o 

RECEIVED 

JAN t ^ 2011 

' lEARING DOCKET 

U.S. Department Q^^ ^ ^^ (j,g d^j^f counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED and FACSIMILE 

January 14,2011 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder •" 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 'i ; 

U.S. Department of Transportation rN..-. 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. ~ r^'i^^ip 

Washington, DC 20590 n t:^,^—i 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 . AJblO'^o^ ^ "^ S§ ^ 

Vr*^ un to 

Re: DOT Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1, FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 cr 

Dear Chief Judge Yoder, 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), requests a telephonic conference 

to address the outstanding motions and proposed procedural schedule In the Matter of 

M & R Helicopters. 

Respondent M & R Helicopters is owned and operated by Dr. Michael Selig, who is 

proceeding pro se in this matter. The FAA filed a complaint on November 17, 2010, 

alleging violations of FAA regulations by M & R Helicopters. The agency is seeking a 

civil penalty of $4,400 for these violations. 

Respondent has filed seventeen (17) motions and ten (10) other pleadings requesting 

relief from the Chief Administrative Law Judge since the complaint was filed. In almost 

all twenty-seven (27) pleadings. Respondent requests that the case against M & R 

Helicopters be dismissed. The motions are principally based on perceived procedural 

flaws, pvirported affirmative defenses, or attacks on FAA personnel. 

Respondent has filed numerous motions to dismiss this case based on claims that 

Complainant "missed deadlines" to respond to other motions filed by Respondent. 

Because a response to a motion is not even required under the rules, failure to file a 

timely response would not warrant the dismissal of an entire case.^ In any event, there is 

no truth to Respondent's claims that the agency "missed deadlines" for any filings in this 

case. Respondent's repetitious motions appear to be based entirely on his mistaken belief 

that the date of service is the date upon which he receives a document.^ 

' Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), Answers to Motions, "a party may file an answer... not later than 10 

days after service of a written motion on that party." 

^ Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211 (d), the date of service is the date a document is mailed. 
Respondent has also filed multiple motions to dismiss the case based on "the statute of 

limitations" though he does not cite any law to support this claim. Consistent with FAA 

regulations and published policy for legal enforcement actions, the civil penalty case 

against M & R Helicopters was initiated within two years of the violation. 

Respondent has filed several motions to compel, though the information he requests is 

publicly available, has already been provided, or does not exist. For example, 

• Respondent continually demands transcripts of an October 1, 2010 telephonic 

informal conference between himself and FAA attorneys that was never recorded 

or transcribed. At the outset of that telephone call. Dr. Selig specifically asked if 

it was being recorded; undersigned counsel unequivocally stated "no". No 

transcript exists. 

• Respondent claims that "Complainants failed to provide proof or "formal 

evidence of the dates of signed service" of pleadings. Certificates of service have 

been signed and attached to all pleadings. No further proof is required. 

• Although Complainant provided Respondent with all releasable portions of the 

Enforcement Investigatory Report (EIR), Respondent claims it was "altered, 

redacted, and spoliated" and demands a "full, unaltered copy." The portions of the 

EIR that were redacted, however, were appropriately withheld as privileged. 

They contain the investigator's analysis, recommendations, and opinions, and are 

privileged because they are deliberative, pre-decisional materials, rendered by 

agency staff members in the course of reaching a final determination or position 

on a particular matter under agency consideration. See, e.g., Jordan v. 

Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc). 

• Respondent claims that FAA regulations were "hidden, concealed, and 

encouraging violation" and continues to demand that Complainant produce the 

"hidden" regulations. All regulations are publicly available. 

Respondent is also making a wide range of arguments through "briefs" and motions that 

appear to be in the nature of affirmative defenses. Although Respondent may raise such 

arguments in answer to the complaint. Respondent will bear the burden of proving them 

at hearing. Respondent continually argues that the case should be dismissed, without any 

evidence or legal support for his contentions. 

Dr. Selig has become increasingly hostile toward FAA employees who participated in the 

routine inspection of M & R Helicopters and the ensuing legal enforcement case, filing 

dozens of motions in this forum that accuse FAA inspectors and legal counsel of 

misconduct. 

Dr. Selig also filed a complaint against FAA inspector Latonya Williams with the FAA 

Human Resource Management Office. Dr. Selig claimed that Ms. Williams failed to 
comply with "customer service expectations" and "abused her discretion and misused her 

authority" in the inspection that led to this case.^ Dr. Selig suggested that Ms. Williams 

"requires some form or retraining, rehabilitation, counseling or release." FAA 

Aeronautical Center Counsel Joseph R. Standell reviewed the matter and determined that 

no action was warranted. Respondent has, however, persisted in making allegations of 

misconduct against this inspector. He now claims that legal counsel has engaged in 

misconduct as well. Dr. Selig requested undersigned counsel's bar number and state of 

license to practice law. 

Respondent's motions in this civil penalty matter reflect this growing hostility; they 

contain an increasing number of personal attacks on FAA employees. For example, in 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Proposed Procedural Schedule, 

Respondent alleges that, 

Ms. Williams and Ms. Ponto are malfeasant, have abused their discretion, 

are in beach of duty and conduct to cause harm, are in abuse of process, 

having no legally cognizable cause of action, attempting to migrate and 

cobbling together colorable changing arguments to make their alleged 

violation appear warranted, while holding steadfast at all costs without 

humility, dignity, moral or ethical appropriate behaviors and in an 

unconscionable maimer. 

Respondent argues that the civil penalty case against M & R Helicopters should be 

dismissed because of these allegations. Dr. Selig seems convinced that undersigned 

counsel and Ms. Williams - who has had no role in this matter since preparing the EIR 

and may not even be a witness in this proceeding - are personally bringing the legal 

action against M & R Helicopters. He has even begun inappropriately captioning 

motions with "Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams, Complainants." 

Given the current status of the case and the plethora of pending motions, the parties 

would benefit fi-om a telephonic conference that will resolve pending matters and 

establish a procedural schedule. In response to the Chief Administrative Law Judge's 

Procedural Order, Complainant proposed a reasonable schedule for the completion of 

discovery and the filing of dispositive motions. Respondent did not file a response to the 

Judge's order. Instead, Respondent filed an objection to Complainant's response. 

Respondent did not propose an alternate procedural schedule. Rather, Respondent argued 

that the case should simply be dismissed on the grounds that. 

^ It appears that Dr. Selig intends to conduct a "pre-trial examination" (deposition) of Ms. Williams 

in an effort to prove these allegations. 

It should also be noted that, while Respondent has targeted Ms. Williams in his allegations, she 

was not the sole inspector in this case. A team of inspectors and other FAA Drug Abatement personnel 

were involved with this inspection and the resulting Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR). 
|| [i]n the steadfast, unyielding position of complainants to this violation, 

i.| precious scarce resources are being squandered on a case that appears, 

II fiivolous, v^thout merit, while representing aggressive prosecutorial 

overreaching.... 

i'l 

In the interest of conserving scarce judicial and government resources. Complainant 

respectfiilly requests the Chief Administrative Law Judge schedule a conference call with 

the parties to address and resolve these matters as the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

deems appropriate. 

Sincerely, 

ira Ponto 

Attorney, Enforcement Division 

Telephone: (202) 267-9863 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

cc: Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr. 

Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 
RECEIVED 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation .. . , «--. 

Federal Aviation Administration -^"^ ^ ^ ^*'" 

1 [EARING DOCKET 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION FOR TO DISMISS - TRUTHS OF ADMISSION 

Complainant files this Response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of Admission. The vast majority of the 

arguments raised by Respondent in this motion are repetitive and have already been 

responded to by Complainant. 

In arguing that Complainant "throughout this litigation filed late responses to 

motions" Respondent is simply making the same arguments previously made in three 

other motions: M& R Helicopters' Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to Properly 

Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss. 

Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines, and Respondent's Motion for Judgment to 

Dismiss 4. Complainant filed responses to these motions on December 20, 2010 and 

December 30, 2010 and respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

refer to those responses. 

In particular. Respondent repeatedly argues that the agency failed to file a timely 

response to two of Respondent's other motions: Respondent's Motion to Quash, Strike, 

or Dismiss Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") and Respondent's Motion to Strike 

Allegation ("Motion to Strike"). See, e.g. Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 

1 
- Truths of Admission at 3. Respondent states that the Motion to Dismiss was served on 

November 29, 2010, the Motion to Strike was served on November 30, 2010. The 

certificates of service for these documents, however, reflect that Respondent served the 

motions on November 30, 2010. Complainant filed a timely response to both motions on 

December 10, 2010. Respondent, however, argues that the "response was not received or 

served until December 13, 2010, past the due date under § Rule 13.218(d)." 

It appears that Respondent is of the mistaken belief that the date of service is the 

date a document is received by the other party. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211 (d), 

however, the date of service is the date a document is mailed, which is reflected on the 

certificate of service. It seems that Respondent's misunderstanding as to what constitutes 

the date of service forms the basis for its repeated motions that this case should be 

dismissed because the agency has failed to meet deadlines to respond to his motions. 

Respondent claims that "Complainants failed to provide proof of the dates of 

service. Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of Admission at 3. 

Certificates of service were attached to each of those documents and establish the dates of 

service. 

Respondent's arguments that the case should be dismissed based on "the statute of 

limitations" are equally misplaced. Respondent argues that "the complainants entered the 

complaint one day before the 2 year Statute of Limitations, however the respondent 

claims that complaint was not served until after the Statute of Limitations and thereby the 

complaint is time barred." Motion to Compel Discovery and New Matter - Failure to 

Provide Requested Referenced Evidence at 4. In Respondent's Motion for Judgment to 

Dismiss - Truths of Admissions, it states that "the complaint was served and received on 
July 27, 2010, 3 days past the statute of limitations." The Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty in this matter was issued on July 23, 2010, prior to the two-year limitation for the 

initiation of civil penalty actions. This action is not time barred and it was properly 

initiated in accordance with the procedural rules for FAA civil penalty actions. 

Respondent's allegations that Complainant is "not using actual dates of service in 

attempts to impair the dignity of this court" have no merit and appear to be based entirely 

on his misunderstanding of the rules. 

Respondent also argues that "complainants have not pleated [sic] facts with 

sufficient specificity." Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of 

Admissions at 3. Complainant has complied with the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions, which require that "a complaint shall set forth the facts alleged, any 

regulation allegedly violated by the respondent, and the proposed civil penalty in 

sufficient detail to provide notice of any factual or legal allegation and proposed civil 

penalty." 14 C.F.R § 13.208(c). The complaint and amended complaint in this case 

complies with the rules of procedure by setting forth the specific facts alleged, the FAA 

regulations violated, and the proposed civil penalty. Complainant has provided sufficient 

notice of the case. 

Respondent now argues that the case should be dismissed because "for 

complainants [sic] failing to plead to specific number allegations and thereby making 

admissions of truth." Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of 

Admissions at 1. This argument is baseless. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint 

set forth the facts alleged, the regulations allegedly violated by the respondent, and the 

proposed civil penalty in numbered paragraphs. 
Respondent seems to hold the mistaken belief, however, that Complainant must 

reply to all of Respondent's motions using numbered paragraphs. Respondent argues that 

it is entitled to a judgment in its favor in this case - and a dismissal of this entire case -

based on "complainants failing to plead to specific number allegations and thereby 

making admissions of truth." Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of 

Admission at 1. In support of this argument. Respondent cites to "§ 13.208(f). No such 

provision exists under the FAA's Procedural Rules. 

Complainant is not required to respond to each numbered paragraph of every 

motion filed by Respondent and does not, by default, admit the truth of paragraphs not 

directly responded to. While 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(d) provides that 

[a] person filing an answer shall admit, deny, or state that the person is without 

sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny, each numbered paragraph 

of the complaint. Any statement or allegation contained in the complaint that is 

not specifically denied in the answer may be deemed a failure to file an answer 

this provision applies only to the answer. It does not apply to motions or any other 

pleadings. Complainant has not, therefore, admitted to the truth of any allegations or 

arguments set forth in the motions filed by Respondent. To the contrary. Complainant has 

disputed Respondent's claims and filed responses to its arguments. 

It bears pointing out that that under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d) (answers to motions) 

"any party may file an answer" to a motion, but there is no requirement as to the form of 

that response and, in fact, there is no requirement that a response even be filed. 

Therefore, even if a party opted to not file a response to a motion, or filed a late response 

to a motion, that would not warrant the dismissal of the entire case. 

In claiming "Judicial Estoppels and legal inconsistency" in the present motion. 

Respondent merely raises the same argument made in its Motion for Judgment to Quash. 
The agency has already responded to this argument, in its response to that motion. There 

has been no inconsistency or inappropriate action in initiating the legal enforcement case 

based on Respondent's failure to conduct DOT-required drug testing of Mr. Baker. 

Respondent repeatedly raises Complainant's investigation of another mechanic 

performing safety-sensitive fimctions on Respondent's aircraft. See, e.g.. Motion for 

Judgment to Quash at page 4, Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of 

Admission at 2. There is absolutely no basis in fact for Respondent's claims that 

"complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior lA mechanic found to be on 

his full time employers Drug/Alcohol Program" and that "complainants should follow 

suit with legal consistency by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full time 

employers drug/alcohol program." Id. This assumes - without any basis in fact - that 

Complainant determined there was no violation with regard to this other employee 

because he "was found to be on his fiill time employers Drug/Alcohol Program." In 

reality. Complainant determined that an apparent violation existed with respect to this 

other mechanic. But Complainant decided as a matter of prosecutorial discretion not to 

pursue that apparent violation for evidentiary reasons. 

Complainant addressed this issue at length in its December 10, 2010 response to 

Respondent M&R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and 

Respondent's Motion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol 

Program. There, Complainant explained that 

Respondent, as an employer under the regulations, contracted with Mr. Baker to 

perform a safety-sensitive fianction. Evidence adduced at hearing will show that 

Respondent paid Mr. Baker directly for his services. Respondent could only use 

Mr. Baker to perform a safety-sensitive fianction if he was included in M & R's 

antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program or if Mr. Baker, as an 

independent contractor, had his ovm program. The complaint alleges that Mr. 
Baker was not included in M & R's program and that, even if he were treated as 

an independent contractor, he did not have and was not included in an FAA 

antidrug and alcohol testing program of his own at the time he performed safetysensitive fimctions for Respondent. ^ 

Even if Mr. Baker was covered by an other employer's drug testing program, in 

particular Air Methods, that does not satisfy the regulatory requirements placed 

on Respondent, because the work performed by Mr. Baker was not within the 

scope of his employment with those employers. The statement provided by Air 

Methods specifically states that Mr. Baker was "«o/^ authorized or contracted by 

Air Methods to do any outside maintenance for M & R Helicopters or any other 

operator." Respondent's Motion to Strike Allegation, Exhibit 2, Respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 4, Respondent's Brief in Support of Motion to 

Dismiss, Exhibit 3. (emphasis added). Therefore, it is immaterial whether Mr. 

Baker was included in Air Methods' drug and alcohol testing program. Because 

Mr. Baker performed safety-sensitive fimctions directly by contract for 

Respondent, Respondent was required under FAA regulations to ensure that Mr. 

Baker was covered under its drug and alcohol testing program or to ensure Mr. 

Baker was covered under his own program, not that of Air Methods or any other 

employer. That Mr. Baker was covered under Air Methods drug and alcohol 

testing program would not bring Respondent in compliance with the regulations, 

because the work performed by Mr. Baker for Respondent was not within the 

scope of his employment with Air Methods. 

As will be demonstrated at hearing, FAA inspectors conducted a thorough 

investigation and obtained evidence will prove the violations set forth in the complaint. 

Evidence that Mr. Baker was included on another company's drug testing program was 

obtained, but it does not excise Respondent's violations of FAA regulations. 

Complainant addressed Respondent's claims that he has been unable to operate in 

its December 10, 2010 response and respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge refer to that response in considering this argument. 

' While Respondent alleges that the FAA failed to conduct its inspection appropriately and failed to 

confirm and/or verify facts in its investigation, FAA inspectors appropriately considered and provided all 

evidence obtained m the course of their inspection. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of Admission. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: ^>%a^ci.<a-^ 

^adra Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: January 14,2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of Admission In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, Docket 

No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dated: January 14,2011 
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

I I 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

P^ECEIVED 

J^ti I li 2011 

^EARING DOCKET 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M«&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS -

JUDICIAL ESTOPPELS, LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Judicial Estoppels. Legal Inconsistency. The 

arguments raised by Respondent are repetitive and have been addressed in Complainant's 

Response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Truths 

of Admission, filed on January 14, 2011, and Complainant's Response to Respondent's 

Motion to Quash. Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and Respondent's Motion to Strike 

Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol Program, filed on 

December 10, 2010. Complainant respectfially requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge refer to those responses when considering this motion. 

Complainant does stress, however, that it has not "shifted the basis for the 

violation" in this matter as Respondent alleges. The complaint in this matter was 

amended on December 10, 2010, but only to reduce the civil penalty and remove two 

dates of aggravating performance. The regulations alleged to have been violated and the 

factual elements of that violation have never been modified or amended. 
Moreover, Respondent claims that Inspector Latonya Williams "confirmed that 

the information given was correct as stated and withdrew all violations" pertaining to 

another mechanic. He claims that with regard to Mr. Baker, she "was given this 

evidence, but selected not to pursue primary source verification and/or confirmation of 

these facts." There is no basis for this statement. Ms. Williams and the team of 

inspectors performed a thorough and comprehensive inspection. All facts and evidence 

were examined and it was determined that there were two apparent random drug testing 

violations, but the agency only proceeded with one. The other violation was not pursued 

in a legal enforcement action due to evidentiary reasons. The document Respondent 

relies upon is a September 23, 2010, letter from Ms. Williams, which is attached to his 

motion. It states only that "we have decided not to take legal enforcement action for 

these apparent violations." This clearly does not support Respondent's claims. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss - Judicial Estoppels, 

Legal Inconsistency. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

(HUAJCU y^l<pti> 

ura Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 
f 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified retum-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss - Judicial Estoppels. Legal Inconsistency In the Matter of M & R 

Helicopters, FAA Case no. 2009SQ950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

\Si£mjiAo^ (j(fVi ^ 

Dated: January 14,2011 
RECEIVED 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration *-

JAN 1 h 2011 

BEARING DOCKET 

) 

In the matter of ) 

) Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

) 

) 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NEW MATTER -

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REOUESTED REFERENCED EVIDENCE 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion to Compel Discovery and New Matter - Failure to Provide Requested Referenced 

Evidence. The vast majority of the arguments raised by Respondent are repetitive and 

have been raised in other motions. Indeed, Respondent seems to recognize the 

redundancy of his filings by designating the few arguments that are "new matters." 

Complainant addressed the repetitive arguments in Complainant's Response to 

Respondent's Motion to Quash. Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and Respondent's Motion 

to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Dmg/Alcohol Program, filed on 

December 10, 2010, and Complainant's Response to Motion for Deposition of Latonya 

Williams and Motion to Compel, also filed on December 10, 2010. 

Among the only "new matters" raised by Respondent, is that it "requests the 

formal evidence of the dates of signed service in regard to the 2 [sic] late responses". 

The certificates of service are attached to each of those documents and establish the dates 

of service. Respondent also demands "formal evidence of the dates of signed service in 

regard to the statute of limitations." While it is somewhat unclear what Respondent is 

1 
referring to, it appears that Respondent may be requesting evidence of the date the Notice 

of Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued in this case. The date of the Notice is the 

date upon which legal action was initiated. The date of issuance appears on the Notice 

itself; it was issued on July 23, 2010. 

Respondent also argues that "complainants failed to follow the standard practice 

pertaining to mles of evidence of attaching referenced documents." Motion to Compel 

Discovery and New Matter - Failure to Provide Requested Referenced Evidence at 3. 

There is, however, no such standard practice or mle. It is, in fact, standard practice to 

include citations to all cases, regulations, and statutes relied upon in legal pleadings. It is 

not, however, standard practice for a party to attach the full text of all cases, regulations, 

and statutes to every pleading filed. Indeed, Respondent has not attached copies of the 

mles and cases upon which it relies, and is not required to do so. It is entirely appropriate 

- and standard practice - for each party to bear responsibility for its ovm legal research 

and obtaining publicly available documents. 

The remaining arguments raised by Respondent are repetitive and have been 

addressed in Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Quash. Strike, or 

Dismiss Complaint and Respondent's Motion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not 

on a Dmg/Alcohol Program, filed on December 10, 2010, and Complainant's Response 

to Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams and Motion to Compel, also filed on 

December 10, 2010. Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge refer to those responses when considering this motion. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery and New Matter - Failure to 

Provide Requested Referenced Evidence. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

^LCCAiO^ ^^/^n>6^ 

ura Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: January 14, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified retum-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Compel Discovery and New Matter - Failure to Provide Requested Referenced Evidence 

In the Matter ofM& R Helicopters, FAA Case no. 2009SQ950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

IsilOHU^d^^vD^V \A^ 

Dated: January 14,2011 

\:.im 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Procedural Schedule. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: Ociyt^^iS^/^ytpISi 

jra Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone; (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

Date: January 14, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified retum-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Dismiss Complainant's Procedural Schedule. In the Matter of M&R Helicopters, FAA 

Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

yiU^JM^o^ jDaViA^ 

Dated: January 14, 2011 
.DECEIVED 

i Before the U.S. Department of Transportation .. 

Federal Aviation Administration JAM » ^ t ^ 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - ORDER AND SETTLEMENT 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion for More Definite Statement - Order and Settlement. Respondent has filed a 

motion for more definite statement, apparently claiming that Complainant's Response to 

Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing Procedures requires a more 

definite or certain response. Respondent fails to "set forth, in detail, the indefinite or 

uncertain allegations" as required under 14 C.F.R. § 218(f)(3). 

The arguments raised by Respondent are repetitive and have been addressed in 

Complainant's Response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' Motion for Judgment to 

Dismiss - Tmths of Admission, filed on January 14, 2011, and Complainzint's Response 

to Respondent's Motion to Quash. Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and Respondent's 

Motion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Dmg/Alcohol Program, filed on 

December 10, 2010. Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge refer to those responses when considering this motion. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for More Definite Statement - Order and 

Settlement. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

^^iCi/i^L- ^<^/jyn>(:z^ 

ura Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: January 14, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified retum-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

More Definite Statement - Order and Settlement. In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, 

FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. SeHg 

President 

M &R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dated: January 14, 2011 
RECEIVED 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation* ^" ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration JAN 1 ^ 23'• 

^ 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

M&R HELICOPTER'S MOTION TO HAVE THE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION OF 

LATONYA WILLIAMS AT GALLAHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, PA. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AT 

GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, PA, 

MOTION FOR HEARING IN ALLENTOWN, PA, and 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO HEARING LOCATION IN ALLENTOWN. PA. 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion to Have the Pre-Trial Deposition of Latonya Williams at Gallaher Reporting. 

Allentovm. PA: Respondent's Motion for Pre-trial Conference at Gallagher Reporting. 

Allentown. PA; Motion for Hearing in Allentown. PA: and Respondent's Reply to 

Hearing Location in Allentovyn. PA. 

These motions are repetitive. Cpmplainant has already responded to two prior 

motions regarding Respondent's request to depose Ms. Williams. Complainant's position 

remains unchanged. Complainant will make Ms. Williams available for deposition, 

however it does not agree to the Allentown location. As was already stated by 

Complainant in its December 29, 2010 response: 

In Respondent's motions, it claims that Ms. Williams "comes to Allentown 

regularly; therefore it would not be an inconvenience for her to come once again 

to the Allentown area." That is inaccurate. Ms. Williams is an FAA inspector 

who lives and works in Miami, FL. She does not regularly travel to the 

Allentown area. She has no future travel scheduled to Allentown and it would be 
a tremendous inconvenience and expense for Ms. Williams to travel to there fi"om 

Miami, FL for the sole purpose of Respondent's request to depose her. 

Respondent rejected Complainant's reasonable offer to make Ms. Williams 

available on several possible dates for the deposition in Washington, DC. 

Therefore, while Complainant will continue to make Ms. Williams available for 

deposition, it will do so in Miami, FL, where Ms. Williams is located. If 

Respondent chooses to proceed with a deposition of Ms. Williams, he should 

either: (1) notice the deposition in Miami, Florida, where Ms. Williams is located; 

(2) bear the costs for Ms. Williams to travel to Allentown, Pennsylvania; or (3) 

conduct the deposition by telephone or other remote means.' 

Respondent continues to claim this is unacceptable. It is, however, the Complainant's 

position on this matter and it is reasonable imder the circumstances. It is Respondent 

who intends to depose Ms. Williams. 

With regard to the hearing location. Complainant requested a hearing in 

Philadelphia, PA, or Washington, DC, in its November 17, 2010 letter transmitting the 

complaint and in a subsequent letter on December 30, 2010. Complainant explained the 

basis of its request at length in those letters. This position was reiterated in 

Complainant's response to Chief Administrative Law Judge Yoder's Order Establishing 

Procedures. Respondent did not file a response to that order by the deadline. Respondent 

did, however, object to Complainant's filing and filed two additional pleadings with 

regard to the hearing location. In its January 7, 2010, Motion for Hearing Location in 

Allentown. PA. Respondent claims that 

[o]n October 1, 2010, an [sic] the informal hearing was held with Ms [sic] Ponto 

at which time it was discussed a court location for a future hearing in Allentown, 

PA, at the US District Court. It was confirmed as an option and jointly agreed to. 

In a November 24, 2010, letter Dr. Selig refers to this same telephonic informal 

conference and claims that undersigned counsel "stated and confirmed that Allentown 

' As a general proposition, the party requesting a deposition bears the transcription costs and travel costs if 

the witness is being asked to travel more than 100 miles to attend the deposition. See Tilton v. Capital 

Cities/ABC, 115 F.3d 1471 (10* Cir. 1997). 
DOT court was available." Respondent's statements are entirely untme. Undersigned 

counsel made no representations about the available courtroom facilities in Allentown, 

PA and did not confirm or agree to that location for the hearing in this case. Undersigned 

counsel has never had any involvement in the acquisition of courtroom facilities for DOT 

cases, has no knowledge of what facilities would be available in any given location, and 

made no representations about any specific hearing location. Undersigned counsel 

simply explained that, if Respondent elected to request a hearing (one had not yet been 

requested at that point since the case was still in the informal stages), a mutually 

convenient location would be established for the hearing. Tme to that statement. 

Complainant has proposed Philadelphia, PA, for the hearing location or, in the 

altemative, Washington, DC. Both locations are convenient to Respondent. 

Philadelphia is only about one hour and fifteen minutes by car from Allentovm, 

PA, where Respondent is located. That is a reasonable distance for Respondent to 

travel for the hearing. If the hearing is scheduled in Washington, DC, that is 

approximately four hours by car from Respondent's place of business. 

Complainant's counsel is located in Washington, DC, and the majority of 

Complainant's witnesses are in Miami, FL. While Respondent has filed a motion 

urging the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct this hearing in Allentovm, 

PA, that would be a less convenient and more costly location than Philadelphia 

for the Complainant. 

In the interest of conserving government fimds and the mutual convenience of the 

parties, Complainant respectfiilly requests this hearing be held in Philadelphia, 

PA, or Washington, DC, if that location is not feasible. 

See Complainant's Response to Procedural Order. 

Interestingly, Respondent also seems to suggest that the parties discussed the 

deposition of Ms. Williams. In its Motion for Hearing in Allentown. PA. Respondent 

states that 

[wjhile there were many discussions conceming the Deposition of Latonya 

Williams, few details were discussed conceming the actual hearing location. 
In reality, the parties have had absolutely no "discussions" or conversations about the 

deposition of Ms. Williams or any other person. Such a discussion certainly would not 

have occurred during the October 1, 2010 informal conference because that was before 

Respondent even requested a hearing, much less expressed any intent to depose 

Ms. Williams. The first notice Complainant received of Respondent's intent to conduct 

this deposition was in Respondent's December 1, 2010 motion. Undersigned counsel has 

not had any conversations by telephone or any other form with Dr. Selig since 

October 1, 2010. The only "discussions" about Respondent's intent to depose Ms. 

Williams or the location of that deposition have occurred in pleadings, most of which 

center on the Respondent's persistent demand to depose Ms. Williams in Allentovm, PA. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motions, order that any deposition of Ms. Williams be 

held in Miami, FL, and schedule this case to be heard in Philadelphia, PA, or 

Washington, DC. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

<Z.t<.A£ij-yoy^C ^ 

ura Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: January 14, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified retum-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Motion to Have the PreTrial Deposition of Latonya Williams at Gallaher Reporting. Allentown. PA, 

Respondent's Motion for Pre-trial Conference at Gallagher Reporting. Allentovm. PA. 

Motion for Hearing in Allentown. PA. and Respondent's Reply to Hearing Location in 

Allentown. PA. In the Matter ofM <& R Helicopters, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA 

Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retum-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atto: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

VV-WAMAO^ iD(W fA^ 

Dated: January 14,2011