Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Honest Investigation Would Have Cleared Lieutenant Pantano in Iraq
Defend Our Marines ^ | March 11, 2007 | David Allender

Posted on 03/11/2007 3:38:43 PM PDT by RedRover

An Honest Investigation Would Have Cleared Lieutenant Pantano in Iraq (and Other Lessons for the Haditha Hearings)

Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano was an outstanding Marine officer who did his job, including the hard business of killing the enemy, very well.

And then the government told him that he was a murderer.

On February 1, 2005, he was charged with premeditated murder and a host of other charges including dereliction of duty and damaging a terrorist’s car.

Not a single charge should have been made.

The lieutenant had shot and killed two detainees after they made a hostile move toward him. Lieutenant Pantano had warned them to stop in Arabic and English. An honest and fair investigation would have cleared Pantano and sent him back to his platoon.

Instead, a man (whose fitness report said was the best officer of his rank in the battalion) was disgraced, humiliated, and destroyed as a Marine. The emotional pain was greater than anything he’d experienced in combat. “This mental assault,” Lieutenant Pantano writes in his book, Warlord, “came from the NCIS.”

In April 2005, in an Article 32 hearing, Lieutenant Pantano’s lawyers proved that the government’s entire case was built on lies and distortions. The testimony against Lieutenant Pantano was purely vindictive, absolutely ludicrous, and easily demolished in the hearing by his defense attorneys.

The next month, Major General Richard Huck, dismissed all charges against him. With a straight face, the Public Affairs press release concluded, “The best interests of 2nd Lt. Pantano and the government have been served by this process.”

Oh, really?

Only our enemy was served when the government pulled an outstanding officer out of combat. Only our enemy was served when Lieutenant Pantano's men were intimidated and grilled—made to turn over their computers and journals—shaken down and second-guessed in the midst of ambushes, IEDs and mortar attacks.

The Pantano case should have been a devastating embarrassment for the NCIS, perhaps even causing them to reevaluate their methods and mission. Instead, the NCIS "motherf---ers" (as Lieutenant Pantano calls them) have continued their questionable practices in Haditha and other investigations.

Outrageously, the NCIS has even claimed that they helped clear Lieutenant Pantano.

After the final summations in the hearing, a belated autopsy report partially disproved a single prosecution contention.

The government had argued that the two terrorist detainees had been shot in the back. The report, made possible by the field work of a NCIS agent, showed that one detainee--not both--had been shot in the back.

NCIS' claim of helping to clear Pantano has served to cover the agency’s failings. In reality, the autopsy report wasn’t of tremendous significance.

It was the entire case, prepared by the NCIS, that fell apart under scrutiny.

Today, we are only ten days away from the first Article 32 in the Haditha Marines case. The first to get a hearing will be Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Chessani, a Marine who served in the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the first Gulf War in 1991.

No matter the outcome of his Article 32, like Lieutenant Pantano, Lieutenant Colonel Chessani has been destroyed as a Marine.

This seems like a good time to review some lessons learned from the Pantano case.

Lesson 1: NCIS investigators search for guilt, not for truth.

During the Lieutenant Pantano investigation, a corpsman, “Doc” Gobles, was interviewed about the incident. Gobles was one of two witnesses so his testimony was especially valuable.

Gobles told the agent he glimpsed movement before the shooting began. He thought the detainees were trying to flee.

The agent told Gobles he was wrong.

Lesson 2: NCIS does not give a Marine the benefit of the doubt. Agents will, however, believe anything anyone says against a Marine.

The principal witness in the Pantano case was Sergeant Daniel Coburn. His fitreps showed him to be an unstable and unfit Marine whose 13-year career was about to be terminated.

Lieutenant Pantano had relieved Coburn as a squad leader. Others in his platoon heard Coburn say that he hated Pantano and wanted him out of the way. None of this gave the NCIS agents a moment’s pause in taking Coburn’s word that Pantano was a cold-blooded killer.

Coburn’s testimony was easily demolished in court. He was revealed as a fool and a liar under cross-examination. Investigators who were actually seeking the truth would have discovered this for themselves.

Lesson 3: NCIS reports are a one-sided story.

During the investigation in Iraq, NCIS agents were offered negative testimony about Sergeant Coburn and positive testimony about Lieutenant Pantano. Neither was accepted or included in the NCIS report.

This is an excerpt from Lieutenant Pantano’s Article 32 hearing:

[DEFENSE ATTORNEY CHARLIE] GITTINS: So you actually saw the two Iraqi individuals that were in the car; correct?

[SERGEANT JUDD] WORD: Yes.

GITTINS: And you saw them leaning against the wall initially?

WORD: Yes.

GITTINS: And then you saw them run to the vehicle?

WORD: Yes.

GITTINS: You personally saw that with your own two eyes?

WORD: Yes.

GITTINS: And then they got in the vehicle and they drove away?

WORD: Yes.

GITTINS: And what was your conclusion about what they were trying to do at that time?

WORD: They were trying to get out of there.

GITTINS: Would you want to go to combat with Lieutenant Pantano again?

WORD: I would go to combat with him any day.

GITTINS: Were you interviewed by NCIS before you gave your testimony at some other point?

WORD: Yes, I was, several times.

GITTINS: For how long did NCIS interview you?

WORD: One time, it was just a quick briefing. They just wanted to know about Lieutenant Pantano s character. And the second time they interviewed me, they wanted to go through the details of what happened that day.

GITTINS: When they interviewed you about Lieutenant Pantano’s character, did you tell them the things that you told me today?

WORD: Yes, I did.

GITTINS: Did they ask you to create a sworn statement at that time?

WORD: They asked me to. The NCIS guy said he was going to type it up and bring it back for me to sign, but he never did.

GITTINS: So he never brought you anything to sign?

WORD: No.

GITTINS: Did they ask any questions about Sergeant Coburn’s character?

WORD: No, they did not.

GITTINS: So all they wanted to know was about Lieutenant Pantano’s character?

WORD: Yes.

Lesson 4: The NCIS is unfit to investigate Marines and evaluate their decisions in combat.

Away from his platoon (who would later suffer KIA, to the lieutenant’s helpless horror), Pantano describes what he felt:

I was sick in spirit, almost nauseous. I just couldn’t believe that after wasting those two f----s on the canal road this could possibly be happening. Was I supposed to let them kill me?

Now there were NCIS agents here to question my character? It hurt. It really hurt—worse than any physical pain I’d ever suffered. I had to turn in my M-16. They were taking it with them. And I wasn’t sure why. Something about tests. I felt stripped, weak, and naked without that weapon. It had saved my life in Latafiyah, all along the Zulu perimeter, and in Fallujah.

Now they’d seized it from me. What if there was a big QRF? What if my former platoon stepped deep into the ambush s--- and we had to send every spare Marine who could shoot a rifle to save them? What would I shoot?

The priceless irony of course was that the dirty, beat-up 9 mm Beretta pistol I was issued to replace my M-16 had come hot off the thigh of Lance Corporal Simental. The soft-faced boy, always quick to help, had kept Easy Company’s communications running until he had been blown up by an IED. He had lost his leg, so he wouldn’t be needing a pistol anymore.

It got worse. Back in the states, in the battalion XO’s office, Lieutenant Pantano read the charges against him. As he writes in Warlord:

The charges went on and on for two pages of articles 109, 118, and 133. Words like “... with premeditation, murder ... by means of shooting him with an M16A4 service rifle . . .”

I looked up, my eyes running with tears. I had to shake my head to clear the disbelief and went back to reading.

“... on or about 15 April 2004, willfully and wrongfully damage an automobile by slashing four (4) tires, smashing headlights and taillights, and smashing the rear window, of an aggregate value of less than $500.00.”

“Sir, they are charging me—” I had to take another breath. “They are charging me for disabling a bomber's car? Sir, they ... five hundred dollars ... Sir ... Do they. . . ?”

Another breath and an internal scramble to regain my composure.

“Sir, do they know how many Marines these things kill every day? What's happening here? Has anyone told them there is a war going on out there?”

My voice was now more outrage than disbelief.

“Ilario. I'm sorry.” [Major Dixon said]

Then he added, “Get a lawyer.”

Lesson 5: NCIS, and prosecutions based on their investigations, is not helping us win in Iraq.

The NCIS’ investigation of Lieutenant Pantano cost him his career and dragged a hero of the Iraq war through the mud. He and his family can never totally recover from it.

As Charlie Gittins said in his summation at the hearing, “The worst thing that could have happened to Lieutenant Pantano is that he was removed from his platoon. That was a punishment beyond words, because he was in combat with a platoon that loved him, that he loved, that he promised the families that he was going to bring their boys back.”

In the final analysis, the investigation and prosecution cost America an outstanding officer and Marine who was helping us win the war in Iraq.

The prosecution of the Haditha Marines multiplies that cost by eight.


David Allender

Defend Our Marines


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: defendourmarines; haditha; ncis; pantano
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: Girlene
Where do 1st Lt. Grayson and Capt. Stone fit in this picture?

Well, somebody's got to take the fall for Col. Davis, Col. Watt, Lt. Gen. Chiarelli, and Maj. Gen. Huck!

Lt. Grayson and Capt. Stone are both on the hook for failing to fully tell the higher ups why there should have been an investigation.

Lieutenant Grayson was the Intel officer. According to the North County Times, he is accused of dereliction of duty after he allegedly "willfully failed" to ensure that the incident was fully investigated and accurately reported up the chain of command. He also is accused of making a false official statement and obstructing justice, a charge that specifically alleges he wrongfully endeavored to impede an investigation.

Captain Stone was the 3rd Battalion's staff legal adviser. According to the North County Times, he was charged with violation of a lawful order for allegedly failing to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation of a violation of the law of war.

101 posted on 03/13/2007 3:09:49 PM PDT by RedRover (Proud pinger of sinister political forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Thanks for reminding me about order and priorities in the case. Silly me.

Captain Stone...charged with violation of a lawful order for allegedly failing to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation of a violation of the law of war.

So he's getting charged for not agreeing the incident was a violation of the "law of war", and therefore didn't ensure someone else investigated the incident? Or more simply, he's getting charged for not trusting those around him.

I wonder if the terrorists know about the "law of war"? Do you think they penalize themselves when they violate self-imposed "laws of war"? Maybe they want to win their war.

Any idea how many JAG's have been charged with anything in Iraq?


102 posted on 03/13/2007 5:44:35 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
From the moonbats at OneWorld

Human Rights Advocates Not Satisfied with Haditha Charges

Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
Fri., Dec. 22, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 22 (OneWorld) - Human rights groups reacted with skepticism Thursday after military prosecutors charged eight Marines in the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in the western Iraqi town of Haditha.

The squad leader, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, was among four Marines charged with murder. The other four soldiers charged were not believed to be present during the killings but were accused of failures in investigating and reporting the deaths.

"In these [U.S. military] courts, there is no voice for the victims," said Dr. Salam Ishmael. The Baghdad-based head of Doctors for Iraq was in Haditha last November when American soldiers allegedly went house-to-house killing two dozen civilians, including a 66-year-old woman and a 4-year-old boy.

"Not one of the victims' families is represented," he added. "No lawyer from the victims' families is represented. So you can see the basic idea of justice and fairness is actually not available."

Dr. Salam Ismael says many Iraqis would like to see the American soldiers brought to trial in Iraqi courts--a position shared by the country's elected prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has demanded an end to the immunity U.S. soldiers currently enjoy under Iraqi law.

"Why are you afraid of being ruled by the law of the country that you're supposedly trying to liberate?" he asked rhetorically. "That's the question--it's a simple question I would like to ask the American people."

International human rights groups have a different concern. They note that since the September 11th attacks five years ago, no officer above the rank of major has been charged in connection with torture or the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.

In the Haditha case, the highest-ranking officer charged is a lieutenant colonel, who faces the relatively minor charge of dereliction of duty.

"Why isn't he being charged as a principal in the murder that the enlisted personnel are being charged for?" asked Human Rights Watch's John Sifton.

"The issue here is preventing future abuse from occurring and the best way to do that isn't to go after low-level enlisted personnel," Sifton said. "It's by sending a message to the officer corps that they need to prevent [abuses] and that's not going to happen if you just give officers a slap on the wrist."

Dr. Salam Ismael says the military needs to investigate more than the specific events that occurred in Haditha. He points to the current situation in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi, where locals have asked the U.S. military to move their posts outside the city limits.

"There are three check points and nobody can go around them. It makes lots of people more miserable," he said. "Fighting is continuous. For about two weeks there were attacks near the hospital in the city itself and many of our doctors said they could not get their patients--many of them women and children--out of the city."

The Pentagon did commission a separate investigation into how the military command structure allowed the Haditha massacre to occur and go unpunished until it was revealed by a Time Magazine article months later.

The details of that investigation, headed by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, remain secret. But Bargewell told reporters earlier this year that while there appeared to be no cover up, senior Marine commanders failed to investigate when confronted with conflicting information.

According to journalist and foreign policy analyst Rahul Mahajan, "the entire ambiance in al-Anbar province was and still is such that this kind of atrocity was quite likely to happen--and when it did happen it could easily be ignored."

"Those kinds of things can't happen at low levels of the military," he said. "You're talking about large numbers of troops and so you're talking about command level staff."

103 posted on 03/13/2007 7:22:34 PM PDT by RedRover (Proud pinger of sinister political forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
From NPR

June 16, 2006: The report by Maj. Gen. Bargewell into training and preparation of Marines prior to the Haditha incident and the reporting of information concerning the incident is forwarded to Lt. Gen. Chiarelli, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. The report finds no evidence of a cover-up, but instead finds that officers failed to ask the right questions or press the Marines about what happened.

August: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the incoming commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif., is briefed on the Haditha investigative report by officials from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Mattis will convene with his lawyers to determine whether charges should be filed.

104 posted on 03/13/2007 7:25:38 PM PDT by RedRover (Proud pinger of sinister political forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; freema
...but instead finds that officers failed to ask the right questions or press the Marines about what happened.

CYA bullmurtha.

105 posted on 03/13/2007 7:36:14 PM PDT by RedRover (Proud pinger of sinister political forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RedRover
and excerpted by the The Jag Hunter
106 posted on 03/13/2007 8:22:50 PM PDT by pinkpanther111 (They were doing their jobs!!! Defend our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RedRover; 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; ...
The report by Maj. Gen. Bargewell finds NO EVIDENCE of a cover-up, but instead finds that officers failed to ask the right questions or press the Marines about what happened.

HELL OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

107 posted on 03/13/2007 8:37:52 PM PDT by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111

bump THAT, pink!


108 posted on 03/13/2007 8:38:49 PM PDT by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: freema

Apparently NO EVIDENCE is not good enough anymore.


109 posted on 03/13/2007 9:02:56 PM PDT by pinkpanther111 (They were doing their jobs!!! Defend our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: freema

Apparently NO EVIDENCE is not good enough anymore.


110 posted on 03/13/2007 9:02:57 PM PDT by pinkpanther111 (They were doing their jobs!!! Defend our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RedRover; freema; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; Grampa Dave; ALOHA RONNIE; Lancey Howard; ...
And Turley's no right-winger--I exchanged hostile emails with him when he panned the Supreme Court for having inserted itself into the Florida recount--but he's right as rain on the NCIS:

In my opinion, the NCIS is the most abusive police organization in this country. After numerous scandals and congressional inquiries, the NCIS continues to routinely violate the rights of sailors and Marines and continues to operate outside of the restrictions of either constitutional or professional standards. This case is perhaps the most egregious example of the NCIS culture and practices. However, it is not unique.

Ironically, the unconstitutional and abusive tactics used by the NCIS in this case not only undermined any legal case but defeated any legitimate search for the truth. After triggering an espionage investigation, NCIS agents found that they had no evidence and no spy. Rather than admit to a colossal blunder, these agents continued to interrogate a sailor for 19 and 20 hour sessions for 29 days. When no evidence was available to support their catastrophic misjudgment, they sought to create evidence. The NCIS manufactured a theory of espionage without foundation and then took steps to compel statements to support that theory.

Ronald Kessler, Moscow Station displays an NIS botching the espionage investigation--a brouhaha concocted by the KGB to cover their Ames/Hanssen issues.

The U.S. Naval Academy electrical engineering exam scandal ca. 1993-4 was another chance for them to fingerpaint in their poo, smearing the innocent, missing the boat, which, in the Navy, is kind of the point.

Our midshipman was saved by the intercession of a professor-emeritus of Brooklyn Law explaining how the cow ate the cabbage.

That the NCIS has taken the enemy's propaganda and run with it ought to place its pertinent personnel in Leavenworth--there is no place in wartime for the enemy's useful idiots.

That President New Tone has again failed to demand justice (in a parallel universe to the Ramos-Compean travesty) indicates it's time for an SOB.

Gates is no use in the SecDef seat--a spook who wants to negotiate with Meinkampfinejad--

It's the Caine Mutiny with Queeg running the court martial.

The NCIS is acting the part of the asshole internal affairs officers on the CSI and Law & Order series--if only they were acting.

Ignorance and arrogance in portions not seen since Waco.

Praying for a miracle; calling Senator and Congressman and 1-202-456-1111 (White House Comment Line) to demand one.

111 posted on 03/13/2007 9:08:05 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Kingdom of Heaven...

U.S. Marines are Reynald de Chatillon and Templar Bastards,
Haditha is unprotected Muslim Caravan.

Somewhere's later in this movie ...Richard the Lion Heart will appear,

Then Saladin will get his ass kicked!

Is it really this difficult for New Tone to keep focused on whats important?

Or has the base been brooding over too many Chi Coms throwing money around the back yard [South America] to Fascist's.
Maybe Pat Buchanan is hinting at that during his right seat moment on Mclaughlin group....and thats why the South Am trip just occured.

Hopefully Gates is not Balian of Ibelin.

Iran gets Iraq - log march out into the dust after Crusaders lose interest in Jerusalem of Oil.

This movie is getting confusing....and I'm wanting to fast forward to the battle scene's where Richard kicks the crap out of Saladin.

112 posted on 03/14/2007 12:40:55 AM PDT by Parrot_was_devastating
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111

Terrific! That's the Readers' Digest condensed version. ;)


113 posted on 03/14/2007 4:37:21 AM PDT by RedRover (Proud pinger of sinister political forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: freema
This crap is sickening to read anymore. It just gets worse, as more is disclosed as how these clowns operate. And I would not put it past certain people to have suggested to the TV Screen Producer/Writer Belasoros or whatever his name is, to create the NCIS TV Series a few years back to make it look like the NCIS was a honorable unit. Condition the minds of Americans to think they are really a great bunch, so that when the shit finally hit the fan, Americans would not think it possible that the NCIS could do anything wrong.
Perhaps I am paranoid.
114 posted on 03/14/2007 9:55:35 AM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
I couldn't agree with you more. You are not paranoid; I'm sure NCIS is thrilled with the opinion most Americans have of NCIS after watching actors solve extraordinary cases. It's fabulous PR.

Since we quoted from the Daniel King case, here's a little more:

..."While most police departments moved away from a confession emphasis in investigations after Miranda, the NCIS continues to place an inordinate emphasis on interrogation and continues to engage in to trick or coerce confessions from sailors and Marines. As discussed below, NCIS agents are trained in interrogations with the use of a manual that construes virtually any response to a criminal allegation as evidence of guilt. According to the interrogation manual for the NCIS, an individual who denies an allegation or expresses a concern over his future is viewed by the NCIS as indicating guilt and beginning a confession."....

This is the Hamdania (Pendleton 8) case. I don't think there was much physical evidence. All of the pleas were based on confessions after "heavy-handed techniques". The last three standing will be convicted based on these confessions from the previous pleas.

In Haditha, I hope no pleas muddy the waters.

115 posted on 03/14/2007 2:14:51 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

And that is where our hope for an eventual happy ending for these Marines comes into play. I am hoping general Mattis is going to get so pissed off over this whole affair to simply say enough is enough and stop the proceedings and acquit any charges/sentencing.


116 posted on 03/14/2007 2:29:44 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

From your lips to Lt. Gen. Mattis's ears, Marine_Uncle. Again, could not agree more.


117 posted on 03/14/2007 2:33:21 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RedRover; lilycicero; Girlene; jazusamo

More news on this:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=180325

Never heard of this site before... A few comments too!


118 posted on 03/15/2007 8:48:08 PM PDT by pinkpanther111 (They were doing their jobs!!! Defend our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111; RedRover

It must be a submariner site based on the comments.
Congrats you have crossed over to the Silent Service.


119 posted on 03/15/2007 8:53:29 PM PDT by lilycicero (SSgt Frank Wuterich and his squad did their job well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: pinkpanther111; Girlene; lilycicero
The talk last night about COIN doctrine got me thinking about an angle of the Pantano case.

When Lt. Pantano was accused, he asked himself if he should fight. He had volunteered to serve his country. Would going to jail, so that Iraqis knew he was punished, be a service?

He decided to fight, obviously, but it's a really interesting question.

Would the Haditha Marines serve their country by pleading guilty and accepting punishment--even if they know they are innocent?

The reason to raise this question is to try and understand the political nature of the charges against the Marines. I believe that that therein lies the reason for Mattis' actions.

What do you guys think?

120 posted on 04/16/2007 9:40:25 AM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson