02/14/201 1 10:1 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA •» DMS §1001/00 9 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC , CFI-H 

2816 0refielcl Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

'PAHTMENT OF 

jiQponiATioN 

!; Ii 

DECEIVED 

FEB - 7 2011 

I rEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cvnthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Compiainonts 

M & R Helicopters, LLC, 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

"INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR BAKER 

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 Motion for More Definite Statement pertaining Ms 

Williams revised aHeged violation letter dated January 21, 2011, releasing the 

Mechanic/lA based on insufficient evidence. 

I. The complainants have adrnilted to formally releasing the prior 

lA/NAechanic on all counts, found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohoi 
02/14/201 1 10:1 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0002/009 

program by Ms William's letter of September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in 

her revised letter of January 21, 2011, [apparently signed for Ms William's, 

signature unidentifiable). 

2. This release also included as well to claims that the Mechanic/IA was 

not on a drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH or prior to 

MRH using him to perform his services. 

3. Vs \V':!;c;.-r-.i wus unwilling to affirm that Mr Baker was on a rnoniioring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby. 

4. The sole and primary premise for this violation then shifted as 

docur^ienied in Ms Williams inspector Statement lOP 9 record; to Ms Williams 

inabilily !o validate any FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program 

information for Mr Baker. 

5. Ms Williams was given evidence I hat Mr Baker was on o program prior 

and ouring, but chose not to pursue primary source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §13.224, before she rushed to judgment to 

Hnolize ner violation so that it could be entered just under the deadline, only one 

day prior to the 2 year statute of limitations. 

6. in Ms Williams rush to judgment and push lo get her proposed civil 

penalty entered just under the wire for the statute of limitations, she failed to 

identity that the alleged violations cited by complainants were performed by Mr 

Baker, afier MRH terminated operotions and was no longer performing flights for 

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

-2 
02/14/2011 10:15_FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 11003/009 

cornplionce with: 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

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

Iklicopier.s. LLC must have sulliciont qualified 

management and teciinical por>;onnel lo eniiurc Uio safety' 

of its operalums. DR Helicopters. LLC must have quajilled 

por.somicl servin;;; in the following or equivLilciii positions: 

(!) Director olOpcralions. (2) Chief l^ilol. (3) Director 

ofMauiicncUKC, 

Responoeni was me Direcior of Operations, Chief (only) Pilot and the 

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

risk of a minor_child, custody bottle, lime and responsibility restraints of his 

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

above regulation, stopped operalions. 

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

companies monitoring program, despite already releasing the other 

^.' cc.'^Ci'^'r /' ^ r^r- +hea s,'j'-:-^i;i j^xoc''' co'j''-- O^ ''"t^cse •£.":•.. c"''.;""'i' ''~'^'' '.ve'"-r- '•'•.' 

evident, disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, Mr 

Vincent Roots. MRHs FAA operations and maintenance inspectors or the 

Allentown FSDO manager. 

8. Ms Williams again shifted and re-crafted her nnoving target alleged 

violation with legal inconsistency and breach judicial estoppels by stating that 

MRH did nol determine that Mr Baker was on an FAA drug and alcohol program 
02/14/2 ^ 10:15 FAX 2024935142 FAA .OMS ^004/00 9 

prior to using his services, which was after MRH had alreddy shut down 

operations. This was another incorrect statement, since Mr Baker was on a 

monitoring program before respondent used his services. 

9. The same exact some case scenario pertains to the Mecnanic/!A 

whom Mr Williams released on oil counts due to insufficient evidence. 

10. The same insufficient evidence also follows suit as it applies to Mr 

Baker as he also was on a program prior to performing services for MRH. 

^ I. In addition, there were several factor.s concerning the ambiguity 

regarding disclosure of regulations, regulotions that were not dearly contair^ied, 

listed, spelled OUT or in a forttvight monner evident within the signed oft 

connpllance statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, 

conceaiec ond encouraging violation, rather trian effective compliance, in a 

forthright clear manner and understanding, in the spirit of safety. 

': ?. There were several factors concerning unclear and disputed 

interpretation of the language and meaning contained within I he signed off 

compiionce stotcment ana operational spcciticotioni. thereby encourogipg 

violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contran/ to 

standard practices in Adr-r-iinistrotion low. 

In Administrative Law "/n the inferprefotion of the 

language of regulations, where doubt exists os to fine 

intent of Ihe meaning of ttie /onguoge written and 

enacted by a governing body, the /onguoge shall be 

iriterpretcd in fovur of the Party and agair^st any implied 

extension of a restriction". 
02/^A/20r\ 10:15 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS il005/009 

13. By way of Judicial Estoppels and to be legally consistent, 

complainants should follow suit by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full 

iime employer's drug/a\cohol program prior and during, just as the mechanic/IA 

was formally released from those violations thereby voiding the legitimacy of 

the compioim. 

14. II would appear inappr'opriote for a goliath action to be taken against 

r: .srr'iO,, i/'.g-e p^o: operoiion Thai had iong stopped operating m due amgencc, 

good judgment and good faith, according to regulations due to human foctors of 

a tragic divorce case scenario and cardiology procticc time constraints in order 

to not expose the public to undue risk. 

15. 'iT would appear inappropriate, trivial and frivolous for action to Pe taken 

against a small .single pilot operation thai had done no harm, was an innocent 

pystarder, that has been operating in the red for years, had closed all financial 

accounis and has no assets. 

16. II would appear inappropriale to take action against respondent when 

tne case appeared oast the statute of tirnitalioris and time borrod. 

17. It appears that precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered 

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

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit and overreaching thai lacks proper initiative, 

perspective or good judgment. 

i 8. In good judgment and with proper perspective it would appear this 

legol pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense, since no harm 
occurred or^d when operations were being preformed prior to the violation, they 

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

the rouiine local FAA inspectors, therefore in the light of efforts ot judicial 

economy, the case should be dismissed. 

•'9. 11 would appear compiainonts are causing more horm and risk by 

taking the respondents focus away from tVis cordiology services he renders to the 

20. It now appears thot there are evidentiary reasons why the remaining 

ollcgaiion is also insufficient. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will granl: 

1. The Motion for More Definite Stotement tor cortiploinants to describe how the 

same logic and case scenarios tor the 2 mechanics is not idenlical and on the 

grounds ot Judicial Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency how the same insufficient 

evidence does apply exoctly to Mr Baker. 

2. "^tee^ing +he moving targel of changing claims, causes of action ona 

allegation violations, as is not permissible under common rules of civil 

procedures ot the State or Federal levels and in efforis tor judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Mict^aelB.Setig,MD,FACC, CFl-H •>- ^• 

Dote 
02/14/^1 1 10: 15_FAX_202_4935142 FAA .DMS @007/00^ 

o 

'.o 

otivotin'-ni ^^f'*^® Of Aerospace Medicine 

onransportaiici Drug Abatement Division 

Fedefoi Aviation 2895 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 148 

Administfotion IViiramar, FL 33027 

January 21, 2011 

Certified Mait - Return Receipt Requested 

File Number; 2010SO950353 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

SethlBhem. PA ^SO"^ 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we informed you that we were investigating M and R Helicopters, 

LLC s drug and alcohol testing programs for apparent violations of 49 CFR part 40 and 14 

CFR part 120, (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J) This letter supersedes the 

previous correspondence you received pertaining to the issues bearing file number 

2010SO950353. This letter addresses the issue described in the letter of investigation that 

is still open and under investigation and the issues that will be dosed with no action in lieu 

of a warning notice. 

The tollowing issue included in our August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File Number: 

2009SO950434) is still open and will be addressed in separate correspondence; 

* M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Edward Baker, a contraaor, was 

covered under a F/V\,-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to using his 

services. 

We have reviewed all available information concerning the following issues from our August 

14, 2009, letter of investigation {File Number; 2009SO950434): 

'. :;: 3,nc ,•=? .'-leiicop'.ers. ; i_C dio nc: ce^er^i.-ie ir.st Eugene i-icii-.icsr. a r.op.vsz.o: -.i i 

covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to using his 

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 Bal<er to 

perform safety-sensitive functions. 

We have reviewed all available information and concluded that there is insufficient evidence 

to support the allegation pertaining to Eugene Mcintosh's coverage under an FAAmandated drug and alcohol testing program. Furthermore, we are not pursuing legal 

enforcement action with regard to the pre-employment drug testing issues relevant to 

Eugene Mcintosh and Edward Baker. Vou may consider these matters closed. 

http;//www faa.gov/about/ofr1ce_or9/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aa1n/clrug_alcor10l/ 
02/14/2011 10:1G FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS lgl008/009 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFi 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

I'^ebriiary 1, 20 i i 

Peter Lync:h, Esq. 

EttforrfemenT. Division /AGC--300 

Offi"« of ihc Chi(-r Counsel 

:-".\.-\ 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Sent by Fax 202-267-5106 

Re: Ms Ponto's License Number-Second Request 

Dear Mr. Lynch: 

In response i.o your letter dated January 26, 2011, the information 

previously requested was not provided. Therefore, ai. your carliesv convenience 

piccisc provide proof of Ms. Ponio's Attorney ID license nijmber(s), a s well as 

the slaie(s) where she is lic-.ensed to practice; as noted in the attached exhibit. 

if Ms Ponto does not have a valid state attonicy identilication number (jr 

license number please state thi-s fact forthright. Having been on local hospitals 

credentials commiirces, it is unclear to me if she iy licensed and has an 

i":t-.or'ipv [[) r.uiTibc:', wnv all o!'!•"(_•:• si.'i'P.cr! •.lier-.'.ciiviu'-.;, 'i'.^V. I'r'.iw.w \'n\,.-

unsigned reference. Of further interest if she is under your supervision, why iS 

not your signature and ID numlDcr not required as would be standard 

procedure. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-II 

Ce: 

Dockei. 2010-1211 

^ ^ \ , \ 
02/14/2011 10:16 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 0008/009 

^^ce/^^5iU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

^^ARiHQ ^2on 

I Federal Aviation Administration 

I Cynthio Donninik. Laura Ponto, 

Latoriya Williams, Peter Lynch 

I Complainants 

i M i R Helicopters, LLC. 

L. Respondent 

DOCKET 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoderj 

Docket. 2010-1211 

CERTIRCATE OF SERVICE 

I lLRt-P>Y CFRTII-Y tlnat I have ihis day scived the [<Mrtgoing crilrie(s) 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

"INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR BAKER 

LETTER TO MR LYNCH 

upon all portics of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the reQuiremenls of Rule 29 

pursuant to ?8U.S. C, ^' 1/46 . 

•Sert'ice bv first cics.'; inail, postage oreooid, oddressed os foilow:>: 

hederol A^iotion Adminislration 

800 Independence Av/enue, SW 

Wilbur Wrigtii AvftnLje-,Suitc 2WI000 

Wn.shington, D,c:. 205^1 

All: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43 0 

C' I-AX 202 473^5142 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US DepuHrrient of Transportotion 

Office ot Hearings, M-20, Koom El2-320 

1200 New .Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washinglf3n, DC 20590 

'---FAX 202 '^66 7636 

Lauro Ponto, Esq. 

•^:.,;[..,.^.../ i ••-• ,- • '}'^- ^ 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

wa.5hington, DC 20591 

l-AX202"267 510i^ 

.•,l>t. By: 

Michael B. Selig. MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Rood 

Allcnlov^n. PQ. 18104 

610 360 3953 V-'^'";. 

Date; """ _ 

'•<.. ""J