r\ 

.JrRARi WENT OF 

- -m/^NSPOFlTATION " " ' 

i-CCIv:' QPERATICNS Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ZOiiAUG-Li P !:5 0 AUG- 2 2011 

) 

In the matter of ) 

F ::AR/NG DOCKET 

) Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FA A Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

CO^TFLA1NANT^S RESPONSE TO M & R HELICOPTERS' MOTION FOR 

APPEAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DENYING DEPOSITION 

OF LAURA PONTQ AND LATONVA WILLIAMS 

Respondent asks the Administrative Law Judge to reconsider his order denying 

the depositions of Laura Ponto and Latonya William's. There is no basis for granting this 

motion. 

In support of his motion, Respondent cites 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.225 and 13.234. 

Neither regulation, however, provides a basis for reconsidering the order denying the 

depositions. 14 C.K.R. § 13.225 provides that a party to a proceeding whose evidence has 

been excluded by a ruling of the administrative law judge may offer the evidence for the 

record on appeal. Here, a hearing has yet to be held and therefore, an appeal is not yet 

appropriate. 14 C.F.R. § 13.234 provides that a part>' may petition for the FAA 

decisionmaker to reconsider or modify a final decision and order issued by (he FAA 

decisionmaker on appeal from an initial decision. Again, in this case, a hearing has yet to 

be held and therefore, an appeal is not yet appropriate. 

In addition to the lack of a procedural basis for Respondent's motion, his requests 

for depositions of Laura Ponto and Latonya Williams should also be denied as they have 
r\ 

already been addressed by Chief Administrative Yoder during the pre-hearing conference 

held on March 25, 2011. 

With respect to Respondent' motion regarding Laura Ponto, Ms. Ponto was an 

attorney in this matter and appeared in this matter on behalf of the FAA. Given her role 

as counsel, Respondent' motion continues to be inappropriate. In addition, it appears that 

Respondent' is singularly concerned with Ms. Ponto's credentials as a licensed attorney. 

(Resp't's Mot. — Motion for Deposition of Laura Ponto and Latonya Williams July 15, 

2011). On numerous occasions, M & R Helicopters' has raised the issue regarding 

Ms. Ponto's qualifications. See e.g.. Letter dated Jan. 11, 2011, from Michael Selig, MD, 

requesting Ms. Ponto's license information (Attachment A), Resp't's Pet. Mar. 2, 2011 

("Attachment B). and Letter dated May 14, 2011, from Michael Selig, MD, regarding Ms. 

Ponto not being a lawyer (Attachment O . Complainant responded to each of 

Respondent's requests stating that Ms. Ponto was appropriately licensed and authorized 

to represent Complainant in this matter. See e.g.. Letter dated Jan. 26, 2011, stating that 

Ms. Ponto is appropriately licensed and authorized to represent the FAA in this matter 

(Attacliment D), and Letter dated May 16, 2011, stating that all filings in this matter have 

been made in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Section 13, Subpart G (Attachment E). In 

addition, on March 14, 2011, Complainant filed an opposition to Respondent's March 2, 

2011, petition. Compl't's Opposition Mar. 14, 2011 (.^nachinent F). On March 25, 

2011, Chief Administrative Law Judge Yoder denied all outstanding motions except 

those regarding the issues addressed in Complainant's and Respondent's Pre-Hlearing 

Briefs. Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference at 92. Respondent again raises this issue • 
when it has already been addressed by both Complainant and the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge, therefore, this repetitious request should again be denied. 

With respect to Respondent's motion regarding deposing Latonya Williams, this 

too has already been addressed on numerous occasions. See e.g., Resp't's Mot. Dec. 1, 

2010 (AttachmenLG), Resp't's Mot. Dec. 21, 2010 (Attachment H \ Resp't's Mot. -T o 

Have the Pre-Trial Deposition of Latonya Williams at Gallagher Reporting, Allentown, 

PA Jan. 7, 2011 (Attachment I). Complainant responded to each of Respondent's 

Motions, providing that Latonya Williams could be deposed in Miami, FL, her residence 

and place of work. See e.g., Compl't's Resp. Dec. 15, 2010 (Attachment J), CompJ't's 

Resp. Dec. 29, 2010 (Attachjnent K), and Compl't's Resp. - To Have the Pre-Trial 

Deposition of Latonya Williams at Gallagher Reporting, Allentown, PA Jan. 14, 2011 

(Attachment L"). On March 25, 2011, Cliief Administrative Law Judge Yoder denied all 

outstanding motions except those regarding the issues addressed in Complainant's and 

Respondent's Pre-Hearing Briefs. Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference at 92. 

Respondent again raises this issue when it has already been addressed by both 

Complainant and the Chief Administrative Law Judge, therefore, tliis repetitious request 

should again be denied. 

With respect to Respondent's request for Latonya Williams to bring to a 

deposition her 2009-10 travel logs, this too has been addressed on numerous occasions. 

See e.g., Resp't's Mot. Jan. 30, 2011 (Attachment M), and Resp't's Mot. Feb. 17, 2011 

(Attachment N). Complainant responded that the materials sought are irrelevant aiid the 

request is overly broad. Compl't's Resp. Feb. 9, 2011 (Attachment O). After receiving 

redundant and baseless filings from Respondent, Complainant finally filed a Notice of 
Continuing Objection on Feb. 18, 2011. (Attachment P). Once again, on March 25, 

2011, Chief Administrafive Law Judge Yoder denied all outstanding motions except 

those regarding the issues addressed in Complainant's and Respondent's Pre-Hcaring 

Briefs. Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference at 92. Respondent again raises this issue 

when it hiis already been addressed by both Complainant and the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge, therefore, this repetitious request should again be denied. 

Additionally, it should be noted that Respondent states that two regulations that 

are in question in this matter, 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251 and 135.255, have been removed and 

rescinded. (Resp't's Mot. - For Deposition of Laura Ponto and Latonya Williams July 

15,2011). This is incorrect. 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251 and 135.255 remained unchanged 

until the drug and alcohol regulations were recodified to 14 C.F.R. part 120 in 2009. At 

that time, 14 C.F.R. § 135.251 was recodified as 14 C.F.R. § 120.35, and 14 C.F.R. § 

135.255 was recodified as 14 C.F.R. § 120.39. See Drug and Alcohol Testing Program; 

Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg.22649, 22650 (May 14, 2009). When these regulations were 

recodified, the final rule explicitly stated that, "[t]he FAA is not making any substantive 

changes to the drug and alcohol regulations in this rulemaking." Id. at 22649. 
WHEREFORE. Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Appeal and Reconsideration of the Order Denying 

Deposition of Laura Ponto and Latonya Williams. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: _ 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 . 

Phone: (202)267-3357 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Email: charles.raley(§faa.gov 

Dated: July 29, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

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

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

Appeal and Reconsideration of the Order Denying Deposition of Laura Ponto and 

Latonya Williams In the Matter ofM & R Helicopter, Docket No. CP1OSOOO110, FAA 

Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC . . 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

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

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

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Dated: July 29, 2011 
ATTACHMENT A 
0Vn/20 U 9:22PM FAX 00001/0015 

M & R HeJicopters, LLC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 1S104 

Januar y 11, 2011 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Sent by Fax 202-267-5106 

Re ; Licens e Numbe r 

Dear Ms Ponto: 

Please forward to me your Attorney ID License numbe r and the States 

tha t you are licensed to practice. I have never seen a n attorney submit or file a 

document to a docket without this information on it. This information is 

public. If you do not have a license or are functioning as a trainee or intern 

unde r supervision within the FAA, please inform me of such. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael SeUg, MD, FACC, CFJ-H 

^)^'' ^ 
ATTACHMENT B 
03/02/201 1 8:00AM FAX lOOOl/OOOl 

-Michael-SeligrMDrFACCrCFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 

Federal Aviaiion Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

PETITION FOR DISCLOSURE OF MS PONTOS ATTORNEY ID NUMBER 

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

CFI-H, principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 

2007) whiom avers an d files the following Petition forMs Ponto to disclose 

her credentials to this court. 

1. Throughout this litigation, Ms Ponto's has refused to address 

specific enumerated paragraphs in breach of Federal Rule 3. 

2. Throughout this litigation, Ms Ponto has been impermissibly short 

a n d vague, has not pleaded facts with sufficient specificity and in 

accordanc e with standard practices. The Intent of these standard 

practices is to confine the pleading party's proof to only those acts 
_ _alleg.ed,jhus.enabling-a-re5ponding-party-to-prepare-their defense^: 

3. When Ms Ponto did respond, she failed to plead facts with 

sufficient specificity, but in a collaborative, conclusionary manner, usually 

with a one word response "Deny", one line statements or completel y 

circumvented specific pleadings, thereby adding redundancy an d 

repetitious approaches to pleadings. 

4. Ms Ponto has filed tote responses to motions past the 10 da y 

deadline period under § Rule 13.218(d), for example, not using actua l 

dates of service in attempts to impair the dignify of this court. 

5. Ms Ponto failed to produce the requested evidence as to whe n 

the responses were actually received in her response to matters. Dates 

were indicated on the document itself as to when it was drafted, not 

representing an actual date of service. Often these draft dates wer e 5 

days earlier than actual dates of service. 

6. Ms Ponto has refused to address the New Matter date d 

January 6, 2011 of respond to admission of truth \Q facts stated as 

requested in the Motion for More Definite Statement- Deposition of Ms 

Dominik pertaining to that telephone cad, completely ignoring that 

matter. 

7. Ms Ponto has refused to provide requested proof of 

government paid signed authorizations for dotes documents were 

'Baker v Rangos, 324 A.2d 198, 505 (Pa Super Cl. 1974 

• — " " " -2 -
received-by respondent: ^ "^ ^ 

8. Ms Ponto clings to and holds steadfast to her positions of any 

cost to the government and taxpayers, bellevably disregarding an d 

abusing governmental spending, litigation costs which extend far beyon d 

the finite fine allotment. Any subsequent appeals process will further 

outstretch precious sparse judicial resources and litigation costs to the 

government an d taxpayers. 

9. Ms Ponto's acts are a disgrace to the agency, vexatious, 

malicious, and reckless, representing willful misconduct, abuse of process 

a n d discretion, unfair judgment, with intent to pose unnecessary harm to 

respondent and imped e on respondent's ability to provide patient care, 

to impair the dignity of the court an d disrespect its authority. 

10. Ms Ponto has mad e several intentional an d willful acts to 

disguise the truth in this cose, not address the issues specifically requested, 

has not exercised full candor in order to trick and deceive this court. 

11. By Ms Ponto's failure to respond specifically to pleadings, have 

dubiously an d injuriousiy propagate d voluminous filings, dissipating 

government assets and recourses far beyond the penalty fee, contrary to 

her claims for judicial economy . 

12. Ms Ponto has squandered an d abused scarce judicial recourses 

to pursue a case at any cost that appears frivolous an d non meritorious. 

13. Ms Ponto has foiled to opply principles of law, abused her 

- 3 -
discretionjn^mqking.findings-of-f act,-thereby committing errorsotlaw and 

abused her discretion in making conclusions of law. 

14. Respondent by incorporating herein by reference oil of the 

foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth, the conduct and judgment 

m Ms Ponto has become suspect. 

15. Ms Ponto never placed her Attorney ID number on any 

documents submitted to the court docket, contrary to standard practice. 

16. Ms Ponto when submitting documents to the court and to the 

docket, always had Mr Lynch's unsigned and thereby unauthorized name 

appearing on the documents. 

17. On January 11, 2011, respondent requested Ms Ponto's Attorney 

ID and the states that she is licensed to practice, all information that is 

public information, should be on her documents and should nof be 

hidden or concealed. 

18. On January 26, 2011, Mr Lynch addressed a one sentence letter 

to respondent, stating vaguely that Ms Ponto was "appropriately licensed 

and authorized to represent the FAA". No oltorney ID number or states of 

licensure was provided as was repeatedly requested. 

19. On February 1, 2011, a letter from respondent to Mr Lynch again 

requested proof of license and attorney ID number for Ms Ponto and if Ms 

Ponto is under his supervision and why his signature and ID number is not 

required. No answer to date has been received. 

- 4 -
.- 20. Respondent was refused the request of Ms Ponto's~attbr'ney 

license ID number since it has never appeared on any document she 

submitted to this court. This Is public information, to not display or disclose 

this public information even when directly requested appears suspect and 

is a breach of common practices at the state and federal courts. 

20. Due to Ms Ponto's conduct with her intent to deceive this court, 

conceal her credentials, strict proof of her attorney Id number needs to 

be revealed or forthright disclosure if she is a trainee and under supervision 

status by Mr Lynch and if or when she passed her bar examination. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will mandate 

production of her attorney ID number and states she is licensed to 

practice or disclose if she is a trainee and under supen/ision. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

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

Date "^-O ^ V 

' 5 -
o o i yJC/ d y I I o V 1 r.m r r,A 

Michael SelLg, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road. 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

Februao^ 1, 2011 

Peter Lynch, Esq, 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

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 to your letter dated Januar y 26, 2011, the information 

previously requested was not provid.ed. Therefoiie, at your earliest convenience 

please provide proof of Ms. Ponto's Attorney ID license number(s), a s well as 

the state(s) where she is licensed to practice; as noted in the attached exhibit. 

If Ms Ponto does not have a valid state attorney identification numbe r or 

license nLimber please state this fact forthright. Having been on local hospitals 

credentials committees, it is unclear to me if she is licensed and ha s an 

attorney ID number, why all of her signed pleadings, still require your 

unsigned reference. Of further interest if she is unde r your supervision, why is 

not your signatuj-c and ID numbe r not required as would be standard 

procedure. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael SeLig. MD, FACC, CFLH 

Cc: 

Docket 2010^12111 

^ . ^ 

n 
^u^ V^: 

Before the U.S. Department ofTransportation. 

~" Federal Aviation Administration 

In Ihe matter of 

M&RliELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M & R ttELICOPTERS' 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - TKAVEL LOG FOR 

I^TONYA WILLAIMS 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M & R Helicoptevs* 

(Respondent) Motion for Mor^Definite Statement — Travel Log for Latonya Williams. 

This request is duplicitous. 

Complainant respectftilly requests that the Chief Administrative Law Judge refer 

to Complainmil's Response To M&R Helicopter's Motion For Specific Discovery -

Travel Log For Latonya Williams, filed on February 9, 2011, and deny Respondent's 

Motion for More Definite Statement - Travel Log for Latonya Williams. 

Respectfully submitted, ^ 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: a^^^^a} C/^:::^ 

Date: February 18,2011 

ura Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 "Independence Avenue, S.W, 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile-. (202)267-5106 
-U.S.-DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATIO N 

Tederol Aviation AdirilnlsTraflorr 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Lafonyo Williams, Poter Lynch 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LlC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judgo Ronnio Yoder 

Docket : 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

i HEREBY CERTIFY that 1 hove this day served the foregoing entriels): 

PETITION FOR DISCLOSURE OF MS PONTOS AHORNEY ID NUMBER 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordanc e with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 17A6 . 

Service by first-class mgjL postoae prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Admlnlstrafion 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W]000 

Washington, D.C. 2059] 

Aft: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto. Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, 0 0 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department ofTransportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20. Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 364 7536 

By: ^ 

Michoel 6, Selig. MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 ^ ^^ ^ V 

Date; _ J2: 
ATTACHMENT C 
05/14/201 1 4:42PM FAX • . 00001/000 2 

MicHAEI^B. SmjG,_RD.,_RA,C.C. 

XifeLine Cardiology 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

2816 0refieid Road 

Altenlown, PA, 18104 

May ]4, 2011 

Charles Raley, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-SOO 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

1/202-267-5106 

Re: Request for FAA Regulations and Procedures for FAA Legal Representation by 

Unlicensed Attorneys 

Dear Mr Raley; 

I hove not received a response to my letter of May 10, 2011. I remain 

^ hopeful that w e ca n still reach accor d for a complete dismissal of this case. This 

case from the beginning to end has lacked substantive'medt that MRH wUltuHy or 

wittingly breached a regulation. 

Also, during the course of this litigation it appears thai Ms Ponto abused 

har discretion in her findings of fact, failed to base her allegations on proper 

procedural grounds, thereby committing errors of law, resulting in her erred 

conclusions of law. Ms Ponto based her initial premise for this violation by 

insisting that Mr Baker was not on any monitoring program, which was 

inaccurate. She did not consider or investigate the salient point that no 

operations occurred during the violation period. She did not consider an d then 

testified to Judge Yoder that she did not know that the compan y operated at a 

loss, despite submitting MRHs LLC tax returns to Ms Ponto by fax, first class mail 

a n d to the docket, in January 2011. She redacte d the violation dat e once she 

was mad e aware that the violation was sitting for over 2 years, past the stole 

complaint rule. There were many assertions in the Pre-hearing Conference by 

Ms Pont that put her credibility at question. 

During the course the litigation, it becam e apparent that Ms Ponto was 

unfamiliar with the docket information, inexperienced, not a licensed attorney, 

by default either did not take and/or pass her bar examination. All requests 

regarding her specific credentials were denied. Forthwith, she recused herself 

Gateway Professional Center • 2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 205 • Beihiehem, Pennsylvania 18017-7474 

Volce/Vtvi 610-868-6200 * Fax 610-868-1489 • Education Son/ice 610-868-6203 • E-t^ait tifBllnecQrd(^verlzon.net 
•jzi/ \H / ^<j \ \ H . H ^ r \n rrt A 121 u u u ;^ / u u u i^ 

from this litigation.-lt..appears that-all-pleadings-(in-excess of-l00)-were-based--

on her representations that she was a salaried, licensed attorney for the FAA, 

without disclosure, on direct request as to her true status. Also worthy of mention 

Is that her pleadings lacked countersignature by a licensed attorney. I 

challenge the appropriateness of these pleadings that were entered into the 

record. There has now been four attorneys' in this case. Ms Ponto nor-her 

apparent supervisor Ms Dominick who was co-counsel for the FAA in the hearing 

of March 25, 2011, ever entered their entry of appearance. Mr Lynch and you 

entered their appearance only at a late dote. These pleadings have cost 

innumerable man hours on both sides with a negative return on government 

spending at the taxpayer's expense. Judicial resources have in addition been 

squandered and abused. 

Accordingly, I now request that you moke available the specific 

regulations that cleariy demarcate the parameters in which representation for 

the FAA in these matters can be done by an unlicensed attorney under the 

above circumstances that is contrary to standard practices. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. CFI-H 
ATTACHMENT D 
© 

U.S. Department Q^^ ^ ^^ (he Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW. 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

CERTIFIED M\IL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

January 26, 2011 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M&RHelicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr. 

Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Re: DOT Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1, FAA case no. 2009SO950434 

Dr. Selig, 

In response to your January 11, 2011 inquir}', I am writing to confirm that Laura Ponto is 

an attorney for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), appropriately licensed and 

authorized to represent the FAA in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Peter J. Lynch^ 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Di\asion, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-3137 

Facshnile: (202)267-5106 

cc: The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washmgton, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 
ATTACHMENT E 
& 

U.S. Departmen t Q^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ Qf,jgf counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Wastiington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviqfion 

Administration 

May 16,2011 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETUItN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Dr. N4ichael B. SeHg 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr. . ' . 

Suite 205 "^. 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Re: DOTDocketNo. CPlOSOOOll, FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Dr. Selig, 

I have reviewed your letters dated May 10, 2011, and May 14, 2011. At this time, 1 am 

preparing a brief for Judge Yoder that is due May 27, 2011. This brief will address, 

among several issues, the issue brought up in your May 10, 2011, letter regarding the 

status of operations under your certificate at the time of these violations. With regard to 

your letter dated May 14, 201, the regulations governing this proceeding can be found in 

14 C.F.R. Section 13, Subpart G - Rules of Practice m FAA Civil Penalty Actions. All 

filings in this matter have been made in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Section 13, Subpart 

G. 

Sincerely, 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Phone: (202)267-3357 

Facshnile: (202)267-5106 . 

Email: charles.raleyfgfaa.gov 
ATTACHMENT F 
Before the U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

) 

In the matter of ) 

) . Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Chief Judge Ronnie A. Voder 

) 

) 

COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO M & R HELICOPTERS' 

PETITION FOR DISCLOSURE OF MS PONTOS ATTORNEY ID NUMBER 

Complainant files this opposition to Respondent's Petition for Disclosure of Ms 

Pantos [sic] Attorney ID Number. Respondent's petition is replete with inaccuracies, 

false statements, and unwarranted accusations against a government attorney who has 

performed her duties with dihgence and in accordance with all ethical and legal 

requirements that pertain to her job and this proceeding. Respondent's pleading seeks 

irrelevant material and appears to have been filed for the purpose of harassing 

Complainant's coLmsel. 

Respondent's pleading is consistent with an increasing pattern of harassment and 

attack on agency counsel. Among the more outrageous accusations made against agency' 

counsel m this petition are: 

Ms. Ponto's acts are a disgrace to the agency, vexations, mahcious, and reckless, 

representing willful misconduct, abuse of process and discretion, unfair judgment, 

with intent to impose unnecessary harm to respondent and impede on 

respondent's ability to provide patient care, and impair the dignity of the court 

and disrespect its authority. Petition for Disclosure of Ms. Ponto's Attorney ID 

Number 0.1 ?>. 

Ms. Ponto has made several intentional and vrillfiil acts to disguise the tmth in 

this case, not address the issues specifically requested, has notexercised full 

candor in order to trick and deceive this coitrt. Id. 
— -Ms.-Ponto has squandered and-abused scarce judicial-resources-to pursue a-case-at-

• any cost that appears fiivolous and non meritorious. Id. 

Ms. Ponto has failed to apply principles of law, abused her discretion in making 

findmgs of fact, thereby committing errors of law and abused her discretion in 

making conclusions of law. Id, at 3-4. 

Based on these allegations. Respondent asks the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

to order Complainant's attorney "to disclose her credentials to the court," claiming that 

due to Ms [sic] Ponto's conduct with her intent to deceive this court, conceal her 

credentials, strict proof of her attorney Id [sic] number needs to be revealed or forthright 

disclosure if she is a trainee and under supervision status by Mr [sic] L^ ich and if or 

when she passed her bar examination." Id. at 5. On January 26, 2011,1 confirme ^o 

Respondent in a letter that Ms. Ponto is an attomey for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), appropriately licensed, and authorized to represent the FAA in 

this civil penalty matter. In every document filed in this matter, under Ms. Ponto's 

signature, it clearly states that she is an attomey and there is no requnement to provide a 

bar number on pleadings filed in FAA civil penalty matters. Moreover, there is no basis 

for Respondent's suggestion that Ms. Ponto might not be an attomey simply because she 

executes documents under delegation fi"om the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement. 

All attorneys in this office similarly execute documents. 

To suggest that an attorney in this office and a member of the bar has engaged in, 

among other things, the falsification of documents, intentional or knowing 

misrepresentation, abuse of discretion, abuse of authority, a lack of candor to the tribunal, 

and dishonesty in a legal proceeding is a serious matter. These accusations appear to be 

lacking in any factual basis. The record shows that many of the statements made by 

Respondent are false. For example, Respondent's claims that agency counsel responded 
tp_itsraotions/_^isuaUy3vith.a_one3Vord.response."_i^eiY/^'o«/or_Z)/5c/o5w/'e.o/A/5../^Ort/o.y 

Attorney ID Number at 2. The record demonstrates that agency counsel never responded 

to any motion, no matter how fiivolous or repetitious, with a one word answer. 

Respondent accuses agency counsel of "not using actual dates of service in attempts to 

impair the dignity of this court." Respondent complains that 

Ms. Ponto failed to produce the requested evidence as to when the responses were 

actuaUy received...dates were indicated on the document itself as to when it was 

drafted, not representing an actual date of service. Often these dates were 5 dates 

earlier than actual dates of ser\'ice. Id. at 3. 

Respondent mistakenly believes that the date of service is the date a document is 

"actually received" by him although the Procedural Rules provide that that "if mailed, the 

mailing date shown on the certificate of ser\'ice" constitutes the date of service. 14 

C.F.R. § 13.210(d); see also 14 C.F.R § 13.210(b). Respondent has filed countless 

motions arguing that Complainant has filed documents late when, in fact, the pleadings 

were timely filed. Ms. Ponto has not falsified dates of service and Respondent's 

allegation appears to be based on nothing more than his misunderstanding of the 

procedural rules. 

Respondent also suggests that Ms. Ponto falsified evidence. The documents that 

Respondent argues were impermissibly altered were contained in the FAA Enforcement 

Investigafive Report (EIR) that was provided to Respondent. Respondent states that 

Complainants have provided preliminary discovery that was spoliated [sic] and 

dedacted [sic], claiming the altering and corruption of the data occurred within 

allowed parameters, but complainants were unwilling to provide those guidelines 

or any reference therein pertaining to any [sic] the exact methods allowed for the 

spoliation and dedactions [sic]. Motion for Special Relief and Sanction Against 

Complainants ~ Prosecutorial Indiscretion, February 28, 2010, at 6-7. 
These documents were redacted to withhold privileged pprtions_o_f the.EIR._ Respondent 

was notified of this as follows: 

The portions of the EIR that have not been released are withheld as privileged 

because they contain the investigator's analysis, recommendations, and opinions. 

They are privileged because they are deliberative, pre-decisional materials, 

rendered by agency staff members in the course of reaching a final determination 

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

Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc). October 21, 

2010, Letter from FAA to Dr. Michael Seiig. 

There is simply no merit to Respondent's petition. While some of his accusations appear 

to be based on his misunderstanding of the procedural rules and his misreadkig of 

Complainant's filings, his personal attacks on agency counsel are unacceptable and 

should not be tolerated. 

WHEREFORE, Coraplaiaant respectfnlly requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Petition for Disclosure of Ms. Pontos [sic] Attorney ID 

Number. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Dated: March 14.2011 

r

Pgter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washmgton, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facshnile: (202)267-5160 
Certificate of Service 

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

certified re turn-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Opposition to Respondent's Petition for 

the Disclosure of Ms. Ponto's Attomey ED Ntmiber In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, 

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

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters,'LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

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

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

The Honorable Rormie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facshnile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

6Q<} JJidependence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dated: March 14,2011 
ATTACHMENT G 
DEC-01-2010 13:^7 From:MICHAEL B. SELIG G10 8SS 1489 To:202 2G7510S P.1^7 

•MichaelSeligrMDrFACC.-

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lauro Ponto, Latonya Willianns 

Coinpiainonts 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Cose: No: 2009SO950434 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMSALLENTOWN, PA. LOCATION 

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

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2009) who m 

rjvers an d tiles the following MOTION to Depose Latonya Williams for a pre trial 

examination at the U.S. District Court located at 504 Hornilton Street, Allentown, 

PA 18101. 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeare d for an initial scheduled inspection at the joint office of Lifeline 

Cardiology and MR Helicopters, LLC. 

2. On July 23, 2009, FAA Officer, Latonya Williams returned clone toi ihe 

1 of 5 
DEC-01-20i0 13:-^? FromiNICHnEL B. SELIG 610 8S8 1489 To:20e 2675198 P-S-'T 

"secoTTd ifis^p"e"ctIon"'visit"of"ttT'e"MRH drug and alcohoTabatemenf records. 

3, Ms Williams behavior was often.sive and unprofessionol throughout the 

entire inspection, contrary lo the FAA AVR Customer Service Expectation 

Policies. She entered the joint medical office, referred to the respondent as 

"Mike" vs. Dr. Selig and spoke loudly enough for unscheduled walk-in patients 

and secretary to overhear her rude tonality. In addition, Ms Williams took an 

excessive amount of time in doing tier inspection, over 2 hours, required 

respondent to assemble on on spot letter to tier, delaying respondents potient 

care responsibilities. It becom e evident early on that Ms Williams draws on and 

misuses the authority bestowed on her, to implement and create hardship an d 

financial domoges. 

4. Ms Williams assumed That mectianic Edward Baker was not covered 

under any FAA-mandated drug/alcohol testing program and the sole premise 

for her violation of MRH, 

3. Ms Williams disclosed that there was a policy change that occurred in 

February 2004. requiring all persons doing safety sensitive functions to be on the 

companies specific drug program, 

6. Ms Williams did not provide the requested specific details or training 

vyith regard to the specific regulation changes. 

7. MRH was never notified of this policy change and even more 

unsettling, the FAA maintenance inspector Gerry Henninger for MRH, also was 

not aware an d was therefore unable to Inform MRH of this change during the 5 

2 of 5 
DEC-01-2010 13:47 From:MICHPEL B. SELIG 610 868 1489 To:202 2675106 P.3^7 

"yedT'plus'periodthat he frequently inspectedlhe MRH aircraft, located at 

Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE) an d across the slreet from the 

Allentown Fligtit Standards District Office (FSDO). In fact none of the 

managemen t personnel at the Allentown FSDO were informed of the regulation 

change during thai 5 year period as well. 

8. Respondent told Ms Williams that MRH has not been able to perform 

port 135 operotions since June 2007, since the single pilot operator hod personal 

reasons (high conflici divorce, liability issues), that limited his ability to pass or 

take his flight exam or the inspector was unavailable to perform o flight exam 

(medical leave). MRH has since ceased operating under the name in 2009 an d 

certificate number thereby rendering the complaini moot. All financial 

accounts were subsequently closed in 2009. 

9. It is respondents stance to Ms Williams that the MRH operations were 

carried out in goo d faith an d with due diligence, having performed only two 

part 135 flights in 2007, none thereafter to the current date, using highly qualified 

locol mechanics and within.the disclosed known regulations as directed by 

MRH's assigned FAA officials and therefore, there was no harm and/or damoges 

incurred nor did MRH put the public at risk. 

10. Respondent contacte d FAA officers' supervisory officials in 

Washington. Jeff Stocky an d Steve Heche, following Ms Williams's audit, to get a 

clear understanding of the mailer, thai was not explained to him by Ms Williams 

a n d to discuss options as to how to becom e compliant with the new regulatory 

3 of 5 
DEC-01-2010 13:-^7 From:niCHflEL B. SELIG 610 868 1489 To:202 2675106 P.4^7 

-cfiange r " ^ ; 

n . In an expedient manner an d in compliance with these recently 

disclosed regulatory changes, in August 2009, MRH placed Edward Baker on its 

o wn companies drug program and issued a pre-er-nploynnent affidavit that 

averred tie never ho d a positive drug oi alcohol test an d a negotive random 

drug test was performed. 

12. Ms Williams was finoHy mad e aware of these compliance measures, 

after many unsuccessful attempts to contac t her, (stated she was traveling an d 

unavailable) but she chose to pursue the violation, never the less. 

13. On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter infor-med MRH that the 

abov e violations were under investigation. 

14. On July 23, 2010, MRH was served with o Notice of Proposed Civil . 

Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four Hundred Dollars). This 

occurred over 1 y^ar later, passed the statue of limitations an d therefore lime 

barred. 

15. On September 23, 2010, respondent was sei"ved with a letter from Ms 

Williams stating that "We have decided not to take legal enforcement action for 

these apparent violations. Instead, we are issuing this warning notice". "We 

continue to expect compliance v/ith all the applicable drug and alcohol • 

regulations". 

16. The olleged violation for Mr Boker according lo Ms Williams Inspector 

Statement lOP 9 record, was.due to "inability to find FAA approved-drug an d 

4 of 5 
DEC-01-a010 13:47 From;MICHfiEL B. SELIG 610 868 1489 . To:E02 2675106 P.5^7 

alcohol-testing program information'forPlight Meth'dds"'~MfBdke"rwds'riof 

employed by Flight Methods, but by Air Methods Corporation, therefore Ms 

Williams erred in Itiis fundamental fact driving the violation. 

1 7. Further pre-trial examinalion is now required. 

18. Respondent is o solo, private practice cardiologist an d requires that 

the hearing be at the 504 W. HomiltpnStreet, Allentown, PA location as to not 

b e d horrJship to his clinical responsibilities sei^-ing the community or put him at 

undue risk for liability en d molprociice. 

19. Ms Williams standard practice is to travel to remote-locations to 

perforfn inspections an d comes to Allentown regularly: ttierefore it would not be 

an inconvenience to her. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays thot this Honor-able Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Latonya Williams at the Allentown, PA location. 

Respeci fully'Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD. FACC. r ^• 

Date i^-i^'^ 

5 of 5 
DEC-01-2010 13:48 From:niCHPlEL B. SELIG 610 868 1489 To:202 2675106 P.6^7 

— _______ Michael Selig; MD.-FA'CC, CFI-H ~ " " " 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

December 1, 2010 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 

6500 South Ma c Arthur Blvd. 

Human Resource Management Office, AMH-1 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Mail Address; P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 • 

(405) 954-3501 

Re: Complaint against Latonya Williams AAM-862 

AVR Customer Service Expectation Vrolations 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Pursuant to the AVR Customer Service Expectation guidelines please find 

enclosed documen t tfiat discloses the conduc t of Drug Abatement Official 

Latonya Williams employee number AAM-862 warranting this complaint. 

In summary see below discrepancies: 

1. Considerate, respectful or professional. 

2. Clear explanation of requirements. 

3. Clear explanation ot decisions. 

4. Clear guidance on how to elevote the concerns to the next level of authority. 

5. Presentation of information and moteriols, 

6. Ambiguities and inconsistencies in the regulations. 

Ms Williams has further erred, abused her discretion and misused her authority in 

this case. She draws on her ability to implement and create hardship an d 

financial damiages. It appears that Ms Williams requires some form ot retraining, 

rehabilitation, counseling or foleose. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michoel Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ^:^\^ ^ 

cic. Motion tor Deposition of Latonya Williams 

to Docket 2009SO950434 
DEC-01-2010 13:48 From:MICHREL 8. SELIG 610 868 1489 To:20E 2675106 P.7^7 

"U.S. "DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Admlnls.tration 

Laufa Ponto, Lotonyo Williams 

Complaincinls 

M I R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

IHCRfiBYCFRTIFY thotihav e this day served (he foregoing entrie(5): 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMSupon oil parties ot record in this proceeding, in accordanc e wiih the requiremenib- of Rule 29 

pui^uant to 20 U. i . C. £^ 1 /46 . 

Sei^ice bv first doss mail, posfaqe oreooid. addressed oa follows: 

Fedefol Aviation Admini^trotion 

600 Independence Avenue, 5W 

Wilbur Wright Avenue Suite 2W10n0 

Woiitiingion, D.C. 20.^91 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-'iao 

Louro Ponto, Esq 

enforcement Division/AGCoOO 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA • 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

Woshington, DC 20591 

[^^AX-2n2 2i';7;1106 

LOlonyo WillioiTiS 

Federal Aviation Admlnlstrolion 

Ottice of Aeroiipoce Medicine 

Drug Abotemeni Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

Colleoe Pot'<., GA 30337 

By: 

Michoel B. Selig, MD. FACC. 

'2816 Orefield Rood 

Allentown. Po. ISIO'I .T } 

610 360 3953 \/rV ^ 

Hole: V 
ATTACHMENT H 
12/21/201 0 8:41AM FAX (2)0001/0012 

'Micha'erSelig7MDrFACCrCFI-R" 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON , D,C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Connplainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION TO HAVE DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS IN THE 

ALLENTOWN. PA. LOCATION 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom overs an d 

files the follovv'ing Reply to matters pertaining to the Deposition of Latonya 

Williams under Rule §13.225 at the U.S. District Court located at 504 W. Hamilton 

Street, Allentown, PA 18101. 

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

Deposition of Latonya Williams to Ms Ponto, to take plac e at the US District Court 

in Allentown, PA. 

2. Complainants failed to respond to the motion within the 10 day • 

deadline. 

1 of 3 
\ £.1 i. \ I C ^ iyi 0.4lrtl> l TftA i^qooi^/oui ^ 

3_. ^The_complainants.agreed-to-make-available-Mr-Williams-for 

Deposition in Mr Pontos response, received by respondent on December 20, 

2010. 

4. The meeting place of Washington DC and times set forth are not 

acceptabl e and not agreed upon by the respondent. 

5. The meeting place should be at the plac e where Ms Williams cam e 

to inspect an d to initiate the violation which was Lehigh Volley Pa- where there 

is conveniently located the U.S. District Court located at 504 W. Hamilton Street, 

Allentown, PA 18101 just minutes away . 

6. Ms Williams standard practice is to travel to remote locations to 

perform inspections, impose Civil Penalties against Operators and comes \o 

Allentown regularly; therefore it would not be an inconvenience to her lo com e 

onc e again to the Allentown area. 

7. Respondent wh o is a cardiologist and has a solo private practice " 

should not b e burdened or inconvenience for a viofaffon that he did not initiate 

a n d that appears to lack legal merit. 

8. Respondent who is a cardiologist and has a solo private practice 

should not be asked to compromise his clinical responsibilities in his office or the 

hospital in a manner that would delay an d compromise patient care an d 

potentially pose increase liabilities to him in his role of providing his public health 

core services to the community. 

9. The Deposilion should be required to be at the 504 W. Hamilton 

2 of 3 
12/21/201 0 8:41AM FAX 00003/001 2 

-Street,-Allentown,'PA"loCation".~ -- - - - •- • -

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

deposition of Latonya Williams at the Allentown, PA location. 

Respectfully Submitted, • 

, , - ' ^ Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. ^ - ^ 

Date__ \y-^^' ^ 

3 of 3 
ATTACHMENT I 
yiyoi/^yi i J . JJLT II rrt A L^uuy 4/ uu ^ J 

.Michael.Selig,.MD, FACC,-CFhH -

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18]04 

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 

MOTION TO HAVE THE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, FA. 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) who m avers an d 

files the following Motion to have the pre-trial Deposition of Latonya Williams 

under Rule §13.225 at the Gallagher Reporting and Video in Allentown, PA. 

1. O n December 1, 2010, respondent foxed an d filed a Motion for 

Deposition of Latonya Williams to Ms Ponto, to take place in Allentown, PA. 

2. Complainants failed to respond to the motion within the 10 day ". 

deadline. 

3. In complainants response date d December 20, 2010, complainant 

agreed to make available Ms Williams for Deposition an d cited erred dates of 

] of 4 
1J£J\."JVJ/ vw^ o 

.availability.forthe.pre^frial-deposition-of-January-28,-2010, February-1-4, 2010,- -

FebruaryS-l 1, 2010 or February 15-17,2010". 

4. The meeting place of Washington, DC was mentioned. At no time 

did respondent request or agree to d hearing at the Philadelphia, PA or 

Washington, DC locations. 

5. On December 21, 2010, respondent filed a motion to specifically 

request the deposition to be in the Allentown Location. 

6. On January 13, 2011, comploinonts served their response 13 days 

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

also is unacceptable to the respondent. 

7. It would b e most appropriate, proper an d reasonable that since the 

violation occurred, investigated, initiated an d generated by Ms Williams by 

coming to the Allentown Location, requiring 2 visits [specifically to the joint 

cardiology/air charter office) then it would only follow suit that the deposition, 

defense and substantiation of claims thereby be held in the Allentown location, 

where the alleged violation occurred and the location of the originating 

jurisdiction. 

8. Ms Williams standard practice is to travel to remote locations to 

perform inspections with the only intent to find an d impo.se civil penalties against 

operators. She stated to the respondent that she "travels all over as part of her 

job", therefore it would not be an inconvenience for her to com e onc e again to 

the Allentown orea as she did to initiate the violation. 

2 of 4 
i ^ y uyo / uu^ : J 

_._. 9. The complainonis-again evade d and cireumventedthemai n 

reason for respondents request for the Allentown location, as stated in his letter 

of November 24, 2010, namely ihe respondents primary role in the Lehigh 

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

hospital an d outpatient responsibilities. To leave the area would pose undue 

hardship to his patients. It would not be proper.or reosonable to burden or 

inconvenience neutral party patients and a physician for an alleged violation 

that he did not initiate, has caused no harm, locks legal merit and on very weak 

grounds. 

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

appropriate to compromise a physicians clinical responsibilities in his office or in 

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

compromise patient care and potentially increase liabilities or risk to hirn or his 

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

services to the community 

11. The respondent hereby proposes the following; Assuming the prior 

suggested dotes were meant to appl y \o 2011, using a time of 10 am , Ms William 

c a n chose.the dote most fitting to her schedule to oppear o\ the Allentown 

location namely at : 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H . 

Allentown, PA 18103 

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

3 of 4 
.deposition,-respondent-will flrm-up-theother details. "" " " 

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

area an d court reporter directly with Ga lagher Reporting. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Latonya Williams in Allentown, PA, the originating location an d 

jurisdiction of the alleged violation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

Date 

4 of 4 
ATIACFFMENTJ 
-Before the U.S.-Departmcnt-of-TraDSportafion— 

Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTERS 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&RHELICOPTERS' 

MOTION FOR DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS, 

AIOITON TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO 

QUASH 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M & R Helicopters' 

(Respondent) Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams, Motion to Compel Discovery, 

and Motion for Judgment to Quash. 

Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams 

On December 1, 2010, Respondent filed a Motion for Deposition of Latonya 

Williaims, indicating its desire to depose Ms. Williams at the U.S. District Courthouse in 

Ailenton, PA. Respondent did not need to file a motion requesting the Administrative 

Law Judge to grant approval for the deposition of Ms. Wilhams. Under the Rules of 

Practice in Civil Penalty Proceedings, depositions are a permitted method of discovery. 

Accordingly, it is not necessary that Complainant respond to this motion. Nonetheless, 

Complainant is willing to make Ms. Williams available for a deposition at a time and 

location mutually convenient for Ms. Williams and Respondent, and to further those 

arrangements, files this response. 

' Respondent's motion does not conform to the procedural rules for a notice of deposition at 14 C.F.R. 

13.220(j)(3)nordidRespondentrequest a subpoena forMs. Williams.. -• 
Ms-.WilljajnsXsJocatejd in Mi^ ^ t^ AJlent^wn, PA, solely 

for the purpose of a deposition would pose a hardship for Ms. Williams, and be unduly 

burdensome and expensive for Complainant. However, Ms. Williams would be available 

for a deposition at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, a much more accessible 

location, on any of the following dates: January 28, 2010, February 1-4, 2010, February 

8-11, 2010, or February 15-17, 2010. Because Respondent is requesting this deposition, 

it will bear the costs for a court reporter, and must make all arrangements to have the 

court reporter present for the deposition. Respondent will need lo work with 

Complainant to provide information about those attending the deposition, so that they can 

gain access through FAA security to the building. Respondent will also need to comply 

with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§' 13.220G) and 13. 229. 

Morion to Compel Discovery 

In its Motion to Compel Discovery, Respondent repeats the same arguments it 

made in its M & R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint. 

Complainant has already addressed these arguments in its December 10, 2010, Response 

to M t& R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint and Motion to 

Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol Program, at pages 6-7. As 

provided in that response, no outstanding discovery requests exist. Altliough 

Respondent, in its Motion to Compel, cites to requests made in letters and conversations 

prior to the filing of the complaint, those cannot be characterized as discovery requests.^ 

^ 14 C.F.R. § 15.220 (a) provides that "any party may initiate discovery....at any time after a complaint has 

been-filed-in the proceedings." - - -• -• ••-
Moreover, the agency has already provided full and complete responses to all requests for 

information that are not publicly available. 

The FAA has provided all documents requested by Respondent that exist, are 

responsive to his requests, and are not privileged. Respondent argues that he received a 

copy of the Enforcement Investigative Report (ETR) which was "altered, redacted and 

spoliated". See Respondent's Motion to Compel at 2. The agency has provided, however, 

all releasabie portions of the EIR and indicated the basis for which it was withholding or . 

redacting documents at the time the EIR was provided. The portions of tlie EIR that were 

withheld contain the investigator's analysis, recommendations, and opinions and 

constitute deliberative, pre-decisional materials, rendered by agency staff members in the 

course of reaching a fmal determination or position on a particular matter under agency 

consideration. See, e.g., Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (en banc). While Respondent has requested transcripts of a "hearing" held on 

October 1, 2010, no hearing has been held and no such transcripts exist.'* See 

Complainant's Response to M & R Helicopters' Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss 

Complaint and Motion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol 

Program, p. 6-7. 

Respondent has repeatedly requested regulations and cases that are publicly available. Complainant has 

provided full and complete citations to all regulations, statutes, and cases upon which it relies. ' 

On October 1, 2010, M & R participated in an informal conference to discuss the matter with the agency 

attomey, as is provided for under C.F.R. 13.16(f)(2)(iii). TTiis informal conference occurred by telephone 

and it was explained to Mr. Selig, owner of M & R Helicopters, that it was not a hearing but rather an 

informal discussion with the agency attomey that afforded him an opportunity to submit relevant 

information and the provided the parties an opportunity to discuss the alleged violations and possibly 

resolve the matter.^ When Mr. Selig asked whether the conversation wa5 being recorded, the agency 

attorney stated "no." There is, therefore, no transcript 
- — Motion for Judgment to Quash 

In its Motion for Judgment to Quash, Respondent again repeats the same 

arguments in its Motion to Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Strike 

Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a Drug/Alcohol Program, and Motion to Compel 

Discovery. Complainant has addressed these arguments in its responses to those motions. 

In its Motion for Judgment to Quash, Respondent also mentions Complainant's 

investigation of another rnechanic performing safety-sensitive functions on Respondent's 

aircraft and claims Complainant withdrew the violation for that mechanic. Motion for 

Judgment to Quash at page 4. Complainant determined that an apparent violation e.xjsted 

^vith respect to this other mechanic. But, Complainant decided not to pursue that 

apparent violation in the present case for evidentiary reasons. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that tiie Administrative Law 

Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Judgment to 

Quash. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

jj r" Laura Ponto 

Attomey. 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: December 15, 2010 
Certificate of Service 

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

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

Deposition of Latonya Williams, Motion to Compel Discovery, and Motion for Judgment 

to Quash In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed 

to: • 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

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

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

The Honorable Rormie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

I^(\/>M/IQL 0(^0 ^ 

Dated: December 15, 2010 
ATTACHMTENT K 
Before tjie U.S. Department of Transjiortafion 

Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Rormie A. Yoder 

J 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&R HEUCOPTER'S 

MOTION TO BAVE DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WDLLIAMS IN THE 

ALLENTOWN. PA LOCATION 

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

Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya Williams ui the Allentown, PA Location. 

Respondent previously filed a Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams on 

December 1, 2010. Complainant responded on December 15, indicating that it would 

make Ms. Williams available for a deposition at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, 

where the FAA has a Drug Abatement Division Office. 

On December 21, Respondent filed a Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya 

Williams in the Allentown. PA Location, rejecting that offer and arguing that the 

deposition should take place at the U.S. District Courthouse in Allentown, PA. Although 

Respondent has requested this deposition and insisted that it be held at the U.S. 

Courthouse in Allentown, PA, Respondent does not indicate that he has made any 

arrangements with the U.S. District Court to conduct a deposition in its facilities. 

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

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

Allentown area." That is inaccurate. Ms. Williams is an FAA inspector who lives and 
works in Miami, FL. She does not regularly travel to the Allentown area. She has no 

future travel scheduled to Allentown and it would be a tremendous inconvenience and 

expense for Ms. Williams to travel to there from Miami, FL for the sole purpose of 

Respondent's request to depose her. 

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

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

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

do so in Miami, FL, where Ms. Williams is located. If Respondent chooses to proceed 

with a deposition of Ms. Williams, he should either: (1) notice the deposition in Miami, 

Florida, v/herc Ms. Williams is located; (2) bear the costs for Ms. Williams to travel to 

Allentown, Pennsylvania; or (3) conduct tlie deposition by telephone or other remote 

means. ^ 

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

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

Ciries/ABC, 115 FJd J471 (10^ Cir. 3997). 
WTLEREI'ORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya Williams in the 

Allentown. PA Location and order that any deposition of Ms. Williams be held m Miami, 

FL. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Cotmsel 

^2UAJ3 ^ ^^TU Q 

a Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of dne Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue,.S.VV. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facshnile: (202)267-5106 

Date: December 29, 2010 
Certificate of Service 

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

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Motion to Have Deposition 

of Latonya Williams in the Allentown. PA Location In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, 

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

Dr. Michael B. Seiig 

President 

M&RHelicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

in addition, 1 hereby certify that on tliis date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of tlie foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

UDated; December 29, 2010 
ATTACHMENT L 
Before the U.S. Department of TransporfafionJ - ^ ^m» 

-Federal Aviation Adrainisfration 'l^Eh B 

In the matter of 

M&RHELICOPTER 

AUG - 2 2011 

^"::AR/^fG DOCKET 

DocketNo. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Rormie A. Yoder 

COiVlPLAJaVANT'S RESPONSE TO 

M&R HELICOPTER'S MOTION TO HAVE THE PRE-TRL\I. DEPOSITION OF 

LATONYA WILLIAMS AT GALLAJfflER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, PA, 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PRF:-TRIAL CONFERENCE AT 

GALLAGHER REPORTING, ALLENTOWN, PA, 

MOTION FOR HEARING IN ALLENTOWN, PA, and 

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

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

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

Allentown. PA; Respondent's Motion for Pre-trial Conference at Gallagher Reportmg, 

Allentown. PA: Motion for Hearing hi Allentown. PA; and Respondent's Reply toHearing Location in Allentown, PA. 

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

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

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

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

Complainant in its December 29, 2010 response; 

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

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

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

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

Allentown area. She has no fiiture travel scheduled to Allento\\m and it would be 
a tremendous inconvenience and expense for Ms. Williams to travel to there from 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conduct the deposition by telephone or other remote me^ms.' 

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

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

who intends to depose Ms. Williams. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allentown. PA, Respondent claims that 

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

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

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

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

conference and .claims that undersigned counsel "stated and confirmed that AJlentown 

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

the witness is being asked to travel more than ]00 mUes to attend the deposition. See Tilton v. Capital 

Cities/ABC, lI5F.3d 1471(10'^ Cir. 1997). 
DOT court was available." Respondent's statements are entirely untrue. Undersigned 

counsel madi^ no representations about the available courtroom facilities in Allentown, 

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

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

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

made no representations about any specific hearing location. Undersigned counsel 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for the Complainant. 

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

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

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

See Complainant's Response to Procedural Order. 

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

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

states that 

[w]hile there were many discussions concerning the Deposition of Latonya 

Williams, few details were discussed concerning the actual hearing location. 
In realit}', the parties have had absolutely no "discussions" or conversations about the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

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

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

Washington, DC. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: y ^ ^^-^^f^AjXf /Cknxa Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: January 14,2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date 1 have placed m the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

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

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

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

Allentown, PA. In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, DocketNo. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA 

Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig . 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr, Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

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

prepaid, certified retura-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to; 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 . 

Facshnile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 hadependence Avenue,"S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Buildmg - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

\3^&^\MAa^ tD)(W C ^ 

Dated: January 14,2011 
ATTACHMENT M 
Michael Selig, MD. FACC, CFI-H 

28"r6"OTefield"Roacl 

Allentown. PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON . D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

V. 

M & R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY 

TRAVEL LOG FOR LATONYA WILLIAMS 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-existent since 2009) who m files the 

following MOTION for specific discovery of Latonya Williams pertaining to her 

travel operations. 

1. Respondent has requested pre-trial meetings an d hearing to be 

held in Allentown, PA, the place of original jurisdiction an d for reasons given in 

other pleadings. 

2. Complainants now state that to com e to Allentown "would be a 

tremendous Inconvenience and expense". 

of-3 
_ _ 1 ^ It gppearsjt was nol^a jrernendous jncoQveriienc_e and ex^ens^e for 

Ms Williams to com e to Allentown to initiate, find and impose this frivolous 

alleged civil penalty, pullinc Dr Sella awa y for hours from his private cordioiogy 

proctice. but now is an inconvenience to oooear to substantiate an d defend 

her positions, under due process. 

3. It is also evident the FAA has a $181 million dollar budget for travel 

inclusive of enforcement activities, http://www.faa.aov/about/budaet/ 

http.7/www.dot.aQv/budaet/2011/budaetestimates/index.htm 

4. Ms Williams stated to the respondent that she "travels all over as part of 

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

documentation, was she was traveling. 

5. Ms Ponto states in her pleading that Ms Williams "does not regulariy 

travel", even \ho\)Q\\ hhs ^\\\\orr\Si slated othe/yvise to respondent Qr\6 indeed did 

com e to Allentown apparently from Miami, Florida, her place of residence. 

6. Respondent now requests as should be publicly available for a 

government paid official of the tax payers expense, to provide her unaltered work 

a n d travel log for 2009 an d 2010, inclusive of work schedule an d cities traveled to. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will either dismiss 

the matter before this court or have complainants provide the above requested 

travel information. 

- 2 of 3 -
RespecTfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date \ . 

3-of 3 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynlhlo Dominik, Laura Ponio, 

Latonyo Williams 

Complainants Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket*. 2010^211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Resf^ondenl • 

km^'^'^ < CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE — 0 ^ -J^*1 ^ ^ o^0L( 

. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I hove this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

TRUTHS OF ADMISSIONS 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO HAVE 

THE HEARING LOCATION 

AT THE US DISTRICT COURT, ALLENTOWN, PA. 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS: 

DEPOSITION.OF.LATONYA WILLIAMS 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

AND 

THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERNCE 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN, PA. 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENTTO DISMISS 

JUDICIAL ESTOPPELS, LEGAL INCONSISTENCY 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE 

STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SEHLEMENT 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANTS PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS ANSWERS TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND 

. NEWMAHER 

RESPo'tiPENTS REPLY Tta MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANTS PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADUNES 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

1 19.69 SHUTDOWN AND HUMAN FACTORS 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

t'AlLINC TO MEET FIUNO DCADLIt'JCS' , /r /) 
upon all parties of record in ttiis proceeding, in accordance v/itti tine requirements of Rule 29 

. pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service bv first-closs mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Aft: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Divi5ion/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington. DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department ofTransportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: 

JAN 2 4 2011 

fi^ ^ JAN 3 0 2011 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TR A N S P_0 RT ATI O.N. 

federa l Aviation Admlnlafrotlon 

C-ynthia Dominik, Loura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honoroble Judge Ronnie Yodor 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I hove ttiis day ser/ed the foregoing entriefs}: 

NOTICE OF FILINGS 

NASA FORM AND PETITION TO RULEMAKING, PROPOSED CHANGES 

MOTION FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY 

TRAVEL LOG FOR LATONYA WILLIAMS 

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1-24-11 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordanc e with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Sejvice bv first-closs mgll, postage prepaid, oddressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Woshington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Cleric, AGG-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto. Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office ot the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transporlalion 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown. Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date; V .vr\\ 
ATTACHMENT N 
li^yijL t 1 / v y I 1 

-Michael Selig-, MDrFAGG: GFI-H2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON , D.C. 

Federal Aviafion Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M i R Helicopters. LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

TRAVEL LOG FOR LATONYA WILLIAMS 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-existent since 2007) who m files the 

following MOTION for More Definite Statement pertaining to Latonya Williams 

travel operations. 

1. Respondent has requested pre-trial meelings to be held in 

Allentown,. PA, the place of originol jurisdiction an d for reasons given in other 

pleadings. 

2. Complainants stated that to com e to Allentown "would be a 

tremendous Inconvenience and expense". 

- I -
•^ i . I ll/i-V I I u.J'tni' i 

7r-|i was not'airemendous inconvenience drid'exoehse'fdfMs^Willidrfi's" 

t o com e to Allentown to initiate, find an d impose a frivolous alleged civil 

penaltyjmpedin g DrSelig's patient time at his private cardiology practice for 

several hours, however now it is on inconvenience to appear to substantiate 

a n d defen d several positions, under due process, in the olace of iuri5dictior\ 

where the alleged civil penalty took place. 

3. The Federal Register (under the DOT) mad e public that the FAA has a 

$181 million dollar budget for 2011 travel, inclusive of enforcement activities. 

http://wv/w.faa.aov/about/budget/ 

htlp://www.dot.qov/budaet/2011 /budaetestJmates/index.htm 

4. Ms Williams stated to the respondent that she "travels all over as port of 

her job" and also mentioned the reason she wos delayed in some ot the follow-up 

documentation, was because she was traveling. 

5. Ms Ponto stated in her pleading of December 29, 2010, that Ms Williams 

does not regularly travel to Allentown, even though Ms Williams indeed did com e 

to Allentown apparently from Miami, Florida, her place of residence to seek an d 

impose the civil penalty. 

6. Ms Ponto stated in her document draft dated February 9, 2011, Certified 

Mail signed received 2-14-2011, that was in response to the document. Motion for 

Travel Log for Latonya Williams, that this information is irrelevant. 

7. It is respondents averment that this is appropriately requested du e to the 

circumstances, particularly relevant to the complainants avoidance of having Ms 

~ 2 -
" Williams"returh"to^the"jijrisdictioiTdri6c^tio"h^here'the inspection she conducted 

the investigation an d where the alleged violation occurred. 

8. It is respondent's averment that this is appropriately requested an d 

relevant since the complainants repetitiously evade d an d circumvented the 

main reason for respondents request for the Allentown location, as stated in his 

letter of November 24, 2010, namely the respondent's primary role in the Lehigh 

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

hospital an d outpatient responsibilities. To leave the area would pose undue 

hardship to his patients. If would be improper an d unreasonable to burden an d 

inconvenience neutral party patients an d a physician for an alleged violation 

that he did not Initiate, has caused no harm, an d lacks legal merit. 

9. It is respondent's averment that the travel log history is appropriately 

requested an d relevant since it addresses a robust budget that is available to 

Ms. Ponto's Department. It would be inappropriate, unreasonable, morally an d 

ethically insensitive to cornpromise a physician's clinical responsibilities in his 

office or in the hospital in a manner thai would delay an d interrupt continuity of 

core or compromise patient care and potentially Increase liabilities or risk to him 

or his patients in his role of providing emergent, acute an d chronic public heath 

cardiac care services to the community. 

10. It is respondent's averment that the travel log history is appropriately 

requested an d relevant because it demonstrates Ms Williams regular and 

frequent travel history, confirmatory to Ms, William's previous statements mad e 

- 3 -
\i/\ S^ V V T / 

o;d/if/i;"Jiib:oDftMi-rt A 

directlytoTespondent: • 

11. The respondent, thereby requests, o definite statement as to why this 

logic is unreasonable, specifically addressing the irrelevancy of the travel log, 

since it appears that complainants are frying to impede respondent's 

cardiology practice and impose hardships on his patients by attempting to 

remove him from his cardiology practice location. 

12. Respondent merely requested, as should be made publicly gvailabi© 

under the law, to provide her unaltered or redacted work and travel log for 2009 

a n d 2010, inclusive, of work schedule and cities traveled to. 

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

complainants to make a more definite statement as to how this is not directly 

appropriate or reasonable. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

- 4 -
ATTACHMENT O 
Before the U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

M&RHELICOPTER 

DocketNo. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M & R HELICOPTERS' MOTION FOR 

SPECIFIC DISCOVERY - TRAVEL LOG FOR LATONYA WILLIAMS 

Although it captioned its request as a motion, Respondent M& R Helicopters' 

appears to be requesting discovery from Complainant. Respondent requests an 

"unaltered work and travel log for 2009 and 2010" for Ms. Latonya Williams, an FAA 

Inspector in the Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Di\'ision. 

Complainant objects to this discovery request because the material sought is 

irrelevant and the request is overly broad. Ms. Williams entire work and travel schedule 

from 2009 to 2010 is neither material nor relevant to the subject matter of this 

proceedmg, /. e., alleged violations of FAA Regulations by M & R Helicopters.' 

' Respondent premises this discovery request on the fact that "[r]espondent has requested pre-trial 

meetiiigs and hearing [sic] to be held in AJJeotowtL, PA." Complauiant has already addressed these matters 

in its January 14, 2011, Response to Motiog to Have the PreTTrial Depo'siriop of Latonya Williams at 

Gallaher Reporting.,A]lentpwn, PA: Respondent's Motion for Pre-trial Conference at Gallagher Reporting, 

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

AJlentow-n. PA. Respondent claims that undersigned counsel "states in her [sic] pleading that Ms [sic] 

Wilhams 'does not regularly travel.'" Respondent, however, does not cite to any specific pleading. The 

Chief AJLJ may review Complainant's pleadings on this matter and sec that undersigned counsel has never 

made that statement 
Respectliilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

a Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: February 9, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

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

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response To M&R Helicopter's Motion 

For Specific Discovery — Travel Log For Latonya Williams In the Matter ofM &. R 

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

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

•2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date 1 have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

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

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Adroinistrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washmgton, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

yJ^Q-^^^^-^ .()av L^_J 

Dated: February 9, 2011 
ATTACHMENT P 
Before the U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

) 

In the matter of ) 

) DocketNo. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

) 

_^^^_ _ ) 

NOTICE OF CONTINUING OBJQECTION 

Complainant hereby files this notice of a continuing objection to all fijture 

pleadings filed by Respondent that reiterate the same or substantially similar arguments 

raised in pleadings already filed in this matter. The sheer number of and nature of the 

pleadings filed by Respondent and redundancy of the arguments raised in them clearly 

indicates that Respondent is abusmg the litigation process. At least 63 pleadings have 

been filed by Respondent, most of which raise redundant and baseless arguments. This is 

resulting m a waste of government resources as Complainant files responses to 

Respondent's pleadings that merely reiterate and redirect the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge to prior responses filed by Complainant. 

To the extent Respondent continues to file pleadings that raise redundant and 

meritless arguments, Complainant objects to those pleadings and respectliilly submits this 

notice as Complainant's response to those pleadings. Complainant will file a response to 

any ftjture pleadings that raise argimients that warrant a response, but will no longer 

respond to pleadings that abuse the process of law and raise arguments akeady addressed 

in other pleadings absent an order or intervenfion by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. 
Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

'IMJ:^C4^^^^::^ 

Ira Ponto 

Attomey 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washmgton, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: February 18, 2011 
Certificate of Ser\'iee 

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

certified retiun-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Nofice of Continuing Obiection /« the 

Matter ofM& R Helicopters, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, 

addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M&R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 . 

In addition, 1 hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

pre;paid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Rormie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facshnile: 202-366-7536 

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

P^rifi/^ ^&& ^ 

Dated: Febniary 18,2011