AMERICAN PATRIOT NETWORK                   

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Q When was this?

A This was about 1978.

Q And you moved to?

A We moved --

Q Decherd?

A We moved back to Alto.

Q Alto?

A Yes, sir. It was kind of one of those things.

We put our house up for sale. We made the decision thinking

we had plenty of time; we drove the sign up in the yard and

the house sold in four days. So, we had to make like a mass

exodus to get home. And my mom --

Q What did you do after that?

A Okay. We moved in with mom and dad. They were

gracious enough to let us move in. We had two households of

families, two families in one household, with two households

of furniture, and I didn't have a job because it all

happened so fast.

So, in the interim, while I wasn't working at a

job, I decided, well, we've got to have a house. So, I

decided we'd build us a house. I got my dad, he's good at

calculating and planning, so we sat down and calculated the

cost. We hired a man to dig the basement, and we set out

and built the house. We started in December and finished in

May. My wife was pregnant at the time. And we moved -- the

baby was born, my little daughter was born in April and we

moved in the house in May.

From that time, shortly after that, I --

Q What year would that have been?

A That was May of '79, I believe.

Q What did you do after that?

A At that point in time I was offered a position

at First National Bank as a loan officer. And, of course,

I've never done anything like that. And they wanted me to

start out back in bookkeeping to learn how the paper flows

through the bank.

So, I was filing checks and looking at

signatures. I lasted about three weeks. And there was a

teaching position came open there at Franklin County High

School, where I had gone to school myself, in cabinetmaking,

which was one of my certified areas. And so I told the bank

that I appreciated it, but I believed I'd go back to

teaching.

And so, I started teaching. That would've been

in the middle of the year. The guy for some reason had to

leave. Taught cabinetmaking for about two years and a half,

Franklin County High School, And I had a lot of good

students. Lot of good memories.

Q When did you --

A I had an opportunity then -- sir? Excuse me.

Q You were at Franklin County High School for two

and a half years?

A Right.

Q When did you leave? '82 or '83?

A Yeah, somewhere in there.

Q Okay. What did you do after that?

A Well, I got an opportunity at that time to go

to a neighboring town, which is called Tullahoma, and teach

machine shop.

So, I transferred because it paid a little more

money. And I worked there for approximately two years, I

believe. And then I had, by that time I'd been teaching

about ten years. And for a shop teacher, you've got to have

discipline in the shop or somebody can get hurt. And during

this period of time in the schools, the discipline started

changing drastically.

And so, I got concerned that I was getting a

lot of students that didn't really want to be in my class,

and they were hindering me from teaching the ones that did

want to learn, and I was afraid that there was going to be

some accidents that I couldn't control. So, I decided that

I'd do some things on my own, and I resigned from Tullahoma.

My wife had a sister who had gotten in a thing

called Shakley. And so, we kind of got into it to help her.

In the Shakley business, you buy products and that's how you

make money, and hopefully you sell some of them, you know.

And so we'd buy them and then we'd sell a few, and we'd buy

some more and we'd sell a few.

So, needless to say, after a year or two, we

really didn't make any money, but we met an awful lot of

nice people. We went to a lot of nice meetings and learned

a lot about health and nutrition. And that kind of faded on

out.

And somewhere in that period of time, which

would've been about '83 or '84, we decided that we felt like

we needed to teach our two children at home, home school.

And so we did that for about the next five years. I just

worked odd jobs here and there, and my wife taught, doing

what she could. She did the English and stuff; I'd try to

do the math and the science. And we felt like that was just

really important, because we wanted to instill in them our

values as much as we could. And they always tested out

every year. So. you know, we feel comfortable with what we

did in that.

Q So, when you got involved in the Shakley

program, that enabled you to engage in home schooling?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Well, --

A That and just doing odd jobs and contracting.

Q So, you were -- what was the time range in

which you were doing Shakley and odd jobs?

A From about '83 to somewhere around '86.

Q Okay. Now, in '88 what happened?

A In 1988, as I recall, I don't remember the

exact month, I ran into a young man that I had had as a

student at Motlow College, where I had set up an

apprenticeship program for them one summer. And he informed

me that his brother was in charge of hiring for the new

trainees at Saturn and they needed some machinists that had

teaching experience to teach the new employees, and wanted

to know if I was interested or if I would be. And I said,

"Why, sure."

So, I called his brother, and his brother said,

"Send a resume." I sent a resume. And to make a long story

short, I went for an interview and didn't think I'd ever

hear anything from it. The next thing I know they called me

to come to work.

Q Okay. About when did you start? Would it be

like July 1st of '88?

A I think it was in March of '88, seems like.

Q Okay.

A I mean, we could look back.

Q But sometime in '88?

A Yes.

Q What were you doing at Saturn?

A I was in charge --

Q Did you go out to the plant itself?

A Yes, sir. We were on site. Now, we weren't in

the plant. They were building the plant at the time.

Q Did Saturn, the corporation that runs Saturn,

did they hire you?

A No, sir.

Q Who hired you? Was it Maury County?

A I was hired through Maury County.

Q So, Maury County paid you?

A Right.

Q Now, you heard the lady that came from Maury

County, right?

A Ms. Belanger, yes, sir.

Q They introduced checks and your contracts and

stuff like that, right?

A Right.

Q Was she accurate, you know, about when you

started and what you made and things of that nature?

A I believe so, yes.

Q Now, what did you do? Just briefly describe

for the jury what you did out there at. Saturn.

A I was hired to develop the programs to teach

basic machine shop, from handtools up to using the more

advanced machine tools. But basic machine shop. Not

necessarily computer stuff, but we did do some of that.

I also taught -- I developed programs and then

taught the courses. I also taught mobile crane and some

safety courses. That's basically what we did.

Q You taught the people that worked at Saturn?

A The people they brought in, the new employees

that were moving in, yes, sir.

Q Now, how long did you work there?

A Approximately three years.

Q And would March of '91 be the time that you

left?

A Somewhere close to that, yes, sir.

Q Okay. Did you -- so, during that three-year

span that you were working for Saturn, is that the only

company you worked for?

A I think I was still selling a little fertilizer

with Grower's. It was a liquid fertilizer that we used

there on the farm mostly, and I'd buy a little extra to sell

to some of the neighbors because it was food grade material

which had no contaminants in it and you could use it on

anything.

Q Now, this other company, Grower's what?

A Grower's Chemical.

Q You mentioned farming. Do you also farm?

A I help my dad. He has about two hundred acres.

We run cattle on part of it and cultivate about half of it.

Q Do you live close to your dad?

A Yes, sir. Right next to him.

Q And he's in the farm business?

A Yes.

Q So, you helped him out during these years?

A Yes, sir.

Q And on this Grower's thing, you would make

sales to your neighbors, get paid commission?

A Some of them, yes, sir.

Q Now, you heard the lady that came from that

company. I think she said they paid you a check for

something about seven hundred and fifty bucks, or

thereabouts, for '89?

A Yeah. That's about right.

Q So, for '89 and '90, you had -- well, you also

had the credit union, correct?

A Yeah.

Q So, you were paid by Saturn, or Maury County,

and worked at Saturn?

A Right.

Q You were paid, you had something like eight

hundred bucks or so each year from the credit union?

A Right.

Q And then you had the check from Grower's?

A Right.

Q And you don't contest any of that, do you?

A No, sir.

Q What they said is accurate?

A It looks real close, yes, sir.

Q Now, after you quit working at Saturn, can you

briefly tell the jury what you've done since then?

A Well, for me, working at Saturn, it was a

hundred miles one way. So, for the first year we drove

every day. We split it up some. And then for the next year

I tried staying periodically and, you know, coming home

about the middle of the week. And by the last year I was

having to just stay over there because the drive was getting

to me and I just couldn't be effective as a teacher, having

to drive four hours a day. Plus, it was really beginning to

take a toll on my family. And I'm a family man.

It was the best, one of the best jobs I ever

had my life. It paid real well. But I decided that I had

to come home. And so, we came to a mutual agreement that it

was time for me to leave. And so they didn't renew my

contract and I came home. And I've been doing contract work

here and there, remodeling jobs, and a farming little,

helping Daddy farm. That's basically it.

Q Now, for these years that you were working for

Saturn, if you look at your broad work history, those were

the best years, right?

A Yes, sir.

Q And typically what you made was less than that?

A Yes, sir.

Q In a typical year, working for Franklin County?

A Much less.

Q Being a shop teacher?

A Much less.

Q About how long were you a shop teacher?

A About ten years.

Q And then you were still a shop teacher for

Saturn?

A Basically, yeah.

Q So, that's a total of 13 or 14 years?

A Right.

Q Okay. And now you're doing odd jobs and

helping your dad?

A Right.

Q Now, did you work at any time in 1969?

A Whew. I don't really remember if I did.

Q well, you remember the chart that the

government showed up here that said -- one of these charts

says that you started in '69 working. That's when you filed

a return, right?

A Right.

Q Okay. You don't challenge that, right?

A No.

Q That's probably the first one you filed, right?

A More than likely.

Q From '69 all the way up through 1980, did you

file returns?

A Yes, sir.

Q All the way up, let's go up through 1985. Did

you file returns?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, I think -- before we came to court, you

had an opportunity -- I don't want to dig out the documents

right now, but the '86, '87 and '88 returns that the

government offered into evidence. And you've seen them

before now, right?

A Yes, sir.

Q You filed those returns?

A Yes, sir.

Q So, from '69 through '86, you filed ordinary

Form 1040 federal income tax returns every year?

A Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell the jury why you did that?

A I did it because I was always told you was

supposed to.

Q Did you ever engage in any study of the tax

laws?

A No, sir.

Q So, you were just doing what everybody else

did?

A Yeah.

Q Now, we don't have them all here, from '69 to

'86 or '85. Did you prepare all of those returns yourself?

A No, sir.

Q Do you have a judgment or an estimate of the

ones from '69 through '85, about how many of them you

prepared yourself?

A Not really. My wife prepared some of them and

some of them we'd go to H & R Block or something like that.

Maybe half of them. I'm not real sure.

Q So, some you did and some H & R Block did?

A Right.

Q And for '86, '87 and '88, you prepared those

yourself, right?

A I think we did, yes, sir.

Q And all of these returns were prepared not

based on any study of the law?

A That's correct.

Q Now, Mr. Long, let's get to the heart of the

matter here. You know, the government, Mr. Collier's boss,

has filed this information against you. And you've seen it,

right?

A Yes, sir.

Q You've read it?

A Yes, sir.

Q Tell the jury what is your understanding of

what you're being charged with here.

I'm being charged with willful failure to file

an income tax return.

Q For what years?

A '89 and '90.

Q Well, let's just be point-blank, Mr. Long.

Tell the jury whether or not you filed returns for '89 and

'90.

A No, I did not.

Q Well, how about '91?

A No, sir.

Q '92?

A No, sir.

Q '93?

A No, sir.

Q Oh, gosh. I'm sorry. So, you didn't file one

for last year?

A No, sir.

Q Is there a reason why, Mr. Long?

A Yes, sir.

Q Well, can you tell the jury -- what's the first

event that occurred that relates to this?

A Well, it goes way back.

Q When?

A To 1982.

Q All right.

A At a meeting that I attended in Monteagle at

the Smokehouse Restaurant.

Q Well, can you tell the jury -- when was this in

'82?

A It was in, probably around October. The leaves

were falling. And the reason I remember it was '82 was I

remember pulling up in my pickup truck. I had a red '73

pickup truck, and I know I traded it in '83. So, that's how

I remember.

And I remember getting out of my truck --

Q Why -- did you hear about a meeting?

A Yes. I had heard about a meeting that was

going to be held up there and they were going to talk about

the common law, the Constitution, and I had heard that there

might be some talk about taxes. And I was a little

concerned because I was beginning to have some real concern

about what all was going on in government, and, you know,

just basic concern. I've always been a person that I like

to understand why things are the way they are.

So, I attended this meeting.

Q So, you found out about it. Drove up from your

house?

A From home, yes, sir.

Q Went up the mountain to Monteagle?

A Right.

Q To the Smokehouse Inn?

A Smokehouse Restaurant.

Q Can you tell the jury what happens? You pull

into some, I guess a spot in the parking lot and park your

truck.

A I get out --

Q Tell the jury what happened after that.

A I sure will. I got out of my truck. I

remember locking the door and I remember looking over my

shoulder, because it really bothered me. I was a little

concerned. I was scared, because for the first time in my

life I had started to question some things about my

government, about the law. I started to wonder. And I felt

a little funny.

And, you know, you see all these TV programs

about these FBI and SWAT teams coming in and arresting all

these people. So, I was a little nervous, because I didn't

know anybody at this meeting.

But I overcame that because of this willingness

I have to try to understand things. And I thought, "Well,

maybe I can learn something," you know. You just have to be

open to things in order to learn. Because I'm a teacher and

that's just how it is.

So, I eased on, found the room and eased in and

sat down on the back row. Still kind of looking over my

shoulder.

Q Mr. Long, can I stop you right there?

THE COURT: We're going to take a short recess

at this time. We'll get to the next chapter in just a

moment.

Be in recess for about fifteen minutes.

(Brief recess.)

THE COURT: Okay. Continue.

MR. BECRAFT: May it please the Court.

BY MR. BECRAFT:

Q Mr. Long, before we get into that meeting that

you attended, I need to back up and ask you some questions.

Do you recognize that in this case you're not going to be

telling the jury the law? You do you recognize that?

A Oh, yes, sir.

Q And you understand that when this trial is over

with, it's going to be the judge that gives the instructions

in the case about what the law is, right?

A Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q Do you also understand that when you testify

here this afternoon, you're going to be giving your opinion

of the law, right, your belief about the law?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you understand that that's not an effort on

your part to tell the jury what the law is?

A Yes, sir.

Q It's just your belief.

A Just my belief, yes, sir.

Q Now, let's get back to this -- in the fall of

1982 you went to Monteagle?

A Yes, sir.

Q To the Smokehouse Inn. Now, that's where we

were right before our short break.

A Right.

Q Now, what happened?

A Well, like I said, I found the meeting room. I

eased on in and sat down on the back row. And as I recall,

a man by the name of George Gordon was the main speaker.

And he was a real robust type fellow. I won't ever forget

him. And he was talking about the common law and how it

came over here with the pilgrims, you know, from England.

And then he did something that I'll never

forget. He said, "In order for you-all to understand what

I'm going to tell you, you've got to remember the story."

So, he went over to a white board and he drew a great big

box up at the top. And in that box he wrote "people." And

I'm thinking, you know, "Where's he going," you know? And

then he came down below that and he drew a box and he wrote

the word "state." Well, then he came down below that and he

drew a smaller box, and in that box he put "government."

He said, "Now, listen to me, folks. Remember

your history. Remember the story." He said, "This is how

it happened." He said, "Our forefathers came over here,

they established colonies or states, if that's what you want

to call them, and then they got together, after they went

through starvation and fighting Indians and a little bit of

everything else, cold weather. Once they got established,

they decided that they had to have a government to help them

with conflicts between the colonies and things.

"And so they got together and they elected some

representatives, and they got together then and they

established a government." I'm thinking, "Yeah, I'm

remembering American history and all that, how it happened.

Sounds about right."

So then he said, "And when they had done that,

they decided that since they had just come out from under

King George and all the tyranny that he had caused, you

know, arresting them in one little community and hauling

them all the way to England and prosecuting them, just all

kinds of things that just weren't right. So, they decided

that in order keep to this government that they just

established from getting out of hand, they'd draw them up

something called the Constitution."

Well, I remember from high school, we studied

the Constitution. And he said that the purpose of this

Constitution was to bind government down and to keep it from

getting out of hand.

So, in this Constitution they explained

specifically what the power of government had. And then in

it they said anything that we don't give government, we're

going to leave it to the people and to the states.

Well, you know, I'm sitting here, and it's been

a while since I was in high school, but that's beginning to

trigger some memories. I remember studying that in American

history. Yeah. Made a lot of sense.

So, then he got to talking about the common law

and all the rights that the Constitution provided. Said,

you know, it only mentions three basic ones: like the right

to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then he

talked about that within those three you could not sit down

and list all the rights we have that are just, come under

those three categories. The list would be endless. And

that as long as you never damaged somebody's life, liberty

or property, whatever it is, you could do it, under the

common law.

Well, now, that made a lot of sense. I

remembered that. We didn't really study that in school, but

it made sense. And he also went on to say that these rights

that the Constitution guaranteed that were given to us by

God, -- now, the Constitution I believe says that we are

granted these certain inalienable rights by our Creator --

that those rights could not be taxed. Well, now, that got

my attention.

So, he just went on and on and on about all

these rights, you know. If the man said "rights" one time,

he said it a thousand times. And you could tell that he had

studied this Constitution and that he believed in it so

firmly. You just tell by the tone in his voice.

Well, I'd remembered studying all that, but I

remember us studying it as a well-written document or

something. I didn't remember a teacher in high school

getting into all this stuff, explaining the rights. I

remember them talking about us having rights, but I don't

remember getting into this.

He kept explaining, you know, -- and the fact

that he kept saying that these rights cannot be taxed

because the Founding Fathers, that was the main purpose of

the Constitution was to guarantee us these rights.

Well, man, you know, I'm sitting here thinking

and still looking over my shoulder because I'm thinking the

FBI or somebody is going to come in at any time. But he

begins to say we also have the right to assemble, the right

to study, we've got the right to vote. We've got all kinds

of rights.

And then he said something that just made me

sit up in my chair. He said we've got a right to work.

Well, -- and then he said that our labor is our property.

Well, now, you could've knocked me over with a feather

because, now, I hadn't never thought about that. But here's

this man telling me that my labor is my property. He got my

attention.

And then he went on to say that we have a right

to work and that if we have a right to work, that right

can't be taxed. Whew, I said, "Man, I like the sound of

that, but," I said, "you know, I'm filing and paying every

year on my labor. I don't understand." But he got my

attention. And I said, "I'm going to listen."

Well, he went on to say then that privileges --

you know, I'd heard people talk about it's a privilege to

drive. Some people talk about that. But privileges,

something that the state or the government gives you as a

privilege, they have a right to tax that. I'm thinking,

"Man, we've got rights and we've got privileges."

And, you know, I've got two degrees, but I

don't remember being taught this in school. Maybe, you

know, somebody mentioned it sometime, but, gosh, I didn't

remember it. This guy has really got me to thinking. And

here's all these rights I didn't know I had. And he's just

telling me I got all kinds of rights.

And now he's telling me that these inalienable

rights that were given to us by the Creator, they can't be

taxed because God don't tax us on them. Whew. I'm telling

you, he had my attention.

And then, he just went on and on and on about

all the rights we've got and how over the years we've

forgotten them. And I'm sitting here thinking, "Boy, you

got that right, because this ol' boy sure has. I didn't

know I had them." And, you know, if you don't know you've

got something, sometimes it's awful easy to give it away.

And so, then he went on on this labor thing.

And he quoted, put it up on the overhead, from a case called

Coppage vs. Kansas, where Justice Pitney explains about this

labor thing. And it was a case involving some labor unions,

I think, where they'd been trying to force some of the

employees to join unions and they didn't want to.

And Justice Pitney, -- now, I can't quote it,

but I can tell you basically what it says, from what I

remember. He said that the right to live and own property

is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution, and that

the most basic of that right was the right to your labor, to

be able to exchange your labor for other types of property.

And he went on reading it, and he said that

that right to exchange your labor for other types of

property was as important to the poor as it was to the rich,

it was as important to the laborer as it was to the

capitalist, and that it was most important for the poor

because it was the only way a poor person had honestly of

beginning to accumulate property, and that was to work for

somebody for money. And he said, "Should anything ever

strike this right down or abridge it in any way, it would be

in direct conflict of the Constitution."

Now, I'm telling you, that hit me right in the

heart, because I'd been wondering, you know, -- I hadn't

complained. I'd been filing and paying and just doing this,

all this. But something inside me said, "There's something

ain't right here. It just ain't right. There's something

wrong."

Well, he went on then to explain that the

Constitution only allows for two types of taxes; that's all

we got to worry about. Ain't but two in there. That's a

direct tax, which is like a property tax. You know, we all

have those. You know, you got your county property and you

got your city property tax. That's a direct tax, imposed on

your property.

Well, then he said there's an indirect tax. He

went on to say that an indirect tax is like the booze tax.

And what makes it indirect is if you want to go down here

and buy a gallon of booze, then you pay the tax. The taxes

goes on back to the person that makes the booze; but in the

fact that you don't have to buy it, you don't have to pay

the tax if you don't want to. Me not being a drinking

person, I don't care what the booze tax is. I don't have to

pay it because I don't buy it.

Well, now, that started to make some sense.

Direct and indirect taxes. Because I realize, you know, we

pay all kinds of taxes on tires, the booze. And I'd heard

someone one time say we farm, grow wheat, I'd heard, I

believe, that there's something like 87 different taxes on a

loaf of bread. So, I was beginning to see some of this

stuff. It was really getting me to thinking, you know,

"This guy may have some of the answers I've been looking

for."

So, needless to say, as far as I remember, that

was basically about what I got out of that. I couldn't stay

for the whole thing. And --

Q Can I stop you right there?

A Sure.

Q How many people were at this meeting?

A I guess there was a hundred.

Q And you arrived during the evening?

A Uh-huh.

Q How long did you stay?

A About two hours. I think we had one break.

Q And you listened to one man speak?

A One man, uh-huh.

Q And that was a fellow by the name of who?

A George Gordon. I'll never forget him.

Q Did you know him before then?

A No. Never heard of him in my life.

Q Have you ever, after that meeting did you ever

physically meet him again, you know, like in person?

A I don't think so. Maybe one time, I'm not

sure, at a meeting that we were all at. He might've been

there.

Q Okay. Now, the meeting went on after you left?

A Yes.

Q And you stayed there -- you got there at what,

6:00, 7:00?

A Around 6:00. You know, that time of year it

gets dark. Might've been a little earlier. Maybe 5:00 and

I left around 7:30, about dark, because I had some livestock

to take care of.

Q So, you left the meeting early and it was still

going on?

A Right.

Q What was your impressions of what you learned

at this meeting as you -- I guess you went out to your truck

and drove home?

A Right.

Q Okay.

A Well, I left that meeting with just an extreme

appreciation of the rights that I have. He made me

conscious of the rights that we have. And he also made me

conscious of the fact that this ol' boy has been asleep and

I'd failed to learn.

And I do remember one quote that was made. He

said that the price of liberty -- I won't never forget it --

is eternal vigilance. Got my attention. And I just decided

to go on home, that, "Hey, I'm going to try to learn

everything I can about the Constitution and about my rights,

and I'm going to try to study and just become a better

citizen," because if we're informed, we got to be better

citizens.

So, that was basically what I got from that

meeting.

Q Now, you mentioned during the course of that

meeting there was a case that he talked about?

A Yes, sir.

Q Coppage?

A Coppage vs. Kansas.

Q Did he mention any others?

A I think he mentioned quite a few, but that was

one of the main ones I remembered.

Q Okay. Now, after you thought about this going

home and you got home, can you tell the jury what happened

next in reference to how you formulated your beliefs about

your obligation to file returns?

A Well, during one of the breaks, the break that

we had, I met some people there that were from Tullahoma and

discovered that they had started holding some meetings in

Tullahoma about once a month to start studying the

Constitution and trying to learn and be informed, try to

find out things.

And I got some of their names and found out

where they were meeting. So, I determined, you know, I'd

try to go to some of those meetings.

Q You live in Decherd?

A Decherd, yes, sir. I live in Alto. It's about

ten miles out of Decherd.

Q And how far is that from -- is that south of

Tullahoma?

A It's 25 miles from Tullahoma.

Q Twenty-five miles?

A Yes, sir.

Q Well, you learned about these meetings in

Tullahoma. Did you attend any of them?

A Over the next few weeks or months I really

didn't. We was working a lot. And like I say, I'm a family

man. I had young children. And I think during that time it

would've been right in there when we started teaching them

at home and some of that kind of stuff. So, I might not

have gone to a meeting in Tullahoma for six months. I'm not

sure.

Q Sometime in the early part of '83?

A Right.

Q So, tell the jury what happened. After the

George Gordon meeting, you waited about six months and then

you go to this Tullahoma meeting, right?

A Right.

Q Okay.

A Well, the first meeting I recall going to, I

get there and they're showing a video of George Gordon.

to my surprise, they had bought the whole study guide of his

common law study guide and all the videos that went with it.

Q Let me stop you right here. We're not going to

offer this into evidence, Lloyd. But you mentioned study

materials?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is this some of it?

A That's it.

Q Are these your study materials?

A Yes, sir.

Q For the George Gordon course?

A Common law course, yes, sir.

Q Before we get into what you learned, you've got

common law course -- they got labels on here, "Common Law

Course," right?

A Right.

Q So, at some stage you acquired all these

materials?

A Right.

Q And generally describe for the jury what's in

here.

A Well, there's all kinds of, copies of Supreme

Court cases and state Supreme Court, you know, the United

States Supreme Court cases; and there's some motions in

there, you know, that you could go by if you had to file a

motion in court to kind of become a pro se.

Q Now, let's back up. We've gone over that. You

went to this meeting and they were looking at a video.

A Right.

Q Of the same guy that you already heard speak

live?

A Right.

Q Tell the jury what you learned at this first

meeting.

A Well, as I recall, Mr. Gordon, one of the first

things he said, you know, -- at the other meeting he had

told about the two types of taxes that the Constitution

allowed. That's the direct and indirect tax.

Well, he said something that really got my

attention. Right off the bat he says that the income tax is

an excise tax. And, you know, I didn't know what an excise

tax was. I'd remembered a little bit about what he said

about indirect tax.

He kept going on that the income tax is an

excise tax. And he said, "I'm not telling you it is." And

he quoted a case called Sims vs. Ahrens, which was a case in

Arkansas, where the Arkansas Supreme Court had said that the

income tax is neither a property tax nor is it a tax on

occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax,

"Boy," I thought, "whoa, the income tax is not

a property tax," which would be a direct tax, "it's not a

tax on occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax."

Now, that got my attention.

So, then he went on to say -- he mentioned a

case called Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which is a United States

Supreme Court case, I believe. And he stated that in Flint

vs. Stone Tracy they stated what an excise tax was, and that

an excise tax is a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale, or

consumption of commodities within the country, and it's also

laid upon a particular privileged occupation or corporate

privileges. Now, that's an excise.

Then he went on to say that, you know, we all

know about those because some of those things are alcohol

tax. We all know that there's an excise tax on tires.

Then he went on to say that all through Flint

vs. Stone Tracy they talk about how the privilege of doing

business in a corporate capacity and what an advantage those

people have over private firms. Well, I'm listening, you

know.

Then he gets into a case, puts it up on the

overhead, called Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad. And

he explains that the Brushaber case plainly states -- and

this is another United States Supreme Court case -- that the

income tax is an excise tax. And then he goes on to say

that the Brushaber case settled once and for all the fact

that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did not give

Congress any more power at all on any new subjects. And,

you know, I remembered, when he said 16th Amendment, I'd

remembered studying that in high school, and I believe I

remembered him calling that the income tax amendment.

And now this guy is telling me that this

Supreme Court of the United States has said in this case

that that didn't change anything, that the power that

Congress had was still exactly like it was in the

Constitution, that the only thing the 16th Amendment did was

try to simplify why it was imposed on the people that owed

it. Now, I didn't know much about it, but, yeah, it really

got my attention.

Then he went on and he talked about a case in

Oregon, Oregon State Supreme court, called Redfield vs.

Fisher, which said that the individual, unlike a

corporation, cannot be taxed merely for the fact of

existing, but that the individual's rights to live and own

property were natural rights upon which an excise could not

be imposed.

Well, now, I'm starting to put some of this

together. And he's back on rights again: common rights and

natural rights, you can't put an excise tax on common

rights, the Arkansas case talks about occupations of common

right, and Flint vs. Stone Tracy talks about corporations

having certain privileges, and an excise tax being on

occupations of certain privileges. And he just really gets

me to thinking.

And then he comes up with a case, puts it up on

the board, called Spreckels Sugar Refinery vs. McClain. And

in this case, I believe it's a United States Supreme Court

case, it made the statement that keeping in mind the

well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation

unless that tax is imposed in clear and unequivocal

language, and that should there be a doubt about the

language of a tax law that the doubt should be resolved in

favor of the person it was sought to be collected from.

Well, now, boy, I hadn't tried to read much of

the law, but that really caught my attention because it made

sense, you know. It ought to be clear. Because I deal, as

a machinist, within sometimes 2/10,000ths of an inch. So, I

deal in specifics. So, that's not new to me. And I'd

always heard that the law is supposed to be specific, at

least everywhere that it can. And I thought it was supposed

to be everywhere. So, you know, I deal in precision things.

And like I say, I like to know how it works and why it works

and what causes it to work.

So, the cases that he brought to my attention

have really got me to thinking all over again, you know,

because I didn't remember them telling us any of this kind

of stuff in school, and I got two degrees from college.

Well, the group, after we had kind of watched

some videos of these -- now, this didn't all happen in one

meeting. This is probably over a month or two, you know,

because we'd stay maybe an hour and a half or two hours and

then we'd come back and try to finish that one up.

But all this time I'm thinking, you know, let's

just let this soak. I'm still -- I don't know if there was

another year gone by, but I'm filing and paying, because,

you know, I dated my wife for six years and we finally

decided the Lord wanted us to get married, and we got

married. That's the best move I ever made.

But I'm thinking.

Q Well, let ask you this. You said this tape

that you were watching of this George Gordon fellow, a

videotape. You have a group of people that meet in

Tullahoma and they sit around a TV?

A Right.

Q Watching a video?

A Right.

Q So, what you've just related to the jury is

some of the things you learned from this video?

A That's correct.

Q And you had several meetings over a span of

every month or two?

A That's right. And we also had the study guide.

Q So, you watched these videos?

A Uh-huh.

Q Would this be sometime in the early part of

1983?

A Uh-huh.

Q Okay. About how many people would come to

these meetings?

A Oh, ten to 15, sometimes 20, maybe 25.

Q Were these people that you knew before?

A I met a few of them, three or four, at the

Monteagle meeting. But I didn't know them before, no, sir.

Q So, they weren't friends of yours or

associates?

A Oh, no, no.

Q So, they invited you to the meetings and you

attended, and 15 or 20 people would show up and watch the

video?

A Right. Sometimes we'd listen to just cassette

tapes, if it was something somebody thought was interesting.

We'd listen to things about environment, you know, all kinds

of things, not just this.

Q There were other topics?

A Oh, yeah.

Q Now, in 1983, can you tell the jury about how

many of these meetings you went to?

A Oh, maybe six.

Q Now, as a result of attending these meetings

what, if anything, did you do?

A Well, all of us, realizing what Mr. Gordon was

saying here, that the United States Supreme Court had said

and that the state Supreme Court had said, and being who I

am, I don't take anything for granted. We decided that we

would start going to, maybe once a month, instead of the

regular meeting we'd just load up in a van and go to the

Vanderbilt law library and we'd pull these cases up. Even

though we had them in some of the study guides, we wanted to

make sure that they were exactly what he said they were.

And so over the next few months, I guess,

that's basically what we did. I won't never forget the

first one. Of course, I was kindly used to the MTSU

library. It's a pretty good-sized library. But we walked

in the door down there and saw this Vanderbilt law library,

and it'll swallow MTSU's library. We were lost, even me.

We almost turned around and come home.

Q Why did you go there?

A Well, we wanted to pull up these cases and

prove that Mr. Gordon was telling the truth.

Q All right. So you --

A We didn't want to just take his word for it off

of his video. And we were sincerely wanting to learn about

this, and if these cases exist then we've got a right to

know about it. So, that was the driving force behind that.

And just the desire to become more informed.

Q So, take the jury back in time. And you walked

through the, you walk upstairs and go in that entrance to

the library there. You open the door, walk in and see all

the levels of books.

A Whew.

Q What did you do when you got there?

A Well, we almost turned around and come home,

because it was just awesome. But having had same

experience, I knew if we went to the library we could

probably make it.

So, we went to the library and told them what

we wanted to do and some of the cases we were trying to

find. We had a list. Some of us were going to go to one

and some of us were going to go to the other, because it's

about an hour and a half from Tullahoma to Nashville, and

then an hour and a half back. So, you don't have a lot of

time if you're going to get back in time to go to bed.

And so, I don't remember, we may've gotten two

cases that particular night, by the time we got situated on

where the index was and how to locate everything in all

these books and the racks and where they were and all that.

I think we got maybe two cases and copied them and brought

them back with us. But it was quite an experience.

And as I recall, somewhere within the next few

meetings or something we sat down together at the meeting

and started trying to read through these things. We'd copy

them to where we could pass them out.

Q Did you-all only get two cases?

A Well, we went after more, but we only had time

to get two that particular time.

Q Well, these other cases that you wanted to get,

did you eventually get them?

A Oh, yes.

Q Well, how did you do that?

A Well, we went back. And by this time we'd

figured out, you know, kind of where the racks were. So, we

eventually had all the cases, more than what I've mentioned,

but I just remember these real well.

And we had them, brought them back to where we

could study them, because a lot of the language in there,

it's all written in legal terms and, you know, we had to sit

down and really ponder over these things, read them together

and talk about them with one another and try to understand.

But we did find out, finally figure out that

most everything that's important in these cases, after

they've been recorded, they have little footnotes or

captions in the front that tells basically what was decided,

and then tells you where it is in the body of the document,

so if you want to go back there and read what was discussed ~

and what was said, you can read all that.

A So, yes, we eventually got them all.

Q The ones that George Gordon had talked about?

A The ones he had talked about on that particular

tape that I remember.

Q Did you get others?

A We got others.

Q So, the time frame we're talking about here

would be '83, '84?

A Maybe '84 by now, yeah.

Q Let's come forward then in time to a point

where, in '84 where you've got all these cases and you've

read them.

A Right.

Q Okay. Can you tell the jury now what cases you

read and what. you understood them to mean?

A I believe I can.

Q In fact, have you made copies of those cases?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay.

A Got a lot of them right here.

Q Now, tell the jury which cases that you read

and what you learned from them.

A Well, in Flint vs. Stone Tracy, I learned

exactly what Mr. Gordon had said was right. It explains

what an excise tax is. "An excise tax" -- can I read it

from here?

Q If that's your understanding. You can give

your belief about what that document says.

A Okay. It said that an excise tax was a tax

laid upon the manufacture, sale, and consumption of

commodities within the country and upon licenses to pursue

particular occupations and upon corporate privileges.

There's areas there: manufacture, sale and

consumption, there's a tax on that. And then there's a tax

on licenses to pursue certain privileged occupations. And

then there's a tax on corporate privileges. There's three

taxes, as I understand it.

Q Now, you said something a moment ago that you

believed was what was in that case. Is that from memory?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. You didn't read the document right new?

A No.

Q Well, so what's so important about that case?

A Well, i's a Supreme Court case, United States

Supreme Court case, and it explains what an excise tax is.

Q So what?

A Well, in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific. it

plainly states that the income tax is an excise tax.

Q Now, is that a case that you pulled and --

A That's a case that George Gordon told us about.

He plainly said it's an excise tax, that that's what the

United States Supreme Court said. Who am I to question the

United States Supreme Court?

So, I go get the case. That's what it says.

And it also, like he said, explains in there that they

settled once and for all that the 16th amendment never

changed any of the power that Congress had to lay and

collect taxes. All it did was try to simplify the method in

which they collected -- they imposed the tax.

Q So, it's your view and belief that the federal

income tax is an excise?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you've read and relied upon this other

case, Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which told you what an excise

was, right?

A Right.

Q The Brushaber case, have you got it there with

you? Just tell me yes or no.

A Yeah, it's here.

Q You're familiar with it?

A Yes.

Q You've read it?

A Yes.

Q What else, what are the other cases that you've

got that you studied?

A Well, I mentioned Sims vs. Ahrens, which is a

case in Arkansas, Arkansas state Supreme Court case. And it

said that the income tax is not a tax on -- it's neither a

property tax or a tax on occupations of common right -- now,

that got my attention -- but is an excise tax. Okay.

Then we went on to the Redfield vs. Fisher

case. It was a state supreme court case in Oregon. And it

went on to say that the individual, unlike the corporation,

cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, that the

individual's rights are natural rights and that those

rights, for the enjoyment of those rights an excise cannot

be imposed. Now, these are state supreme court cases, and

they're talking about common rights, occupations of common

right cannot be taxed with an excise.

So, I start to put some things together. And

I'm not doing this, you know. These are, the highest courts

in the land are saying that the income tax is an excise tax.

well, I start saying, "Well, big deal," you

know. But then I start realizing -- I can't remember which

case it was in, but one of them explained -- and maybe it

was Flint. Anyway, they explained that the income tax is a

tax upon privileges, certain privileges, the tax is laid on

the privilege itself.

And the only reason they call it an income tax

is because they finally came around and the best way they

could measure to make it -- what's the term -- equal all

across the country, is to base it upon the income from that

privilege. Okay? But the tax itself is on the privilege,

not the income, because the income is property.

And while we were looking for these cases, we

ran upon two Tennessee Supreme Court cases.

Q When would this be?

A This may be '85. Somewhere in there.

Q All right, sir.

A And one of them was Jack Cole Company vs. The

Commissioner of Tennessee. And Jack Cole was a trucker, and

he hauled freight all over Tennessee for money, but he

wasn't incorporated. He was just Jack Cole.

Well, the state decided -- he was opening a

business, so they decided they was going to tax his

business. So, they did. He took them to the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court said the right to receive income and

earnings is a right belonging to every person, and that that

right cannot be taxed as a privilege.

Well, now, that got my attention, because me

and ol' Jack is just alike. Now, he's a trucker. I'm a

school teacher. I drive my truck over to a particular place

and I teach somebody what I know for money. And the state

says that that's an occupation of common right and that it

can't be taxed as a privilege. I don't have no license.

I'm not incorporated. Where's the privilege? That really

got my attention.

Well, then we run upon a case called Corn vs.

Fort, which is another case in Tennessee, where these

individuals decided to form a partnership in a coal mining

company. Well, the state decided they were in business, so

they was going to tax them, like they did Jack Cole. They

weren't incorporated. They were just individuals who had

come together to form a partnership.

The state tried to tax them. They took them to

court. The Tennessee State Supreme Court said that

individuals have a right to combine their activities as a

partnership and that right is common right and it cannot be

taxed as a group.

Now, this blew my mind, because, you know,

okay, you know, Jack is by himself. He's -- but now they're

saying that you can be a partnership, and, as long as you

don't have some particular privilege, you're operating under

natural rights and the state can't touch you with an income

tax or a privilege tax. Whew.

And then in Jack's case, the big word, you

know, the right to receive income and earnings is a right

belonging to every person, and that right cannot be taxed as

a privilege. Now, that got my attention, folks. And it

wasn't me saying it. That's the Tennessee State Supreme

Court saying it. And if Tennessee can't tax me for a

privilege I don't have, I don't believe the federal

government can. Now, that's what's going on in my mind.

I'm still filing and still paying, but I've

learned a lot. It's really got the wheels a squealing up

here and smoking and everything else.

I'm just, -- you know, it's hard to work when

you've got this kind of thing going on in your mind. I

don't remember if I'm teaching school about this time or

what. But you just kind of let it soak. You go on and do

whatever you got to do, but this stuff is still rolling

around back here.

And then somewhere along there, we came to

another meeting. And now keep in mind, now, already, the

United States Supreme Court --

Q Can I stop you right here?

A Excuse me.

Q You've mentioned a series of cases. I don't

want to call out the names again. But the ones you just

talked about in the last five or six minutes, are they the

ones that you've got with you today?

A Yes, sir.

Q And so, those cases you mentioned, you've read

and relied upon?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you read and relied upon them in '85?

A Yes, sir. I didn't --

Q Were there others?

A Sir?

Q Were there others?

A There might've been. I've read so much and

we've swapped so much of this material back and forth in the

group.

Q But. those are the principal ones?

A Those are the principal ones. And I didn't

really figure I needed too many more.

Q All right. Now, I interrupted you. You were

about ready to talk about something beyond those cases at

another meeting?

A Well, you know, I started thinking back, you

know. The United States Supreme Court has said, in

Brushaber, income tax is an excise tax. All these state

supreme courts, Arkansas said it's an excise tax, the income

tax is. Oregon Supreme Court has said it was, Tennessee has

said it was. These are the highest courts in the land,

now. This is documented fact, from the United States

Supreme Court and from the state supreme courts.

We go to this meeting, and someone from another

group like ours, you know, -- they was kindly corresponding

and we was always swapping information back and forth --

sent us a copy of a Congressional Research Service report.

And I believe the particular guy's name that had done this

particular one was a Mr. Howard Zoretski.

Q Can I stop you right here?

A Sure.

Q Mr. Long, let me stop you right here and take

care of a little matter.

A Okay.

Q You mentioned -- take a look at Exhibits No. 1

and 2, Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2.

A Okay.

Q Now, those are two documents?

A Yes, sir.

Q Are those documents that you read and relied

upon?

A Yes, sir.

Q In the formation of your beliefs?

A Yes, sir.

Q Just right now, quickly, tell us in what

respect. What did you get out of those?

A Okay. This particular one stated that the

income tax was an indirect tax of the broad category of

impost -- what is it? Oh, duties, impost, and excises.

Q What is the next one?

A The next one is an update that was done in

1984. This one was done in '79. And it stated more

expressly that the income tax is an excise tax.

Q That's something that you read and relied upon?

A Yes, sir.

Q By '85?

A Somewhere around there.

Q MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd offer 1 and 2.

A MR. COLLIER: Again I would object to both of

those for the reasons stated last week. The defendant can

talk about them and he can quote from them, but I think that

the case law is that those documents should not be admitted

into evidence.

THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm

going to admit the documents. I will tell you, ladies and

gentlemen of the jury, however, that the defendant has

offered those documents into evidence -- what is this? The

CRS reports, 1 and 2?

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, Your Honor, two of them.

THE COURT: This evidence is offered and

received into evidence only for whatever it may show about

the defendant's state of mind. You should not consider this

evidence as proof that anything said in these documents is

true. All right.

(Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received

into evidence.)

BY MR. BECRAFT:

And along the same lines, Mr. Long, you

recognize that those documents, you're not telling this jury

that's, quote, the law?

A Right. No.

Q Now that we've got them admitted, let's take a

look at Exhibit No. l. And what I'd like for you to do is

just tell the jury basiclly what you learned from that and

how it has an effect upon your beliefs.

A Well, I like said, we'd already studied these

supreme court cases, and they had said the income tax is an

excise tax. This document came into our possession, and it

plainly stated that the income tax was an indirect tax of

the broad category of duties, impost, and excises.

Q Mr. Long, I think I left my -- there it is,

that yellow Magic Marker. Can I get you to line through in

yellow that part of Exhibit No. 1 that you're talking about

that was important to you?

A Yes, sir. (Witness complies.)

Q And that's the particular passage you found

important?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q Okay. Let's move on to Exhibit No. 2, the next

one.

A Okay.

Q Can I likewise, while you've got the pen in

your hand, turn to the spot in there that. . Take a look at

the last page.

A Yes, sir. (Performs marking.)

Q So, out of those two documents, you have, for

the benefit of the jury you've lined through in yellow what

you thought was important, right?

A Yes sir.

Q Now, are both of these documents alike,

essentially?

A Basically.

Q Okay. Now, what did you understand these

documents to be?

A I understood that if they were done by the

Congressional Research Service, that basically this is a

branch of the government, the government is saying this.

Q Both of them?

A Yeah. They're from the same place.

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Q And you understood that the government was

telling you what through those documents?

A That the income tax was an excise tax.

Q Now, did that match your beliefs that you'd

already reached at that time?

A Well, the Supreme Court in Brushaber had said

it was an excise tax. The state courts that we had studied

said it was an excise tax. So, you know, who am I to

question the highest courts in the land? And now the

government is saying it's an excise tax. Sure I believed it

was.

Q Okay. Now, of what effect does a belief like

this have upon your obligation to file returns?

A Well, it really makes you question it, because

I'm operating from what I know under common right: no

privileges, I'm not incorporated, have never been

incorporated, don't want to be incorporated, that an excise

tax has to be on privileges.

So, it appears to me that if an excise tax

involves the exercise of a privilege, and I don't have any

kind of license or anything, I'm not exercising a privilege,

I'm not required or I'm not liable.

Q Is there something else you were going to say?

A No, I'm sorry.

Q Mr. Long, this is in '85 when you reached these

conclusions, right?

A Yes.

Q And for '85, come April 15, 1986, you filed a

return, right?

A That's correct.

Q April 15th of '87, April 15th of '88, April

15th of '89. You came along and filed returns for the other

years, April 15th of '89 being for '88, right?

A That's correct.

Q Now, just to kind of move through this quick,

is this your instruction booklet for '88?

A Right.

Q Now, I've handed to you copies of -- are they

accurate copies of a part of the book?

A Appear to be, yes, sir.

Q Now, is this something you've read and relied

upon, Exhibit No. 3?

A Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd move for its

admission.

THE COURT: Received.

(Defendant's Exhibit 3 was received into

evidence.)

BY MR. BECRAFT:

Q Now, what's so important about Exhibit No. 3?

A The Privacy Act notice.

Q Okay. Now, what do you know about that?

A Well, I attended a meeting and I remember a

fellow telling us about that.

Q Now, when would this meeting have been?

A Probably '86.

Q Now --

A Maybe '87.

Q Through '83, '84, '85, and '86 when you were

attending these meetings, in reference to the income tax

was, was the major area of study on this argument that it's

an excise?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did there come a time in which you studied

something else in reference to the tax at one of these

meetings?

A Well, we pretty well had established that, you

know, if the United States Supreme Court says it's an excise

tax and all the state supreme courts say it is, or at least

the ones we've studied, and that the government themselves

says it is in their own Congressional Research Report, then

it must be an excise tax.

So, we pretty well nailed that down, in my mind

anyway, because I studied the material to make sure it said

what Mr. Gordon had said it did.

And then I went to a meeting, walked in, and

the guy on the video said, "Are you required to file income

tax returns?"

Q Now, when was this meeting?

A Probably '86.

Q Was it one of these same Tullahoma meetings?

A Sure was.

Q About how many people are there?

A Maybe fifteen.

Q This was a video?

A Right.

Q TV? Everybody gathered around a TV?

A Right.

Q What did you learn by looking at that video on

that occasion in '86?

A Well, like I say, that was the first question

he asked. And it really got my attention.

Q Let me stop you right here. Who was this?

A I believe the guy's name was Carter.

Q Have you ever met him?

A No. Never met him in my life.

Q So, the only thing you've seen is a video?

A Video. That's correct.

Q Of some fellow by the name of Carter?

A Right.

Q Well, what did you learn by listening to Mr.

Carter?

A Well, he got my attention with that, about

being required to file. And then he started in about the

Privacy Act. And I thought, "Man, what's that got to do

with anything?" But then he went on to explain that back in

the early '70s that, the way he explained it, all these

government agencies got kind of carried away with one

another and they got to competing to see who could gather

the most information, and they were sending out forms

everywhere and asking people to send back all this

information. And of course, the people didn't know if they

had to send it back, if they didn't have to send back, or

whatever. And they got kind of aggravated about it. So,

they complained to Congress. Congress passed a law called

the Privacy Act. Okay.

So, then he went on to say that the important

thing about the Privacy Act was that any governmental agency

now, after the Privacy Act, that sent you a form and wanted

some information, they had to, number one, tell you if it

was voluntary or mandatory for you to give them the

information. Then, if it was supposedly mandatory, they had

to go back and quote or state the statute or the law that

gave them the right to ask you for that and would require

you to do it.

Well, now, that made all kinds of sense to me.

In fact, I've wondered why they didn't do that to start

with. Because I'd been to the law library and I realized

that if you didn't at least know one or two items, the

average individual would never walk in a law library and try

to look up whether they was required or not to furnish this

information. So, that made a lot of sense to me.

So, in the next few minutes he pulls out the

Privacy Act notice for the Internal Revenue Service. And it

says, "Our legal right to ask for this information is

Internal Revenue Service Code 6001, 6011, and 6012A."

He says, "Okay, now, let's go to 6001 and see

what it says." So, he flips his book. And of course, on

the video they put it on an overhead where you can see it.

And it says, "Every person liable for any tax imposed by

this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such

records, render such statements and make such returns, and

comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may

from time to time prescribe."

And he points out, it talks about persons

liable, but it doesn't say anywhere in that body who that

is. It's this entity out here, "person liable."

Q Could I stop you here? After he explained this

to you, what you --

THE COURT: I think we're going to cut this off

for the day.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like you

to come back at 9:30 tomorrow morning. And while you're

away tonight, remember the things I told you. Don't discuss

the case with anyone and don't permit anyone to discuss it

with you. Don't read anything in the paper about the case

or anything like that. We'll resume trial here promptly at

9:30 tomorrow morning. Until that time this court will be

in adjournment.

(Wherupon, court was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to

continue October 13, 1993.)