Guest guest Posted December 29, 2005 Report Share Posted December 29, 2005 There are enough mistakes here to go around. Can we rewind a few days and have a do-over??? jack _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Larry Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 12:19 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 29-Dec-05 17:04:49 Central Standard Time, bombmedic1051@... writes: 6. The helicopters should be armed so that the slower helicopters have a chance by shooting the faster ones out of the sky. I can just see all the old military Dust Off medics drooling and starting to twitch a little... Jeff Well, officially and technically 'skin ships' (DUSTOFF) were not authorized either the gun sponsons or the " pigs " (M 60s) to mount on them.... I know of more than one outfit that was reputed to have an agreement for both supply of weapons and ammo from a supported combat outfit. ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 <<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>> Yes...despite our best efforts... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 <<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>> Yes...despite our best efforts... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Dudley, I think we can all agree with you on this one. Tater THEDUDMAN@... wrote: <SNIPPED> Who was right and who was wrong doesn't matter...we have all been sucker punched in the eye over this one... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte Ah the plot begins to thicken. As I said 20 versions by weeks end are likely, and as was said before the truth is in the middle of all of those versions. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Dudley, I think we can all agree with you on this one. Tater THEDUDMAN@... wrote: <SNIPPED> Who was right and who was wrong doesn't matter...we have all been sucker punched in the eye over this one... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte Ah the plot begins to thicken. As I said 20 versions by weeks end are likely, and as was said before the truth is in the middle of all of those versions. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " . Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local cemetery is " stable " ...... Tater THEDUDMAN@... wrote: <<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>> Yes...despite our best efforts... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " . Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local cemetery is " stable " ...... Tater THEDUDMAN@... wrote: <<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>> Yes...despite our best efforts... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " . Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local cemetery is " stable " ...... Tater THEDUDMAN@... wrote: <<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>> Yes...despite our best efforts... Dudley Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well. At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news. " The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:24:08 P.M. Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated. So if the latest reports are dead on accurate that would mean that Baystar had such a duty to act right? They DID respond and indeed made the scene (not ins dispute as far as I can tell) then were prevented from doing so by LPEMS and LPPD so the fault would be on the side of those agencies? Right? Hence while you likely could bring suit (no make that you could bring suit) against Baystar would the facts as presented in the last report not make the argument that they did meet their duty to act but were prevented from doing so? I'd think that Barstar becomes the best witness for the parties against LPEMS and LPPD? Yes, no, maybe? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:24:08 P.M. Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated. So if the latest reports are dead on accurate that would mean that Baystar had such a duty to act right? They DID respond and indeed made the scene (not ins dispute as far as I can tell) then were prevented from doing so by LPEMS and LPPD so the fault would be on the side of those agencies? Right? Hence while you likely could bring suit (no make that you could bring suit) against Baystar would the facts as presented in the last report not make the argument that they did meet their duty to act but were prevented from doing so? I'd think that Barstar becomes the best witness for the parties against LPEMS and LPPD? Yes, no, maybe? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time, paramedicop@... writes: Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the call for any number of reasons. As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to respond....yes, it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the 911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond. Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time, paramedicop@... writes: Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the call for any number of reasons. As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to respond....yes, it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the 911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond. Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. -Wes Ogilvie In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time, krin135@... writes: In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time, paramedicop@... writes: Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the call for any number of reasons. As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to respond....yes, it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the 911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond. Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. -Wes Ogilvie In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time, krin135@... writes: In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time, paramedicop@... writes: Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the call for any number of reasons. As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to respond....yes, it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the 911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond. Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. -Wes Ogilvie In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time, krin135@... writes: In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time, paramedicop@... writes: Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the call for any number of reasons. As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to respond....yes, it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the 911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond. Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:42:42 Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. Actually, in the situation as described, if initial discovery showed that LPEMS did in fact a: give Baystar's name and phone number to the family, and b: gave Baystar verbal permission to take the run, then solid depositions from the family and Baystar medics should be enough to having LPEMS and LPPD and City crawfishing fast enough to make for at least a 7 figure settlement to the family and the Baystar medics.... Increase that by a factor of three for the family if the patient has a bad outcome that is traceable to the delay in treatment while the LPEMS supervisor (who should have been evaluating the patient) was haranguing the Baystar folks. ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:42:42 Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. Actually, in the situation as described, if initial discovery showed that LPEMS did in fact a: give Baystar's name and phone number to the family, and b: gave Baystar verbal permission to take the run, then solid depositions from the family and Baystar medics should be enough to having LPEMS and LPPD and City crawfishing fast enough to make for at least a 7 figure settlement to the family and the Baystar medics.... Increase that by a factor of three for the family if the patient has a bad outcome that is traceable to the delay in treatment while the LPEMS supervisor (who should have been evaluating the patient) was haranguing the Baystar folks. ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:42:14 P.M. Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. -Wes Ogilvie Young Wes your profs at TU Law are smiling from ear to ear I bet. Spoken like a true Trail Lawyer (I know you aren't one right now). But again reality wise would you not name all of the above as potential plaintiffs and maybe even file a few Doe's for good measure and then see how the chips fall? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:42:14 P.M. Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Please note the hearty dose of realism here. As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on scene up to the Mayor and City Council. Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants. -Wes Ogilvie Young Wes your profs at TU Law are smiling from ear to ear I bet. Spoken like a true Trail Lawyer (I know you aren't one right now). But again reality wise would you not name all of the above as potential plaintiffs and maybe even file a few Doe's for good measure and then see how the chips fall? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (Office) (Office Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal) and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here will only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more difficult to obtain. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time, baystarems@... writes: Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an officer, in the take down of my paramedic. Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident. My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call emergency traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal) and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here will only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more difficult to obtain. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time, baystarems@... writes: Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an officer, in the take down of my paramedic. Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident. My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call emergency traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal) and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here will only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more difficult to obtain. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time, baystarems@... writes: Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an officer, in the take down of my paramedic. Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident. My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call emergency traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well let the blasting begin, but from the information I received the call was a private call by the residents daughter which retrived the phone number from LPEMS dispatcher to Baystar. It was dispatched and recorded dispatch lines show that LPEMS was called and attempted to roll the call to them with no confirmation that they were going to dispatch a unit. Clearance was given to the unit to respond when asked of the City. This is where LPEMS got involved and responded then. Now, as it is in the districts I work in, should a outside unit catch a run we will respond and take over the call beings it is in our district. This is an easier way to handle it I believe, as for LPEMS this is more of an ego trip rather than a severe breaking of the law. Yes before i'm blasted the city has a permit clause, but then the duty to act has been etablished with the call Baystar and LPEMS never acted until late. There could have been a call to Baystar canceling the unit enroute when the call was dispatched, cancelled onscene would have been nice also. Looks like also LPEMS was waiting for a service to setup and enforce this clause on and Baystar just happen to fall in place at the right time for them. Jeff FF/EMT-P Houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well let the blasting begin, but from the information I received the call was a private call by the residents daughter which retrived the phone number from LPEMS dispatcher to Baystar. It was dispatched and recorded dispatch lines show that LPEMS was called and attempted to roll the call to them with no confirmation that they were going to dispatch a unit. Clearance was given to the unit to respond when asked of the City. This is where LPEMS got involved and responded then. Now, as it is in the districts I work in, should a outside unit catch a run we will respond and take over the call beings it is in our district. This is an easier way to handle it I believe, as for LPEMS this is more of an ego trip rather than a severe breaking of the law. Yes before i'm blasted the city has a permit clause, but then the duty to act has been etablished with the call Baystar and LPEMS never acted until late. There could have been a call to Baystar canceling the unit enroute when the call was dispatched, cancelled onscene would have been nice also. Looks like also LPEMS was waiting for a service to setup and enforce this clause on and Baystar just happen to fall in place at the right time for them. Jeff FF/EMT-P Houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.