Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver based online transcription company that provides accurate and on-time transcription services.
This blog will serve as a resource and repository for many transcription interests. Articles, links, equipment reviews, info on careers and training, and more will be available.
For most Americans, their retirement fund is in a 401 (k) or other standard investment account – if they have one at all, that is. But for investors that play by the higher-risk, higher-reward theory of investing, the self-directed IRA is the way to go.
With a self-directed IRA (Individual Retirement Account), owners can invest in anything they want – property, businesses, stocks, loans, precious metals – from a special IRA, and that money isn’t taxed until it is pulled out for retirement (or until a distribution is taken.) Although there are some rules for what you can and cannot invest in for these types of the accounts (art, antiques and other “tangible personal property” is off limits; so is life insurance and investing in people related to you), on the whole the world is your retirement oyster.
This type of investment is growing in popularity, especially after the market crash and the resulting distrust of Wall Street, as well the fact that investors are seeing smaller returns on the standard investment offerings. With self-directed IRAs, investors pay fees to a custodian of the account, which is required by the IRS. The custodian in turn files the paperwork required with the IRS and issue the client’s statements. They also typically charge fees for different account activity, which may include an opening fee, a yearly maintenance fee, a purchasing fee (for real estate) and more. But what the money is actually invested in is totally up to the account holder.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, one investor stated he invested some of his retirement savings in two separate businesses he founded: a dairy cow “leasing” business for farmers, and a dressage horse import business. Both are doing well, and his investments made between 20 – 35 percent return. Another investor put money into already established businesses, including a Las Vegas-based “musician fantasy” camp, where attendees play with famous musicians like Jon Bon Jovi, and a corporate training business. He stated he expected returns between 12 and 15 percent.
However, one of the most popular self-directed IRA investments is real estate. Although real estate purchased through a self-directed IRA can’t be used by the account owner or their immediate family members, and all property maintenance, property tax and other management fees must be paid with the IRA’s funds, the house can be taken as a distribution once the account owner reaches retirement age.
As with any financial investment, investors need to do their homework prior to investing in a self-directed IRA. And so far, self-directed IRAs have been mostly popular with those with substantial savings already. However, as the market continues to stagnate, expect more people exploring this option in the future.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Employment court claims can cost a company not only financial damage but damage their reputation as well. Claims often include breach of contract, unfair dismissal and discrimination, and again and again these claims stem from messy disciplinary or grievance interviews as well as not adhering to company policies.
When this scenario plays out there are always, as we all know, three sides to every story: theirs, yours, and the truth. Simply by recording these types of interviews, the truth can be presented. When an interview is recorded and then transcribed, it can help prevent accusations and protect the company. If your company chooses to record interviews it is important that both parties know they are being recorded, as laws differ in each state, plus it will keep emotions in check and the interview professional. It is also important that the interviewer correctly understands the procedures of the interview or review, and that they can be trusted to follow them, even if faced with provocation.
Even if the interviewer is faced with aggravation, a recorded interview can dispute any claims that a manager acted inappropriately and prove they gave the interviewee fair treatment.
Recording an interview will also allow the interviewer to focus solely on the interview instead of being distracted by taking notes. When topics change quickly a recording can keep track, unlike an interviewer who must take notes and hold a conversation. Not having to wait for handwritten notes to be typed will drastically reduce the waiting period for forms to be approved, as they can easily be transcribed and placed into any template.
These recordings and transcriptions will not only ensure that the businesses’ standards are being adhered to, but can also help to improve standards overall. Senior staff members can review recordings and transcripts and then offer training where necessary or improve procedures to address issues in the review.
Transcribing these types of interviews will not only give an accurate account of what happened, but it can also improve company standards and procedures. Transcription is an easy and cost effective way to protect your business.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
The phrase “less is more” has been engraved in our brains since childhood. It applies to almost everything in life with a few exceptions, medical care being one. When it comes to medical care we often believe more is better, more tests and more appointments offer more opportunities to make sure we really are healthy. However, these appointments and tests have turned into an epidemic of overtreatment.
Dan Berwick, former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator, has said that no less than 20-30 percent of medical care is a waste. According to the Institute of Medicine, too many procedures and too many tests is costing the nation’s medical care system around $210 billion a year. In addition to the high cost of overtreatment, there can be consequences for the patient including severe complications, pain, emotional suffering and even death.
Recent articles in The New York Times and on KevinMD.com discussed different types of overtreatment and how they have affected patients. There were several different types of scenarios given, from extra tests being done to overmedication and much more.
Several patients recalled how extra tests were ordered that were completely unnecessary. For example, one patient recalled having an MRI ordered at a hospital despite one being done days prior at a different location. When the patient questioned the choice to repeat the MRI instead of getting the other results, the hospital ended up not repeating the MRI – saving time and money for everyone involved. Another couple found themselves in a similar situation when the wife was diagnosed with Wegener’s disease. Their doctor ordered frequent blood test and X-rays, and referred her to specialists for minor complains. When tests came back negative, more were ordered. The couple eventually found a new doctor, but stated at the time they found it difficult to refuse testing from a doctor that they trusted, only realizing it was unnecessary after consulting with other doctors. And these frequent visits and tests strained their financial resources for years.
Another patient recalled getting a black eye while on vacation. After the swelling increased she made an appointment with her doctor just to make sure everything looked normal. The doctor, without even speaking to or examining her, talked with a nurse and ordered a CT scan. The scan came back with unclear findings so an MRI was ordered. Eventually the test came back negative after two weeks. However the woman, who has a history of cancer in her family, was worried during those two weeks that it might have been brain cancer. This caused undue emotion stress, not to mention cost, to the woman, who ended up being fine.
A different scenario involves parents of a five-year-old girl with mild cerebral palsy. Doctors recently suggested an MRI that would require their daughter be anesthetized. The parents stated they always ask two key questions prior to any tests: “What new information will this give us?” and “Will it change what we doing?” They did not go forward with the MRI.
Those two simple questions can be a driving force in preventing overtreatment. It is easy to get caught up in a whirlwind of testing and specialists, who often seem to forget the patient’s original complaint. And often patients don’t want to say no to doctors who “know better.” To that end, Choosing Wisely, an initiative of the ABIM Foundation, developed a list of “Five things Physicians and Patients Should Question.” This list provides evidence-based recommendations that physicians and patients should discuss in order to make the most appropriate choice for each individuals care.
Unfortunately with the U.S.’s litigious culture, the trend of doctors ordering more and more tests will most likely not slow down; however, patients need to be aware they can make an informed refusal of any test, treatment or medication after evaluating the cost and potential benefit.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Law school applications have been on a steady decline for the past decade, and this year it is predicted that the number of applicants will reduce almost 50% as compared to 2004. This translates to an estimated 38,000 candidates are headed to law school in the fall of 2013 – the lowest number since 1977.
The reason cited for this trend is purely economic – too few legal jobs after graduation means the hefty tuition is no longer worth the training received. The average cost of attending law school for a resident at an in-state public school is about $40,000 per year – translating to about $120,000 worth of tuition debt after the three years if loans are the only method of financing. And the cost only rises for out-of-state students, private universities and top-tier schools like Stanford or Yale. Once considered a fail-safe career path (and a lucrative one as well), lawyers are now facing limited job options, often with much-lower salaries than they expected after graduation, and this debt for some is no longer worth the potential high-paying legal job they could get after graduation.
Law schools, for their part, have had mixed reactions to the declining numbers of students. Some have continued on in business as usual. However, some are coming up with innovative changes to the way they admit and teach these future lawyers to help boost enrollment.
Harvard Law School, for instance, just announced an early-admission program for Harvard undergrads. Students in their third year at Harvard can apply for early admission to Harvard Law School – however, admission is deferred for two years after graduation, so that students can enter the job market and gain experience and connections before coming back to law school. Although the program is only in the pilot phases, the chief admissions officer at Harvard Law said she hoped to expand the program in the future.
N.Y.U. School of Law restructured their third year of law school in reaction to former law student’s claims (in general, not just at N.Y.U.) that the third year of law school was essentially not needed and a financial drain on students. The school chose to reformat the third year to give students the option of focusing on specialties and work-study opportunities in place of the traditional coursework. Students can choose a specialty or concentration, and the structure of their third year is based around that. For instance, students wanting to focus on foreign studies can complete a study-abroad program. Or students can focus the entire third year on patent law or tax law. Or students can work for the third year at an internship program.
Several other schools have made similar changes to their programs, including Stanford Law and Washington and Lee University, to give students a more flexible third year of law school. However, whether these changes will convince potential applicant that law school is worth the investment remains to be seen.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Want to see an independent doctor that is not affiliated with a larger health system? It may be more difficult than you thought.
The Medicare payment rules, long the bane of doctor’s existence due to their convoluted and often-changing rules, often provide higher reimbursements for hospitals and large health systems especially for specialty care such as cardiology. In fact, in some specialties the reimbursement rate is almost 3 times higher for hospitals than it is for private practices. This has led to a general trend, especially in recent years where Medicare payments have been slashed again and again, for doctors to sell their practice to the local conglomerate health system. In one study by Jackson Healthcare, a healthcare staffing recruitment firm, it stated that 70% of doctors have approached hospitals to buy their practices. Makes sense for doctors, but what are the effects for patients?
The most obvious effect is the rising cost of healthcare, for both the public and the private sector. Medicare, for instance, will directly see their costs rise as more doctors are paid under the higher “hospital” rate. This comes at a time when the government is already trying to reign in healthcare spending. However, an indirect payment increase can also occur for those patients that are covered through private insurance, not Medicare. Many hospitals bill more than private practices for the same service, and that additional cost may or may not be covered by a patient’s insurance. This is due to the high reimbursement rates the hospital can negotiate with insurance companies due to their collective bargaining power, and also their “monopoly” effect over the market – less competition means less competitive rates. Many patients have already seen this effect take place. For instance, one article cites a patient who got a routine heart test frequently over the past eight years. Once her regular doctor’s practice was sold to a regional medical center, she was told she needed to go to the hospital for the procedure. And even though the same technician as usual performed the test, she was billed $952 for the procedure, in comparison to the $60 co-pay she had paid for the procedure in the past.
Another effect is the homogenization of medical care within a geographic area. This may be good or bad, depending on who’s running the dominant organization. Generally doctors who are part of a larger healthcare system abide by that system’s rules, which may include rules about how to refer patients to another physician, how patients are admitted to the hospital, what procedures to order, etc. They also typically must use a hospital’s technology, including their electronic medical record system and other systems. This may mean doctors lose their autonomy when making decisions, as they must abide by their parent company’s rules. This is one of the best reasons doctors cite when speaking against selling practices to hospital systems. However, some have stated that by being a part of a “health system” the patient experiences less fragmented and better managed care. And patients do get the benefit of shared resources as well – they may have access to technology their practitioner would not have been able to afford as a solo practice.
Unfortunately for patients, doctors typically have not much to do with the bills they receive, and in general don’t even know what it costs out-of-pocket to do certain tests or procedures. However this trend in consolidated health systems shows no sign of slowing down – one study estimated that as many as 75% of doctors could be an employee of a hospital system within the next two years.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
In this day of predictive text, voice recognition and constant electronic communication, one study proves that proper grammar still does matter.
In a study conducted by a grammar software company and cited in Forbes, they reviewed the LinkedIn profiles of 100 native English speakers in the consumer packaged goods industry. The individuals they chose to review all had similar resumes – each had no more than three employers in the first 10 years of their career. However, after those 10 working years half were promoted to director level and half were not. Furthermore, the study found a correlation between those promoted and their correct use of grammar. In the LinkedIn profiles of those surveyed, those who had not been promoted made 2.5 times more grammar mistakes than those who were. Plus, those who were promoted more often (those with 6 – 9 total promotions over the 10 years, vs. those who had only been promoted 1 – 4 times) made 45% fewer grammatical mistakes in their profile.
The article in Forbes also surveyed several CEOs and executives about the importance of grammar in hiring/promotion decisions. One executive stated that poor grammar was indicative of a person’s overall working style and traits, including their attention to detail, their critical thinking skills and their intellectual ability or aptitude. Another called bad grammar a “career limiting move.”
So with that in mind, we present The Ten Most Common Grammar Mistakes we see in transcripts – because everyone deserves a refresher now and then!
1. Confusing who, which and that – Who refers to people; which refers to animals or things; that refers to persons or things.
Correct Usage:
Jane is the one who rescued the dog.
Mike is on the team that won first place.
Which car do you prefer?
2. Anyone vs. any one – Anyone means “any person” and could refer to multiple people; any one refers to a single person.
Correct Usage:
I could use any one of these tools for the job.
Did anyone see the moon last night?
3. Loose vs. lose – Loose means not firmly fixed in place; lose means to fail or to misplace something.
Correct Usage:
The board was loose and caused Jamie to fall.
I always lose my car keys.
4. There, their and they’re – In general, there refers to a place, and it can also be used to start a sentence or as an expletive; their is a possessive form of “they”; they’re is the contraction (shortened version) of “they are.”
Correct Usage:
Are we going to have dinner there?
Both mothers put their children in Smith School.
They’re not coming to dinner.
5. Your and you’re – Your describes something that belongs to you; you’re is the contraction (shortened version) of “you are”
Correct Usage:
Is this your book?
You’re going to read that?
6. Effect vs. affect – Effect is a noun meaning a result of an action; affect is a verb which means to influence.
Correct Usage:
The effect of the new law was fewer accidents on the highway.
Several law enforcement agencies were affected by the change.
7. Its vs. it’s – Its is the possessive form of “it”; it’s is the contraction (shortened version) of “it is.”
Correct Usage:
It’s no problem at all.
The bird built its nest in our tree.
8. Lay vs. Lie – Lay means to put something down; lie means to rest or recline.
Correct Usage:
She lay the book down on the desk.
I need to lie down, I am feeling dizzy.
9. Then vs. than – In general, then conveys time, such as “at that time” or “next”; than conveys a comparison.
Correct Usage:
I didn’t drive back then.
Gas was cheaper than $1.00 a gallon.
10. Who’s vs. whose – Who’s is a contraction (shortened version) of “who is” or “who has”; whose is the possessive form of who or which.
Correct Usage:
Whose food is this in the fridge?
Who’s going to be at the party?
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Is the blood alcohol limit for driving still too high? Some groups are claiming yes, and campaigning the government to take more steps to further prevent drunk driving, including lowering the current legal blood alcohol limit.
Currently U.S. drivers are considered “impaired” if they have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher. How much actual alcohol that translates to varies by person and a variety of other factors – an individual’s weight, how long they have been drinking, what they are drinking, and more. But experts say it roughly translates to 4.5 beers over the course of an hour for the average man, or 3.5 beers over the course of an hour for the average female.
However groups like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), are claiming that limit is still too high for safe driving. The NTSB, an independent federal agency, says not only will lowering this legal driving limit put us in line with other countries around the world, it will also lower alcohol-related crashes and deaths. As of today, even with the current drunk-driving laws in place, one-third of all highway deaths are still alcohol related, and according to government statistics individuals with a BAC of .05 are 38% more likely to be involved in an accident.
The group also recommended several other drunk driving prevention measures, including more DUI checkpoints by police agencies and a mandatory interlock system (an in-car breathalyzer that a driver must blow into and blow a zero blood alcohol level prior to their car starting) for all convicted drunk drivers. They also support further research on in-car alcohol detection measures, such as possibly taking the driver’s BAC through their hands on the steering wheel.
However not all drunk-driving awareness organizations are on board with the proposed new BAC measure. One of the most famous in fact, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said that their position on the lower limit is “neutral,” and they instead would focus their organization’s efforts on implementing more preventative measures for convicted offenders. And organizations such as the American Beverage Institute and other restaurant trade association groups vehemently oppose the idea, saying it will decrease sales and criminalize not the worst offenders (such as repeat offenders and high BAC offenders) but the casual or social drinkers. States themselves might resist as well – some states, in fact, initially resisted the current .08 BAC limit in 2000, but were persuaded to change their law when President Clinton threatened to withhold highway construction money for states that did not lower their BAC limit to .08.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
IRS targeted conservative groups from 2010-2012, according to reports.
The Internal Revenue Service publically apologized last Friday for routinely singling out tea party and other conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status.
In a report released Tuesday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, it stated that the IRS started targeting groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12 Project” in their applications staring in March 2010. By August it was part of written criteria used to flag groups for additional inspection. The report claimed that the mismanagement at the IRS allowed this “inappropriate criteria” for identifying conservative groups to be developed and then allowed them to stay in place for over 18 months. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax exempt organizations, was advised about this matter in June 2011. Lerner reportedly ordered the initial tea party criteria to be removed, but later evolved to include groups that promoted “The Constitution” and “The Bill of Rights.” According to the report the practice was ended in May 2012.
Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the FBI to start an investigation into this practice the same day they released the apology. Although three congressional committees were already investigating, Holder’s announcement has taken the claims to a higher level to find out if any laws were broken.
According to the report the practice started in 2010, and from 2010 to 2012 Lerner claims that the tax exempt unit was undertaking a misguided effort to deal with a large flood of applications. A total of 269 applications were reviewed by the inspector general. Of those applications 108 were approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicants and 160 were still open. Some open applications were pending for up to 1,138 days.
IRS agents said they were trying to determine whether the political activities of such groups disqualified them from tax exempt status. Groups seeking tax-exempt status from the government can still apply under different designations. For instance 501(c)(3) organizations are the more traditional nonprofit organization status. Examples of 501(c)(3) companies are: The Red Cross, Boys & Girls Clubs, Salvation Army and churches. Organizations that are generally civic leagues and operated for the promotion of social welfare are classified as 501(c)(4). Examples are the National Rifle Association and AARP. Unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, these groups can engage in political activity, but cannot make it their primary mission.
The IRS determines if the nonprofit group meets these requirements by a certain criteria . According to the report the IRS used improper criteria to target some groups, even though there were no indications that they engaged in significant political activities. The report also states that other non-tea party groups who had significant political activities were not screened.
This additional screening process resulted in long delays and according to the targeted groups, the IRS agents asked invasive and sometimes inappropriate questions including requests for lists of donors and political affiliation of the group’s officers.
While there is no indication that Washington D.C. initiated the targeting of conservative groups, the report does state that a top supervisor in Washington did not adequately supervise agents in the field, even after she learned the agents were acting improperly.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Century Move Theater in Aurora, Colorado.
After approximately 10 months of hearings Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes asked a judge to change his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity on Monday. Holmes is being charged with over 160 counts of murder and attempted murder in the July 20th shootings that left 12 people dead and 70 injured at a theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Under Colorado law, a plea can be changed after arraignment if the attorneys show “good cause.” Judge Carlos Samour, Jr., the presiding judge on the Holmes case, said allowing Holmes to enter his new plea would be “consistent with fairness and justice” but said he will not decide whether or not to approve the plea till the end of the month.
In March the judge entered a standard not guilty plea on Holmes’ behalf, but defense attorneys objected then, stating they needed more time before entering a plea. Prosecutors objected the plea change claiming that the defense had taken too long. Holmes’ defense team justified their case by saying Holmes mental illness hasn’t changed in the last 60 days and they have been working “on all cylinders” in preparation to enter the plea. The change doesn’t come as a shock to many as the defense has repeatedly claimed Holmes is mentally ill, but has yet to specify a diagnosis.
The insanity plea is widely seen as Holmes’ best chance to avoid the death penalty, which the prosecution has said they will seek in this case. However, it carries uncertainty for both sides. If the plea is accepted Homes must submit to a mental evaluation by state-employed doctors. An evaluation may take months and evaluators would interview Holmes, his friends and family, and if he permits, mental health professionals who treated him in the past. This would include the psychiatrist Holmes was treating with before the attack. Evaluators may also give Holmes standardized personality tests and then compare results to people with documented mental illnesses, as well as complete a physical brain examination.
This situation is literally seen as life-and-death, explains Dan Recht, past President of Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. The government that is seeking to execute Holmes might now be the same government that determines if he was sane or insane while in the movie theater.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.
Could Better Communication Between Law Enforcement Agencies Have Prevented the Boston Marathon Bombing?
At a congressional hearing last Tuesday, Boston Police and Massachusetts State Police criticized the FBI for not telling them about their earlier investigation involving Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon bombings.
FBI said that agents interviewed Tsarnaev in 2011 and determined that he was not a threat. Custom agents were aware that he traveled to Russia in 2012, but decided not to question him when he returned to the U.S. later that year. Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis testified that his department received no information about the Tsarnaev brothers prior to April 19th, when the rest of the world found out his identity. Davis claims that if his department had known Russian intelligence informed the FBI about Tamerlan’s Islamic radicalism he would have kept tabs on them.
Kurt Schwartz, Massachusetts Undersecretary of Homeland Security, agrees with this statement. Schwartz said that the Massachusetts State Police, with seven troopers on a Joint Terrorism Taskforce, had no information or knowledge of the brothers prior to the bombing.
Federal officials claim they had done their job, offering an intelligence report as evidence. The report was created by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, which is combined of federal and local law enforcement and partially funded by the Department of Homeland Security. The 18-page report identifies the finish line as an “area of increased vulnerability” and warned that homegrown extremists could use small-scale bombs to attack spectators and runners at the event. This report, and a similar one, was sent to police and first responders before major events in the Boston area.
The threat assessment, dated on April 10, noted that there was no credible, specific information that would indicate an approaching threat. The report also stated “The FBI has not identified any specific lone offender or extremist group who pose a threat to the Boston Marathon.” Massachusetts authorities dismissed the warning as routine, saying it lacked specifics.
The hearing shed some light on the fact that federal and local law enforcement agencies have yet to correct inconsistencies in intelligence sharing among agencies, which were emphasized after 9/11 attacks. Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said that during 9/11 attacks the U. S. learned the danger of not connecting with other agencies to see potential terror plots. McCaul said in his opening statement to the court that the Department of Homeland Security was established in the aftermath of 9/11 to help fix this problem. Instead he fears that the Tsarnaev brothers succeeded because our system had failed.
Transcription Outsourcing, LLC is a Denver, Colorado-based transcription company that provides fast, accurate and reliable transcription services for individuals and companies of all sizes. Call 720.287.3710 (855.287.3710 toll free) today for a free quote, and ask about our free five-day trial. Or visit our website for more information.