• 02/27/201 1 7;21P M FA X00001/000 7 

## MICHAE LE . SELIG . M.D. , FA.C.C . iTMEN TO F 

### Li£eLin eCardiolog y • ^ ; 0;'£R.";i ION S

' \ 3 ! - i- q M & R Helicopter s 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4 Februar y26 , 201 1 Federa l Docke t2010-121 1 FAAFil e 2009SO95043 4 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Departmen to fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m E l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E . ' Washington , D C 2059 0 FA X20 2 36 6 753 6 SEN TB YCERTIFIE D MAIL - RR R Re : Jul y23 , 201 0 Civi l Penalty . . Dea rChie fJudg e Yoder : Thi s lette ri s I n respons e t o M s Ponto' s correspondenc e t o yo u date d Februar y18 , 2011 . I n ttia tletter , M s Pont o technicall yerre d statin g th e notic e wa s date d Januar /

23 , 2010 , whe n tha tnotic e wa s date d Jul y23 , 2010 . Tha t notic e ha d sinc e bee n supercede d b yth e complain tdate d Novembe r17 , 2010 , an d again-wit h th e amende d complain tdate d Decembe r10 , 2010 . Th e change s mad e fro m th e notic e use d on e late rdat e fo rth e allege d servic e violatio n provide d b yM rBake ran d droppe d th e penalt yt o $4400 . Aconfusin g certifie d lette rfro m M s V^illiam s emerge d date d Januar y21 , 2011 , addresse d t o responden ttha tha d n o title , change d th e premis e agai n o f th e origina l notic e o fM rBake rfro m no tbein g o n an ymonitorin g progra m (M s William s lO P 9 . document ) t o M rBake rno tbein g o n a monitorin g progra m prio r t o usin g hi s service s afte rsh e accepte d h e wa s o n a program . Thi s show s th e movin g targe to fallegation s fo rwhic h a motio n fo ra protectiv e orde rwa s submitte d b yrespondent . Th e protectiv e orde rwa s t o stabiliz e th e complain tt o th e origina l matter . Complainant s onl yaddresse d -thi s motio n fo ra protectiv e orde rb ylisting.th e titl e o fth e documen tcollaborativel ywit h others , a s is th e typica l patter n o fth e complainants , t o b e impermissibl yvagu e t o matter s insufficientl yaddressed , thereb yth e legitimat e basi s o fth e man ymotion s fo r

- 1 - . ••• Gatewa yProfessiona l Cente r•204 5 Westgat e Drive , Suit e 20 5 •Bethlehem , Pennsylvani a 18017-747 4 VolceA^ M 610-863-620 0 •Fa x610-866-148 9 •Educatio n Servic e 610-868-620 3 •E-Mai l lifelin6CBrd@verizon.nB t02/27/201 1 7:21P M FA X210002/000 7



### mor e definit e statement s file d b yrespondent . Iteh n 1 i n tha t origina l notic e refers t o th e certificat e numbe rtha twa s temporaril yInactiv e sinc e Jun e 200 7 du e t o safety , huma n an d judgmen t concern s describe d previously . There hav e bee n n o flight s o rincom e sinc e tha t time . Th e ta xreturn s fo rth e compan yhav e alread ybee n submitte d confirmin g thes e facts . Th e compan ynam e an d al l financial s hav e changed . Th e operationa l specification s als o hav e bee n undergoin g a chang e fo rove ra yea r b yth e FAA . Item s 2- 3 wer e addresse d b ydocument s previousl ysubmitted . A regulatio n chang e occurre d I n February2004 , o fwhic h n o FA Aofficial s o r responden t wer e aware , regardin g th e definitio n o femploye r(appendi xI an d J no tdefine d i n th e o p specs) , despit e a n inspectio n b yth e dru g abatement' s officer , Vincen t Roots an d th e loca l FSD O official s wh o alway s foun d responden t compliant . Th e regulatio n chang e state d tha temployee s performin g safet ysensitiv e function s neede d t o b e o n th e company' s specifi cdru g program , regulation s tha twer e no tdirectl ycontaine d withi n th e signe d of foperatio n specifications , bu tlocate d somewher e else . Th e FAA s ow n officer s di d no tkno wabou tth e rando m undisclose d chang e tha tha d n o notificatio n proces s i n place , wer e thereb yno t forthright , hidde n an d concealed . Th e complainant s ar e attemptin g t o hol d responden tt o a highe rstandar d tha n thei row n FA Aofficers . I fth e FAA

s ow n i n hous e an d othe rofficer s di d no t kno wabou tth e change , ho wcoul d th e responden t b e hel d responsible ? Ite m 4-7 . Th e 2 mechanic s wer e alway s o n a monitorin g progra m befor e an d durin g an yservic e provided . Ite m 8 . Date s o fNovembe r2 , 2007 , Novembe r18 , 2007 , Jul y24,2008 , supersede d t o jus t Jul y24 , 2008 , wa s whe n MR H shu tdow n operation s an d no t performin g an ycommercia l flights . Ite m 9-10 . M rBake rwa s alway s i n a n uninterrupte d rando m testin g pool . Respondent' s proceeding s wer e mad e t o clearl ydefin e materia l facts , th e movin g targe t o fth e fundamenta l basi s fo rth e caus e o faction , appropriatenes s o fth e responden fs position s an d t o demonstrat e man y procedura l flaw s an d il l intent s mad e b yth e complainants . Responden tha s mad e a Herculea n effor tt o organiz e an d presen tconcis e argument s i n accordanc e wit h standar d mandate d rule s o fprocedur e a tth e commo n plea s an d federa l levels . Complainant s hav e selectivel yaddresse d a fe wissues , - 2 -02/27/201 1 7:21P M FA XIg|0003/000 7

therein , necessitatin g varyin g approache s b yresponden tt o hav e thes e item s addressed . Complainant' s omission s hav e indubitabl ycause d redundanc yI n th e proceeding s an d duplicativ e efforts . Th e issue s tha t th e complainant s addresse d wer e don e wit h insufficien tspecificit ye.g . scant , impermissibl y vague , inaccurat e an d superficia l responses , cobblin g togethe rcolo ro fla w statement s tha tar e conclusionar yan d collaborative , ofte n wit h on e word , unclea ron e liner s o rfe wwor d responses . Complainant s completel yavoi d mos tsubjects . Mos tdisconcertin g i s tha t responden tpresente d evidenc e tha t M s Domini k actuall ycalle d respondent s cel l phon e t o reques ta continuanc e du e t o lat e filing . Tha tIssu e fo rinstanc e wa s bee n completel yignored , evade d an d circumvented . Complainant s als o entirel ydisregarde d th e request s fo rmor e definit e statement s concernin g responden thavin g shu tdow n operation s unde r119.6 9 o rattemptin g t o hol d hi m t o a highe rstandar d tha n it s ow n FA Aofficials , ho wth e ne wregulatio n wa s no tadequatel yevident , lackin g a notificatio n proces s o rposted , wit h unclea r interpretation , ho wth e method s fo rcomplianc e wer e unclear . Inconsisten tan d di d no tfollo wsui twit h th e othe rmethod s o fcomplianc e containe d i n th e complianc e statemen tan d operatio n specifications . Th e on e wor d answe rt o thes e request s wa s merel y"Deny" , period , en d o fsentence . The yhav e no t responde d directl ybecaus e th e complainant s probabl ysilentl yagre e wit h thes e statement s denotin g insufficiency . Complainant s specificall ydisregarde d th e issu e o fjudicia l estoppels , lega l Insufficiency , inconsisten tpositions , al l pertainin g t o findin g th e othe r mechanic/I Ao n a continuou s dru g monitorin g program , releasin g hi m o fal l violations , a cas e scenari o exactl yth e sam e a s M rBake rdu e t o "insufficien t evidence " a s claime d b yth e complainants . Thi s sam e conclusio n o fla w neede d t o b e applie d t o M rBaker , whe n i t wa s late rconfirme d fro m th e origina l clai m i n th e Notic e o fCivi l penalty , tha th e als o wa s o n a monitorin g progra m ye tanothe rfac tt o rende rth e complain t moot . The yclaime d the yuse d thei r prosecutoria l discretion . Complainant s cite d tha t th e statut e o flimitation s wa s no texceeded , usin g a violatio n star tdat e o fJul y24 , 2008 , howeve rth e allege d sen/ic e en d dat e wa s Jul y23 , 2010 , on e da ybefor e th e statu e o flimitations . Again , complainant s serve d th e respondent , requirin g respondent' s signatur e vi a certifie d deliver yafte rth e 2 yea rperio d o n Jul y27 , 2010 . M s William s erre d i n claimin g M rBake rwa s no to n a monitorin g program , becaus e sh e di d no thav e sufficien ttim e t o confir m hi s progra m i n orde rt o ge t th e propose d civi l violatio n i n jus t unde rth e wire , therei n rushin g judgment . Sh e wa s als o alway s lat e wit h he rfollow-u p correspondenc e du e t o he raggressiv e - 3 -02/27/201 1 7:22PM FA X I 120004/000 7

trave l schedule . Complainant s hav e showe d a patter n o flat e submissions , use d documen t lat e draf tdates , a s referenc e servic e date s an d refuse d t o provid e discover yfo r thei rcertifie d mai l authorizations . Complainan tclaime d an yreques t fo rforma l proo fo fservic e i s no treasonabl e t o request , eve n thoug h th e statut e o f limitation s is I n question , responden t contendin g tha t th e complain twa s delivere d pas tth e 2 yea rdeadline . Stric tproo fi s appropriate . Thes e act s al l pu t th e complainant' s credibilit yi n question . Th e complainant s ar e suggestin g a furthe rinterrup trespondent' s cardiolog ypractice , hi s hospita l responsibilitie s an d hi s patient s i n thei rattempt s t o tak e hi m ou to fth e ver yare a an d jurisdictio n tha tth e allege d claime d violatio n an d inspectio n occurred , b yeludin g respondent' s question s an d castin g a misleadin g interpretatio n o ffact s t o th e court . Fo rM s Pont o t o eve n sugges ttha ta sol o practic e cardiologis tdisrup tth e continuit yo fcar e t o hi s patients , reschedul e patients , compromis e th e car e o fhi s patient s o reve n Inconvenienc e neutra l part yperson s fo ra remot e sit e hearing , whe n th e allege d violatio n originate d an d wa s propagate d b yM s William s i n Lehig h Valle yi s unconscionabl e i n th e respondent s min d an d appear s onl ya s a maliciou s attemp tt o discourag e furthe rdefens e an d inconvenienc e th e responden tan d hi s patients . Th e othe rcomplain tinsufficiency , i n additio n t o bein g s o delayed , is tha t th e compan yha d alread yshu t dow n operation s unde rregulatio n 119.6 9 t o ensur e safet yt o th e public , fo rth e violatio n star tdat e cited , anothe rreaso n renderin g th e complain tmoot . Therefore , responden tacte d appropriatel yan d i n goo d fait h an d judgment . Responden trequeste d M s Ponto' s attorne ylicens e I D numbe rsinc e i t ha s neve rappeare d o n an ydocumen tsh e submitte d t o thi s court . Thi s i s publi c informatio n an d i s alway s properl ydisplayed , just^a s an yprofessiona l i s require d t o displa ythei rcredentioJ s t o th e public . T o no tdispla yo rdisclos e thi s publi c informatio n eve n whe n directl yrequeste d appear s suspect . Th e complainant s hav e refuse d t o presen tthi s Information . Complainant' s holdfas t t o thei rposition s a t an ycos t t o th e governmen t an d taxpayers , disregardin g an d abusin g governmenta l spending , litigatio n cost s whic h searche s fa rbeyon d th e fin e allotment . An ysubsequen tappea l proces s wil l furthe routstretc h preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d litigatio n cost s t o th e governmen tan d taxpayers . Thes e act s ar e vexatious , malicious , an d wanton , represent s willfu l misconduct , abus e o fproces s an d discretion , malfeasance , wit h inten tt o d o har m t o responden t an d respondent s patient s - 4 -02/27/201 1 7:22P M FA X110005/000 7



### an d t o impai rth e dignit yo fth e cour t an d respec t its authority . I n th e interes to fjudicia l economies , avoidanc e o fscarc e judicia l financia l resource s fo ra cas e tha tappear s no n meritoriou s sinc e responden tha d appropriatel ytemporaril yshu tdow n operations ; appear s t o b e ove rkille d wit h a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui twhe n thi s cas e shoul d simpl yb e dismissed . Your s Sincerely , ^ \ i \v ^ Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H \ cc . Hearin g Docket , Cler k1)0006/000 7

02/27/201 1 7:22P M FA X 

# O U.S , Departmen

t Offic e o fAerospac e Madicln e o fjransportatio n Dru g Abatemen t Divisio n Federa l Aviatio n 289 5 S W145t h Avenue , Suit e 14 8 AdmlnWraHo n Mlramar , F L3302 7 January21 , 201 1 Certifie d Mai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste d Fil e Number : 2010SO95035 3 Dr . Mictiae l B . Seli g Presiden t M An d R Helicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgat e Driv e Bethlehem , P A1801 7 Dea rDr . Selig : O n Jul y2 1 an d 23 , 2009 , w e Informe d yo u tha t w e wer e investigatin g M an d R Helicopters , LLC' s dru g an d alcoho l testin g program s fo rapparen tviolation s o f4 9 CF R part 4 0 an d 1 4 CF R part120 , (formerl y1 4 CF R part121 , appendice s I an d J) . Thi s lette rsupersede s th e previou s correspondenc e yo u receive d pertainin g t o th e issue s bearin g fil e numbe r 2010SO950353 . Thi s tette raddresse s th e issu e describe d i n th e lette ro finvestigatio n tha t i s stil l ope n an d unde rInvestigatio n an d th e issue s tha twil l b e close d wit h n o actio n i n lie u oTa.yvaimlog ; notice ; th e follo\Vin g issue^jncludedlri . ou rAugus t 14 , 2009 , lette ro finvedtigat|q h (Fil e Number : 2009SO950434 ) I s stil l ope n an d wil l b e addresse d i n separat e cbire^pdrtdenc k

•M an d R Helicopters , LL C di d no tdetermin e tha tEdwar d Baker , a contractor , wa s covere d unde ra.FAA-mandate d dru g an d alcoho l testing , progra m prio rt o usin g hi s services . W e hav e reviewe d al l availabl e informatio n concernin g th e followin g issue s fro m ou rAugus t 14 , 2009 , lette ro finvestigatio n (Fil e Number : 2009SO950434) : 1 . M an d R Helicopters , LL C di d no t determin e tha t Eu^^n e Mcintosh, . a:contractQr ^ wa s covere d unde ra FAA-mandate d dm g an d alcoho l testin g progra m prio rt o usin g hi s services . 2 . M an d R Helicopters , LL C di d no t conduc t pre-employmen tdru g test s an d receiv e verifie d negativ e tes tresult s prio rt o hirin g Eugen e Mcintos h an d Edwar d Bake rt o ^ perfor m safety-sensitiv e functions . W e hav e reviewe d al l availabl e informatio n ari d conclude d tha tther e i s insufficien t evidenc e t o stippor t th e allegaitip. n pertairiih g t b Eugan e Mcintosh' s coverag e urida ra n FAA itiandate d drij g Srid'alcoho i testin g pi-ogram . Furthermore , w e are i noVpursiJih g legal' - ' • enforcemen tactio n wit h regar d t o th e pre-employmen tdai g testin g issue s relevan t t o Eugen e Mclntosl i an d Edwar d Baker . Yo u ma yconside rthes e matter s closed . http-.//www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarterS_offices/avs/Qff(ces/aam/drug_alcohol/il0007/000 7

02/27/201 1 7:22P M FA X

Pleas e directan yfuture question s relatin g t o you rdru g an d alcoho l testin g program s to : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Office o fAerospac e Medicin e Dru g Abatemen tDivisio n 289 5 S W145" " Avenue , Suit e 148 Mlramar , F L3302 7 Telephon e number : (954 ) 641-625 1 Sincerel '

/ ^ Latonya B!'Williams , Inspecto r

Easter n Complianc e an d Enforcemen tCente r Dru g Abatemen tDivisio n Office ofAerospac e Medicin e

U.S . Departman tofTransportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X 10001/001 0

/' " Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H

281 6 Orefiel d Roo d Allentown , PA . 1810 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynttil a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docl<et . No : 2010-121 1

MOTIO N FO R SPECIA LRELIE F AN D SANCTION S AGAINS TCOMPLAINANTS ' PROSECUTARIA LINDISCRETIO N AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB . SELIG , MD , FACC , CFI-H , principl e fo rM & R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d file s th e followin g Motio n fo rSanction s base d o n th e continuou s disregar d an d breache s o fprope rproceeding s t o thi s court , hav e hel d steadfas tt o thei rallege d violatio n despit e multipl e procedura l detects . 1 , I n M s William s inspectio n o fth e MR H record s i n th e Allentow n offic e location , M s William s violate d man ycod e o fethics , morals ,02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA Xgl0002/001 0

conduc tan d AV R protocol s actin g wit h disrespec tb ycomin g int o respondent s cardiolog yoffic e suspendin g hi m fo rhours , callin g th e responden tb yhi s firs tnam e whil e wal k i n patient s an d secretar ywer e present . 2 . Th e primar ypremis e tha tM rBake rwa s no t o n a drug/alcoho l abatemen tprogra m fo rth e allege d violatio n wa s flawed , sinc e M rBake r wa s alway s o n a monitorin g progra m befor e an d durin g providin g services . 3 . I n M s William s rus h t o ge tth e violatio n entere d i n jus tunde rth e 2 yea rstatu e o flimitations , sh e di d no t confir m MrBaker s monitorin g status . 4 . Th e complainant s alleg e tha tth e violatio n wa s entere d i n on e da ybefor e th e statut e o flimitation s whe n i t wa s serve d afte rth e 2 yea r 

### period . 5 . Th e violatio n wa s issue d t o a n operato rwh o wa s temporaril y shu tdow n an d no tperformin g operation s du e t o huma n factor s an d othe rfactor s a s t o no tcompromis e th e safet yo fth e publi cunde r119.69 . 6 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha tha d changed , tha tneithe rthei row n dru g abatemen toffice rwh o performe d a n earlie rinspectio n wa s no tinforme d o fno ral l th e Allentow n FAAofficer s an d FSD O wer e no tinforme d about . 7 . Th e complainant s thereb ydeceptivel ybeliev e I ti s appropriat e02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10003/001 0

t o hol d th e responden tl o a highe rstandar d tha n thei row n FAAofficers' , 8 . Th e responden tunderwen tfrequen tFAAinspections , sinc e hi s aircraf tan d operation s wer e acros s th e stree tfro m th e Allentow n FSD O an d alway s foun d t o b e compliant , therei n n o reaso n t o believ e otherwise . 9 . Th e complainant s Issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d unclea rinterpretation . 10 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha t ha d n o notificatio n proces s i n plac e contrar yt o wha tfollowe d sui tt o th e complianc e statemen to roperationa l specifications .

11 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha twa s no tclearl ydelineate d i n th e complianc e statemen tan d referre d t o somewher e o n a remot e site , thereb yha d inadequat e an d conceale d disclosure .

12 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha twa s no tsigne d of fi n sectio n A44 9 o fth e complianc e statement . 13 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a regulatio n tha tha d n o clea rmethod s o fcomplianc e o rnotificatio n proces s i n place . 14 . Th e complainant s issue d a violatio n t o a change d an d unknow n regulatio n i n a proces s tha tencourage d violatio n an d entrapmen trathe rtha n compliance , forthrigh i disclosur e I n th e spiri t o f trainin g an d safety . - 3 -02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10004/001 0

r 15 . Onc e i twa s determine d tha t M rBake rwa s alway s o n a

monitorin g progra m th e complainant s re-crafte d thei rfundamenta l premis e fo rth e violatio n t o MrBake rwa s no to n a monitorin g progra m prio rt o hi m performin g hi s services . 16 . Contrar yt o Judicia l Estoppels , Lega l an d Positio n consistency , complainant s release d th e othe rmechani cdu e t o Insufficien tevidenc e wh o wa s unde rth e sam e exac tcas e scenari o o falway s bein g o n a monitorin g progra m befor e an d durin g service s rendere d b ythei rprimar y employer . ] 7 . Throughou tthi s litigation , th e complainant s hav e refuse d t o addres s specifi cenumerate d paragraph s i n breac h o fFedera l Rul e 3 .

18 . Throughou tthi s litigation , complainant s hav e bee n inexcusabl e shor tan d vague , di d no tpleate d fact s wit h sufficien t specificit yan d i n accordanc e t o standar d practices . Th e purpos e o fthes e standar d practice s i s t o confin e th e pleadin g part yproo ft o onl ythos e act s alleged , thu s enablin g a respondin g part yt o prepar e thei rdefense' .

19 , Whe n complainant s di d respond , the yfaile d t o plea d fact s wit h sufficien tspecificity , bu tI n a collaborativ e conclusionar ymanner , usuall ywit h a on e wor d respons e "Deny" , on e line rstatemen to rhav e completel yignored , evade d an d circumvente d specifi cpleadings , thereb yaddin g redundanc yan d repeate d approache s t o pleadings . 'Bake r v Rangos . 32 4 A.2 d498,50 5 (P aSuperC L197 402/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10005/001 0

20 . Complainant s hav e file d lat e response s t o motion s pos tth e 1 0 da ydeadlin e perio d unde r§ Rul e 13.218(d) , fo rexample , no tusin g actua l date s o fservic e i n attempt s t o impai rth e dignit yo fthi s court . 21 . M s Pont o faile d t o produc e th e requeste d evidenc e a s t o whe n th e response s wer e actuall yreceive d i n he rrespons e t o matters . Date s wer e indicate d o n th e documen titsel fa s t o whe n i twa s drafted , no trepresentin g a n actua l dat e o fservice . Ofte n thes e draf tdate s wer e 5 day s late . 22 . M s Domini k

o fth e FAAenforcemen tdivisio n o fth e chie f counse l calle d responden tdirectl yt o hi s persona l cel l phon e admittin g tha tth e complainant s ca n no tfil e response s withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e period , woul d i n breac h o fthi s regulatio n an d thereb yrequeste d a continuanc e directl yt o respondent . Th e cel l cal l lo g o frespondent' s telephon e show^

havin g receive d M s Dominik' s numbe r202-267-7560 . 23 . Complainant s hav e refuse d t o addres s th e Ne wMatte rdate d Januar y6 , 201 1 o rrespon d t o admissio n o ftrut h t o fact s state d a s requeste d i n th e Motio n fo rMor e Definit e Statement - Depositio n o fM s Donini k pertainin g t o tha ttelephon e call . 24 . Whe n complainant s change d th e fundamenta l premis e fo r th e allege d violatio n an d responden t motione d th e cour t fo ra protectiv e order , complainan tinsufficientl yresponde d onl ywit h a on e wor d "Deny" . 25 . Responden twa s refuse d th e reques to fM s Ponto' s attorne y02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10006/001 0

licens e I D numbe rsinc e i tha s neve rappeare d o n an ydocumen tsh e submitte d t o thi s court . Thi s is publi cinformation , t o no tdispla yo rdisclos e thi s publi cinformatio n eve n whe n directl yrequeste d appear s suspec tan d is a breac h o fcommo n practices . 26 . I n respons e t o deposition s an d hearin g location s th e complainant s state d tha ti twoul d b e a n "tremendou s inconvenienc e an d expense " fo rM s William s t o com e t o Allentown , despit e Allentow n bein g th e ver yare a an d jurisdictio n tha tth e allege d claime d violatio n an d inspectio n occurre d an d M s William s cam e fro m Florid a t o impos e tha t violation . 27 . I twoul d b e unconscionabl e t o pu tM s William' s desire s ahea d o f interruptin g respondent' s cardiolog ypractice , hi s hospita l responsibilitie s an d hi s patients . Fo rM s Pont o t o eve n sugges ttha ta sol o practic e cardiologis tdisrup tth e continuit yo fcar e t o hi s patients , reschedul e patients , compromis e th e car e o fhi s patient s o reve n Inconvenienc e neutra l part yperson s fo ra remot e sit e hearing , whe n th e allege d violatio n originate d an d wa s propagate d b yM s William s i n th e Lehig h Valley , speak s onl yt o a maliciou s attemp tt o discourag e furthe rdefens e an d inconvenienc e th e responden t an d hi s patients , 28 . Complainant s hav e provide d preliminar ydiscover ytha twa s spoliate d an d dedocted , claimin g th e alterin g an d corruptio n o fth e dat a occurre d withi n allowe d parameters , bu tcomplainant s wer e unwillin g t o02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10007/001 0 provid e thos e guideline s o ran yreferenc e therei n pertainin g t o an yth e exac tmethod s allowe d fo rth e spoliatio n an d dedactions . 29 . Complainant s hav e refuse d t o provid e requeste d proo fo f governmen tpai d signe d authorization s fo rdate s document s wer e receive d b yrespondent . 30 . Complainant s hav e pursue d an d sustaine d a civi l penalt y agains ta n entit ytha tha d bee n close d ha d n o incom e fo ryears , shu t dow n an d ha d n o assets . 31 . Complainant' s holdfas tt o thei rposition s a t an ycos t t o th e governmen tan d taxpayers , disregardin g an d abusin g governmenta l spending , litigatio n cost s whic h searche s fa rbeyon d th e fin e allotment . An ysubsequen tappea l proces s wil l furthe routstretc h preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s an d litigatio n cost s t o th e governmen tan d taxpayers . 32 . Complainant s M s William s an d M s Ponto' s act s ar e a disgrac e t o th e agency , vexatious , malicious , an d wanton , represent s willfu l misconduct , abus e o fprocess , discretion , fai rjudgmen t an d perspective , malfeasance , wit h inten tt o pos e unnecessar yhar m t o responden tan d respondent' s patient s an d t o Impai rth e dignit yo fth e cour tan d disrespec t its authority . 33 . Du e t o th e complainant' s wanto n conduc tan d breache s punitiv e damage s ar e sought . 34 . Complainant s hav e bee n willin g t o pu tint o print , alte ran d02/28/201 1 5:10P M FA X10008/001 0 change , whateve ris neede d i n thei rfishin g expeditio n t o kee p afloa t thei r movin g targe tcomplain ta tan ycosts . 35 . Du e t o M s Ponto' s conduc twit h he rinten t t o deceiv e thi s court , he rattorne yI d numbe rneed s t o b e reveale d an d he rcas e b e reporte d t o th e Suprem e Cour tDisciplinar yBoard . 36 . M s William s ha s als o abuse d he rdiscretion , abuse d he r authority , an d abuse d governmenta l fundin g fo rimplementin g a complain tunde rfals e pretens e tha ti s frivolous , flawe d an d legall y insufficient . Furthe rdisclosur e wil l b e eviden t a t deposition . 37 . Th e witnes s immunit ydoctrin e shoul d no tshiel d th e complainant s du e t o thei rwillfu l inten t t o no trespon d t o selecte d Inquirie s an d therefor e t o impai rth e dignit yo fth e court . 38 . Complainant s hav e mad e multipl e intentiona l an d willfu l act s t o disguis e th e trut h I n thi s case , no t addres s th e issue d specificall y requested , ha s no texercise d ful l cando ri n hopefu l desperatio n t o tric k thi s court . 39 . B ycomplainants ' failur e t o respon d specificall yt o pleadings , hav e i n dubiousl yan d injuriousl ypropagate d voluminou s filing s dissipatin g governmen tasset s an d recourse s fa rbeyon d th e penalt yfee , contrar yt o judicia l economy . 40 . Complainant s hav e squandere d an d abuse d scarc e judicia l recourse s t o pursu e a cas e a tan ycos ttha tappear s frivolou s an d no n

- 810009/001 0

02/28/201 1 5:11P M FA X

meritorious . WHEREFORE , th e responden tpray s tha tthi s Honorabl e Cour t will : 1 . Gran tth e Motio n fo rSanction s b ywa yof ; a . Dismissin g th e cas e /o r b . Issu e a protectiv e orde rt o Freez e th e cas e t o th e origina l complain t/an d c . Awar d punitiv e damage s t o th e responden ta tth e court s discretio n /an d d . Repor tth e complainant s t o th e appropriat e disciplinar y board/an d e . Hol d complainant s liabl e an d no t shielde d unde rth e witnes s immunit ydoctrine . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H XQ>^ ^ Dat e02/28/201 1 5:11P M FA X 10010/001 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a Williams , Pete rLync h Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V . Honorobl e Judg e Ronni e Yode i Docket : 2010-121 1

7->^ ' CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB YCERTIF Ytha tI hav e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g entrie(s) : Jul y23,201 0 Civi l Penalt y-Judg e Yode rLette rW ^ MOTIO N FO R SPECIA LRELIE F AN D SANCTION S AGAINS TCOMPLAINANT S

PROSECUTORIA LINDISCRETIO N upo n al l partie s o frecor d i n thi s proceeding , i n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o fRul e 2 9 pursuan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 174 6 . Servic e b vfirst-clas s mail , postag e prepaid , addresse d a s follows : H

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue . S W Wilbu rWrigh tAvenue-Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke tClerk , AGC-43 0 FA X20 2 49 3 514 2 Laur a Ponto , Esq . Enforcemen tDivision/AGC-30 0 Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l FAA 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2039 1 FA X20 2 26 7 510 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Departmen to fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m E l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 FA X20 2 36 6 753 6 By L 

# ^^V l Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d Allentown , Pa . 1810 4 610360395 3 Date : 

# .^-I^I P