Q When was this?
A This was about 1978.
Q And you moved to?
A We moved --
Q Decherd?
A We moved back to Alto.
Q Alto?
A Yes, sir. It was kind of one of those things.
We put our house up for sale. We made the decision thinking
we had plenty of time; we drove the sign up in the yard and
the house sold in four days. So, we had to make like a mass
exodus to get home. And my mom --
Q What did you do after that?
A Okay. We moved in with mom and dad. They were
gracious enough to let us move in. We had two households of
families, two families in one household, with two households
of furniture, and I didn't have a job because it all
happened so fast.
So, in the interim, while I wasn't working at a
job, I decided, well, we've got to have a house. So, I
decided we'd build us a house. I got my dad, he's good at
calculating and planning, so we sat down and calculated the
cost. We hired a man to dig the basement, and we set out
and built the house. We started in December and finished in
May. My wife was pregnant at the time. And we moved -- the
baby was born, my little daughter was born in April and we
moved in the house in May.
From that time, shortly after that, I --
Q What year would that have been?
A That was May of '79, I believe.
Q What did you do after that?
A At that point in time I was offered a position
at First National Bank as a loan officer. And, of course,
I've never done anything like that. And they wanted me to
start out back in bookkeeping to learn how the paper flows
through the bank.
So, I was filing checks and looking at
signatures. I lasted about three weeks. And there was a
teaching position came open there at Franklin County High
School, where I had gone to school myself, in cabinetmaking,
which was one of my certified areas. And so I told the bank
that I appreciated it, but I believed I'd go back to
teaching.
And so, I started teaching. That would've been
in the middle of the year. The guy for some reason had to
leave. Taught cabinetmaking for about two years and a half,
Franklin County High School, And I had a lot of good
students. Lot of good memories.
Q When did you --
A I had an opportunity then -- sir? Excuse me.
Q You were at Franklin County High School for two
and a half years?
A Right.
Q When did you leave? '82 or '83?
A Yeah, somewhere in there.
Q Okay. What did you do after that?
A Well, I got an opportunity at that time to go
to a neighboring town, which is called Tullahoma, and teach
machine shop.
So, I transferred because it paid a little more
money. And I worked there for approximately two years, I
believe. And then I had, by that time I'd been teaching
about ten years. And for a shop teacher, you've got to have
discipline in the shop or somebody can get hurt. And during
this period of time in the schools, the discipline started
changing drastically.
And so, I got concerned that I was getting a
lot of students that didn't really want to be in my class,
and they were hindering me from teaching the ones that did
want to learn, and I was afraid that there was going to be
some accidents that I couldn't control. So, I decided that
I'd do some things on my own, and I resigned from Tullahoma.
My wife had a sister who had gotten in a thing
called Shakley. And so, we kind of got into it to help her.
In the Shakley business, you buy products and that's how you
make money, and hopefully you sell some of them, you know.
And so we'd buy them and then we'd sell a few, and we'd buy
some more and we'd sell a few.
So, needless to say, after a year or two, we
really didn't make any money, but we met an awful lot of
nice people. We went to a lot of nice meetings and learned
a lot about health and nutrition. And that kind of faded on
out.
And somewhere in that period of time, which
would've been about '83 or '84, we decided that we felt like
we needed to teach our two children at home, home school.
And so we did that for about the next five years. I just
worked odd jobs here and there, and my wife taught, doing
what she could. She did the English and stuff; I'd try to
do the math and the science. And we felt like that was just
really important, because we wanted to instill in them our
values as much as we could. And they always tested out
every year. So. you know, we feel comfortable with what we
did in that.
Q So, when you got involved in the Shakley
program, that enabled you to engage in home schooling?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Well, --
A That and just doing odd jobs and contracting.
Q So, you were -- what was the time range in
which you were doing Shakley and odd jobs?
A From about '83 to somewhere around '86.
Q Okay. Now, in '88 what happened?
A In 1988, as I recall, I don't remember the
exact month, I ran into a young man that I had had as a
student at Motlow College, where I had set up an
apprenticeship program for them one summer. And he informed
me that his brother was in charge of hiring for the new
trainees at Saturn and they needed some machinists that had
teaching experience to teach the new employees, and wanted
to know if I was interested or if I would be. And I said,
"Why, sure."
So, I called his brother, and his brother said,
"Send a resume." I sent a resume. And to make a long story
short, I went for an interview and didn't think I'd ever
hear anything from it. The next thing I know they called me
to come to work.
Q Okay. About when did you start? Would it be
like July 1st of '88?
A I think it was in March of '88, seems like.
Q Okay.
A I mean, we could look back.
Q But sometime in '88?
A Yes.
Q What were you doing at Saturn?
A I was in charge --
Q Did you go out to the plant itself?
A Yes, sir. We were on site. Now, we weren't in
the plant. They were building the plant at the time.
Q Did Saturn, the corporation that runs Saturn,
did they hire you?
A No, sir.
Q Who hired you? Was it Maury County?
A I was hired through Maury County.
Q So, Maury County paid you?
A Right.
Q Now, you heard the lady that came from Maury
County, right?
A Ms. Belanger, yes, sir.
Q They introduced checks and your contracts and
stuff like that, right?
A Right.
Q Was she accurate, you know, about when you
started and what you made and things of that nature?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Now, what did you do? Just briefly describe
for the jury what you did out there at. Saturn.
A I was hired to develop the programs to teach
basic machine shop, from handtools up to using the more
advanced machine tools. But basic machine shop. Not
necessarily computer stuff, but we did do some of that.
I also taught -- I developed programs and then
taught the courses. I also taught mobile crane and some
safety courses. That's basically what we did.
Q You taught the people that worked at Saturn?
A The people they brought in, the new employees
that were moving in, yes, sir.
Q Now, how long did you work there?
A Approximately three years.
Q And would March of '91 be the time that you
left?
A Somewhere close to that, yes, sir.
Q Okay. Did you -- so, during that three-year
span that you were working for Saturn, is that the only
company you worked for?
A I think I was still selling a little fertilizer
with Grower's. It was a liquid fertilizer that we used
there on the farm mostly, and I'd buy a little extra to sell
to some of the neighbors because it was food grade material
which had no contaminants in it and you could use it on
anything.
Q Now, this other company, Grower's what?
A Grower's Chemical.
Q You mentioned farming. Do you also farm?
A I help my dad. He has about two hundred acres.
We run cattle on part of it and cultivate about half of it.
Q Do you live close to your dad?
A Yes, sir. Right next to him.
Q And he's in the farm business?
A Yes.
Q So, you helped him out during these years?
A Yes, sir.
Q And on this Grower's thing, you would make
sales to your neighbors, get paid commission?
A Some of them, yes, sir.
Q Now, you heard the lady that came from that
company. I think she said they paid you a check for
something about seven hundred and fifty bucks, or
thereabouts, for '89?
A Yeah. That's about right.
Q So, for '89 and '90, you had -- well, you also
had the credit union, correct?
A Yeah.
Q So, you were paid by Saturn, or Maury County,
and worked at Saturn?
A Right.
Q You were paid, you had something like eight
hundred bucks or so each year from the credit union?
A Right.
Q And then you had the check from Grower's?
A Right.
Q And you don't contest any of that, do you?
A No, sir.
Q What they said is accurate?
A It looks real close, yes, sir.
Q Now, after you quit working at Saturn, can you
briefly tell the jury what you've done since then?
A Well, for me, working at Saturn, it was a
hundred miles one way. So, for the first year we drove
every day. We split it up some. And then for the next year
I tried staying periodically and, you know, coming home
about the middle of the week. And by the last year I was
having to just stay over there because the drive was getting
to me and I just couldn't be effective as a teacher, having
to drive four hours a day. Plus, it was really beginning to
take a toll on my family. And I'm a family man.
It was the best, one of the best jobs I ever
had my life. It paid real well. But I decided that I had
to come home. And so, we came to a mutual agreement that it
was time for me to leave. And so they didn't renew my
contract and I came home. And I've been doing contract work
here and there, remodeling jobs, and a farming little,
helping Daddy farm. That's basically it.
Q Now, for these years that you were working for
Saturn, if you look at your broad work history, those were
the best years, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And typically what you made was less than that?
A Yes, sir.
Q In a typical year, working for Franklin County?
A Much less.
Q Being a shop teacher?
A Much less.
Q About how long were you a shop teacher?
A About ten years.
Q And then you were still a shop teacher for
Saturn?
A Basically, yeah.
Q So, that's a total of 13 or 14 years?
A Right.
Q Okay. And now you're doing odd jobs and
helping your dad?
A Right.
Q Now, did you work at any time in 1969?
A Whew. I don't really remember if I did.
Q well, you remember the chart that the
government showed up here that said -- one of these charts
says that you started in '69 working. That's when you filed
a return, right?
A Right.
Q Okay. You don't challenge that, right?
A No.
Q That's probably the first one you filed, right?
A More than likely.
Q From '69 all the way up through 1980, did you
file returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q All the way up, let's go up through 1985. Did
you file returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I think -- before we came to court, you
had an opportunity -- I don't want to dig out the documents
right now, but the '86, '87 and '88 returns that the
government offered into evidence. And you've seen them
before now, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You filed those returns?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, from '69 through '86, you filed ordinary
Form 1040 federal income tax returns every year?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell the jury why you did that?
A I did it because I was always told you was
supposed to.
Q Did you ever engage in any study of the tax
laws?
A No, sir.
Q So, you were just doing what everybody else
did?
A Yeah.
Q Now, we don't have them all here, from '69 to
'86 or '85. Did you prepare all of those returns yourself?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have a judgment or an estimate of the
ones from '69 through '85, about how many of them you
prepared yourself?
A Not really. My wife prepared some of them and
some of them we'd go to H & R Block or something like that.
Maybe half of them. I'm not real sure.
Q So, some you did and some H & R Block did?
A Right.
Q And for '86, '87 and '88, you prepared those
yourself, right?
A I think we did, yes, sir.
Q And all of these returns were prepared not
based on any study of the law?
A That's correct.
Q Now, Mr. Long, let's get to the heart of the
matter here. You know, the government, Mr. Collier's boss,
has filed this information against you. And you've seen it,
right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You've read it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell the jury what is your understanding of
what you're being charged with here.
I'm being charged with willful failure to file
an income tax return.
Q For what years?
A '89 and '90.
Q Well, let's just be point-blank, Mr. Long.
Tell the jury whether or not you filed returns for '89 and
'90.
A No, I did not.
Q Well, how about '91?
A No, sir.
Q '92?
A No, sir.
Q '93?
A No, sir.
Q Oh, gosh. I'm sorry. So, you didn't file one
for last year?
A No, sir.
Q Is there a reason why, Mr. Long?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, can you tell the jury -- what's the first
event that occurred that relates to this?
A Well, it goes way back.
Q When?
A To 1982.
Q All right.
A At a meeting that I attended in Monteagle at
the Smokehouse Restaurant.
Q Well, can you tell the jury -- when was this in
'82?
A It was in, probably around October. The leaves
were falling. And the reason I remember it was '82 was I
remember pulling up in my pickup truck. I had a red '73
pickup truck, and I know I traded it in '83. So, that's how
I remember.
And I remember getting out of my truck --
Q Why -- did you hear about a meeting?
A Yes. I had heard about a meeting that was
going to be held up there and they were going to talk about
the common law, the Constitution, and I had heard that there
might be some talk about taxes. And I was a little
concerned because I was beginning to have some real concern
about what all was going on in government, and, you know,
just basic concern. I've always been a person that I like
to understand why things are the way they are.
So, I attended this meeting.
Q So, you found out about it. Drove up from your
house?
A From home, yes, sir.
Q Went up the mountain to Monteagle?
A Right.
Q To the Smokehouse Inn?
A Smokehouse Restaurant.
Q Can you tell the jury what happens? You pull
into some, I guess a spot in the parking lot and park your
truck.
A I get out --
Q Tell the jury what happened after that.
A I sure will. I got out of my truck. I
remember locking the door and I remember looking over my
shoulder, because it really bothered me. I was a little
concerned. I was scared, because for the first time in my
life I had started to question some things about my
government, about the law. I started to wonder. And I felt
a little funny.
And, you know, you see all these TV programs
about these FBI and SWAT teams coming in and arresting all
these people. So, I was a little nervous, because I didn't
know anybody at this meeting.
But I overcame that because of this willingness
I have to try to understand things. And I thought, "Well,
maybe I can learn something," you know. You just have to be
open to things in order to learn. Because I'm a teacher and
that's just how it is.
So, I eased on, found the room and eased in and
sat down on the back row. Still kind of looking over my
shoulder.
Q Mr. Long, can I stop you right there?
THE COURT: We're going to take a short recess
at this time. We'll get to the next chapter in just a
moment.
Be in recess for about fifteen minutes.
(Brief recess.)
THE COURT: Okay. Continue.
MR. BECRAFT: May it please the Court.
BY MR. BECRAFT:
Q Mr. Long, before we get into that meeting that
you attended, I need to back up and ask you some questions.
Do you recognize that in this case you're not going to be
telling the jury the law? You do you recognize that?
A Oh, yes, sir.
Q And you understand that when this trial is over
with, it's going to be the judge that gives the instructions
in the case about what the law is, right?
A Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q Do you also understand that when you testify
here this afternoon, you're going to be giving your opinion
of the law, right, your belief about the law?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you understand that that's not an effort on
your part to tell the jury what the law is?
A Yes, sir.
Q It's just your belief.
A Just my belief, yes, sir.
Q Now, let's get back to this -- in the fall of
1982 you went to Monteagle?
A Yes, sir.
Q To the Smokehouse Inn. Now, that's where we
were right before our short break.
A Right.
Q Now, what happened?
A Well, like I said, I found the meeting room. I
eased on in and sat down on the back row. And as I recall,
a man by the name of George Gordon was the main speaker.
And he was a real robust type fellow. I won't ever forget
him. And he was talking about the common law and how it
came over here with the pilgrims, you know, from England.
And then he did something that I'll never
forget. He said, "In order for you-all to understand what
I'm going to tell you, you've got to remember the story."
So, he went over to a white board and he drew a great big
box up at the top. And in that box he wrote "people." And
I'm thinking, you know, "Where's he going," you know? And
then he came down below that and he drew a box and he wrote
the word "state." Well, then he came down below that and he
drew a smaller box, and in that box he put "government."
He said, "Now, listen to me, folks. Remember
your history. Remember the story." He said, "This is how
it happened." He said, "Our forefathers came over here,
they established colonies or states, if that's what you want
to call them, and then they got together, after they went
through starvation and fighting Indians and a little bit of
everything else, cold weather. Once they got established,
they decided that they had to have a government to help them
with conflicts between the colonies and things.
"And so they got together and they elected some
representatives, and they got together then and they
established a government." I'm thinking, "Yeah, I'm
remembering American history and all that, how it happened.
Sounds about right."
So then he said, "And when they had done that,
they decided that since they had just come out from under
King George and all the tyranny that he had caused, you
know, arresting them in one little community and hauling
them all the way to England and prosecuting them, just all
kinds of things that just weren't right. So, they decided
that in order keep to this government that they just
established from getting out of hand, they'd draw them up
something called the Constitution."
Well, I remember from high school, we studied
the Constitution. And he said that the purpose of this
Constitution was to bind government down and to keep it from
getting out of hand.
So, in this Constitution they explained
specifically what the power of government had. And then in
it they said anything that we don't give government, we're
going to leave it to the people and to the states.
Well, you know, I'm sitting here, and it's been
a while since I was in high school, but that's beginning to
trigger some memories. I remember studying that in American
history. Yeah. Made a lot of sense.
So, then he got to talking about the common law
and all the rights that the Constitution provided. Said,
you know, it only mentions three basic ones: like the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then he
talked about that within those three you could not sit down
and list all the rights we have that are just, come under
those three categories. The list would be endless. And
that as long as you never damaged somebody's life, liberty
or property, whatever it is, you could do it, under the
common law.
Well, now, that made a lot of sense. I
remembered that. We didn't really study that in school, but
it made sense. And he also went on to say that these rights
that the Constitution guaranteed that were given to us by
God, -- now, the Constitution I believe says that we are
granted these certain inalienable rights by our Creator --
that those rights could not be taxed. Well, now, that got
my attention.
So, he just went on and on and on about all
these rights, you know. If the man said "rights" one time,
he said it a thousand times. And you could tell that he had
studied this Constitution and that he believed in it so
firmly. You just tell by the tone in his voice.
Well, I'd remembered studying all that, but I
remember us studying it as a well-written document or
something. I didn't remember a teacher in high school
getting into all this stuff, explaining the rights. I
remember them talking about us having rights, but I don't
remember getting into this.
He kept explaining, you know, -- and the fact
that he kept saying that these rights cannot be taxed
because the Founding Fathers, that was the main purpose of
the Constitution was to guarantee us these rights.
Well, man, you know, I'm sitting here thinking
and still looking over my shoulder because I'm thinking the
FBI or somebody is going to come in at any time. But he
begins to say we also have the right to assemble, the right
to study, we've got the right to vote. We've got all kinds
of rights.
And then he said something that just made me
sit up in my chair. He said we've got a right to work.
Well, -- and then he said that our labor is our property.
Well, now, you could've knocked me over with a feather
because, now, I hadn't never thought about that. But here's
this man telling me that my labor is my property. He got my
attention.
And then he went on to say that we have a right
to work and that if we have a right to work, that right
can't be taxed. Whew, I said, "Man, I like the sound of
that, but," I said, "you know, I'm filing and paying every
year on my labor. I don't understand." But he got my
attention. And I said, "I'm going to listen."
Well, he went on to say then that privileges --
you know, I'd heard people talk about it's a privilege to
drive. Some people talk about that. But privileges,
something that the state or the government gives you as a
privilege, they have a right to tax that. I'm thinking,
"Man, we've got rights and we've got privileges."
And, you know, I've got two degrees, but I
don't remember being taught this in school. Maybe, you
know, somebody mentioned it sometime, but, gosh, I didn't
remember it. This guy has really got me to thinking. And
here's all these rights I didn't know I had. And he's just
telling me I got all kinds of rights.
And now he's telling me that these inalienable
rights that were given to us by the Creator, they can't be
taxed because God don't tax us on them. Whew. I'm telling
you, he had my attention.
And then, he just went on and on and on about
all the rights we've got and how over the years we've
forgotten them. And I'm sitting here thinking, "Boy, you
got that right, because this ol' boy sure has. I didn't
know I had them." And, you know, if you don't know you've
got something, sometimes it's awful easy to give it away.
And so, then he went on on this labor thing.
And he quoted, put it up on the overhead, from a case called
Coppage vs. Kansas, where Justice Pitney explains about this
labor thing. And it was a case involving some labor unions,
I think, where they'd been trying to force some of the
employees to join unions and they didn't want to.
And Justice Pitney, -- now, I can't quote it,
but I can tell you basically what it says, from what I
remember. He said that the right to live and own property
is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution, and that
the most basic of that right was the right to your labor, to
be able to exchange your labor for other types of property.
And he went on reading it, and he said that
that right to exchange your labor for other types of
property was as important to the poor as it was to the rich,
it was as important to the laborer as it was to the
capitalist, and that it was most important for the poor
because it was the only way a poor person had honestly of
beginning to accumulate property, and that was to work for
somebody for money. And he said, "Should anything ever
strike this right down or abridge it in any way, it would be
in direct conflict of the Constitution."
Now, I'm telling you, that hit me right in the
heart, because I'd been wondering, you know, -- I hadn't
complained. I'd been filing and paying and just doing this,
all this. But something inside me said, "There's something
ain't right here. It just ain't right. There's something
wrong."
Well, he went on then to explain that the
Constitution only allows for two types of taxes; that's all
we got to worry about. Ain't but two in there. That's a
direct tax, which is like a property tax. You know, we all
have those. You know, you got your county property and you
got your city property tax. That's a direct tax, imposed on
your property.
Well, then he said there's an indirect tax. He
went on to say that an indirect tax is like the booze tax.
And what makes it indirect is if you want to go down here
and buy a gallon of booze, then you pay the tax. The taxes
goes on back to the person that makes the booze; but in the
fact that you don't have to buy it, you don't have to pay
the tax if you don't want to. Me not being a drinking
person, I don't care what the booze tax is. I don't have to
pay it because I don't buy it.
Well, now, that started to make some sense.
Direct and indirect taxes. Because I realize, you know, we
pay all kinds of taxes on tires, the booze. And I'd heard
someone one time say we farm, grow wheat, I'd heard, I
believe, that there's something like 87 different taxes on a
loaf of bread. So, I was beginning to see some of this
stuff. It was really getting me to thinking, you know,
"This guy may have some of the answers I've been looking
for."
So, needless to say, as far as I remember, that
was basically about what I got out of that. I couldn't stay
for the whole thing. And --
Q Can I stop you right there?
A Sure.
Q How many people were at this meeting?
A I guess there was a hundred.
Q And you arrived during the evening?
A Uh-huh.
Q How long did you stay?
A About two hours. I think we had one break.
Q And you listened to one man speak?
A One man, uh-huh.
Q And that was a fellow by the name of who?
A George Gordon. I'll never forget him.
Q Did you know him before then?
A No. Never heard of him in my life.
Q Have you ever, after that meeting did you ever
physically meet him again, you know, like in person?
A I don't think so. Maybe one time, I'm not
sure, at a meeting that we were all at. He might've been
there.
Q Okay. Now, the meeting went on after you left?
A Yes.
Q And you stayed there -- you got there at what,
6:00, 7:00?
A Around 6:00. You know, that time of year it
gets dark. Might've been a little earlier. Maybe 5:00 and
I left around 7:30, about dark, because I had some livestock
to take care of.
Q So, you left the meeting early and it was still
going on?
A Right.
Q What was your impressions of what you learned
at this meeting as you -- I guess you went out to your truck
and drove home?
A Right.
Q Okay.
A Well, I left that meeting with just an extreme
appreciation of the rights that I have. He made me
conscious of the rights that we have. And he also made me
conscious of the fact that this ol' boy has been asleep and
I'd failed to learn.
And I do remember one quote that was made. He
said that the price of liberty -- I won't never forget it --
is eternal vigilance. Got my attention. And I just decided
to go on home, that, "Hey, I'm going to try to learn
everything I can about the Constitution and about my rights,
and I'm going to try to study and just become a better
citizen," because if we're informed, we got to be better
citizens.
So, that was basically what I got from that
meeting.
Q Now, you mentioned during the course of that
meeting there was a case that he talked about?
A Yes, sir.
Q Coppage?
A Coppage vs. Kansas.
Q Did he mention any others?
A I think he mentioned quite a few, but that was
one of the main ones I remembered.
Q Okay. Now, after you thought about this going
home and you got home, can you tell the jury what happened
next in reference to how you formulated your beliefs about
your obligation to file returns?
A Well, during one of the breaks, the break that
we had, I met some people there that were from Tullahoma and
discovered that they had started holding some meetings in
Tullahoma about once a month to start studying the
Constitution and trying to learn and be informed, try to
find out things.
And I got some of their names and found out
where they were meeting. So, I determined, you know, I'd
try to go to some of those meetings.
Q You live in Decherd?
A Decherd, yes, sir. I live in Alto. It's about
ten miles out of Decherd.
Q And how far is that from -- is that south of
Tullahoma?
A It's 25 miles from Tullahoma.
Q Twenty-five miles?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, you learned about these meetings in
Tullahoma. Did you attend any of them?
A Over the next few weeks or months I really
didn't. We was working a lot. And like I say, I'm a family
man. I had young children. And I think during that time it
would've been right in there when we started teaching them
at home and some of that kind of stuff. So, I might not
have gone to a meeting in Tullahoma for six months. I'm not
sure.
Q Sometime in the early part of '83?
A Right.
Q So, tell the jury what happened. After the
George Gordon meeting, you waited about six months and then
you go to this Tullahoma meeting, right?
A Right.
Q Okay.
A Well, the first meeting I recall going to, I
get there and they're showing a video of George Gordon.
to my surprise, they had bought the whole study guide of his
common law study guide and all the videos that went with it.
Q Let me stop you right here. We're not going to
offer this into evidence, Lloyd. But you mentioned study
materials?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is this some of it?
A That's it.
Q Are these your study materials?
A Yes, sir.
Q For the George Gordon course?
A Common law course, yes, sir.
Q Before we get into what you learned, you've got
common law course -- they got labels on here, "Common Law
Course," right?
A Right.
Q So, at some stage you acquired all these
materials?
A Right.
Q And generally describe for the jury what's in
here.
A Well, there's all kinds of, copies of Supreme
Court cases and state Supreme Court, you know, the United
States Supreme Court cases; and there's some motions in
there, you know, that you could go by if you had to file a
motion in court to kind of become a pro se.
Q Now, let's back up. We've gone over that. You
went to this meeting and they were looking at a video.
A Right.
Q Of the same guy that you already heard speak
live?
A Right.
Q Tell the jury what you learned at this first
meeting.
A Well, as I recall, Mr. Gordon, one of the first
things he said, you know, -- at the other meeting he had
told about the two types of taxes that the Constitution
allowed. That's the direct and indirect tax.
Well, he said something that really got my
attention. Right off the bat he says that the income tax is
an excise tax. And, you know, I didn't know what an excise
tax was. I'd remembered a little bit about what he said
about indirect tax.
He kept going on that the income tax is an
excise tax. And he said, "I'm not telling you it is." And
he quoted a case called Sims vs. Ahrens, which was a case in
Arkansas, where the Arkansas Supreme Court had said that the
income tax is neither a property tax nor is it a tax on
occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax,
"Boy," I thought, "whoa, the income tax is not
a property tax," which would be a direct tax, "it's not a
tax on occupations of common right, but it's an excise tax."
Now, that got my attention.
So, then he went on to say -- he mentioned a
case called Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which is a United States
Supreme Court case, I believe. And he stated that in Flint
vs. Stone Tracy they stated what an excise tax was, and that
an excise tax is a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale, or
consumption of commodities within the country, and it's also
laid upon a particular privileged occupation or corporate
privileges. Now, that's an excise.
Then he went on to say that, you know, we all
know about those because some of those things are alcohol
tax. We all know that there's an excise tax on tires.
Then he went on to say that all through Flint
vs. Stone Tracy they talk about how the privilege of doing
business in a corporate capacity and what an advantage those
people have over private firms. Well, I'm listening, you
know.
Then he gets into a case, puts it up on the
overhead, called Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad. And
he explains that the Brushaber case plainly states -- and
this is another United States Supreme Court case -- that the
income tax is an excise tax. And then he goes on to say
that the Brushaber case settled once and for all the fact
that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did not give
Congress any more power at all on any new subjects. And,
you know, I remembered, when he said 16th Amendment, I'd
remembered studying that in high school, and I believe I
remembered him calling that the income tax amendment.
And now this guy is telling me that this
Supreme Court of the United States has said in this case
that that didn't change anything, that the power that
Congress had was still exactly like it was in the
Constitution, that the only thing the 16th Amendment did was
try to simplify why it was imposed on the people that owed
it. Now, I didn't know much about it, but, yeah, it really
got my attention.
Then he went on and he talked about a case in
Oregon, Oregon State Supreme court, called Redfield vs.
Fisher, which said that the individual, unlike a
corporation, cannot be taxed merely for the fact of
existing, but that the individual's rights to live and own
property were natural rights upon which an excise could not
be imposed.
Well, now, I'm starting to put some of this
together. And he's back on rights again: common rights and
natural rights, you can't put an excise tax on common
rights, the Arkansas case talks about occupations of common
right, and Flint vs. Stone Tracy talks about corporations
having certain privileges, and an excise tax being on
occupations of certain privileges. And he just really gets
me to thinking.
And then he comes up with a case, puts it up on
the board, called Spreckels Sugar Refinery vs. McClain. And
in this case, I believe it's a United States Supreme Court
case, it made the statement that keeping in mind the
well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation
unless that tax is imposed in clear and unequivocal
language, and that should there be a doubt about the
language of a tax law that the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the person it was sought to be collected from.
Well, now, boy, I hadn't tried to read much of
the law, but that really caught my attention because it made
sense, you know. It ought to be clear. Because I deal, as
a machinist, within sometimes 2/10,000ths of an inch. So, I
deal in specifics. So, that's not new to me. And I'd
always heard that the law is supposed to be specific, at
least everywhere that it can. And I thought it was supposed
to be everywhere. So, you know, I deal in precision things.
And like I say, I like to know how it works and why it works
and what causes it to work.
So, the cases that he brought to my attention
have really got me to thinking all over again, you know,
because I didn't remember them telling us any of this kind
of stuff in school, and I got two degrees from college.
Well, the group, after we had kind of watched
some videos of these -- now, this didn't all happen in one
meeting. This is probably over a month or two, you know,
because we'd stay maybe an hour and a half or two hours and
then we'd come back and try to finish that one up.
But all this time I'm thinking, you know, let's
just let this soak. I'm still -- I don't know if there was
another year gone by, but I'm filing and paying, because,
you know, I dated my wife for six years and we finally
decided the Lord wanted us to get married, and we got
married. That's the best move I ever made.
But I'm thinking.
Q Well, let ask you this. You said this tape
that you were watching of this George Gordon fellow, a
videotape. You have a group of people that meet in
Tullahoma and they sit around a TV?
A Right.
Q Watching a video?
A Right.
Q So, what you've just related to the jury is
some of the things you learned from this video?
A That's correct.
Q And you had several meetings over a span of
every month or two?
A That's right. And we also had the study guide.
Q So, you watched these videos?
A Uh-huh.
Q Would this be sometime in the early part of
1983?
A Uh-huh.
Q Okay. About how many people would come to
these meetings?
A Oh, ten to 15, sometimes 20, maybe 25.
Q Were these people that you knew before?
A I met a few of them, three or four, at the
Monteagle meeting. But I didn't know them before, no, sir.
Q So, they weren't friends of yours or
associates?
A Oh, no, no.
Q So, they invited you to the meetings and you
attended, and 15 or 20 people would show up and watch the
video?
A Right. Sometimes we'd listen to just cassette
tapes, if it was something somebody thought was interesting.
We'd listen to things about environment, you know, all kinds
of things, not just this.
Q There were other topics?
A Oh, yeah.
Q Now, in 1983, can you tell the jury about how
many of these meetings you went to?
A Oh, maybe six.
Q Now, as a result of attending these meetings
what, if anything, did you do?
A Well, all of us, realizing what Mr. Gordon was
saying here, that the United States Supreme Court had said
and that the state Supreme Court had said, and being who I
am, I don't take anything for granted. We decided that we
would start going to, maybe once a month, instead of the
regular meeting we'd just load up in a van and go to the
Vanderbilt law library and we'd pull these cases up. Even
though we had them in some of the study guides, we wanted to
make sure that they were exactly what he said they were.
And so over the next few months, I guess,
that's basically what we did. I won't never forget the
first one. Of course, I was kindly used to the MTSU
library. It's a pretty good-sized library. But we walked
in the door down there and saw this Vanderbilt law library,
and it'll swallow MTSU's library. We were lost, even me.
We almost turned around and come home.
Q Why did you go there?
A Well, we wanted to pull up these cases and
prove that Mr. Gordon was telling the truth.
Q All right. So you --
A We didn't want to just take his word for it off
of his video. And we were sincerely wanting to learn about
this, and if these cases exist then we've got a right to
know about it. So, that was the driving force behind that.
And just the desire to become more informed.
Q So, take the jury back in time. And you walked
through the, you walk upstairs and go in that entrance to
the library there. You open the door, walk in and see all
the levels of books.
A Whew.
Q What did you do when you got there?
A Well, we almost turned around and come home,
because it was just awesome. But having had same
experience, I knew if we went to the library we could
probably make it.
So, we went to the library and told them what
we wanted to do and some of the cases we were trying to
find. We had a list. Some of us were going to go to one
and some of us were going to go to the other, because it's
about an hour and a half from Tullahoma to Nashville, and
then an hour and a half back. So, you don't have a lot of
time if you're going to get back in time to go to bed.
And so, I don't remember, we may've gotten two
cases that particular night, by the time we got situated on
where the index was and how to locate everything in all
these books and the racks and where they were and all that.
I think we got maybe two cases and copied them and brought
them back with us. But it was quite an experience.
And as I recall, somewhere within the next few
meetings or something we sat down together at the meeting
and started trying to read through these things. We'd copy
them to where we could pass them out.
Q Did you-all only get two cases?
A Well, we went after more, but we only had time
to get two that particular time.
Q Well, these other cases that you wanted to get,
did you eventually get them?
A Oh, yes.
Q Well, how did you do that?
A Well, we went back. And by this time we'd
figured out, you know, kind of where the racks were. So, we
eventually had all the cases, more than what I've mentioned,
but I just remember these real well.
And we had them, brought them back to where we
could study them, because a lot of the language in there,
it's all written in legal terms and, you know, we had to sit
down and really ponder over these things, read them together
and talk about them with one another and try to understand.
But we did find out, finally figure out that
most everything that's important in these cases, after
they've been recorded, they have little footnotes or
captions in the front that tells basically what was decided,
and then tells you where it is in the body of the document,
so if you want to go back there and read what was discussed ~
and what was said, you can read all that.
A So, yes, we eventually got them all.
Q The ones that George Gordon had talked about?
A The ones he had talked about on that particular
tape that I remember.
Q Did you get others?
A We got others.
Q So, the time frame we're talking about here
would be '83, '84?
A Maybe '84 by now, yeah.
Q Let's come forward then in time to a point
where, in '84 where you've got all these cases and you've
read them.
A Right.
Q Okay. Can you tell the jury now what cases you
read and what. you understood them to mean?
A I believe I can.
Q In fact, have you made copies of those cases?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
A Got a lot of them right here.
Q Now, tell the jury which cases that you read
and what you learned from them.
A Well, in Flint vs. Stone Tracy, I learned
exactly what Mr. Gordon had said was right. It explains
what an excise tax is. "An excise tax" -- can I read it
from here?
Q If that's your understanding. You can give
your belief about what that document says.
A Okay. It said that an excise tax was a tax
laid upon the manufacture, sale, and consumption of
commodities within the country and upon licenses to pursue
particular occupations and upon corporate privileges.
There's areas there: manufacture, sale and
consumption, there's a tax on that. And then there's a tax
on licenses to pursue certain privileged occupations. And
then there's a tax on corporate privileges. There's three
taxes, as I understand it.
Q Now, you said something a moment ago that you
believed was what was in that case. Is that from memory?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. You didn't read the document right new?
A No.
Q Well, so what's so important about that case?
A Well, i's a Supreme Court case, United States
Supreme Court case, and it explains what an excise tax is.
Q So what?
A Well, in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific. it
plainly states that the income tax is an excise tax.
Q Now, is that a case that you pulled and --
A That's a case that George Gordon told us about.
He plainly said it's an excise tax, that that's what the
United States Supreme Court said. Who am I to question the
United States Supreme Court?
So, I go get the case. That's what it says.
And it also, like he said, explains in there that they
settled once and for all that the 16th amendment never
changed any of the power that Congress had to lay and
collect taxes. All it did was try to simplify the method in
which they collected -- they imposed the tax.
Q So, it's your view and belief that the federal
income tax is an excise?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you've read and relied upon this other
case, Flint vs. Stone Tracy, which told you what an excise
was, right?
A Right.
Q The Brushaber case, have you got it there with
you? Just tell me yes or no.
A Yeah, it's here.
Q You're familiar with it?
A Yes.
Q You've read it?
A Yes.
Q What else, what are the other cases that you've
got that you studied?
A Well, I mentioned Sims vs. Ahrens, which is a
case in Arkansas, Arkansas state Supreme Court case. And it
said that the income tax is not a tax on -- it's neither a
property tax or a tax on occupations of common right -- now,
that got my attention -- but is an excise tax. Okay.
Then we went on to the Redfield vs. Fisher
case. It was a state supreme court case in Oregon. And it
went on to say that the individual, unlike the corporation,
cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, that the
individual's rights are natural rights and that those
rights, for the enjoyment of those rights an excise cannot
be imposed. Now, these are state supreme court cases, and
they're talking about common rights, occupations of common
right cannot be taxed with an excise.
So, I start to put some things together. And
I'm not doing this, you know. These are, the highest courts
in the land are saying that the income tax is an excise tax.
well, I start saying, "Well, big deal," you
know. But then I start realizing -- I can't remember which
case it was in, but one of them explained -- and maybe it
was Flint. Anyway, they explained that the income tax is a
tax upon privileges, certain privileges, the tax is laid on
the privilege itself.
And the only reason they call it an income tax
is because they finally came around and the best way they
could measure to make it -- what's the term -- equal all
across the country, is to base it upon the income from that
privilege. Okay? But the tax itself is on the privilege,
not the income, because the income is property.
And while we were looking for these cases, we
ran upon two Tennessee Supreme Court cases.
Q When would this be?
A This may be '85. Somewhere in there.
Q All right, sir.
A And one of them was Jack Cole Company vs. The
Commissioner of Tennessee. And Jack Cole was a trucker, and
he hauled freight all over Tennessee for money, but he
wasn't incorporated. He was just Jack Cole.
Well, the state decided -- he was opening a
business, so they decided they was going to tax his
business. So, they did. He took them to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court said the right to receive income and
earnings is a right belonging to every person, and that that
right cannot be taxed as a privilege.
Well, now, that got my attention, because me
and ol' Jack is just alike. Now, he's a trucker. I'm a
school teacher. I drive my truck over to a particular place
and I teach somebody what I know for money. And the state
says that that's an occupation of common right and that it
can't be taxed as a privilege. I don't have no license.
I'm not incorporated. Where's the privilege? That really
got my attention.
Well, then we run upon a case called Corn vs.
Fort, which is another case in Tennessee, where these
individuals decided to form a partnership in a coal mining
company. Well, the state decided they were in business, so
they was going to tax them, like they did Jack Cole. They
weren't incorporated. They were just individuals who had
come together to form a partnership.
The state tried to tax them. They took them to
court. The Tennessee State Supreme Court said that
individuals have a right to combine their activities as a
partnership and that right is common right and it cannot be
taxed as a group.
Now, this blew my mind, because, you know,
okay, you know, Jack is by himself. He's -- but now they're
saying that you can be a partnership, and, as long as you
don't have some particular privilege, you're operating under
natural rights and the state can't touch you with an income
tax or a privilege tax. Whew.
And then in Jack's case, the big word, you
know, the right to receive income and earnings is a right
belonging to every person, and that right cannot be taxed as
a privilege. Now, that got my attention, folks. And it
wasn't me saying it. That's the Tennessee State Supreme
Court saying it. And if Tennessee can't tax me for a
privilege I don't have, I don't believe the federal
government can. Now, that's what's going on in my mind.
I'm still filing and still paying, but I've
learned a lot. It's really got the wheels a squealing up
here and smoking and everything else.
I'm just, -- you know, it's hard to work when
you've got this kind of thing going on in your mind. I
don't remember if I'm teaching school about this time or
what. But you just kind of let it soak. You go on and do
whatever you got to do, but this stuff is still rolling
around back here.
And then somewhere along there, we came to
another meeting. And now keep in mind, now, already, the
United States Supreme Court --
Q Can I stop you right here?
A Excuse me.
Q You've mentioned a series of cases. I don't
want to call out the names again. But the ones you just
talked about in the last five or six minutes, are they the
ones that you've got with you today?
A Yes, sir.
Q And so, those cases you mentioned, you've read
and relied upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you read and relied upon them in '85?
A Yes, sir. I didn't --
Q Were there others?
A Sir?
Q Were there others?
A There might've been. I've read so much and
we've swapped so much of this material back and forth in the
group.
Q But. those are the principal ones?
A Those are the principal ones. And I didn't
really figure I needed too many more.
Q All right. Now, I interrupted you. You were
about ready to talk about something beyond those cases at
another meeting?
A Well, you know, I started thinking back, you
know. The United States Supreme Court has said, in
Brushaber, income tax is an excise tax. All these state
supreme courts, Arkansas said it's an excise tax, the income
tax is. Oregon Supreme Court has said it was, Tennessee has
said it was. These are the highest courts in the land,
now. This is documented fact, from the United States
Supreme Court and from the state supreme courts.
We go to this meeting, and someone from another
group like ours, you know, -- they was kindly corresponding
and we was always swapping information back and forth --
sent us a copy of a Congressional Research Service report.
And I believe the particular guy's name that had done this
particular one was a Mr. Howard Zoretski.
Q Can I stop you right here?
A Sure.
Q Mr. Long, let me stop you right here and take
care of a little matter.
A Okay.
Q You mentioned -- take a look at Exhibits No. 1
and 2, Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2.
A Okay.
Q Now, those are two documents?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those documents that you read and relied
upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the formation of your beliefs?
A Yes, sir.
Q Just right now, quickly, tell us in what
respect. What did you get out of those?
A Okay. This particular one stated that the
income tax was an indirect tax of the broad category of
impost -- what is it? Oh, duties, impost, and excises.
Q What is the next one?
A The next one is an update that was done in
1984. This one was done in '79. And it stated more
expressly that the income tax is an excise tax.
Q That's something that you read and relied upon?
A Yes, sir.
Q By '85?
A Somewhere around there.
Q MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd offer 1 and 2.
A MR. COLLIER: Again I would object to both of
those for the reasons stated last week. The defendant can
talk about them and he can quote from them, but I think that
the case law is that those documents should not be admitted
into evidence.
THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
going to admit the documents. I will tell you, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, however, that the defendant has
offered those documents into evidence -- what is this? The
CRS reports, 1 and 2?
MR. BECRAFT: Yes, Your Honor, two of them.
THE COURT: This evidence is offered and
received into evidence only for whatever it may show about
the defendant's state of mind. You should not consider this
evidence as proof that anything said in these documents is
true. All right.
(Defendant's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received
into evidence.)
BY MR. BECRAFT:
And along the same lines, Mr. Long, you
recognize that those documents, you're not telling this jury
that's, quote, the law?
A Right. No.
Q Now that we've got them admitted, let's take a
look at Exhibit No. l. And what I'd like for you to do is
just tell the jury basiclly what you learned from that and
how it has an effect upon your beliefs.
A Well, I like said, we'd already studied these
supreme court cases, and they had said the income tax is an
excise tax. This document came into our possession, and it
plainly stated that the income tax was an indirect tax of
the broad category of duties, impost, and excises.
Q Mr. Long, I think I left my -- there it is,
that yellow Magic Marker. Can I get you to line through in
yellow that part of Exhibit No. 1 that you're talking about
that was important to you?
A Yes, sir. (Witness complies.)
Q And that's the particular passage you found
important?
A Uh-huh. Yes.
Q Okay. Let's move on to Exhibit No. 2, the next
one.
A Okay.
Q Can I likewise, while you've got the pen in
your hand, turn to the spot in there that. . Take a look at
the last page.
A Yes, sir. (Performs marking.)
Q So, out of those two documents, you have, for
the benefit of the jury you've lined through in yellow what
you thought was important, right?
A Yes sir.
Q Now, are both of these documents alike,
essentially?
A Basically.
Q Okay. Now, what did you understand these
documents to be?
A I understood that if they were done by the
Congressional Research Service, that basically this is a
branch of the government, the government is saying this.
Q Both of them?
A Yeah. They're from the same place.
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Q And you understood that the government was
telling you what through those documents?
A That the income tax was an excise tax.
Q Now, did that match your beliefs that you'd
already reached at that time?
A Well, the Supreme Court in Brushaber had said
it was an excise tax. The state courts that we had studied
said it was an excise tax. So, you know, who am I to
question the highest courts in the land? And now the
government is saying it's an excise tax. Sure I believed it
was.
Q Okay. Now, of what effect does a belief like
this have upon your obligation to file returns?
A Well, it really makes you question it, because
I'm operating from what I know under common right: no
privileges, I'm not incorporated, have never been
incorporated, don't want to be incorporated, that an excise
tax has to be on privileges.
So, it appears to me that if an excise tax
involves the exercise of a privilege, and I don't have any
kind of license or anything, I'm not exercising a privilege,
I'm not required or I'm not liable.
Q Is there something else you were going to say?
A No, I'm sorry.
Q Mr. Long, this is in '85 when you reached these
conclusions, right?
A Yes.
Q And for '85, come April 15, 1986, you filed a
return, right?
A That's correct.
Q April 15th of '87, April 15th of '88, April
15th of '89. You came along and filed returns for the other
years, April 15th of '89 being for '88, right?
A That's correct.
Q Now, just to kind of move through this quick,
is this your instruction booklet for '88?
A Right.
Q Now, I've handed to you copies of -- are they
accurate copies of a part of the book?
A Appear to be, yes, sir.
Q Now, is this something you've read and relied
upon, Exhibit No. 3?
A Yes, sir.
MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, I'd move for its
admission.
THE COURT: Received.
(Defendant's Exhibit 3 was received into
evidence.)
BY MR. BECRAFT:
Q Now, what's so important about Exhibit No. 3?
A The Privacy Act notice.
Q Okay. Now, what do you know about that?
A Well, I attended a meeting and I remember a
fellow telling us about that.
Q Now, when would this meeting have been?
A Probably '86.
Q Now --
A Maybe '87.
Q Through '83, '84, '85, and '86 when you were
attending these meetings, in reference to the income tax
was, was the major area of study on this argument that it's
an excise?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did there come a time in which you studied
something else in reference to the tax at one of these
meetings?
A Well, we pretty well had established that, you
know, if the United States Supreme Court says it's an excise
tax and all the state supreme courts say it is, or at least
the ones we've studied, and that the government themselves
says it is in their own Congressional Research Report, then
it must be an excise tax.
So, we pretty well nailed that down, in my mind
anyway, because I studied the material to make sure it said
what Mr. Gordon had said it did.
And then I went to a meeting, walked in, and
the guy on the video said, "Are you required to file income
tax returns?"
Q Now, when was this meeting?
A Probably '86.
Q Was it one of these same Tullahoma meetings?
A Sure was.
Q About how many people are there?
A Maybe fifteen.
Q This was a video?
A Right.
Q TV? Everybody gathered around a TV?
A Right.
Q What did you learn by looking at that video on
that occasion in '86?
A Well, like I say, that was the first question
he asked. And it really got my attention.
Q Let me stop you right here. Who was this?
A I believe the guy's name was Carter.
Q Have you ever met him?
A No. Never met him in my life.
Q So, the only thing you've seen is a video?
A Video. That's correct.
Q Of some fellow by the name of Carter?
A Right.
Q Well, what did you learn by listening to Mr.
Carter?
A Well, he got my attention with that, about
being required to file. And then he started in about the
Privacy Act. And I thought, "Man, what's that got to do
with anything?" But then he went on to explain that back in
the early '70s that, the way he explained it, all these
government agencies got kind of carried away with one
another and they got to competing to see who could gather
the most information, and they were sending out forms
everywhere and asking people to send back all this
information. And of course, the people didn't know if they
had to send it back, if they didn't have to send back, or
whatever. And they got kind of aggravated about it. So,
they complained to Congress. Congress passed a law called
the Privacy Act. Okay.
So, then he went on to say that the important
thing about the Privacy Act was that any governmental agency
now, after the Privacy Act, that sent you a form and wanted
some information, they had to, number one, tell you if it
was voluntary or mandatory for you to give them the
information. Then, if it was supposedly mandatory, they had
to go back and quote or state the statute or the law that
gave them the right to ask you for that and would require
you to do it.
Well, now, that made all kinds of sense to me.
In fact, I've wondered why they didn't do that to start
with. Because I'd been to the law library and I realized
that if you didn't at least know one or two items, the
average individual would never walk in a law library and try
to look up whether they was required or not to furnish this
information. So, that made a lot of sense to me.
So, in the next few minutes he pulls out the
Privacy Act notice for the Internal Revenue Service. And it
says, "Our legal right to ask for this information is
Internal Revenue Service Code 6001, 6011, and 6012A."
He says, "Okay, now, let's go to 6001 and see
what it says." So, he flips his book. And of course, on
the video they put it on an overhead where you can see it.
And it says, "Every person liable for any tax imposed by
this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such
records, render such statements and make such returns, and
comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may
from time to time prescribe."
And he points out, it talks about persons
liable, but it doesn't say anywhere in that body who that
is. It's this entity out here, "person liable."
Q Could I stop you here? After he explained this
to you, what you --
THE COURT: I think we're going to cut this off
for the day.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like you
to come back at 9:30 tomorrow morning. And while you're
away tonight, remember the things I told you. Don't discuss
the case with anyone and don't permit anyone to discuss it
with you. Don't read anything in the paper about the case
or anything like that. We'll resume trial here promptly at
9:30 tomorrow morning. Until that time this court will be
in adjournment.
(Wherupon, court was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to
continue October 13, 1993.)