The Trial of Chief Justice Roy Moore: Official Transcript

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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              334.264.6227      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

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.)

Page 2 of 2