Subscribe to Chuck's Column
Enter your information below and receive Chuck's column every Thursday directly to your email address!

    Search Articles

    This search box can be used to search both titles and article topics on the numerous subjects Chuck has extensively written on over the past decade.

    Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission

    To Keep or Not to Keep Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Arms Tim & Chuck Baldwin

    War is a Racket

    Second Treatise on Government - John Locke

    The Law by Frederic Bastiat

    Lex, Rex, or the law and the prince

    Judge Roy Moore Trial Transcript

    Published: Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    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 to expect of

    them.

    Now, I think Alabama can be very

    proud of the Code of Judicial Ethics which

    all the states follow. But you have got to

    understand, as I said in the video, God is

    the basis of our law and our government and

    indeed the basis of the Preamble. If you

    will turn to the -- there was a law review

    article in Jones Law Review which addressed

    the Code of Ethics, and that was the first

    significant contribution of Thomas Goode

    Jones in which we get Jones Law School, that

    he formulated this Code of Ethics. He was

    also president of the Alabama Bar

    Association in 1901. I believe the lady

    here, assistant curator of the Alabama

    Supreme Court, the State Law Library, said

    that Thomas Jones, being interested in the

    welfare of lawyers in the judicial branch,

    and he formulated these ethical standards

    and kept a copy of 1854 essay on

    professional ethics by a man by the name of

    George Sharwood, and also a course of legal

    study by David Hoffman, in 1817 and 1836,

    his resolution of professional deportment.

    These things were -- both Hoffman

    and Sharwood were very religious men.

    Harwood (phonetic) and -- Hoffman and

    Sharwood relied heavily on scriptural

    teachings and moral principles as a basis

    for their work. Sharwood, for his part,

    believed that laws derived from principles

    laid down by a Supreme Being. Both men

    believed that the book of Proverbs was a

    source of ethical principles for lawyers.

    Now, this is a statement made in

    this law review by none other than former

    Alabama Supreme Court Justice Alvin Hugh

    Maddox. Justice Maddox, of course, was most

    recent departure -- only recently departed

    from the Alabama Supreme Court where he

    served over 27, nearly 30 years. And

    Justice Sharwood -- I am sorry. Justice

    Maddox is the one that said that both

    Hoffman and Sharwood relied heavily on

    scriptural teachings and moral principles as

    a basis of their work. And he believed,

    Sharwood, that law was derived from

    principles laid down by a Supreme Being.

    So, you can see that this Code of

    Ethics which extends all across the United

    States now, originally adopted from Alabama,

    even adopted by the American Bar Association

    with slight modifications, originated from

    an acknowledgment that it is God who was the

    source of our ethics. And to acknowledge

    God cannot be a violation of the Canon

    Ethics. It's the very thing that supports

    the integrity of an ethical code. Without

    that, there's no basis.

    Q: As a Deputy District Attorney and a Circuit

    Judge and in private practice and now as the

    Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, have

    you always maintained high standards of

    conduct?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Have you ever been charged prior to this by

    the Judicial Inquiry Commission, formally

    charged?

    A: No. No. Not -- no.

    Q: Have you ever encouraged anyone to violate a

    court order?

    A: No.

    Q: Have you ever encouraged anyone to disobey a

    court order?

    A: No.

    Q: Do you believe, Chief Justice, that what you

    have done is a fulfillment of what you told

    the Alabama people you would do when you ran

    for his office?

    A: It is not only a fulfillment of what I told

    the people of Alabama I would do by

    upholding the moral foundation of law, it

    was the duty which I was -- which I came

    into as Chief Justice to uphold the Alabama

    Constitution and the Constitution of the

    United States, both of which acknowledge

    God.

    Q: Do you believe what you have done and what

    you are charged with -- do you believe that

    has brought the judicial office into

    disrepute in any way?

    A: On the contrary, what I have done has

    brought the judicial office into the

    judicial of high respect and confidence. I

    mean, the only thing is that, when people

    take office, they should do what they said

    they were going to do, not change.

    Q: Do you intend as Chief Justice of the

    Alabama Supreme Court, if you are allowed to

    return to that office, to continue to uphold

    your oath that you stated you would do and

    have done?

    A: Absolutely, to include the acknowledgment of

    God.

    Q: Let me ask you this, Chief Justice: Were

    you ever held in contempt by Judge Thompson?

    A: No.

    Q: Were you ever taken to court, any kind of

    hearing, to hold you in contempt?

    A: No.

    Q: Was there ever any formal process started to

    hold you in contempt other than that motion

    that was filed?

    A: I think the motion is the only thing they --

    and they withdrew the motion, the plaintiffs

    did.

    Q: Are -- Are you aware of a law that was

    enacted regarding the enforcement of Judge

    Thompson's order?

    A: You mean by the United States Congress?

    Q: Yes.

    A: There was a resolution or a bill. I guess

    it was a bill.

    Q: I show you what has been marked as Moore's

    Exhibit Number Seven.

    A: Yes.

    Q: It is denoted as the Departments of

    Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary

    and related agencies Appropriations Act

    2004. And I direct you to Section 808 of

    that and ask you to read that for me.

    A: It says, "Section 808. None of the funds

    appropriated in this Act may be used to

    enforce a judgment in the United States

    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in

    Glassroth v. Moore, decided July 1, 2003, or

    Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1067

    (Middle District of Alabama 2002)."

    MR. JONES: Again, I believe that has

    been admitted. I would like to

    publish copies if that's fine,

    Your Honor.

    HON. THOMPSON: Yes.

    MR. JONES: Your Honor, I don't know

    what your wishes are as far as

    time goes. This is a good -- I

    don't have much more. This would

    be a good stopping point if the

    Court intends to break for lunch

    and give me a chance -- it might

    help me expedite what else I have

    got to do to wind it up.

    HON. THOMPSON: I think the Court would

    prefer that we just continue to

    try --

    MR. JONES: That's fine. I just didn't

    know if you -- if the Court

    planned to break or not.

    HON. THOMPSON: We did, but since we

    are in the testimony I think it

    would be better for the court to

    proceed.

    BY MR. JONES:

    Q: Okay. Chief Justice, do you -- do you wish

    to return as your duty as the Chief Justice

    of Alabama Supreme Court?

    A: Absolutely.

    MR. JONES: Your Honor, if I could have

    just one second to confer.

    MR. BUTTS: It may be more like two

    minutes, Judge, please.

    HON. JONES: Your Honor, that is all I

    have at this time of Chief Justice

    Moore. Justice, if you would

    answer the Attorney General or his

    office's questions, please.

    HON. THOMPSON: I think this is

    probably a good place to break.

    We will break for lunch. This

    court will stand in recess until

    one-thirty. Thank you.

    (At which time, a recess was

    taken at 12:03 p.m. and

    reconvened at 1:32 p.m.)

    HON. THOMPSON: Okay.

    MR. PRYOR: Your Honor, I would like to

    have one housecleaning measure

    taken care of.

    HON. THOMPSON: Okay.

    MR. PRYOR: The last exhibit that the

    Chief Justice offered is a House

    Appropriations Bill that is now

    pending in the United States

    Senate, and I just wanted the

    record to accurately reflect that

    that is a bill -- an

    Appropriations Bill that passed

    the House. It has not passed the

    Senate of the United States. It

    has not become law. We do not

    object to its admission. We just

    wanted the Court to be aware of

    its exact status. Do I need to

    repeat it?

    HON. VOWELL: Do you agree with that?

    MR. JONES: Yes, sir. I haven't -- I

    can verify that it has passed in

    the House, so that's fine with me.

    Yes, sir.

    One other thing, Your Honor,

    I had some more copies of these I

    am going to give to the Clerk.

    This is an exhibit we have already

    entered and that's just -- makes

    copies for everybody.

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

    Could we have the witness return

    to the stand.

    MR. JONES: He was -- He is on his way

    back, Your Honor. There he is.

    CROSS-EXAMINATION

    BY MR. PRYOR:

    Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice.

    A: Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General.

    Q: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe you testified

    on direct examination that you did not

    remove the monument because to do so would

    require you to violate the First Amendment,

    your oath of office, and the Ten

    Commandments?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: While the Glassroth case was pending in the

    federal courts after you were sued in the

    U.S. District Court for the Middle District

    of Alabama, you had attorneys represent you

    in that court; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Do you recall that they presented arguments

    on your behalf in those courts?

    A: Yes.

    Q: One of the arguments that they made on your

    behalf was that the monument was not a law

    respecting an establishment of religion in

    violation of the First Amendment; isn't that

    right?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: You made that argument in the District

    Courts, didn't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And you made it in the Eleventh Circuit,

    didn't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And you made that argument in the Supreme

    Court of the United States, didn't you?

    A: Well, we submitted that on --

    Q: Right.

    A: Well, we asked for a petition for a writ of

    certiorari on other grounds, in other words,

    that they had on the part of a "Lemon test,"

    but that was an argument we would have

    made --

    Q: Right.

    A: -- in the United States Supreme Court.

    Q: Right. You asked the Court -- the Supreme

    Court of the United States to hear --

    A: Yes.

    Q: -- your case and to hear that argument;

    isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: The District Court disagreed with your

    argument; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with your

    argument?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the Supreme Court of the United States

    decided not to hear your case; isn't that

    right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: You also presented an argument to the

    District Court about your oath, didn't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And you presented that argument in the

    Eleventh Circuit, didn't you?

    A: I did.

    Q: And in your petition to the Supreme Court of

    the United States, you asked them to hear

    that argument, didn't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And each of those -- well, let me start

    first.

    The District Court disagreed with

    that argument; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with that

    argument?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the Supreme Court of the United States

    decided not to hear your case?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Finally, as to your argument that the

    injunction violated the Tenth Amendment, you

    presented that argument in the District

    Court, didn't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And you presented it in the Eleventh

    Circuit, didn't you?

    A: I did.

    Q: And it was one of the points that you made

    in your petition to the Supreme Court of the

    United States when you asked them to hear

    your case, wasn't it?

    A: It was a writ of mandamus, yes.

    MR. HARRIS: Excuse me, sir?

    A: It was a writ of mandamus. I think that it

    was a --

    Q: And the District Court disagreed with your

    argument; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the

    argument; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to

    hear your appeal?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Now, earlier you also testified, I believe,

    that when the mandate was returned to the

    District Court, that it was your

    understanding that you should pursue the

    appellate process and the District Court

    should not enter an injunction; isn't that

    right?

    A: Well, repeat that again, please.

    Q: It was your understanding that, when the

    mandate came back to the District Court,

    that you were to pursue your appellate

    process --

    A: Yes.

    Q: -- and the District Court was not to enter

    an injunction of the kind that it entered on

    August 5th; isn't that right?

    A: Well, the District Court had already entered

    an injunction, but they had stayed the

    injunction and there was a stay in effect

    when the mandate came down.

    Q: But you didn't think that the District Court

    should enter the injunction that it did on

    August 5th?

    A: Not lift the stay. Right. I did not think

    that they should have lifted the stay to

    impose the injunction after the mandate came

    down.

    Q: Okay. You asked, though -- After the August

    5th injunction was entered by the District

    Court, you asked the District Court to stay

    that injunction, didn't you?

    A: After the August 5th --

    Q: Yes.

    A: -- came down?

    Q: Yes.

    A: No. No. The District Court asked us if we

    had an objection, and we registered an

    objection. I believe that's what you are

    talking about. Maybe I am confused. But

    after the mandate came down, the District

    Court on --

    MR. PRYOR: May I approach the witness,

    Your Honor?

    HON. THOMPSON: Sure.

    Q: I'd like to show you, Mr. Chief Justice,

    what has already been admitted into evidence

    as JIC Exhibit Number Ten, an order of the

    United States District Court in the Middle

    District of Alabama dated the 18th of August

    2003.

    A: Right.

    Q: And do you -- If you would like, take a

    moment to look at it. Does that appear to

    be an order denying a request by you to stay

    the injunction of August 5th?

    A: Okay. Okay. Sure. This is -- This is the

    motion to stay. Okay. I've got my times

    crossed out. I thought you were talking

    about after the mandate and about the

    conference that the Court had. This is a

    motion to stay.

    Q: Right.

    A: Correct.

    Q: And the District Court denied your motion to

    stay the August 5th injunction?

    A: Yes, they did. They did. And then it went

    to the Eleventh Circuit. They denied it,

    and then the United States Supreme Court

    refused to stay the mandate.

    Q: Well, they actually denied an application

    for a stay --

    A: On the mandamus.

    Q: -- of the injunction --

    A: Yes.

    Q: -- on August 20th?

    A: Yes. August 20th is the very day that he

    had originally set.

    Q: The deadline --

    A: I understand what you are talking about.

    Q: That's right. The deadline was set by the

    August 5th injunction?

    A: Sure. I was speaking earlier about the

    August 4th conference call.

    Q: Sure.

    A: And I thought that's what you were talking

    about.

    Q: Okay. Mr. Chief Justice, you stand by your

    testimony of August 22nd of this year before

    the Judicial Inquiry Commission that you

    would do it again, don't you?

    A: I would do everything that I have done

    again. Yes. I mean, what I have done is --

    applies to the law. If that's -- I see what

    you are talking about when I said -- would I

    do it again.

    Q: Well, as you know, we have admitted into

    evidence the transcript of your testimony.

    I just -- I have the shorthand reference. I

    just wanted to know whether you stand by

    that testimony of that day?

    A: I stand by that testimony of that day, and I

    have not reviewed it but --

    Q: Well, if you would like to review it, you

    can.

    A: If I may.

    Q: Sure.

    A: So that we can know -- here it is. Is this

    the whole thing?

    MR. JONES: That's -- That's the

    paragraph -- excuse me. That's

    the paragraph where the phrase he

    has just referred to came from.

    A: Okay. This --

    Q: There's the entire transcript, Mr. Chief

    Justice.

    A: Well, if it's possible for me to read

    this --

    Q: Sure.

    A: May I read the whole thing?

    Q: Certainly.

    A: Because I think -- I think it's important to

    know when I said I would do it again.

    "Chief Justice Moore, we welcome you here.

    We know that these have been busy times for

    you. We appreciate your presence here

    today."

    Q: You want to read the entire transcript?

    A: Well, I think --

    Q: I don't mind you reading it, Mr. Chief

    Justice, but I would ask that you just read

    it to yourself to speed things along.

    HON. THOMPSON: The transcript has

    already been stipulated to. It's

    already into evidence.

    A: You know, I didn't want to read the whole

    transcript. I wanted to read what I said,

    and this is the whole transcript of what

    Mr. Jauregui said. So --

    Q: Okay.

    A: If I may read this paragraph.

    HON. THOMPSON: Please.

    A: I am upholding my oath. I have nothing to

    apologize for. I'm upholding the First

    Amendment. I am upholding the Constitution

    of Alabama, and we were too ashamed to

    acknowledge God. When we let a federal

    judge come in and tell us -- call it the

    "rule of law," that we can't acknowledge God

    as the Justice System says we must, as the

    Constitution says we must, then we have got

    a problem. I did what I did all the way

    through, not from what you read in the

    papers, not from what you imagine about

    politics or religion or forcing my beliefs

    on somebody else. I did what I did because

    I upheld my oath, and that's what I did.

    So, I have no apologies for it. I would do

    it again. I didn't say I would defy the

    court order. I said I wouldn't move the

    monument, and I didn't move the monument,

    which you can take that as you will. But,

    you know, I think you have to have respect

    for the Court, but I also have respect

    enough for the Court to tell them when they

    have no jurisdiction in this matter under

    the Tenth Amendment of the United States

    Constitution, which declares that "The

    powers not delegated to the United States by

    the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

    the States, are reserved to the States

    respectively, or to the people." In other

    words, the establishment of the Justice

    System doesn't belong with the federal

    government in Alabama.

    One more: But in any event, I

    respect you guys and ladies -- and that's my

    statement. If you have no question -- if

    you have a question, I will be glad to

    answer it. And that was it.

    Q: And you stand by that testimony --

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: -- Mr. Chief Justice? And -- And your

    understanding is that the Federal Court

    ordered -- ordered that you could not

    acknowledge God; isn't that right?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief

    Justice after this proceeding, you will

    continue to acknowledge God as you have

    testified that you would today --

    A: That's right.

    Q: -- no matter what any other official says?

    A: Absolutely. Without -- let me clarify that.

    Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot

    do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It

    says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It

    says so in the First Amendment to the United

    States Constitution. It says so in

    everything I have read. So --

    Q: The only point I am trying to clarify,

    Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only

    that, in fact, if you do resume your duties

    as Chief Justice, you will continue to do

    that without regard to what any other

    official says; isn't that right?

    A: Well, I'll do the same thing this Court did

    with starting of prayer; that's an

    acknowledgment of God. Now, we did the same

    say thing that justices do when they place

    their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me

    God." It's an acknowledgment of God. The

    Alabama Supreme Court opens with, "God save

    the State and this Honorable Court." It's

    an acknowledgment of God. In my opinions,

    which I have written many opinions,

    acknowledging God is the source -- a moral

    source of our law. I think you must.

    Q: You bring up opinions. Sometimes you've

    written dissenting opinions, haven't you?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And sometimes you've been the only member of

    the Supreme Court of Alabama to write a

    dissenting opinion; isn't that right?

    A: Absolutely. Many times. There is only one

    dissenting in all the courts. That's a --

    and many times one judge will dissent and

    others not.

    Q: And if you write a dissenting opinion and

    the other eight associate justices have

    another opinion, when a case returns to the

    Circuit Court, which opinion is the Circuit

    judge supposed to follow?

    A: With the majority.

    Q: Thank you.

    MR. PRYOR: That's all of my questions.

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Pryor.

    MR. PRYOR: Respondent?

    MR. JONES: Nothing further. Nothing

    further from the Chief Justice.

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you. Chief, you

    may step down.

    Do any members of the Court

    have any questions for this

    witness before he is excused?

    HON. VOWELL: I have a question.

    Mr. Chief Justice, I am afraid

    that there's some part of your

    testimony that I don't quite

    understand. You say that you

    don't intend to violate the Court

    order; is that correct?

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: I don't -- sir,

    say it again, please.

    HON. VOWELL: Well, let me state it

    more clearly. If you return to

    your office, would you follow the

    injunction, which is a final

    injunction issued by the United

    States District Court?

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: The injunction

    was to move the monument. The

    monument has been moved. You

    can't follow something that's

    already been done.

    HON. VOWELL: If you return, what, sir,

    would you do with the monument?

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Well, I certainly

    wouldn't leave it in the closet

    out of the view of the public. I

    certainly wouldn't -- wouldn't

    hide the Word of God when it's an

    acknowledgment of God. Exactly

    what I would do with it I haven't

    decided.

    HON. VOWELL: If you ordered --

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: It wouldn't stay

    in the monument -- I mean, in the

    closet, I will assure you that.

    HON. VOWELL: Would you put it back in

    the rotunda from which it was

    removed?

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: I wouldn't -- I

    haven't decided what I would do

    with it.

    HON. VOWELL: Well, I think you should

    let us know that. It seems to me

    a very important issue as to

    whether if you would return to

    office you would obey the Court

    order to remove it.

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: Obeyance of the

    Court order was to remove it from

    where it was. It has been

    removed. There would be nothing

    to obey. Now, what I would do

    with the monument I haven't even

    thought about it, quite frankly,

    except I would not leave it in a

    closet. I have not entered any

    ideas in my mind of where I would

    put it or what I would do with it.

    HON. VOWELL: I see.

    CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE: But I would not

    leave where it is.

    MR. HOWELL: Thank you, sir.

    HON. THOMPSON: Any additional

    questions from the Court?

    (No response).

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief

    Justice. Respondent may call its

    next witness.

    MR. JONES: That's all we have, Your

    Honor.

    HON. THOMPSON: You rest?

    MR. JONES: Yes, we rest.

    HON. THOMPSON: Any rebuttal?

    MR. GIBBS: No, sir, Your Honor.

    HON. THOMPSON: Okay. You may proceed

    with closing arguments.

    MR. HARRIS: Excuse me one moment.

    (Thereupon, a discussion was

    held off the record.)

    MR. GIBBS: May it please the Court.

    In this -- In this case, the facts

    of what happened here are clear.

    In this case, Chief Justice Roy

    Moore participated in lengthy

    litigation in the United States

    District Court, in the Middle

    District of Alabama, in the

    Eleventh Circuit and sought review

    in the United States Supreme Court

    on an issue involving the Ten

    Commandments monument in the

    rotunda of this building. He

    litigated, he raised all the

    claims that he has -- that he had

    to raise, and he lost. The

    exhibits that we've presented in

    evidence here showed the judgment

    of the District Court at the

    various times, the injunction,

    careful consideration given to the

    arguments raised by the Chief

    Justice, the Eleventh Circuit in

    consideration they gave to these

    arguments, and then the United

    States Supreme Court's refusal to

    hear the case.

    It is clear that when the

    case came back to the Middle

    District in August of this year

    and the injunction was entered

    that at that point Chief Justice

    began -- that Chief Justice Moore

    began to violate the Canons of

    Judicial Ethics. You have only to

    look at this statement of August

    14 of this year. And I am reading

    from page four, "As Chief Justice

    of the State of Alabama, it is my

    duty to administer the justice

    system of our state, not to

    destroy it. I have no intension

    of removing the monument of the

    Ten Commandments and the moral

    foundation of our law. To do so

    would, in effect, result in the

    disestablishment of our system of

    justice in this state. This I

    cannot and will not do." This is

    the statement -- the typed

    statement that he issued on August

    14th. You saw the taped

    statement -- the tape of the

    statement that he gave in which he

    said the same thing.

    So, on August 14th of this

    year, Chief Justice Moore

    publicly, vehemently stated that

    he would -- he had no intention

    whatsoever of obeying a court

    order, a court order entered in a

    case where he had been a litigant,

    had had the opportunity to raise

    each and every claim that he

    wanted to raise, where he was --

    his case was considered, not just

    by one judge in the Middle

    District, but by three judges of

    the Eleventh Circuit, and then the

    United States Supreme Court

    decided they did not think the

    case was worthy of consideration.

    On August 14th, he made a

    public statement that he would not

    follow the law. Then when the

    deadline from the injunction

    entered by the Middle District

    came and went on August 20th of

    this year, the Chief Justice did

    not do what he had been ordered to

    do in a lawful, valid, unstayed

    injunction.

    He -- On the twenty-first,

    made another statement. And you

    saw that statement, the JIC

    Exhibit Nineteen, his written

    statement -- typed statement of

    August the 21st, again, shows his

    refusal, that his refusal was

    deliberate, that he had no

    intention -- had never had any

    intention of complying with the

    order of the Middle District to

    remove the monument. And that

    intent is supported by his

    actions, or rather his lack of

    action, because the day to remove

    the monument came and went and it

    stayed -- and it remained unmoved.

    There was a suggestion in

    opening statement about how Chief

    Justice Moore was never found in

    contempt of court. That was

    through no action taken by Chief

    Justice Moore. In its order, the

    Middle District had talked about

    imposing fines in a geometric

    progression on the State of

    Alabama, and in order to avoid

    that, not Chief Justice Moore, but

    the other justices on the Alabama

    Supreme Court acted to prevent a

    contempt finding, but it is clear

    that even absent a contempt

    finding, Chief Justice Moore never

    did anything to come into

    compliance with that court order.

    His -- The fact that he was not

    found in contempt is not relevant

    here because by his actions Chief

    Justice Moore displayed that he

    had no intention of ever complying

    with the law as is required by the

    Canons of Judicial Ethics. A

    judge is required to comply with

    the law.

    And then in his appearance

    before the Alabama Judicial

    Inquiry Commission on the

    twenty-second he said -- again, he

    showed that his -- in his -- that

    he was unrepentant. That he did

    not and would not and he has not

    today acknowledged that he had

    done anything wrong, that he had

    any duty to follow the law, his

    duty to follow the Court order.

    In fact, he says -- and he just

    read it to the Court -- he would

    do it again. He would do it

    again. A judge who publicly,

    repeatedly states that he is not

    obliged to follow a judge's order,

    a court order, that has not been

    stayed, despite his efforts to

    obtain stays from every level of

    this judicial system, a judge who

    says that is in violation of that

    Canon which requires a judge to

    comply with the law, at a minimum,

    is in violation of that Canon.

    There's some suggestion that

    he had -- the ability to somehow

    rely on the language that -- I

    think Mr. Jones elicited about

    the -- the Eleventh Circuit

    opinions about the -- at the

    appropriate time, or there will

    become a time when he'll be

    required to comply with the law --

    when the time comes, that he will

    have to comply with the law.

    Well, when he went back to the

    district judge in August, and on

    August 18th, he asked for a stay,

    and he didn't get a stay. Then he

    went to the Eleventh Circuit and

    he asked for a stay, and he didn't

    get a stay, and the Eleventh

    Circuit refused to recall the

    mandate. Then he went to the U.S.

    Supreme Court to get a stay, and

    they refused to give him a stay.

    It was clear by then -- it could

    not have been more clear -- that

    when -- the time was now to comply

    with the law. The time was now

    when you can't get a stay and when

    you didn't even ask for a timely

    stay from the Eleventh Circuit,

    after they had initially ruled

    against him.

    So, when you go back and you

    attempt to get a stay from the

    District Court, from the Eleventh

    Circuit, the very court that --

    whose opinion has the language

    about while the appellate remedies

    continue, when you go back to that

    court and they don't give you the

    stay, and you go to the U.S.

    Supreme Court and they don't give

    a stay, at that point it is clear

    that the time -- in the Eleventh

    Circuit's opinion, when Judge

    Carnes talks about the official

    will have to follow the law, it is

    clear that at that time that's the

    time to do it. Now is the time.

    You can't -- you have a valid

    order, it's not stayed, that's the

    time to follow the law. And he

    didn't, and he had no intention of

    doing it. You can look at his

    August 14th statements, and he

    didn't do what the judge told him

    to do. And it -- Then he goes so

    far as, when he appears in front

    of the Judicial Inquiry Commission

    to say, "I would do it again."

    So, those are the facts that

    are before this Court. So the

    question then becomes -- the

    charges in this case -- the six

    violations, the first is a

    violation of Canon 2A, which

    requires that the judge respect

    and comply with the law. It's

    clear that that -- that Chief

    Justice Moore did not respect and

    comply with the law in this case.

    The second violation that's

    alleged is a violation of Canon 1,

    which requires that a judge uphold

    the integrity and independence of

    the judiciary. This, like the

    remaining charges of the Canon

    violations in this case,

    concern -- Chief Justice Moore's

    actions do not occur in a vacuum.

    Chief Justice Moore's actions in

    refusing to comply with the law do

    set an example. They do have an

    effect on the public. His -- His

    defiance, his refusal to follow

    the Court order in this case, was

    very public. And that public

    refusal to follow the Court order

    undercuts the entire working of

    the judicial system. It undercuts

    the ability of the courts to do

    business. If the Court's order

    is -- is not an obligation, but a

    matter of choice -- I appeared in

    front of a judge once, and I had

    the -- lacked the wisdom to, at

    some point, take issue with one of

    his rulings after he had ruled,

    and he informed me rather quickly

    that, you know, Mr. Gibbs, it's a

    ruling, not a negotiation.

    Now, this is an order, not a

    negotiation. A Court issues an

    order to a litigant, that litigant

    must do as told, unless he can

    obtain relief by appeal; and

    that's what Chief Justice Moore

    tried to do in this case. He was

    unsuccessful. But a losing

    ligament must obey an order of the

    Court. When you have as an

    example the Chief Justice of the

    judicial system -- the head of the

    judicial system who is not obliged

    to follow a court order but can

    choose, it's optional whether to

    obey a Court order or not, then

    what message does that send to the

    public, to other litigants, to

    people who rely on the judicial

    system for relief? Well, the

    message it sends is, well, if you

    don't like the Court order, you

    don't have to follow it. Now,

    that absolutely undercuts the

    integrity and independence of the

    judiciary. It absolutely violates

    the Canon 1 requirement that a

    judge must observe high standards

    of conduct so that the integrity

    and independence of the judiciary

    may be preserved as charged in the

    complaint. And the fourth

    violation is that the Canon 2

    requirement that a judge avoid

    impropriety and the appearance of

    impropriety in all of his

    activities, that Canon 2A

    requirement that a judge conduct

    himself at all times in a manner

    that promotes public confidence in

    the integrity and impartiality of

    the judiciary. And the last is

    the Canon 2 violation that the

    judge avoid conduct prejudicial to

    the administration of justice,

    which brings the judicial office

    into disrepute.

    I submit to you that all

    those Canons -- all those Canons

    are violated by Judge -- Chief

    Justice Moore's actions in this

    case because Chief Justice Moore's

    actions in this case undercut the

    ability of the judicial system to

    do its work by issuing orders and

    expecting those orders to be

    followed, not -- by the losing

    litigant. If that conduct -- if

    conduct that says that an order is

    an option, it's not an order, it's

    not binding, is the rule, then it

    would have -- it will have

    disastrous effects on the judicial

    system as a whole. And it is

    that, the failure to comply with

    the law as is required by the

    Canons, and the devastating effect

    of this example from the highest

    official -- the highest official

    in the judicial system, it is that

    example that violates -- that

    shows the violation of these other

    Canons.

    Again, what happened here --

    what happened here is clear.

    Chief Justice Moore had a full and

    fair opportunity to litigate the

    issues in this case just like many

    other litigants, just like many

    other litigants. He lost. Maybe

    he was right. Maybe he was wrong.

    But he had a trial. He had an

    opportunity to get it reviewed and

    he lost. A losing litigant

    doesn't have a choice about

    following a court order. That

    order is binding. Chief Justice

    Moore attempted to get relief from

    the order. He was unsuccessful.

    In order to comply with the

    law, in order to comply with the

    Canons of Judicial Ethics, he had

    no choice but to follow the order.

    And when he chose not to follow

    the order, then he violated the

    Canons of Judicial Ethics. And

    for that, this Court must hold him

    accountable and should find that

    he has violated the Canons as

    charged in the complaint in this

    case. Thank you.

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

    Respondent.

    MR. JONES: May it please the Court,

    Chief Justice Moore, Attorney

    General Pryor, my fellow counsel.

    As I look around, I have to wonder

    amongst all these right and

    learned attorneys what a lawyer

    from the briar patch down in

    Luverne is doing here. It's

    overwhelming. But I can say this,

    I can say this, "God has chosen

    this time and this place so that

    we can save our country and save

    our courts for our children."

    Now, I would like to take credit

    for that, but I must give credit

    to that to the speaker who said

    that, and that was Attorney

    General Bill Pryor on April the

    13th, 1977, at a "Save the Ten

    Commandments Rally." But --

    HON. THOMPSON: Would you please

    refrain from clapping or making

    any other gestures. You may

    proceed.

    MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honor. I

    do agree that this is the time.

    Now, you know, it's hard for an

    attorney like me to make a closing

    without telling a story. So,

    there's a story that I think is

    very appropriate here. It is a

    story of a man who was a tight

    rope walker, and he decided he was

    going to walk a tight rope between

    two tall buildings. And so, of

    course, it was publicized that he

    was going to do this, and when he

    got there, there was a crowd. So,

    he climbs up on the building, and

    as he gets to the top of the

    building the crowd is down there,

    and he looks down at the crowd and

    he says: Do you believe that I

    can walk across this tight rope?

    Do you believe I can do it? The

    crowd yells: We believe you can

    do it. So, he gets on the tight

    rope and he walks across to the

    other side. When he gets to the

    other side, he looks down and he

    says: How many of you believe

    that I can ride a bicycle across

    this tight rope? Of course, the

    crowd goes wild and says: We

    believe you can do it. So he,

    gets on his bicycle and he goes

    back across to the other side. He

    gets to the other side and he

    looks down at the crowd and he

    says: How many of you believe

    that I can go across this tight

    rope in a wheelbarrow? And, of

    course, they all say: We believe,

    we believe you can do it. And he

    says: Okay. Says: Which one of

    you want to get into the

    wheelbarrow?

    Now, I say that because of

    this: We are here today on a very

    important issue. But let me say

    this: As I look and see things

    across this state, when we run for

    political office, we prominently

    display what church we go to, or

    how many years we have taught

    Sunday School, we prominently

    display that on our literature.

    When we are elected to office, we

    take an oath, even as judges here

    on this court took, that says, you

    will fulfill your duties, so help

    me God. When we take that oath,

    we place our hand on a Bible, not

    any other document, a Bible. When

    our courts begin, just like we did

    today, they begin it in prayer.

    Not just this court, but the court

    that I am honored to serve in

    Crenshaw County does it every

    time.

    When our legislators begin,

    they begin their legislative

    sessions with a prayer. Every

    year -- every year our appellate

    courts attend a church service

    called the "Red Mass," asking for

    the blessing of the -- of God on

    the Court.

    Our currency promptly states,

    "In God we trust." The United

    States Supreme Court, when they

    begin their sessions, they say,

    "God save the United States and

    this Honorable Court." Our Pledge

    of Allegiance, and I have to -- I

    have to admit, you know, I didn't

    always know how to say the pledge

    of allegiance. When I first

    joined the Rotary Club down in

    Luverne, when I was a much younger

    person, a very nice fellow down

    there by the name of Ed Turner

    took me aside and explained to me

    how you say the Pledge of

    Allegiance. He said, look, you

    don't ever say it any other way

    but "one nation under God." He

    said because you don't ever want

    to separate God from the nation.

    The Luverne Rotary Club still says

    the pledge that way today. We

    said it that way last Monday.

    So, we are here today,

    standing on the ground, looking

    up, looking up, and the question

    is, who is going to get in the

    wheelbarrow, and we are here

    because somebody finally got in

    the wheelbarrow. Chief Justice

    Moore finally got in the

    wheelbarrow. That is what he has

    done.

    Now, counsel for the Judicial

    Inquiry Commission has

    characterized what he has done as

    supporting anarchy, a license for

    anybody that wants to to go out

    and disobey an order. And you've

    read the trial brief and what they

    have said today, but we have cited

    in our trial brief an article by

    Mr. Tuomala, and I hope I am

    pronouncing that correctly.

    That's who I think it is. And he

    in there -- and I just want to

    refer to it real quickly. He

    quotes in there, Brigadier General

    Paul K. Van Riper, and it's an

    address he made upon assuming

    command of the Second Marine

    Division. You see just like what

    he's -- what we have just heard,

    the military, above everybody,

    depends on what? Orders. You

    can't think of an institution in

    our society that is more dependent

    on orders than the military. This

    is what the Brigadier General

    said. He said, "For most of us

    these four values [faith, family,

    Constitution and Corp] will

    normally be in balance, and we

    need make no decisions in regard

    to their priority. Occasionally,

    however, conflicts can arise. If

    it does, use the order in which I

    have presented them to make a

    judgment. For example, if our

    Corps asks you to do something

    that would violate your oath to

    support and defend the

    Constitution, don't do it. Or if

    the Nation asked you to act in a

    manner which violates your faith,

    don't do it. Those who live by

    faith, remember family and

    friends, defend our Nation, and

    honor the Corps will be a source

    of pride to all who stand in and

    behind them on the frontiers of

    freedom."

    The same -- the same applies

    here. The same applies here.

    There will not be anarchy. There

    won't be this mass refusal to obey

    court orders. That won't happen.

    In fact, I would suggest that

    possibly, possibly there may even

    be more respect for the judiciary

    because of a man with conviction

    and conscience that finally got in

    the wheelbarrow.

    Now, counsel for the Judicial

    Inquiry Commission have basically

    said there is no other remedy for

    what the Chief Justice has done

    other than removal. As I read

    their trial brief and have heard

    their arguments here today, as I

    understand it, they think that is

    the only appropriate remedy. They

    have cited you a number of cases

    in your trial brief, a number of

    cases. I've made copies of those

    cases, five of them, five of them.

    And I would ask you to please read

    those cases. Please read those

    cases and see what they have cited

    to you and the conduct that took

    place in those cases, and compare

    those, if you would, to the cases

    before you today.

    Now, they may correct me, and

    I am sure they will if I am wrong,

    but I have not found a single case

    where a judge was disciplined for

    disobeying a single court order.

    Not one. And they haven't cited

    you one. The difference between

    this case and those cases is

    substantial, substantial. Please

    read those cases. There's not any

    dishonesty here. There's not any

    neglect of duties here, none of

    the things that these other judges

    had in their cases. There's been

    no history of disciplinary

    proceedings, nothing like that.

    This is a totally different and

    separate case.

    And if the Court would

    indulge me, I know we don't have

    the opportunity, as is the

    procedure of this court, to come

    back after your finding and give

    you any evidence in mitigation, or

    otherwise, of whatever you may do.

    But I do want to point out to you

    a couple of cases that have come

    directly from this Court. I

    believe the last judge that was

    removed by the Court of Judiciary

    was in 1999. That case involved a

    judge who did several things, and

    I will just list them for you. He

    made incorrect statements to

    investigators. He presented a

    false, worthless, and misleading

    deposit slip to State examiners to

    try to cover a $23,000 charge-back

    they had made to him. He cashed

    eight personal checks from funds

    in his own office that turned out

    that his checks were returned

    because they were insufficient,

    and he did not pay those checks

    until three years later when the

    examiners found it and brought it

    to his attention. The judge also

    failed to properly maintain his

    office. And once that was brought

    to his attention, he made

    absolutely no effort whatsoever to

    correct those deficiencies. Now,

    that judge was the last judge that

    was removed from office, and even

    with those facts, the Court was

    not unanimous that that judge be

    removed.

    I would also point out one

    other case to the Court, and that

    is the Court of Judiciary Case

    Number 26. In that case, a judge

    was charged with inappropriately

    touching females under the age of

    21 under his jurisdiction as a

    district judge. He was also

    accused of inappropriately

    touching females over the age of

    21 that were employees in the

    courthouse. That was the charges

    against him. He was -- he was

    found to have violated Canons 1,

    2, 2A and 3A. That was the

    finding of the Court. His

    punishment was suspension without

    pay for six months. That was what

    his punishment was by the Court.

    Your Honors, we believe that

    Justice Moore has not violated the

    Judicial Canons of Ethics. He has

    been suspended -- disqualified

    from his office for almost 90 days

    now. We would ask Your Honors to

    please let him go back to the

    position that he was elected to

    do.

    At this time, I would call on

    Justice Butts to finalize our

    closing.

    MR. BUTTS: Your Honors, Chief Justice

    Moore, Attorney General Pryor,

    fellow counsel. You know, so many

    times in this life we just seem to

    be completely lost. Is this one

    of those times? After this

    verdict when you are alone with

    your thoughts, can you answer and

    be satisfied with your answer to

    such questions as: Did I serve my

    God today? Did I do the right

    thing today? How will history

    view my actions?

    You may be sure history will

    judge us all. You may be assured

    that as President Kennedy once

    wrote, "Only the very courageous

    will be able to keep alive the

    spirit of individualism and

    dissent which gave birth to this

    nation, nourished it as an infant,

    and carried it through its

    severest test to the attainment of

    its maturity."

    Throughout history, there are

    many examples of courage, or as

    Ernest Hemingway liked to call it

    "grace under pressure." You need

    look no further than the story of

    Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas who

    was elected as a radical to the

    United States Senate. And when

    the impeachment of Andrew Johnson

    occurred, after he succeeded

    President Lincoln after his

    assassination, Edmund Ross was the

    one Senator that kept Andrew

    Johnson from being removed from

    office. Senior Ross was quoted as

    saying, but prior to casting his

    vote, "I looked down into my open

    grave." Yet, Senator Ross has

    given a place of honor in standing

    alone with his convictions and

    with his conscience in doing the

    right thing.

    So, how do you Judge Roy

    Moore? You cannot doubt his

    courage. You cannot doubt his

    love of God. You cannot doubt his

    love of country. You cannot doubt

    his love of family. You cannot

    doubt his faithfulness to his oath

    of office. So, how did we arrive

    here at this moment in time? The

    Judicial Inquiry Commission

    pursued Roy Moore for ten years

    until it finally ran into ground

    with the charges he faces today.

    The Attorney General would have

    you believe that this is only a

    simple issue, that an order given

    by a man, a federal judge to move

    a granite monument from public

    view. The Attorney General would

    say to you that the rule of law

    requires you to obey that order.

    If you believe the Attorney

    General in that argument, then

    this case can go no further. You

    will then have convicted Roy

    Moore. At that point, the only

    thing left for you to decide is

    his punishment. But if you are

    true to yourselves, you will

    examine Roy Moore, the man, and

    Roy Moore, the public official.

    Keep in mind, as you examine Roy

    Moore, his actions that lead him

    here today are not only the

    results of his beliefs but also

    directly the results of actions by

    Federal Judge Myron Thompson.

    Please also bear in mind that

    Judge Thompson made the statement

    that he, Judge Thompson, cannot

    define religion. That, in fact,

    it would be dangerous to define

    it.

    What led us here today is

    simple: How can an individual who

    cannot define religion hold that

    Roy Moore is guilty of the

    establishment of religion? If Roy

    Moore is then true to his oath,

    how can he be guilty of any

    ethical violation?

    Chief Justice Moore's defense

    is quite simple: (1) the order of

    Myron Thompson was unlawful,

    because it placed Chief Justice

    Moore in a position of violating

    his oath, or audibly risk being

    held in contempt of court; (2)

    Chief Justice Moore's oath under

    the Constitution requires him to

    acknowledge God as the moral

    foundation of our law. Adherence

    to his oath placed him at odds

    with the injunction of Federal

    Judge Myron Thompson. Justice

    Moore's oath is to the

    Constitution, not to any one man.

    To the prosecutions' way of

    thinking, a federal judge has

    issued a lawful order to remove a

    display of the Ten Commandments

    because it violates the

    establishment of religion clause

    of the Constitution. By the

    prosecutions' thinking, since a

    federal judge issued an order,

    then it must be a lawful order to

    remove the monument display.

    The problem with the

    prosecutions' thinking and those

    that agree with him, is simply

    that they have entered into and

    share the belief that the opinion

    of judges about the meaning of the

    Constitution and not the

    Constitution itself is the law of

    the land. As a result, if you

    believe that way, then the

    prosecution believes that one's

    oath of office is an allegiance to

    the judiciary, rather than to the

    Constitution.

    This subjective

    interpretation of oaths by the

    prosecution changes the oath from

    one of allegiance to the law to an

    oath of allegiance to an office

    holder, in this case, a federal

    judge. Roy Moore took an oath

    that, quote, "I will support the

    Constitution of the United States

    and the Constitution of the State

    of Alabama so long as I continue

    to be a citizen thereof, and that

    I will faithfully and honestly

    discharge the duties upon which I

    am about to enter, to the best of

    my ability, so help me God."

    As Professor Jeffrey Tuomala

    has so stated, "There's an

    essential difference between an

    oath promising to support the

    Constitution and an oath of

    allegiance to a person or

    persons." For example, compare

    the military oath of enlistment

    that a subject of the Queen of

    England, where they have the oath

    of enlistment, with what the oath

    of enlistment that a citizen of

    the United States swear upon

    military service. A Canadian, for

    example, states, "I do swear that

    I will be faithful and bear true

    allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen

    Elizabeth the Second, Queen of

    Canada, her heirs and successors

    according to law, so help me God."

    An American, on the other hand,

    states, "I do solemnly swear that

    I will support and defend the

    Constitution of the United States

    against all enemies, foreign and

    domestic. That I will bear true

    faith in allegiance to the same,

    and that I will obey the orders of

    the President of the United States

    and the orders of the officers

    appointed over me according to

    regulations and the Uniform Code

    of Military Justice, so help me

    God."

    The point is, that a servant

    or subject of Canada or England

    has no duty of individual

    judgment. Their oath is to the

    Queen herself, so that in that

    instance one can more easily

    justify compliance with an

    unlawful order of the Queen that

    goes contrary to conscience and

    law, because the oath is one of

    the allegiance to the Queen and

    not to the law.

    What makes this so striking

    and instructive is that the

    prosecution has been quoted as

    saying that the Ten Commandments

    is the cornerstone of American

    law. The key to understanding the

    prosecution's stance is they

    believe that courts make laws and,

    by extension, that the official's

    oath of office is one of

    allegiance to the judiciary and

    not to the Constitution itself.

    The basis of the six charges

    against the Chief Justice is not

    that he violated the First or

    Fourteenth Amendments of the

    United States Constitution or of

    any law in active pursuant

    thereto, but rather that he failed

    to comply with an existing and

    binding court order directed at

    him. All six charges are

    basically the same. What is

    important to keep in mind is that

    the essence of the charge is a

    violation of a court order. The

    charge is "failure to comply with

    the court order." The mistake

    that has been made here is simply

    that the Judicial Inquiry

    Commission has equated a court

    order with law. Failure to comply

    with an order is illegal, only if

    the order is itself illegal -- I'm

    sorry. Failure to comply with an

    order is illegal only if the order

    itself is legal, just as

    conviction for violating a law is

    valid only if that law is valid.

    Every 18-year-old soldier,

    sailor, airman and Marine, who has

    ever worn a uniform, understands

    the difference between a lawful

    and an unlawful order. He or she

    knows that they may not be

    convicted under the Uniform Code

    of Military Justice for failure to

    obey an unlawful order.

    The difference between the

    Attorney General and the Chief

    Justice does not appear to be in

    their understanding of the First

    Amendment. It appears to be,

    primarily, a difference in their

    view of the law-making power of

    courts and the meaning of the

    oath. Chief Justice Moore's

    position is that he has sworn an

    oath to uphold and defend the

    United States Constitution and the

    Constitution of the State of

    Alabama. In partially fulfilling

    his duty, the Chief Justice placed

    a monument memorializing the moral

    foundation of American law in the

    rotunda of the judicial -- Alabama

    Judicial Building. Additionally,

    several provisions of the Alabama

    Constitution acknowledged the law

    of God as the foundation of law in

    Alabama. The Constitution begins

    with these words in the Preamble,

    "In order to establish justice,

    insure domestic tranquility and

    secure the blessings of liberty to

    ourselves and to our posterity,

    invoking the favor of Almighty

    God, do ordain and establish the

    following Constitution: All men

    are equally free and independent.

    They are endowed by their creator

    with certain inalienable rights,

    so help me God."

    By Constitutional provision

    and statute, the Chief Justice is

    the head of the judicial system in

    Alabama. It is his duty to make

    sure that judicial personnel have

    a proper understanding of the law,

    and that they administer justice

    properly. The Canons of Judicial

    Ethics, under which the Chief

    Justice is being prosecuted,

    placed additional duties on all

    judges to properly administer the

    law. For example, all judges are

    supposed to participate in

    establishing, maintaining, and

    enforcing high standards of

    conduct. Judges are encouraged to

    speak, write, lecture, teach and

    participate in other activities

    concerning the law of the legal

    system and the administration of

    justice. The purpose of ethical

    conduct is not simply to ensure

    that justice will be done in

    individual cases, but that the

    public will be assured of what

    they have a right to expect.

    In short, the posting of the

    Ten Commandments provides the

    standards of personal conduct for

    judges and court personnel, the

    basis for law, and the assurance

    to the public of the integrity of

    the system and the rule of law.

    Thus, the Chief Justice has a duty

    to expound the law, as does every

    lawyer in the State of Alabama.

    The foundation of the civil law is

    a -- is that standard of justice

    which is summarized in the Ten

    Commandments. That foundation is

    expressly recognized in the

    Alabama Constitution. When a

    federal court tells a chief

    justice that he may not perform

    his duties as required by law, it

    is the Federal District Court

    judge who is violating the law,

    not the Chief Justice.

    It's ironic that the very

    conditions that Chief Justice

    Moore addressed with the

    monument -- ignorance and disdain

    for the moral foundation of our

    laws, oaths and national creed --

    are the very conditions that have

    led to the charges against him.

    How ironic. Chief Justice Moore

    is a graduate of the United States

    Military Academy at West Point.

    He is a veteran of the war in

    Vietnam. He understands the

    difference between a lawful order

    and an unlawful order. He knows

    why it was unlawful during the

    Vietnam War for Lieutenant Rusty

    Calley to shoot unarmed women and

    children, even if he was so

    ordered by his superiors. He

    understands the nature of his oath

    of office. It is an oath sworn

    before God and man to the

    Constitution.

    Failure to acknowledge God

    actually undermines the very

    Canons upon which Chief Justice

    Moore is being tried. The Canons

    of Judicial Ethics -- please note,

    the primary purposes of the Canons

    is to protect the public rather

    than to discipline an individual

    judge. Propriety is often in the

    eye of the beholder. A given

    individual will find conduct to be

    within or beyond the bounds of

    propriety to the extent that the

    person comports with that

    individual's own highly subjective

    views of propriety. The

    appearance of impropriety

    standards should be freely

    applied. Indeed, lack of

    specificity as to what conduct

    makes a judge vulnerable to a

    charge of appearance of

    impropriety raises serious due

    process concerns. To allow

    disciplinary proceedings to

    evaluate judicial decisions could

    force judges into ill-defined and

    standardless lines of propriety

    and impropriety. Holding such a

    sword over a judge's head would

    have a tendency to chill his

    independence. A judge would have

    to be as concerned with what is

    proper in the eyes of the

    judicial -- disciplinary

    commission as with what is the

    just decision.

    Let me read you one quick

    quote from a gentleman that I

    admire. Mr. Doug Phillips has

    said this more eloquently than I

    can say it. "The American legal

    establishment has strange

    priorities. Nowhere is this more

    evident than in the way covenant

    keepers and covenant breakers are

    treated by the political elites

    within the system. When a former

    president of the United States

    shattered his marriage covenant,

    disgraced his office, and broke at

    least two of the Ten Commandments

    by committing adultery in the Oval

    Office, and then bearing false

    witness to the people of the

    United States, the most trusted

    and high ranking legislators in

    our nation found him not guilty of

    crimes sufficient to remove him

    from office. When Chief Justice

    Roy Moore defended all ten of the

    Ten Commandments, he was charged

    with ethical violations."

    The prosecution talks about

    the Chief Justice being

    unrepentant. You can only be

    unrepentant to God, not to man.

    The Judicial Inquiry

    Commission takes the position that

    there is no statute of limitations

    on unethical conduct for judges.

    If you have ever received a

    speeding ticket or stopped for DUI

    or if you, as a judge, ever

    stepped on an attorney's private

    airplane for a golf trip to

    Augusta or to a Super Bowl game or

    made a trip anywhere and then sat

    on that attorney's case, you could

    be charged with an ethics

    complaint as early as tomorrow.

    So, remember, as you judge

    Roy Moore today, that tomorrow you

    may yourself be judged.

    Let me explain in concluding

    who Senator James W. Grimes of

    Iowa is. Senator Grimes was one

    of the Senators that voted against

    the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

    Right before his death, he wrote

    these words, "I shall ever thank

    God that in that troubled hour of

    trial, when many privately

    confessed that they had sacrificed

    their judgment and their conscious

    at the behest of party newspapers

    and party hate, I had the courage

    to be true to my oath and to my

    conscience. Perhaps I did wrong

    not to commit perjury by order of

    a party, but I cannot see it that

    way. I became a judge acting on

    my own responsibility and

    accountability only to my own

    conscience and my Maker, and no

    power could force me to decide on

    such a case contrary to my

    convictions whether that party was

    composed of my friends or my

    enemies."

    And so to the Court of the

    Judiciary, we have done all we

    know that we can do to impress

    upon you that the Chief Justice,

    being true to his oath, has not

    committed any ethical violations.

    As Mr. Jones pointed out to you,

    the judges that have been tried by

    this panel, from judges charged

    with sexual misconduct to only

    receive six months in suspension,

    cannot be compared with the Chief

    Justice who has done nothing

    morally wrong. He has done

    nothing legally wrong. He obeyed

    his oath. He was true to his God

    and to his oath of office. Please

    be careful how we judge Roy Moore

    today. As we turn Chief Justice

    Roy over to this panel's judgment,

    remember the words of Harper Lee

    in To Kill A Mockingbird, "The one

    thing that doesn't abide by

    majority rule is a person's

    conscience."

    For the respect of all

    Alabama citizens, for the respect

    of this country, for the respect

    of God and all His righteous, find

    Chief Justice Roy Moore not guilty

    and restore him to the people of

    Alabama as Chief Justice. Thank

    you.

    HON. THOMPSON: Please. The Attorney

    General.

    MR. PRYOR: May it please the Court,

    Mr. Chief Justice, learned

    co-counsel. This case presents an

    all-or-nothing proposition.

    Either the Judicial Inquiry

    Commission is right and Chief

    Justice Moore is guilty and must

    be removed, or Chief Justice Moore

    is right and must be exonerated.

    There is no middle ground.

    My learned opposing counsel

    has invited you to read the cases

    that we have cited to the Court.

    He has stated that none of those

    cases involved a judge who refused

    to obey a single court order. I,

    too, invite you to read those

    cases. For none of them involve

    the highest judicial officer of a

    state refusing to comply with a

    federal injunction entered by a

    Federal District Court, affirmed

    by three judges of a U.S. Court of

    Appeals, and where the judge had

    an opportunity and did ask for

    stays from that District Court,

    stay from the Eleventh Circuit,

    and a stay from the Supreme Court

    of the United States, all of which

    were denied. None of those cases

    involved the highest judicial

    officer of a state in that context

    then coming before the Commission

    and saying, "I would do it again."

    The stakes here are high

    because this case raises a

    fundamental question: What does

    it mean to have a government of

    laws and not of men? The

    resolution of this case will

    answer that question for three

    groups of Alabamians: First, an

    answer must be provided to every

    judge in Alabama, because the

    judiciary is an independent,

    although imperfect, branch of our

    government. It is staffed by

    hundreds of trained lawyers who

    serve the public by administering

    justice. When an Alabama judge is

    presented with a controversy that

    poses a difficult legal problem,

    the judge must evaluate the law

    and the facts carefully, and then

    provide his best judgment subject

    to the review of other judges.

    A trial judge can be reversed

    on appeal, and an appellate judge

    or justice can be on the losing

    side of a divided panel. In our

    system, a judge must respect and

    follow the final decisions of

    other judges, even when he is

    convinced they are wrong. A trial

    judge with more years of

    experience and perhaps better

    judgment than any appellate judge,

    for example, must follow an order

    reversing the decision of the

    trial judge.

    The answer this Court must

    provide to every judge in Alabama

    is that no judge is above the law.

    Second, an answer must be provided

    to every public official in

    Alabama. When we think of the

    rule of law, one group of public

    officials immediately comes to

    mind: Police officers. Thousands

    of police officers each day

    enforce the law in the communities

    of our state. Each officer takes

    an oath to uphold the

    Constitution. Consider a police

    officer who concludes after

    careful study of that

    Constitution, and the history of

    the Constitution which he is sworn

    to uphold, that the Supreme Court

    of the United States was wrong in

    its decision of Miranda versus

    Arizona. The police officer finds

    himself in agreement with many

    judges, law professors and

    prosecutors, that the Fifth

    Amendment and the Sixth Amendment

    to the Constitution were not

    intended to require a police

    officer to warn a person under

    arrest that he has a right to

    remain silent, and he has a right

    to an attorney. Should that

    police officer follow his own view

    of the Constitution? Or should

    the officer respect the decision

    of the Supreme Court and warn an

    arrestee that he has a right to

    remain silent? Should the police

    officer follow his own view of the

    Constitution in the hope that the

    unwarned arrestee will confess to

    the crime? Should the officer

    risk that the courts will throw

    out the confession and allow a

    murderer or a rapist to go free

    because the police officer

    followed his own view of the

    Constitution and failed to warn

    the arrestee? The answer this

    Court must provide to every public

    official, including every police

    officer is that no official is

    above the law.

    Finally, this Court must

    provide an answer to every citizen

    who depends on the rule of law to

    protect our freedom. Each year,

    the Courts of Alabama hear and

    decide disputes between thousands

    of citizens. Fathers and mothers

    allow Courts to decide the custody

    of their children. Both the

    wealthiest chief executive officer

    and the shareholders of a

    corporation allow the Courts to

    determine whether the CEO cheated

    the shareholders. A permanently

    disfigured and disabled worker and

    the most powerful corporation

    allow the Courts to decide whether

    the company owes the worker any

    compensation for his injuries.

    Everyone of these citizens

    and thousands more who come before

    the Courts, must know that the

    final orders of the Courts will

    decide their disputes, even if

    that citizen disagrees with that

    order. Someone has to lose. And

    virtually always the losing

    litigant thinks he was right and

    the Court was wrong.

    This Court must provide the

    answer that no citizen, whether

    rich or poor, powerful or weak, is

    above the law. As I mentioned a

    moment ago, the judicial branch of

    our government, both our federal

    government and our state

    government, as human institutions

    are imperfect, they sometimes make

    mistakes, even terrible ones. We

    correct some of those mistakes on

    appeal. Sometimes the Appeals

    Court, even the Supreme Court,

    gets it wrong, too. Fortunately,

    our Constitution gives us

    remedies.

    I stand by my remarks from

    1997, that we are called by God to

    do what is right. But we are

    called to exercise our

    Constitutional rights in

    fulfilling His will. We can elect

    law makers, legislators to change

    the law. We can elect presidents

    to appoint judges faithful to the

    law. We, the people, can even

    amend the Constitution itself.

    That is what our nation did when

    it abolished slavery, with the

    Thirteenth Amendment which

    overruled the abominable decision

    of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott

    versus Sanford. But the refusal

    of a party to comply with a Court

    order, whether the Court order is

    right or wrong, is not a remedy

    provided by the Constitution.

    Because Chief Justice Roy

    Moore, despite his special

    responsibility as the highest

    judicial officer of our state,

    placed himself above the law by

    refusing to abide by a final

    injunction entered against him and

    by urging the public through the

    news media to support him, and

    because he is totally unrepentant,

    this Court regrettably must remove

    Roy Moore from the office of Chief

    Justice of Alabama. The rule of

    law upon which our freedom

    depends, whether a judge, a police

    officer or a citizen, demands no

    less. Thank you.

    HON. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney

    General. I would like to thank

    counsel for their handling of this

    matter. Everyone has performed

    quite admirably. I want to thank

    all the people here in the rotunda

    for being a participant in the

    judicial process.

    The evidence having been

    heard in this matter, this Court

    will recess at this time.

    Mr. Jones, would you like to be

    heard?

    MR. JONES: I just want to be sure I

    hand you those cases, Your Honor,

    before you leave.

    HON. THOMPSON: Okay. I'll make sure

    that happens. We will recess at

    this time. And we will also

    attempt to do our best to give you

    sufficient notice when this

    Court's ruling has been made and

    to allow you sufficient time to

    return to this rotunda -- to this

    courtroom.

    At this time, unless there is

    anything further from the members

    of this Court, this Court stands

    in recess, and we will be

    releasing our decision on this

    case as efficiently and as

    expediently as possible. Thank

    you.

    (At which time, a recess was

    taken at 2:45 p.m. and the

    hearing will be reconvened.)

    (At which time, the hearing

    before the Alabama Court of

    Judiciary was continued at

    11:17 a.m. on Thursday

    November 13, 2003.)

    HON. THOMPSON: Good morning. As Chief

    Judge of the Alabama Court of the

    Judiciary, it is my duty to report

    to you the decision of the Court.

    The complete, final judgment of

    this Court will be received --

    released following the synopsis of

    this judgment.

    As a reminder, please

    remember -- please remember that

    no judge on this Court may comment

    on this case.

    The Court of the Judiciary is

    a constitutionally created Court,

    the soul function of which is to

    convene, to hear allegations of

    judicial misconduct. The case

    currently before the Court was

    commenced by the filing of a

    complaint by the Judicial Inquiry

    Commission alleging that Roy S.

    Moore, as Chief Justice of the

    Supreme Court of Alabama,

    willfully failed to comply with an

    injunction issued to him by the

    United States District Court for

    the Middle District of Alabama,

    thereby, violating 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 impropriety and

    the appearance of impropriety in

    all his activities as 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.

    These are the issues which

    are properly before this Court.

    This Court has neither the

    authority nor the jurisdiction to

    decide the correctness of the

    decisions of the United States

    District Court or the United

    States Court of Appeals for the

    Eleventh Circuit. All of the

    members of this Court, after

    serious consideration of the

    evidence and testimony presented

    at this trial, find by clear and

    convincing evidence that Roy S.

    Moore while in his role of Chief

    Justice of the Supreme Court of

    Alabama did willfully and publicly

    defy the federal court order

    directed to him.

    In the American system of

    justice, the courts are open to

    all of the citizens of this

    country. A dissatisfied litigant

    has the opportunity to appeal an

    unfavorable ruling. When that

    person's legal remedies have been

    exhausted and the rule of law

    dictates that that person follow

    the order of the Court, in this

    case the Chief Justice exhausted

    all of his legal remedies and was

    unsuccessful in his attempts to

    stay the injunction issued by the

    Federal District Court. In

    defying that Court's order, the

    Chief Justice placed himself above

    the law.

    To quote the Supreme Court of

    the United States, "No man in this

    country is so high that he is

    above the law. All the officers

    of the government from the highest

    to the lowest are creatures of the

    law and are bound to obey it."

    This Court finds by unanimous

    decision and by clear and

    convincing evidence that Roy S.

    Moore, in willfully and publicly

    defying the valid Court order from

    the federal court violated Canons

    1, 2, 2A and 2B of the Canons of

    Judicial Ethics as indicated in

    the complaint of the Judicial

    Inquiry Commission.

    During the trial of this

    matter, Chief Justice maintained

    his defiance testifying that he

    stood by an earlier statement

    given to him -- given by him to

    the Judicial Inquiry Commission in

    which he stated in part, "I did

    what I did because I upheld my

    oath and that's what I did. So I

    have no apologies for it. I would

    do it again." The Chief Justice

    showed no signs of contrition for

    his actions.

    Because of the magnitude of

    the decision with regard to

    sanctions for the Chief Justice's

    violation of the Canons of

    Judicial Ethics was a difficult

    one for this Court to make.

    Finding no other viable

    alternatives, this Court hereby

    orders that Roy S. Moore be

    removed from his position of Chief

    Justice of the Supreme Court of

    Alabama.

    This Court is now adjourned.

    (The hearing concluded at

    11:22 a.m.)

     

     

     

     

    *****

     

    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

     

    *****

     

     

    STATE OF ALABAMA

    ELMORE COUNTY

    I, Jeana S. Boggs, Certified Professional

    Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

    Alabama at Large, do hereby certify on Wednesday,

    November 12th, 2003, that I reported in the matter

    of CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE, case No. 33, now pending

    in the State of Alabama Court of the Judiciary; that

    the foregoing colloquies, statements, questions and

    answers thereto were reduced to 21 typewritten pages

    under my direction and supervision; that the excerpt

    transcript is a true and accurate transcription of

    the testimony/evidence of the examination of said

    hearing by counsel for the parties set out herein.

    I further certify that I am neither of

    relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of

    the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of such

    attorney or counsel, nor am I financially interested

    in the results thereof. All rates charged are usual

    and customary.

    This the 12th day of November, 2003.

     

    Jeana S. Boggs

    Certified Court Reporter and

    Notary Public

    Commission expires: 8/14/2006


    Related

    Documents :: 2398 Views ::Article Rating
    Print Friendly and PDF
    Rating

    © Copyright 1996-2017 ChuckBaldwinLive.com,
    All Rights Reserved

    PO Box 10
    Kila, MT 59920