• 02/27/2011 7;21PM FAX 00001/0007 

MICHAEL E. SELIG. M.D., FA.C.C. 

iTMENT OF 

Li£eLine Cardiology • ^; 0;'£R.";i IONS 

'\ 3 !- i-q 

M & R Helicopters 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

February 26, 2011 

Federal Docket 2010-1211 

FAA File 2009SO950434 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. ' 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL- RRR 

Re: July 23, 2010 Civil Penalty. . 

Dear Chief Judge Yoder: 

This letter is In response to Ms Ponto's correspondence to you dated 

February 18, 2011. In ttiat letter, Ms Ponto technically erred stating the notice 

was dated Januar/ 23, 2010, when that notice was dated July 23, 2010. That 

notice had since been superceded by the complaint dated November 17, 

2010, and again-with the amended complaint dated December 10, 2010. The 

changes made from the notice used one later date for the alleged service 

violation provided by Mr Baker and dropped the penalty to $4400. 

A confusing certified letter from Ms V^illiams emerged dated January 21, 

2011, addressed to respondent that had no title, changed the premise again of 

the original notice of Mr Baker from not being on any monitoring program (Ms 

Williams lOP 9. document) to Mr Baker not being on a monitoring program prior 

to using his services after she accepted he was on a program. This shows the 

moving target of allegations for which a motion for a protective order was 

submitted by respondent. The protective order was to stabilize the complaint to 

the original matter. Complainants only addressed -this motion for a protective 

order by listing.the title of the document collaboratively with others, as is the 

typical pattern of the complainants, to be impermissibly vague to matters 

insufficiently addressed, thereby the legitimate basis of the many motions for 

- 1 - . • • • 

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

VolceA^M 610-863-6200 • Fax 610-866-1489 • Education Service 610-868-6203 • E-Mail lifelin6CBrd@verizon.nBt 
02/27/2011 7:21PM FAX 210002/0007 

more definite statements filed by respondent. 

Itehn 1 in that original notice refers to the certificate number that was 

temporarily Inactive since June 2007 due to safety, human and judgment 

concerns described previously. There have been no flights or income since that 

time. The tax returns for the company have already been submitted confirming 

these facts. The company name and all financials have changed. The 

operational specifications also have been undergoing a change for over a year 

by the FAA. 

Items 2-3 were addressed by documents previously submitted. A 

regulation change occurred In February 2004, of which no FAA officials or 

respondent were aware, regarding the definition of employer (appendix I and J 

not defined in the op specs), despite an inspection by the drug abatement's 

officer, Vincent Roots and the local FSDO officials who always found respondent 

compliant. 

The regulation change stated that employees performing safety sensitive 

functions needed to be on the company's specific drug program, regulations 

that were not directly contained within the signed off operation specifications, 

but located somewhere else. The FAAs own officers did not know about the 

random undisclosed change that had no notification process in place, were 

thereby not forthright, hidden and concealed. The complainants are 

attempting to hold respondent to a higher standard than their own FAA officers. 

If the FAAs own in house and other officers did not know about the change, 

how could the respondent be held responsible? 

Item 4-7. The 2 mechanics were always on a monitoring program before 

and during any service provided. 

Item 8. Dates of November 2, 2007, November 18, 2007, July 24,2008, 

superseded to just July 24, 2008, was when MRH shut down operations and not 

performing any commercial flights. 

Item 9-10. Mr Baker was always in an uninterrupted random testing pool. 

Respondent's proceedings were made to clearly define material facts, 

the moving target of the fundamental basis for the cause of action, 

appropriateness of the respondenf s positions and to demonstrate many 

procedural flaws and ill intents made by the complainants. Respondent has 

made a Herculean effort to organize and present concise arguments in 

accordance with standard mandated rules of procedure at the common pleas 

and federal levels. Complainants have selectively addressed a few issues, 

- 2 -
02/27/2011 7:21PM FAX Ig|0003/0007 

therein, necessitating varying approaches by respondent to have these items 

addressed. Complainant's omissions have indubitably caused redundancy In 

the proceedings and duplicative efforts. The issues that the complainants 

addressed were done with insufficient specificity e.g. scant, impermissibly 

vague, inaccurate and superficial responses, cobbling together color of law 

statements that are conclusionary and collaborative, often with one word, 

unclear one liners or few word responses. 

Complainants completely avoid most subjects. Most disconcerting is that 

respondent presented evidence that Ms Dominik actually called respondents 

cell phone to request a continuance due to late filing. That Issue for instance 

was been completely ignored, evaded and circumvented. Complainants also 

entirely disregarded the requests for more definite statements concerning 

respondent having shut down operations under 119.69 or attempting to hold 

him to a higher standard than its own FAA officials, how the new regulation was 

not adequately evident, lacking a notification process or posted, with unclear 

interpretation, how the methods for compliance were unclear. Inconsistent and 

did not follow suit with the other methods of compliance contained in the 

compliance statement and operation specifications. The one word answer to 

these requests was merely "Deny", period, end of sentence. They have not 

responded directly because the complainants probably silently agree with 

these statements denoting insufficiency. 

Complainants specifically disregarded the issue of judicial estoppels, legal 

Insufficiency, inconsistent positions, all pertaining to finding the other 

mechanic/IA on a continuous drug monitoring program, releasing him of all 

violations, a case scenario exactly the same as Mr Baker due to "insufficient 

evidence" as claimed by the complainants. This same conclusion of law 

needed to be applied to Mr Baker, when it was later confirmed from the original 

claim in the Notice of Civil penalty, that he also was on a monitoring program 

yet another fact to render the complaint moot. They claimed they used their 

prosecutorial discretion. 

Complainants cited that the statute of limitations was not exceeded, 

using a violation start date of July 24, 2008, however the alleged sen/ice end 

date was July 23, 2010, one day before the statue of limitations. Again, 

complainants served the respondent, requiring respondent's signature via 

certified delivery after the 2 year period on July 27, 2010. 

Ms Williams erred in claiming Mr Baker was not on a monitoring program, 

because she did not have sufficient time to confirm his program in order to get 

the proposed civil violation in just under the wire, therein rushing judgment. She 

was also always late with her follow-up correspondence due to her aggressive 

- 3 -
02/27/2011 7:22PM FAX I 120004/0007 

travel schedule. 

Complainants have showed a pattern of late submissions, used document 

late draft dates, as reference service dates and refused to provide discovery for 

their certified mail authorizations. Complainant claimed any request for formal 

proof of service is not reasonable to request, even though the statute of 

limitations is In question, respondent contending that the complaint was 

delivered past the 2 year deadline. Strict proof is appropriate. These acts all put 

the complainant's credibility in question. 

The complainants are suggesting a further interrupt respondent's 

cardiology practice, his hospital responsibilities and his patients in their attempts 

to take him out of the very area and jurisdiction that the alleged claimed 

violation and inspection occurred, by eluding respondent's questions and 

casting a misleading interpretation of facts to the court. For Ms Ponto to even 

suggest that a solo practice cardiologist disrupt the continuity of care to his 

patients, reschedule patients, compromise the care of his patients or even 

Inconvenience neutral party persons for a remote site hearing, when the 

alleged violation originated and was propagated by Ms Williams in Lehigh 

Valley is unconscionable in the respondents mind and appears only as a 

malicious attempt to discourage further defense and inconvenience the 

respondent and his patients. 

The other complaint insufficiency, in addition to being so delayed, is that 

the company had already shut down operations under regulation 119.69 to 

ensure safety to the public, for the violation start date cited, another reason 

rendering the complaint moot. Therefore, respondent acted appropriately and 

in good faith and judgment. 

Respondent requested Ms Ponto's attorney license ID number since it has 

never appeared on any document she submitted to this court. This is public 

information and is always properly displayed, just^as any professional is required 

to display their credentioJs to the public. To not display or disclose this public 

information even when directly requested appears suspect. The complainants 

have refused to present this Information. 

Complainant's holdfast to their positions at any cost to the government 

and taxpayers, disregarding and abusing governmental spending, litigation 

costs which searches far beyond the fine allotment. Any subsequent appeal 

process will further outstretch precious scarce judicial resources and litigation 

costs to the government and taxpayers. These acts are vexatious, malicious, 

and wanton, represents willful misconduct, abuse of process and discretion, 

malfeasance, with intent to do harm to respondent and respondents patients 

- 4 -
02/27/2011 7:22PM FAX 110005/0007 

and to impair the dignity of the court and respect its authority. 

In the interest of judicial economies, avoidance of scarce judicial financial 

resources for a case that appears non meritorious since respondent had 

appropriately temporarily shut down operations; appears to be over killed with 

an aggressive prosecutorial pursuit when this case should simply be dismissed. 

Yours Sincerely, ^ \ i \v^ 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H \ 

cc. Hearing Docket, Clerk 
1)0006/0007 

02/27/2011 7:22PM FAX 

O 

U.S, Department Office of Aerospace Madiclne 

of jransportation Drug Abatement Division 

Federal Aviation 2895 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 148 

AdmlnWraHon Mlramar, FL 33027 

January 21, 2011 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

File Number: 2010SO950353 

Dr. Mictiael B. Selig 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

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

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

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

previous correspondence you received pertaining to the issues bearing file number 

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

is still open and under Investigation and the issues that will be closed with no action in lieu 

oTa.yvaimlog; notice; 

the follo\Ving issue^jncludedlri. our August 14, 2009, letter of invedtigat|qh (File Number: 

2009SO950434) Is still open and will be addressed in separate cbire^pdrtdenck 

• M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Edward Baker, a contractor, was 

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

services. 

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

14, 2009, letter of investigation (File Number: 2009SO950434): 

1. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Eu^^ne Mcintosh,. a:contractQr^ was 

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

services. 

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

verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward Baker to ^ 

perform safety-sensitive functions. 

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

to stipport the allegaitip.n pertairiihg tb Eugane Mcintosh's coverage uridar an FAAitiandated drijg Srid'alcohoi testing pi-ogram. Furthermore, we arei noVpursiJihg legal'- '• 

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

Eugene Mclntosli and Edward Baker. You may consider these matters closed. 

http-.//www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarterS_offices/avs/Qff(ces/aam/drug_alcohol/ 
il0007/0007 

02/27/2011 7:22PM FAX 

Please direct any future questions relating to your drug and alcohol testing programs to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Drug Abatement Division 

2895 SW 145"" Avenue, Suite 148 

Mlramar, FL 33027 

Telephone number: (954) 641-6251 

Sincerel' 

/ ^ 

Latonya B!'Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

U.S. Departmant of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10001/0010 

/'" 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Rood 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynttila Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docl<et. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND SANCTIONS AGAINST COMPLAINANTS' 

PROSECUTARIAL INDISCRETION 

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

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

2007) whom avers and files the following Motion for Sanctions based on 

the continuous disregard and breaches of proper proceedings to this 

court, have held steadfast to their alleged violation despite multiple 

procedural detects. 

1, In Ms Williams inspection of the MRH records in the Allentown 

office location, Ms Williams violated many code of ethics, morals, 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX gl0002/0010 

conduct and AVR protocols acting with disrespect by coming into 

respondents cardiology office suspending him for hours, calling the 

respondent by his first name while walk in patients and secretary were 

present. 

2. The primary premise that Mr Baker was not on a drug/alcohol 

abatement program for the alleged violation was flawed, since Mr Baker 

was always on a monitoring program before and during providing 

services. 

3. In Ms Williams rush to get the violation entered in just under the 

2 year statue of limitations, she did not confirm Mr Bakers monitoring 

status. 

4. The complainants allege that the violation was entered in one 

day before the statute of limitations when it was served after the 2 year 

period. 

5. The violation was issued to an operator who was temporarily 

shut down and not performing operations due to human factors and 

other factors as to not compromise the safety of the public under 119.69. 

6. The complainants issued a violation to a regulation that had 

changed, that neither their own drug abatement officer who performed 

an earlier inspection was not informed of nor all the Allentown FAA officers 

and FSDO were not informed about. 

7. The complainants thereby deceptively believe It is appropriate 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10003/0010 

to hold the respondent lo a higher standard than their own FAA officers', 

8. The respondent underwent frequent FAA inspections, since his 

aircraft and operations were across the street from the Allentown FSDO 

and always found to be compliant, therein no reason to believe 

otherwise. 

9. The complainants Issued a violation to a regulation that had 

unclear interpretation. 

10. The complainants issued a violation to a regulation that had 

no notification process in place contrary to what followed suit to the 

compliance statement or operational specifications. 

11. The complainants issued a violation to a regulation that was 

not clearly delineated in the compliance statement and referred to 

somewhere on a remote site, thereby had inadequate and concealed 

disclosure. 

12. The complainants issued a violation to a regulation that was 

not signed off in section A449 of the compliance statement. 

13. The complainants issued a violation to a regulation that had 

no clear methods of compliance or notification process in place. 

14. The complainants issued a violation to a changed and 

unknown regulation in a process that encouraged violation and 

entrapment rather than compliance, forthrighi disclosure In the spirit of 

training and safety. 

- 3 -
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10004/0010 

r 

15. Once it was determined that Mr Baker was always on a 

monitoring program the complainants re-crafted their fundamental 

premise for the violation to Mr Baker was not on a monitoring program 

prior to him performing his services. 

16. Contrary to Judicial Estoppels, Legal and Position consistency, 

complainants released the other mechanic due to Insufficient evidence 

who was under the same exact case scenario of always being on a 

monitoring program before and during services rendered by their primary 

employer. 

] 7. Throughout this litigation, the complainants have refused to 

address specific enumerated paragraphs in breach of Federal Rule 3. 

18. Throughout this litigation, complainants have been inexcusable 

short and vague, did not pleated facts with sufficient specificity and in 

accordance to standard practices. The purpose of these standard 

practices is to confine the pleading party proof to only those acts alleged, 

thus enabling a responding party to prepare their defense'. 

19, When complainants did respond, they failed to plead facts 

with sufficient specificity, but In a collaborative conclusionary manner, 

usually with a one word response "Deny", one liner statement or have 

completely ignored, evaded and circumvented specific pleadings, 

thereby adding redundancy and repeated approaches to pleadings. 

'Baker v Rangos. 324 A.2d 498,505 (Pa SuperCL 1974 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10005/0010 

20. Complainants have filed late responses to motions post the 10 

day deadline period under § Rule 13.218(d), for example, not using actual 

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

21. Ms Ponto failed to produce the requested evidence as to 

when 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 were 

5 days late. 

22. Ms Dominik of the FAA enforcement division of the chief 

counsel called respondent directly to his personal cell phone admitting 

that the complainants can not file responses within the 10 day deadline 

period, would in breach of this regulation and thereby requested a 

continuance directly to respondent. The cell call log of respondent's 

telephone show^ having received Ms Dominik's number 202-267-7560. 

23. Complainants have refused to address the New Matter dated 

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

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

Doninik pertaining to that telephone call. 

24. When complainants changed the fundamental premise for 

the alleged violation and respondent motioned the court for a protective 

order, complainant insufficiently responded only with a one word "Deny". 

25. Respondent was refused the request of Ms Ponto's attorney 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10006/0010 

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. 

26. In response to depositions and hearing locations the 

complainants stated that it would be an "tremendous inconvenience and 

expense" for Ms Williams to come to Allentown, despite Allentown being 

the very area and jurisdiction that the alleged claimed violation and 

inspection occurred and Ms Williams came from Florida to impose that 

violation. 

27. It would be unconscionable to put Ms William's desires ahead of 

interrupting respondent's cardiology practice, his hospital responsibilities 

and his patients. For Ms Ponto to even suggest that a solo practice 

cardiologist disrupt the continuity of care to his patients, reschedule 

patients, compromise the care of his patients or even Inconvenience 

neutral party persons for a remote site hearing, when the alleged violation 

originated and was propagated by Ms Williams in the Lehigh Valley, 

speaks only to a malicious attempt to discourage further defense and 

inconvenience the respondent and his patients, 

28. Complainants have provided preliminary discovery that was 

spoliated and dedocted, claiming the altering and corruption of the data 

occurred within allowed parameters, but complainants were unwilling to 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10007/0010 

provide those guidelines or any reference therein pertaining to any the 

exact methods allowed for the spoliation and dedactions. 

29. Complainants have refused to provide requested proof of 

government paid signed authorizations for dates documents were 

received by respondent. 

30. Complainants have pursued and sustained a civil penalty 

against an entity that had been closed had no income for years, shut 

down and had no assets. 

31. Complainant's holdfast to their positions at any cost to the 

government and taxpayers, disregarding and abusing governmental 

spending, litigation costs which searches far beyond the fine allotment. 

Any subsequent appeal process will further outstretch precious scarce 

judicial resources and litigation costs to the government and taxpayers. 

32. Complainants Ms Williams and Ms Ponto's acts are a disgrace to 

the agency, vexatious, malicious, and wanton, represents willful 

misconduct, abuse of process, discretion, fair judgment and perspective, 

malfeasance, with intent to pose unnecessary harm to respondent and 

respondent's patients and to Impair the dignity of the court and disrespect 

its authority. 

33. Due to the complainant's wanton conduct and breaches 

punitive damages are sought. 

34. Complainants have been willing to put into print, alter and 
02/28/2011 5:10PM FAX 10008/0010 

change, whatever is needed in their fishing expedition to keep afloat their 

moving target complaint at any costs. 

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

her attorney Id number needs to be revealed and her case be reported 

to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board. 

36. Ms Williams has also abused her discretion, abused her 

authority, and abused governmental funding for implementing a 

complaint under false pretense that is frivolous, flawed and legally 

insufficient. Further disclosure will be evident at deposition. 

37. The witness immunity doctrine should not shield the 

complainants due to their willful intent to not respond to selected Inquiries 

and therefore to impair the dignity of the court. 

38. Complainants have made multiple intentional and willful acts to 

disguise the truth In this case, not address the issued specifically 

requested, has not exercised full candor in hopeful desperation to trick 

this court. 

39. By complainants' failure to respond specifically to pleadings, 

have in dubiously and injuriously propagated voluminous filings dissipating 

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

judicial economy. 

40. Complainants have squandered and abused scarce judicial 

recourses to pursue a case at any cost that appears frivolous and non 

-8 
10009/0010 

02/28/2011 5:11PM FAX 

meritorious. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

1. Grant the Motion for Sanctions by way of; 

a. Dismissing the case /or 

b. Issue a protective order to Freeze the case to the original 

complaint /and 

c. Award punitive damages to the respondent at the courts 

discretion /and 

d. Report the complainants to the appropriate disciplinary 

board/and 

e. Hold complainants liable and not shielded under the witness 

immunity doctrine. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H X Q>^^ 

Date 
02/28/2011 5:11PM FAX 10010/0010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams, Peter Lynch 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honoroble Judge Ronnie Yodei 

Docket: 2010-1211 

7->^ ' 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

July 23,2010 Civil Penalty -Judge Yoder Letter W ^ 

MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND SANCTIONS AGAINST COMPLAINANTS 

PROSECUTORIAL INDISCRETION 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

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

H 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: 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, DC 20391 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

ByL 

^^V l 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

6103603953 

Date: .^-I^IP