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.

Another big fire in NM destroys homes needlessly

Every year lately New Mexico suffers from a large fire that destroys many homes needlessly. Yet we have the technology to save every structure. Last year the Santa Fe New Mexican (newspaper) published an article that outlined one particular instance of a home using SAPG (Super Absorbent Polymer Gel) technology. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Fire-suppression-gel-may-have-helped-save-family-s-home-

It is time again to review this issue. It appears that NM Governor Susana Martinez has partially taken up the idea of using supertankers (10,000 gallon +) for fire drops as opposed the the old World War II planes with only one tenth (1/10) of that capacity.

However, the DC-10 currently being used to help fight the Little Bear fire in NM is dwarfed by the 20,000 gallon 747 Supertankers. More capacity means, more safety, less time in the air which means less fuel and related costs and more importantly less loss of homes and God forbid loss of life. It only makes sense to use all of the resources available to protect the citizens of New Mexico.

Former Senator Joe Carraro introduced a bill a couple of years ago that would have allowed an aviation cooperative for New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah to jointly purchase a 747 supertanker for the region. The cost would have been less expensive and time consuming then what we currently have available.

As much as people may enjoy the Rail Runner I believe saving lives and homes is more important. I don't think our priorities were correct at the time. The aviation cooperative could have actually brought revenue to NM instead of putting us in debt every year as is the case with the Rail Runner.

Judge overturns NM Secretary of State & Bernalillo County Clerk guidelines for challenger

Judge Carl Butkus of the 2nd Judicial District Court ruled this afternoon (04/09/12) in the case (D-202-CV-2012-03200) of a nominating petition challenge involving incumbent state representative Thomas A. Anderson (R) and his Republican challenger, Peggy Muller-Aragon in the westside area called District 29.

Judge Butkus said challenger Muller-Aragon will be allowed to stay on the ballot although she agreed she didn’t have the needed 110 voter signatures as required by the New Mexico Secretary of State, the Bernalillo County Clerk and as stated in the Candidate Guides.

Both sides agreed by stipulation that 30 of the 130 signatures were thrown out, 19 being duplicates appearing on both candidates petitions and another 11 for being the wrong party affiliation. However, the challenger was able to convince the judge that she was not under the same requirements as all the other candidates and those stated by the Secretary of State and the Bernalillo County Clerk.

The challenger appealed to the statute NMSA 1-8-30 which states that three (3) percent of the voters who voted for the Governor in the primary election are used to determine how many signatures were needed to get on the ballot but she decided to to use the “new” district boundaries not the 2010 boundaries as was stated in the the candidate guide and nominating petition forms which were first published in October of 2011.

Interestingly enough the challenger, Muller-Aragon said she used a voter canvass received from the Bernalillo County Clerk’s office back in October 2011. However, the date of certification showed April 5th 2012 which was 5 days after the incumbent filed his complaint in court. Representative Anderson said he will appeal and he has five days in which to do so.

One reason why health care costs is out of control and our quality of life suffers

According to the NAPPP (National Association of Professional Psychology Providers), 80% of the prescriptions for psychotropics (included are anxiolytic, sedatives & sleep aids) are written by PCP's (primary care physicians) who have little or no mental health training and your Rx can cause dependency and reactions to OTC (over the counter) drugs or even food. This is a danger when your are driving.

And we wonder why health care is out of control & "quality of life" suffers?

www.nappp.org/Exec_summary.pdf

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.