02/03/2011 14;02 FAX 2024935142 

02/01/2011 10:05PM FAX 

FAA •» QM S 

Michael Solig< MD. FACC, CFI-H 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

^ -APARTMENT OF 

: • .^:^PORTAT!ON 

••'-TOFLnATIONS 

01 

11001/012 

Igioooi/ooio 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Compjoinonis 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

"•INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR BAKER 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG. MD, FACC, CFl-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters. LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom 

avers and files the following Motion for More Definite Statement pertaining Ms 

Williams revised alleged violation letter dated January 21 > 2011, releasing the 

Mechanic/IA based on insufficient evidence. 

1. The complainants have admitted to formally releasing the prior 

lA/Mechanic on all counts, found to be on his full time employers Drug/Alcohol 
* DMS @1002/012 

02/03/201 1 14:0 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA I2|0002/0010 

^i.fys \ i so w -lOiUoh^M FAX 

program by Ms William's letter of September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in 

her revised letter of January 21. 2011, (apparently signed for Ms William's, 

signature unidentifiable). 

2. This release also included as well to claims that the Mechanic/lA was 

not on o drug/alcohol monitoring program specifically under MRH or prior to 

MRH using him to perform his services. 

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

program, since his place of employment was not nearby. 

4. The sole and primary premise for this violation then stilfted 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 could be entered just under the deadline, only one 

day prior to the 2 year statute of limitations. 

6. In tA$, Williams rush to judgment and push to get her proposed civil 

penalty entered just under the wire for the statute of limitations, she failed to 

identify 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 

2-
. DMS @1003/012 

02/03/201 1 14;0 2 FAX 2024935142 1"^^ glOOOS/OOlO 

compliance with: 

119.69 Management Personnel Required for Openitions 

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

Helicoplers, LLC mu.si have sufficient qualified 

management and tochnicul personnel to ensure the safety 

of its operations. DR Helicopters, LLC must have qualified 

personnel serving in the fallowing 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 humon 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 monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then 

dgarn shifted the basis of the violation to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own 

companies monitoring program, despite already releasing the other 

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

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

Vincent Roofs, MRHs FAA operations and maintenance inspectors or the 

Allentown FSDO manager, 

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

violation with legal inconsistency and breach judiclol estoppels by stating that 

MRH did not determine that Mr Baker was on an FAA drug and alcohol program 
^ OMS 12004/012 

02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 F^A (^0004/0010 

/i.fwi,f."i i lU.wOrn i rnf t 

prior to using his services, which was after MRH had already shut down 

operations. This was another incorrect statement, since Mr Baker was on a 

monitoring program before respondent used his services. 

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

whom Mr Williams released on all counts due to Insufficient evidence. 

10. The same Insufficient evidence also follows suit as It applies to Mr 

Baker as he also was on a program prior to performing services for MRH. 

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

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

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

compliance statement and operotional specifications, thereby hidden, 

concealed and encouroging violation, rather than effective compliance, in a 

forthright clear manner and understanding, 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 proctices in Administration law. 

In Administrative Law "/n the interpretation of the 

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 a restriction". 

4 -
02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 31005/012 

§10005/0010 

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 

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. 

14. It would appear inappropriate for a golioth action to be taken against 

a small single pilot operation that had long stopped operating in due diligence, 

good judgment and good faith, according to regulations due to human factors of 

a tragic divorce case scenario and cardiology practice time constraints in order 

to not expose the public to undue risk. 

15. It would appear inappropriate, trivial and frivolous for action to be taken 

against a small single pilot operation that had done no harm, was an innocent 

bystander that has been operating in the red for years, had closed all financial 

accounts and has no assets. 

16. It would appear inappropriate to take action against respondent when 

the case appeared past the statute of limitations and time barred. 

17. It oppears that precious scarce judicial resources are being squandered 

on a case that appears frivolous, trivial, without merit, while representing an 

aggressive prosecutorial pursuit and overreaching that lacks proper initiative, 

perspective or good judgment. 

18. In good judgment and with proper perspective it would appear this 

legal pursuit is not worth the cost at the tax payer's expense, since no harm 

-5 
^ OMS I^OOK/Ol^ 

02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 FAA glOOOS/OOlO 

. r ^- ^ I I ' • «" i j I iH r ri A 

occurred and when operations were being preformed prior to the violation, they 

were done good faith, in accordance to the close guidance and supen/ision of 

the routine local FAA inspectors, therefore in the light of efforts of judicial 

economy, the case should be dismissed. 

19. It would appear complainants are causing more harm and risk by 

taking the respondents focus away from his cardiology services he renders to the 

community, 

20. It now appears that there are evidentiary reasons why the remaining 

allegation is also insufficient. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant: 

1. The Motion for More Definite Statement for complainants to describe how the 

same logic and case scenarios for the 2 mechanics is not identical and on the 

grounds of Judicial Estoppels, Legal Inconsistency how the same insufficient 

evidence does apply exactly to Mr Baker. 

2. Freezing the moving target of changing claims, causes of action and 

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

procedures at the State or Fedsrol levels and in efforts for judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

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

Date 

6-
. DMS ^ou(/.i . 

02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 ^ " @]0007/0010 

<d 

u.s Department Office Of Aerospace Medicine 

or Tr-ansportarion Drug Abatement Division 

federal Avhallon 2895 SW 145th Avenue. Suite 148 

AdminWitiJfon Miramar. FL 33027 

January 21, 2011 

Certified Mall - Return Receipt Requested 

File Number; 2010SO950353 

Or. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem. PA 16017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we informed you that we were investigating M and R Hollcopterg, 

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

CFR pan 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 letter addresses the issue described in the letter of investigation that 

is still open and under Investigation and the iesfues that vyill be closed with no action in lieu 

of a Yearning.notice. 

The following Issue included Ih, pur August' 14, 2009, letter of Inyeatigdtion (File Number: 

2009SO950434) is still open^ and will be addressed in separate cbfresporidence; 

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

covered under a FAAr<mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to using his 

senrtoes. 

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 Eugene Mcintosh, a contractor,, was 

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

services. 

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 

pertomi safety-sensitive functions. 

x^ 

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

to support the allegation pertaining to Eugene Mclritosh's coverage under an FAAmandated drug and alcohol testing program. Furthermore, we are not'pursijihg tegal 

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

Eugene Mcintosh and Edwafd Baker. You may consider these matters closed. 

http;//www.faa-9ov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/Bva/offlcea/aam/drug„8lcohol/ 
02/03/201

1 14:03 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

+ DMS 

1, ..» I I I V . uor n PftA 

§1008/01 2 

12ioooe/ooio 
02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 

oi;/oi/2o n 10:06PM FAX 

FAA DMS 21009/012 

00009/0010 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

February 1, 2011 

Peter Lynch, Esq, 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Sent by Fax 202-267-5106 

Re: Ms Ponto's License Number-Second Request 

Dear Mr. Lynch: 

In response to your letter dated January 26, 2011, the information 

previously requested was not provided. Therefore, at your earliest convenience 

please provide proof of Ms. Ponto's Attorney ID license numbcr(s), as well as 

the state(s) where she is licensed to practice; as noted in the attached exhibit. 

If Ms Ponto does not have a valid state attorney identification number or 

license number please state this fact forthright. Having been on local hospitals 

credentials committees, it is unclear to me if she is licensed and has an 

attorney ID number, why all of her signed pleadings, still require your 

unsigned reference. Of further interest if she is under your supervision, why is 

not your signature and.ID number not required as would be standard 

procedure. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

CC! 

Docket 2010-1211 
02/03/2011 14:03 FAX 2024935142 

\)Cl w l/^iU I I lU : ObTH I-AX 

FAA * DMS @j010/012 

I2iooio/ooio 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Admlnlttration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams, Peter Lynch 

Complainants 

AA «, R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yodei 

Docket: 2010^1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

"INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR BAKER 

LEHER TO MR LYNCH 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service t;>v first-class mail, postage prepoid. addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

WashInglon,D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

C/FAX202 493 5I42 

Laura Ponto. Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

, FAX 202 267 510<i 

Wo; 

The Honorable Ronnie A, Voder 

US Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

AX 202 366 7536 

j^^ ^ By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 3603953 

Date; 

^^-l I \^^