02/ie/20n 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0001/01 8 

•'':lOPEaATIOl^S DEPARTME 

•DECEIVED 

NT OF TRANSPORTAT.C^/\R||y|Q OQCKE T 

Federal Aviation AdrnirnStraTiorT 

Cynthio Dominik, Laura Ponto. 

Lolonya Williams. Pe-ter Lynch 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

_ Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket : 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

C~.AIN3H\G .r^E ;".^NCAV£\:A:. CA—ir ^"A w .^ ^ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

RECURRENT FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADLINES- 4 MORE 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

MOTION FOR DEFINITE REQUESTED DISCOVERY 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS OPPOSITION FOR DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK AND 

NEW MATTER f^ a^G'^U 

r^Hc'i 

f 

F 

F 

2-&--I • 

>-G - If 

:L-^C-W 

a-7-«( 

upon oil porties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements ot Rule 29 

pursuont to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

-Service by first-dass moil, postaoe preooid, addressed as follows: 

Federol Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, 5W 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 205V I 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Porilo, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FA A 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of I'learings, M-20. Room El 2-320 

1200 Now Jersey Avenue. S.E, 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

jvlie[fi 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

2816 0refieldRoQd 

Allentown, Po. 18104 

610 360 3953 ^ ^—j ^ 

Dote: Ell_ 
02/1G/2011 15;57 FAX 2024835142 FAA + DMS 1^002/01! 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC , CFI-H. 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lalonya Williams 

CompiGinonts 

M i R Helicopters, LLC, 

Respondent 

Docket: 2010-1211 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

MOTION FOR DEFINITE REQUESTED DISCOVERY 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (inoperative since 2009) whonn overs 

and files tt^e following MOTION FOR Definite Requested Discovery due to 

insufficiency and failure to produce prior requested DiSCOVERY in accordance 

to Rule 13.220(d). 

1. Connplainants pleading entitled Connplainants Request for Discovery 

received by respondent on January 31, 2011 requests discovery items to be 

reiterated again and received in 30 days or Morcti 2, 2011. 

2. Since Ms Williams revised her allegations that there v^ill be no 

violations in regard to the regulation change that occurred in February 2004, 

1 of 3 
02/18/2011 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA * OMS 2)003/018 

requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company specific drug program and 

new definition of employer, the specific dates and wording of the old and new 

regulations will not be needed at this time. 

4. If the above statement is incorrect then the above needs to be 

produced. 

5. Ms Williams failed to produce the exact specific regulations, 

language as the basis of her violation. She may produce them at this time. 

4 In the letter of October 27, 2010, respondent requested full, unaltered 

copies of documents that were produced in the incomplete investigation file, 

that were either stricken, blocked out, redacted or spoliated. Respondent now 

requests unaltered and non-spoliated documents produced in the EIR file. 

5. If an non-spoliated and corrupted EIR file cannot be produced then 

the exact references as to how spoliation and redaction of the records or 

disclosure restrictions is allowed needs to be specifically referenced according 

to the cited Jordon v Department of Justice that Ms Ponto cited in her prior 

correspondence. 

6. Deposition of Ms Dominik as previously requested. 

7. Deposition of Ms Williams as previously requested. 

8. Production of all certified mail return receipt requested, particularly 

those of the original service of the civil penalty. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honoroble Court will mandate the 

2 of 3 
02/16/201 1 15:5 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS @i004/018 

follov/Ing discovery under Rule 13.220 (d). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

,^yh 

Michoel B. Selig, MD. FACC. « ^ , _, /7^"l V 

Date *-

3 of 3 
02/1B/2011 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @|005/018 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 .AKir4G DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Doclcet. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINK 

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

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

files the following Motion for More Definite Statement concerning Deposition of 

Cynthia Dominik, Esq. under Rule §13.225 for a pre triol examination at Gallagher 

Reporting, Allentown, PA 18101. 

1. Throughout this litigation, complainants have failed to plead or 

address specific enumerated allegations. The purpose of these practices is to 

confine the pleading party proof to only those acts olleged, thus enabling a 

1 of 3 
02/16/2011 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS Bl'^'^^/Oli 

responding party to prepare their defense^ By failure to address the specific 

pleadings and thereby ignoring, evading and circumventing respondent's 

specific allegations, complainants have indubitably and injuriously propagated 

redundant and iterate pleadings for a cose that appeared void ab initio. 

2. By failure to address a pleading, that then deems that allegation an 

admission of the truth to that pleading under § 13.208(f). 

3. Throughout this litigation, it appears that complainants do not even 

read the content matter of the pleadings by respondent, responding only to the 

caption subject title and thereby pleating facts with insufficient specificity and in 

breach to standard practices. 

4. In prior pleadings respondent suggested alternatively, that Ms 

Dominik can submit a written statement or stipulation in order to void the need 

for deposition of Ms Donimik that: 

o. she indeed called the respondent. 

b. she did state that the complainants would be unable to submit within 

the timeframe. 

c. a continuance was requested on the respondent. 

5. As usual there has been no response and therein was ignored, 

evaded and circumvented requiring complainants to directly respond, answer 

and file statements to these allegations. 

'Baker v Ranges, 324 A.2d 498. 505 (Pa Super Ct. 1974 

2 of 3 
02/16/2011 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS lg|007/018 

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

complainants to file direct definite statements to the above proposed 

statements of foot. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. y VtOV 

Date V 

3 of 3 
02/16/2011 15:57 FAX 2024935142 FAA DMS 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC . 

21008/018 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS OPPOSITION FOR DEPOSITION OF 

CYNTHIA DOMINIK AND NEW MATTER 

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

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operationa) since 2007) whom a\^ers and 

files the following Reply to Complainants Opposition to Depose Cynthia Dominik, 

Esq. under Rule §13.225 for pre trial examination at Gallagher Reporting, 

Allentown, PA 18101. 

1. Throughout this litigation, complainants have failed to plead and 

address specific enumerated allegations. The intent of these practices Is to 

confine the pleading party proof to only those acts alleged, thereby enabling 

1 of 4 
02/16/2011 15:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS ^,^^^^.^21. 

the responding party to prepare their defense'. By failure to address the specific 

pleading and thereby ignoring, evading and circumventing the respondents 

alleged allegations, complainants are indubitably and injuriously propagating, 

iterate and superfluous pleadings for a case that appeared void ab initio, 

2. Inaction to address a pleading, suggests an admission of the truth to 

that pleading under § 13.206(f). 

3. Throughout this legal action, it appears that complainants have not 

read the content matter of the pleadings by respondent, responding only to the 

caption subject title and thereby pleating facts with vague, conclusionary, 

confusing in nature and with insufficient specificity therein breaching standard 

practices. 

4. On November 30, 2010, respondents Motion to Strike Alleaation was 

faxed and sent to Ms Ponto's department to which no objection or answer was 

received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.218(d). A late answer was 

also provided in the collaborative correspondence received on December 13, 

2010. 

7. Ms Ponto failed to present any requested evidence as to when the 

response was actually received in her response to this matter. A subjective date 

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

represent an actual date of service or signed authorization of receipt. 

8. Ms Dominik of the FAA enforcement division of the chief counsel 

'Baker v Ranges, 324 A.2d 498. 505 (Pa SuperCt. 1974 

2 Of 4 
rftA + DMS 0)010/01 3 02/16/201 1 15:5 6 FAX 2024935142 FAA UMb ei 

called respondent directly to his personal cell phone admitting that the 

complainants could not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, would 

be in breach of this regulation and thereby requested a continuance directly to 

respondent. Prior Exhibit showed call log of respondent's cell telephone 

showing Ms Dominik's number 202-267-7560. 

9. Respondent refused a continuance and requested the case be 

dismissed on these grounds. 

10. Ms Ponto's defense is that she never filed a formal continuance, 

knowing that respondent already denied her verbal request in the telephone 

inquiry by Ms Dominik. 

11. At no time did Ms Ponto address, respond or admit to this statement 

of fact with submitted proof, as has been her practice to ignore, evade and 

circumvent items not convenient to address or shed light in a manner that may 

reveal the true facts. 

12. Further pre-trial examination of Ms Dominik should be required, since 

she intervened in this matter. 

13. Respondent is a solo, private practice cardiologist and requires that 

the pre-trial deposition of Ms Dominik to be held at: 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

as to not affect his clinical responsibilities, pose inconvenience or delays to his 

neutral party patients, in serving the community or put him at undue risk for 

3 of 4 
02/16/2011 15:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS \^0^^/0^B 

liability or malpractice. 

14. Complainants prior submitted dates can be utilized for this 

deposition. 

NEW MAnER 

15. Alternatively, Ms Doninik can submit a written statement or 

stipulation that; 

a. she indeed called the respondent. 

b. she did state that the complainants would be unable to submit within 

the timeframe. 

c. she requested a continuance from the respondent. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the pretrial deposition of Ms Dominik at the Allentown, PA location if she chooses to not 

submit a written statement of fact to the above call and discussion. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date yi^-W 

4 of 4 
02/16/201 1 15:5 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS a012/01 8 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

RECEIVED 

Ftt.' 15 2on 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M 4 R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

RECURRENT FAILING TO MEET FILING DEADLINES-4 MORE 

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

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

files the following Motion To Dismiss due to recurrent and repeated late filing 

and objective disclosure of filing within deadlines. 

1. It is respondent's averment that there has been a plethora of 

procedural defects by complainants in this case but no judgment has been 

taken on any of the claims. 

2. There are now 4 additional Motions for Definite Statements faxed to 

1 
02/16/201 1 15:5 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA •* DMS @1013/018 

complainants on January 24, 2011 that remain unanswered past the filing 

deadlines. 

3. The due date for response was February 3, 2011. 

3. These Motions for Definite Statements were required due to 

complainants failure to address in any manner, several items repeatedly 

directed to them, that they ignored, evaded or circumvented. 

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

as there is abundance to procedural defects to select from, validating 

dismissing this case, that has gone astray, in the spirit of judicial economy and 

justice. 

Respectfully Submitted, , . 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. ^ 

Date 
02/16/2011 15:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS §1014/01! 

Michoel Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, 0,C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docltet: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

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

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

files the following Motion for a Protective Order to fix and freeze the 

complainants continual moving target of the premise and cause of action for 

this proposed civil penalty as it has become a moving target from the original 

claims sei forth in Ms Williams lOP 9 record. 

I. The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior 

Mechanic/IA found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol program by 

Ms Williams letter of September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in revised letter of 

1 
02/16/201 1 15:5 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @]015/018 

January 21, 2011. 

2. This release pertained as well to claims that fhe Mechanic/IA was not 

on a drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH or prior to MRH 

using him to perform his services. 

3. Ms Williams was unwilling to affirm that Mr Baker was on a monitoring 

program, since his place of employment was not nearby to visit as she did for 

the other mechanic/lA. 

4. The sole and primary premise for this violation then shifted as 

documented in Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, to Ms Williams 

inability to validate any FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program 

information for Mr Baker. 

5. Ms Williams was given evidence that Mr Baker was on a program prior 

and during, but chose not to pursue primary source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §13.224, before she rushed to judgment to 

finalize her violation so that it would be entered just under the deadline, only one 

day prior to the 2 year statute of limitations. 

6. In Ms Williams rush to judgment and push to get her proposed civil 

penalty entered by the skin of the teeth and just under the wire for the statute of 

limitations, she failed to realize that the alleged violations cited by 

complainants, were performed by Mr Baker, 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: 
02/16/2011 15:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @101G/018 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Operations 

Conducted under Part 135 of ttiis 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 (only) Pilot and the 

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

risk of a minor child, custody battle, time and responsibility restraints of his 

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

above regulation, stopped operations. 

7. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was continuously (without 

break) on a nnonitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then 

again shifted ttie basis of the yiolation to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own 

companies monitoring program, despite already releasing the other 

Mechanic/IA for the same exact count of those regulations that were not 

evident, disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, Mr 

Vincent Roots, MRHs FAA operations and maintenance inspectors or the 

Allentown FSDO manager. 

8. Ms Williams again shifted and re-crafted her moving target alleged 

yiolation in her letter of January 21, 2011 with legal inconsistency and breach 

judicial estoppels by stating that MRH did not determine that Mr Baker was on 

an FAA drug and alcohol program prior to using his services, which was after 

- 3 -
02/16/201 1 15:5 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS gl017/01 8 

MRH had already shut down operations. 

9. The same exact same case scenario pertains to the Mechanic/IA 

whom Ms Williams released on all counts due to insufficient evidence. 

10. The sanne insufficient evidence also follows suit as it applies to Mr 

Balcer as he also was on a program prior to performing services for MRtt. 

11. In addition, there were several factors concerning the ambiguity 

regarding disclosure of regulations, regulations that were not cleariy contained, 

listed, spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance In the 

spirit of safety. 

12. There were several factors concerning unclear and disputed 

interpretation of the language and meaning contained within the signed off 

compliance statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging 

violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contrary to 

standard practices in Administration low. 

In Administrative Law "/n the interpretafion of ihe 

language of regulations, where doubt exists as to the 

intent of the meaning of the language written and 

enacted by a governing body, the language shall be 

interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

extension of o restriction". 

13. By way of Judicial Estoppels and to be legally consistent, 

complainants should follow suit by releasing Ed Baker who was also on his full 

4-
02/16/201 1 15:5 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @018/01 8 

time employer's drug/alcohol program prior and during, just as the mechanic/IA 

was formally released from those violations, thereby voiding the legitimacy of 

the complaint. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant 

freeze and fix the moving target of changing claims, causes of action and 

allegation violations, as is not permissible under common rules of civil 

procedures. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

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

Date 0 ^