02/14/201 1 10;0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DMS glOOI/OI I @)00OV001 1

Michae l Selig , MD . FACC . CFI- H 281 6 0refieldRoa d Alleniown . PA . 18104 "'•PARTMENTO F •••;V''!GPORT/\T!O N VT'jQPERMiON S

- "r n il l A:0:0 S U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , DC . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Oominik , Laur a Ponto , Lafony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V . Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docket . No : 2010-121 1

MOTIO N FOR RUL

E T O SHO WCAUS E •INSUFFICIEN TEVIDENCE " ALS O FO R M R BAKE R ESTOPPE L a

V INCONSISTENTPOSITION S AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE L B . SELIG , MD , FACC , CFI-H , principl e fo rM & R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d files th e followin g Motio n fo rRul e t o Sho wCaus e wh ycomplainant s ave rth e reaso n fo rinsufficien t evidenc e doe s no t appl yt o M rBaker . 1 . Th e complainant s hav e admitte d t o formall yreleasin g th e prio r lA/Mechani co n al l counts , foun d t o b e o n hi s ful l tim e employer s Drug/Alcoho l progra m b yM s William' s lette ro fSeptembe r23 , 201 0 an d furthe rconfirme d i n^ QM S 121002/01 1 02/14/201 1 10:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA AgiOOO'^/OO l 1

he rrevise d lette ro fJanuor y21 , 2011 , (apparentl ysigne d i n M s William's , absenc e b ysomeon e els e -signatur e unidentifiable) . 2 . Thi s releas e als o include d a s wel l claim s tha t th e Mechanic/I Awa s no t o n a drug/alcoho l monitorin g progra m specificall yunde rMR H o rprio rt o MR H usin g hi m t o perfor m hi s services . 3 . M s William s wa s unwillin g t o visi t M rBakers plac e o femploymen t (a s sh e di d wit h th e othe rmechonic ) o raffir m tha t M rBake rwa s o n a monitorin g program , sinc e hi s plac e o femploymen t wa s no t nearby . 4 . Th e sol e an d primar ypremis e fo rthi s violatio n the n shifte d a s documente d i n M s Wiliiam s Inspecto rStatemen t lO P 9 record ; t o M s William s inabilit yt o validat e an yFA Aapprove d dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m informatio n fo rM rBaker . 5 . M s William s wa s give n evidenc e tha t M rBake rwa s o n a progra m prio r an d during , bu t chos e no t t o pursu e primar ysourc e verificatio n and/o r confirmatio n o fthes e fact s pursuan t t o §13.224 , befor e sh e rushe d t o judgmen t i o finaliz e he rviolatio n s o tha t i 1 coul d b e entere d jus t unde rth e deadline , b yth e ski n o fth e teeth , onl yon e da yprio rt o th e 2 yea rstatut e o flimitations . 6 . I n M s William s rus h t o judgmen t an d pus h t o ge t he rpropose d civi l penalt yentere d jus t unde rth e wir e fo rth e statut e o flimitations , sh e als o faile d t o identif ytha t th e allege d violation s cite d b ycomplainant s wer e performe d b yM r Baker , afte rMR H terminate d operation s an d wa s n o longe rperformin g flight s fo r huma n facto rreason s affectin g th e singl e pilo t operato ri n goo d fait h an d i n - 2 -r-* * -s - DMS g|003/01 1 02/14/201 1 10:09FA X 202493514 2 FAA^0003/001 1 / ^ t lu/iv t

II.CfCift M r^ A complianc e with :

119.6 9 Managemen t

Personne l Require dfur Operation s Conducte dunde r

Par t 13 5 of tlii s Chapter , (a) D R Helicopters , LL

C mus t hav e sufficien

t qualified management

andtechnica

l personnel to ensure th e safet y o f it s operations . DRHelicopters , LL C mu.s i hav e qualified personnel serving i

ntli e tbilowin g or

equivalent

positions : (1 ) Director

o f Operations . (2 ) Chief

l»ilot . (3 ) Director ofMaintcna.nce . Responden t wa s th e Directo ro fOperations , Chie f(only ) Pilo t an d th e Maintenanc e Schedule rdu e t o th e huma n factor s o fa litigiou s divorce , suicid e risk o fa mino rchild , custod ybattle , tim e an d responsibilit yrestraint s o fhi s cardiolog ypractice , responden t i n goo d judgmen t an d i n accordanc e t o th e obov e regulation , stoppe d operations , 7 . Onc e M s William s confirme d tha t MrBake rwa s continuousl y(withou t break ) o n a monitorin g progra m unde rhi s disclose d ful l tim e employer , sh e the n agai n shitte d th e basi s o fth e violatio n t o M rBake rno t bein g o n MRH s ow n companie s monitorin g program , despit e alread yreleasin g th e othe r Mechanic/I Afo rth e sam e exac t coun t o fthos e regulation s tha t wer e no t evident , disclosed , o reve n know n b ya prio rFA ADrug/Alcoho l auditor , M r Vincen t Roots , MRH s FAAoperation s an d maintenanc e inspector s o rth e Allentow n FSDO manager , 8 . M s William s agai n shifte d an d re-crafte d he rnnovln g targe t allege d violatio n wit h lega l inconsistenc yan d breac h o fjudicia l estoppel s b ystatin g tha t MR H di d no t determin e tha t M rBake rwa s o n a n FA Adru g an d alcoho l+ QM S il004/01 1 02/14/201 1 10:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^0004/001 1

progra m prio rt o usin g hi s services , whic h wa s afte rMR H ha d alread yshu t dow n operations . Thi s wa s anothe rincorrec t statement , sinc e M rBake rwa s alway s o n a monitorin g progra m befor e responden t use d hi s services . 9 . Th e sam e exac t sam e cas e scenari o pertain s t o th e Mechanic/I A who m MrWilliam s release d o n al l count s du e t o "Insufficien t evidence" . 10 . Th e sam e exac f"Insufficien t evidence " als o follow s sui t a s i t applie s t o MrBalce ra s h e als o wa s o n o progra m prio rt o performin g service s fo rMRH . 11 . I n pleadin g receive d Februar y11 , 2011 , complainant s aver s t o prosecutorio l discretio n i n regar d t o th e othe rmechanic . 12 . However , thi s lin e o flogi caffect s th e sam e se i o fcondition s differentl yan d therefor e legall yinconsisten t an d wit h inconsisten t positions .

13 , Estoppe l b yInconsisten t Position s o rJudicia l Estoppel : i s a common-la wrul e tha t a part ywil l no t b e allowe d t o maintai n Inconsisten t position s i n Judicia l action s an d proceedings , i t applie s no t onl yi n th e cours e o fth e sam e proceeding , bu t als o i n supplementa l proceeding s an d separat e actions . Th e doctrin e seelc s t o preserv e th e sanctit yo fth e oat h b y demandin g trut h on d consistenc yi n swor n positions . Second , th e doctrin e seelcs t o preserv e judicia l integrit y b yavoidin g th e risl < o finconsisten t results . Th e result s an d applicatio n I n thi s cas e woul d thereb yb e inconsistent . 14 , Th e responden t alread yha s show n ho wth e complainant s ar e willin g t o continu e t o shift thei rclaim s a t will , respondin g t o ne wdiscover yI n orde rt o kee p th e complain fafloa t Thi s is anothe rreaso n wh yth e pleading s hov e becom e voluminous , th e governmenta l cos t t o litigat e no wexceed s th e tin e• > QM S BlOOS/OI I 02/14/201 1 10:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAAglOOOS/OCI I I . i j J n I t rn /

s

amount , no t b yth e faul t o fth e responden t bu t b yth e choic e an d judgmen i o f th e complainants . 15 . Sinc e th e complainant s continu e t o shift ther e positions , irripairin g th e dignit yo fth e court , th e responden t ha s aske d th e cour t fo ra protectiv e orde rt o narrow , finall yfreez e an d sto p th e changin g claims . A t th e stat e an d federa l level s thi s conduc t Is prohibite d an d th e caus e o factio n ar e locke d i n a t th e onset . 16 . I t appear s tha t preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d governmenta l fund s continu e t o b e completel ydisregarded , abuse d an d squandere d o n a cas e tha t appear s frivolous , trivial , withou t merit , inconsistent , procedurall ydefective , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui t an d overreachin g tha t lack s prope rinitiative , perspectiv e o rgoo d judgment . 20 . I t no wappear s tha t ther e ar e evidentiar yreason s wh yth e remainin g allegatio n is als o insufficient . WHEI^EFORE , th e responden t pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l grant : 1 . Hav e complainont s t o describ e i n detai l ho wth e sam e logi can d cas e scenario s fo rth e 2 mechanic s is no t identica l an d o n Ih e ground s o fJudicia l Estoppels , Lega l Inconsistenc yho wth e sam e insufficien t evidenc e doe s appl y exactl yt o M rBaker . 2 . Freezin g th e movin g targe t o fchangin g claims , cause s o factio n an d allegotio n violations , a s is no t permissibl e unde rcommo n rule s o fcivi l 

### 5 -02/14/201 1 10:0 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S iOOG/OI I

... , ,..., „ r. ^ ^0006/001 1 procedure s a t th e stat e o rfedera l level s an d i n effort s fo rjudicia l economy . Respectfull ySubmitted . Michae l B . Sellg , MD , FACC , CFl- H Dat e

6 -02/14/201 1 10:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0007/01 1

[gooor/ooi i

Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H 281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Admlnistrotlo n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponlo , Latony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters . LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docket . No : 2010-121 1

MOTIO N TO DEriN E AN D ENTE R 4 TRUTH S O F ADMISSION S

AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE L B . SELIG , MD , FACC . CFl-H , principl e fo rM & R Helicopters , LLC . (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d file s th e followin g Motio n t o Defin e an d Ente ririt o th e Recor d -Truth s o fAdmission s b yth e Complainants . 1 . O n Januar y24 . 2011 , responden t faxe d t o complainani s 5 differen t Motion s fo rDefinit e Statements . 2 . O n Februar y7 , 2011 . responden t receive d b ysignatur e confirme d Certifie d Mail , a lot e enclosur e makin g mentio n t o th e 5 Motions . 3 . Th e complainant s hav e consistentl yfaile d t o addres s wit h an y

- 1r d d ^ DMS 21008/01 1 02/14/201 1 10:1 0 FAX 202483514 2 FAA^0008/001 1 I I . - J J rt n i rH A specificit yan yo fth e enumerate d allegation s i n th e pleadings , 4 . Respondent s addresse d statemen t request s collaborativel ya s a whole , claimin g tha t "responden t ha s faile d t o se t forth , i n detail , an yallegation s o fan yparticula rpleadin g tha t ar e indefinit e o runcertain"^ . N o furthe r statemen t o rcommen t wa s mad e o n th e subjec t matte ro f4 o fth e motions . 5 . Complainant s onl yresponde d i n an ymonne rt o th e statemen t o f evidentia l insufficienc yaddresse d separately . 6 . B yno t addressin g o rspecificall yrespondin g t o th e othe r4 motion s fo r definit e statement , i t ca n no wb e entere d int o th e recor d a s fac t th e following ;

A . TH E FA AI S TRYIN G T O HOL D TH E RESPONDEN TT O A HIGHE R STANDAR D THA N IT S OW N FA AOFFICERS , THEI R OW N OFFICER S NO TKNOWIN G O R INFORMIN G TH E RESPONDEN TABOU TTH E NE WREGULATION S SE TFORT H I N FEBRUAR

Y200 4 AN D THEREB YWARRANT S TH E DISMISSA L O F TH E COMPLAINT . B . TH E FA AI S PURSUIN G AVIOLATIO N DURIN G ATIM E THA TWHE N RESPONDEN TWA S NO TOPERATIONAL , DOIN G FLIGHTS AN D SHUTDOW N CAUTIOUSL YAN D I N GOO D JUDGMEN TUNDE R 119.6 9 DU E T O HUMA N FACTOR S BEYON D HI S CONTROL , THEREB YTH E COMPLAIN TI S MOOT , REPRESENT S PROSECUTORIA L OVERREACHIN G AN D SHOUL D B E DISMISSED . C . TH E FUNDAMENTA L CAUS E O F ACTIO N WA S DEFECTIVE , WA S CHANGE D AN D HA S BEE N AMOVIN G TARGE TONC E ADDITIONA L DISCOVER YHA S BEE N REALIZED , THEREB

YTH E COMPLAIN TI S RENDERE D DEFECTIV E AN D REPRESENT S PROSECUTORIA L OVERREACHIN G AN D SHOUL D B E DISMISSED . D . TH E COMPUINANT S HAV E FILE D LAT E RESPONSE S

' Thi s i s not

atypographical error

ondie ruspondeiw s pan . Th e phras e doe s not procee dwit

hany funher

detai l a s l o tli c subjec t tnsiter o f th e 4 molions .BEYON D TH E 1 0 DA YDEADLIN E FO R SUBMISSIONS , FAILE D T

O RESPON D T

O M S DOMINI KADMISSIO N T O LAT E FILIN G WHE N SH E CONTACTE D RESPONDENT DIRECTL YASKIN G FO R ACONTINUANC E THEREB Y ACTIN G WITH MISCHIEF , LACKIN G CANDOR , NO T ACTIN G I N EQUIT

YAN D THEREB

YGROUND S TO BE DISMISSED . 7 . Responden t allege s tha t complainant s hav e responde d onl yt o wha t i s convenien t fo rthe m t o onswer , an d hav e no t responde d an d evade d th e man yitem s tha t ma ysho wth e complainant s i n tru e thei rtru e ligh t o rsho w malfeasance . 8 . I t appear s tha t preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d governmenta l fund s continu e t o b e completel ydisregarded , abuse d an d squandere d b yth e complainant s o n a cas e tha t appear s outrageous , frivolous , trivial , withou l merit , inconsistent , procedurall ydefective , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui t an d overreachin g tho t lack s prope rinitiative , perspectiv e o r goo d judgment . 9 . Th e Pleading s hav e becom e voluminous ; th e governmenta l cos t t o litigat e no wexceed s th e fin e amount , no t b yth e faul t o fth e responden t bu t b y th e choic e an d judgmen t o fth e complainants , b yignoring , evadin g an d circumventin g th e issue s presente d befor e them . WHEREFORE , th e responden t pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l ente rth e followin g statement s a s admission s o ftrut h an d herealte rfac t i n th e defens e o f - 3 -02/14/201 1 10:1 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • >DM S 21010/01 1 ©OOIO/OOI I

thi s cas e t o dismiss . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Sellg , MD . FACC , CFl Dat e 

# .f^ '02/14/201 1 10:1 0 FA X 202493514 2

02/13/201 1 7:5BA M FA X FA A • > DM S 13011/01 1 000 1 i/oo n

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n CynThi a Dominik , Lour a Ponto , Latony a Williams , Pete rLync h Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket : 2010-121 1 CERTi fICAT E O F SERVIC E HEREB YCERTIF Ytho t I hav e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g enTfie(s] : MOTIO N FOR RUL

E T O SHO WCAUS f •'INSUFFICIENTEVIDENCE " ALS O FO R M R &AICE R ESTOPPE L B

YINCONSISTENTPOSITION S MOTIO N T

O DEFIN E AN D ENTE R 4 TRUTH S O F ADMISSION S upo n al l partie s o frecor d i n thi s proceeding , i n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o fRul e ? 9 pursuan t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 174,4 . Servic e b vtirst-<:loss mail , postag e prepaid , addresse d as follows : Federa l Aviotio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu rWrigh t Avenue-Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Atl : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 FA X 20 2 49 3 514 2 Laur a Ponto , Esq . Enforcemen t Division/AGC-30 0 O flic e o fth e Chie rCounse l FA A 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 FA X 20 2 26 7 510 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Departmen t o fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m El2-32 0 1200 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington . D C 2D59 0 FA X 20 2 34 6 753 6 

# i.^ ^ By : Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . 201 6 Oreflel d Roa d Allentown , Pa . 18104 (JI O 36 0 395 3 Date : 

## ^l'!>H (