Anchorage International Film Festival - Saturday free flicks for kids

Looking for something to do with the kids on Saturday morning? The Anchorage International Film Festival, which begins Friday Nov. 30, has a free session of short films billed as for the family. Wilda Marston Auditorium, Loussac Library, 10:45 am.

You can check the daily schedule for the weeklong festival here. (The daily schedule drop down window is the top window on the left.)

Kotee's Back from Iraq

It was a very pleasant surprise to see Kotee helping out at the Thai Kitchen the other night. He's part of the Thai Kitchen 'family' who have finished school and worked at the restaurant under the guidance of Sommai and Orathai and Ben. This is a traditional Thai/Lao 'social service' model that gets no funds from government. Over the years, Sommai and Ben's four sons have worked in the family restaurant, learning lots of skills - running the cash register, good social skills dealing with lots of different customers, gaining lots of 'uncles' and 'aunts' among the customers of a wide range of professions and political persuasions. In addition to their own four sons, there have always been 'cousins' - sometimes kids who were having trouble at home or at school - who were brought into the family to finish school, have a job, and be with a family that set high standards of good behavior. And in return Anchorage has had a great Thai restaurant for over 20 years, plus the positive spillover effect for their landlord, their suppliers, and the school system. And don't worry Paul, they are all here legally.

Among these family members is Kotee. When he finished high school he joined the army and worked it out so he got stationed at Fort Rich. He's been in Iraq for the last 14 months. His main job was electronics support - communications, radios, night vision, optics... His stories were full of jargon and I had to ask him to stop and explain often. He was in a FOB (Forward Operating Base) in Iskandiriayh most of the time. They had a huge power plant right nearby that supplied power for much of Iraq. The pollution was awful and people downwind seemed to have an unusual number of physical ailments. But they could use the smoke as their windsock. He said the area is also known as the triangle of death.

He said his laptop kept him sane. He could go into his shared room (when he described it it sounded like one of those tiny Japanese hotel rooms, but it was air conditioned) and watch dvd's etc. But sometimes internet was closed down, when they were on "Rivercity." He explained that meant someone had died and all communication out was shut down until the family was officially notified. He showed us a video he made of his life in Iraq. He was in the thick of things, saw vehicles, buildings, and people blown up, but seems to have come home physically and mentally ok. He's back in Anchorage til early next summer when he goes to Fort Lewis where he's been assigned after reenlisting for five years.

He's a great guy and we were very happy to see him back and healthy.

Late November, Where's the Snow?

Lone window washer at the BP building Tuesday.

Where's all the snow? Seward Highway looking north from Tudor Bridge.

Garden section at Lowe's. But they didn't have the screws we needed.

Chugach view along Tudor at Seward Highway.

I think I'll stay out of this office.

Guest Post or maybe ReQuest Post or maybe Prize Post

Tea N Crumpet left this comment:

This is today's (28 November 2007) 9 Chickweed Lane, one of the finest comics ever drawn. This would illustrate your blog and Alaska's corruption scandal very well!

I've never had a guest post before, or a request post, so, why not? (If it's too small to read, double click it and you can see a larger version)

OK, here it is. I've always liked the way the drawing is such an important part of this cartoonist's strip, but I must admit I don't totally get this one. But Tea is a regular and so she gets her request.

And I think Tea is hit 9,998, the closest to 10,000, so let's consider this post as one of her prizes. 10,003 has volunteered for dinner at Thai Kitchen if she (if I'm guessing right) is the winner. No reason why we can't have two winners.

Anti-Sanctuary Ordinance Buried Indefinitely

I got the following email tonight from the blogger at Independent Alaskan:

Despite the fact that the Anchorage Assembly postponed public testimony regarding Paul Bauer's anti-sanctuary ordinance, Assemblyman Allan Tesche moved to postpone the ordinance indefinitely. The motion passed 8-3 (Bauer, Coffey & Sullivan voted no). A second vote for reconsideration was 8-3, so the issue will not be brought up again!!! It's done!

I guess after someone last week who claimed to be Debbie Bauer wrote things like this on the ADN blog:

As for my husband's anti-crime ordinance, what don't you understand? Google for yourself and find out just what illegal immigration has done to this country. It speaks for itself. Not a waste of time, but one man's effort in making our city a safer place in which to live. So if you want to live with illegal's move, cause this city is going to change for the better.

Are you here legally? Everyone that is making the issue of illegal immigrants has something to hide themselves.
We are proud to be the decendents of immigrant familes that processed thru Ellis Island in the 1900's.

that wiser heads on the Assembly realized where this debate could have headed if not stopped now.


While getting the link to the ADN blog just now I noticed that Kyle Hopkins just blogged the same story with a sour note at the end:

In a surprise move -- surprise to me, anyway -- the Assembly voted to postpone indefinitely a proposal from Assemblyman Paul Bauer that would let police ask you for proof of U.S. citizenship.

That means it's dead.

Bauer just handed me a written statement in response. It says, in part:

"The eight Anchorage Assembly members voting to postpone indefinitely the ordinance "Local-Enforcement-Anti-Sanctuary" is a slap in the face of law-abiding, legal citizens."

If Paul Bauer is so strongly in favor of obeying the law he might want to work on the people who run red lights, speed past schools, and beat their wives. I suspect they, and drunk drivers, cause a lot more harm to Anchorage than illegal aliens.

Funny how things work. I got an email that linked me to a page with this video. It has quotes from the bible about how people should help 'aliens'. I had been recalling that there were a number of passages I recalled that said people should take in and help strangers (which I was taught meant something like people from other lands). I think the video is a little heavy handed. But it saves me the time of finding these quotes myself. I know that quotes can be taken out of context so I got my bible out to check on the passages. The wording is a slightly different, but the key difference in the passages I looked up was that the video uses the word 'alien' where my bible says "stranger.' But alien is probably a closer translation to what those words mean in modern American English.

Leslie A. Gallant, Executive Administrator, Alaska State Medical Board Says...

I spoke to Leslie A. Gallant, Executive Administrator of the Alaska State Medical Board today to find out how someone could prevent an applicant from getting a license to practice medicine in Alaska.

BACKGROUND

Doug Pope, Bill Bobrick's attorney, alleged in court today and again in an interview after court that Lesil McGuire had called his client's wife and threatened that if Bobrick testified against Tom Anderson (Lesil's husband) that Jessica (Bobrick's wife, who was in medical school) would never get licensed in Alaska to practice medicine. As I understand it, he was trying to use this as an example of risk that his client faced by cooperating with the government. If there was a great risk, then Bobrick might be able to lower the points used to determine the length of his sentence. From television courtroom trial shows I've seen, I'm guessing this was intended for organized crime or other cases where witnesses testify at great risk - even death. [This is all related to the Tom Anderson trial and other political corruption investigations going in Alaska.] And in the end, the judge said he didn't give much credit to this issue.

Aside from the fact that the phone call apparently was not recorded so we really don't know what was said, I began to wonder whether someone could actually derail a doctor's medical licensing. So I called the Executive Administrator of the State Medical Board, Leslie A. Gallant.

Basically, she said that a person's application goes before the eight member medical board and they have specific statutory requirements for approving or rejecting an applicant. If they reject someone, they have to cite the statutory reason for rejection. Lesil McGuire's father was on the board in the mid-1990's. Below is my summary of the whole telephone interview. It's close to verbatim, but since I didn't have it on tape, I've changed it from first person to third unless I use quotes. But essentially these are Gallant's words.


INTERVIEW

Leslie Gallant said that the State Medical Board grants and denies licenses. Anyone who submits the proper credentials and goes through the process is considered on their merits. They don’t consider who they know or who their dad is, they only consider the applicant.

Five doctors, one PA [physician assistant] and two Public Members sit on the board. Dr. David McGuire [Lesil McGuire's father] was appointed to the board in April 1992, but he resigned from board - she didn’t know the exact date - sometime in 1995, because they had a very public case with another doctor named McGuire. People were confusing the names of the two physicians, so he resigned so there would be no confusion that their action didn’t involve him.

Dr. David McGuire is one of the people that interviewed and hired Gallant in 1993. “He has never, never tried to influence a board decision, at least not through me.” [I understood that from her intonation that she was simply saying nothing she knew about, and not implying that he might have through someone else.]

When I asked how someone could affect whether someone got a license or not she said that she gets calls sometimes from legislators because some medical office or clinic is riled up because they are hiring a new doctor and complaining because we aren’t doing it fast enough. They call their legislator, that "we aren’t fast enough. 'What are you guys doing?' they ask. We aren’t licensing them because we have an issue with them. When we have an issue, we have to gather more information. I just explain what’s going on.”

Meetings of the board are open, public meetings. Disciplinary proceedings, everything is in the public domain. A few documents held confidential. AMA (American Medical Association) profile, National Physicians’ Data Bank (NPDB) report, and the exams scores when they got out of medical school. Those three documents are confidential, because the originating organizations require that they be held confidential. Later she added that health information about applicants is also confidential. They have an attorney general ruling saying that certain health information should be redacted. They ask this information to be sure that a doctor doesn’t have a health problem that could negatively impact their ability to practice - say a surgeon who has Parkinson's and has tremors. They can restrict their practice to certain things, like independent medical evaluations - for workers comps or personal injury lawsuits - but never procedures. They can restrict their practice making accommodations so they can still practice without endangering the public.

Everything else is open to the public. License from other states, application, etc.

"It’s never happened in my experience that someone has tried to prevent someone from being licensed." The Board is the entity of state government that grants or denies a license. They have to cite legal grounds for denial. They have to cite specific statute or regulations that the denial is based on. For example, a suspended license somewhere else is grounds for denial, because the law says that.

They are taking quasi-judicial actions when they deny or discipline. They have to cite their legal grounds for anything or everything they do. If the board tried to deny someone, and it happens sometimes - say there is a doctor with marginal exam scores, not glowing recommendations, maybe behavior problems, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. “But when those come before the board, I have to say, you might not like the application, but you don’t have the grounds to deny it.”

The person’s due process rights allow them to appeal the denial. It goes before an administrative law judge. Even a single medical board member would have to convince seven other board members. It wouldn’t happen. “I have no experience of anyone ever calling me asking me to deny an application. We have eight members, if they see no grounds, they can’t deny.”

I asked if the public files were available on line. She said no, they were all in Juneau, but that anyone can ask for a copy of a licensee file and they can get it.

End of interview, me talking again. I know that people can talk to people, not everyone is honest, and not everything is totally clear cut. But it seems that someone coming out of medical school, with passing grades, no disciplinary actions, or other negative marks on her record is certainly going to be very hard to turn down for a license, even if you had connections to the board members. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it sounds like it would be pretty hard to get away with. This would seem more clear cut than grading bar exams for example.


A couple notes. As I said in an earlier post, I have spoken with Tom Anderson. I think that I have covered the trials in a relatively objective manner so far. I think that my talking to Anderson or his wife [Lesil McGuire] rather than biasing me to slant things, makes me more sensitive to possible other views on things. I'll just leave this note here and let the reader decide. I think, for example, I would have had this question anyway. In fact, Leslie Gallant said that the ADN had already called her today. I don't know if that was LisaDemer's doing, but I suspect it was. You continue to impress me, Lisa.

Douglas Pope Interview Excerpt after Bobrick Sentencing

I really need to get a bigger memory card for my digital camera. But here are a couple bits of the interview with attorney Pope after Bobrick received what has to be considered a fairly light sentence of five months incarceration and five months home confinement and a $3000 fine.







The tape does suggest that the viewer remember that:

1. The phone call, as I understood what Prosecutor Bottini said, was not recorded. Pope's interpretation is based on what he has heard about the phone call. We know that messages even between two people get distorted. This phone conversation was made 11 months ago. [See below] What we heard in court was presented in an attempt to lower his defendant's sentence. He argued something like the threats to defendants is a legitimate factor for considering the risk that defendants take to testify. My guess this was put in to sentencing guidelines for organized crime and drug cases where witnesses might be threatened with death. We did not hear how Lesil McGuire would have characterized the conversation.

2. There is a quasi-judicial process for determining who gets medical licenses in the State of Alaska, and a conversation with the Executive Administrator of the Alaska State Medical Board this afternoon suggests to me that it is highly unlikely that a personal feud could prevent
a qualified applicant from being licensed. I'll post my notes on that interview in a separate post.

Notes from Bobrick Sentencing

The court calendar for today was not up on the US District Court's webpage last night, so I guessed the sentencing would begin at 9am. This morning it was up - 8:30. I got to court around 8:50am and the guards at security told me the court was sealed. As I got up the stairs everyone was waiting outside the courtroom. Lucky me.

These are my notes from court today in the sentencing of Bill Bobrick. Actually, I don't even know what he was charged with since there wasn't a trial. He confesse, made an agreement with the government and has worn a wire for them. He testified in the Anderson trial. Judge Sedwick has been the judge for all the trials, so he has been able to see how the various defendants who are cooperating with the government have contributed to the evidence against those who have gone to court. Bobrick was the first of these cooperating defendants to be sentenced. Others that I know of are Bill Allen and Rick Smith of Veco and Frank Prewitt.

As always I offer a WARNING here. These are my court notes - as fast as my ears could hear, my brain could interpret, and my fingers could type. But a lot is missing. This is not a transcript, but a sketch of what was said.

9:05
Filing unsealed,
Bobrick wore a wire about people still under investigation.
[Based on his voice, it seems Judge Sedwick has a cold.]

Pope: First talk about Threat, document filed in public. Then argue for additional downward departure.

Clear that Bobrick told so many people he’d committed a crime, his wife in 3rd year in medical school. Tom Anderson and wife, had socialized in 2004-6 time period, When clear that he was cooperating, Bobrick got phone call from Lesil that she would take steps to prevent Jessica’s medical license in AK. She got Jessica’s phone number.

Then Bobrick called Bottini, understood Lesils calls to be threats, as state senator and daughter of Dr. McGuire. FBI interviewed them and phone message, and contacted Stockler [Anderson attorney] this was violation of condition of release. These threats were credible (Bobrick’s belief). We think govt will agree. Govt took contact seriously. Bobrick was when he continued cooperating against Anderson, was subject to significant danger threat to his family income.

Other cases, don’t go into details those threats. [referred to other cases that took into consideration threats to witnesses] We believe this was a credible threat that should be considered and we don’t know whether it will be carried out. Jessica Bury (Bobrick) Is in 3rd year of medical school and and LM is still a State Senator.

In our view, essentially what the govt. has suggested is four level departure, under the circumstances, we believe a 6-8 level departure is warranted. No questions Bobrick’s cooperation was significant and useful. Using the Washington case a two level departure is warranted.

Govt. Could take the position that Bobrick’s testimony was not instrumental, but it was certainly useful and highly …… The evidence that Tom Anderson received $23,000 out of $24,000 came late and came from Bobrick. No question that govt would agree here, no dispute, the FBI considered Bobrick to be truthful, reliable, trustworthy. Washington court found that to be important that trustworthiness held by both govt. And fbi.

Mr. B was more than debriefed, active cooperation, wearing a wire, testified in court. My belief, when Joe Bottini did redirect of Bobrick, that is what sank TA. Anderson received over $23 of the 24K paid to Pacific Publishing.

The credible threat made by Lesill McGuire. Personally, I thought she was tampering with the witness and she should have been indicted your honor. Whether that threat is realized remains to be seen. His cooperation was timely, in our office the afternoon he was contacted, and he’d signed the agreement. I could argue for a ten level departure downward is warranted, but realistically, I’m arguing for 6-8 level departure. It would not put court or government in awkward position when it comes to sentencing Smith or Allen.


Bottini - first the communication from Lesil McGuire. It can be conceived as a threat, New Years Day this year. Tried to track down Stockler. The following day told him if that happened again we would seek the end of Anderson’s release on bond.

J: Was this recorded? [I think]

B: Asked Bobrick for his wife’s phone number in Minnesota. Was not captured in recording, but I don’t doubt Bobrick’s recollection of what she said. I have no doubt it was a veiled threat about her ability to get a medical license in AK. They knew he was cooperative at that time. For the purpose of trying to rattle his cage, which she succeeded in doing.

It’s a real shame people are saying things about you, this could affect your getting a license in AK. I think that was the purpose of Ms. McGuire saying this, she didn’t come out and say, If your husband testifies, you won’t practice medicine in the state, but it was a veiled threat and we believe that was the intent.

What should he receive. We recommended a four level downward departure. One year and a day. You saw the evidence and saw how the plan, scheme developed. Bobrick was the source of this scheme with Prewitt. He was cooperative and did everything we asked. But tempered by what he did in this. We think we could have convicted TA without him, but he did help. We think a four level departure is reasonable. One year and a day.


J: I’m wrestling now with the extent of downward departure.
First, all the requirements of ??? Are clearly met. The extent of the downward departure. The matter is a close one. Part of the reason we are here is Bobrick’s part in the case. However, I do think a departure of 5 levels is appropriate. His assistance was of high value. A question whether his testimony was - he painted a very unflattering picture of his own conduct and assisting in other investigation, his cooperation about as much as the Govt could hope to get from anybody.

About threat from TA’s wife I can’t give too much credibility, I question, in the objective sense, I doubt it very credible. But from Bobrick’s view, it could have been serious and it could have affected his cooperation, But to B.’s credit, he cooperated as much as you could ask.

The 6-8 level is clearly too much. Even the government’s 4 level departure cuts his sentence in half. Consider a level 12 instead of 16. Rather than 24-30 months applicable. $3,000 to $300000, Qualifies for split sentence, part in prison, part in half way house. But under guideline, half would have to be served in incarceration.

Pope on appropriate sentence.

First, recognizing that guidelines do recognize that half to be served in prison, but the guidelines are advisory and urge the judge order that less than half or none of the time served be in incarceration and consistent with other cases. Will proceed

If court is going to adhere to the guidelines without going out any way, that the minimum sentence - ten months, I don’t think the govt will dispute. We believe the low end is warranted. Would like to address issue we raised in memorandum

Mr. Bobrick, I’ve been doing this a long time, the court knows that, referring to old case with your honor as private attorney, so court knows I’ve been doing this along time, I’ve been trying criminal cases for 30 years, I have never seen a person charged with a crime who is better suited for a sentence focused on rehabilitation. The many letters were not pleas for mercy, but to show the court what kind of person B is and what he could do in the future for the community. If he were in a halfway house, he would have opportunity to atone for the crimes.

Whatever his sentence, even if half of the sentence in imprisonment, then five months in home confinement or half-way house. Our recommendation is 5 and 5 so he can start the process of

Our position is this an appropriate situation where Mr. B serve all in ½ way house or half in halfway house and half in imprisonment.

J. You siad you think this is a perfect candidate for home confinement and doesn’t need structure of halfway house.

Pope: He is prepared for whatever. He will atone, STAR (Stand Together Against Rape] would allow him to work on the hotline. If home confinement would allow him to go out into the community so during the day he could do a 40-60 hour a week atoning for his crime, that would be his preference. Not clear whether home confinement would be able to stay or leave home…

J: He could do whatever the conditions the court imposes.

P. Then we believe he should be allowed to leave .

J: Thank you sir.

Bottini: I sort of jumped the gun about our ultimate

It’s been a long time since I worked with a white collar criminal who was so remorseful and I think that is significant. He never batted an eyelash about his own conduct. Immediately admitted he’d done wrong and was remorseful.

10-16 months falls in there. If you fashion a sentence…… The govt. Wont’ be upset.


Bobrick: Your honor, I’d like to address my remarks to court and people of the state of Alaska. I’ve had a long time to think about this day, but I don’t really have words to convey the depths of my shame and remorse. Not just the disappointed I’ve caused to family friends, and community, but the knowledge I played a part in contributing to the idea that our political system in Alaska is corrupt. I’ll carry that scar with me the rest of my life. No matter what sentence is imposed on me today. I’ll spend the next 30 years if I live so long, making up for what I’ve done and to pay back the people who have stood by me by continuing to undue the damage I’ve done. The only thing I can do is apologize again to all the people I’ve damaged. My wife plans on practicing medicine here, I’m not going anywhere. I plan to work to regain the trust of my community.


J:
Factors: Nature and circumstances of offense - serious, as B has just said, and I agree. There are politicians who are corrupt. TA is one who was convicted and there are others. It seems as there is not a great difference between our system of government and those other corrupt systems around the world. Corruption has a way of corroding democracy. Considering he has not considered [committed?] another crime. It appears to me Mr. B is probably the most remorseful defendant that has ever walked in the courtroom. In a sense he stands in for all of us. An example of what we ought not to do, but also what we are capable of doing. I could do pure probationary. Consider any special assistance - whether medical or other. Has no such problems his needs could be adequately met.

Has to be fair for crime committed. A sentence that was purely probationary would not be sufficient. It must also deter others.

Required to consider what is likely to protect public from Bobrick. He is the least likely to come before this court again.

Required to consider the guidelines - they are only advisory, and consider disparities. The best way to do that is to stay within guidelines that judges around the country must consider in sentencing.

I think a sentence that includes a short period of incarceration followed by short period of home confinement is acceptable.
Ten months - five in incarceration, five in home confinement.

Probation of two years. Some risk of substance abuse, must be regularly tested for substance abuse.
Conditions: home confinement five months supervised
Monitored electronically, and defendant pay, free to leave for employment, medical, religious, and community service.
In addition to substance abuse testing, andy substance abuse programs.
3. Submit to search of person on reasonable suspicion of contraband.
6. No fire arm
7. 800 hours of community service, directs probation officer to consider my do this through Star, but not limited to this.

Defendant does has ability to pay modest fine - $3000
$100 to court. $50/month or ten% of his income.

Appeal - must be taken up in ten days.

Bobrick Sentenced to Ten Months

Bill Bobrick was sentenced this morning to ten months - five months incarceration and five months home confinement. The court was sealed for the first half hour or so. The Government asked for a five [four] step downward departure for sentencing and the defense asked for 8-10 step departure. The defense argued, the government and the judge agreed, that if there was ever a defendant who had shown contrition and had cooperated fully with the government, it was Bobrick.

In the end the judge gave a five step departure. Bobrick's cooperation and contrition clearly played a significant role in the sentencing. Somewhat in contrast to this image, after all the parties had left the court building, one of the Channel 2 camera people was complaining - and the other camera people were supporting her - that Bobrick had shoved ("not bumped") her on his way out. Bobrick did not stop to talk to the press - though his attorney did. I personally think the cameras are rather obnoxious and I only take pictures from afar or when someone is clearly willing to be photographed [but I don't have an editor expecting me to take pictures] but it seems to me the contrition and remorse he mentioned in court should include accepting the press as part of the atonement he talked about.

Defense attorney Pope began by arguing that New Years Day phone calls by Tom Anderson's wife, State Senator Liesel McGuire, were evidence of a significant threat to his client's financial well being. He said that she called Bobrick to ask for Bobrick's wife's phone number at medical school in Minnesota. Pope said that Bobrick did not give her that number, but she managed to call Bobrick's wife, Jessica, and 'in a veiled threat" suggested that if Bobrick testified against Tom Anderson that she would never get her medical license in Alaska. He mentioned that in addition to her role as a State Senator, her father is a prominent doctor so that the threat was credible, and seriously disturbed Bobrick. Pope said he notified the FBI immediately and that Anderson attorney Stockler was notified that this was a violation of Anderson's conditions of release. Prosecutor Bottini's take on this was that there was no voice message, but that it was clearly intended to influence Bobrick's testimony. It seems to me that due process is the right for someone to face her accusers and have her say. Since McGuire isn't facing charges here, perhaps due process is not the issue. But to have such allegations considered without McGuire's ability to challenge them seems a little questionable.

In the end, judge did not seem to give much weight to this threat in the sentencing, though he acknowledged that it might have had an affect on Bobrick at the time, he continued to cooperate fully.

Top Photo: Press surrounding Bobrick as he walks out of the courtroom.
Bottom Photo: Lisa Demer (ADN) and David Shurtleff (APRN) interviewing Bobrick attorney Doug Pope outside the courtroom.

And the winner is....

And the winner is.... My Sitemeter hit 10,000 on Nov 26 2007 at 4:29:56 pm (Alaska Time). Well, not sure yet about the winner. 9,998 has left a comment. I'll give 9,999, 10,000 and 10,001 a day to contact me. 10,002 went directly to an old page and probably never saw the announcement. I assumed people would be able to find the "View Profile" to find the email link. "View Profile" is in the right column between "About Me" and "Blog Archive"

Here's some of what I know about the finalists:


Visit 10,003 was from Cleveland, Ohio
Browser: Internet Explorer 7.0
Operating System: Microsoft WinXP
Linked direct to Whatdoino.

Visit 10,002 was from Montclair, New Jersey
Operating System Microsoft WinNT
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
And this person got here googling "cow parsnip tea"

Visit 10,001 from Anchorage, Alaska
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Came directly to the site.

Visit 10,000 from Lawrenceville, Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Googled "how do gangs affect 8th graders"


Visit 9,999 from Seattle, Washington
Lat/Long : 47.5951, -122.3326 (Map)
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Came direct


Visit 9,998 was from Wasilla, Alaska
Microsoft WinNT
Browser Firefox
Came direct

Visit 9,997 was from Anchorage
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Came direct

Visit 9,996 was most likely the same person from Lawrenceville,Georgia
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Googling: how do gangs affect 8th graders