1 02/09/2011 09:59 FAX 2024935U2 

02/08/2011 5:53ftM FAX 

FAA + DM S g] 001/015 

00001/0015 

Michoel Selig. MD. FACC. 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA, 18104 

•RiRTMENT OF 

^^.NSPOHWION 

r c V-

- <•!. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominilc, Laura Ponto, 

Lotonyo Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS OPPOSITION FOR DEPOSITION OF 

CYNTHIA DQMINIK AND NEW MAHER 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the todowing Reply to Complainants Opposition to Depose Cynthia Dominik, 

Esq, under Rule §13.225 for pre trial examination at Gallagher Reporting, 

Allentown, PA 18101, 

1. Throughout this litigation, complainants have failed to plead and 

address specific enumerated allegations. The intent of these practices is to 

confine the pleading party proof to only those acts alleged, thereby enabling 

1 of 4 
02/09/2011 09:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 12002/015 

02/06/2011 5;53AM FAX 1110002/0015 

the responding party to prepare their defense'. By failure to address the specific 

pleading and thereby ignoring, evading and circumventing the respondents 

alleged allegations, complainants are indubitably and injuriously propagating, 

iterate and superfluous pleadings for a case that appeared void ab initio. 

2. Inaction to address a pleading, suggests an admission of the truth to 

that pleading under § 13.208(f). 

3. Throughout this legal action, it appears that complainants have not 

read the content matter of the pleadings by respondent, responding only to the 

caption subject title and thereby pleating facts with vague, condusionary, 

confusing in nature and with insufficient specificity therein breaching standard 

practices. 

4. On November 30, 2010. respondents Motion to Strike Alleaation was 

faxed and sent to Ms Ponto's deportment to which no objection or answer was 

received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.218(d). A late answer was 

also provided in the collaborative correspondence received on December 13, 

2010. 

7. Ms Ponto failed to present any requested evidence as to when the 

response was actually received in her response to this matter. A subjective date 

was indicated on the document itself as to when it was drafted, does not 

represent an actual date of service or signed authorization of receipt. 

8. Ms Dominik of the FAA enforcement division of the chief counsel 

'Baker v Ranges, 324 A.2d 498,505 (Pa Super Ct. 1W74 

2 Of 4 

l.i. 
02/09/201 1 09:5 8 FAX 2024835142 FAA * DMS 21003/01 5 

02/06/201 1 5;53AH FAX 1210003/0015 

colled respondent directly to his personal cell phone admitting that the 

complainants could not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, would 

be in breach of this regulation and thereby requested a continuance directly to 

respondent. Prior Exhibit showed call log of respondent's cell telephone 

showing Ms Dominik's number 202-267-7560. 

9. Respondent refused a continuance and requested the case be 

dismissed on these grounds, 

10. Ms Ponto's defense is that she never filed a formal continuance, 

knowing that respondent already denied her verbal request in the telephone 

inquiry by Ms Dominik. 

11. At no time did Ms Ponto address, respond or admit to this statement 

of fact with submitted proof, as has been her practice to ignore, evade and 

circumvent items not convenient to address or shed light in a manner that may 

reveal the true facts. 

12. Further pre-trial examination of Ms Dominik should be required, since 

she intervened in this matter, 

13. Respondent is a solo, private practice cardiologist and requires that 

the pre-trial deposition of Ms Dominik to be held at: 

Gallagher Reporting and video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

as to not affect his clinical responsibilities, pose inconvenience or delays to his 

neutral party patients, in serving the community or put him at undue risk for 

3 of 4 
02/09/2011 09:58 FAX 2024835142 FAA ^ DMS g|004/015 

00004/0015 

liability or malpractice. 

14. Complainonts prior submitted dates con be utilized for this 

deposition, 

NEW MATTER 

15. Alternatively, Ms Donlnik can submit a written statement or 

stipulation that: 

a. she Indeed called the respondent. 

b. she did state that the complainants would be unable to submit within 

the timeframe. 

c. she requested a continuance from the respondent. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Ms Dominik at the Allentown, PA location if she chooses to not 

submit a written statement of fact to the above call and discussion. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

4 of 4 
02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024835142 

M<i/Ub/^U I 1 0 :34AM FAX 

FAA * DMS 21005/015 

(210005/0015 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Avialion Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Motion for More Definite Statement concerning Deposition of 

Cynthia Dominik, Esq. under Rule §13.225 for a pre trial examination at Gallagher 

Reporting, Allentown, PA 18101. 

1. Throughout this litigation, complainants have failed to plead or 

address specific enumerated allegations. The purpose of these practices is to 

confine the pleading party proof to only those acts alleged, thus enabling a 

1 of3 
02/«9/20n ,.:00 F.X 2.2,335142 F.» ' 0«S ^.^3/^015 

responding party to prepare their defensei. By failure to address the specific 

pleadings and thereby ignoring, evading and circumventing respondent's 

specific allegations, complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated 

redundant and iterate pleadings for a case that appeared void ab initio. 

2. By failure to address o pleading, that then deems that allegation on 

admission of the truth to that pleading under § 13,208(f). 

3. Throughout this litigation, it appears that complainants do not even 

read the content matter of the pleodings by respondent, responding only to the 

caption subject title and thereby pleating facts with insufficient specificity and in 

breach to standard practices. 

4. In prior pleadings respondent suggested alternatively, that Ms 

Dominik can submit a written statement or stipulation in order to void the need 

for deposition of h/iS Donimik that: 

a. stie indeed called the respondent. 

b. she did state that the complainants would be unable to submit within 

the timeframe. 

c. a continuance was requested on the respondent. 

5. As usual there has been no response and therein was ignored, 

evaded and circumvented requiring complainants to directly respond, answer 

and file statements to these ollegatlons. 

'Baker v Ranges, 324 A,2d495,505 (Pa Super C(. 1974 

2 Of 3 
02/08/2011 10;00 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @1007/015 

y^/ue/ZUI I o-.OIAM HAK I2|0007/0015 

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

complainants to file direct definite statements to the above proposed 

statements of fact, 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

Date_ 

3 of 3 
02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @100S/015 

I30009/OO15 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

Mi>TION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Motion for a Protective Order to fix and freeze the 

complainants continual moving target of the premise and cause of action for 

this proposed civil penalty as it has become a moving target from the original 

claims set forth in Ms yvilliams lOP 9 record. 

1, The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior 

Mechanic/IA found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by 

Ms Williams letter of September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in revised letter of 

- 1 
r** + nM<? 01009/015 

02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA . ^ DMS ^^,,J,, , 

January 21, 2011. 

2. This release pertained as well to 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 affirm that Mr 6al<er was on a monitoring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby to visit as she did tor 

the other mechanic/(A, 

4. 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. 

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 to 

finalize her violation so that it would be entered just under th© deadline, 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 by the skin of the teeth and just under the wire for the statute of 

limitations, she failed to realize 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 compliance with: 
r** > QMS 01010/015 

02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^0010/0015 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Opcradons 

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

Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure the safety 

of jia operations, DR Helicopters, LLC musi have qualiticd 

personnel serving in the follovving or equivalent positions: 

(1) Director of Operations. (2) Chief Pilot. (3) Director 

ofMainlenance, 

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 

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 tt^en 

agoin shifted the bails 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 regulotions 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 artd re-crafted her moving target alleged 

violation in her letter of January 21, 201 Iwith legal inconsistency and breach 

judicial estoppels by stating thai MRH did not determine ttiat Mr Baker was on 

an FAA drug and alcohol program prior to using his services, which was after 

- 3 -
CA* + QMS 01011/01 5 

02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA -DM S Zc^^/ao^' ^ 

ui:/ub/i:on i:i<tAM FAX I2looii/ooi5 

MRH had already shut down operations, 

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

whom Ms Williams released on all counts due to insufTicient evidence. 

10. The same Insufficient evidence also follow^s suit as It applies to Mr 

Baker as he also was on a program prior to performing siervices for MRH. 

n . 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. 

12. 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 taw. 

In Administrative Law "In the interpretation of the 

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 o restriction". 

13. By way of Judicial Estoppels and to be legally consistent, 

complainants should follow/ suit by releosing Ed Baker who was also on his full 

4-
r . i * DMS 2)012/015 

02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 F^^ 00012/0015 

time employer's drug/alcohol program prior and during, just as the mechanic/I A 

was formally released from those violations, thereby voiding the legitimacy of 

the complaint, 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant 

freeze and fix the moving target of changing claims, causes of action and 

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

procedures. 

Respectfully Submitted, , \\r\ 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H \ v 

Date 0 ^ 

-5 
02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 

02/06/2011 5:54AM FAK 

FAA ^ DMS §1013/015 

10013/0015 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC , CFI-H 

28U Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA, 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket; 2010-12Tl 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

RECURRENT FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADLINES-4 MORE 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operotlonol since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Motion To Dismiss due to recurrent and repeated late filing 

and objective disclosure of filing within deadlines. 

1. It Is respondent's averment that there has been a plethora of 

procedural defects by complainants in this case but no judgment has been 

taken on any of the claims. 

2. There are now A additional Motions for Definite Statements faxed to 

1 -
02/09/2011 10:00 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS ^Jf.V'i'? 

02/06/2011 5:54AM FAX [^0014/0015 

complainants on January 24, 2011 that remain unanswered past the filing 

deadlines. 

3. The due date for response was February 3, 2011. 

3. These Motions for Definite Statements were required due to 

complainants failure to address in any manner, several items repeatedly 

directed to them, that they ignored, evaded or circumvented. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will dismiss this case 

as there is abundance to procedural defects to select from, validating 

dismissing this case, that has gone astray, in the spirit ot judicial economy and 

justice. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B, Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date ^ 

2-
02/09/2011 10:01 FAX 2024935142 

02/06/2011 5.55AM FAX 

FAA + DMS gl015/015 

120015/0015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT O f TRANSPORTATIO N 

FedftroTAvlallon Admlnlslrcitlon 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams, Peter Lynch 

Complainants 

M 8, R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yodei 

Docket : 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entriefs): 

MOTIO N FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CHANGIN G THE FUNDAMENTA I CAUSE OF ACTION 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

RECURRENT FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADLINES-4 MOR E 

MOTIO N FOR MOR E DEFINITE STATEMENT 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

ReSPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS OPPOSITION FOR DEPOSITION OF 

CYNTHIA DQMINIK AN D NEW MATTER 

upon oil parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service bv firsf-cioss mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur WrighT Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington. D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Lc3uro Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement DivlsiQn/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

aOO Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

Ihe Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Deportment of Transportotlon 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

Michael 8. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown. Po. 18104 

610 360 3953 ^j^ v 

Dote: '>-fe>'^ \