02/03/2011 17:24 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0001/042 

50001/0042 

Michael Selig. MD. FACC , CFI-H 

2816 0refi©ld Road 

Allentown. PA. 18104 

' cPARTMENT OF 

:'IASPORTATION 

- > ! OPERATIONS 

••01! FES- u A 9:0 0 

U.S. DEPARTMFNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OP HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Adminisfrotlon 

Cynthia Dominik, Louro Panto, 

Latonyo Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Heticopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honoroble Judge Ronnie Yodot 

P«dorai Dockel. No: 2010-1?11 

RESPONPgNrS REPLY TO ^AOT^QN TO DISM(SS 

TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

AND NOW. comes respondent, MICHAEL B, SELIG. MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

principle tor M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH] (non-operational ,^ince 2007) vvhom 

avers and files the following Reply to Complainants Responsft to the Motion to 

Dismiss -Truths of Admi-LSion, 

1. Complainants allege that they hove responded to a vast majority of 

Respondents allegations, 

2. Respondent alleges that complainants have responded to what Is 

convenient for Ihem 1o annv^rer, but have not responded to many items that 

may show the complainants in bad light or show malfeasance. 

1 -
r*A + DMS 01002/042 

02/03/2011 n:2 4 FAX _2024935142 FAA ^^^^^^^^^^ 

3. Complainants claim they did not file a late response to Respondents 

Motion for -Judamenf to Dism'S'! -Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. This 

document was sent To complainonls on December 6, 2010, A combined 

response included with a rcspon.ie to Respondents Motion tor Judgment lo 

Dismiss 4. was received by certified mall on December 23, 2010,15 days late. 

5. Respondent aore«s complainant did file a response to Respondents 

Motion for Judament to Dismi.ss- Follure to properly respond or meet filing 

deadlines on the deadline dote of January 3, 2010. 

6. The Respondents Motion to Quash, Strike or Dismiss Comploint, with 

associated brief was faxed lo Ms Pantos department on November 29, 2010, 

sent by mail on November 30, 2010. The due date was December 9, 2010. An 

objection or response wos not received or servea until December 13, 2010, 

exceeding The time allolted under § Rule I3.2l8(d] (Exhibits previously 

presented in the Respondents Reply to Complainants Response to Judgment to 

Dismiss, Faxed 1-18-11). 

7. On November 30, 2010, respondents Motion to .Strike Allegation was 

faxed and sent to Ms Pontes department to which no objection or answer was 

received wiThin the 10 day deadline pursuant to § Rule 13.218(d). A late answer 

was olso provided in th^ collaborative correspondence received on December 

13,2010. 

6. MS Ponio failed to present any requested evidence cs to whan the 
^ nM^ 01003/042 

02/03/2011 I.V.^IFAX J024935142 FAA ^goOoS/ooas 

response was octually received in her response to this matter. The subiective 

draft date indicated on the document itself does not represent an actual date 

of service and a signed authorization of receipt. 

8. Ms Domin)l< from the FAA enforcement division of the chief counsel 

called respondent;personal cell ohone admitting thai the complainants could 

not file responses v>/ithin the 10 day deadline period, would be in breoch of Ihi.i 

regulntion, to wjt she requested respondent nrant comploinqnts a continuance. 

9. A review of the EIR also shows inconsistencies regording the dole on 

the documents, as well as the date of document was actually received. Exhibit 

one shows a letter draft date of August 14, 2009 and a Certified mail return 

receipt requested confirmation days S days loter. Notwithstanding, this warrants 

strict proof of the repeatedly requested signed certified return mail receipts 

validating both signature and actual served dates, instead of hearsay. 

10. Complainants referenced |i3.2n(d)-Date of Service. There are severol 

methods listed. By definition, since the complainant selected signatory delivery 

confirmation, by meons of signed return receipt, this represents the most 

accepted, reliable and most objective date of service. Complainants went to 

extra taxpayers expense at triple the cost to clearly validate and ensure the true 

delivery date, this supersedes other subjective methods That relies on hearsny. 

Based on the above discrepancies, the stated dates on the documents by the 

complainants cannot be trusted and the requested strict proof be provided, 
* DMS 0004/04 2 

02/03/2011 1T:2 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^000^/00.2 

11. Concerning the possible "misplaced" 2 year statue of limitations, a 

similar case .scenario appears. Date of draft documents vs. confirmed dates of 

service. Complainants aver the alleged violation just squeaked in, by The skin on 

their teeth by a credible? ONE DAY and therefore valid. The requested proof of 

the objective date of service has still been rvqded and Tailed to be produced. 

12. A violation date of July 24, 20D8 was sited, alleged service date of July 

23, 2010. Again, the complainants served the respondent, requiring respondent'^ 

signature for delivery after the 2 year period on July 27, 2010, herein after the 

statue of limitations, 

13. It appears Ms Williams forgot or was unnble to complete her due 

diligence to ascertain that Mr Baker was en o monitoring program, because she 

just barely got the violation in as it was, within thR proposed 1 day before the 2 

year the statue of limitations, if indeed that will prove to be accurate. Since she 

acted under false fundamental premises, she shifted the cause of action once 

she realized Mr Baker was always employed by large companies and on o 

progrnm. 

14. Complainants have failed to plead to specific numbered 

allegations. By failure to address the specific pleadings and thereby evading 

and circumventing respondent's specific allegations, complainants hove 

indubitably and injuriously propagated redundant and iterate pleadings for a 

casft that appeared void ab initto. While they may have complied with the 

admlni<;trotive law cod©/ It obviously has been confusing and inadequate in Ihi^; 
+ DMS 01005/042 

02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA 350005/0042 

case and non-compliant with higher courts or Federal court Rule 10(b), limiting 

each numbered pamgraph to one circumstonce to "promote clarity". 

Complainants reference to § 13.208(c] pertains to the original complaint, not 

the nature of the subsequent pleodir^gs, 

15. Complainant refers to § 13,208(f), while no such code exists. 

16. Judicial Estoppels as defined in Blacks Legal dictionary: 

Fstoppels that prevents a party from contradicting 

previous declarations mode during the same or earlier 

proceeding If the chonge in position would adversely 

offecf the preceding or constitute a fraud on the court. 

17. The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior lA 

mechanic found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by Ms 

Williams letter of September 23, 2010, thereby complainants should follow suit 

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

employers drug/alcohol program, voiding the legitimacy of the complaint. The 

underlying circumstances for the 2 mechanics are identical, 

18. The sole and primary premise for this violation, clearly documented 

in Ms Vi/illiams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was Ms Williams inability to 

volidate FAA approved drug and olcohol testing program informolion for Mr 

Baker. 

19. Ms Williams was given evidence that Mr Baker wos on a monitoring 

program hut selected not to pursue primar/ source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §1^.224, for the reason that'she wns in a 

rush to get her alleged civil penalty out, 1 Hoy before the statute ot limitation?. 
a * DMS 0JOOG/O42 

02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA a,O0Q/O042 

-U' l Of, 

20. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was always on a 

monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then shifted the 

fundamental boiis ond cause of oction of the violation to Mr Baker not being on 

MRHs own companies monitoring program, despite already releasing the other 

Mechanic/IA from those regulations. 

21. IT became obvious that the revised regulations of the drug/alcohols 

programs new definition of employer that wore not evident, disclosed, or even 

known by a prior FAA Druo/Alcohol auditor, MR Vincent Rooh, d^.iring his audit 

or MRH in March 2004 and thereby could not inform respondent of the change. 

22. It became obvious that the revised regulotions of the drug/olcohols 

programs new definition of employer that were not evident, disclosed, nr even 

known by MRHs FAA operoHona and molrrtenance Inspectors or the Allentown 

FSDO manager. 

22. Again another example of how complainants cho-w to evade and 

circumvent this Issue completely despite respondent repeatedly presenting a 

letter from Mr Roots doted April 2004, after The regulation chano« occurred that 

no one knew about, 

23. That the comploinants are trying to hold the respondent liable for 

regulations that even its own FAA officers were not aware ot, performed safety 

Inspections for years to promote safe operotlons. 

24. The complalrtctnfs are therefore trying to hold the respondent to a 

higher standard than their own FAA officers. 
+ DMS 1007/04 2 

02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^^^^^^^^^^ 

v.-«>L»o"i \' f\r, 

2^. This basis alone warrants voiding the legitimacy of the complaint 

and demonstrotes malicious prosecution. 

26. There were in addition, several foctors clouding the clarity and full 

disclosure of these regulations, since regulations they were not clearly 

contained, listed, Spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed 

off compliance statement and operational specifications, Thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance in the 

spirit of safety. 

27. There were several matters concerning clearness and interpretation of 

fhe language and meaning contained within the signed off compliance 

statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging violation, rattier 

then effeclive compliance in the spirit of snffity and contrary to standard 

prnrtices In Administration law. 

In Administrative Low "in ihe interpretation of fhe 

language of reguh^ions, where doubt exists as to fhe 

infenf of the meoning of the language written and 

enacted by a governing body, fhe language shall be 

Interpreted in favor of fhe Party ond against any irnpiied 

exreos/on of a rexfnction". 

25. Complainants hove also tried to hold MRH liable for not having Mr 

Baker on Its own companies monitoring program, during the time when 

respondent recognized In good judgment to withdraw all operations ot MRH 

and in accordance to regulations in order to nol impose risk lo the public. 

- ; • 
c*. ^ DMS 01008/042 

02/03/2011 11-25_FAX^_ 2024935142 FAA 0OOO8..OO42 

26, The other animadversion is that the violations cited by complainants 

were conducted by innocent bystander Mr Baker, offer MRH terminated 

operotlons and was no longer performing flights for humon factor reasons 

affecting the single pilot operator in good foith ond in compliance with; 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

Conducted under Part 135 of this Chapter, (oj 

DR Helicopters, LLC must hove sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure 

the safety of its operallon.'s. OR Helicopters, LLC 

must have qualified personnel serving in the 

following or equivalent positions: [ 1) Director of 

Operations. (2) Chief Pilot. (3) Director oF 

Maintenance, 

Re.spDndent was the Director of Operotlons, Chief Pilot and the 

Maintenonce Scheduler due to the human factors of o litigious tragic divorce, 

suicide risk of minor child, custody battle, time ond responsibility restraints of his 

cardiology practice, respondent in good judgment and in accordance to the 

obove regulation, stopped Operations. 

4. In summary, is i1 obundantly deor that the conduct by complainants 

represents procedural and prosecutorial overreaching. 

a. That the complainants ore trying to hold the respondent To a higher 

standard than Their own officials in regard to regulations that were not evident or 

known. 

b. There are Issues of judicial estoppels, legol inconsistency and procedural 

defects. 

- 8-
d ^ DMS 0)009/042 

02/03/2011 T?-25 FAX, 2024935142 FAA ^0006^0042 

c. That inappropriate action has been token against a small single pilot 

operation that has been operating in the red for years and had long stopped 

operating in due diligence, good judgment and good faith, according to 

regulations due to human factors of a trogic divorce case scenario in order to nof 

expose the public to undue risk. 

d. i^apidly initiated the oppropriote changes once respondent became 

aware in good faith, despite not performing operations for yeors prior. 

e. That precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered on o cose 

that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an aggressive 

prosecutorial pursuit that lacks proper initio tive, perspective or good judgment. 

f. The legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense or for 

judicial economy. 

g. The statue of limitations wa.s exceeded . 

WHRREFORE, The respondent prays thol this Honorable Court will grant the 

Motion for judgment to dismiss this cn-^e in efforts of judicial economy. 

Respectfully .Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC . CFI-H NJ^O 

Dote , . 
02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 

.-. s^viri M I ft A 

O 

U.S. Dijpormanf 

of Tronspcrlatton 

F«d«iai Aviatior 

Arimlnlstrntlon 

12)010/042 

iaOOlO/004 2 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

Colleg© Park, GA 30337 

August 14. 2009 

Certified Mail - Rnturn Receipt Requested 

File Number: 2OO9SO06O434 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgatd Drive 

Bethlehem. PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig; 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we inapected M and R Hellooptera LLC'a drug and alcohol 

totting programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 

120 (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J), As a reagit of this inspection, 

the following apparerjt violations were discovered: 

1, M and R Helicopters LLC did not dotarmino that Eugene Melntosti and Edward 

Baker (contractors) vwere covered under a FAA-mandated drug testing program 

3nd an alcohol misuse praventlon program prior to using their services. 

2. M and R Helicopters LLC did not conduct pre-emplnyment.drug tests and 

receive verified negative tent results prior to hiring Eugen? Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

This letter is to inform you that these matters r^re under investigation by the F/\A. 

You may diacu.ss these matters with me or submit a written statement, or both, 

within 10 days of receiving this letter. Please contact me at (404) 306-6175 if you 

have questions about the.'^«! matters. A written statement shoulrt Include all 

pertinent facts and mitigating circumstances that you believe may have a bearing on 

those matters. Send your written statement to: 

Attention; Latonya Williams, AAM-862 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

1701 Coljmbia Avenue 

College Park. QA 30337 

AAM-rtiiV 

iai 

ttaijTirJQ K-^pul . 

SU7T3a»*73Sr" 

OTt" 

raifSfnClAL USE ONLY' 

Public avQilQbllily to be determined under 5 USC 552 

i ^ 

LwuiBms 

tUTT" 

AnOT'Ma kvtJ90L 

UkAiiTli^,: :;v<.i«»L 

PPTIT; 

nOUT1M<l AVUttOL 

tr«7ruj.£jdb 

10L1TTUC CrMl»C><-

msc^ 

tourMo«rME<CL 

lUTiU^.^.I 
02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA DMS 1^011/042 

10O11/Q042 

itNDEH ; CiVivif-iMr IMIS S, 

• Comptota It4ffl» 1, a, and 3. Alto eamplato 

iiem 4 ir nsilrleiMI 0*llM<y M <re«|rad. 

• Pflni ycor name aro oooreBB on i M ravaix^ 

so «h« yr« can rertum sw carc ra yiJu. 

* Attach <hl« card «o * • bncK of the mallpise©, 

or or \h« front If fpaaa Parmlti, 

1. A(t/d»M«*i««d»; 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

Praaid«nt 

M and R Hsiicoptars LLC 

2045 Westgats Drive 

Bethlehem, PA Ifl0l7 

2. AniaaNunwr 

ntvatai mm »»\K» M6BO 

pa Form 3811 , Fwruary >f«la. 

* jgmrioaiypo 

BlQertlllMMaU 

Q Inwred Mi l 

• EKiMeakrid' 

D N«rum nacalpt far MttcAordlM 

BuMaud DiJNwyJ (Eii^ / ^ O v a 

7Q07 un a DDOS 3754 «?SSH -I 

DoiruiiE nrturn ftooolpt 10MJ»<n,M.lBUl 

UNIT6D STATr^ POSTAL SCRVICe 

-"'"-^''^^^^^«^-^-.,,,,,, , .i;;^;;:;;;;;;; ^ 

^''d^i^^t Aviation Admini^uiion- - • 

^"ff^fru g &Akohol Program, 

College Park GA 30337 

•ilTH: AAM.363/Laionva mHiams 

''^'''"—''".li.ln,J.,i,[i,„in,li.j„) iJiiii i 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public ovoilabillly to be determined under 5 USC 552 
02/03/2011 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 21012/042 

^ fji.tfi.\ j I aooii/oo-is 

***" IJ.S. DspcKtment Offlco of Aviation MwJlcln« BOO Inciapondeiio* AVU,. s w . 

orTr<anjpOft«lH<w> Wnshlnslon, P.C, 20891 

Fedairai Av)a\le,n 

Adminietfafion 

APR 2 2C04 

ra.. 

Certlfled-RBtijrn Racelpt 

Fib Number: aOO-ilEAeiqCTS 

Dr. MIohael Selig, CEO 

M and R HellcoDtars LLC 

20A6 WeBtgat« Drive. SuMe 101 

Bethlaham. PA 18017 

Daar Dr, S«lg 

On March 3, 2004., you \^e,rm Informed ttiattho Federal Aviatlcn Adminlslratbn (FAAi was 

Invnstlgatlng ailagsa violatlona or 49 GFR Part 40 and 14 CPR Piart I2i, App&ndlces i and J. 

Aftur neviawing the evidsrc© compllftd during tJna Inspection of M ano R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26, 2004 and the documentation svJbmiUed in your response datad 

March 1ft, 2004, It appaflm thst M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions or 

the Antldrjg and AJoohol Miaua* Prfsvendon Programs a$ detailea oeiow: 

1. M and R H«|lcoptor« LLC© specimen collection prflr.miurnn do not meet ih» 

raq«Jremane« of 49 CFR Part 40. .SpaciflcallV'. 

IW and R Hellooptera LLC's collnr.tor (Oansse Wllllar/CHS 02) Tailed to complete Step 1 

item E, Vest to Be Performed, on tl>6 Federal Drug Testing Custody end Control Form, 

C9rj:eclivaj°).ct|o]r Attho inspection outbrieflng. M and R Holicoptera LLC agreed to ensure Ihe 

colletnor wouia complete stop 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form, in the 

reBpons© dated March 19, 2004, M and R Helicoptsrs LLC ajbmttteo a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Chackilst from cimioal Laboratorlee. Inc. documentlnsi training for Oenoso 

Miller. 

2. M and R Hnllcoptarit LLC's bre«th alcohol leetlng prooeducee do not irieettho 

requ)t'6monte of 49 CFR Port 40. 3pecificBlly: 

M pind R Helicopter* LLC'e Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed tn 

complete Step 1 Item C, tho Deslgnatad Employiar Representative, on the OcpartrnenL or 

TrenoportaUon AlDohm Testing Form. 

Corraecive Action: At the Inspection oulbriofing, M and R Heilr:Dpt:f>r«; LLC agraea to 

immadiately ensure that the Brearh Alconol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Farm, (n tha response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicoptars LLC aubmlttod a 

copy of an Error Correotlori Trolninc Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, irc. documemlng 

training for Oenese Milter. 

6^.^/1 
^ DMS 0013/04 2 

02/03/2011 17:26 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ooV3/OOii 

3. W and R Hellcoptftrv LLC failed to malntBln recojhos as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specirioally: 

IW and R Hallcoptors LLC's (aborator'y railed transmit the employwr specific aggregate 

etetbtical summary tor 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual baels, 

C(;>rrecHve Ac^jpn. At the Inapoctlcn outbrieflng, M end R HeHcop\ar& LLC agreed to 

immsdialaly ansura the lab will sisnd statistical sumnnarieB for 2003. In the reeponso dated 

iviorch 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copiBB of aggregate etatietical 

aummarles fnr 2003 from LabCorp. 

Thie Is to confirm that you have cattafectorlly corrscted tha abov^e iosuee. v^e ha^o glvsn 

conslderntion to all avullable facts and concluded That thoes leeaes do not warrant legal 

enforcement action In lieu of sjch action, we are lesuing this jpttsr, which will be mede a 

maMor of record. W& ej^pectthal in the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

MIBU96 Prevention Progrema will b^ m cnmpilanco w(th a^ppllcable regulations 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roota 

Inepeotor. Compliance and Enforoement 
02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

I L^ I I o ^1n m r A A 

11014/042 

@0014/00il 2 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentovvn, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTAAENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHIN(STON, D.C. 

Fodftral Aviaiion Adminisfrntion 

Laura Ponfo, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M <L R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 7010'1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO HAVE 

THE HEARING LOCATION 

AT THt: U,S DISTRICT COURT, ALLENTOWN. PA. 

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

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

files the following Reply to Complainonts Response to the Motion Tor Hearing at 

thR U.S. District Court, Allentown, PA, 

1. On October 1, 2D10, an the informni hearing was held with Ms Ponto at 

which time It was discussed a couri location for a future hearing in Allentown, PA, 

of the US District Court. 

2. It is respondents position that the most appropriate and reasonable 

I of 4 
c,6 * DMS 0015/042 

02/03/2011 17-26 FAX 2024935142 FAA 00015/0042 

hearing locotion Is Allentown, since Ihot is where the violation was investigated, 

initiated ond generated by Ms Williams, requiring 2 visits (specifically to the joint 

cardiology/air charter office], tl>e site of the alleged violation occurred in 

Allentown whereby it would only follow suite that the hearing location should 

thereby also be held in the Allentown location, the place of origin and original 

jurisdiction. 

3. Complainants now state that to come fo Allentown "would be o 

tremHRdous Inconvenience and expense". 

4. It appears it was not o tnemendous inconvonlence and expense to 

come to Allentown to Initiate, find and impose this frivolous alleged civil penoltv, 

oullinn Dr Sallo awgy for hours frorn hb private cardlolociv proctice, but novy is an 

incrinvenience to appear to •tt/bstantlnte and defend her positions, 

5. The complainants hove evaded and circumvented the main reason 

for respondents request tor the Allentown location, which as stated in 

respondent's letter of November 24, 2010, that he a solo, priva+e proctice 

I.ehigh Community cardiologi'jf (for Ihe last 23 years) with hospitol and 

outpatient responsibilities. To leove the area would pose undue hardship to his 

patients. It would not be proper or reasonable to burden or inconvenience 

neutral party patients and a physician for an alleged violation that he did nol 

initiate, has caused no harm, locks legal merit and on very weok grounds. 

6. 11 would not be proper, reasonable or morally or ethically 

appropriately to compromise a physicians clinical responsibilities in hi.s office or in 

2ot 4 
•> HM-^ 01016/04 2 

02/03/201 1 17:2 6 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^ooic/oo^^ 

I I L» , wTniM r ft A 

the hospifol in a manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care or 

compromise patient care and potentiolly increase liabilities or risk to him or his 

patients in his role of providing emergent, acute and chronic public heath care 

services to the community. 

7. It would be most oppropriat«, proper and reasonable that since the 

violnfion occurred, investigated, initioted and generated by coming to the 

Allentown Location, requiring 2 visits (specifically lo the Joint cardiology/air 

charter office) Ihen it would only follow suit thot hearing thereby be held in the 

Allentown location, where the alleged violation occurred and the location of 

the originating jurisdiction. 

8. Respondent disagrees with Ms Ponfos statement that the Allentown 

location was never discussed in the informni conference. 

9. As discussed In respondents letter to Judge Voder, the time Ms Ponto 

mentioned that Philadelphia is only 1 hour and 15 minutes away, is incorrect- ns it is 

closer to 2 hours at off hours, but cnn be several hours additional in hold up time 

during business hours due to the insurmountable traffic on The Schuylkill Expressway 

and in the downtown area. There is as well heavy air traffic and continuous delays 

in Philadelphia airport area os compared to the easy access to Allentown bulh in 

air and ground traffic. The costs would also be greater in the Philadelphia area. 

10. If the complainants are concemed with conserving government funds, 

the most effective effort is to dismiss this case now, before any further time, 

expenses or potential appeals squander even further resources. 

3 of 4 
a . •> DMS @l017/04 2 

02/03/201 1 17:2 6 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^0017^2 

, K- ^-^O W I rt rt 

11, The respondent hereby proposes fhe following; assuming the prior 

sugoft'ited dates were meant to apply to 2011, at the: 

US District Court 

504 Hamilton .Street 

Allentown, PA. 18101 

12. Respondent would be led to believe thai the Honorable Judge Voder 

would need to set up the hearing.-s, unless otherwise notified. 

WHEREFORE, Ihe respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

Hearing location in Allentown, PA, the originating location and jurisdiction ot Ihe 

atlftoed violation. 

Respectfully SubmittRd, 

Michael B, Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

4 of 4 
02/03/2011 17:26 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

I <j ^/^om r n A 

1018/042 

50O19/0042 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

281AOrefieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura PonIo, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Responrient 

v. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS: 

DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS 

DEPOSITION OP CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

AND 

THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERNCE 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN. PA. 

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

for MR Helicopters. LLC, (MRH| (non-operational since 2007) whom overs ond 

files the followlno Reply to Complainants Response fo the above Motions: 

1. On December 1, 2010, respondent faxed and filed a Motion for 

Deposition of Latonyo Williams to Ms Ponto, to take piece in Allentown, PA. 

2. In complainonts response dated December 20. 2010, complainant 

agreed lo make avoiloble Ms Williams for Deposition and cited erred dates of 

I 
* DMS 1019/042 

availability for the pre-triol deposition of "January 28, 2010, Febnjory 1-4, 2010, 

February 8-11, 2010 or February 15-17, 2010". 

3, In complainant's typical method of evading and circumventing the 

pleadings, as well os not responding to enumerated paragraphs, complainants 

have failed to confirm If the above dotes they provided ore still available. 

4, On December 21, 2010, respondent filed a motion to specifically 

request fhe deposition to be In the Allentown Location. 

5. On Jonurjry 13. 2011, complainants served their response 13 days 

later, in that reply. Miami, Florida was mention as a suggested location, which 

olso IS unacceptable to the respondent. 

6. Complainants now slate that to come to Allentown "would be a 

Tremendous inconvenience and expense", 

7. It Qirar^eors it was not a tremendotis inconvenience and expense for 

Ms Williams to come to Allentown to Initiate, find and iminnse this frivolous 

a 11 e oed civil pennlt/. pulling Dr Sell a awav fpr hours from his private cardiology 

practice, but now is an inconvenience to appear to .•^ubstantiote and defend 

her position.'; 

8, The complainants again evaded ond circumvented the main reason 

for respondents request for the Allentown location, ns stated In his letter of 

November 24. 2010, namely the respondents primorY role in the Lehigh 

Community as a solo, private practice cardiologist (for the last 23 years) with 

hospital and outpatient responsibilities. To leove the areo would pose undue 

- 2' 
+ DMS 0020/042 

02/03/2011 17:26 FAX 2024935142 FAA 0oo2O/OO.2 

J I I IM I O /^ 

hardship to his patients. II would not be proper or reasonable lo burden or 

inconvenience neutral party patients and o physician for an alleged violation 

fhat he did not initiate, was an innocent bystander to, has caused no harm, 

locks legal merit and on very weak grounds. 

9. It would not be proper, reasonable, morally ethical c^oppropnote to 

compromise a physicians clinical responsibilities in his office or in the hospiinl in a 

manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care or compromise poi'K^nf 

care and potentially increase liabilities or risk to him or his patients in hi<: role of 

providing emergent, acute and chronic public heath core services to the 

community. 

10. It would be most reasonoble, proper and appropriate since the 

violation occurred in Allentown tn hove Ms Williams return tor deposition tn the 

place where her original investigotion and initiation of action occurred, namely 

the Allentown; the originating jurisdiction, 

11. Respondent disagrees with Ms Pontes statement that the Allentown 

location was never discu-r^ed in the Informal conference. 

12. As discussed in respondents letter to Judge Yoder, the time Ms Ponto 

mentioned that Philadelphia is only 1 hour and 15 minutes away, is incorrect, as it is 

closer to 2 hours at off hours, but can be several hours additional in hold up time 

during business hours due to the insurmountable traffic on the .SchuylkiK Expresswgy 

and In the downtown area. There is as well heavy air traffic and continuous delays 

in the Philadelphia Airport area as compared to the easy access to Allentown 
^ DMS 0021/04 2 

02/03/201 1 17:2 6 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^0021/00. 2 

L« . V jni n r r\ A 

both In air and ground troffic. The cast^ would also be greater in the Philadelphia 

areo. 

13. If the complainants are concerned with conserving government funds, 

the most effective effort is to dismiss this cos© now, before any further time or 

expenses are expended, 

14. Respondent agrees thot there was only a pleading discussion in regard 

to the deposition, but mentioned during the informal conference conr.-.f?rning the 

hearing locotion. 

15. Ms Wlllloms stated to the respondent that she "travels all over o.s pari of 

her job" and also mentioned the reo.snn she was delayed in some of the follow-up 

dncumenToTlon, wos she wgs traveling. 

\6. The respondent hereby proposes the following; Assuming fhe prior 

suggested dotes were meant to opply to 2011, using a time of 10 am. Ms William 

can chose the date most fitting to her schedule to appear at the Allentown 

location namely at: 

Goliogher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1 H 

Allenrown, PA 18103 

Once the date is selected that best suits her schedule for tfie pre-trial 

deposition, respondent will firm up the other details. 

12. Respondent agrees to cover the costs pertaining to the meeting 

room and court reporter directly with Gallagher Reporting. 

13. If Ms Dominik is unwilling to provide the prior requested slolement of 

4. 
02/03/2011 17:27 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0022/042 

I I Lf . \i>jr\v\ {"HA I210022,'00-12 

truth, then this time and locolion can he utilized for her deposition as well. 

U . After the above is completed, a pre-trial conference con be held. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will groni fhe 

depositions of Latonyo Williams, Ms Dominik and the pretrial conference in 

Allentown, FA, the originating location and jurisdiction of the alleged violation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

Dote 

- 5 -
02/03/2011 17:27 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0023/042 

I3Opil3/0O4L' 

Michael Selig, MD , FACC, CFI-H 

28l6 0refleidRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal AviaHon Adm/nrstraHon 

Cynfhio Dominik, Laura Ponfo, 

Latonyo WillFoms 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL e.STOPPELS, LCGAL INCONSISTENCY 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAF L 9. SEDG, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007] whom 

avers and files the following Reply TO Complainants Re.^ponse to the Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss based on judicial Estoppel.s and Legal Inconsistency 

1. The complainonts have continued to foil fo plead to specific number 

paraaraphs, Py failure to address fhe specific pleadings and thereby evading 

and ctrcumventfng responaent's specific allegations. 
^ DMS 0024/042 

02/03/2011 11-2J FAX 2024935142 FAA ^O02vo042 

2. The complainants have admitted to formally releosing the prior lA 

mechanic found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by Ms 

Williams letter of September 23. 2010. 

3. This release pertained as well to claims that the Mechnnic/lA was not 

on a drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH, 

4. Ms Williams was conveniently available to inspect the primary place 

nf employment of the Mechanic/ lA, to easily affirm his credibility, credentials 

and that he was on a monitoring program. 

5. Ms Williams was unwilling to affirm that Mr Baker was on o monitoring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby, 

6. The sole and primary premise for this violation then shifted 05 

documented in Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, to Ms Williams 

inability to validate any FAA opproved drug and olcohol testing program 

information for Mr Baker. 

7. MS Willioms wa.'? given evidence that Mr Baker was on o program, but 

chose not to pursue primer/ source verification and/or confirmation of these facts 

pursuant to §13.224. before she rushed lo judgment to affirm her violation was 

entered, only one doy prior to the 2 year statute of limitations. 

8. In Ms Williams n.i5h to Judgment and push to get her proposed civil 

penally entered just under the wire for the statute of limitations, >ihe failed to see 

that the alleged violations cited by complainants were performed by Mr Baker, 
«-»--". .):-,"L--^="^ "* *°" «o..,r""" 

otler MRH terminated operations and was no longer performing flights for 

human factor reosons affecting the single pilot operator in good faith ond in 

compliance with: 

119.69 Miihii||;eincaT Personnel Required for Opci'ikti<>n!< 

Conducted under Fart 135 of thJs Chapter, (ti) DR 

nelicopt«j;a, LT,C must huve sufficient qualified 

niiinagciTitnt and tochnictil pcrionn«l to rnsunc che «iitfoty 

of its; operacioiiK. DR lielicoptera, LLC must li3V« quali.(ial 

pcr.sciniTel serving in The following or equivalent po.sitions: 

(1) Director nreoperations. (2) ChlofPitoL (3) Diivvtor 

of Maintenance. 

Respondent was the Director ot Operations, Chief Pilot and the 

Maintenance Scheduler due to the human factors ot a litigious divorce, suicide 

risk of a minor child, custody battle, time and responsibility restrolnts ot his 

cardiology practice, respondent In good judgment and in accordance to the 

above regulation, stopped operations, 

7. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was continuously (without 

break) on a monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then 

again thifted the basis of the violation to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own 

companies monitoring progrom, despite already releasing the other 

Mechanlc/lA for fhe same count of those regulations that were not evident, 

disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, Mr Vincent Root<;. 

MRHs FAA operations and maintenance Inspectors or the Allentown FSDO 

manager, 

8. in addition, there were several factors concerning fhe ambiguity 

- 3 -
02/03/2011 17:27 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0026/04 2 

I , £.-,11 ij.von p rftA laocias/ooti:; 

regarding disclosure of regi.ilotions, regulations that were not clearly contained, 

listed, spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance In the 

spirit of safety. 

9. There were several factors concerning unclear and disputed 

interpretation of the language and meaning contained within the signed off 

compliance .statement and operational specifications, thereby encouroging 

violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety ond contrary fo 

standard practices in Administration law. 

In Admini-vtrntive Law "In the interpretation of the 

langijngf? of regulations, where doubt ex/sts as fo the 

intent of the meaning of the language written and 

enacted hy a governing body, the language shall be 

interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

exfens/'on of a restriction". 

ID. Ms Williams as well has tried to hold MRH liable for not having Mr 

Baker on its own companies monitoring program, despite Mr Paker being on his 

full time employers monitoring program, during the time when respondent 

recognized in good judgment to withdraw all operations of MRH ond in 

accordance to regulations In order to not impose risk to the public. 

11. By way of Judicial Estoppels and fo be legolly consistent, 

complainant.'! should follow suit by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full 

• 4 -
-> DMS 0027/04 2 

02/03/201 1 17:2 7 FAX 202493514 2 FAA 30027/00*2 

> I I u . w kjnii i for , 

time employer's drug/alcohol program, just as the mechanic/lA v\^ns formally 

released from those violation.^, thereby voiding the legifimocy of the complaint. 

12. It would appear inappropriate for a goliath action to be taken against 

a small single pilot operation who had long stopped operating in due diligence, 

good Judgment and good faith, according to regulation? due to human factors of 

a Tragic divorce cose scenario and cardiology practice time constraints In order 

to r»ot expose the publif: to undue risk. 

13. It would appear Inappropriate, triviol and frivolous for action to be taken 

against a small single pilot operation who had done no harm, was an Innocent 

bystander, that hos been operating in the red for year^. hod closed all financial 

accounts and has no assets. 

14. It would appear inappropriate for action to be token when changes 

were rapidly initiated, once respondent became aware in good faith, despite not 

performing operations tor years prior. 

15. It would appear inappropriate to take oction against respondent when 

the cose appeared past fhe statute of limitations and time barred. 

18, It appears that precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered 

on a cose that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an 

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit that lacks proper initiative, perspective or good 

judgment, 

19. In good judgment and with proper perspective it would appear this 

legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense, since no harm 
-> DMS 0028/042 

02/03/2011 17:2_7 FAX _ 2024^935142 FAA ^0026/0042 

occurred and when operations were being preformed prior to the violation, they 

were done good faith, in accordance to the close guidance and supervision of 

the routine FAA Inspectors, therefore in the light of efforts of judicial economy, fhe 

cose should be dismissed. 

20. If would appear complainants are causing more harm ond risk by 

taking the respondent concentrotion away from his cardiology servlcps he renders 

to the community. 

21. Complainants stole that the agency only t^ preceded with one 

violation even though there were 2, due to evidentiary reasons. It now appears 

that there are evidentiary reasons why the remaining allegation Is also Insufficient. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prnys that this Honorable Courl will grant the 

Motion for judgment to dismiss this case on the grounds of Judiciol Estoppels, 

Legal Inconsistency ond In efforts for judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael &. Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H 

Dale 
02/03/2011 17:27 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0029/042 

i2lDC23/0Qa2 

Michael Seilg, MD, FACC , CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA, 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters. LLC, 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket; 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINAf^S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SETTLEMENT 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL ft, -StLlG, MD, FACC , principle 

tor MR Helicopters, LLC, jMRH) (non-operotionol since 2007) whom avers ond 

files the following Reply to the Complainants Response to the Motion for more 

definite statement in reply fo complainants filing received January 10, 2011, 

Complainant's Response to Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing 

Procedures. 

1. To date respondent has not yet been sen/ed with an order from the 

-1 
p . , . DMS 0030/04 2 

02/03/201 1 17:2 7 FAX 202493514 2 FAA Bl0O3O,.o042 

Administrative Judge concerning a definite procedural schedule, 

2. In complainants above pleading, respondent disagreed with 

complainonts statemer>l that comploinon* has mode reasonable efforts for 

settlement ond to resolve this case at the informal stage. At the informal stage. 

The couse of action cited by complninants, was on incorrect alleged claims Ihot 

innocent bystander Mr Baker, wos on NO monitoring program whiiR performing 

safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft in 2008, 

3. In the steadfast, unyielding position, complainants have refused to 

addre.*i3 this flawed fundamental foct and shifted the primary cause of action of 

their complaint from Mr Baker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed 

that he was), to Mr baker not being on MRHs own employers in existent 

monitoring program, despite under Judicial Estoppels and with Legal 

inconsistency, complainants hod already released the Mechan)c/lA who was 

also found to be on o monitoring program by his tull time employer. See Motion 

tor Judament to Dismiss-Judioal fatopgels. Legal Inconsistency. 

4. Therefore, quite to the contrary, complainants have been 

Unreasonable and egregiously changed their complaint bosis to pursue a 

violation by whatever means needed to warrant their frivolous violation in a 

moving target of changing ond inconsistent color of law orgumenU. 

5. Complainant's have made no additional conflrmotion or additions to 

the above statements. 

, "5 . 
02/03/201 1 17:2 7 FAX 202493514 2 FAA + DMS 0031/04 2 

•-, - ..... . rr. . 00031/004 2 

WHEREFORE, the respondent pray^ that this Honorable Court will: 

1. Hove complainants confirm that they agree that Mr Baker was on a 

Drug/Alcohol program during the dotes cited in the complaint /or 

3. To dismiss this case in the effort of judiciol economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

• V 

i*-\ii / 

Michael B. Selig. MD, FACC 

Dote _ 
02/03/201 1 17:2 9 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS 1032/04 2 

aoC32/!)04 2 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC , CFl-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHlN«5TON, D.C. 

Federal Avfah'on Administration 

Laura PonIo, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R HelEcoptert, LLCRespondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket'. 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S REPIY TO COMPLAINANTS ANSWERS TO THF MOTION TO CpMP^L 

DISCOVERY AND NEW MAHgR 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-existent .since 2009) whom overs 

and Tiles the following reply to MOTION to COMPEL DISCOVERY of Information 

requested of Lotonyo Williams and Laura Ponia, Esg. post the 30 day period 

according to Rule 13.220 (d), 

1. Comploinants have not provided any of the discoveries requested in 

prior documents. 

2. Respondent hos requested formal evidence for dates of service, 

since it has already been ^shown that draft dates on documents as usually 

• 1 
r.A * DMS 0033/04 2 

02/03/2011 17:23 FAX 2024935142 FAA 3,0033/0042 

several days earlier from actuol service dates, cannoT be trusted ond therefore 

objective signed dates of service nre required, 

3. A review of the EIR olso shows inconsistencies of the date on fhe 

documents ond the dote of document was actually received. Exhibit one 

shows Ms William's letter draft date of August 14, 2009 ond o Certified Mail return 

receipt requested confirmation days 5 days later. This was the only moil 

outhorlzotlon provided. This therefore warrants release of the repeatedly 

requested objective certified mail receipts of signed validation of actual served 

dates, Instead of using other subjective Information. 

4, Complainants referenced 513.211{d)-Dote of Service, There are. several 

methods listed. 6y definition, .since complainant selected signatory delivery 

confirmation, by means of signed return receipt, this represents the mosi 

accepted, reliable and most objective date of service. Complainants went to 

extro taxpayers' expense at triple the cost to clearly validate and ensure the true 

deliver/ date; this supersedes other subjective method that relies on hearsayBased on the obove discreponcies, the stated dotes on the documents by the 

complainants cannot t^e trusted and the requested strict proof be provided. 

5. Complainonts argue that providing referenced documents Is not 

standard practice, however standard practice includes ^ame form of summaiv 

or quotations of pertinent sections to be provided. .Sometimes large sections of 

discussions are provided. Complainants hove mode no or scant effort to 

provide any proof of evidence and appeor only concerned with evasive and 
+ DMS 0034/04 2 

conclus'ionary Inrfics. 

6. In regard to Ms Ponto's spoliotion ond redaction of altered 

documents, not even a reference to the kind of withholding was provide-d and 

thereby questioned. Being it is her deportment that acted in Ihi.'i manner, it is tor 

her to provide the proof to substantiate that this spoliation is worronted when 

questioned. 

7. Therefore, In the letter ot October 27. 2010; it wos requested to 

provide the reference of Jordon v Deportment of Justice that Ms Ponto cited in 

her correspondence. 

fi. fn the letter of October 27, 2010, H was requo.<;ted to provide the 

reference for policies on alsclosure restrictions. 

9. In the letter of November 24, 2010. the above items were reguested a 

second time. 

WHEREFORE, Ihe respondent prays thnt this Honorable Court will either dismiss 

the cose on fhe basis of violating Rule 13.220 (d) or compel the parties Latonyo 

Willioms and Loura PonIo to produce the requested documerits. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

3-
02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

Q 

U.S. Department 

ot Trorspcrtorton 

Pmavct AvloHon 

A.amlnl»freinon 

0035/042 

12)0035/0042 

1701 Columbia Ave.r,ua 

Collegfl Park. GA 30337 

August 14, 2009 

Certified Mail ^ Return Receipt Requnittsd 

File Number 2009SO9.'50434 

Dr, Micha*! B. Selig 

President 

M and R Hcllwiplers LLC 

2045 Weetgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, wa inspected M and R Helicopters LLC's drug and alcohol 

testing programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 anri 14 CFR part 

120 (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J), As a result of this Jn-spection, 

the followino apparent violations were discovered: 

1, M end R Helicopters LLC did not detsrmlns that Eugene f\/lclntoah nnd Edward 

BaKer (contractors) were covered under a FAA-rnandated drug testing program 

and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to using their eeivicas, 

2. M and R Helicopters LLC did not conduct pre-employment.drug tests and 

receive verified negative test reauita prior to tiiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

This letter is to inform you that tt->ese matters are under investigation by the F/\A. 

Ynu may discuss theee matter* with mo or submit a written statement, or both, 

within 10 days of receiving thia letter. Please contact me at (404) 305-6175 If you 

have questions about ttiaee matters. A written statement should include all 

pertinent facts and mitigating circumstances that you believe may have a bearing on 

these matters. Send your written statement to: 

Attention: Latonya Williams, MM-BSa 

Fedora! Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace K/Jedlclne 

Drug /\batemer\t Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

CDllege Park. GA 30337 

rnhKifriBUhCB* 

A*,M-9C2 

SlilllW* n'.L. 

flSwnBSHTJTui 

fSiTCnTSBT" 

hup://wwvk'.faa.qov/eboLrt/offlce ora/headquarters offlcss/avc/offloe5/aafn/druji_«lcohol/ 

FOR OTFICIAUISE ONLY' 

Public avallabllltyto be deteritilned under 5 USC 552 

LWlUlBlTn, 

<our<isa vTMBUL 

llri'rML»'/Alg 

WUTWfl STfuBoL 

nwT»S(^UB6L 

i>l(ni^LlirUIQ 

S/Vti" 

•^Wi^TlNOaCKiOl, 
02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

vOort rrtA 

•* DMS 0036/04 2 

l3003S/00i)2 

?:EMt)tii! ^or.ifLFte Till a 

• Oampi»i»'ii*ms 1, ',>. and a. AI«A compl«(a 

V»m * tf ntfitrlolad Ociiv«ry is dsslrod. 

• Print your nam* and addniu o() l/w ravws^ 

t» that M'a eon ntum tti« card n ydu.' 

• AtUdh (hit «acd (« (h« bMk ar^ 9 malMaca, 

or on ih» Ifent it «pac« p«rml(a. 

-I. AtriClaAddranetflo; 

Dr. MichaaJ B, Selig 

Prasideni 

M and f^-HoHcopfers LLC 

2045 Waatgate Drive 

BatriBhem. PA 18017 

OAgtnl 

e>.' b dal|v«>T •ddi«M^'M(i(ii))69fiirwi!' 

. If vea, «ib9r^l|X^^m » bfJaui; 

iS^niRBd Mall n ^nfSBs^ USi , 

• RgQintiM DR*tumR«>MlptWM9re/)an4I«« ; 

• wufia M«ii • e.0.0. ^1 

A. Reotilatcd DrilvsryT rsrva fMI ava 

I. Arllgl« Numbar 

(n»tttltrtr>m u/ytettwil) 

PC Form 3911 , robruaty 2004 

7DD7 IM^U 0^D_Da__37£U _^5£4_ 

.1 

•OIMWls P4lum fl<aal«l IM5»MJ-M-1«0 ( 

UwTcp ST,*TI:S POSTAL SeFivicc II PCcbCiat* Mali 

I Parmrt No, Q-fo 

* f?^*"'^'^^^ ^ print your name, addreea, and ZIP+4 m tWe box • 

\<y 

"••.s •/^orfar,!/ Aviiuion Adn^inistntion •' • 

J W Columbia Avenue "' 

Co;%j Pai-k, OA 30337 

jfi ATTM' AAK{.4^2/Latonva mUhms 

u> 

"il'il-m,)lniliLl,J,.i,ii,„),„i),)„j)i,„„.)|i,] 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public avcllabllllv to be determlnfld under 5 USC 552 
02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 1037/042 

I u . V 0 n I'l r ^ A 

!a0O3T>0C42 

Michael Selig. MD, FACC, CFl-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown. PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTNVtNT OP TRANSPORTATIOM 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Admlnfstratlon 

Laura Ponto, Lotonyo Williams 

Ccmplcilnants Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: ?010-1211 

L 

M & R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINAIMTS PROPOSED 

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

AND NOW, comesre^ipondenl, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD. FACC, principlR 

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

files the follov^lng Reply fo the Complainants Response to the Motlnn 1o DISMISS 

Complciinants proposed dales for srfieduling deodlines. 

1. The violations cited by complainants snould be render<?d moot as 

alleged acts conducted by innocent bystander Mr Baker, occurrina before 

2008, after MRH tenminaied operations and was no longer performing flights for 

human factor reasons affecting the single pilot operator in good faith and in 

compliance with; 

1 
r.* + DMS 0038/042 

02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA UHb 

U ^ Wf^UI 1 A A 

119.69 Mana0«meat Personnel Required for Operations 

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

Helicopters, LLC rnusi have sufficionl quaUflod 

managcineiii and techntcal personnal lo ensure ilie safely 

of its opcration.s. DR Halkc>pler.>i, LLC muiil liuve qualified 

pei-Bonnel serving in iho following or equivalfer^t f osilioris. 

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

ofMaintemuico, 

Respondent was the Director of Operation^;, Chief Pilot and the 

Maintenonc* Scheduler due to the fiuman factors of a litigious tragic divorce, 

suicide risk of minor child, time and responsibility restraints of his cardiology 

practice. rftTipondenl In good )ud.gment and in cccordonce to the above 

regulofion, stopped operations. 

2, Complainants In bad faith refused to address and continue to ovade 

and circumvent the fact that MRH was not operational during the cited alleged 

violaiions, while in accordance to the above r«oulation 119.69, because this 

would be admitting that the Civil Penolty would be detective. 

3, Ms Ponto averred that the violotinn was valid as It was admitted that 

the violation was 1 day within of the 2 year jfotute of limitatfons. The date of 

service however was 3 days after the stotute of limitations and Therefore timebcirred. 

4, Comploinants have shifted the primary cause of action of their 

complaint from Mr Boker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed that 

he wa.'s], to Mr Baker not being en MRHs employee monitoring program, despite 

under .Judicial Estoppels and with Legal inconMstency, complainants had 
already released the Mechanic/IA who was olso found to be on a monitoring 

progrom by his full time employer. See Motion for Judgment to Dismiss-Judicial 

Estopoels. Legal inconsistency. 

5, The Complainonts also refuse to address the fact that no FAA offtciaLs 

were informed of the regulation change regarding the definition of employer or 

appendix I and J, including their own FAA Drug/Alcohol in,<;pector Vincent Roots 

ond all local FSDO FAA Officials performing frequent inspections of MRH record"! 

and aircraft, therefore, representing entrapment on the part of complainant.f. 

6, In the proceedings of this case, complainants have continued to fail 

tn plead to specific ©numerated paragraphs as is common standard practice, 

thereby failing to address the specific pleodings in a succinct manner, choosing 

whot matter they want to address and theretjy evading and circumventing 

respondent's specific allegafion.s, when complainants did choose to respond, 

they did so in a short, scant, impermissibly vague and conclusionary manner. 

TtiU conduct by complainants hos indubitably and injuriously propagated 

redundant and iterate pleadings. 

7, It appears in this process Ms Williams and Ms Ponto are malfeo.^ont. 

have abused their discretion, ore in breach 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 argument? to 

make their alleged violation appeor warranted, while holding steodfost at all 

costs and without humility, dignity, moral or ethical appropriate behaviors and in 
•y DM S @l040/042 

02/03/2011 17:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA aoodo/oods 

an unconscionable manner. 

6, In fhe sfieodfast, unyielding position of complainants to this violation, 

precious scarce judicial resources ore being .-squandered on a case thot 

appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while repr^asenting aggressive 

prosecutoriol overr«ar.hing and pursuit that locks proper inltlollve, perspective 

or good judgment, not in the spirit of governmenlnl fund conservation, as the 

litigation costs of the complainants will far exceed fhe fine, assuming arguendo 

fhe fine will be found to hove any rnerif or that there are any assets with which 

to pay an even reduced fine. 

WHEREFORE, fhe respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

a. either dismiss this frivolou."! r.rise in the effort of judicial economy /or 

b. grants thof the Scheduling deadline remoin open of this time, to allow further 

discovery, depositions and pre-tria) conference, 

Respectfully Submitted, 

MIchOel a. Selig, MO, FACC. \ 

Dote 

- 4 -
02/03/201 1 17:2 9 FAX 202493514 2 

u i/<:4yi0 n HioVAK FAX 

FAA * DMS 1041/042 

[goOiii/Qoas 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

^ediro i Aviation X^minlitratlon 

Cyr^thla Dominik, Laura Ponlo. 

LOTonya Williami 

Cornplalnants 

M L R Holicopteri, LLC. 

Raspondent ,,. .__.._ 

Honorable Judgd Ronnia Vod«i 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY ihal 1 have this day served the foregoing entriefa): 

RESPQMDENT'3 REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

TRUTHS OF ADMIS.SIONS 

RESPONDENTS KCPLY TO CQMPIAINANH RESPONSE TO THg MOTION TO HAVE 

THE HEARING LOCATION 

AT tHE US DISTRICT COURT. ALLEWTOWN. PA. 

RBSPQNDENTS «EPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS: 

PePOSITlON OF LATONYA WILLIA>^5 

DEPOSmON OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

AND 

AT GALLA<:;HFR RFPOBTING, ALLENTOWN. PA. 

gEtPONDENrS REPLY TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL E5TOPPI:l.,S, LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

RCSPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINAMT5 RPSPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE 

STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SETTLEMF.NT 

REaPONDENT.^ REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMUS COMPLAINANTS PftOPOitPn PRQCEDUKAL SCHEDULE 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS ANSWERS TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND 

NEW MAHEW 

RK PONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPUINANTS PRO POSED PROCBDURAl SCHEDULE 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

FAILING TO MEET FILING DtAPUNES 

MOTION FOR MORE DEPINITE STATEMENT 

119.69 SHUTDOWN AND HUMAN FACTORS 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE aTATBMENT 

CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL CAU-Sf: OF ACTION 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMBNT 

FAIUNG ro Mbl-l FILING DEADLINES 
02/03/201 1 17:2 9 FAX 202493514 2 

01/24/2011 9.0TAM FAX 

FAA •» DMS 0042/04 2 

0OOa-2/OOJ2 

upon aS parrids of record in this proceeding, in accordance wlfh the requirsments of Rule 29 

pursuani to 28 U. S, C, ^ \746 , 

Service bv firsl-qkits mnil. Dosioae preoqid, oddressed OS toUo^vj: 

Fpfciflral Avloilon Adrninislrofion 

aoo Ind6p©ndcr\ce Avmnus. SW 

Wilbur WrighT Avenue-Suite 2WI0C10 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atl- Hearing Docket Clwk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5)42 

Loura Ponto. Esq, 

enfofcrement Dlvis:on/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Coun.sBl 

F AA 

800 Independence- Avenue, SW 

Woshinoton, DC 20S9} 

FAX 2022^7 5)06 

The Honorable Ror^nie A. Voder 

US Dopartment 0( Tran.'jnortaHQn 

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

]200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E 

Washington. DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

By;. 

Michael 6. Selig, MD. FACC , 

2dlA0rflfIeldfi:'oQd 

Allentown, Po. 18104 

6)0360 S'.^^ 

Date: . 

JAN 2 4 Z011