;-T[ |.,^P^!T OF 

^SPORTATiO^! 

•fOprRATiOl^S 

D •"! Li P 

R ^F!VED 

3b 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIHEAKING DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MICHAEL SELIG, MD, FACC,CFI-H 

Plaintiff 

Vs. 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Defendants 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Case Number 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY 

RELIEF 

SUMMONS 

NOTICE TO DEFEND 

YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST 

THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE 

ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE 

ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY 

ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES 

OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE 

WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT 

YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT 

WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT 

OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. 

YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO 

YOU. 

YOU MAY CHOOSE TO NOTIFY YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER, STATE 

LICENSURE BOARD CONCERNING THIS PETITION. 

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF 

YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, TELEPHONE THE 

OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL 

HELP. 

Michael B Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa 18104 

RECEIVED 

MAR I h m 

HEARING DOCKET 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

RECEIVED 

MAR 1 h 2 m 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MICHAEL SELIG, MD, FACC. 

Plaintiff 

Vs. 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Defendants 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY 

RELIEF 

SUMMONS 

COUNTER COMPLAINT 

AND NOW COMES, Plaintiff, MICHAEL B Selig, at all times relevant, d.b.a. M 

& R Helicopters, LLC, (ceased operations June 2007)to allege against the 

Defendants, and each of them, as follovvs: 

INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS 

1. This action is brought under the jurisdiction against defendants for 

damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief for Tortious Interference by 

Intention Misrepresentation , Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and 

Hardships by attempting to harm, derail and shutting down of plaintiffs helicopter 

business, attempting to extort monies from, inflict unsubstantiated economic 

-1 -
sanctions to his Helicopter business, impeding his plan to migrate into that business 

full time and making false statements about the nature of that business. MRH at 

no time harmed or ever put the public at risk of harm. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this 

being an action arising between parties domiciled in the County of Lehigh with 

the amount in controversy in excess of $50,000. 

3. This Court's jurisdiction is also invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 

2202, this being a case of actual controversy where the relief sought by plaintiff, 

among other things, includes a declaration of the parties' respective rights and 

obligations. 

4. Venue is proper in the County of Lehigh pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391 (a)(2), in that the subject matter of this action arose in this county, because 

the events and omissions on which the subject claim is based occurred in this 

county and all defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this county, 

because of their activities in this county. 

PARTIES 
5. Plaintiff MICHAEL B SELIG, MD, FACC, CFI-H is and at all times herein 

relevant was a competent adult individual, a United States Citizen domiciled in 

and doing business in the State of Pennsylvania, undergoing business changes 

and restructuring his business for which there has been no financial assets under 

the name M & R Helicopters (MRH). 

6. Defendants, acting as representatives of the Federal Aviation 

Administration included Latonya Williams, Laura Ponto and at all times herein 

relevant were spearheading non-meritorious litigation against M & R Helicopters. 

7. Plaintiff does not presently know the true names and capacities of the 

other Doe defendants, but will amend this complaint as soon as they become 

ascertained. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE BY INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 

8. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation set forth in prior pleadings by plaintiff concerning the initial 

complainant, as though fully set forth herein. 

9. In Ms Williams inspection of the MRH records in the Allentown office 

location, Ms Williams violated many code of ethics, morals, conduct and AVR 

protocols acting with disrespect by coming into plaintiffs cardiology office 
suspending him for hours, making unreasonable requests, calling the him by his 

first name while walk in patients and secretary were present. 

10. The primary premise that Mr Baker was not on a drug/alcohol 

abatement program for the alleged violation was flawed, since Mr Baker was 

always on a monitoring program before and during providing services. 

11. In Ms Williams rush to get the violation entered in just under the 2 

year statue of limitations, she did not confirm Mr Bakers monitoring status. 

12. The defendants allege that the violation was entered in one day 

before the statute of limitations when it was formally served after the 2 year 

period. 

13. The violation was issued to an operator who was temporarily shut 

down and not performing operations due to human factors and other factors as 

to not compromise the safety of the public under 119.69. 

14. The defendants issued a violation to a regulation that had 

changed, that neither their own drug abatement officer who performed an 

eariier inspection was not informed of, nor all the Allentown FAA officers and 

FSDO were not informed about. 

15. The defendants thereby deceptively believe it is appropriate to 

hold the plaintiff to a higher standard than their own FAA officers'. 

16. The plaintiff underwent frequent FAA inspections, since his aircraft 

and operations were across the street from the Allentown FSDO and always 

found in all terms to be compliant, therein no reason to believe otherwise. 

4-
17. The defendants issued a violation to a regulation that had unclear 

interpretation, 

18. The defendants issued a violation to a regulation that had no 

notification process in place contrary to what followed suit to the compliance 

statement or operational specifications. 

19. The defendants issued a violation to a regulation that was not 

clearly delineated in the compliance statement and referred to somewhere on 

a remote site, thereby had inadequate and concealed disclosure. 

20. The defendants issued a violation to a changed regulation that was 

not signed off in section A449 of the compliance statement. 

21. The defendants issued a violation to a regulation that had no clear 

methods of compliance or notification process in place. 

22. The defendants issued a violation to a changed and unknown 

regulation in a process that encouraged violation and entrapment rather than 

compliance, forthright disclosure in the spirit of cooperation and safety. 

23. Once it was determined that Mr Baker was always on a monitoring 

program the defendants re-crafted their fundamental premise for the violation 

to Mr Baker was not on a monitoring program prior to him performing his 

services. 

24. Contrary to Judicial Estoppels, Legal and Position consistency, 

defendants released the other mechanic due to insufficient evidence who was 

under the same exact case scenario of always being on a monitoring program 
before and during services rendered by their primary employer. 

25. Throughout this litigation, the defendants have refused to address 

specific enumerated paragraphs in breach of Federal Rule 3. 

26. Throughout this litigation, defendants have been impermissibly short 

and vague, did not plead facts with sufficient specificity and in accordance to 

standard practices. The purpose of these standard practices is to confine the 

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

party to prepare their defense^ 

27. When defendants did respond, they failed to plead facts with 

sufficient specificity, but in a collaborative conclusionary manner, usually with a 

one word response "Deny", one liner statement or have completely ignored, 

evaded and circumvented specific pleadings, thereby adding redundancy 

and repeated approaches to pleadings, adding excessive costs of litigation. 

28. Defendants have filed late responses to motions past the 10 day 

deadline period under § Rule 13.218(d), for example, using inaccurate draft 

dates, in attempts to confuse and impair the dignity of this court. 

29. Ms Ponto failed to produce the requested evidence as to when the 

responses were actually received in her response to matters. Dates were 

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

actual date of service. Often these draft dates were 5 days late. 

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

'Baker v Ranges, 324 A.2d 498, 505 (Pa Super Ct. 1974 

-6-
called plaintiff directly to his personal cell phone admittina that the defendants 

can not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, would be in breach of 

this regulation and thereby reauested a continuance directiv to plaintiff. The 

cell call log of plaintiff's telephone shows having received Ms Dominik's number 

202-267-7560. Defendants completely ignored these inquires and confirmation. 

31. Defendants have refused to address the New Matter doted 

January 6, 2011 or respond to admission of truth to facts stated as requested in 

the Motion for More Definite Statement- Deposition of Ms Doninik pertaining to 

that telephone coll. 

32. When defendants changed the fundamental premise for the 

alleged violation and plaintiff motioned the court for a protective order, 

complainant insufficiently responded only with a one word "Deny". 

33. Plaintiff was refused the request of Ms Ponto's attorney license ID 

number since it has never appeared on any document she submitted to this court. 

This is public information, to not display or disclose this public information even 

when directly requested appears suspect and is a breach of obligation and 

common practices. 

34. In response to depositions and hearing locations the defendants stated 

that it would be on "tremendous inconvenience and expense" for Ms Williams to 

come to Allentown, despite Allentown being the very area and jurisdiction that 

the alleged claimed violation and inspection occurred and Ms Williams came 

from Florida to hunt down and impose that violation. 

7-
35. It would be unconscionable to put Ms William's desires ahead of 

interrupting plaintiff's cardiology practice, his hospital responsibilities and his 

patients. For Ms Ponto to even suggest that a solo practice cardiologist disrupt 

the continuity of core to his patients, reschedule patients, compromise the care of 

his patients or even inconvenience neutral party persons for a remote site hearing, 

when the alleged violation originated and was propagated by Ms Williams in the 

Lehigh Valley, speaks only to a malicious attempt to discourage further defense 

and inconvenience the plaintiff and his patients. 

36. Defendants have provided preliminar/ discovery that was spoliated 

and dedocted, claiming the altering and corruption of the data occurred within 

allowed parameters, but defendants were unwilling to provide those guidelines or 

any reference therein pertaining to any the exact methods allowed for the 

spoliation and dedactions. 

37. Defendants have refused to provide requested proof of government 

paid signed postal authorizations for dotes documents were received by plaintiff. 

38. Defendants have pursued and sustained a civil penalty against on 

entity that had temporarily been closed, had no income for years, shut down and 

hod no assets due to human factors previously described. 

39. Complainant's holdfast to their positions at any cost to the government 

and taxpayers, disregarding and abusing governmental spending, litigation costs 

which searches for beyond the fine allotment. Any subsequent appeal process 

-8 
will further outstretch precious scarce judicial resources and litigation costs to the 

government and taxpayers. 

40. Defendants, Ms Williams and Ms Ponto's acts are a disgrace to the 

agency, vexatious, malicious, and wanton, represents willful misconduct, abuse of 

process, discretion, fair judgment and perspective, malfeasance, with intent to 

impose unnecessary harm to plaintiff, plaintiffs business and plaintiff's patients and 

to impair the dignity of the court and disrespect its authority. 

41. Due to the defendant's wanton conduct and breaches punitive 

damages are sought. 

42. Defendants hove been willing to put into print, alter and change, 

whatever is needed in their fishing expedition to keep afloat their moving target 

complaint at any costs. 

43. Due to Ms Ponto's conduct with her intent to lack candor to the tribunal, 

her attorney Id number needs to be revealed and be denied any unconditional 

shield of immunity. 

44. Ms Williams has also abused her discretion, abused her authority, and 

abused governmental funding for implementing a complaint under false pretense 

that is frivolous, flawed and legally insufficient. 

45. Defendants have made multiple intentional and willful acts to disguise 

the truth in this cose, not address the issues specifically requested, has not 

exercised full candor in hopeful desperation to trick this court. 

9-
A6. By defendants' failure to respond specifically to pleadings, hove 

indubiously and injuriously propagated voluminous filings dissipating government 

assets and recourses far beyond the penalty fee, contrary to their own claims for 

judicial economy. 

47. Defendants hove squandered and abused scarce judicial recourses to 

pursue a case at any cost that appears frivolous and non meritorious. 

48. Defendants hove token action to harm and cause financial 

damages to a small company by an alleged violation that is not meritorious. As a 

direct and proximate result of the Intentional conduct of defendants as alleged 

hereinabove, plaintiff has suffered general and special pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

49. Defendants' actions were undertaken intentionally, willfully, wantonly, 

maliciously and in reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights and as a direct and 

proximate result thereof plaintiff suffered economic damage in a total amount to 

be proven at trial, therefore plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages in an 

amount sufficient to deter said defendants and others from similar future wrongful 

conduct. 

50. The defendants appear to demonstrate Malicious and Frivolous 

Prosecution, Abuse of process and authority in their representation of the ogeny 

including intentional misrepresentation, careless, reckless acts and omissions by 

-10-
defendants and where the direct and proximate cause of damages to be 

determined at trial. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND HARDSHIPS 

51. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation set forth in prior pleadings for sanctions and as though fully set 

forth herein. 

52. By initiating the above action against the plaintiff in such a prolonged 

manner as to abuse government funding and court resources and continue this 

litigation through their continuous plea and efforts to injure and to extort monies 

from plaintiff, defendants intentionally inflicted extreme emotional distress upon 

plaintiff. 

53. Defendants conduct was unreasonable and outrageous and 

exceeds the bounds usually tolerated by decent society and was done willfully, 

maliciously and deliberately with the intent to cause plaintiff severe mental and 

emotional pain, distress, and anguish and loss of enjoyment of life or was done 

with reckless indifference to the likelihood that such behavior would cause such 

severe emotional distress and with utter disregard for the consequences of such 

actions. 

11 -
54. Defendants in addition hove suggested impeding and interrupting his 

practice in cardiology and inconveniencing his neutral party patients, requiring rescheduling and interruption of the continuity of core, putting further anguish on 

plaintiff. 

55. The behavior and conduct on the port of defendants as described 

hereinabove was so extreme and outrageous as to be capable of causing 

plaintiff severe emotional distress and has in fact caused plaintiff severe mental 

anguish, distress, depression and humiliation. 

56. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants as 

alleged hereinabove, plaintiff has suffered non-pecuniary damages in on amount 

to be proven at trial. 

57. Defendants actions were undertaken willfully, wantonly, maliciously and 

in reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights, and as a direct and proximate result 

thereof plaintiff has suffered economic and emotional damage in a total amount 

to be proven at trial, therefore plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount 

sufficient to deter said defendants and others from similar future wrongful conduct. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

12 
58. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation set forth in the prior pleadings, as though fully set forth herein. 

59. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct by 

defendants, plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain irreparable financial 

damages to his helicopter business and to affect his cardiology practice and has 

no adequate remedy at low to prevent repeated unfounded interference with his 

businesses by defendants and is therefore entitled to on injunction enjoining 

defendants all other persons acting by, through, or in concert with defendants, 

from engaging in further acts interfering with his existing business and practice. 

60. Furthermore, an actual, present,- and substantial controversy exists 

between the parties and a declaration as to the respective rights and duties of 

the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, is necessary and appropriate. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief against defendants, and 

each of them, as follows: 

1. For on award of general, special, consequential and/or 

continuing damages from the defendants and each of them, plus 

prejudgment interest thereon, according to proof or by operation of 

law; 

13 
2. For an award of exemplary and punitive damages to the extent 

allowed by law and in on amount according to proof; 

4. For preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief; 

5. For attorneys' fees and costs of suit herein pursuant to statute or 

OS otherwise may be allowed by low; and, 

6. For such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

7. And To dismiss this cose. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B, Selig, MD, FACC. 

Dote 

-14 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

AA & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V, 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yodei 

Docl(et: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

NOTICE TO DEFEND 

COUNTER COMPI^INT 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service by first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

.pj m\ Laura Ponto, Esq. CeO\\ 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 R <?. ^ 

Office of the Chief 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 Uevj Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

MichaelB. Selig, MD, FACC 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: