Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H

281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4 

## 't H2 2 

## io n 

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

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , 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 T

O DEFIN E AN D ENTE R 4 TRUTH S O F ADMISSION 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 file s th e followin g Motio n t o Defin e an d Ente rint 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 complainant 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 Moil , a lat 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 1specificit 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 or 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 ymanne 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 FAAI S TRYIN G T O HOL D TH E RESPONDENTTO A HIGHE R STANDAR D THA N IT S OW N FAAOFFICERS , THEI R OW N OFFICER S NO

TKNOWIN G O R INFORMIN G TH E RESPONDENTABOU TTH E NE WREGULATION S SE TFORT H I N FEBRUAR

Y200 4 AN D THEREB YWARRANTS TH E DISMISSA L O F TH E COMPLAINT . B . TH E FAAI S PURSUIN G AVIOLATIO N DURIN G ATIM E THA TWHE N RESPONDENTWA S NOTOPERATIONAL , DOIN G FLIGHT

S AN D SHU

TDOW 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 HAS BEE N AMOVIN G TARGETONC E ADDITIONA L DISCOVERYHAS 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 COMPLAINANT S HAV E FILE D LAT E RESPONSE S

' Thi s i s no t

atypographical erro r

onth e respondent s part . Th e phras e doe s no t procee dwit

han y fiirthe r detai l a s to the subjec t matter o f the 4 motions .BEYON D TH E 1 0 DA YDEADLIN E FO R SUBMISSIONS , FAILE D TO 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 WIT H MISCHIEF , LACKIN G CANDOR , NOT ACTIN G I N EQUIT

YAN D THEREB

YGROUND S TO B

E DISMISSED . 

### 7 . Responden t allege s tha t complainant s hav e responde d onl yt o wha t is convenien t fo rthe m t o answer , 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 t merit , inconsistent , procedurall ydefective , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui t an d overreachin g tha t lacks 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 issues presente d befor e them . WHEREFORE , th e responden t pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Court wil l ente rth e followin g statement s as admission s o ftrut h an d hereafte rfac t i n th e defens e o f

### thi s cas e t o dismiss .

Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l 8 . Selig , MD , FACC , CF I Dat e 

# . i^ ^U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a Williams , Pete rLync h Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V . Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket : 2010-121 1 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E HEREB YCERTIF Ytha t I hav e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g entrie(s) : MOTIO N FO R RUL

E TO SHOWCAUS E "INSUFFICIEN TEVIDENCE " ALS O FO R M R BAKE R ESTOPPE LB

YINCONSISTEN TPOSITION S MOTIO N TO 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 2 9 pursuan t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 174 6 . Servic e b yfirst-clas s 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 2WI00 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 FA X 20 2 49 3 514 2 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 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 FA X 20 2 36 6 753 6 Laur a Ponto , Esq . Enforcemen t Division/AGC-30 0 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 26 7 510 6 By : Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d Allentown , Pa . 1810 4 61 0 36 0 395 3 Date : 

# U

7 ^-b-i i