SERVED AUGUST 3, 201 

OLRARTMENTOF 

• RAN!:PCRWION 

:0K^ i 0FFRAT!0N3 

'M m ' 3 P 2- LiO 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OP HEARFNGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M & R HELICOPTERS, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

{Civil Penally Action) 

FDMSNo. FAA-2010-12!1 

CONSOLIDATED ORDER ON MOTIONS 

There are numerous motions in this case. They will be addressed herein. 

Additional observations will be reiterated. Respondent, by its representative, has 

shown considerable passion and zealotry in advocating its position. But in its fervor, the 

representative - who is not a practitioner - appears to insufficiently appreciate the 

solemnity and decorum of the legal process. This body is a duly constituted Court of 

Law under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq. The process and its 

participants must be treated with appropriate dignity. It is not consistent with proper 

decorum to demean Complainant's attorneys and/or this process. Such language lacks 

the dignity expected of participants in this or any other legal proceedings. All parties 

should use language and make arguments which uphold the dignity of the proceeding of 

which they are a part.' 

Violation of these principles will be dealt with appropriately. 

Additionally, Respondenl's caption naming certain individuals in addition to the FAA as Complainants is 

not correct. There is only one Complainani, and that is the Federal Aviation Administration. Respondeni 

in the future should refer to the Complainant as such. 
WHEREFORE, the rnotions and pleadings having been read and considered it be 

and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's "Motion to Strike Allegation, Mr. Baker was not on a 

drug/alcohol program" dated 11-30-10 is DENIED; 

2. Respondent's "Preliminary Objections''dated 11-27-10 is DENIED; 

3. Respondent's "Motion to Quash, Strike or Dismiss Complaint" dated I I -30-

10 is DENIED; 

4. Respondent's "Motion to Compel Discovery" dated 12-2-10 is DENIED; 

5. Complainant's "Motion Requesting an Order to Impose a Procedure schedule 

for filing dispositive Motions and Discover}' dated December 10, 2010 is 

MOOT; 

6. Respondent's "Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4, Failure to Respond or meet 

filing deadlines on 8 pleadings" dated 12-14-10 is DENIED; 

7. Respondent's "Motion to have deposition of Latonya Williams in the 

Allemown, PA location" dated 12-21-10 is DENIED; 

8. Respondent's "Motions to Disinissand Strike Allegation" dated 12-10-10 is 

DENIED; 

9. Respondent's ''Motion for Judge to Dismiss, Failure lo Respond or meet 

filing deadlines" dated 12-8-10 is DENIED; 

10. Respondent's "Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4, Failure to Respond or meet 

filing deadlines on 8 pleadings" dated 12-14-10 is DENIED; 

11. Respondent's "Motion for Pre-trial Conference, at Gallagher reporting, 

Allenlown, PA" dated l-l l-ll is DENIED; 

12. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement" dated l-ll-ll is 

DENIED; 

13. Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss Complainants |sic] Proposed Procedural 

Schedule" dated l-ll-M is DENIED; 

14. Respondenl's "Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to properly respond 

or meeting filing deadlines" dated 12-24-10 is DENIED; 

15. Respondent's "Motion forbearing location in Allentown, PA." filed January 

18, 1011 is DENIED as Moot; 

16. Respondent's "Motion to have pre-trial deposition of Latonya Williams, at 

Gallagher Reporting, Allentown, PA." is dated 1-7-11 is DENIED; 

17. Respondent's "Motion for Judgtnent to Dismiss, Truths of Admissions" dated 

1-7-11 is DENIED; 

18. Respondent's "Motion to Strike Allegation, Mr. Baker was not on a 

drug/alcohol Prograins" dated 1-7-11 is DENIED; 

l9r'Respondent's "Motion to Compel Discovery and New Matter, failure to 

provide requested referenced evidence" dated 1-8-11 is DENIED; 

20. Respondent's "Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Judicial Estoppels, Legal 

Inconsistency" dated 1-8-11 is DENIED; 

21. Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss Complainant's Proposed Procedural Order" 

dated l-ll-ll is DENIED; 
22. Respondent's "Motion for Pre-Trial Conference at Gallagher Reporting , 

Allentown, PA." filed 1-11-I I is DENIED; 

23. Respondent's "Reply by way of Objection to Complainants fsic] Motion for 

Procedural Schedule Impositions" dated 12-16-10 is DENIED; 

24. Respondent's "Motion for Judgment to Quash, Additional Substantiating 

Evidence" dated 12-4-1- is DENIED; 

25. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, 'Insufficient Evidence' 

also for Mr. Baker" dated 2-1-11 is DENIED; 

26. Respondent's "Motion for Deposition of Cynthia Dominik, At Gallagher 

Reporting, Allentown, PA." dated 1-21-II is DENIED; 

27. Complainant's "Motion lo Dismiss Counter-Cotiiplaint" dated March 21, 

2011, is GRANTED; 

28. Respondent's "Motion to Compel Discovery and New Matter, Failure to 

Provide Requested Referenced Evidence" dated i-8-l 1 is DENIED; 

29. Respondent's "Motion for Definite Statement, Failing to Meet Filing 

Deadlines" filed January 28,2011, is DENIED; 

30. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, Holding Respondeni to a 

higher standard than I'AA officials" filed January 28, 2011 is DENIED; 

31. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, 119.69 Shutdown and 

Human Factors" filed January 28, 2011 is DENIED; 

32. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, changing the 

fundainental cause of action" filed January 28, 2011 is DENIED; 

33. Respondent's "Motion for Definite Requested Discovery" dated 2-7-11 is 

DENIED; 

34. Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss, recurrent failing to meet filing deadlines4 more" dated 1-6-11 is DENIED; 

35. Respondent's "Motion for Protective Order, changing the fundamental cause 

of action" dated 2-6-11 is DENIED; 

36. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, Deposition of Cynthia 

Dominik" dated 1-6-11 is DENIED; 

37. Respondenl's "Motion for Specific Discovery, travel log for Latonya 

Williams" dated 1-24-11 is DENIED; 

38. Respondenl's "Notice of Filings, NASA form and Petition for Rulemaking, 

Proposed Changes" filed February 7, 2011 is DENIED; 

39. Respondent's "Mofion lo Define and Enter 4 Truths of Admissions" undated 

is DENIED; 

40. Respondent's "Motion for Rule to Show Cause, 'insufficient evidence' also — 

for Mr. Baker Estoppel by inconsistent positions" undated is DENIED; 

41. Respondent's "Motion for More Definite Statement, 'insufficient evidence' 

also for Mr. Baker" undated is DENIED; 

42. Respondenl's "Motion to Dismiss, recurrent failing to meet filing deadlines -

4 more" dated 1-6-11 is DENIED; 

43. Respondent's "Motion for Definite Requested Discovery" dated 2-7-11 is 

DENIED; 

44. Respondent's "Mofion for more Definite Statement, travel log of Latonya 

Williams"dated2-]7-ll is DENIED; 
45. Respondent's "Motion for more Definite Statement, inadequate inethods of 

compliance and notification" undated is DENIED; 

46. Respondent's "Motion for Specific Relief and Sanctions Against 

Complainants', prosecuLarial [sic] indiscretion" undated is DENIED; 

47. Respondent's "Motion for Special Relief and Sanctions Against 

Complainants', Prosccularial [sic] indiscretion" undated is DENIED; 

48. Respondent's "Motion to Define and Enter 4 1 ruths of Admissions" dated 2-

13-11 is DENIED; 

49. Respondenl's "Petition for Disclosure of Ms. f*ontos Attorney ID Number" 

dated 3-2-11 is DENIED. Ms. Ponto is not a party to this case. The rules do 

not require providing an attorney ID in this or any other case before this 

court. Further, the baseless allegations in the Petition are without foundation 

and demean these, proceeding. The Petition will be sealed and removed from 

the public portion of the docket sue spontc. Pleadings with similar 

accusafions will not be tolerated; 

50. Respondent's "PeUlion for Special Relief, jurisdicfion and venue" dated 3-6-

II is DENIED; 

51. Respondent's "Counter-Complaint" dated 3-9-1 1 is DISMISSED; 

52. Respondent's "Petition for Emergency Injunefive and Declaratory Relief and 

Case Dismissal" dated 3-1 l-l 1 is DENIED; 

53. Complainant's "Motion to Dismiss Counter-Complaint" dated March 21, 

2011 is GRANTED; 

54. Respondent's "Motion for Contempt for Disobedience of the Order Pertaining 

to Spoilation [sic] of the Enforcement Investigative Report" dated 4-20-1 I is 

DENIED; 

55. To the extent any other outstanding motions have not been ruled on as of the 

date of the service of this Order they be and arc hereby DENIED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Adininistrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

REVISED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H, 

Respondent's Representative 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA 18104 

TEL: 610-360-3953 

FAX: 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administrafion 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law,fudge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

UiSr'Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

East Building Ground Floor, Room EI2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Admiiii strati on, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000, Washington, 

DC 20591. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.