US Forest Service policies still affecting fires in New Mexico & the West.

Getting new planes for the US Forest Service won't save lives or property if the retardant used isn't replaced with something new. 

 

By Howard DeLaCruz-Bancroft, as reported last year, July 6, 2012

“It doesn’t make any sense” said Ed Kleiman former US Forest Service, MTDC (Missoula Technology & Development Center) Wildland Fire Chemical Systems employee, who now works with “FireIce” a company that produces SAPG (super absorbent polymer gel) based fire retardant. Why is the USFS (US Forest Service) using a 50 year old fire retardant that is as old as the planes performing the drops, and is mainly a phosphate salt, red metal oxide colorant, gum thickener, & unnamed corrosion inhibitor which has never been proven to stop a fire.

Andy Stahl from the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) has successfully sued the US Forest Service three times confirmed Kleiman’s assertion that the US Forest Service 50 year old “red slurry” Phos-Chek, fire retardant has no proof or documentation that it has ever been effective in preventing loss of life or property.

Federal Judge Donald Malloy recently decided in a most recent USFS case involving FSEEE and ruled against the use of “Phos-Chek”, which has the same phosphate based ingredient banned in 17 states in 2010 from household washing detergents, found to have polluted lakes, rivers and waterways. Phos-Chek was created by Monsanto who also created “agent orange” a controversial defoliant used during the US Vietnam conflict.

It was ruled that Phos-Chek was not to be dropped on any waterways or threatened or endangered species but as a compromised policy enacted by the US Forest Service and after being excluded from many areas by law the US Forest Service continues to drop the “50 year old red slurry” by using loopholes to avoid dealing with the toxicity of Phos-Chek http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20100918-restrictions-may-eventually-hit-fire-retardant-airdrops.ece

The question I posed to politicians in New Mexico to include the Governor Susana Martinez was if you had a choice between something toxic with unproven effectiveness and something non-toxic that has been proven to save lives and structures what would your choice be. Her response was expected. She would rather use something non-toxic that could save lives and structures. http://nmgovtv.blogspot.com/2011/06/howards-meeting-with-gov-martinez-on.html

This same concern is expressed by New Mexico Congressman Steve Pearce who is working on an investigation into possible negligence of the US Forest Service, when it claimed it used all the available resources to fight the 2012 Little Bear fire in New Mexico, where almost 250 homes were destroyed.

An example is the non-toxic, gel based technology fire retardants, which is an alternative to Phos-Chek, but was not allowed to be used by air tankers. The USFS QPL (Quality Products Listing) which are products approved for use by the US Forest Service shows FireIce as approved for use http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/qpl_we.pdf

When I asked the US Forest Service spokesperson, Jennifer Jones, the public affairs officer with the USFS National Interagency Fire Center, what would it take to get an alternative fire retardant to Phos-Chek, with something that is already listed in their QPL flown on air tankers for use in New Mexico? I was told that local fire managers could make that decision.

However, when I specifically mentioned not for use on trucks but by air tankers. There was a long pause and she said that was out of her area of expertise and I would need to contact the regional fire manager for New Mexico. She also asked “where was I coming from with that question”. She said I could email her and she would provide me the name of someone who could answer my question but as of yet that has not occurred, even after the next day I called to ask again for that same information with no response.

I saw an email from Joe Walsh spokesperson for the US Forest Service, that stated FireIce is an alternative to the phosphate based Phos-Chek and is available on the QPL and decisions to use any product are made at the local—or field unit—level. However, Ed Kleiman said this isn’t true for “multi-engine airtanker” usage and that decision is made by the Forest Service, Washington office for Fire and Aviation Management.

I contacted Peter Cordani, chief technology officer, an inventor for GelTech Solutions http://www.geltechsolutions.com, a publicly held company, GLTC, listed on the US Forest Service approved QPL regarding FireIce, which is an alternative to the phosphate based retardant “red slurry” which is at this time the only fire retardant allowed in large multi-engine air tankers.

Peter Cordani, stated FireIce is a gel based technology fire retardant proven to be non-toxic, & non-corrosive. He also stated GelTech Solutions has a federal BPA (blanket purchase agreement) for its product and the delivery equipment and although FireIce is approved for large multi-engine air tankers, helicopter, single engine planes & ground engines and is on the USFS QPL they are not being allowed use in multi-engine, large air tankers because of an contradictory US Forest policy that excludes gel based fire retardants.

While all other international, state & federal agencies recognize the validity of gel based fire retardants and direct fire attack and suppression, the US Forest Service maintains a restrictive control on the use of gel based fire retardant’s for any such usages in large multi-engine air tankers and their policy needs to be changed yesterday, Cordani said.

Tony Morris, of the Wildfire Research Network http://www.wildfireresearch.org/About.htm said “the US Forest Service is the only agency in the world that doesn’t directly suppress and attack fires immediately and look at the results they speak for themselves.”

Cordani added, the bottom line is, I know FireIce is going to revolutionize fire fighting all around the world, it will save lives, property and bring safety to the pilots and the ground crews. It is environmentally friendly, it saves millions of gallons of water, is lighter, cheaper than any product currently being used today, and hands down it is the most effective fire suppressant/retardant in the world.

A huge concern is pilot safety, Cordani declared, FireIce is one pound lighter per gallon than the “red slurry” currently being used. If you were to fill up a DC-10 to its maximum capacity of 12,000 gallons, that same air tanker using FireIce would be 12,000 pounds lighter. This means that pilots are safer because of less stress put on the planes. He pointed to past incidents of wings breaking off of planes during other drops. http://wildfiretoday.com/2012/06/07/24-fatalities-in-p2v-air-tanker-crashes-since-1974/

Cordani said the current US Forest Service policy needs to be changed to allow direct attack & suppression from the air with large air tankers using FireIce. The Forest Service states in its own publication found at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/training/documents/aerialapp.pdf “Long-term retardants (direct and indirect attack): … Note: Long-term retardants are no more effective than plain water in direct attack. Whenever possible, plain water, foam or gel should be used for direct attack.” * Long-term retardants used in this context is synonymous with “red slurry” or the trademark name “Phos-Check” (I added this asterisk marked comment)

Cordani continued, “So when you ask me why wasn’t FireIce used on the wildfire in Colorado, when it should have been a “no brainer”. It’s inconceivable why anyone would not use it, and makes me question the decision making process.

Cordani recently received hundreds of calls from firefighters and citizens asking why isn’t FireIce being used in Colorado?” Even his own mother and young son were so emotionally distraught over the losses, he decided to immediately fly out with a team of FireIce experts to Colorado and put the entire FireIce Staff on standby, to offer help to include cutting edge equipment and delivery systems.

After Cordani’s meeting with the Colorado Governor’s office, numerous calls, emails, late nights and offers to help, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JD8mcHQidy0 the opportunity sadly never materialized to use FireIce, to save lives and property. After Cordani returned to his hotel and saw the devastation on the news reports he felt sick because he could have made a huge difference knowing that all the resources available were not used.

The opposite was true at the 300+ acre Romero wildfire, June 28, 2012 near Albuquerque New Mexico where Dutch Synder, a 27 year veteran of SEAT (single engine air tankers) credits FireIce for stopping the fires before they could grow out of control. “I have never seen a retardant hold a fire line like FireIce or any product knockdown a fire so quickly as a suppressant with the added safety of being lightweight.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/geltechs-fireice-used-to-control-new-mexico-wildfire-2012-06-28

Fire Managers at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) credited FireIce and SEAT pilots with preventing another large wildfire in the southwest United States. “We witnessed the effectiveness of FireIce today and the results were exceptional, it’s a superior retardant,” stated Elizabeth Dick, BIA manger of Airtankers. “With 14 minute turnaround times, no other product mixes so fast and effortlessly without any cleanup problems, “ added mixmaster and loader, John Reinhart. http://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/articles/2012/07/geltech-fireice-used-at-another-new-mexico-wildfire.html

Ed Kleiman added that although, FireIce is defined & classified by the US Forest Service as a “water enhancer” instead of a “fire retardant” it is a specification that doesn’t match the definition. FireIce is mixed the same, uses the same equipment, with the same viscosity, drop patterns, and ground coverage with the added benefit of being both a suppressant and retardant.

The transition for usage would be seamless at a fraction of the cost. It does not require an emulsifier, pressurized or atomized equipment. FireIce is the only gel based fire retardant that uses a simple “gravity tank” system, there are no expensive compressors, pumps, piping or any heavy or complicated accessories needed and no harsh chemicals needed for clean up.

Ed Kleiman went on to recount the lack of advances in phosphate salt based fire retardants. When I asked had any changes or improvements been made to the 50 year old “red slurry” product. Mr. Kleiman said that different phosphate salts were substituted but it remained essentially the same with the mixing ratio recently changed to add more water, an increase in price with less product.

Kleiman recounted a forest service historical usage of retardant materials starting with Borate in the 50’s until it was found in 1956 to sterilize the ground it was used on. Borate was then replaced with both competing products of GelGuard a basic version of today’s polymer gel and Phos-Chek which is basically the same phosphate salt product in use today. Both products were used in Canada and the US in the 60’s until the early 70’s and tests were done which showed polymer gel products more effective.

The first Phos-Chek retardant product was available in 1962. The Phos-Chek brand belonged to the Monsanto Company until 1998, when ownership was transferred to Solutia Inc. In 2000, Astaris LLC acquired the Phos-Chek name. In November 2005, Astaris LLC was acquired by Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL) which is one of the largest miners of phosphate and develops and markets fertilizers, metals and other special-purpose chemical products, and the Phos-Chek brand was renamed “Phos-Chek Fire Safety Group” and assigned to the Performance Products division of ICL (ICL PPLP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phos-Chek

The same ICL company that owns Phos-Chek is under scrutiny for its other toxic and ineffective fire retardant’s and is currently proposed to be banned in California, New York & Washington. http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_20891009/lets-cut-toxic-flame-retardant-use-furniture-gov

Fire-Trol & Phos-Chek were past competitors in the Ammonium Phosphate fire retardant industry. However, Fire Trol named all of the components of their ingredients specifically the corrosion inhibitor which used sodium ferrocyanide, that led to their downfall because it was determined to be toxic while Phos-Chek which used a corrosion inhibitor is commonly believed to be just as toxic but was classified as a trade secret so it did not have to be revealed or known. In 2000 the ban against sodium ferrocyanide was made and its usage were suspended for three week but the Forest Service continued to use the product.

However, in 2003 the US Forest Service made a determination to use only gum thickened retardant which reflected Phos-Chek’s patent. Fire-Trol filed suit against the Forest Service for failure to follow its own procedures when making changes to QPL which effectively put it out of business and Fire-Trol was bought out by Phos-Check ending any future claims.

I called Cecelia Johnson, one of the longest working employee in the US Forest Service fire chemicals program to gain a historical perspective on the issue. She still works at the Missoula Technology Development Center (MTDC) 42 years later. She made it clear that to discuss anything with any press or media needs to get clearance from Jennifer Jones, USFS spokesperson. It was obvious to me that she felt constrained to speak freely.

A 2010 Forest Service memo that appeared to be a “gag order” of sorts was sent to me outlining the concern of any USFS employee making comments to the press or media. I don’t know if this applies in this case but no doubt there is mounting pressure from all sides inquiring into Forest Service practice and policies in light of all the destruction and loss associate with recent mega fires in New Mexico, Colorado and in other Western states.

Two simple policies of the US Forest Service need to be changed. The rest of the world mandates direct suppression and attack on fires as soon as possible and so should the US Forest Service follow suit. The other USFS policy not allowing gel based fire retardant’s like FireIce to be used in larger multi-engine air tankers should be removed. Even the Bible seems to add wisdom to this issue in Luke 5:38 it advises to put new wine in new wineskins. My take is don’t put old retardant into new planes.

In my second part of this expose to be released later, I want to show how other current policies, practices & procedures hinder the US Forest Service from acting quickly and effectively in firefighting.

Do "gun control advocates" wrongly believe the Police have an obligation and duty to protect them?

Because of the recent rash of violence and debate over gun control I believe it is imperative to share this:

Warren v. District of Columbia 1981 set a precedent (US Dist Court of Appeals same force & effect as the US Supreme Court) that the Police have no constitutional or federal obligation to protect private citizens from each other but with two exceptions. Their job is to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Concerns about United Nations Agenda 21

NM HM96 Erosion of Sovereignty & Property Ownership

I was asked to draft a resolution for United Nations Agenda 21 concerns by New Mexico State Representative Thomas A. Anderson called HM96,  a resolution that is being heard on the New Mexico House of Representatives floor this morning.

Originally these concern were addressed in HB307 but it failed to reach the house floor for a vote.

One of many concerns in this resolution addresses language referencing "sustainable development" which is overly broad and can be misused to "condemn" private property in attempts to join all wildlands and wilderness areas.

If your property is surrounded by such "federal" lands then you can be displaced by imminent domain. The fair market value would be based on the property condemned.

However this would make it difficult for property owners to purchase replacement property in another location likely being more expensive, and gives no status or method for recognition for the previous historical usage.


Below is a map of Federal Public Lands. As you can see in the western portion of the United States a large percentage of land is NOT private and is a checkerboard mix.

Any attempt to join "wildlands" and "wilderness" will have detrimental affects on private property ownership. Other issues are concerns that single family homes, ranches, small farms will be condemned to create "sustainable development" multi-family dwellings and multi-use facilities to replace the inefficient single usage.

Some of these ideas are more easily understood back East where there is "urban blight" and a smaller percentage of Federal Public Lands. However, it still doesn't change a concern that "due process" may be circumvented by an application of the Supremacy Clause where "federal" law trumps "state" law and international law is seen to be increasing in authority and citation by local courts.

There are many other instances for concern that can be addressed more adequately in a future post. I wanted to respond to oppositional comments that this is an attempt to "demonize" global environmental organizations, including the (ICLEI) International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and the (IUCN) International Union for Conservation of Nature.

I don't believe name calling is beneficial to any attempt to rationally debate the concern for the possibility for potential misuse, and misinterpretation of broadly construed initiatives. I do believe that any such initiatives must address such concerns as outline in HM96.

Parking at the legislature?

I was bummed about the delay at the legislature with issuing parking passes, until I saw the number I received.

David Robbins, APS School Board re-election bid gets spiced with Latino Community support from Luis Acle endorsement

-->
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2013

Contact: Howard DeLaCruz-Bancroft;

(505) 489-5403

nmgov.tv@gmail.com

LUIS ACLE, FORMER ARIZONA US SENATE CANDIDATE, PRESIDENT OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL BOARD, PRESIDENT REAGAN APPOINTEE & FOUNDER OF “LATINO VALUES” ENDORSES DAVID ROBBINS FOR RE-ELECTION TO APS SCHOOL BOARD

-->

ALBUQUERQUE –Luis Acle, former Arizona US Senate candidate, former President of the San Diego Public School Board, President Reagan Associate Director appointee and founder of “Latino Values” Super PAC, announced his formal endorsement and support for David L. Robbins for re-election to the APS (Albuquerque Public Schools) board election to be held on Feb. 5, 2013.

Mr. Acle’s reason for supporting David L. Robbins for APS school board

“Mr. Robbins has an MBA in Finance and an undergraduate degree in Economics. Having been the president and a public school board member in one of the largest school districts in the USA, I can assure you there is a great need to understand the budgetary issues to be effective. Otherwise, depending on others who may have vested interests is not responsible leadership. I know that Mr. Robbins currently serves as Governor Appointee under Taxation and Revenue Secretary, Demesia Padilla, as the Director of Administrative Services. I also understand he was the only board member who voted for an “independent audit” of the APS budget.”

  Mr. Acle’s reason for involvement

Mr. Robbins has included Latinos in his close circle of friends and advisors. He walks the talk and that is what is needed to bring Latinos into the circles of political influence. His willingness to be accountable is worthy of my support and endorsement. As the founding member of “Latino Values Super PAC” we are committed to helping elect both Latinos and supporters of the Latino community who believe in similar traditional, historically conservative values.

  There is a need for continued involvement in the local school boards

Luis Acle added, “There is an ongoing struggle to keep accountability and transparency in our local public schools. I am convinced that David Robbins is committed to both and he is someone that can be trusted with the publics’ fiduciary interests. I understand David L. Robbins, is the best candidate to fight for fiscal restraint, conservative, and traditional family values, something most Latinos favor and I am proud to support and endorse his re-election bid for APS school board.

   “Results not Promises” campaign contact information:

Luis Acle, is encouraging others to help David L. Robbins,in his “Results not Promises” campaign, by visiting http://www.improveaps.com or email: drobbins10@comcast.net people can also call (505) 400-9355 for more information if they want to help improve APS.

 ###

Teil Plont withdraws to endorse David Robbins for APS 2013 school board

Teil Plont withdraws to endorse David Robbins for APS (Albuquerque Public Schools) 2013 (District 6, NE & East Mtns.) school board

-->

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 5, 2013

Contact: Howard DeLaCruz-Bancroft;

(505) 489-5403

nmgov.tv@gmail.com

TEIL PLONT, FORMER CANDIDATE FOR APS (ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOL) BOARD, DISTRICT 6, ANNOUNCES WITHDRAWAL TO SUPPORT DAVID L. ROBBINS, INCUMBENT FOR RE-ELECTION

Teil Plont, Official withdrawal filed, December 31, 2012

ALBUQUERQUE – Teil Plont, former candidate for APS (Albuquerque Public School Board) District 6, announced his withdrawal, so he could support David L. Robbins, the incumbent for re-election on February 5^th, 2013.

Mr. Plont's reason for supporting David L. Robbins for APS school board

“After sitting down with Mr. Robbins, I felt that we shared similar viewpoints on most issues. I was very impressed with his in-depth understanding of the ongoing concerns of parents like me.”

There is a need for continual improvement at APS

Teil Plont further explained. “There are still problems that need attention and I believe David L. Robbins, is the best suited candidate to make those changes. He continues to fight the good fight, for fiscal restraint, conservative, and traditional family values.”

David L. Robbins background

“Mr. Robbins has an undergraduate degree in “Economics” and an MBA in “Finance”, and it will take someone very knowledgeable to sort out the complexities of APS financial issues. He was the only APS school board member to vote for an “independent audit” of the APS budget and that was very re-assuring” said Teil Plont.

Mr. Plont's reason for involvement

Teil Plont became interested in helping APS because of his children, where he saw the need for developing resources without spending taxpayer dollars by motivating volunteers.

Mr. Plont's background

He refined his academic training skills in the US Army, where he began his military career in 1987. Mr. Plont was assigned to TRADOC (Training & Doctrine Command) in 2006, where he became attached to the US Army's “Schoolhouse Operations” which performed: Management, Quality Control, and developed, Course Protocol and Curriculum. He will continue to pursue his interests in developing volunteers by working with David Robbins and his local school.

“Results not Promises” campaign contact information:

Teil Plont is encouraging others to help David L. Robbins, in his “ Results not Promises” campaign, by visiting http://www.improveaps.com or email: drobbins10@comcast.net people can also call (505) 400-9355 for more information if they want to help improve APS.

###

Teil Plont withdraws to endorse David Robbins for APS (Albuquerque Public Schools) 2013 (District 6 NE & East Mtns.) school board 

 

Getting new planes for the US Forest Service won't save lives or property if the retardant used isn't replaced with something new.

By Howard DeLaCruz-Bancroft,

I apologize but I am reworking this current story and for the next couple of days it will only have these few summary paragraphs. However the following is the crux of what I hope to accomplish.

Two simple policies of the US Forest Service (USFS) need to be changed.

1. The rest of the world and other federal agencies mandate direct suppression and attack on fires as soon as possible and so should the USFS follow suit. We don't need to manage fires we need to extinguish them.

2. USFS policy does not allow gel based fire retardant's to be used in larger multi-engine air tankers. This prohibition needs to be removed. Even the Bible seems to add wisdom to this issue in Luke 5:38 it advises to put new wine (gel based retardants) in new wineskins (planes). My take if the USFS is getting new planes then don't use old retardant that is toxic and ineffective.

In my second part of this expose to be released later, I want to show how other current policies, practices and procedures hinder the US Forest Service from acting quickly and effectively in firefighting.

Facebook threads that are removed Re: Plea Deals

I want to apologize to anyone who attempts to access the link I showed for Peter St. Cyr's facebook page regarding Judge Murdoch. He has blocked access to those discussions/comments. I couldn't find the exact email he sent as to why he blocked access to that thread, since the fb posting, many were exchanged but I remember him saying something about the Richard case was over and everyone should move on. Sorry, Peter, but that wasn't the issue.

Here is the content of an email that I sent in response to his mis-stated version of my concerns. I cc'd this same email to Senator Adair who was involved in the exchange as well. However, Senator Adair seemed to understand and value my concerns that judges should be bound by law regarding plea deals and not able to exercise arbitrary discretion. See as follows:

Peter: You are forgetting about the 11(c)(1)(C) federal rule regarding plea agreements. Did you ask your attorney friends about that and what would prevent it from being applied at the state level?

Show me the questions you asked of your attorney friends, otherwise, the answers as relayed second hard are not only hearsay but they are suspect. I appreciate your candor but you don't seem to be able to provide accurate reflective feedback for what I am saying. I would not expect that a restatement or rephrasing to others would be anymore accurate. I really don't think you understand what I see as the REAL issue.

1. You keep saying I am dealing with Richard and that case is dead. That is untrue. I know that case is over so please stop saying that.

2. You keep saying that Judges (state) in NM are not required to be bound by plea deals. That is not what I am saying, I believe the the federal 11(c)(1)(C) rule should have a similar counterpart in state law & our current laws should be corrected to require all elements of a plea to be known, disclosed and agreed to by all parties.

3. If someone violates the plea deal/agreement then the consequences should be spelled out in detail for both parties. I want state judges to be bound by law not free to run roughshod over citizens by exercising arbitrary discretion as did Murdoch. There was no precedent for what Murdoch did (saying remorse is a requirement for a plea deal when it was not known, disclosed or agreed to) based upon Murdoch's now proven faulty discretion & poor discernment.

4. I showed you the link that was written by licensed attorney's, & law professors from all over the country they advocate the position I have taken quite clearly. Did you read or look over the link I sent you?
http://www.cicchinilaw.com/PDFs/5-new-Ciicchini.pdf

If you did read the link then your comment that no licensed lawyer would agree with me is false because I got that information from lawyers who are advocates for judges to abide by plea deals as per contract law.

4. Did you send the link to your attorney friends? If so, what did they say?

5. Contract law is contract law. Whether is applied or used is another matter. There are lots of issues that require changes in public policy and law. This (plea deals to abide by contract law) is one of the issues.

6. Please stop saying I want to insert facts into the case. I am not. I am asking questions to you and Joline and not getting any answers. Did she know or was she aware of any elements of the plea deal that involved being remorseful? There were many other similar questions that have gone unanswered.

7. I am quite positive that only of the issue I discussed that WAS part of the court record was that Judge Murdoch "by his actions" in effect, added a requirement to a plea deal that was not known, disclosed or agreed to in advance. I cannot believe you do not see this.

8. The name of the defendant is irrelevant at this point. This is a stock issues case, not a comparative advantage case. The issue (Judge Murdoch adding a requirement that was not known, disclosed or agreed to) can stand on its own regardless of what name appears on the pleading.

9. If the plea deal is voided, fine, then the plea should have been allowed to be withdrawn and the case should have gone to trial or be heard on appeal.

Please deal with each element by number in the future so I can track your responses. I will do the same for you if you feel/believe I am not hearing you or understanding you.

Judge Murdoch's Discernment, Present & Past Issues

I had a spirited debate on Peter St. Cyr's facebook page 7/19/11
http://tinyurl.com/4y5w59y
regarding Judge Murdoch's lack of discernment (recent arrest for: rape, intimidation of a witness and sexual criminal penetration) and how it affected not only is private life but the affect it has on his public life and others. I pointed to just one issue in particular, the Elton John Richard case. There are many other cases as well.

However, my comments were not meant to rehash the merits of the case but to point out that not only did Judge Murdoch violate the plea deal/agreement but he exhibited poor discernment. I define good discernment as the ability to distinguish between good and bad.

Peter St. Cyr said that I was attempting to make up facts that were not in the record. However, I was attempting to shed light on facts that were NOT in the record.

My comments were met with heated exchanges in support of Judge Murdoch and stabs at my logic and ration regarding the purpose of my statements. Joline Gutierrez Krueger, a columnist for the Albuqerque Journal who previously reported on the story took notable exception to my comments, stating I was wrong and that Judge Murdoch did not violate the plea deal/agreement.

Ms. Gutierrez Krueger said no sentence was specified for Mr. Richard, so Judge Murdoch could give Mr. Richard, 2 years in prison, 4 years of supervised probation & ordered to pay $500 per month in restitution, because no remorse was displayed.

I made a response to that statement and I emailed it to Peter St. Cyr and Senator Rod Adair who gave me kudos for stating "I very much appreciate logical, sequential, reasoned argumentation. No emotion, no histrionics. Well done."

Here is my response to Ms. Gutierrez Krueger's assertion.

In regards to your comments that I was wrong & judge Murdoch did not violate any plea deal/agreement with Elton John Richard, please consider the following:

A plea deal is a contract between the state & the defendant that requires all elements of the deal to be explained and known by both parties and entered into with good faith. Therefore, contract law applies to plea deals.

I don’t see any evidence in the record or in any article in the ABQ Journal that there was an element or requirement for Elton John Richard to act “remorseful” in front of judge Murdoch. If so was it ever explained, known or disclosed to Richard?

Therefore, requiring the defendant to act remorseful before judge Murdoch was the introduction of an additional element/requirement into the plea deal or contract that was in fact a “violation” of the plea deal (reneging of the agreement) & operation in “bad faith”.

Was there “anticipatory repudiation”? Did the state know that Richard wasn’t going to act remorseful? If it knew did it purposely avoid showing that as an element or requirement in the plea deal because it wanted a reason to renege on the plea deal? That fact could only be known by a reporter if the attorney client privilege was breached, & that can only happen at the risk of loss of the attorney’s license to practice law.

It is doubtful that a defense attorney or prosecutor would risk telling a reporter about elements of a plea deal before a deal is made. After the deal is made the disclosure of “pre” plea deal elements would be avoided for reasons of doing so has no benefits and only detrimental value to either party.

Were any additional elements/requirements not in the plea deal known by the reporter after the plea deal was made? Was it disclosed in the newspaper? If it was known and wasn’t disclosed, why not? Did Richard know that if he didn’t act remorseful on the stand before the judge that he would be given prison time?

I doubt that Richard knew he would be given prison time if he didn’t act remorseful in front of judge Murdoch and therefore he (Richard) could not be expected to perform or be compelled to act without explanation, knowledge, consent or agreement. Are you aware of Richard being willing to agree to the plea deal if he thought or believed that he could be given prison time?

There was not a simple withdrawal of the plea deal by judge Murdoch but the imposition of an additional element/requirement that resulted in prison time and caused additional harm, damage and injury to Richard and his family. All of this was done (reneging of the plea deal/agreement) based upon Richard’s “failure to perform” or act remorseful.

That would be the similar to a dealership selling you a car. You sign the contract put down the deposit towards the remaining balance, but when you go to pickup the car, the sales manager sees you (the buyer), not smiling and decides to charge you an extra fee that you must pay before taking home the car.

You refuse to pay the extra fee by stating you were not aware of any requirement to smile when you came to pick up the car. The sales manager states you are in breach of the agreement, keeps your deposit and prevents you from taking delivery of your vehicle.

The sales manager has just breached (violated) the agreement by adding conditions that didn’t exist in the original contract. He has created an addendum to the contract with only one party’s consent.

The sales manager (has in effect) violated/breached the contract & reneged on the initial agreement, based upon conditions that were not explained, known or disclosed. It is NOT a violation of the contract or breach of agreement by the buyer.

The buyer could sue the dealership for breach of contract, operating in bad faith, if the buyer had knowledge, ability & willingness. Especially, if the buyer loses a deposit that is declared non-refundable by the dealership after the fact and without the knowledge and consent of the buyer. The sales manager states that the buyer has violated the contract by not “smiling” when she went to pick up the car as part of requirement to perform and fulfill requirements of the contract/agreement.

The sales manager says the buyer has breached the contract but the exact opposite has happened. However, unless the buyer is knowledgeable on contract law and is aware of recourse, the dealership is believed, the deposit is forfeited and the vehicle is not delivered to the buyer.

I imagine you already get the analogy but just so there is no confusion. The buyer is Elton John Richard. The dealership is the state of New Mexico. The sales manager is Judge Murdoch. The deposit is Richard’s freedom. The contract is the plea deal. The additional addendum or requirement to the sales contract is Richard’s need to act remorseful in front of Judge Murdoch.

That is in essence a reversal of the actual (plea deal) agreement. Who really violated the agreement? Who was damaged by the violation? What were the damages?

If I were the attorney for Richard I would have considered those questions very important for the dismissal of the plea agreement by introduction of an additional element of “remorseful” as the reason & basis for giving Richard prison time.

I would have consider such conduct on the part of judge Murdoch as an abuse of discretion and consider an immediate appeal & filing a civil suit against the state & request the recognition of lost judicial immunity for judge Murdoch knowingly violating Richard’s civil rights, see 42 USC 1983 & 1985.

That is why I said that Judge Murdoch violated the plea deal for the above stated reasons. He cannot add an element to the plea deal that didn’t exist and especially if it was not known or disclosed to Richard.

Adding an element or requirement to a plea deal/agreement is a violation of contract law. If the plea deal/agreement was voided then Richard should have been entitled to a jury trial at that point.

Now tell me again how my argument is wrong.

For a good summary of plea deals look at http://www.cicchinilaw.com/PDFs/5-new-Ciicchini.pdf

Howard's Meeting with Gov. Martinez on Los Conchas fire issues, providing "safe" advanced technology tools to protect NM

This is an email I sent last night 6/29/11 to lots of influential folks about my work to get all the "safe" fire fighting resources for NM. I did not want history to repeat itself as happened during the 2000 Cerro Grande fire when USDA & FEMA officials gave former NM Governor Johnson information that such "advanced, safe" resources were not beneficial & timely for NM.

To: Steve Daniels of Evergreen Aviation;

I met with the federal Type 1 fire team, incident deputy commander, Pruett Small at tonight's Cochiti Pueblo public fire meeting re: Los Conchas fire near Los Alamos. I gave him more info about Evergreen Aviation's 20,000 gallon, content pressurized, B747 supertanker. Mr. Small initially only mentioned the DC10 tanker option. He said the super heavy air tankers (SHAT) are an option for him and can be called at anytime if needed.

However, I explained that Evergreen Aviation needs at least 48 hours to be on-site. I had to brief him on the B747 capabilities which as mentioned can be outfitted with non-toxic (food grade) Barricade (superabsorbent polymer slurry/gel) as opposed to his initial statement that NPE based foam was his first choice.

I then met with Governor Susana Martinez who after my briefing, (to include using BPA (blanket purchase agreements) for accessing 75% federal reimbursement for such fire fighting resources) stated her preference for using the non-toxic, food grade "Barricade" type fire gel. She also gave me the clearance to start working with NM Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Duvall on her preferences and concerns that NPE or petroleum distillate based fire suppression foams & gels are being used in NM.

I will get back with Sec. Duvall & Dep. incident commander Pruett Small on any other issues that might be necessary such as a LOI (Letters of Interest) or MOU (memorandum of understanding) to keep Evergreen Aviation "on deck".

I will be sharing this email with other New Mexicans & my blog, nmgovtv@blogspot.com not only to keep others informed but to continue asking citizens to exert influence so NM has access to all known "safe" resources needed to protect lives and property during this time of extended fire fighting.