Waldo Canyon: What Went Wrong

To contact us Click HERE
I was going to blog the Colorado Springs Independent's report on what happened when the Waldo Canyon Fire entered the city last June, but I have been too busy wrapping up a big project.

So here are Wildfire Today's summary and comments.

After reading the article in yesterday’s Colorado Springs Independent, I am left stunned. Regarding the management of the fire within the city of Colorado Springs, I have never heard of a wildland fire with such a huge impact that was so utterly, catastrophically mismanaged.

I, too, thought that Colorado Springs was better prepared for wildland interface fire. 

Teens on the Road: The Process to Getting a Driver's License - Part One

To contact us Click HERE
Having a teenager begin to drive can be stressful enough; add in trying to understand the process to get them their first driver's license, and the experience can be downright frustrating.  In this three part series we are going to discuss the process, the steps you need to take, and the documents you will need along the way. 
The first thing you need to know is that it is a three stage process referred to as the New Mexico Graduated Licensing System.
Stage One: Instructional Permit
To get an Instructional Permit, a teen must be at least 15 years old, enrolled in Driver’s Education and go into a MVD Express office with the following documents: 
·         Driver Education Referral Card·        Original State Issued Birth Certificate·         Original Social Security Card·         One Proof of New Mexico Residency·         A Parent/Legal Guardian must accompany new teen driver
Once the permit has been received it must be held for a minimum of six months.  The Driver will be issued a maximum of two Instructional Permits.  The Driver must drive with an adult 21 or older who has been licensed for a minimum of three years.  The Driver must also complete a detailed log of at least 50 hours of supervised driving practice, in which 10 of these hours must be at night.  A parent or guardian must certify in writing that these hours have been completed.  The Driver will need to maintain a clean driving record for the 90 days preceding the application of stage two - the provisional license. 
Effective June 17, Senate Bill 9, enacted by the 2011 Legislature, amends Sections 66-5-8 and 66-5-9 NMSA 1978 to provide that:The six-month minimum period for which an individual is required to hold an instruction permit before obtaining a provisional license is extended by 30 days for each traffic violation, committed during the time the individual was driving with the instruction permit, for which the individual was convicted or adjudicated delinquent.

Teens on the Road: The Process to Getting a Driver's License - Part Two

To contact us Click HERE
In Part One of “Teens on the Road” we discussed the process of obtaining an Instructional Permit.  Today we will discuss stage two of the New Mexico Graduated Licensing System, the Provisional License.
Stage Two: The Provisional License
To obtain a Provisional License the teen driver must be at least 15 ½ years old, fully completed Stage One of the Graduated Licensing System, held a clean driving record for 90 days preceding the application of the Provisional License, and go into an MVD Express office with the following documents:

• Expired Instructional Permit
• 50 Hour Driving Log (must include a minimum of 10 hours of night driving)
• Certificate of Completion (from a driving school such as McGinnis School of Driving)
• Parent/Legal Guardian

In addition to the above items, if the teen driver does not hold a State issued Instructional Permit they must also bring in the following documents:

• Original State Issued Birth Certificate
• Original Social Security Card
• One Proof of New Mexico Residency

Once the Provisional License has been received it will need to be held for a minimum of one year or until the teen reaches the age of 18.  The teen driver may not have more than one passenger in the car under the age of 21 who is not an immediate family member.  The teen driver may not operate the car between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is 21 years or older.  Exceptions are permitted for school, employment, family and medical need, or religious functions.  During times of these exceptions the teen driver must carry a statement from the appropriate school, employer, Doctor, Religious Official or Parent/Legal Guardian.


Effective June 17, Senate Bill 9, enacted by the 2011 Legislature, amends Sections 66-5-8 and 66-5-9 NMSA 1978 to provide that:


The 12-month minimum period for which an individual is required to hold a provisional license before obtaining a regular driver's license is also extended by 30 days for each traffic violation, committed during the time the individual was driving with the provisional license, for which the individual was convicted or adjudicated delinquent.

FAQ's About Document Management

To contact us Click HERE

When it comes to Document Management, our clients have asked a lot of questions.  With over 12 years of experience answering them, here are just a few:   

Why is document management important?

Today, 80% of all mission-critical data is unstructured, 7.5% of all documents get lost, and 3% of the remainder are misfiled. Organizations are quickly realizing that document management is becoming necessary in order to be more successful. Organizing documents and information through the use of technology ultimately leads to higher productivity, greater efficiency, and improved performance. With an electronic document management system in place, your organization will be able to spend its efforts on the more important and core aspects of your business.

What types of records are being imaged?

It runs the gamut: everything from student and personnel records to board minutes and engineering plans. Many of these records have retention requirements. For others, imaging helps streamline specific business processes.

What are some of the advantages of scanning records, as opposed to just storing them in boxes or filing cabinets?

There are numerous advantages to scanning records. Imaging critical documents results in significant savings in both time and money because information is organized. Once imaged, you can instantly access any record from your desktop computer. This can reduce storage space by as much as 80% or more. Document search time is also greatly expedited.  Requests for documents can be streamlined, completely processed, and printed, faxed, or emailed to the requestor in a matter of seconds.  In addition, organizing imaged documents in a database can help with security, by granting access to only authorized users.

How do I access information after it has been scanned?

Each record type can be setup with key searchable fields, such as date, first name, last name, APN number, etc.  In addition, optical character recognition (OCR) makes electronic documents searchable by every word, so that they can be mined for specific information.

How much does document conversion cost?

Price varies depending on size and volume of the documents. On average, scanning typically costs the same as a photocopy (a standard storage box measuring 10"x12"x16" holds approximately 2,500 pages).

What format is used for scanning files?

The standard format in the industry for scanned files is TIFF. However, records are also commonly scanned as PDF, PDF/A, and JPG, among others.
For more frequently asked questions, check out our website:  http://www.sytechsolutions.com/faq.htm

 

Driver's License Suspension vs. Revocation

To contact us Click HERE
Driver's License Suspension vs. Revocation in Arizona

In Arizona is there a difference between your driver’s license being suspended vs. revoked? What is the difference between a driver’s license suspension and a revocation?

In Arizona, it is important to understand that driving is a privilege governed by the State through the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Motor Vehicles Division (MVD). Driving is not a right. Arizona courts hear both civil and criminal matters involving crimes and violations that may affect your driving record. Your driving record in turn may then affect the status of your license leading to suspension or revocation.

Suspension
In Arizona, a driver’s license suspension is the temporary removal of your license or privilege to drive. This is an action taken by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) after a review of your driving record also referred to as your Motor Vehicle Record (MVR). If your license is suspended, then it must be reinstated before you can legally drive. A driver’s license suspension will remain in effect until the prescribed time period of the suspension is served and you make an application for reinstatement and pay the applicable reinstatement fee.

Revocation
Re-establishing your ability to drive after a revocation is more difficult than a suspension. In Arizona, a driver’s license revocation is the complete removal of your license or privilege to drive. Your license will remain revoked until you apply for a new license. As part of the application for a new license, you must submit and pass an investigation into your driving record. All outstanding obligations must be satisfied in order to qualify for re-instatement of your privilege to drive.

Suspension vs. Revocation
A license suspension is for a definite period of time. With a suspension, once the suspension period has elapsed, your license is eligible for re-instatement. During your suspension period you may be eligible for restricted privileges. A license revocation on the other hand is the complete removal of your license. After a revocation, you must apply for a new license and during the revocation you are not eligible for restricted privileges.


THE LAW OFFICE OF KARL A. MUELLER, PLC
Website: www.AzTrialLawyer.com
Call (602) 697-8761
Free 24 Hour Consultations

39 gun murders in UK, 9,000 in US

To contact us Click HERE

A shooter opened fire at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, killing scores people including many young children. (photo: Michelle McLoughlin/Reuters)

Juan ColeInformed Commentreadersupportednews.org
14 December 12
ask myself, “Why?”

Why do US cable news networks intensively cover these mass shootings, making it the only story for a day or two and prying into every detail of them, when they aren’t interested in preventing them from happening again through banning semi-automatic weapons? Is it just, like, a natural disaster to them?

Why don’t the news anchors or discussants ever bring up the simple fact that between 1994 and 2004, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited assault weapons? The prohibition was not unconstitutional. Congress foolishly put in a 10-year sunset provision, and of course Bush and his Republican Congress allowed it to expire.

Why doesn’t anyone blame George W. Bush for these mass shootings? He’s the one who led the charge to let the assault weapons ban expire. Why aren’t the politicians in Congress who take campaign money from assault weapons manufacturers ever held accountable by the public? 

Why don’t the news programs bring up the reported moves of Sen. Diane Feinstein to prepare new legislation banning assault weapons and their accoutrements? Are they so afraid of the NRA that they can’t even discuss the legislative process in public?

What in the world does the 2nd amendment have to do with these incidents? Do they look like a “well-regulated militia” to you? Semi-automatic weapons are the 18th century equivalent of artillery in terms of their ability to kill. Do you think people should be allowed to have artillery pieces in their back yards, too? Is this some sort of sick joke, that you are telling us our children have to die because the Founding Fathers wanted madmen to have high-powered weaponry?

Why does complaining about semi-automatic weapons (and the means to make ordinary guns semi-automatic by attaching e.g. ammunition drums) being freely available always devolve into an argument about gun control and hunting? No one minds if people buy rifles to shoot deer with in the countryside. An ordinary, non-automatic rifle can’t produce a mass killing like that in Connecticut because it cannot get off so many rounds so quickly. Nobody hunts with an automatic pistol, and if they do, they should be publicly shamed by, like a group of hot girls calling them wusses as they set off in their hunting jackets.

Why aren’t there more class-action lawsuits against the people responsible for the proliferation of high-powered weaponry in our society? Lax gun laws and inadequate security checks in Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky and 7 other states meant that they supplied nearly half the 43,000 guns traced to crime scenes in other states in one recent year. The guns aren’t randomly acquired, and they aren’t used or Saturday night specials. They come disproportionately from specific states.

Likewise, a relatively small number of corporations produce and market semi-automatic weapons for the civilian market. Why aren’t they named and shamed?

Why doesn’t anyone on these news channels ever mention that firearms are used in 300,000 crimes a year in the US?

Why doesn’t anyone on television news ever simply give this statistic: In one recent year, there were 39 murders by gun in the UK, but 9,000 in the United States? Why is it wrong to let Americans know how peculiar is the situation Americans have to live in?

The 2nd Amendment and killing kids

To contact us Click HERE

Firearms murders in the US are 30 times more frequent than in Britain. (photo: file)
By Robert Parry, Consortium Newsreadersupportednews.org 16 December 12
he American Right is fond of putting itself inside the minds of America's Founders and intuiting what was their "original intent" in writing the U.S. Constitution and its early additions, like the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms." But, surely, James Madison and the others weren't envisioning people with modern weapons mowing down children in a movie theater or a shopping mall or now a kindergarten.

Indeed, when the Second Amendment was passed in the First Congress as part of the Bill of Rights, firearms were single-shot mechanisms that took time to load and reload. 
It was also clear that Madison and the others viewed the "right to bear arms" in the context of "a well-regulated militia" to defend communities from massacres, not as a means to enable such massacres.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Thus, the point of the Second Amendment is to ensure "security," not undermine it.
The massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, which followed other gun massacres in towns and cities across the country, represents the opposite of "security." And it is time that Americans of all political persuasions recognize that protecting this kind of mass killing was not what the Founders had in mind.
However, over the past several decades, self-interested right-wing "scholarship" has sought to reinvent the Framers as free-market, government-hating ideologues, though the key authors of the U.S. Constitution – people like James Madison and George Washington – could best be described as pragmatic nationalists who favored effective governance.
In 1787, led by Madison and Washington, the Constitutional Convention scrapped the Articles of Confederation, which had enshrined the states as "sovereign" and had made the federal government a "league of friendship" with few powers.
What happened behind closed doors in Philadelphia was a reversal of the system that governed the United States from 1777 to 1787. The laws of the federal government were made supreme and its powers were dramatically strengthened, so much so that a movement of Anti-Federalists fought bitterly to block ratification.
In the political maneuvering to assure approval of the new system, Madison and other Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to ease some of the fears about what Anti-Federalists regarded as the unbridled powers of the central government. [For details, see Robert Parry's America's Stolen Narrative.]
Madison had considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary because the Constitution, like all constitutions, set limits on the government's power and it contained no provisions allowing the government to infringe on basic liberties of the people. But he assented to spell out those rights in the first 10 amendments, which were passed by the First Congress and ratified in 1791.
The intent of the Second Amendment was clarified during the Second Congress when the U.S. government enacted the Militia Acts, which mandated that all white males of military age obtain a musket, shot and other equipment for service in militias.
The idea was to enable the young country to resist aggression from European powers, to confront Native American tribes on the frontier and to put down internal rebellions, including slave revolts. There was nothing particularly idealistic in this provision; the goal was the "security" of the young nation.
However, the modern American Right and today's arms industry have devoted enormous resources to twisting the Framers into extremist ideologues who put "liberties" like individual gun ownership ahead of all practical concerns about "security."
This propaganda has proved so successful that many politicians who favor common-sense gun control are deemed violators of the Framers' original intent, as essentially un-American, and face defeat in elections. The current right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has even overturned longstanding precedents and reinterpreted the Second Amendment as granting rights of individual gun ownership.
But does anyone really believe that Madison and like-minded Framers would have stood by and let deranged killers mow down civilians, including children, by using guns vastly more lethal than any that existed in the Revolutionary era? If someone had wielded a single-shot musket or pistol in 1791, the person might get off one volley but would then have to reload. No one had repeat-firing revolvers, let alone assault rifles with large magazines of bullets.
Any serious scholarship on the Framers would conclude that they were, first and foremost, pragmatists determined to protect the hard-won independence of the United States. When the states'-rights Articles of Confederation wasn't doing the job, they scrapped it. When compromises were needed – even on the vile practice of slavery – the Framers cut the deals.
While the Framers cared about liberty (at least for white men), they focused in the Constitution on practicality, creating a flexible system that would advance the "general Welfare" of "We the People."
It is madness to think that the Framers would have mutely accepted the slaughter of kindergarteners and grade-school kids (or the thousands of other American victims of gun violence). Such bloody insecurity was definitely not their "original intent."