o CEIVED 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H .AU O g mw 

2816 0refieldRoad ^ " 

Allentown, PA. 18104 [ [EARIN G DOCKE T 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

• — . ; 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ^ ^^ M 

f-5.. — ^ 1 u 

i O Q :V CD 

Federal Aviation Administration 

'•''Com^a?nints°''^' ' ^"'"'"' ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINANTS PROPOSED 

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

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

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

files the following Reply to the Complainants Response to the Motion to DISMISS 

Complainants proposed dates for scheduling deadlines. 

1. The violations cited by complainants should be rendered moot as 

alleged acts conducted by innocent bystander Mr Baker, occurring before 

2008, after MRH terminated operations and was no longer performing flights for 

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

compliance with: 

1 
119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

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

Helicopters, LLC must have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure the safety 

of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC must have qualified 

personnel serving in the following or equivalent positions: 

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

of Maintenance. 

Respondent was the Director of Operations, Chief Pilot and the 

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

suicide risk of minor child, time and responsibility restraints of his cardiology 

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

regulation, stopped operations. 

2. Complainants in bad faith refused to address and continue to evade 

and circumvent the fact that MRH was not operational during the cited alleged 

violations, while in accordance to the above regulation 119.69, because this 

would be admitting that the Civil Penalty would be defective. 

3. Ms Ponto averred that the violation was valid as it was admitted that 

the violation was 1 day within of the 2 year statute of limitations. The date of 

service however was 3 days after the statute of limitations and therefore timebarred. 

4. Complainants have shifted the primary cause of action of their 

complaint from Mr Baker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed that 

he was), to Mr Baker not being on MRHs employee monitoring program, despite 

under Judicial Estoppels and with Legal inconsistency, complainants had 
already released the Mechanic/IA who was also found to be on a monitoring 

program by his full time employer. See Motion for Judgment to Dismiss-Judicial 

Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency. 

5. The Complainants also refuse to address the fact that no FAA officials 

were informed of the regulation change regarding the definition of employer or 

appendix I and J, including their own FAA Drug/Alcohol inspector Vincent Roots 

and all local FSDO FAA Officials performing frequent inspections of MRH records 

and aircraft, therefore, representing entrapment on the part of complainants. 

6. In the proceedings of this case, complainants have continued to fail 

to plead to specific enumerated paragraphs as is common standard practice, 

thereby failing to address the specific pleadings in a succinct manner, choosing 

what matter they want to address and thereby evading and circumventing 

respondent's specific allegations. When complainants did choose to respond, 

they did so in a short, scant, impermissibly vague and conclusionor/ manner. 

This conduct by complainants has indubitably and injuriously propagated 

redundant and iterate pleadings. 

7. It appears in this process Ms Williams and Ms Ponto are malfeasant, 

have abused their discretion, are in breach of duty and conduct to cause harm, 

are in abuse of process, having no legally cognizable cause of action, 

attempting to migrate and cobbling together colorable changing arguments to 

make their alleged violation appear warranted, while holding steadfast at all 

costs and without humility, dignity, moral or ethical appropriate behaviors and in 

3-
an unconscionable manner. 

8. In the steadfast, unyielding position of complainants to this violation, 

precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered on a case that 

appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing aggressive 

prosecutorial overreaching and pursuit that lacks proper initiative, perspective 

or good judgment, not in the spirit of governmental fund conservation, as the 

litigation costs of the complainants will far exceed the fine, assuming arguendo 

the fine will be found to have any merit or that there are any assets with which 

to pay an even reduced fine. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

a. either dismiss this frivolous case in the effort of judicial economy /or 

b. grants that the Scheduling deadline remain open at this time, to allow further 

discovery, depositions and pre-trial conference. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. \ 

Date