellg, MD. FACC , CFlDate 

.f^' 
02/14/2011 10:10 FAX 2024935142 

02/13/2011 7:5BAM FAX 

FAA •> DMS 13011/011 

000 1 i/oon 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

CynThia Dominik, Loura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams, Peter Lynch 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTif ICATE OF SERVICE 

HEREBY CERTIFY thot I have this day served the foregoing enTfie(s]: 

MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSf 

•'INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR &AICER 

ESTOPPEL BY INCONSISTENT POSITIONS 

MOTION TO DEFINE AND ENTER 4 TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule ?9 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 174,4 . 

Service bv tirst-<:loss mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviotion Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atl: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Of lice of the Chier Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 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 2D590 

FAX 202 346 7536 

By: i.^ ^ 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2016 Orefleld Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

(JIO 360 3953 

Date: ^l'!>H(