CEIVED 

JAN 2 8 2^1^ 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H u c APINf ^ DOCKE T 

2816 Orefield Road HcAKIN O L. .f ^ 

Allentown. PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS = ''^3 ^ 

WASHINGTON, D.C. "^ cyi^izj 

n:. U :-- . 

hO His 

uo 

Federal Aviation Administration 

^ ° Com'^dnints""^' ' ^"""'"^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

.JO 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

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 more definite statement in reply to complainants 

claiming the underlying premise and cause of action for this proposed civil 

penalty has not changed from Ms Williams lOP 9 record. 

1 The sole and primary premise for this violation, clearly documented 

in Ms Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was Ms William's inability to 

validate FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program information for Mr 

Baker. 

1 -
2. Ms Williams was given evidence that Mr Baker was on a monitoring 

program but selected not to pursue primary source verification and/or 

confirmation of these facts pursuant to §13.224, perhaps for the reason that she 

was in a rush to get her alleged civil penalty out, 1 day before the statute of 

limitations. 

3. Once Ms Williams confirmed that Mr Baker was always on a 

monitoring program under his disclosed full time employer, she then stiifted ttie 

fundamental basis (prinnary focus) to a cause of action violation, to Mr Baker not 

being on MRHs own companies monitoring program, despite previously 

releasing the other Mechanic/IA from those regulations who performed safety 

sensitive functions under exactly identical circumstances. 

4. Of note, the referenced violation dates cited were November 2. 2007 

to July 24, 2008, a time during which MRH had shut down operations due to 

Human factors in accordance to 119.69. MRH in good judgment terminated 

operations in June 2007 demonstrating another procedural defect and 

prosecutorial overreaching. 

5. It also became obvious that the revised regulations of the 

drug/alcohols programs new definition of employer that were not evident, 

disclosed, or even known by a prior FAA Drug/Alcohol auditor, MR Vincent 

Roots, during his audit of MRH in March 2004 and thereby could not inform 

respondent of the regulation change. 

6. Nor were any other FAA officials who performed frequent inspections 
of MRHs operations, located across the street from the Allentown FSDO were 

informed, checked the so called "Public Registry" or knew anything about these 

regulations and therefore confirmed and approved operations of the 

respondent for 6 years. 

7. Therefore, quite to the contrary, complainants have shifted their 

moving target primary focus of their complaint basis to pursue a violation by 

whatever means needed to warrant their frivolous violation by using inconsistent 

color of law arguments. 

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

in the effort of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date