The Trial of Chief Justice Roy Moore

Here is a copy of the court transcript of the trial of Chief Justice Roy Moore (Page 1 of 2)

PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY WARNING: An electronic transmission and/or hard copy of the transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission of Jeana S. Boggs, Boggs Reporting & Video, 492 South Court Street, Montgomery, AL, 36104, 334.264.6227. For a certified copy, please contact Boggs Reporting & Video at the above address or e-mail: boggsreporters@aol.com IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIARY STATE OF ALABAMA CASE NO. 33 IN THE MATTER OF: CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE *** EXCERPT TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE STATE OF ALABAMA COURT OF THE JUDICIARY, before Jeana S. Boggs, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, in the Alabama Supreme Court Courtroom, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama, commencing at approximately 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 12, 2003. APPEARANCE COURT OF THE JUDICIARY: HONORABLE WILLIAM D. MELTON HONORABLE SUE H. MCINNISH HONORABLE JOHN L. DOBSON HONORABLE J. SCOTT VOWELL HONORABLE WILLIAM C. THOMPSON HONORABLE ROBERT G. KENDALL HONORABLE JAMES L. NORTH HONORABLE SAM JONES HONORABLE JOHN V. DENSON FOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL E. JONES Attorney At Law JONES & SPORT P. O. Box 367 Luverne, Alabama 36049 334.335.6534 HONORABLE TERRY BUTTS Attorney At Law CERVERA, RALPH & BUTTS 914 S. Brundidge P.O. Box 325 Troy, Alabama 36081 334.566.0116 HONORABLE JAMES ELDON WILSON Attorney At Law 4265 Lomac Street Montgomery, Alabama 36106 334.409.2003 FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA: HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PRYOR Attorney General AND HONORABLE JOHN GIBBS HONORABLE ROSA DAVIS HONORABLE MELISSA K. ATWOOD Assistant Attorney Generals STATE OF ALABAMA 11 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 334.242.7300 *** WITNESS: ROY S. MOORE Examination By Mr. Jones - 81 Examination By Mr. Pryor - 131 *** JIC Exhibit No. 1.......12..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 2.......13..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 3.......13..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 4.......13..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 5.......14..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 6.......14..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 7.......14..................48 JIC Exhibit No. 8.......15..................52 JIC Exhibit No. 9.......16..................20 JIC Exhibit No. 10......16..................20 *** JIC Exhibit No. 11.........16...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 12.........16...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 13.........17...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 14.........17...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 15.........17...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 16.........18...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 17.........18...............56 JIC Exhibit No. 18.........18...............20 JIC Exhibit No. 19.........19...............56 JIC Exhibit No. 20.........10...............20 MOORE'S EXHIBITS Moore's Exhibit No. 1......20...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 2......21...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 3......21...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 4......21...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 5......22...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 6......22...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 7......21...............81 Moore's Exhibit No. 8......21...............23 Moore's Exhibit No. 9......86...............88 MR. JONES: Judge Thompson? Judge Thompson, Terry Butts here for Chief Justice Moore. MR. THOMPSON: Yes. MR. BUTTS: Would it be appropriate for you to lead us in a word of prayer, sir? MR. THOMPSON: Absolutely. MR. BUTTS: Thank you, sir. HON. THOMPSON: Please bow our heads, please. I call upon the Lord to bless this Court proceeding, bless all those who are involved and keep us in your ways. Amen. Good morning. Sorry to keep you waiting. The Court of the judiciary is convened today in the matter of Roy S. Moore, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Case Number 33. Before we commence with this trial, I would like for the judges of this court to introduce themselves, starting on my far left with Judge Denson. HON. DENSON: John Denson, Opelika, Alabama. MR. JONES: Sam Jones, Mobile, Alabama. HON. NORTH: James North, Birmingham, Alabama. HON. KENDALL: Rob Kendall, Mobile, Alabama. HON. VOWELL: Scott Vowell from Birmingham. HON. DOBSON: John Dobson, Oneonta. MRS. MCINNISH: Sue McInnish, Montgomery. HON. MELTON: Billy Melton, Evergreen, Alabama. HON. THOMPSON: And I am Bill Thompson, an associate judge on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and Chief Judge of the Court of the Judiciary. I was appointed by the Supreme Court of Alabama to serve in this capacity in 2001. Now, I would like for counsel to introduce themselves starting with the Attorney General's office, which is representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission and the State of Alabama. MR. PRYOR: May it please the Court. I am William Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama. MR. GIBBS: John Gibbs, Assistant Attorney General. MS. DAVIS: Rosa Davis, Chief Assistant Attorney General. MS. ATWOOD: Melissa Atwood, Assistant Attorney General. HON. THOMPSON: And for the respondents? MR. JONES: I am Mike Jones, Your Honor, and I am from Luverne, Alabama. MR. BUTTS: Terry Butts, Your Honor, for Chief Justice Moore, Luverne, Alabama. MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson from Montgomery, Alabama, for the Chief Justice. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, gentlemen. The Court of the Judiciary is a constitutionally created court, the soul purpose of which is to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission regarding judges' violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which have been adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama. The composition of this court is constitutionally mandated. The members of this court have been duly appointed and serve without compensation. The matter presented before the Court was commenced by a filing of a complaint by the Judicial Inquiry Commission alleging that Chief Justice Moore, by willfully failing to comply with an injunction issued to them by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, violating in Canons 1, 2, 2A and 2B of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Chief Justice Moore failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and failed to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary might be preserved as required by Canon 1; that Chief Justice Moore failed to avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all his actions that is required by Canon 2; that Chief Justice Moore failed to respect and comply with the law and to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary as required by Canon 2; and that he failed to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which brings the judicial office into disrepute, as required by Canon 2. These are the issues, which are properly before this Court. The Court has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction pertaining to issues regarding the correctness of the decision of the United States District Court regarding the placement of the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of this building. Earlier this morning, the Court held a pretrial hearing with counsel and certain items were stipulated to by the parties. I want to thank counsel for both parties for their cooperation in facilitating the trial of this matter. And if I could call on the Attorney General's office to state for the record what facts and/or evidence the parties have stipulated to. MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, in addition to exhibits, the parties have agreed to a stipulation that, on November 3rd of this year, United States Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari that was filed in the Ten Commandments litigation in federal court and, in addition, the Petition for Mandamus. And the Petition for Mandamus that was also filed in the Court was denied on that same date. I believe that's accurately stated or stipulated. MR. JONES: Correct. That is correct, Your Honor. MR. GIBBS: Does Your Honor want me to go through all the -- all the -- essentially it states that the exhibits are the constituted things that were admitted in the request for admission at this time. Would it be appropriate to do that at this time, or do you want to wait until after the opening statements from the parties? HON. THOMPSON: Why don't we go ahead and do that right now. Go ahead and get it on the record. MR. GIBBS: May it please the Court. JIC Exhibit One is a District Court judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. It was entered on November 18th of 2002 in the case of Glassroth V. Moore. I think if it pleases the Court, I will refer to now on as the federal litigation. And that would be JIC Exhibit One. And I understand there is no objection to JIC Exhibit One. MR. JONES: Yes. MR. GIBBS: Mr. Harris, do you want me to just hold these instead of -- MR. HARRIS: Sure. If you would. MR. JONES: Excuse me, Your Honor. I was told we need to respond up here at the microphones so you can hear it, or whether I need to respond from back there. If it is all right, if I just stand right here so I can respond? HON. THOMPSON: That's fine. Why don't you stand right there. MR. GIBBS: I certainly have no objection. JIC Exhibit Two is District Court opinion also in connection with the judgment that was JIC Exhibit One. JIC Exhibit Two is the District Court opinion, also dated November 18th, 2002, in the federal litigation. MR. JONES: That was stipulated to, Your Honor. MR. GIBBS: Mike, I'm going to be going through a bunch of these. Do you want to just -- MR. JONES: Yeah, I am going to set -- I am coming back. MR. GIBBS: JIC Exhibit Three, Your Honor, is the December 19th, 2002, final judgment and injunction that was entered in the federal litigation. That is JIC Exhibit Three. MR. JONES: That is stipulated to. MR. GIBBS: JIC Exhibit Four is a District Court order concerning granting of stay dated December 23rd, 2002. That is also in the federal litigation. That is JIC Exhibit Four. MR. JONES: That is stipulated to, Your Honor. And I'm suggesting -- Your Honor, unless I say otherwise, I am going -- it will give you indication they are stipulated to if that's okay. HON. THOMPSON: It's understood. MR. GIBBS: And I think -- I will try and pause when I get to the ones you have objections on. The JIC Exhibit Five is the Eleventh Circuit opinion in the federal litigation dated July 1st, 2003. That is JIC Exhibit Five. JIC Exhibit Six is the Eleventh Circuit judgment in the entry of the mandate of July 30th, 2003, in the federal litigation. That is JIC Exhibit Six. JIC Exhibit Seven is a transcript of a teleconference held on the attorneys for counsel on the federal litigation. This teleconference took place on July 28, 2003. It's my understanding counsel has an objection to this. MR. JONES: Yes, sir. But it is not as to the authenticity of the document, but to the time of admission, we would have an objection. MR. GIBBS: Does, Your Honor, want me to offer it at this time or wait until afterwards? I am identifying all the exhibits. Do you want me to go ahead and offer them now or wait until later? HON. THOMPSON: Let us wait. Let us wait. MR. GIBBS: JIC Exhibit Eight is another transcript similar to this one that is dated August 4th of 2003. Again, this is in the federal litigation teleconference among the parties. It is my understanding the counsel has the same objection to JIC Exhibit Eight. MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor. MR. GIBBS: JIC Exhibit Nine is the District Court's final judgment and injunction entered on August 5th, 2003, in the federal litigation. That is JIC Exhibit Nine. JIC Exhibit Ten is a District Court's order dated August 18th, 2003, concerning the denial of a stay. That is JIC Exhibit Ten, and that is a denial of stay in the federal litigation. JIC Eleven is an Eleventh Circuit memorandum to all parties and counsel signed by the Court of the Eleventh Circuit dated August 19th, 2003, concerning the time-sensitive motion for a stay that was filed in the federal litigation in that court. That is JIC Eleven. JIC Twelve is the Eleventh Circuit's order also dated August 19th, 2003, in the federal litigation districts on the Motion to Recall the Mandate. That is JIC Exhibit Twelve. JIC Exhibit Thirteen is an order by the United States Supreme Court entitled Order of Pending Case in the federal litigation. This order is dated August 20th of 2003. That is JIC Exhibit Thirteen. JIC Exhibit Fourteen is a motion to hold Chief Justice Moore in contempt that was filed in the federal litigation. That motion was dated August 21st of 2003. JIC Exhibit Fifteen is the notice -- is a notice of filing dated August 21st, 2003. This was a notice of filing in the federal litigation in the Middle District. This notice of filing is that it is an order entered by eight associate justices in the Alabama Supreme Court concerning movement of the monument. That is JIC Exhibit Fifteen. JIC Exhibit Sixteen is a written statement released by Chief Justice Moore on August 14th, 2003. That is JIC Exhibit Sixteen. That concerns the injunction entered by the Middle District. JIC Seventeen is the videotape of a statement by Chief Justice Moore on August 14th of 2003. JIC would offer this at the appropriate time as limited for that portion of the tapes which concerns actual words spoken by Chief Justice Moore. My understanding counsel has an objection to that exhibit. MR. JONES: Correct. That is correct. We will raise our exhibit at the time it is offered -- raise our objection at the time it is offered. MR. GIBBS: That was JIC Exhibit Seventeen. JIC Exhibit Eighteen is a written statement of Chief Justice Roy Moore, a typed statement. This is dated August 21st, 2003, and it concerns the order of removal and the actions of the Associate Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court. That is JIC Exhibit Eighteen. JIC Exhibit Nineteen is a videotape, which contains the statement of Chief Justice Moore on August 21st of 2003, and it is my understanding counsel has the same objection to JIC Exhibit Nineteen as I did to seventeen. MR. JONES: That is correct. MR. GIBBS: And JIC Twenty is a transcript of Chief Justice Moore's appearance before the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission on August 22nd of 2003, and that would be the last exhibit that the JIC would offer. So, everything I think has been agreed to except two teleconferences and two videotapes. HON. THOMPSON: Okay. MR. JONES: That's correct. MR. GIBBS: Do you want to go -- HON. THOMPSON: Yes. Yes. If you will, inform the Clerk as to the exhibits that have been stipulated to you by the State. MR. JONES: Your Honors, Moore's Exhibit One would be a Defendant's response to court -- court inquiry dated August the 4th, 2003, in the federal litigation. MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, if I could do the same thing that Mr. Jones did, which is if we have some problem with the offering of some of the exhibits. MR. JONES: Moore's Two will be the oath of office of Chief Justice Roy Moore to the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore's Three will be the Preamble to the Constitution of Alabama. Moore's Four will be a copy of Code -- Alabama Code 1975, Section 12-2-30. Moore's Five will be a copy of the pamphlet, "Our Legal Heritage," published by the Administrative Office of Courts. Moore's Six will be a copy of Chief Justice Moore on the date of the unveiling of the Ten Commandments monument. HON. THOMPSON: Would that be a statement? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. It is just a written statement. HON. THOMPSON: Written? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. Moore's Seven will be a copy of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and related agency, the Appropriations Act of 2004. Moore's Eight will be a copy of campaign literature of Chief Justice Moore at the time he ran for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And I believe, Your Honor, that is all that we had stipulated to. MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Counsel. That's your stipulations -- that should certainly facilitate the trying of this case. Are there any other matters that need to be brought to the attention of the Court at this time? MR. JONES: Your Honor, am I to assume that we can -- the ones that we have stipulated to and there are no objections to that we can go ahead and offer at this time and they would be admitted into evidence? HON. THOMPSON: Yes. (At which time, Moore's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 were admitted into evidence.) HON. THOMPSON: All right. If there is nothing else to be brought to the attention of the Court at this time, the State may begin with its opening argument. MR. PRYOR: May it please the Court. The presentation of the complaint of the Judicial Inquiry Commission against Chief Justice Roy S. Moore will be brief because the material facts of the -- supporting the complaint are in dispute. In 2001, three attorneys filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against Chief Justice Roy S. Moore. The Plaintiffs requested that the Federal District Court enjoin the Chief Justice to remove from the rotunda of the State Judicial Building a monument with a depiction of the Ten Commandments. The Plaintiffs alleged that by placing and maintaining the monument in the rotunda, Chief Justice Moore violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Chief Justice Moore appeared, through his attorneys, before the Federal District Court and contested the Plaintiff's complaint. On November 18th, 2002, the Federal District Court entered an injunction against Chief Justice Moore to remove the monument from the public areas of the State Judicial Building. Chief Justice Moore appealed this decision to the U. S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit, and he obtained from the District Court a stay of its ruling pending the appeal. On July 1st, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court entered an opinion affirming the decision of the District Court. Chief Justice Moore did not request a stay of the mandate of the Appeals Court. And on August 1st, the District Court received the mandate. On August 5th, the District Court enjoined Chief Justice Moore to remove the monument from the rotunda by no later than August 20th, 2003. On August 14th, Chief Justice Moore announced at a press conference that he had, quote, "No intention of removing the monument." Chief Justice Moore did not cause the monument to be removed from the rotunda, even though no federal court entered a stay of the injunction. On August 21st, the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama counter-manned the Chief Justice and ordered the manager of the State Judicial Building to bring the State into compliance with the injunction as soon as practicable. On August 22nd, 2003, Chief Justice Moore appeared before the Judicial Inquiry Commission and testified about his decision not to remove the monument from the rotunda. He testified that he would do it again. These are the facts and they are undisputed. Based on these undisputed facts, the Judicial Inquiry Commission charges that Chief Justice Moore violated Canon 1 by failing to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and by failing to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved; Canon 2, by failing to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2A, by failing to respect and comply with the law and by failing to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and, finally, Canon 2B, failing to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. At the end of this proceeding, the Judicial Inquiry Commission expects to ask the Court to find Chief Justice Moore guilty of all six charges brought against him. The Commission also expects to request the removal of Roy S. Moore from the office of Chief Justice of Alabama based on his flagrant and totally unrepentant behavior. Thank you. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Attorney General. The Respondents? MR. WILSON: May it please this Honorable Court, Attorney General, staff counsel, counsel. I am Jim Wilson for the Chief Justice. We failed, Your Honor, as to introduce the Defendant in this case, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, but I think everyone knows him. But I wanted to introduce him for the record. We come today before you on a very serious and important day in history, a very important day to Roy S. Moore and a very important day to the State of Alabama. We have come to present the defense of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore to six charges filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission. All of those charges stem from the fact pattern that in reality began in 1997 when then Circuit Judge Roy Moore was sitting in Gadsden, in Etowah County, and had placed a carved version of the Ten Commandments on the wall behind his chair and desk. As you know, he was elected Chief Justice of Alabama in the year 2000, campaigning as the Ten Commandments judge and overwhelming elected by the popular vote of this state. So, no one, unless they were in a coma, could have been surprised when he introduced into the lobby of this building a monument that depicted those same Ten Commandments, plus a number of historic sayings referencing God from our American judicial history. Chief Justice Moore did this to acknowledge God as the source of the moral foundation of our law in the State of Alabama. Chief Justice Moore did this under his authority, as the Chief Administrative Officer of Alabama's justice system and in accordance with the language of the Alabama State Constitution which invokes, quote, "the favor of Almighty God," and in conjunction with his oath of office as Chief Justice, which officially ends with the words, "So help me God." Now, we are going to respectfully disagree with some of the facts that the Attorney General's Office has presented, although as to the actual chronology, we agree with that. So, I am not going to go through all those facts. But you know a lawsuit was filed in the Federal Court in the Middle District of Alabama against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity, and it was also filed against Mr. Rich Hobson, who is the Director of Administrative Office of the Courts. Now, somewhere along the line, Mr. Hobson was dismissed from the case. The Plaintiffs in that case, however, never sued or attempted to sue or join the building manager, who is really the custodian of the monument, and that would be Mr. Graham George. Federal Judge Myron Thompson, the District Judge, found against Chief Justice Moore's position, and Chief Justice Moore filed his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Judge Thompson had entered a stay and that stay remained in effect until after the Eleventh Circuit heard the case, affirmed the District Court, and then sent the mandate back down to Montgomery to the District Court. Circuit Judge Carnes, who wrote the opinion from the Eleventh Circuit, ended his written opinion -- and I believe this is coming into evidence later -- with the following language, quote, "The rule of law does require that every person obey orders when all means of appealing them have been exhausted. The Chief Justice of our State Supreme Court, of all people, should be expected to abide by that premise. We do expect that if he is unable to have the District Court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes, when the time comes, Chief Justice Moore will obey this order -- or that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced and the rule of law will prevail." Now, Justice Moore's attorneys on that case did not ask for another stay because one was in effect and they were taking a legal position that the Federal District Court did not have jurisdiction under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to order an elected state official, such as Chief Justice Moore, to violate his oath of office. Once the mandate came down, Judge Thompson withdrew the stay and entered his injunctive order. Justice Moore's attorneys then requested a recall of the mandate, but as you know, the burden is high once the mandate comes down and the Eleventh Circuit refused or declined. The attorneys then went to the Supreme Court and they asked for the stay but it was refused. At the same time, or soon thereafter, they filed a Writ of Mandamus and prohibition of the Supreme Court, and as you know later they also filed for a Writ of Certiorari. As you know, the deadline came and Justice Moore declined to violate his oath and did not remove the monument personally. Even before the deadline had passed, however, one of the attorney plaintiffs in the original federal lawsuit filed charges with the Judicial Inquiry Commission because of Justice Moore's, quote, "alleged intentions not to move the monument." Later those charges were amended and the Judicial Inquiry Commission formally charged him, as the Attorney General referred, to six charges for violations of Canons 1 and 2, respectively. Those charges all stem from the same one act, or alleged did not act, and/or at best, multiplicious. We expect the evidence to show that Chief Justice Moore did not violate any of Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics. To the contrary, Justice Moore had every legal right to decline to follow what he honestly believed to be an illegal order to him as an elected State official from a federal judge in violation of the Tenth and the Eleventh Amendments of the U. S. Constitution. And I will take this opportunity to quote Amendment Ten: "The powers not delegated in the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the states respectively or to the people." And I quote, ladies and gentlemen, from an edition of the Constitution that was printed in 1853. That year Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War of the federal government and that constitutional provision has not changed to this day. And Roy S. Moore stood on that provision. As contemplated the Court of Appeals, at that point in time, as pointed out by Justice Carnes, or Judge Carnes, Roy Moore had not completed his appellate rights. In fact, that did not happen until one week ago on Monday, which I believe was the third of October, when the Supreme Court of the United States denied the mandamus petitions and the writ of certiorari. We ask you to look at charges one through six, and I know you will. They allege that he willfully failed to comply with an existing and binding court order. Yet he was never charged with contempt for the Federal District Court process or Judge Thompson. He was never given the due process which would have include trial, an opportunity for appeal to the appellate processes for his failure to have done what he was ordered to do. And all this time, until last Monday, he was pursuing his lawful appellate right through the federal system. We respectfully submit, ladies and gentlemen of the Court, that his declamation to violate his oath and to remove the monument was not in any way a violation of Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics. Chief Justice Moore had taken a binding oath under the Alabama Constitution which required him to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our justice system. This he did and continues to do so today. At the conclusion of all the evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen, we expect to present strong evidence of no ethical violation on behalf of Chief Justice Roy Moore. And we will respectfully ask you to find him not guilty and to return him to his lawful duty as Chief Justice. I thank you for your time and consideration. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. At this time, the state may proceed. First witness. MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, as discussed in pretrial, the State does not have any live testimony to present in this case. I do need to formally offer -- I am going to offer the exhibits to which there is no disagreement first. JIC offers for admission into evidence, JIC Exhibits One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Eighteen and Twenty. In addition, Your Honor, Judge Thompson, I neglected when we were talking about things that were not -- that have been agreed to. There were some admissions that did not refer to the authenticity or admissibility of documents. There were answers to request for admission. Out of abundance of caution, if I could, state those that do not concern themselves with exhibits for the record. The first is the answer to request for admission one, and that was on January 15th, 2001. Roy S. Moore became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama and has continued in that position until the present. And that was paragraph one of the request for admission that was admitted. Paragraph two was admitted and did not -- admitted part and denied in part of the request for admission as Chief Justice Moore served continuously as the administrative head of the Judicial System of the State of Alabama from January 15th, 2001, through August 21st, 2003. The response for that request for admission as a Chief Justice has been disqualified from serving as a judge; therefore, he is still the administrative head of the judicial system. Next is in paragraph eight of the request for admission was before the mandate was issued in Glassroth V Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, (11th Circuit, 2003), Chief Justice Moore did not ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for a rehearing, nor did he request the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Order of Appellate Procedure to state the issuance of its mandate to the District Court pending the filing of the petition to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari and that was admitted. Paragraph fifteen was -- on Monday, August 18th, 2003, Chief Justice Moore filed a Motion to Recall the Mandate and a Motion for Stay in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The answer to that was admitted in part. The answer was: On August 18th, 2003, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore filed a time sensitive motion for stay. This request is admitted to that extent. And paragraph twenty of the request for admission, at 12:01 a.m., on August 21st, 2003, the monument remained in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building at 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama, in violation of the order that the District Court issued to Chief Justice Moore on August 5, 2003, in Glassroth V. Moore, Civil Action Number 01-T-1268-N. As to the opening of the business day on August 21, 2003, the monument remained in the same position in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. That was admitted in part and the answer was: So much of this request is admitted as states that the Ten Commandments monument remain in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building through the opening of the business day of August 21st of 2003. And, Your Honor, I believe it is my understanding we have offered in the -- the exhibits that I referred to have been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. At this time, the State would offer JIC Exhibit Seven, which is the transcript of the telephone conference among the lawyers in the federal litigation. That transcript was dated July 27th -- teleconference took place on July 28th of 2003, and we have JIC Exhibit Number Seven, which is a certified copy of the transcript from the District Court, Middle District of Alabama. JIC would offer JIC Exhibit Seven for admission into evidence at this time. HON. THOMPSON: Yes. HON. JONES: Your Honor, we would object to the offering of the transcript in the sense that they are using a transcript of a telephone conversation between a judge and attorneys for both sides in the federal litigation. In this proceeding, that has to do with whether Justice Moore has violated the Judicial Canons of Ethics, and we think it is irrelevant what the telephone conversation may have taken place in that litigation as to whether he violated a Judicial Canon of Ethics. Whatever he did by his filings is obvious, and there are records down there. What those attorneys did and why they did them are legal decisions that lawyers have to make all the time. The difference in this case is they had to make it on the run as they are talking with a federal judge on the telephone. And to take that spontaneous declaration that they may have had on the phone and try to use it in this litigation, in this case, we think is irrelevant and shouldn't be admitted. And for the purpose of speeding things up, Your Honor, they have another transcript of another conversation later and the objection would be the same to it. HON. THOMPSON: Now -- MR. GIBBS: If I may respond? HON. THOMPSON: Sure. MR. GIBBS: I am sorry to interrupt, Your Honor. Just to make it clear, the relevancy of this is -- the thing that's being discussed in this transcript is whether or not the parties -- the -- Chief Justice Moore was going to request a stay of the Eleventh Circuit's decision in this case. We have just heard Mr. Wilson in his opening statement refer to their contention that the appeal had not run its course, and yet this is -- in this particular telephone conference the discussion concerns whether or not a stay was going to be sought. And the relevance is that it is in conference, and the attorneys for Chief Justice Moore state that they are aware of the rule. Judge Thompson discusses it I think twice. And while they are aware of the rule, they did not file anything timely the petition under Rule 41, the rules of -- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. And, so, the relevance is, it goes directly to the issue of whether they timely sought a stay of the order that we have said -- that we have alleged in our complaint that he willfully disobeyed. And that would also be the same for JIC Exhibit Eight, the other transcript. HON. JONES: Two things, Your Honor, number one is, in those admissions that he had read previously, the fact that a Rule 41 stay was not sought, it was admitted. We admitted that. That is an admitted fact. So, there is no need for this document -- I mean, it doesn't show anything more than what the admission has already done. Number two is, is that, you know, the person that is charged in this litigation is Justice Moore. Why or why not attorneys may or may not have made a decision about a stay is not relevant to whether he violated the Judicial Canons or not. Whatever they may have said at that time, they may have done that for a legitimate legal interest of their client at the time in that litigation. And to take a perfectly legitimate legal decision that an attorney has to make and then use it against the client in a judicial ethics case, we would say is improper and irrelevant. HON. THOMPSON: Any questions of the Court? HON. VOWELL: One question by -- I think the record should reflect, you say a mere telephone conversation. This was a formal conference in the U. S. District Court, was it not? HON. JONES: Your Honor, I have had the opportunity to practice down there, and I don't know if I would call -- it was a conference. It was set up by the federal judge. So, I am not going to say it was a formal conference in the sense -- in fact, some of that is even discussed in some of these telephone conversations, but it was a telephone conference that was initiated by Judge Thompson, both of these were. And there is a transcript of what was said during the telephone conversation, yes, sir. HON. VOWELL: So, there is no dispute about its authenticity and the transcript accurately reflects what was said? HON. JONES: That is correct, Your Honor. MR. GIBBS: If I could, Your Honor, the State's JIC Exhibit Seven is a certified copy from the Federal District Court of the Middle District of Alabama. This is from the Court file. HON. THOMPSON: And I suppose eight is also? MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir, it is. HON. THOMPSON: This is a matter we discussed at pretrial conference. The objections are overruled. The Court will weigh the evidence accordingly. HON. DENSON: May I ask a question if I may. Does that transcript reflect that the attorneys for Judge Roy Moore are going to confer with him, and does the second transcript that you are going to offer show that they have then discussed with him as to what they are going to do about the stay? MR. GIBBS: Judge Denson, I think that in JIC Exhibit Eight, we will check and see if there's a discussion talking to the -- to the client in JIC Eight. I don't think it occurs in JIC Seven, which is the earlier conversation. HON. DENSON: All right. HON. JONES: If I could respond to that. The first telephone conversation took place because Judge Thompson was afraid that he was fixing to go out of town and that the mandate may come down from the Eleventh Circuit while he was gone. And so they had a telephone conversation. Then later when the mandate actually came down, they had a subsequent telephone conversation, and he did have a conversation with the attorneys at that time as to whether they wanted to file anything. And one of our exhibits was what -- was, in fact, filed as a result of that. It's not in the exhibits that the Attorney General had offered; but in that telephone conversation, they said, you know, we've got until five o'clock today to file. And they had to file something and we made that one of our exhibits. HON. DENSON: The two exhibits together reflect that the federal judge informed Judge Moore's attorneys that, if you want a stay, you have to do that through Rule 41; and then the second conversation indicates that they have until five to file it. HON. JONES: No, sir. That is not correct. He questioned them about the availability of Rule 41. And they informed him, I believe, that they don't know what they are going to do. They just got the mandate. They have to consult with their client, and this apparently was a telephone conversation conference that was set up pretty quickly because they said we haven't had even a chance to talk with our client, so we don't know what we are going to do. And, he said -- basically said, well, you have got until five o'clock this afternoon to file something as to why I shouldn't lift the stay. He didn't say anything about in reference to Rule 41. MR. GIBBS: Judge Denson, I believe that's correct. The discussion on the fourth was about what response they wanted to make to the District Court, not under Rule 41 of the Eleventh Circuit. And then they made -- they made a response to which they asserted that the District Court would not have jurisdiction. HON. DENSON: Which is the grounds they raised in the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit? MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. And again in the United States District Court. HON. THOMPSON: Again, this Court is capable of giving the appropriate weight to this evidence, and those objections are overruled. MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, the next exhibit to which there was not an agreement was JIC Exhibit 17, which is the videotape of Chief Justice Moore's statement of August 14th, 2003, and we would only offer that portion of the videotape that is the actual words spoken by Chief Justice Moore as we discussed at pretrial conference. It is taped off the air. There are some other matters before and I believe some matters after, but we only offer that portion of the tape, which is Chief Justice Moore speaking. HON. JONES: Again, Your Honor, as we previously discussed back there, two of the exhibits that they have already offered and admitted are the written statements that Justice Moore gave out on those two occasions, typed statements of what his statement was going to be; they were handed out ahead of time. So, essentially they have got what was said in a written document that's already been admitted. Secondly, this is basically a tape off of the television, and there are all sorts of things on there. There are the newscasters, their comments about what's going on. There's even some things that were put up on the screen about what's going on. And our objection would be, number one, they don't need it. They have got the written statement. Number two, it's objectionable because it contains, you know, hearsay and other things that clearly are not admissible in this court. And as we discussed earlier, I don't think you can take those things out because some of them were placed up on the screen while the speech is going on. So, I don't know how you could do that. So, and that could be the same for both videotapes, Your Honor. That would be the same argument and objection to the use of both of them. MR. GIBBS: The other videotape will be JIC Exhibit Nineteen. I would agree with Mr. Jones, that they are taped off the air. So, it is not -- it has -- it has a lead-in and events following that they covered, but they also are captions that appear. But we would ask the Court not to consider anything except the words that come out of Chief Justice Moore's mouth on this video. HON. JONES: And again, Your Honor, you know, it would have been real easy to ask the TV station or whoever to give us just that and nothing but that, but, you know, to submit them in their present form, we think there are objections. MR. GIBBS: Well, the only thing I can say, it is not as easy as counsel thinks to get those copies. This was the best we could do. HON. JONES: We will get Kim. HON. THOMPSON: This is another matter we discussed at the pretrial hearing. It is my understanding the taped statement varies somewhat, maybe not of any significant -- HON. JONES: Minimal amount of variation. Minimal. HON. THOMPSON: But the members of the Court discussed this, and we agree that we will admit the tapes only for the purposes of the statement and ignore all other information that might be on the tape. We will only watch this tape itself. HON. JONES: As I understand -- be sure I understand the Court's ruling, then, any other parts of the tape won't be an official part of this record -- HON. THOMPSON: That's correct. HON. JONES: -- is that correct? HON. THOMPSON: That's correct. MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, except for playing the videotapes, that's the evidence JIC has in support of this charge. HON. THOMPSON: Okay. MR. GIBBS: With the Court's permission, can we play the videotape? HON. THOMPSON: Oh, yes, absolutely. MR. BUTTS: Your Honor, may we be allowed to move around so we can see the show? HON. THOMPSON: Sure. (At which time, the JIC Exhibit 17 videotape was played.) "CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for your attendance here today. I appreciate you coming. I asked you to come here today so that I can respond publicly to that order of Judge Myron Thompson, which ordered me, as Chief Justice of the State of Alabama and the State of Alabama, to remove the monument of the Ten Commandments sitting in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. However, before I give my response, I think it is very important to understand what this issue is about. First, what it is not about is the Ten Commandments. I have in my hand the order of Judge Thompson and would like to quote to you what Judge Thompson said about the Ten Commandments. He said, 'But in announcing this holding today, the Court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the Court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings, nor does the Court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important sources from American law.' Judge Thompson specifically outlined the issue in closing arguments in the trial when he said, 'Can the State acknowledge God?' He then found that by my actions I acknowledged the God of the Holy Scriptures as the foundation of our law and the source of the Ten Commandments that it was unconstitutional. The Court simply said that to recognize God, who God is, is unconstitutional. But herein lies the problem. You see, the entire judicial system of the State of Alabama is established in the Alabama Constitution invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from interfering with that power to establish the justice system. They have no power, no authority, no jurisdiction to tell the State of Alabama that we cannot acknowledge God as a source of our law. Indeed, in an unprecedented exercise of power, Judge Thompson joined fourteen other state officials in this controversy by serving them with a notice of this injunction. He enjoined the Governor, the Attorney General, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Administrative Director of Courts, eight associate justices and the Clerk of the Alabama Supreme Court. And then in an effort to frustrate and intimidate these State officials, Judge Thompson has threatened enormous fines and penalties for failure to obey his unlawful dictates. But this is not the first time that Judge Thompson has demonstrated such a callous disregard for the people of Alabama and the public treasury of this state. Only last month, July 22nd of 2003, in Reynolds versus McInnes, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated another order of Judge Thompson in a case which has continued for 18 years and has cost this State over one hundred and twenty-five ($125) million dollars and is still costing this State seven hundred and fifty thousand ($750,000) dollars each month. I have the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in my hand. Let me read to you what the Eleventh Circuit said about Judge Thompson's actions in this case. They said, 'This unwielding litigation has been afflicting the judicial system and draining huge amounts of public funds of the State of Alabama for much too long. The amounts are staggering. Fifty million dollars in public funds have been spent on attorneys' fees alone in this case. An additional sixty-two point five ($62.5) million dollars has been paid out in consultant and experts costs. If contempt fines are added to the total, the case has cost the taxpayers of the State of Alabama one hundred and twenty-five ($125) million dollars thus far and the tab is increasing at the rate of seven hundred and fifty thousand ($750,000) dollars per month. A simple mathematic calculation will show you that we are paying twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars a day in this case.' Now, once again, Judge Thompson seeks to force his will on the people of this state afflicting the judicial system and threatening to drain huge amounts of public funds from the State of Alabama. But this time -- this time the object is to take away our right as a state to acknowledge God. Our state motto is, 'We dare to defend our rights.' We should never allow the threat of financial penalty to deter us from the defense of an unalienable right. Alabama will never give up its right to acknowledge God. The acknowledgment of Almighty God is the basis for our justice system. It is the source of our law. It is the foundation of our country. The Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4th, 1776, clearly stated that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' That organic law, according to the United States Code annotated, recognizes the Supreme Judge of the world immediately after we were first called the United States of America. You see, separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government; it was never meant to separate God from our law. Even the First Amendment, whose very purpose is to allow us the freedom to worship Almighty God, but today that freedom is being taken from us by federal courts who misuse the First Amendment as a sword to take away our rights instead of a shield to preserve them for us. As Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, it is my duty to administer the justice system of this state, not to destroy it. I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law. To do so would in effect be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state. This I cannot and will not do. But in a larger sense, ladies and gentlemen, the question is not whether I will remove the monument, it is not a question of whether I will disobey or obey a court order. The real question is whether or not I will deny the God who created us and endowed us with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tomorrow, August 15th, I am filing with the United States Supreme Court a writ of prohibition and mandamus directing Judge Thompson to stop this wrongful interference with State government. I will, in the very near future, file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to preserve our inalienable rights as a State and as a nation to acknowledge God. Not only will Judge Thompson be served with this petition of writ of prohibition, but also all state officials who have been served with the notice of his injunction will be served as well. I intend to uphold my oath to the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the State of Alabama. It yet remains to be seen what other state officials will do who have been served in the face of this abusive power, for each of them has also taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I have maintained the 'rule of law.' I have been true to the oath of my office. I can do no more and I will do no less. So help me God." (Conclusion of videotape.) MR. GIBBS: Your Honor, at this time, we would play State's Exhibit Nineteen, which is the August 21st, 2003, statement of Chief Justice Moore. (At which time, the JIC Exhibit 19 videotape was played.) "CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Let me begin by stating that I was very disappointed with my colleagues on the Court, who have decided to act in response to Judge Myron Thompson's order, to exercise authority under Section 12-5-20 of the Code of Alabama, to remove the monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. But let me assure you, the fight to defend our Constitutional rights to acknowledge God must and will continue. Very soon -- very soon we will file a petition for writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court to resolve clearly our unalienable rights to acknowledge God under the First Amendment. The people of this state elected me as Chief Justice to uphold our Constitution, which establishes our justice system on the 'invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.' To do my duty, I must acknowledge God. That is what this case is about. Judge Myron Thompson said clearly, in closing argument, 'Can the State acknowledge God?' He said that the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible, and that the acknowledgment of God violates the Constitution of the United States. Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well. I have been ordered to do something I cannot do, and that is, violate my conscience. I hear others talk of a 'rule of law.' If the 'rule of law' means to do everything a judge tells you to do, we would still have slavery in this country. If the 'rule of law' means to do everything a judge tells you to do, the Declaration of Independence would be a meaningless document. This so-called 'rule of law' causes those who strongly oppose Roe versus Wade because it is the taking of human life and the slaughter of millions of innocent babies, to condemn those innocent babies to death because they do not understand that the true organic law, the Declaration of Independence, states, 'We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The 'rule of law' in 1858 declared that slaves were property simply because a judge said so. Doctor Martin Luther King is proof enough that great men do follow the rule of law and not the rule of man. I say enough is enough. We must 'dare to defend our rights,' which is the motto of this great state. No judge or man can dictate in whom we can believe and in whom we trust. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not a part of the Constitution merely to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our rights as a people, and the Tenth Amendment guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. I was dismayed and angry to learn that while I was away someone had placed a shroud around the Ten Commandments. Before the Federal District Court here in Montgomery sits a bust of the statue of the Greek Goddess Themis. You won't find federal authorities scurrying around to conceal that bust behind a screen. And neither will we hide the truth any longer. I will not violate my oath. I cannot forsake my conscience. I will not neglect my duty. And I will never, never deny the God upon whom our laws and our country depend." (Conclusion of videotape.) MR. PRYOR: Chief Judge, the Commission rests. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you. Before we begin with the Respondent's case, let us take about a fifteen-minute break. HON. JONES: Just procedurally speaking, Your Honor, I have got a motion that I would like to file that may be more appropriate to do now than after the break, if that is all right with the Court. I will do whatever the Court would rather me do. HON. THOMPSON: You may proceed. HON. JONES: Okay. Your Honor, we would file -- and I would assume I would file it with the Secretary of the Court -- a motion for acquittal based on the failure of the Judicial Inquiry Commission to meet their burden by clearing, convincing evidence that Justice Moore -- Chief Justice Moore has violated the Judicial Canon of Ethics. And this motion is directed to each one of the six charges on that basis. And we would file that with the Court and we have copies for the justices as well. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you. If there is nothing further -- MR. BUTTS: Judge, there is one further thing, and I think this Court knows that I have a pretty aggressive personality, but I will do this civilly. But I know that we are about to take a fifteen-minute break and we appreciate that. We need the break before we proceed with our case in chief, depending on what the ruling is on this Court on the motion that Mr. Jones just made. But we would like to note a very strong objection into the record -- that we didn't take this up with you outside at the pretrial conference, because, frankly, we were not aware of it until we entered the courtroom after that pretrial conference. We object to -- I assume that this chair on my right is where the witness would sit. Now, we -- we -- In all candor, we are not trying to be obstructionists, but we believe that the Constitution requires that the Defendant has the right to face his accusers. And we think his accusers here -- we hope it is not this Court, we know it is not this Court, but we do know that it is the Judicial Inquiry Commission, right here. And we would prefer, as in most courtrooms, that he take the witness stand, which would be normal under all other circumstances and we simply object to this. It has his back to his accusers, and instead he is looking at the Court. And I -- Frankly, I have never seen it done that way in any other court, and we would prefer that we be allowed to put our witnesses on the witness stand in normal courtroom fashion. HON. THOMPSON: Well, I think that we did this to accommodate the microphones that we have in the -- in the courtroom. If it is necessary, we can probably move the table around a little bit. Otherwise, I do not believe that the people down in the overflow room will be able to hear the testimony of the witnesses. And we have had some audio-visual experts in here working on this, and certainly wouldn't want to have anybody's testimony go out of here and not be witnessed by the folks that took their time to be here. MR. BUTTS: Absolutely -- absolutely, Your Honor. But can we ask that whoever these audio experts are to come forward to see if they can't do it so we could put our witnesses on a regular witness stand? HON. THOMPSON: I don't know that anyone is present. These were -- these were not employees of the Court. MR. BUTTS: I believe that based on my past experience with the court, we got the technicians here in the court system itself that can do that. I guess I'm asking -- HON. THOMPSON: If you want to move the table around, I don't have any problem with that. But we are obviously having a problem with the microphone at the podium, and so there had to be -- that microphone there is having to do double duty with the witness and with the lawyers. So, if you want to move the table around a little bit, that is perfectly fine with the Court. MR. BUTTS: I think he is asking if it can be turned around. HON. JONES: And I would just like it turned this way so I could face the witness while we are going into examination. And we will -- if it's all right with the Court, we will get that worked out during the fifteen-minute recess. HON. THOMPSON: That's fine. MR. BUTTS: Does the Clerk have a microphone where he is sitting? MR. JONES: Thank you, Judge. HON. THOMPSON: We will move the table around, and you can move the podium to be however you would like it to be. HON. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BUTTS: Thanks, Judge. HON. THOMPSON: At this time, we stand in recess until eleven o'clock. (At which time, a recess was taken at 10:39 a.m. and reconvened at 11:02 a.m.). HON. THOMPSON: This Court is now in session. MR. BUTTS: Your Honor, again, we wish this Court would help us and allow the Chief Justice to take the witness stand here in the proper manner. We strongly object to him having his back to the audience, his back to his accusers. I understand that the Court may want to see his demeanor. But I don't understand why the Court can't see his demeanor from the witness chair. I mean, we really, really strongly object. I don't know how strenuously to tell you that. But we think it is very important that he take the witness stand there and that there be accommodations made to do that. HON. THOMPSON: That -- that objection is noted and overruled. The motion for acquittal filed by Chief Justice Moore is unanimously denied and the Respondent may proceed with testimony. MR. BUTTS: All right, sir. Let me make sure I understand this, and I would ask the Court for information. I would like to state for the record that what we are objecting to, so that it is clear on the record, is that the witness chair and the witness table are sitting in the middle of the floor, not in the proper courtroom setting for most courtrooms or any that I am familiar with. I would like for the record to reflect that if this witness takes the stand, Chief Justice Moore, that he will be sitting where he cannot confront his accusers, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, and instead will be sitting in the middle of the courtroom floor, more or less facing the panel as if it is an inquisition. And I wish to make that objection and let the record show that the physical setting is in violation of his due process rights and his -- it is in violation of due process, and it is in violation of his Constitutional Rights, and we strongly object and put that on the record. HON. THOMPSON: Objection is noted. Please proceed with calling the first witness. HON. JONES: Your Honor, we would call Chief Justice Roy Moore. HON. THOMPSON: Chief Justice Moore. Mr. Harris, would you swear the witness. MR. HARRIS: Chief Justice, if you will raise your right hand, please, sir. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this cause will be the truth so help you God. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: I do. HON. JONES: Your Honor, just as a procedural matter, I want to go ahead -- it has already been admitted, I think, Moore's Exhibit One, which is the filing that we referenced on August the 4th. And I just wanted -- I don't think I have submitted it yet, and I want to go ahead and submit it. I have one for the Clerk and then I have one for each of the judges in this folder, if it is all right to publish it. HON. THOMPSON: Please proceed. HON. JONES: And I believe, Your Honor, just to be sure so that I don't forget it at the end of the testimony, I have offered, I think, the majority of the other exhibits, and I want to be sure that they are already admitted. There are a couple that I haven't talked about. I believe I went through -- I can ask the Court Reporter to be sure. I think I went through Exhibit Seven. And I will admit a couple of others, but thank you. HON. THOMPSON: It is admitted. * * * CHIEF JUSTICE ROY S. MOORE, of lawful age, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY HON. JONES: Q: This is Chief Justice Roy S. Moore; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Justice Moore, how old are you? A: Fifty-six. Q: I knew that -- I knew that would loosen you up. You are married? A: Yes. Q: And I believe your wife is right there? A: I have my wife and my daughter here. Q: Thank you. Justice Moore, let me ask you this: Where were you born? A: Gadsden, Alabama. Q: And your family, I assume, lived there while you were young? A: My family still lives there, in and around Gadsden. Q: Have any brothers and sisters? A: I have two brothers and two sisters. Two of my brothers and one of my sisters are here. Q: You the -- Where do you fit in the clan? A: I am the oldest. Q: Oldest of five children? A: Five children. Q: Your father, what did he do? A: He was a construction worker when he died in '68. He was a -- worked a jackhammer. Q: Okay. And your mother? A: My mother has always been a housewife, except for a short time she worked. Q: Did you live in a city setting, rural setting? Where did you grow up? A: Well, mostly rural. Q: Okay. Describe the residences, in general, that you grew up in. A: Well, we moved around a lot. It's -- to describe one residence would be inappropriate. Some had bathrooms, some didn't. Some had inside water, some didn't. We just moved around quite a bit. Most -- all rental houses. Q: Did you go to school there -- in the schools there in Gadsden? A: I went to Etowah High School. I graduated in l965. Q: Did you work when you were growing up? A: I worked at a Piggly Wiggly, carry out groceries. Q: Okay. And what was your wage there? A: Eighty-five cents an hour. Q: Was there any particular reason that you worked? A: Well, when there's no income, you worked for money for the family and basically for school things and ... Q: And you think, you just said, you testified that you graduated in l965 -- A: Right. Q: -- high school. What did you do after -- upon graduation? A: Upon graduation, I went to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. HON. DENSON: I am having trouble hearing. HON. KENDALL: I can't hear either. Ask the witness please to talk into the microphone and that may help. HON. JONES: I understand. I just want to be sure you can hear me. You just cannot hear Justice Moore. Would you just do a test, real quick, Justice. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Testing, one, two. MR. JONES: Pull it a little closer. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Testing one, two. MR. JONES: Turn it toward you. There you go. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Testing one, two. MR. JONES: Is that better? CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Can you hear me? HON. DENSON: That's better. BY MR. JONES: Q: So you, upon graduation, went to West Point -- A: Yes. Q: -- is that correct? How were you able to physically get to West Point? A: At that time, we took a plane. I had plane fare, and my father borrowed three hundred ($300) dollars to get me up there. Q: Okay. And that was basically for your transportation to get to West Point? A: Right. Q: When you were at West Point, did you work while you were there? Were you paid anything while you were there? A: At the United States Military Academy, cadets were paid a small fee to get them -- they had academy clothing and meals and they had probably enough to get home and back once or twice a year. Q: Okay. And did you do anything with your money other than your expenses there at West Point? A: Yes. Everything I had was sent home if I didn't spend it there myself. Q: And you graduated from West Point when? A: 1969. Q: During your time there at West Point, did the cadets there take an oath of any kind? A: Yes. Take an oath, the same oath that is taken by military officers to defend and -- support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I've taken similar oaths all through my career. And when you become a judge or lawyer, you take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama or whatever state you live in. And then you took an oath as deputy district attorney. I have taken a lot of oaths. Q: Do they have a place there at West Point where the oath is displayed or -- A: They have a place called "Constitution Corner," which sits right outside of the Cadet Mess. There is a replica of what the Constitution means and the oath to it. Q: Have you been back there recently? A: About three or four years ago, yes. MR. JONES: Okay. May it please the Court, approach the witness with exhibits? HON. THOMPSON: Yes, you may. BY MR. JONES: Q: Chief Justice Moore, I want to show you what I believe is marked Moore's Exhibit Nine and ask if you can tell me what that is. A: Well, this was a picture taken by my security man that went with me on a visit one time. And it's loyalty to the Constitution. Q: Is that taken at the Constitution Corner? Is that -- A: Yes. Q: And does that plaque denote or set out in some ways the oath that you had referred to that the cadets took? A: It talks about your loyalty to the oath. If I may read it. It's short. It says, "The United States boldly broke with the ancient military custom swearing loyalty to a leader. Article VI required that American officers thereafter swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution. While many other nations have suffered military coups, the United States never has. Our American Code of Military Obedience requires that. Should orders of the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. Many other nations have adopted our principle of loyalty to the basic law. This Nation must have military leaders with principles of integrity so strong that their oaths to support and defend the Constitution will unfailingly govern their actions. The purpose of the United States Military Academy is to provide such leaders of character." Q: And does that exhibit correctly and accurately depict the plaque in the things that were there that day, the day it was taken? A: Yes, it does. MR. JONES: Your Honor, we would like to admit Moore's Exhibit Number Nine. HON. THOMPSON: It is admitted. (At which time, Exhibit No. 9 is admitted into evidence.) BY MR. JONES: Q: Upon your graduation from West Point, did you serve in the United States military? A: Yes, I did. I served for five years. I was initially -- went to airborne school in Georgia. Then I was sent to Europe, in Germany, where I served in two locations in Germany, first, as mechanized infantry battalion staff officer, and later as military police platoon leader lieutenant. Then I was shipped to Vietnam where I served in Da Nang in 1971-72 as a company commander captain, United States Military Police Corps, 188 MP Company, 504 Infantry Battalion. Then I came back to the States in Kansas. I was battalion staff officer. I served in the S3, S4 and S1 positions at various times and sometimes jointly. Then I was discharged honorably; and after I completed my term of service, I then went to law school at the University of Alabama School of Law in 1974. Q: I want to ask you just for a second because I believe you indicated that you served in Vietnam. A: That's right. Q: And you he served as an MP. A: Right. Q: And I want to ask you what your responsibilities were. A: We supervised the stockade. We supervised the stockade at Da Nang, Camp Lan, and basically held prisoners from around Vietnam in our stockade -- military prisoners, United States Army. Q: You supervised about how many men in that operation? A: About, close to two hundred in one company, and then there were several companies on the post. Q: Did they -- Did your men that served under you there in Vietnam have a nickname for you? A: I am sure they did. Q: Do you remember one in particular? A: Well, one in particular, they called me Captain America. Q: Okay. A: That was -- Q: Is there any particular reason that they called you or that they developed that nickname? MR. PRYOR: Your Honor, I object -- A: I don't know. MR. PRYOR: -- as to what their reasons would be. I don't think this witness can testify about that. A: I really can't say why they did that. I used to shave my head in the military. HON. THOMPSON: Let him proceed. A: I used to shave my head and I boxed -- we had a lot of boxing matches. That was very strict. Q: Did it have anything to do with your enforcement of the regulations and things there that they had to go by? A: Yes. Q: And did that result in some difficulties between you and the men? A: Well, there was a lot of problems in Vietnam at that time with drugs and race relations. There was a lot of problems with -- of course, at that time of the conflict, a lot of people didn't want to be in Vietnam, myself included. And they really didn't -- there were still a lot of people getting killed, and a lot of the protests back home. And it was unpopular to be a disciplinarian at that time. Of course, that was my training and that's, you know, what kept people alive. We had one area further north where they weren't disciplined, and they kept having people come in and blow up the ammo dumps and kill people. Night after night they would find people on drugs on the bunker line. Being Military Police, we had to be a little bit above that in discipline, and a lot of people that were caught sleeping on bunkers were given Article 15's. They were caught with drugs. Q: I understood you to say that then, after your honorable discharge from the military, you went to law school. A: I went to law school. Q: And where did you go to law school? A: University of Alabama School of Law. Q: And you graduated there. Do you remember what year? A: 1977. Q: Okay. Upon graduation, what then did you do? A: I became deputy -- first full-time Deputy District Attorney of Etowah County. I had worked in the District Attorney's Office while in law school, training, and then I became full time -- first, full-time deputy. Q: And what were your responsibilities in that, please, sir? A: Prosecute all kind of cases: Murder, rape, robbery, and burglary; everything down to misdemeanor court. Q: Public corruption? Those -- A: Everything, public corruption... Q: And that would have been in 1977, then, that you served as the Deputy District Attorney and you served in that position until approximately when? Do you remember? A: 1982. Q: Okay. And is that when you ran for your first political office? A: I ran for Circuit Judge, 16th Judicial Circuit, in 1982. Q: Okay. And you were unsuccessful in that election? A: Right. Q: Okay. After that election, what did you do? A: I went to Australia. I went first to Texas. I took a hiatus from law. I went to Texas. I worked different jobs. Taught full contact karate, basically. And, then I went -- came back, fought a fight in Alabama. Then I went to Australia for about a year mustering cattle on the outback. Just hard labor. And then came back and started practicing law again in the very town where I lived. Q: Okay. And do you remember what year that was that you opened -- A: 1984. Q: Okay. And how long were you in private practice? A: I was in private practice for approximately eight years. Q: Okay. A: I did general practice. I was -- I had already prosecuted in court as a prosecutor, and then I became -- I did some defense work in criminal defense. I also did some plaintiff civil work -- plaintiff's work -- and also civil defense work and also worked in the bankruptcy court a little, and also federal -- Federal District Court. Q: Okay. And I will ask this question the way I assume that my wife would probably want it asked. Shortly after you came back, you made one of the best decisions you've ever made; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Okay. And that was -- A: Well, I met my wife in 1984, late in that year, I think, and then we were married in 1985. Q: Did you run for another public office? A: 1986, I ran for District Attorney of Etowah County. Q: Okay. And were you successful in that election? A: No. Barely lost it, but, no. Q: And you continued in the private practice then there -- A: Yes. Q: -- in Gadsden until -- A: 1992, I was appointed as circuit judge at the death of another judge. Q: And who appointed you? A: Governor Guy Hunt. Q: Okay. And after your appointment in 1992, did you run for reelection? A: I did in 1994. Q: And you are -- A: I was sworn in by Governor Fob James. Q: You were reelected at that time? A: Right. Q: Did you remain a circuit judge then until your election to the office that you currently hold? A: Yes, sir. 2000. I completed the full term as a circuit judge. Q: Term was up and you ran for this office? A: I ran for this office. Q: And that was in the fall of 2000? A: Right. Q: Okay. Now, during the time that you were circuit judge there in Etowah County, did there a dispute arise as to the display of the Ten Commandments in your courtroom? A: Yes, and -- and as to prayer in the court. It is historically in Etowah county, from the very time that I had become practicing law and many years before that, they would invite pastors in to open the jury sessions with prayer at the beginning of the jury week. And it was an invitation by the judge presiding at the time. I continued that practice and also had displayed a small plaque of the Ten Commandments above my bench. And, you know, I think, it was the ACLU sent a Court Reporter in -- excuse me -- a Court Reporter in to record the prayer, and thereafter there was communications back and forth between the ACLU threatening to bring suit if I didn't remove the Ten Commandments and stop the prayer. So, we wouldn't do that. And after I was elected, they brought the suit. Q: Let me ask you this: I want to ask you to just for clarification purposes that the plaque of the Ten Commandments that hung in your courtroom, where did that come from? A: I made the plaque by hand in 1980 and displayed it in the District Attorney's Office where I was working and the private law office that I later had in my home. Q: So, you had displayed that plaque -- that monument in your office in whatever position you held up until this time it came to be a dispute as a circuit judge? A: I did. It's still in -- It's in my office now. Q: Okay. Was there any particular reason that you took the Ten Commandments with you when you became a circuit judge? A: Well, initially, when I became a circuit judge, I was -- had to decorate the courtroom. There was only a picture of the judge in there who was deceased. There were no decorations at all. The flag had 48 stars. It was -- It just needed updated and needed some decoration, and I thought nothing to be more fitting than the Ten Commandments as a start. And later I got other pictures of Washington, a picture of Lincoln. I had, I think, the Magna Carta -- I'm sorry, the Mayflower Compact, and Declaration of Independence. Q: As a result of the hanging of the Ten Commandments there in your -- your courtroom, was there a lawsuit filed? A: There was a lawsuit filed in 1995. Q: And that was filed by who? A: By the Alabama Free Thought Society, being represented by the ACLU, to Federal District Court in the Division, Judge Probst. Q: And what was the dispossession of that lawsuit? A: Judge Probst dismissed it for lack of standing of the plaintiffs. Q: Okay. Was there also another lawsuit filed on your behalf -- well, filed on behalf of the State of Alabama? A: There was a lawsuit filed by the Governor, then Governor Fob James against the ACLU and myself as parties. And we cross-claimed -- I cross-claimed against the ACLU. They cross-claimed against me. And that went to State Court, and it was removed from State Court to the Federal District Court in Montgomery, Judge Albritton. Judge Albritton returned the case back to State Court. Judge Price entered his order, and we took that appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. Q: And what was the disposition there? A: Disposition -- They dismissed it for lack of judicable controversy -- Q: Okay. A: -- judiciable controversy. Q: And do you remember who represented the State of Alabama in that proceeding? A: I believe it was Attorney General Pryor. Q: Shortly after these lawsuits -- and I believe you said it was in 1995 that they were filed, somewhere in that time frame -- were you investigated by the Judicial Inquiry Commission? A: I was investigated by the Judicial Inquiry Commission for about three or four years. It began when I learned that they had entered my bank and had seized all my personal banking records and told the people at the bank not to let me know about it. Somebody did let me know about it, and I was furious. I asked the Judicial Inquiry Commission to tell me why I was being investigated. They refused for a number of years. I found out from various lawyers that they had sent around investigators questioning lawyers in my jurisdiction about anything I might have done wrong. They proceeded to do one thing after another. One time they sent a subpoena to a television station for a speech I had made when the president of the Judicial Inquiry Commission was present at the speech. It was supposed to be confidential, sending a notice to a public station wasn't very much confidential anymore. And they still wouldn't tell me what I was charged with. So, I entered and filed a suit against the Judicial Inquiry Commission before the Alabama Supreme Court. At that time, shortly after that, I was investigated by the Ethics Commission of the State of Alabama, and they appointed Attorney General Pryor, who recused at that time, and appointed St. Clair County District Attorney Van Davis as the prosecutor. I was investigated about the defense fund at that time. Van Davis looked at all the records, found that there were no discrepancies, came back and reported that. The case was dismissed, the ethics case. Then we found out that the person who had filed the ethics case was from Northern Alabama. I did not know him. He was an ex-mayor of a little town, and he was upset with the Southern Baptists for objecting to gambling in his jurisdiction, and he thought it was suitable to sue me for it, or complain about my activities. Q: What about the suit that you filed against the Judicial Inquiry Commission? What was the disposition of it? A: Well, eventually, it was dismissed. It was moot. They said they were no longer investigating. Q: No -- no formal charges were ever brought against you? A: No. And I never got to prove the charges that I had against them in an unlawful investigation. Q: Now, as part of your campaign for Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court, did you develop any type of platform or issue that you were basing your campaign on? A: Yes. I basically ran the whole campaign on restoring the moral foundation of law. In fact, we had one little campaign handout throughout the entire campaign, whether it was in the primary or the general election, and you have that in your hand. MR. JONES: May I approach, Your Honor? HON. THOMPSON: Yes. A: This -- This is the camp -- only campaign literature, really, we had. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but it basically listed the things that I had said and others had said in support and basically the name. Q: And on the front of that brochure -- and that's Moore's Exhibit Number Eight. On the front of that brochure, what does it say? A: "Upholding the Moral Foundation of Law." MR. JONES: Okay. Your Honor, we would like to move to admit Moore's Exhibit Number Eight. HON. THOMPSON: I think we have already admitted it. HON. JONES: Okay. I also have copies. HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: And I would like to ask, Your Honor, that those be published to the judges, if they could. HON. THOMPSON: Sure. BY MR. JONES: Q: Justice Moore, when that booklet says, "Upholding the Moral Foundation of Law," can you tell me what that meant to you? A: Well, law has a moral foundation. That foundation comes from acknowledging the God of the Bible. And without an acknowledgment of God, you can have no moral foundation. And basically it was a reference to the God of the Ten Commandments and the laws contained therein. Q: When you were successfully elected and then sworn in, did you take an oath? A: I did. Q: I show you what has been marked as Moore's Exhibit Number Two and ask you if you can identify that for me. A: That is a copy of the oath that I took right here where I am standing. Q: Okay. A: I was standing right there. Given by Perry Hooper on January 15th, 2001. "I, Roy S. Moore, do solemnly swear I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Circuit Court, upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God." Q: And when you took that oath, did you place your hand on anything? A: I placed it on the Bible, one of which is laying on the table. MR. JONES: Your Honor, we would like to admit Moore's Exhibit Number Two. Q: When you took that oath -- When you took the oath of office as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, did you consider what was required of you by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Alabama? A: Yes. Q: And what did you consider that to be? A: Well, to uphold both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. Q: Okay. I am going to show you what has been marked as Moore's Exhibit Number Three and ask if you can recognize what that is. A: That is the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution. Q: Okay. And would you read that for me, please. A: "We, the People of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of Government for the State of Alabama." MR. JONES: And I have copies, Your Honor. I am just going to give them to the Clerk again. HON. THOMPSON: Okay. BY MR. JONES: Q: Are you aware, Chief Justice Moore, of the responsibilities and duties placed on the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court by the Code of Alabama? A: Yes, sir. Q: I show you what has been marked as Moore's Exhibit Number Four and ask if you can identify that for me. A: This is a copy of the 12-2-30, "Powers and duties as to supervision of administration of courts generally." Q: And that is Section 12-2-30 of the Alabama Code? A: Right. Q: Okay. And are there responsibilities there as far as what the Chief Justice is to do? A: Yes, as far as appointing judges and so forth. Q: Okay. I -- I would specifically point you out to section seven and eight and ask you if you can tell me what your responsibilities are under those two sections. A: Well, under seven, it's to take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state. And eight was to take such other further additional actions as made to be necessary for the orderly administration of justice, it says, within the state, I believe, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere. Q: And you are aware of both the responsibilities you had under the Constitution and that code section at the time you took office as Chief Justice? A: As well as chief administrative officer of the justice system. I think at the beginning of that it says that -- or somewhere in here it says that I will be the head administrative officer of the justice system. Q: After you became Chief Justice, did you develop a booklet to help educate the citizens of Alabama on the moral foundations of law? A: I did. Q: I show you what has been marked as Moore's Exhibit Number Five and ask you if that is that booklet? A: This is the booklet, "Our Legal Heritage." Q: Okay. And can you tell me, generally, what it contains? A: Basically it contains the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, a forward that I wrote about what was in the book, and a portion of Blackstone's commentaries and the reasons they were important to our country. Q: And did you see that -- the development of that booklet as a part of the responsibilities we have outlined here already? A: It's a duty of all judges to teach the law. The law is the Constitution and the Declaration, which is our organic law under the United States Code annotated, and the connection between them, and the words in them can only be understood in the context of history and what they wrote them from. MR. JONES: Your Honor, we want to admit that. I apologize I don't have sufficient copies for all of the judges, but I do have several, and I would just like to give them to the Clerk. HON. THOMPSON: I think they have already been admitted. BY MR. JONES: Q: Now, also shortly after you became Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, did you begin doing anything else in anticipation of your responsibilities as Chief Justice and also as a result of the basis of your campaign for that office? A: Well, immediately upon being elected, I began to formulate plans to display the Ten Commandments, as the moral foundation of our law, in the Alabama Judicial Building. Q: And how long did that take, that development of that monument? A: It took about eight months. Q: Okay. And what went on during that eight months? A: During that eight months, basically we were trying to get a stone, and I was designing the monument and what would go on the monument to reflect the acknowledgment of God by our forefathers and its relativity or its -- why it was relative to -- to our Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. Q: Can you briefly, just briefly, describe the monument as it was ultimately done. A: Well, it's about three feet by four feet. It was -- weighed 5,280 pounds. The top was engraved with the Ten Commandments out of Deuteronomy. The front had an inset -- all four sides had an inset of laws. For example, the front was "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" out of the Declaration of Independence, which is the organic law of our country. On the right side is "In God We Trust," which is our national motto. The back said, "So Help Me God," which is the basis of all oaths taken from the Judiciary Act of 1789. And on the left was "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance of 1954, which is also a national law. On the top and bottom of each of those insets were quotes by people such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, First Chief Justice John Jay, the Alabama Constitution Preamble, the National Anthem, a quote from the Legislative History Act in l954. And on the front was a quote from Sir William Blackstone and George Mason, the father of our Bill of Rights. The quote from Blackstone is relative to "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God," of course, fit the inset. James Wilson was on there also, was justice of the United States Supreme Court, first signer of -- one of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution who said, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon that law which is Divine." Q: Okay. Did you consider the development and placement of that monument in furtherance of your duties that we have outlined in the Constitution and the Code of Alabama? A: Absolutely. Q: And also in fulfillment of the promise you had made to the people of Alabama when you were running for that office? A: Yes. Also in conformity with the Alabama Constitution it says, "Our justice system is established invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God." Q: Do you remember when you actually placed the monument here in the rotunda of this building? A: July 31st, 2001. Q: Okay. And the next day, August the 1st, you made a speech unveiling the monument? A: Right. Q: I show you what has been -- I show you what has been marked as Moore's Exhibit Six and ask if you can identify that for me. Should have known you to check me on it, to be sure. A: Yes. This appears to be the words I used at the unveiling of the monument. Q: A copy of the speech you made at that time? A: Yes. MR. JONES: We would like to introduce that and, again, I have copies. HON. THOMPSON: If that is stipulated to, we will consider that admitted. BY MR. JONES: Q: As a result of the placement of that monument in the rotunda of the Supreme Court Building, were there federal lawsuits filed against you? A: There were. Q: And those were here in the Federal District Court? A: Yes. Q: And they were tried and Judge Thompson ruled against you? A: Yes. Q: And you then appealed those to the Eleventh Circuit? A: I did. Q: They, in fact, entered an opinion. Do you remember when that was, the Eleventh Circuit? A: I believe it was July 1st, 2003. I have a copy of the opinion. I have a copy of the Eleventh Circuit opinion here. Q: Okay. Well, will you refer to the last page of that opinion? A: Yes. Q: I believe it is the last paragraph of that opinion. Was there anything in there that you read in that opinion after it was entered that directed your further actions in regards to this litigation? A: Well, the preceding paragraphs were very instructive in talking about disobedience to a federal court order and rule of law. It says that the rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted. Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court of all people should be expected to abide by that principle. We do expect that if he is unable to have the District Court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes, when the time comes, Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail. Q: What did you understand that to mean? A: Exactly what it said, that when I exhausted all appellate remedies that I would have to obey the federal court order that had been entered. Q: And by all appellate remedies, what did you understand that to mean? A: Well, I took that to mean the appeal up to the Supreme Court, application of writ of certiorari, and then that appeal to the Supreme Court as well as the appeal to -- Q: Now, this -- this complaint and the charges against you make reference to there being no application for a Rule 41 stay in that proceeding. A: No. Q: And there was not one made, was there? A: No. Q: Do you know who made that decision not to -- not to seek -- A: Well, the attorneys that we discussed this with, my attorneys. I discussed it -- we understood what the Eleventh Circuit said about the underlying issue in the case, and it seemed to pave the way for us to petition the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari to further review those issues and to leave in place the status quo, i.e., that the monument would stay because it clearly said that I would be expected to obey judicial orders when all available means of appeal had been exhausted. And specifically with the District Court's order, if I was unable to have the District Court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes, when the time comes, Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. Q: Now, ultimately Judge Thompson lifted the stay and entered an order requiring that the monument be moved; is that correct? A: He did. Q: And do you remember who that order was directed to or who it was served upon? A: It was served upon the other eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, upon the Governor, the Attorney General, the Clerk of Court, and I think perhaps the Administrative Office of Courts, Rich Hobson, Director. Q: Did -- Do you remember the date that the order stated that the monument was to be moved by? A: I think it was to be moved by August 20th. Q: And did you move the monument by August 20th? A: No. Q: And why didn't you move the monument? A: It would violate my conscience, violate my oath of office, and violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as violate the First Amendment. It would violate every rule of law that I was sworn to uphold. The rule of law being that which is contained in the Constitution clearly stated and of clear import, clear meaning. Q: The monument was ultimately moved? A: Yes. Q: And do you remember how that came about? A: I think the other associate justices had it moved after I was taken out of office -- or after a complaint was filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission and I was disqualified from acting as a judge. Q: Now, do you remember making a statement -- and I think you probably saw it played in here -- on August the 14th, 2003? A: Yes, I made that statement. Q: Okay. A: Would make it again. It's exactly what I felt then and what I feel now. Q: Did you at any time in that statement say that you would defy Judge Thompson? A: No. Q: Did you know that an ethics complaint was filed against you that day? A: I can't say what day. I think it was that day. Q: Okay. Shortly after that, you appeared in front of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, did you not? A: Now, I did say I would not move the monument, that this I could not do. I did not say I would defy -- did not use those words, but I did say I would not move the monument. Q: You appeared in front of the Judicial Inquiry Commission shortly after that. A: Right. Q: Do you remember what date that was approximately? And I will represent to you it was August 22nd, if you-all don't mind me -- A: Okay. Q: -- stating that fact to him. A: Okay. Q: Do you remember your appearance there that day? A: Yes. Q: And they have entered a transcript of what I think you said on that day, and it's here in the record for the justices to read. You were disqualified from serving as a judge as of that day; is that correct? A: Well, when they forwarded the complaint. Q: Okay. A: That's the day they forwarded the complaint. Q: And if they forwarded that day, you were disqualified from acting as a judge? A: Yes. Q: And you had been so disqualified until today? A: Yes. Q: You still have been receiving your pay -- A: Yes. Q: -- your State pay for the Chief Justice, but you haven't been able to perform the duties of Chief Justice? A: Right. Q: Now, Chief Justice Moore, are you aware of and have you looked at the complaint that has been filed against you -- A: Yes. Q: -- today? And you are aware of the six charges that they have brought against you? A: Yes. Q: Okay. And I would specifically direct you to some of those charges, specifically the first charge being that you failed to -- to obey an order and thereby affected the integrity and independence of the judiciary. A: Yes. Q: Are you aware of that charge? A: Yes. Q: Have you done anything, in your opinion and belief, to affect the integrity and independence of the judiciary? A: Yes. I think that the acknowledgment of God does both of that. The charges -- let me just say, as I understand the charges, were charge one and charge two of Canon 1; charge three of Canon 2; and charge four, five of Canon 2A; and charge six out of Canon 2B. But every charge relates to the same actions as if I did not comply with the order of the District Judge. Canon 1, for example, says, "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary," and charge two is "failure to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved." Now, by acknowledging God, we definitely uphold the integrity of the judicial branch. The very Canons of Ethics, which are brought against me, are based upon an acknowledgment of God. And it's very clear from history in this state the Canons -- for example, the opening paragraph of those Canons I have here, says -- I have it here. Do you have the Preamble? Here it is. Sorry. Q: That is all right. A: The opening Preamble to the Code of Ethics says that the first legal ethics code of the United States was formulated and adopted by the Alabama State Bar in 1887. It was later adopted with only minor changes by Georgia, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, North Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri between 1887 and 1906 and finally by the American Bar Association in 1908. And the Supreme Court of Alabama accordingly adopts the following Canons as a code for judges, and the declaration of that is the people of the State of Alabama have a right t