«:» 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. CFI-H 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

CEIVED 

JAN 2 8 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

~ dr o 

Mi 

^ 5 o 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

.. J 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

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

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

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

Dismiss -Truths of Admission. 

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

Respondents allegations. 

2. Respondent alleges that complainants have responded to what is 

convenient for them to answer, but have not responded to many items that 

may show the complainants in bad light or show malfeasance. 

1 -
3. Complainants claim they did not file a late response to Respondents 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss -Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. This 

document was sent to complainants on December 8, 2010. A combined 

response included with a response to Respondents Motion for Judgment to 

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

5. Respondent agrees complainant did file a response to Respondents 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss- Failure to properly respond or meet filing 

deadlines on the deadline date of January 3, 2010. 

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

associated brief was faxed to Ms Pontes department on November 29, 2010, 

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

objection or response was not received or served until December 13,2010, 

exceeding the time allotted under § Rule 13.218(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 Pontos department to which no objection or answer was 

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

was also provided in the collaborative correspondence received on December 

13,2010. 

8. Ms Ponto failed to present any requested evidence as to when the 

-2 
response was actually received in her response to this matter. The subjective 

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

of service and a signed authorization of receipt. 

8. Ms Dominik from the FAA enforcement division of the chief counsel 

called respondent;personal cell phone admittina that the complainants could 

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

regulation, to wit she requested respondent argnt complginants a continuance. 

9. A review of the EIR also shows inconsistencies regarding the date 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 5 days later. 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 §13.211(d)-Date of Service. There are several 

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

confirmation, by means 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 hearsay. 

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

complainants cannot be trusted and the requested strict proof be provided. 
11. Concerning the possible "misplaced" 2 year statue of limitations, a 

similar case scenario appears. Dote 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 evaded and failed to be produced. 

12. A violation date of July 24,2008 was sited, alleged service date of July 

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

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 unable to complete her due 

diligence to ascertain that Mr Baker was on a monitoring program, because she 

just barely got the violation in as it was, within the 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 a 

program. 

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 have 

indubitably and injuriously propagated redundant and iterate pleadings for a 

case that appeared void ab initio. While they may have complied with the 

administrative law code, it obviously has been confusing and inadequate in this 

- 4 -
case and non-compliant with higher courts or Federal court Rule 10(b), limiting 

each numbered paragraph to one circumstance to "promote clarity". 

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

the nature of the subsequent pleadings. 

15. Complainant refers to § 13.208(f), while no such code exists. 

16. Judicial Estoppels as defined in Blacks Legal dictionary: 

Estoppels that prevents a party from contradicting 

previous declarations made during the same or eariier 

proceeding if the change in position would adversely 

affect 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 

underiying circumstances for the 2 mechanics are identical. 

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

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

validate FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program information for Mr 

Baker. 

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

program but selected not to pursue primary source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §13.224, for the reason that she was in a 

rush to get her alleged civil penalty out, 1 day before the statute of limitations. 

- 5 -
20. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was always on a 

monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then stiifted tlie 

fundamental basis and cause of action 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 were not evident, disclosed, or even 

known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcotiol auditor, MR Vincent Roots, during his audit 

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

22. It became obvious that the revised regulations of the drug/alcohols 

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

known by MRHs FAA operations and maintenance inspectors or thie Allentown 

FSDO manager. 

22. Again another example of how complainants chose to evade and 

circumvent this issue completely despite respondent repeatedly presenting a 

letter from Mr Roots dated April 2004, after the regulation change occurred that 

no one knew about. 

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

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

inspections for years to promote safe operations. 

24. Ttie complainants are therefore trying to hold the respondent to a 

higher standard than their own FAA officers. 
25. This basis alone warrants voiding the legitimacy of the complaint 

and demonstrates malicious prosecution. 

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

disclosure of these regulations, since regulations they were not cleariy 

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 

the language and meaning contained within the signed off compliance 

statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging violation, rather 

than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contrary to standard 

practices in Administration law. 

In Administrative Law "/n the inferpretation of the 

language of regulafions, where doubt exists as to tt)e 

intent of the meaning of the language written and 

enacted by a governing body, the language shall be 

interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

extension of a restriction". 

25. Complainants have 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 of MRH 

and in accordance to regulations in order to not impose risk to the public. 

7-
26. The other animadversion is that the violations cited by complainants 

were conducted by innocent bystander Mr Baker, after MRH terminated 

operations and was no longer performing flights for human factor reasons 

affecting the single pilot operator in good faith and in compliance with: 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

Conducted under Part 135 of this Chapter, (a) 

DR Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure 

the safety of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC 

must have qualified personnel serving in the 

following or equivalent positions: (1) Director of 

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

Maintenance. 

Respondent was the Director of Operations, Chief Pilot and the 

Maintenance Scheduler due to the human factors of a litigious tragic divorce, 

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

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

above regulation, stopped operations. 

4. In summary, is it abundantly clear that the conduct by complainants 

represents procedural and prosecutorial overreaching. 

a. That the complainants are 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, legal inconsistency and procedural 

defects. 

8 
c. That inappropriate action has been taken 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 tragic divorce case scenario in order to not 

expose the public to undue risk. 

d. Rapidly initiated the appropriate changes once respondent became 

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

e. That precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered on a case 

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

prosecutorial pursuit that lacks proper initiative, 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 was exceeded . 

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

Motion for judgment to dismiss this case in efforts of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ^^ C 

Date 

-9 
& 

U.S. Department 

of Transportatkjn 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

August 14, 2009 

File Number: 2009SO950434 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

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

testing 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 result of this inspection, 

the following apparent violations were discovered: 

1. M and R Helicopters LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

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

and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to using their services. 

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

receive verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

This letter is to inform you that these matters are under investigation by the FAA. 

You may discuss these matters with me or submit a written statement, or both, 

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

have questions about these 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, AAM-862 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

KOUTINO SYMBOL 

AAM-862 

INITIALS/SIO 

LWilliams 

3ATE 

08/14/2009 

KOt/TINQ SVMaOL 

SATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIALS/Sia 

ROUTINQ SYMBOL 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters offices/avs/offices/aam/drug alcohol/ 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 

CONCURRENCES 

ROUTINQ SYMBOL 

ROUTINO SYMBOL 

ROUTINQ SYMBOL 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIAL&SIG 
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 

• Completa'items 1,2, and 3. Also complete 

item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. 

• Print your name and address on the revers«{ 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of the mallplece, 

or on the front if space permits. 

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 

1. Article Addrsssed to: 

Dr. Michael 8. Selig 

President 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

3. |St»vlce1Vp» -^•'-^=*-v.<' 

j^lgertHM MaU •ExprMsMaJ 

a Registerad D Return Receipt tor Meichandlsa j 

a Insured Mall Q C.0.0. 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra ft^ a>t a 

2. Article Numtser 

(Jtansiar from service label) 

7DD7 14^D DDD2 37SM TS5M_ 

PS Form 3811 , Pebruaiy 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10259S'«2-M-154O i 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

First-Class Mail 

Portage* Fees Paid I 

Permit No. G-lo 

LiJ' 

r ^ \ 

cS 

• Sender: PJease print your name, address, and ZIP+4 ii 

federal Aviation Administration 

Industry Drug & Alcohol Programs - •• 

1701 Columbia Avenue • 

College Park, GA 30337 

in this box • 

ATTN: AAM-862/Latonva Williams 

'^''"""•''•"•f'i"»li.Kii.wi,Mii,lMiiiH„JiM„/ 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be defefmined under 5 USC 552 
Q 

lie r,«r.«,+«.. • Office of Aviation IVIedlclne 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

U.S. Department Washington. D.C. 20591 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 2 2004 

Certified-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. Michael Selig, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On IViarch 3, 2004, you were informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

Investigating alleged violations of 49 CFR Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J. 

After reviewing the evidence compiled during the inspection of IVI and R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26, 2004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 18, 2004, it appears that M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions of 

the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs as detailed below: 

1. lUi and R Helicopters LLC's specimen collection procedures do not meet tiie 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to ensure the 

collector would complete Step 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. In the 

response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting training for Denese 

Miller. 

2. IVi and R Helicopters LLC's breatii aicoiio! testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to 

complete Step 1 item C, the Designated Employer Representative, on the Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Form. In the response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a 

copy of an Error Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

6^W ^-
3. M and R Helicopters LLC failed to maintain records as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's laboratory failed transmit the employer specific aggregate 

statistical summary for 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual basis. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure the lab will send statistical summaries for 2003. In the response dated 

March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copies of aggregate statistical 

summaries for 2003 from LabCorp. 

This is to confirm that you have satisfactorily corrected the above issues. We have given 

consideration to all available facts and concluded that these issues do not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter, which will be made a 

matter of record. We expect that in the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs will be in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roots 

Inspector, Compliance and Enforcement 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H * ^" ^ ^ ^ ^ *2.^\\ 

2816 Orefield Road ]{^^ " - \^,^ucr^ 

Aller^tov^n, PA. 18104 ^ . OIM G D~^^ ^ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^"^ Com'?Ila?r^ints°''^'' ^""'"^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO HAVE 

THE HEARING LOCATION 

AT THE US DISTRICT COURT. ALLENTOWN. PA. 

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

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

files the following Reply to Complainants Response to the Motion for Hearing at 

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

1. On October 1, 2010, on the informal hearing was held with Ms Ponto at 

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

at the US District Court. 

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

1 of 4 
hearing location is Allentown, since that is where the violation was investigated, 

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

cardiology/air charter office), the 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 to Allentown "would be a 

tremendous inconvenience and expense". 

4. It appears it was not a tremendous inconvenience and expense to 

come to Allentown to initiate, find and impose this frivolous alleged civil penaltv. 

pulling Dr Selio awav for hours from his private cardiology practice, but now is an 

inconvenience to appear to substantiate and defend her positions. 

5. The complainants have evaded and circumvented the main reason 

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

respondent's letter of November 24, 2010, that he a solo, private practice 

Lehigh Community cardiologist (for the last 23 years) with hospital and 

outpatient responsibilities. To leave 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 not 

initiate, has caused no harm, lacks legal merit and on very weak grounds. 

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

appropriately to compromise a physicians clinicgl responsibilities in his office or in 

2 of 4 
the hospital in a manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care or 

compromise patient care and potentially 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 appropriate, proper and reasonable that since the 

violation occurred, investigated, initiated and generated by coming to the 

Allentown Location, requiring 2 visits (specifically to the joint cardiology/air 

charter office) then it would only follow suit that 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 Pontos statement that the Allentown 

location was never discussed in the informal conference. 

9. 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 Schuylkill Expressway 

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

in Philadelphia airport area as compared to the easy access to Allentown both in 

air and ground traffic. The costs would also be greoter in the Philgdelphig greg. 

10. If the comploingnts gre concerned with conserving government funds, 

the most effective effort is to dismiss this cose now, before ony further time, 

expenses or potentiol gppegis squgnder even further resources. 

3 of 4 
11. The respondent hereby proposes the following; ossuming the prior 

suggested dotes were megnt to opply to 2011, gt the: 

US District Court 

504 Hgmilton Street 

Allentown, PA. 18101 

12. Respondent would be led to believe thot the Honoroble Judge Yoder 

would need to set up the heorings, unless otherwise notified. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent proys thgt this Honoroble Court will gront the 

Hegring locotion in Allentown, PA, the originoting locotion ond jurisdiction of the 

olleged violotion. 

Respectfully Submitted, ^ 

Michoel B. Selig, MD, FACC. y!^ u 

Dgte 

4 of 4