;-T [ |.,^P^!TO F

^SPORTATiO^ ! •fOprRATiOl^ S

D •" ! L i P 

# R ^F!VE D

3 b U.S . DEPARTMEN

TO F TRANSPORTATIHEAKIN G 

### DOCKE T OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . MICHAE L SELIG , MD , FACC,CFI- H Plaintiff Vs . Laura Ponto , Latony a William s Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Defendant s Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Cas e Numbe r COMPLAIN TFO

R DAMAGE S AN D INJUNCTIV E AN D DECLARATOR Y RELIE F SUMMON S NOTIC ET O DEFEN D YOU HAV

EBEE NSUE D I

NCOURT . I FYO

U WIS H T O DEFEN D AGAINS T TH ECLAIM S SE T FORT H I NTH EFOLLOWIN GPAGES , YO U MUS T TAK

E ACTIONWITHI

NTWENTY (20 ) DAYS AFTERTHI S COMPLAIN T AN D NOTIC E ARESERVED , B Y ENTERIN GAWRITTE NAPPEARANC EPERSONALL Y O RB Y ATTORNEY AN

D FILIN GI

NWRITIN GWIT H TH ECOUR T YOU RDEFENSE S O ROBJECTION S T O TH ECLAIM S SE T FORT H AGAINS T YOU . YOU ARE WARNE D THAT I FYO

U FAI LT O D O S O TH ECAS EMA Y PROCEE D WITHOUT YO U AN D AJUDGMEN T MA

Y B EENTERE D AGAINS T YO U B Y TH ECOURT WITHOU T FURTHE RNOTIC EFO RAN Y MONE Y CLAIMED I

NTH ECOMPLAINT O RFO RAN

Y OTHE RCLAI

M O RRELIE FREQUESTE D B Y TH EPLAINTIFF . YO U MA Y LOS EMONE

Y O RPROPERT Y O ROTHE RRIGHT S IMPORTANT T O YOU . YO

U MA Y CHOOS ET O NOTIF

Y YOU RINSURANC ECARRIER , STAT E LICENSUR EBOARD CONCERNIN GTHI S PETITION . YOU SHOUL D TAK

ETHI S PAPE RT O YOURLAWYE RAT ONCE . I F YOU D O NOT HAV

EALAWYE

RO RCANNOT AFFOR D ONE , TELEPHON ETH E OFFIC ESE T FORT H BELOWT O FIND OUT WHER EYO U CA NGE T LEGA

L HELP .

Michae l B Selig , MD , FACC . 281 6 Orefiel dRoa d Allentown , P a1810 4 

# RECEIVE D MA R I h m 

## HEARIN G DOCKE TMichae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H

281 6 Orefiel d Roa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4 

# RECEIVE D MA R 

### 1 h 2 m 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . MICHAE L SELIG , MD , FACC . Plaintif f Vs . Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Defendant s Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket : 2010-121 1 COMPLAIN TFO R DAMAGE S AN D INJUNCTIV E AN D DECLARATORY RELIE F SUMMON S

COUNTE R COMPLAIN T AN D NO WCOMES , Plaintiff , MICHAE L B Selig , a t al l time s relevant , d.b.a . M & R Helicopters , LLC , (cease d operation s Jun e 2007)t o alleg e agains t th e Defendants , an d eac h o fthem , a s follovvs : INTRODUCTOR

YALLEGATION S 1 . This actio n i s brough t unde rth e jurisdictio n agains t defendant s fo r damage s a s wel l a s declarator yan d injunctiv e relie ffo rTortiou s Interferenc e b y Intentio n Misrepresentatio n , Intentiona l Inflictio n o fEmotiona l Distres s an d Hardship s b yattemptin g t o harm , derai l an d shuttin g dow n o fplaintiff s helicopte r business , attemptin g t o extor t monie s from , inflic t unsubstantiate d economi c

- 1 -sanction s t o hi s Helicopte rbusiness , impedin g hi s pla n t o migrat e int o tha t business

ful l tim e an d makin g fals e statement s abou t th e natur e o ftha t business . MR H a t n o tim e harme d o reve rpu t th e publi ca t ris k o fharm .

JURISDICTIO N AN D VENU E 2 . Thi s Court' s jurisdictio n i

s invoke d pursuan t t o 2 8 U.S.C . § 1332 , thi s bein g a n actio n arisin g betwee n partie s domicile d i n th e Count yo fLehig h wit h th e amoun t i n controvers yi n exces s o f$50,000 . 3 . This Court' s jurisdictio n is als o invoke d unde r2 8 U.S.C . § § 220 1 an d 2202 , thi s bein g a cas e o factua l controvers ywher e th e relie fsough t b yplaintiff , amon g othe rthings , include s a declaratio n o fth e parties ' respectiv e right s an d obligations . 4 . Venu e i

s prope ri n th e Count yo fLehig h pursuan t t o 2 8 U.S.C . § 139 1 (a)(2) , i n tha t th e subjec t matte ro fthi s actio n aros e i n thi s county , becaus e th e event s an d omission s o n whic h th e subjec t clai m i s base d occurre d i n thi s count yan d al l defendant s ar e subjec t t o persona l jurisdictio n i n thi s county , becaus e o fthei ractivitie s i n thi s county . PARTIE S5 . Plaintif fMICHAE L B SELIG , MD , FACC , CFI- H i s an d a t al l time s herei n relevan t wa s a competen t adul t individual , a Unite d State s Citize n domicile d i n an d doin g business i n th e Stat e o fPennsylvania , undergoin g business change s an d restructurin g hi s business fo rwhic h ther e ha s bee n n o financia l asset s unde r th e nam e M & R Helicopter s (MRH) . 6 . Defendants , actin g as representative s o fth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n include d Latony a Williams , Laur a Pont o an d a t al l time s herei n relevan t wer e spearheadin g non-meritoriou s litigatio n agains t M & R Helicopters . 7 . Plaintif

fdoe s no t presentl ykno wth e tru e name s an d capacitie s o fth e othe rDo e defendants , bu t wil l amen d thi s complain t a s soo n as the ybecom e ascertained . FIRS TCLAI M FO

R RELIEF TORTIOU S INTERFERENC

E B YINTENTIONA

L MISREPRESENTATIO

N 8 . Plaintif

fhereb yreallege s an d incorporate s b yreferenc e eac h an d everyallegatio n set fort h i n prio rpleading s b yplaintif fconcernin g th e initia l complainant , a

s thoug h full yset fort h herein . 9 . I n M s William s inspectio n o fth e MR H record s i n th e Allentow n offic e location , M s William s violate d man ycod e o fethics , morals , conduc t an d AV R protocol s actin g wit h disrespec t b ycomin g int o plaintiff s cardiolog yoffic esuspendin g hi m fo rhours , makin g unreasonabl e requests , callin g th e hi m b yhi s

first nam e whil e wal k

i n patient s an d secretar ywer e present . 10 . Th e primarypremis e tha t M rBake rwa s no t o n a drug/alcoho l abatemen t progra m fo rth e allege d violatio n wa s flawed , sinc e M rBake rwa s alway s o n a monitorin g progra m befor e an d durin g providin g services . 11 . I n M s William s rus h t o ge t th e violatio n entere d i n jus t unde rth e 2 yea rstatu e o flimitations , sh e di d no t confir m M rBaker s monitorin g status . 12 . Th e defendant s alleg e tha t th e violatio n wa s entere d i n on e da y befor e th e statut e o flimitation s whe n i t wa s formall yserve d afte rth e 2 yea r period . 13 . Th e violatio n wa s issue d t o a n operato rwh o wa s temporaril yshu t dow n an d no t performin g operation s du e t o huma n factor s an d othe rfactor s as t o no t compromis e th e safet yo fth e publi cunde r119.69 . 14 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d changed , tha t neithe rthei row n dru g abatemen t office rwh o performe d a n eariie rinspectio n wa s no t informe d of , no ral l th e Allentow n FA Aofficer s an d FSD O wer e no t informe d about . 15 . Th e defendant s thereb ydeceptivel ybeliev e i t i s appropriat e t o hol d th e plaintif ft o a highe rstandar d tha n thei row n FA Aofficers' . 16 . Th e plaintif funderwen t frequen t FA Ainspections , sinc e hi s aircraf t an d operation s wer e acros s th e stree t fro m th e Allentow n FSD O an d alway s foun d i n al l term s t o b e compliant , therei n n o reaso n t o believ e otherwise . 4 -17 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d unclea r

interpretation , 18 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d n o notificatio n proces s i n plac e contrar yt o wha t followe d sui t t o th e complianc e statemen t o roperationa l specifications . 19 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t wa s no t clearl ydelineate d i n th e complianc e statemen t an d referre d t o somewher e o n a remot e site , thereb yha d inadequat e an d conceale d disclosure . 20 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a change d regulatio n tha t wa s no t signe d of fi n sectio n A44 9 o fth e complianc e statement . 21 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d n o clea r method s o fcomplianc e o rnotificatio n proces s i n place . 22 . Th e defendant s issue d a violatio n t o a change d an d unknow n regulatio n i n a proces s tha t encourage d violatio n an d entrapmen t rathe rtha n compliance , forthrigh t disclosur e i n th e spiri t o fcooperatio n an d safety . 23 . Onc e i t wa s determine d tha t M rBake rwa s alway s o n a monitorin g progra m th e defendant s re-crafte d thei rfundamenta l premis e fo rth e violatio n t o M rBake rwa s no t o n a monitorin g progra m prio rt o hi m performin g hi s services . 24 . Contrar yt o Judicia l Estoppels , Lega l an d Positio n consistency , defendant s release d th e othe rmechani cdu e t o insufficien t evidenc e wh o wa s unde rth e sam e exac t cas e scenari o o falway s bein g o n a monitorin g progra mbefor e an d durin g service s rendere d b ythei rprimaryemployer . 25 . Throughou t thi s litigation , th e defendant s hav e refuse d t o addres s specifi cenumerate d paragraph s i n breac h o fFedera l Rul e 3 . 26 . Throughou t thi s litigation , defendant s hav e bee n impermissibl yshor t an d vague , di d no t plea d fact s wit h sufficien t specificit yan d i n accordanc e t o standar d practices . Th e purpos e o fthes e standar d practice s i s t o confin e th e pleadin g part yproo ft o onl ythos e act s alleged , thu s enablin g a respondin g part yt o prepar e thei rdefense ^ 27 . Whe n defendant s di d respond , the yfaile d t o plea d fact s wit h sufficien t specificity , bu t i n a collaborativ e conclusionar ymanner , usuall ywit h a on e wor d respons e "Deny" , on e line rstatemen t o rhav e completel yignored , evade d an d circumvente d specifi cpleadings , thereb yaddin g redundanc y an d repeate d approache s t o pleadings , addin g excessiv e cost s o flitigation . 28 . Defendant s hav e file d lat e response s t o motion s pas t th e 1 0 da y deadlin e perio d unde r§ Rul e 13.218(d) , fo rexample , usin g inaccurat e draf t dates , i n attempt s t o confus e an d impai rth e dignit yo fthi s court . 29 . M s Pont o faile d t o produc e th e requeste d evidenc e as t o whe n th e response s wer e actuall yreceive d i n he rrespons e t o matters . Date s wer e indicate d o n th e documen t itsel fas t o whe n i t wa s drafted , no t representin g a n actua l dat e o fservice . Ofte n thes e draf t date s wer e 5 day s late . 30 . M s Domini k

o fth e FA

Aenforcemen t divisio n o fth e chie fcounse l

'Bake r vRanges , 32 4 A.2 d 498 , 50 5 (P a Supe r Ct . 197 4 

### -6 -calle d plaintif fdirectl yt o hi s persona l cel l phon e admittin a tha t th e defendant s

ca n no t fil e response s withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e period , woul d b e i n breac h o f thi s regulatio n an d thereb yreaueste d a continuanc e directi vt o plaintiff . Th e cel l cal l lo g o fplaintiff' s telephon e shows havin g receive d M s Dominik' s numbe r 202-267-7560 . Defendant s completel yignore d thes e inquire s an d confirmation . 31 . Defendant s hav e refuse d t o addres s th e Ne wMatte rdote d January6 , 201 1 o rrespon d t o admissio n o ftrut h t o fact s state d a s requeste d i n th e Motio n fo rMor e Definit e Statement - Depositio n o fM s Donini k pertainin g t o tha t telephon e coll . 32 . Whe n defendant s change d th e fundamenta l premis e fo rth e allege d violatio n an d plaintif fmotione d th e cour t fo ra protectiv e order , complainan t insufficientl yresponde d onl ywit h a on e wor d "Deny" . 33 . Plaintif

fwa s refuse d th e reques t o fM s Ponto' s attorne ylicens e I D numbe rsinc e i t has neve rappeare d o n an ydocumen t sh e submitte d t o thi s court . This i s publi cinformation , t o no t displa yo rdisclos e thi s publi cinformatio n eve n whe n directl yrequeste d appear s suspect an d i s a breac h o fobligatio n an d commo n practices . 34 . I n respons e t o deposition s an d hearin g location s th e defendant s state d tha t i t woul d b e o n "tremendou s inconvenienc e an d expense " fo rM s William s t o com e t o Allentown , despit e Allentow n bein g th e ver yare a an d jurisdictio n tha t th e allege d claime d violatio n an d inspectio n occurre d an d M s William s cam e fro m Florid a t o hun t dow n an d impos e tha t violation . 7 -35 . I t woul d b e unconscionabl e t o pu t M s William' s desire s ahea d o f

interruptin g plaintiff' s cardiolog ypractice , hi s hospita l responsibilitie s an d hi s patients . ForM s Pont o t o eve n sugges t tha t a sol o practic e cardiologis t disrup t th e continuit yo fcor e t o his patients , reschedul e patients , compromis e th e car e o f hi s patient s o reve n inconvenienc e neutra l part yperson s fo ra remot e sit e hearing , whe n th e allege d violatio n originate d an d wa s propagate d b yM s William s i n th e Lehig h Valley , speak

s onl yt o a maliciou s attemp t t o discourag e furthe rdefens e an d inconvenienc e th e plaintif fan d hi s patients . 36 . Defendant s hav e provide d preliminar / discoverytha t wa s spoliate d an d dedocted , claimin g th e alterin g an d corruptio n o fth e dat a occurre d withi n allowe d parameters , bu t defendant s wer e unwillin g t o provid e thos e guideline s o r an yreferenc e therei n pertainin g t o an yth e exac t method s allowe d fo rth e spoliatio n an d dedactions . 37 . Defendant s hav e refuse d t o provid e requeste d proo fo fgovernmen t pai d signe d posta l authorization s fo rdote s document s wer e receive d b yplaintiff . 38 . Defendant s hav e pursue d an d sustaine d a civi l penalt yagains t o n entit ytha t ha d temporaril ybee n closed , ha d n o incom e fo ryears , shu t dow n an d ho d n o asset

s du e t o huma n factor s previousl ydescribed . 39 . Complainant' s holdfas t t o thei rposition s a t an ycos t t o th e governmen t an d taxpayers , disregardin g an d abusin g governmenta l spending , litigatio n cost s whic h searche s fo rbeyon d th e fin e allotment . An ysubsequen t appea l proces s

- 8wil l furthe routstretc h preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d litigatio n cost s t o th e

governmen t an d taxpayers. 40 . Defendants , M s William s an d M s Ponto' s act s ar e a disgrac e t o th e agency , vexatious , malicious , an d wanton , represent s willfu l misconduct , abus e o f process , discretion , fai rjudgmen t an d perspective , malfeasance , wit h inten t t o impos e unnecessar

yhar m t o plaintiff , plaintiff s business an d plaintiff' s patient s an d t o impai rth e dignit yo fth e cour t an d disrespec t it s authority . 41 . Du e t o th e defendant' s wanto n conduc t an d breache s punitiv e damage s ar e sought . 42 . Defendant s hov e bee n willin g t o pu t int o print , alte ran d change , whateve ri

s neede d i n thei rfishin g expeditio n t o kee p afloa t thei rmovin g targe t complain t a t an ycosts . 43 . Du e t o M s Ponto' s conduc t wit h he rinten t t o lac k cando rt o th e tribunal , he rattorne yI d numbe rneed s t o b e reveale d an d b e denie d an yunconditiona l shiel d o fimmunity . 44 . M s William s ha s als o abuse d he rdiscretion , abuse d he rauthority , an d abuse d governmenta l fundin g fo rimplementin g a complain t unde rfals e pretens e tha t i s frivolous , flawe d an d legall yinsufficient . 45 . Defendant s hav e mad e multipl e intentiona l an d willfu l act s t o disguis e th e trut h i n thi s cose , no t addres s th e issue s specificall yrequested , ha s no t exercise d ful l cando ri n hopefu l desperatio n t o tric k thi s court .

9 -A6 . B ydefendants ' failur e t o respon d specificall yt o pleadings , hov e indubiousl yan d injuriousl ypropagate d voluminou s filing s dissipatin g governmen t asset s an d recourse s fa rbeyon d th e penalt yfee , contrar yt o thei row n claim s fo r judicia l economy . 47 . Defendant s hov e squandere d an d abuse d scarc e judicia l recourse s t o pursu e a cas e a t an ycos t tha t appear s frivolou s an d no n meritorious . 48 . Defendant s hov e toke n actio n t o har m an d caus e financia l damage s t o a smal l compan yb ya n allege d violatio n tha t is no t meritorious . A s a direc t an d proximat e resul t o fth e Intentiona l conduc t o fdefendant s as allege d hereinabove , plaintif fha s suffere d genera l an d specia l pecuniar yan d non pecuniar ydamage s i n a n amoun t t o b e prove n a t trial . 49 . Defendants ' action s wer e undertake n intentionally , willfully , wantonly , maliciousl yan d i n reckles s disregar d fo rplaintiff' s rights an d as a direc t an d proximat e resul t thereo fplaintif fsuffere d economi cdamag e i n a tota l amoun t t o b e prove n a t trial , therefor e plaintiffseek s exemplaryan d punitiv e damage s i n a n amoun t sufficien t t o dete rsai d defendant s an d others fro m simila rfutur e wrongfu l conduct . 50 . Th e defendant s appea rt o demonstrat e Maliciou s an d Frivolou s Prosecution , Abus e o fproces s an d authorit yi n thei rrepresentatio n o fth e ogen y includin g intentiona l misrepresentation , careless , reckles s act s an d omission s b y

-10 -defendant s an d wher e th e direc t an d proximat e caus e o fdamage s t o b e

determine d a t trial . SECON D CLAI M FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTIO N O F EMOTIONA L DISTRES S AN D HARDSHIP

S 51 . Plaintif

fhereb yreallege s an d incorporate s b yreferenc e eac h an d everyallegatio n set fort h i n prio rpleading s fo rsanction s an d as thoug h full yset fort h herein . 52 . B yinitiatin g th e abov e actio n agains t th e plaintif fi n suc h a prolonge d manne ras t o abus e governmen t fundin g an d cour t resource s an d continu e thi s litigatio n throug h thei rcontinuou s ple a an d effort s t o injur e an d t o extort monie s fro m plaintiff , defendant s intentionall yinflicte d extrem e emotiona l distress upo n plaintiff . 53 . Defendant s conduc t wa s unreasonabl e an d outrageou s an d exceed s th e bound s usuall ytolerate d b ydecen t societ yan d wa s don e willfully , maliciousl yan d deliberatel ywit h th e intent t o caus e plaintif fsever e menta l an d emotiona l pain , distress , an d anguis h an d los s o fenjoymen t o flif e o rwa s don e wit h reckles s indifferenc e t o th e likelihoo d tha t suc h behavio rwoul d caus e suc h sever e emotiona l distress an d wit h utte rdisregar d fo rth e consequence s o fsuc h actions . 1 1 -54 . Defendant s i n additio n hov e suggeste d impedin g an d interruptin g hi s

practic e i n cardiolog yan d inconveniencin g hi s neutra l part ypatients , requirin g re schedulin g an d interruptio n o fth e continuit yo fcore , puttin g furthe ranguis h o n plaintiff . 55 . Th e behavio ran d conduc t o n th e por t o fdefendant s as describe d hereinabov e wa s s o extrem e an d outrageou s as t o b e capabl e o fcausin g plaintif fsever e emotiona l distress an d ha s i n fac t cause d plaintif fsever e menta l anguish , distress , depressio n an d humiliation . 56 . A s a direc t an d proximat e resul t o fth e conduc t o fdefendant s as allege d hereinabove , plaintif fha s suffere d non-pecuniar ydamage s i n o n amoun t t o b e prove n a t trial . 57 . Defendant s action s wer e undertake n willfully , wantonly , maliciousl yan d i n reckles s disregar d fo rplaintiff' s rights, an d as a direc t an d proximat e resul t thereo fplaintif fha s suffere d economi can d emotiona l damag e i n a tota l amoun t t o b e prove n a t trial , therefor e plaintif fseek s punitiv e damage s i n a n amoun t sufficien t t o dete rsai d defendant s an d others fro m simila rfutur e wrongfu l conduct . THIR D CLAI M FO

R RELIEF INJUNCTIV E AN D DECLARATOR YRELIEF

1 258 . Plaintif fhereb yreallege s an d incorporate s b yreferenc e eac h an d everyallegatio n set fort h i n th e prio rpleadings , as thoug h full yset fort h herein . 59 . A s a direc t an d proximat e resul t o fth e foregoin g conduc t b y defendants , plaintif fha s sustaine d an d wil l continu e t o sustai n irreparabl e financia l damage s t o hi s helicopte rbusiness an d t o affec t hi s cardiolog ypractic e an d has n o adequat e remed ya t lo wt o preven t repeate d unfounde d interferenc e wit h hi s businesses b ydefendant s an d i s therefor e entitle d t o o n injunctio n enjoinin g defendant s al l othe rperson s actin g by , through , o ri n concer t wit h defendants , fro m engagin g i n furthe ract s interferin g wit h hi s existin g busines s an d practice . 60 . Furthermore , a n actual , present, - an d substantia l controvers yexist s betwee n th e partie s an d a declaratio n as t o th e respectiv e rights an d dutie s o f th e parties , pursuan t t o 2 8 U.S.C . § § 220 1 an d 2202 , i s necessar

yan d appropriate . PRAYE R FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE , Plaintif

frequest s th e followin g relie fagains t defendants , an d eac h o fthem , as follows : 1 . Fo ro n awar d o fgeneral , special , consequentia l and/o r continuin g damage s fro m th e defendant s an d eac h o fthem , plu s prejudgmen t interes t thereon , accordin g t o proo fo rb yoperatio n o f law ;

1 32 . Fo ra n awar d o fexemplar yan d punitiv e damage s t o th e exten t allowe d b yla wan d i n o n amoun t accordin g t o proof ; 4 . Fo rpreliminaryan d permanen t injunctiv e an d declarator yrelief ; 5 . Fo rattorneys ' fee s an d cost s o fsui t herei n pursuan t t o statut e o r O S otherwis e ma yb e allowe d b ylow ; and , 6 . Fo rsuc h othe rrelie fas thi s Court ma ydee m just an d proper . 7 . An d T

o dismiss thi s cose .

Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B, Selig , MD , FACC . Dot e

-1 4U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laura Ponto , Latony a William s Complainant s A A& R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V , Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode i Docl(et : 2010-121 1 CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVICE I HEREB YCERTIF Ytha t I hav e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g entrie(s) : NOTIC E T

O DEFEN D COUNTE R COMPI^IN T 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 2 9 pursuan t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 174 6 . Servic e b yfirst-class mail , postag e prepaid , addresse d a s follows : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu rWrigh t Avenue-Suit e 2W1000 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 FA X 202 493 5142 

# .p j 

# m \ Laura Ponto , Esq . CeO\ \ Enforcemen t Division/AGC-30 0 R <? . ^ Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l FA A 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 FA X 20 2 267 5106 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Department o fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m El2-32 0 120 0 Uev j Jerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 FA X 20 2 366 753 6

MichaelB . Selig , MD , FAC C 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d Allentown , Pa . 1810

4 61 0 36 0 3953 Date :