ECEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD. FACC , CFI-H .;-;•; 2 7 M i 

2816 0refieid Road '" ' " \ 

Allentown, PA. 18104 i^feARIN G V ^'-^ 

\-.r^^^ 

^lO 

KET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

,•"•-..' ' 

D 

u j 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M i R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Doclcet: 2010-1211 

CO 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

AND NOW, comes respondent. MICHAEL B. SELIG. MD, FACC, 

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (since terminated] whiom avers and files 

\he following Reply to complainant's comments in regards to the MOTION for 

Judgment to the COMPLAINT. 

1. On December 4, 2010, respondent faxed and mailed to Ms Ponto a 

Motion for Judgment to Quash. 

2. Complainants failed to reply or.to object to that correspondence 

within the 10 day deadline period. 

3. The sole position for the claimed violation for Mr Baker occording to 

Inspector Statemeni lOP 9 record, wos due to inability to find FAA opproved 

1 of 5 

SOO/LOO ® SWQ <• VVJ 2l7LS8G1?202 XVd Lt:3 L LL02/S2/L 0 
drug and alcohol testing program information for Flight Methods. Mr Balcer vs/as 

not employed by Flight Methods. Mr Bolcer at all times was employed and 

under an FAA approved drug and alcohol program through ERA Med and Air 

Methods Corporation rendering the complaint moot. 

4. Subsequently, complainants failed to respond to most all motions 

and correspondence within the rules of civil penalty and filing deadlines, and 

admitted to these breaches by Ms Dominik, when she called respondent for a 

continuance on Decembers. 2010. 

5. Complainants continued wi)h Ihe moving forget of their allegations 

and fundamenfal basis of their violation: 

a. from Mr Baker not being on a drug program 

b. to not being on MRH's own program 

c. to not having authorization to perform maintenance under Air 

Methods Service Station certificate, even though he is permitted to do 

maintenance under his own AP Certificate 

d. claiming that being on a pilots drug/alcohol program is somehow 

cJifferent from that of a mechanic, even though clearly are all safety sensitive 

functions6. Contrary to Judicial Estoppels, the claim of Mr Baker not being on 

MRH's own drug program, even though no FAA officials and MRH knev^ about 

such regulations, that were not clearly published, was already withdrawn on 

that basis in regard to the other mechanic/IA, but complainants are now trying 

2 of 5 

S00/200iS SWQ <- VVd StLSeetSOS XVJ L1?:9 L UOS/SS/I O 
to cobble color of law arguments to pull back in that any alleged violation in 

attempts to revalidate their violation and Impairing the dignify this court. 

7. Complainants confirmed and admitted in their document that they 

did not pursue fhe then unchallenged allegation of Mr Baker or the 

Mechanic/lA not being on MRH's own existing program, because of 

"evidentiary reosons" and further confirmed release of that violation on all 

accounts by Mr Williams letter of September 23, 2010. 

8. Complainants are not entitled to continue their fishing expedition, 

after the fundamental premise has been cited and has been found defective. 

9. It is respondent's averment that the persistence to pursue this 

complaint with so many defects shows the complainants in true light as 

malfeasant, in abuse of discretion and process, in breach of duty and conduct. 

10. The complainants are aggressively pursuing allegations against an 

operator who: 

a. has not been in operation during most all the time of the alleged 

violation. 

b. made an informed decision and good judgment to terminate 

operations due to personal reasons relating to quality and safety of the 

operation and time constraints. 

b. against an operation thot has no financial assets or property. 

c. against an operator who operated in good faith. 

d. on basis of an alleged initial violation that has been shown to be 

3 of 5 

500/8000 SWO * VVd StLSSGtSOZ XVd 11?:9L LLOS/SS/LO 
defective. 

e. on the basis of a new position violation that complainants have 

already withdrawn. 

f. against an alleged violation that is time bared. 

g. ciling a violation that was not clearly disclosed, that no FAA officers 

knew about or were informed about for over 5 years, thus holding MRH to a 

higher standard than their own officers. 

h. once respondent was made aware of the change in venue of the 

regulation, he corrected the issue, even though not conducting business. 

12. The sanctions are thereby trivial. Inappropriate, frivolous, and in all 

aspects, points to issues that are or have been moot. 

13. In all and best efforts for judicial economy, the case Iherefore 

should be dismissed to allow the administrations seasoned efforts be properly 

directed to other areas or high volume, large operation violation cases most 

pertinent to the public safety of our country. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays to this Honorable Court that the proposed 

violation (hereby time barred), consisting of o judgment against MRH, (which 

currently does not exist) and a fine of $5400 (fifty four hundred dollars) (all 

accounts have been closed) be immediately DISMISSED. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

soo/tooia swo * 

4 of 5 

y,Vj SULSSGtSOZ XVd L1?:9l U02/S2/ 1 
Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. \-^ ^ ' ' 

• ^ ^ 

y...^U 

Date \ > 

5 of 5 

SOO/SOO E SWQ * VVd StLSeet^O S XVd L1?:9L LL02/S3/10