28 November 2001
Source: Digital files from Court Reporter Julaine V. Ryen, Western District
of Washington, Tacoma, WA. Telephone: (253) 593-6591
This is the closing argument of the trial.
See other testimony: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-jdb-dt.htm
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2 AT TACOMA
3
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Docket No. CR00-5731JET
)
5 Plaintiff, )
)
6 v. )
) Tacoma, Washington
7 JAMES DALTON BELL, ) April 10, 2001
)
8 Defendant. )
)
9
10
TRANSCRIPT OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JACK E. TANNER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a Jury
12
13 APPEARANCES:
14 For the Plaintiff: ROBB LONDON
Assistant United States Attorney
15 601 Union Street, Suite 5100
Seattle, Washington 98101
16
For the Defendant: ROBERT M. LEEN
17 Attorney At Law
Two Union Square
18 601 Union Street, Suite 4610
Seattle, Washington 98101-3903
19
20
21 Court Reporter: Julaine V. Ryen
Post Office Box 885
22 Tacoma, Washington 98401-0885
(253) 593-6591
23
24
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
25 produced by Reporter on computer.
2
1 I N D E X
2 Page
3 CLOSING ARGUMENTS:
4 Plaintiff 3
5 Defendant 36
6 Plaintiff's Rebuttal 46
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 (Defendant present.)
2 * * * * *.
3 MR. LONDON: Your Honor, may I have permission to turn
4 this?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. LONDON: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good
7 morning.
8 We thank you for your patience in this matter. This is the
9 point where the government gets to argue to you from the
10 evidence on the basis of the evidence, and this is our
11 opportunity to attempt to persuade you as to why that evidence
12 supports a finding of guilty on each of the five counts in this
13 indictment.
14 The jury instructions that are expressly about the five
15 counts in the indictment tell you what we have to prove in this
16 case, what our burden is to prove to you beyond a reasonable
17 doubt, and I want to go over those with you at the beginning.
18 To convict Mr. Bell of the offense that's charge in count
19 one, you must find that the evidence that you have heard has
20 proven the following elements, that we call the elements of the
21 offense, beyond a reasonable doubt:
22 First, that on or about October 23rd of 2000, Mr. Bell
23 traveled across the state line from Vancouver, Washington, into
24 the state of Oregon. Second, that he did so with the intent to
25 harass another individual, in this case Mike McNall. Third,
4
1 that as a result of that travel, he placed Mr. McNall in
2 reasonable fear, either of death or of serious bodily injury,
3 either to himself or to his family.
4 With respect to count two, we have to prove the following
5 elements: That on or about October 23rd, Mr. Bell traveled from
6 Vancouver, in the state of Washington, into the state of Oregon;
7 that he made that trip with the intent to harass Jeffrey Gordon;
8 and that as a result -- the third element, as a result of that
9 travel, placed Mr. Gordon in reasonable fear, either of death or
10 of serious bodily injury, either to himself or to a member of
11 his family.
12 With respect to count three, we've got to prove that on or
13 about October 31st, Mr. Bell knowingly and intentionally used a
14 fac- -- what we call facility or instrument of interstate
15 commerce, in this case a fax machine and a telephone line, to
16 send a message over the telephone line from Vancouver, in the
17 state of Washington, to Jeffrey Gordon, in the state of Oregon;
18 that he sent that fax with the intent and purpose of placing Mr.
19 Gordon in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury,
20 again either to himself or to members of his immediate family.
21 Finally, with respect -- sorry. With respect to Count four,
22 we must prove, first, that on or about November 3rd, Mr. Bell
23 traveled across the state line from Vancouver, in the state of
24 Washington, into the state of Oregon; that he traveled in
25 interstate commerce with the intent to harass Scott Mueller; and
5
1 as a result of that travel, placed Mr. Mueller in reasonable
2 fear of death or serious bodily injury, either to himself or to
3 his immediate family.
4 Finally, with respect to the last count, count five, it's
5 our burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
6 about November 10th, Mr. Bell traveled from Vancouver,
7 Washington, across the state line, into the state of Oregon;
8 that he traveled in interstate commerce with the intent to
9 harass Mike McNall; and as a result of such travel, placed Mr.
10 McNall in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to
11 himself or to his immediate family.
12 That's what we have to prove.
13 Let me say a few words about what we do not have to prove so
14 you're absolutely clear when you go back to the jury room about
15 what it is that is charged here. These are five counts of what
16 is called interstate stalking.
17 We do not have to prove that the houses that Mr. Bell went
18 to were the right ones, the ones actually lived in at the time
19 by the people he was pursuing and looking for. We do not have
20 to prove that he actually found Mr. Gordon's real home address
21 currently, or Mr. McNall's current home. We know that he found
22 actually Mr. Mueller's current home address in Bend, but we
23 don't have to prove that he found the right house. We don't
24 have to prove that he got within a certain physical space of
25 these individuals. You might tend to think of stalking as
6
1 getting into somebody's physical space, following them in the
2 way that the person you are following can see or that he knows
3 you're there. We don't have to prove that you've got the right
4 house or came within a certain physical distance of these
5 people.
6 We simply have to prove that he was engaged in a course of
7 conduct in their pursuit; that he was pursuing them; that he was
8 trying to zero in on them. He was taking actual steps to find
9 the right houses, to find the right victims.
10 Likewise, we do not have to prove that he was armed. We do
11 not have to prove that he was actually dangerous or intended to
12 physically harm these people at the time. Mr. Leen asked the
13 people during the course of the testimony in this case, well,
14 was Mr. Bell armed? He asked Mr. Copp, I believe, who made the
15 trip to Bend with Mr. Bell, did he have a gun in the car? Was
16 he armed?
17 That's a distraction. We do not have to prove, and you do
18 not need to find, that Mr. Bell was armed on any of these trips,
19 and we have never sought to prove that he was armed.
20 The question which will be part of what you have to decide
21 is whether the victims or the people who he was pursuing when
22 notified about him and his history and his past were reasonable
23 in being apprehensive or fearful for their safety. But we do
24 not have to prove that Mr. Bell intended to physically harm them
25 or that he had the ability to physically harm them. That is not
7
1 relevant.
2 Likewise, we do not have to prove that the people he was
3 pursuing knew that he was pursuing them before they were
4 notified by law enforcement. If we had to prove that, that
5 would be a very different offense, and effectively we might not
6 be able to charge these cases until it was too late, until a
7 stalker got right in the face of the person he is stalking. Law
8 enforcement, their duty, their job, their obligation, if they
9 find out that somebody is engaged in this kind of conduct,
10 they've got to notify them.
11 Now, this case is a little bit unusual because two of the
12 people that Mr. Bell was stalking with intent to harass were law
13 enforcement themselves. It's also a little bit unusual to the
14 extent that one of them had been very much involved in
15 prosecuting Mr. Bell earlier, for earlier activity. And it's
16 unusual insofar as he was fully aware that Mr. Bell was getting
17 out of prison last April, and he certainly was watching on the
18 Internet, knowing that Mr. Bell was a devoted and passionate
19 user of the Internet, and in particular, someone who put his
20 emails up on this list, this website that you've heard about,
21 the Cypherpunks website.
22 So, yes, here one of the victims was looking to see what Mr.
23 Bell might do when he got out of prison with respect to possibly
24 going back to the kind of thing he had been up to in 1997, which
25 was gathering the names of home addresses of IRS officers in an
8
1 attempt to intimidate and harass. But do not be distracted by
2 any suggestion that Mr. Bell cannot be convicted of stalking
3 people if the people he was stalking only found out about it by
4 being notified by the police.
5 Scott Mueller didn't have a clue that Mr. Bell showed up at
6 his house in Bend, took pictures of it, wanted to go onto the
7 property, and would have but for the fact that Mr. Copp, Mr.
8 Bells' ride-along friend, told him, "You're not going to do
9 that." He wasn't going to have any part of it. Scott Mueller
10 didn't know until we executed a search warrant, found out about
11 this particular trip and this outing of him on the Internet of
12 him as a CIA agent. He very possibly would have found out once
13 he did what many of us do if we get on the Internet; out of
14 curiosity, we use the search engines. We type in our own names
15 to see what's out there about us. Has anybody ever put anything
16 on the Internet about us? What shows up if we run our own
17 names? Mr. Mueller would have found out eventually, had he done
18 that, that he was being outed, revealed as a CIA agent, that he
19 was in fact not. But the evidence in this case is that he, like
20 Agent McNall, learned about Mr. Bell's pursuit after being
21 notified by law enforcement.
22 But again, please bear in mind that law enforcement has an
23 affirmative obligation to notify people when they find out about
24 this. They cannot wait until it's too late, until the Mr. Bells
25 of this world show up on someone's doorstep, and this time they
9
1 have the right one, on the doorstep of the victim.
2 Agent Gordon is simply the beneficiary of some luck, which
3 is that Jeffrey Gordon is a common name, and as the evidence in
4 this case shows you, from the database runs that Mr. Bell was
5 making from all of his department of motor vehicle databases
6 that he had collected, there are a lot of Jeffrey Gordons in the
7 Portland/Vancouver, area.
8 Mike McNall was a little less lucky because there weren't as
9 many Mike McNall's coming up when you ran the searches, and one
10 of his addresses turned out to be a former address. The last
11 one he lived at before his current address did show up, and Mr.
12 Bell did show up there. He was pretty close.
13 Members of the jury, as to all five attempts, it is
14 undisputed that after Mr. Bell got out of prison in April for
15 essentially having done something very similar to what is
16 charged here, he began a sustained and obsessive search through
17 multiple databases for the home addresses of Mike McNall,
18 Jeffrey Gordon, and then later Scott Mueller.
19 When you go back to the jury room and you have these
20 exhibits in front of you, I want you to look at the sheer volume
21 of the printouts. The obsessiveness of these searches. This
22 was his life. He wasn't doing anything else. This is what he
23 did. He collected CD-ROMs, phone disks, DMV records, voter
24 registration records. He cross-referenced these things. He ran
25 them and compared them against each other. He didn't have a
10
1 job. He lived at home, a grown man of 43, with his parents,
2 subsidized by a trust account and his parents' generosity, and
3 he used three computers and ran search after search looking for
4 these people.
5 As to count one, the October 23rd visit, the trip that he
6 took across the river, and he went on the same trip both to Jeff
7 and Barbi Gordon's home around 6:26, but before that to the
8 McNall -- the former McNall residence on South Clackamas River
9 Drive, around 5:30. As to that count, it is undisputed that
10 shortly before 5:30 Mr. Bell did travel across the state line
11 from Vancouver into Oregon. He went to one of the addresses
12 that he had found for Mike McNall, the address on South
13 Clackamas River Drive. He looked in the mailbox. That is
14 disputed. He said he looked on the mailbox, but we know that
15 that's not credible. Mr. Groener told you he looked -- he had
16 to have looked in the mailbox because the name Andrews does not
17 appear on the mailbox. He opened those people's mailbox, saw
18 the name Andrews, which is the name of one of the two families
19 that live in the two dwellings on that property. He told you
20 himself he walked all around the property. It's undisputed.
21 Chris Groener came home from work around 5:30 and found him on
22 the property. He confronted Chris Groener and he demanded to
23 know where Mike McNall was.
24 How do you know that he crossed the state line? Well, you
25 know from Exhibit 134. If any of you are still taking notes,
11
1 feel free to write down the numbers of exhibits as I make
2 reference to them because it might enable you to have a road
3 map, so to speak, of these exhibits when you get back.
4 Exhibit 134 is an email that he wrote at 11:08 p.m. the
5 night before. He wrote it from his computer at his parents'
6 residence, 7214 Corregidor. You heard from the Internet service
7 provider that his Internet access was such, what they called
8 hardwired through cable, that the only place that he could send
9 email from was the computer tied to the account in the house.
10 He couldn't have written it from a laptop in the state of
11 Oregon. That's how we know he was in the state of Washington
12 the night before. I think his own testimony, by the way, was
13 that he drove south across the river.
14 As to count two, the 6:26 p.m. visit that he next made to
15 the home of Jeff and Barbi Gordon at 8200 Southwest Chelan in
16 Tualatin. Well, it's undisputed that that same evening, at 6:26
17 p.m., according to his own notebook -- I refer to it as a
18 stalking diary, but the spiral notebook that is Exhibit 137. He
19 went to Jeff and Barbi Gordon's house at that address, the
20 address that he had found and zeroed in on in his many obsessive
21 database searches. He stole the mail right out of their box, he
22 admitted to you yesterday on the stand. He admitted to mail
23 theft. He stole the mail right out of their box, and according
24 to his own testimony, he went to a McDonald's because he was
25 hungry. He opened the mail there, and he wrote down insurance
12
1 information about their son Josh, insurance claim information,
2 and also Allstate vehicle insurance information.
3 He went home, and a little after midnight, he posted a
4 message publicly on the Internet, Exhibit 141. The title of the
5 email: "Subject: Say Goodnight to Joshua, Mr. Anonymous.
6 "Sorry, but I didn't particularly appreciate the musical
7 telephone call. An over enthusiastic colleague, perhaps?
8 Before I was satisfied to look into people who had,
9 unfortunately, allowed their property to be used against me. I
10 found out most of what I needed to know about them, months ago,
11 and they will be dragged through the (legal) dirt as soon as
12 that's needed to get the rest of the information. (Have you
13 told them, yet? I think a few of them caught on already;
14 they're not very good actors.)
15 "So I decided to respond by doing a couple of hours of
16 research, and combine that with a few hours of field-trip. Yes,
17 that one. Just a 'show the flag" circuit. Intended to be
18 seen. Mapmaking for a process server? Just a reminder.
19 "So say goodnight to Joshua, Mr. Anonymous. Tell him it's
20 not his fault that his father is a thug."
21 Now, yes, Mr. Bell in this email made reference to doing a
22 couple of hours of research, and, of course, Mr. Leen is going
23 to argue to you, as Mr. Bell testified to you, that the only
24 purpose in making these trips was research. But please look at
25 the text of that email, Exhibit 141. There is at least another
13
1 purpose in this. There is no need to tell Agent Gordon that you
2 now know who his son is or that he has a son named Joshua.
3 There's no need to do that unless your intent is to harass or
4 intimidate him.
5 Remember, it so happens he had the wrong Jeff Gordon, so it
6 turned out he had the wrong name of the wrong child, but he
7 didn't know that at the time. He thought he had the right one.
8 He wants you to believe he was running an experiment. He
9 thought he had the right one. He was letting him know in no
10 uncertain terms that he had the name for his son.
11 "Tell him it's not his fault that his father is a thug."
12 That's just confrontational. That's not research.
13 Pay careful attention to his reference here, "Mapmaking for
14 a process server?" Mr. Bell knows -- do you know what a process
15 server is? It's someone who serves legal processes. It's
16 someone who serves you with the papers for a lawsuit. Mr. Bell
17 knew that if he had a claim he wanted to pursue about being the
18 victim of illegal surveillance or about having been beaten up in
19 jail by Ryan Lund, he knew he could file a lawsuit and serve
20 Jeff Gordon or anybody else he had a beef with legal process.
21 That's the appropriate way that you get in touch with someone or
22 that you investigate them or that you air a grievance against
23 them. It is not showing up at their house, taking their mail,
24 letting them know that you know their son's name, and saying he
25 intended to be seen. It was on a "show the flag" circuit.
14
1 That's harassment.
2 As to count three, it is undisputed that on October 31st he
3 sent Agent Gordon a fax. He sent it from his home in
4 Vancouver. The fax has to tran -- be transmitted over the
5 telephone lines. And he sent it from the state of Washington
6 into the state of Oregon where Agent Gordon received it at his
7 office in Portland.
8 Exhibit 170 is the fax as it came through Jeff Gordon's fax
9 machine. Exhibit 171 is the original that was found in the
10 search of Mr. Bell's residence with his own handwriting on it in
11 blue ink.
12 "How about if I drop by your house tomorrow night with my
13 designee to pick up the four items?" Well, the four items were
14 the guns that he knew he was not supposed to have. So right
15 there, there's a suggestion that he is prepared to come by with
16 his designee and receive those four guns back. In and of
17 itself, that's intimidating to somebody who is fully aware that
18 Mr. Bell advocated the, for lack of a better word, his word, the
19 assassination of IRS officers. What purpose was there in
20 letting Agent Gordon know that he was prepared to come by his
21 home to pick up the guns?
22 "Or maybe you'd prefer at the address above? Jim B." The
23 address above is Agent Gordon's work address. That's the
24 appropriate place to have any official contact with an agent for
25 the return of property or anything else. That right there shows
15
1 that he knew where the appropriate place was to have contact
2 with Agent Gordon.
3 Now, pay very careful attention to that because Mr. Bell
4 testified that he could not go and have contact with Agent
5 Gordon at his place of office because he might be seen by
6 others. It would be waving a red flag. Right here he tells
7 Agent Gordon that he knows where he works. That's the place
8 that's appropriate, it shows, and that he is prepared to go by
9 with his designee to his place of work to get the guns.
10 Exhibit 178. These are the phone records from Unitel. The
11 third page of that exhibit shows the actual telephone record for
12 the transmission of that fax, at 10:34 a.m.
13 As to count four, it is undisputed that Mr. Bell went from
14 Vancouver to Bend, Oregon, quote, "on a photographic mission,"
15 close quote, to out a CIA agent -- in this case, Scott Mueller
16 -- after running Mr. Mueller's name once again through the same
17 kind of excessive database searches.
18 Exhibit 182. "In an hour or so" -- dated November 3rd. "In
19 an hour or so, I'm going to Bend, Oregon, on a photographic
20 mission." That was the purpose of the trip. John Copp
21 testified to you that Mr. Bell called him and said, "I want to
22 go to Bend. I want you to go with me. Come pick me up. I want
23 to go look at some addresses of some homes that belong to a CIA
24 guy." He didn't say, let's go sight-seeing. He didn't say,
25 let's go see how Bend has changed in the ten years since I was
16
1 last there. Mr. Copp told you what Mr. Bell's purpose was. Mr.
2 Bell tried to suggest to you that his purpose was sight-seeing
3 in his old stomping ground where he used to go spelunking, that
4 I believe is a term for exploring caves. Well, Mr. Copp tells
5 you different.
6 Exhibit 236. It's a picture that Mr. Bell took of Mr.
7 Mueller's house. Mr. Copp told you that Mr. Bell wanted to go
8 onto the property. Mr. Copp said, "I'm not having any part of
9 that." Mr. Bell got out and took pictures.
10 THE DEFENDANT: No. Through the window of the car.
11 MR. LONDON: All right. He took the pictures from the
12 window of the car.
13 THE DEFENDANT: Stop lying, sir.
14 THE COURT: No comment from the defendant.
15 MR. LONDON: Exhibit 183, this is the Mapquest computer
16 printout. Mapquest is a software -- it's an Internet search
17 package that you can use. You can get a map printout off of
18 your computer of an address that you decide to search for.
19 Exhibit 183 is the Mapquest computer printout with Mr. Bell's
20 notes of the license plate and other personal information about
21 the Muellers. When he got there he recorded license plate
22 numbers. He even dated it November 3rd, in his own
23 handwriting.
24 He went back home that night and he wrote an email to two
25 reporters, John Branton of the Columbian and another reporter,
17
1 whose name escapes me at the moment, but I believe it was -- I
2 don't have that. There were two reporters. He sent them an
3 email, which I believe is Exhibit 160, announcing that he had
4 outed a CIA agent. He also posted an email, Exhibit 185,
5 putting up on the Internet personal private information about
6 not only Mr. Mueller, but his wife, Kim Marie.
7 What is it to "out" somebody? Well, that's a verb that I
8 guess has recently come into use as a verb. It means to
9 expose. To reveal something that somebody wants to keep private
10 about themselves. If you out somebody, what is your purpose?
11 Your purpose is to humiliate or intimidate or harass. Nothing
12 more.
13 How many more trips would he have made to go learn more
14 about this CIA operative in Bend had he not happened to have
15 been arrested just a couple days after this?
16 (Defendant makes a zero with his finger.)
17 MR. LONDON: This John Young, who runs this website
18 exposing government secrecy -- publishing classified documents,
19 this John Young puts up this information with a name on it
20 saying, "I wonder if anybody knows anything about this CIA
21 outfit in Bend, Oregon, that I think I found out something
22 about?" The acronym ISTAC, I-S-T-A-C. Mr. Bell, all too happy
23 to do the research and to expose and to find out, he takes the
24 ball and he runs all the way down with you, "I'll do it for
25 you." And he will continue to do it. He's not going to stop.
18
1 MR. LEEN: Objection, Your Honor. Improper argument.
2 THE COURT: Continue.
3 MR. LEEN: Move to strike.
4 THE COURT: Continue.
5 MR. LONDON: As to count five. It is undisputed that
6 on November 10th, four days after the execution of a federal
7 search warrant at his home with a team of federal agents, Mr.
8 Bell, being on notice that the government is aware that he is up
9 to something, that frankly they are jamming him again just a few
10 months after he has gotten out of prison, Mr. Bell fully
11 suspecting as to why the government is there at his house, just
12 four days after that, completely undeterred, at one o'clock in
13 the morning, goes right back to the address that he thinks is
14 Mike McNall's house and he spends more than ten minutes on the
15 property. This is a property that is at -- that the homes are
16 at least 75 yards down a private drive, marked private drive,
17 from the road. For the second time he goes all the way down
18 that driveway. He goes into the carport that's been described
19 as -- or the garage, uninvited, without permission, and puts
20 notes on the windshields of vehicles that are parked inside the
21 carport just feet from where the residents are sleeping.
22 When he made the first visit on October 23rd, Chris Groener,
23 the occupant, said, "I think you had better leave. I'll" -- you
24 know, he had come there demanding to know where Mike McNall was,
25 confronting Groener about McNall. He was on notice by Chris
19
1 Groener that he was not welcome there. What part of, "I think
2 you had better go now" did he not understand? He would not be
3 deterred. He would not be stopped.
4 The only thing that is disputed is what was the purpose of
5 these five separate acts or visits. Well, we maintain that his
6 intent in all five instances was to harass or intimidate.
7 Mr. Bell has suggested, and Mr. Leen will no doubt argue,
8 that he had this other purpose, which was simply to investigate
9 or do research. Even if you find that that was one of his
10 purposes, to investigate or to research, he is still convictable
11 of these offenses if you find that he also had the purpose of
12 harassing. You can have more than one purpose in doing
13 something. We don't have to prove that his only purpose was to
14 harass. We simply have to prove, and you simply have to find,
15 that one of his purposes was to harass.
16 Let's evaluate the credibility of what he told you about how
17 he certainly did not intend to harass these people; his actions
18 are explainable solely as research pursuant to a theory to
19 investigate. To test a hypothesis, he said. Well, you have to
20 evaluate his credibility in that regard and what his intent
21 probably was against the history, his personal history over the
22 last four or five years.
23 And before I itemize for you the evidence that shows that he
24 knew perfectly well that this kind of activity was harassment
25 and would intimidate these agents and Mr. Mueller, I want to ask
20
1 you how credible his argument is that he couldn't contact these
2 agents normally, in the normal course of business at their
3 offices where they worked. He told you that it would raise a
4 red flag, and again, this reference to the fact that others
5 might notice. But if that's true, and if he needed to
6 communicate with them secretly, then why was he talking so
7 publicly about this Ryan Lund thing and about Mike McNall in
8 emails that were publicly posted on the Internet? I mean, does
9 that make any sense? I'm going to talk publicly about all this
10 on the Internet, but I don't feel I can come by and talk to you
11 in your office about any of this because others might know.
12 Well, others were reading the Internet mail.
13 Why was he demanding that John Branton of the Columbian
14 write about all of this if what he was trying to do was talk to
15 Agent Gordon and McNall or find ways to talk to them privately
16 about this theory that he had about surveillance and the Ryan
17 Lund incident?
18 If he needed to speak privately with Agents Gordon or
19 McNall, he had ways to do it besides showing up at their homes,
20 or the ones that he thought were their homes, in the middle of
21 the night or any other time.
22 You heard him tell you quite enthusiastically about
23 encryption of email. It's a lot of what this Cypherpunks list
24 and these Cypherpunks people are about. I suppose the one
25 unifying theme that defines someone who is a Cypherpunk on the
21
1 Internet is they believe in the ability to code or encrypt email
2 with such devices as keys or PGP encryption. It's essentially a
3 code. Mr. Bell described it for you. And if two people are
4 conversing by email with this code, as long as they have the
5 respective keys or codes that they need to decode essentially
6 each other's messages, they can speak completely privately. Mr.
7 Bell passionately believes in that kind of technology and he got
8 very excited when he got to tell you about it.
9 Why couldn't Mr. Bell simply send Agent Gordon or Agent
10 McNall an email encrypted so that these others he was so
11 concerned about waving a red flag to wouldn't know? And all he
12 had to do was simply share the code with them. He knew and had
13 other ways to get in touch with these people. He did not need
14 to show up at their homes, or the ones he thought were theirs.
15 It's just not plausible.
16 We suggest that his sole purpose, but at the very least, one
17 of his purposes, was made fully clear by his history and by the
18 evidence, which is harassment. His long history of gathering
19 home address information on IRS officers in a deliberate effort
20 to intimidate and harass.
21 Exhibit 51 is the transcript of his guilty plea hearing
22 right next door, in the courtroom next door, between Mr. Bell
23 and Judge Burgess. Now he says that was coerced, and he tries
24 to suggest to you that it wasn't voluntary. He was medicated,
25 he says. All kinds of things that he said now that he didn't
22
1 say then, that he could have said then.
2 Exhibit 14, the May 5th, 1996, email to the
3 Cypherpunks. "Let's identify them for later targeting."
4 Exhibit 15. May 23rd, '96, email, Northwest Libertarians.
5 "I propose that the name and address of every IRS employee in
6 the state of Oregon be identified and located and published."
7 May 23rd, '96, Exhibit 17, an email regarding Operation
8 Locate IRS. Their discovery that they are being cataloged and
9 indexed may have a substantial effect on them. That indeed is
10 the goal.
11 Exhibit 29, the October 25th, '96, email regarding Operation
12 Locate IRS. "The way I see it, they will tend to be less
13 aggressive if they think that many people know where they
14 live."
15 Exhibit 34. You listened to that one; that was the tape.
16 You had the transcript in front of you. Mr. Bell standing up at
17 the January 9th, 1997, meeting of the Multnomah County Common
18 Law Court. "It might be a little more psychologically effective
19 if they were to receive their notices in their mailboxes at
20 home."
21 That was all '96. That was much of the conduct that formed
22 the basis of his guilty plea in '97. I took him through all of
23 these emails on the stand yesterday. He admits to all of this.
24 Why back away from the guilty plea? This was what he was
25 pleading guilty to.
23
1 Even after he went to prison, he was still undeterred, and
2 he was determine to get home addresses for these agents with the
3 intent to harass. Still in prison, in 1998, he wrote to his
4 friend, Greg Daily -- this is Exhibit 60, June 22nd: "I can
5 hunt them down." He didn't say investigate. He didn't say do
6 research. "I can hunt them down just as well on the geography
7 of the English language as the streets of Portland."
8 A year ago, just about exactly a year ago, he got out, out
9 of prison, immediately gave an interview to Declan McCullagh of
10 Wired News. "My suggestion to these people is to quit now and
11 hope for mercy." He knows that Jeff Gordon is reading this
12 stuff. This is an interview with the reporter who is going to
13 put it right up on the Internet, or in whatever form it's going
14 to be published, for all the world to see, and he knows. And
15 that's his whole thing, "I'm constantly under surveillance." He
16 knows that they are going to see this.
17 Exhibit 108, May 28th, 2000, about a month after he gets
18 out, an email. "I guess I'm 'intimidating' ALL their agents!
19 Have you read my essay yet?" So now we are back to
20 Assassination Politics. Still advocating the eradication or
21 elimination of federal agents. Probably pretty much all of
22 government, for that matter. Coupled with an acknowledgment on
23 his own part that he is intimidating the agents.
24 The summer progresses. July 23rd, Exhibit 110, email to his
25 friend Glover. Remember, by the way, this email is publicly
24
1 posted. This isn't private email. This is stuff that he sends
2 to people, posts on the Internet. "I am going to DESTROY these
3 suckers. Read my essay again."
4 Exhibit 141. Once again, you've seen it. The October 24th,
5 2000, email to the Cypherpunks. "Say Goodnight to Joshua."
6 Intended to be seen on a 'showing the flag' circuit.
7 Exhibit 163, the October 30th email to the Cypherpunks.
8 Again, publicly posted on the Internet, telling them to go out
9 and gather voter registration databases for current and future
10 use.
11 Ask yourselves about that. His whole thing is, I'm just
12 doing this to investigate my theory, my claim that I'm a victim
13 of a crooked, coerced plea deal in 1997 where Ryan Lund was paid
14 off, or something, by the federal government to force me to
15 accept a plea agreement. But here he's telling other people, go
16 out and gather databases for current and future use. These are
17 people who don't have claims of that kind to pursue. These
18 aren't people who are investigating anything. He's telling
19 them, go out and get these databases. Why? Because he knows
20 that they can be used to harass.
21 Exhibit 171, the fax that he sent to Agent Gordon in his
22 office, letting him know he could come by his house the next
23 night. Where does it say there, "I'm doing research"? Where
24 does it say there, "I'm investigating"? He tried to belittle
25 this and say, look at the date. The next night was Halloween.
25
1 It was a joke. Trick or treat.
2 This is what he does. He takes a step over the line, and
3 then when he's caught, he tries to take a couple of steps back.
4 Plausible deniability. Try to explain it somehow. It's a
5 joke.
6 Exhibit 229, the interview with Wired News, again Declan
7 McCullagh. This is "all in an effort to let them know
8 surveillance can be done in both directions. I am thinking very
9 seriously of picketing ... Jeff Gordon's house."
10 Okay. So he knows where Jeff Gordon's house is. He's
11 letting Jeff Gordon know that, publicly, in an interview that he
12 knows is going to be published by a reporter. What is the
13 purpose of picketing someone's house? That's not
14 investigation. That's not research. If you want to picket, go
15 to his office and do what other people do when they are unhappy
16 with a government officer or agency. They make a sign, and they
17 -- if they're truly law abiding, they get a permit. They go,
18 they make a sign, and they parade up and down the sidewalk, you
19 know: Unfair labor practices, or victim of government
20 surveillance, whatever. That's the place you do it, downtown
21 Portland where it will be seen, if you are truly thinking of
22 picketing or protesting. What is the purpose of picketing
23 someone's house? It's harassment. Nothing more than
24 harassment.
25 Let's talk about this plausible deniability. That's a whole
26
1 big part of what the Cypherpunks are into, being able to use
2 encryption, PGP, coding mechanisms to be able to send email to
3 correspond and communicate in ways that you're not likely to get
4 caught at if you're up to something. Plausible deniability is a
5 big part of that. Always have another possible way of masking
6 what your real intent or message was. Always have another
7 possible explanation, hopefully a legitimate one, in case you're
8 called to account upon being caught doing something that you're
9 not supposed to be doing.
10 Well, over the two days of his testimony, Mr. Bell was
11 relying once again on plausible deniability. In evaluating his
12 credibility when he tells you that he wasn't trying to harass,
13 think about how nicely this idea of being out just doing
14 research fits with the whole concept of plausible deniability.
15 If I had a legitimate purpose of just doing research, then
16 that's plausible deniability if I'm caught harassing.
17 In evaluating his credibility, please observe that whenever
18 Mr. Leen asked him questions, it gave him an opportunity to tell
19 his side, he was more than happy to talk, and to talk and to
20 tell you everything as fully as it served his purpose. Please
21 recall that whenever I tried to ask him anything on
22 cross-examination, confronting him with his own things, there
23 was always back-pedaling, always obfuscation, always, "Well, it
24 depends on what you mean by that," or "Define that more, sir."
25 In evaluating Mr. Bell's credibility, please observe his
27
1 reaction when he was confronted with his financial affidavit and
2 when I began to get into that line of questioning with him.
3 MR. LEEN: Objection, Your Honor. Improper argument.
4 THE COURT: Continue.
5 MR. LONDON: The final thing that we need to prove to
6 you is that the people whom he was stalking had a reasonable
7 basis for their fear. Once again, we don't have to prove to you
8 that he was actually intending to harm them or that he was
9 armed, not even that he actually was dangerous; only that they
10 had a reasonable basis for believing that he was dangerous. So
11 what did they know?
12 Well, Jeff Gordon knew the whole history. And, of course,
13 he had an obligation to inform Mike McNall what the history was,
14 so McNall knows what Jeff Gordon knows. Mueller wasn't told all
15 of it, but Mueller was informed about some of it, and it begins
16 with Assassination Politics.
17 Now, Mr. Bell wants you to believe that Assassination
18 Politics is nothing more than an essay that he thought was
19 simply a discussion in theoretical terms. He tried to back-
20 pedal away when Mr. Leen was questioning him, he tried to back-
21 pedal from any suggestion that the thing was actually about
22 getting people killed, and he tried to suggest that the
23 technology is seven to ten years away. Well, that was seven to
24 ten years away from 1997, so we're already a lot closer to that
25 now.
28
1 Look at that email where he's talking to S. Wilson. That
2 was Steve Walsh, the undercover agent. He makes it absolutely
3 clear, some people are going to be killed. The ones who haven't
4 paid their fines or the real egregious offenders found guilty of
5 whatever by the common law court.
6 So what did these people know to cause them to be afraid?
7 Bent out of shape, completely bent out of shape about any
8 kind of federal law enforcement or the IRS. The author of an
9 essay that openly advocates the elimination of these people
10 through a digital cash and anonymous hit for hire scheme that
11 can be accomplished over the Internet, once again using
12 encryption. They know from a search warrant at his house that
13 he's got dangerous chemicals, that he's been mixing. They know
14 from an analysis of the materials taken out of his house --
15 THE DEFENDANT: That's wrong, sir.
16 MR. LONDON: They know from an analysis of the
17 chemicals taken out of his house in 1997 that he had the
18 precursors, that is the chemicals you would use to put together
19 to make a deadly nerve agent called Sarin.
20 THE DEFENDANT: That's also wrong, sir.
21 MR. LONDON: They know from his own emails --
22 THE COURT: Just a moment.
23 Jury, please go to the jury room. We will take a 15-minute
24 recess. Please do not discuss the case among yourself or with
25 anyone else.
29
1 (Jury excused; 10:49 a.m.)
2 THE COURT: Mr. Bell, do you wish to watch and
3 participate in these proceedings downstairs in the lockup? Do
4 you wish to voluntarily remove yourself from these proceedings?
5 THE DEFENDANT: I apologize for my statement. I
6 apologize --
7 THE COURT: Apologizes are not good enough, sir. It
8 appears to me it's going to be repetitious because it's happened
9 more than once.
10 THE DEFENDANT: I apologize for my --
11 THE COURT: I'm asking you, do you want to remain in
12 this courtroom and participate in these proceedings?
13 THE DEFENDANT: If I'm eventually allowed --
14 THE COURT: I'm asking you a question.
15 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I would like to address the jury.
16 Thank you.
17 THE COURT: I didn't ask you if you wanted to address
18 the jury. I asked you, do you intend to remain silent while the
19 United States is making their closing argument, or do you intend
20 to participate by your outbursts?
21 THE DEFENDANT: I do not intend to make any outbursts,
22 sir. I don't --
23 THE COURT: So what you are saying, you wish to
24 remain?
25 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
30
1 THE COURT: Fifteen-minute recess.
2 (Recessed at 10:50 a.m.)
3 (Jury not present; 11:10 a.m.)
4 THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
5 MR. LONDON: Yes, Your Honor.
6 MR. LEEN: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Bring the jury.
8 (Jury present; 11:10 a.m.)
9 THE COURT: Let the record reflect all members of the
10 jury are present.
11 Continue opening closing statement. Government.
12 MR. LONDON: Before the break I was arguing to you why
13 as to the last element we need to prove these individuals who
14 Mr. Bell was pursuing had a reasonable basis or reasonable cause
15 to be afraid. I talked to you about the search warrant in 1997
16 at his home that revealed these chemicals. You also have before
17 you in the record two emails written by Mr. Bell to others in
18 which he bragged having made Serin. This is not the only
19 chemical that Mr. Bell either made or used.
20 Mr. Bell admitted as part of his 1997 plea agreement that he
21 had used a chemical called mercaptan -- it's a nauseous fume
22 sort of thing -- and that he had actually unleashed some of
23 this substance at an IRS office in Portland. That in fact did
24 happen, and this agent, Mr. Gordon, knew about it. He knew
25 about it before Mr. Bell was identified or admitted being the
31
1 one to have done it. So they knew that he was capable of more
2 than just words. He was actually capable of physically carrying
3 out some kind of attack.
4 Now, there will be no doubt an attempt made to belittle
5 that, that it's nothing more than a stink bomb on the carpet.
6 But in fact it is the unleashing of a chemical substance by
7 someone who is a trained chemist who fools around with chemicals
8 at an IRS office. It's action, it's not just words.
9 What else did they know? They knew that Mr. Bell, prior to
10 his arrest in 1997, had a fairly impressive arsenal, the four
11 weapons that you have heard reference to, three semi-assault
12 rifles and a .44 magnum handgun. One of the assault rifles is a
13 Chinese SKS. That one had a bayonet on it. The .44 magnum is
14 arguably one of the most powerful handguns available. I think
15 in a famous scene from a Clint Eastwood movie, the last Dirty
16 Harry, I think that's the one he has, a .44 magnum. The most
17 powerful handgun alive, I believe is how he refers to it in the
18 film. They knew he had those weapons at one time.
19 They knew -- or at least Agent Gordon also knew that he and
20 his friend Robert East had been fooling around with lock picks.
21 When you put it all together, you've got somebody with a
22 history of actually, you know, threatening or advocating the
23 death of agents, has carried out at least one chemical attack on
24 one office, has this arsenal, lock picks, is now known to be
25 trespassing. They had reason to be afraid.
32
1 But perhaps the most immediate reason they had to be afraid
2 was that last fall -- we're now talking about something very
3 recent, I'm not talking about three or four years ago -- Agent
4 Gordon came across an email exchange between Mr. Bell, Exhibit
5 131. Mr. Bell responded publicly over the Internet to an email
6 from another individual, entitled the email, "judges needing
7 killing." This from the context appears to be somebody who
8 might have had a car seized in California, or at least is
9 looking at a newspaper article in California about the seizure
10 or the ability of law enforcement to seize, what they call
11 forfeit property, such as vehicles, perhaps, to satisfy liens or
12 judgments, debts, things of that nature.
13 Mr. Bell responded to this judge's needing killing email,
14 "Naturally, a chemical solution (pun not directly intended...but
15 I'll take it anyway) becomes apparent. If the ultimate
16 motivation of the car seizures is to sell them and keep the
17 money, what would happen if somebody acquired a few ounces or
18 gallons of PCBs (poly-chlorinated biphenyls; common in
19 20+year-old (non-electrolytic) capacitors), and sprayed them
20 (only a very tiny amount per car should be necessary, maybe 1
21 milliliter or so?) into those seized cars through a broken
22 window (or injected through door seals). Naturally, it would be
23 important to anonymously call the local newspaper or TV stations
24 and report on what had occurred, possibly the EPA as well. That
25 car would suddenly change from a $10,000 asset into possibly a
33
1 $100,000 liability for the agency which seized them.
2 "Just a thought."
3 Signed, "Jim Bell, Better Living Through Chemistry."
4 Now, what are PCBs? You heard Agent Gordon testify that's
5 an environmental hazard.
6 Now, Exhibit 133, the exchange between Mr. Bell and the
7 author of this judge's needing killing continues. There was --
8 the respondent of Mr. Bell's correspondence says, "A thought,
9 however, requiring people to handle PCBs -- which are no fun
10 whatsoever" --
11 Mr. Bell responds, "Sorta depends on your definition of fun,
12 doesn't it?"
13 The other person responds, "heavily regulated."
14 Mr. Bell: "True: These days most or all industrial uses
15 are banned."
16 Correspondent says: "Hard to acquire."
17 Mr. Bell: "I beg to differ. Check the material I
18 downloaded below. Acquiring PCBs requires little more than the
19 will to do it. Believe me, I know."
20 What's the date of that email? October 19th. Right around
21 the time that he's now getting ready to make his first visit to
22 the McNall residence.
23 When you take all of what these people, in Jeff Gordon's
24 case, what he knew about Mr. Bell and what he had an obligation
25 as a law enforcement officer to inform Mike McNall about, and to
34
1 some extent then later Scott Mueller, I submit to you that this
2 is frightening. You know, Mike McNall knows that there's been a
3 guy on his property, the property where he used to live, that
4 this guy thinks he's found Mike McNall's house or he's zeroing
5 in on it. He's not just going at 5:30 in the afternoon. He's
6 going at one o'clock in the morning. He's spending ten minutes
7 on the property. He's a guy that's fooled around with lock
8 picks. He's a guy that's fooled around with chemicals. He's
9 had guns in the past. We're not maintaining that he had those
10 guns illegally, but he's had guns in the past, and he's had
11 powerful guns, unusual guns. This is not a Saturday night
12 special, it's not a little .32 or .22. And he's talking about
13 injecting PCBs in cars. He's admitted to a mercaptan attack. I
14 submit that that gives somebody reasonable cause to be concerned
15 and afraid of serious bodily injury, at the very least, to
16 himself or to anyone who lives with him, such as an immediate
17 family member.
18 You've heard about the steps that these people took. Mike
19 McNall cancelled a trip so he could stay and protect his family.
20 He discussed having protective details from ATF survey his
21 house, his actual house. Agent Gordon bought additional weapons
22 for his household.
23 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is our view that the
24 evidence in this case has established beyond not just a
25 reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt, that on these five
35
1 occasions Mr. Bell completely, inappropriately, with an intent
2 to harass, pursued the individuals named in the five counts of
3 the indictment.
4 In 1997, he was stopped before he started showing up at
5 people's homes. Well, that didn't stop him. He did plead
6 guilty. He went to prison, and he evidently did not learn from
7 it. All the power of the federal government brought to bear in
8 1997 in the form of law enforcement and prosecution did not stop
9 him. He does not hear the message when we give it to him. He
10 did not hear the message when Judge Burgess sentenced him in
11 1997 and told him that that was inappropriate behavior. He's
12 only ever heard the message or been told the message by people
13 he does not trust -- law enforcement, judges. This is the first
14 time that he has the opportunity to hear the message, perhaps,
15 from people he does trust, twelve ordinary citizens. We're
16 asking you to do with the power of 12 what we could not do
17 before. And with verdicts of guilty on all of these counts, we
18 are asking you to send him the message that this has got to
19 stop.
20 MR. LEEN: Objection, Your Honor. Improper argument.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Leen, closing on behalf of the
22 defendant.
23 MR. LEEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 THE DEFENDANT: Mr. Leen. May I consult for a moment,
25 sir?
36
1 (Counsel and defendant confer.)
2 MR. LEEN: May it please the court, counsel, members of
3 the jury:
4 Strange fires often burn in the hearts of men. Such are the
5 fires that drive Mr. Bell.
6 This is a brilliant man, with a brilliant mind that is not
7 functioning well at all. Its functioning is flawed.
8 I would like to take you through the instructions because
9 that's your guidepost as jurors. That directs your thinking.
10 It tells you what the law is, and not because I say so, but
11 because Judge Tanner tells you so. And right in the beginning
12 he tells you, "You must follow the law as I give it, whether you
13 agree with it or not."
14 Another thing that Judge Tanner told you is that you must
15 not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions,
16 prejudices or sympathy.
17 What does that really mean? It means you are not supposed
18 to decide this case because you fear Mr. Bell or you think he's
19 disturbed in his thinking or the prosecutor doesn't like him or
20 that the agents, according to his thinking, are surveilling
21 him. Whether his behavior is unbalanced, misguided, or right
22 on, those are not considerations for deciding the case.
23 The judge told you that a defendant -- Mr. Bell included
24 among all defendants who come into a court of law in the United
25 States -- are presumed innocent. And the government has the
37
1 burden of proving every element of every charge beyond a
2 reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, even if a man is scary
3 or perhaps poses some future danger, that's not your job. It's
4 not your role to take care of Mr. Bell for the government or
5 send a message to Mr. Bell for the government. The jury's job,
6 and the oath that you swore that you would do, would be to look
7 to the facts of the case and apply them to the law and make an
8 objective, fair, impartial decision.
9 The judge also told you something else which is very
10 important. You're only here to determine whether the defendant
11 is guilty or not guilty of the charges in the indictment. The
12 defendant is not on trial for any conduct or offense not charged
13 in the indictment.
14 What does that mean?
15 It means that Mr. Bell is not on trial for stealing mail.
16 It means that Mr. Bell is not on trial for illegally using
17 CD-ROMs, if that's what he did. It means that Mr. Bell is not
18 on trial because at one time he had three assault rifles and a
19 handgun. It means Mr. Bell is not on trial because in 1997 he
20 was convicted of federal offenses. It means that Mr. Bell is
21 not to be tried or convicted because he was a member of the
22 Multnomah County Common Law Court as a juror. It means that Mr.
23 Bell is not to be convicted because he wrote an article called
24 Assassination Politics. He is not on trial for his authorship
25 of Locate IRS -- Operation Locate IRS. He's not on trial for
38
1 going to Mr. Groener's farm two times. Mr. Groener isn't even a
2 person named in any of the charges. He's not on trial for going
3 to Barb Gordon's house on the 23rd, on that same trip, because
4 the Jeff Gordon who's charged in the indictment as a victim is
5 this Jeff Gordon. The defendant is not on trial for any conduct
6 that's not charged in the indictment. You are only here to
7 determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the
8 charges in the indictment.
9 That's the law, whether you like it or not. That's the oath
10 that you promised to take. I don't mean by confronting you with
11 your obligation to attack you. I'm just reminding you this is
12 the oath that you took and the obligation that you agreed to
13 undertake as a juror in this case.
14 The judge will tell you that certain things are not
15 evidence. What I say is not evidence. My arguments to you are
16 merely that, arguments. The evidence is what came from the
17 witness stand through the answers of witnesses and what was
18 introduced into evidence through the exhibits, and you have the
19 books. And you will go through them and you will decide what
20 weight to apply to them, what to believe and what not to
21 believe. Not because I say so, but because your common sense
22 tells you this should be believed and this shouldn't be
23 believed.
24 The judge will tell you that there are two types of
25 evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial
39
1 evidence. What is the difference? Direct evidence is something
2 that you directly see or hear or taste or touch through your
3 senses. Circumstantial evidence is something that causes you to
4 deduce something else. The classic example is a fingerprint.
5 No one saw the person handle the document, but a fingerprint
6 examiner can tell you that person must have touched the document
7 because that person's fingerprint is on the document and no two
8 people have the same fingerprint. So that's circumstantial
9 evidence.
10 Sometimes circumstantial evidence is strong and compelling.
11 Other times it's weak and is subject to different
12 interpretations. In this case, you're going to have to apply
13 circumstantial evidence.
14 The judge will tell you that a reasonable doubt may arise
15 from the lack of evidence, and I ask that you keep that in
16 mind. A reasonable doubt can arise from the lack of evidence.
17 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you
18 firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty. Note the word is
19 guilty. Not wrong, that defendant is bad, that the defendant is
20 scary, that the defendant is dangerous. It doesn't ask you to
21 find any of those things. And there is nothing on the verdict
22 form that asks you to make such findings. You must only find
23 the defendant guilty if that's indeed what he is. Guilty of
24 specific elements of five specific crimes, if each and every one
25 of them have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
40
1 So what are the crimes?
2 We start with instructions dealing with count one and count
3 two, and we can probably deal with them together because they
4 both arise out of Mr. Bell's trip on October 23rd. That's the
5 trip where he went to the Groener residence, and at a different
6 time on the same trip he went to Barb Gordon's residence and
7 took mail from her mailbox. It is clear that Mr. Bell traveled
8 across the state line to do that. He lives in Vancouver, and he
9 said, "I went to these different addresses." So he traveled
10 across the state line. And it's also clear that it's him who
11 did it. And it's certainly clear, it would be clear to me, as
12 it would be clear to you, as it was to Mike McNall, hey, I may
13 not be so worried about myself, but I am worried about my
14 family. He had a reason to fear death or serious bodily injury
15 to his family. But there's one other element that's critical to
16 the charge and crucial to proof of the charge. That's the
17 intent to harass Mike McNall.
18 And if we look at count two, we will see the same basic
19 outline. That on October 23rd, the defendant traveled from
20 Vancouver into Oregon, and he crossed the state line doing so.
21 And as a result of doing that, he placed Jeff Gordon, this Jeff
22 Gordon, in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to
23 himself or his immediate family. Clearly, he did. But again,
24 it has the element, with the intent to harass Jeff Gordon.
25 If you look at the third charge, it charges that on October
41
1 31st, 2000, Mr. Bell sent a facsimile. The prosecutor went
2 through the different parts of that document, the handwriting on
3 it. Jim Bell, dated 10/31. There's another element to that
4 offense. First of all, it obviously had to place Mr. Gordon in
5 fear of death or serious bodily injury to himself or his
6 immediate family. And based on what Mr. Gordon knew about Mr.
7 Bell, I think a letter like that, I don't know exactly what it
8 caused him to fear, but it's reasonable to believe that it
9 caused him alarm, grave alarm. And its also clear that Mr. Bell
10 used a facsimile machine. However, was Mr. Bell's intent and
11 purpose to place Jeff Gordon in reasonable fear or death of
12 bodily injury to himself or a member of his family? Is that why
13 he sent the facsimile?
14 Count four. It's worded slightly different than the other
15 counts, so I ask that you look at it closely. It says on
16 November 3rd, Mr. Bell traveled across the state line from
17 Vancouver to the state of Oregon. And clearly, that occurred,
18 that he traveled in interstate commerce. There's another
19 instruction that says if you travel from one state to another,
20 that may be sufficient in your mind to justify a finding of
21 interstate commerce.
22 That as a result of such travel, he placed Scott Mueller,
23 Mr. Mueller, the man who lived in Bend, Oregon, who was the
24 alleged CIA agent, in fear of death or serious bodily injury to
25 himself or to his family. And while it wasn't on November 3rd
42
1 that he did feel this way, at some time after that, maybe a week
2 to two weeks later when he found out the full scope of what Mr.
3 Bell had done, he did feel that way. And he told you that he
4 bought three weapons as a result of it because he feared that
5 some persons might act on the information that Mr. Bell had sent
6 back to Mr. Young. But that element also requires, that crime
7 also requires that Mr. Bell did this with the intent to harass.
8 And finally, count five. On November 10th, Mr. Bell
9 traveled from Vancouver to the state of Oregon -- Vancouver,
10 Washington, to the state of Oregon. And he clearly did that.
11 So he traveled in interstate commerce. You could find that by
12 crossing a state line. But there was no evidence of anything
13 beyond that. And finally, as a result of such travel, placed
14 Mike McNall in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury
15 to himself or his immediate family. Clearly it was reasonable
16 for Mike McNall to feel that way.
17 Why was it reasonable for Jeff Gordon and Mike McNall and
18 Scott Mueller to fear Mr. Bell because of his activities and to
19 think that either they were in danger or their family was in
20 danger? Because they think normally. They think like you
21 think. But they don't think like Mr. Bell thinks.
22 How do you know what Mr. Bell's intent was in this case?
23 You have to -- he told you his intent was to research. His
24 intent was to find pieces of the puzzle. Many of these pieces
25 of information might have been extraneous, they might have been
43
1 important. But to Mr. Bell, they were pieces of the puzzle, the
2 puzzle to prove definitively, to an audience who would listen,
3 that the failure of his life was the fault of the government and
4 not his own. To prove that the government was watching him,
5 watching his every move.
6 That obviously is at odds with what the government has to
7 prove, because if you believe that, if you truly believe that
8 Mr. Bell did this with the intent, as he says, to put the puzzle
9 together and prove something, even though he crossed the state
10 line, and even though the person who he was investigating would
11 feel fear and danger, he would not be guilty of the crime. The
12 government has to prove Mr. Bell's intent. And so the only way
13 you can do that -- you can't open his head up and look into it,
14 but you can look into what he's written and what he said and how
15 he's acted here in court these last several days.
16 Mr. Bell's thought processes are different than normal. The
17 prosecutor keeps using the term "plausible deniability" because
18 he wants you to reject what Mr. Bell has said and to believe
19 that that's a contrived statement when it really isn't the
20 truth.
21 Mr. Bell does a lot of peculiar things, and the way he's
22 acted has been to his detriment, but he tells the truth as he
23 knows it to a fault. He tells the truth as he knows it.
24 Problem is, he's lost touch with the truth.
25 We're not here, though, to decide whether he's stable or
44
1 unstable. We're here to decide whether he committed a crime in
2 a criminal court. This isn't a civil commitment proceeding
3 where the question is, is he a danger to himself or others?
4 It's a very specific inquiry: Did Mr. Bell have a certain
5 mental intention, and was that an intent to harass? And if you
6 have a doubt about that, even though you don't like the law, you
7 must follow the law.
8 It has been very difficult for me to question a client who,
9 from his very words, tells you that I have threatened to kill
10 him and members of his family. And yet Mr. Bell believes that
11 to be true. The prosecutor would have you believe that that is
12 not true either, and that many of the statements that Mr. Bell
13 made over two days of testimony which scared you and frighten
14 you really shouldn't because they weren't true at all, when you
15 know, as you watched him testify and listened to what he said,
16 that he meant what he said. He truly meant what he said. He
17 truly meant that he was investigating and trying to expose
18 illegal government behavior. Why? I surmise it's because it
19 needs -- he needs to to explain how such a brilliant mind could
20 be such a complete failure.
21 But I don't mock him. I pity him. But that also is
22 sympathy and that is something you are to disregard, also. But
23 look to what he said and then look to the other evidence. And
24 just because it's reasonable that Jeff Gordon or Mike McNall or
25 Scott Mueller would be frightened, just like it would be
45
1 reasonable for you to assume that you would be frightened if
2 this conduct was directed at you, we need to step out of that
3 and say, but Mr. Bell says that was not his intent, and I know
4 that Mr. Bell's thinking is flawed. So how do I resolve whether
5 his intent was to harass or whether his intent was to do exactly
6 what he said it was, to expose, publish, hypostatize scary
7 ideas?
8 There is no police officer back there in the jury box. You
9 can disregard anything I've said and everything I've said. But
10 you gave an oath that you would apply the law to Mr. Bell
11 whether you like it or not. I suggest to you that the
12 government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
13 Mr. Bell's purpose in all of these activities was to harass.
14 Sure, it would have been a consequence, but his purpose was to
15 expose and to show everyone that he wasn't strange, he was
16 bright.
17 Thank you.
18 THE COURT: Jury, go to lunch. Be in the jury room at
19 one o'clock.
20 In the meantime, the case has not yet been submitted to you
21 for your verdict, so please, please do not discuss it among
22 yourself. If anyone tries to approach you, wherever you eat
23 lunch or wherever you are in the hall, disregard them, please.
24 Please go to lunch. Be back at one o'clock.
25 (Jury excused at 11:45 a.m.)
46
1 THE COURT: Will the security people please see that
2 everyone stays in the courtroom until that jury has cleared that
3 corridor out there, please.
4 Will the person, please, standing in front of the door move
5 to one side.
6 Thank you.
7 All right. Everyone is free to go. One o'clock.
8 MR. LEEN: One o'clock?
9 THE COURT: One o'clock.
10 (Recessed at 11:50 a.m.)
11 AFTERNOON SESSION
12 (Jury not present.)
13 THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
14 MR. LONDON: Yes, Your Honor.
15 MR. LEEN: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right, call the jury.
17 (Jury present; 1:10 p.m.)
18 THE COURT: Let the record reflect the jury has
19 returned. The defendant is here represented.
20 Government's closing closing. Mr. London.
21 MR. LONDON: Members of the jury, this is the closing
22 argument for the government, and I promise to be brief. I just
23 want to address two points that were raised by Mr. Leen's
24 closing argument.
25 Mr. Leen characterized Mr. Bell as having a flawed mind.
47
1 That is not my characterization; that's Mr. Leen's. What is
2 important for you to understand is this:
3 Number one, there is nothing in the record in this case in
4 the way of a clinical diagnosis of any kind. What is in the
5 record in this case is that Mr. Bell understands the difference
6 between right and wrong. Mr. Bell was confronted with the
7 evidence of his mail theft from the Gordons' mailbox. Mr. Bell
8 admitted it; Mr. Bell apologized for it. Mr. Bell understands
9 his actions and he understands the difference between right and
10 wrong.
11 With regard to mental state, what we have to prove is his
12 intent, that he had the intent to harass. Mr. Leen has
13 essentially conceded all other aspects of the government's
14 proof, but says that where we have failed to meet our burden is
15 in proof of the element in all five counts that Mr. Bell's
16 intent was to harass. Mr. Leen has asked you to find that the
17 intent was simply to do research or to investigate Mr. Bell's
18 claims with regard to illegal surveillance, the Ryan Lund
19 incident, and so forth. I ask you, please not to be misled, and
20 there's a critical aspect to this that you need to understand.
21 Mr. Bell's investigation, to the extent that it took him to
22 the doorstep of people that he thought he had identified and
23 found, was itself a form of harassment; and his research, to
24 whatever extent it took him onto the private property of people
25 that he thought were the people he was looking for, that was
48
1 itself a form of harassment. He knew that any part of his
2 research or investigation that brought him to the homes of these
3 agents would definitely intimidate or harass them.
4 In 1997, I reiterate, in Exhibit 51, he pled guilty to
5 collecting home addresses of IRS officers because he knew it
6 would harass them. He had to know now, skipping ahead to the
7 fall of 2000, he had to know that by now actually showing up at
8 their houses, not just collecting their home addresses, but now
9 actually showing up at homes, intending to be seen (Exhibit 141,
10 showing the flag) that it would have even more of an harassment
11 effect than in 1997 when he was simply publishing, collecting
12 and publishing the names and addresses but not actually going to
13 anyone's house.
14 How could Mr. Bell possibly not know the effect that his
15 so-called investigation or research would have if it took him to
16 the homes and to the doorstep of these agents? He had to know.
17 His 1997 guilty plea, his colloquy, his exchange with Judge
18 Burgess is the proof that he knew the effect, the harassment and
19 intimidation, this would have. He admitted then that's the
20 effect you have when you let people know that you know where
21 they live or what their children's names are.
22 Yes, in his mind, he may have thought that he was
23 investigating something, but he knew that any part of his
24 investigation that took him to the agent's private homes would
25 definitely have the effect of harassing or intimidating.
49
1 Please look at all the evidence in 1997 where he made it so
2 clear what effect it would have on IRS officers if they were
3 served with common law papers, common law court papers at their
4 homes. He called it psychologically effective.
5 Well, how can he now say, in view of all that history, that
6 showing up at agents' homes to do his search or his
7 investigation wouldn't be even more psychologically effective
8 than just publishing names and addresses of IRS officers and
9 others and holding trials of them in a common law court? He
10 knew.
11 You can find that one of his purposes or intent was to
12 investigate his claims, but you have to find by definition
13 necessarily there is absolutely no way that he didn't realize
14 that any research that took him to their homes was a form of
15 harassment and would be taken that way by them. He knew it
16 would be taken that way by them.
17 He decided to go to their homes anyway. He knew it would
18 bother them. But he decided to do it anyway. That's
19 harassment. That is intent to harass, no matter what other
20 intent he may have had. Remember, you can have more than one
21 purpose in doing something, but if you know that showing up at
22 someone's house for the purpose of investigating something will
23 be taken by that person as a form of harassment, and if you
24 decide to do it anyway, then you have made the decision to
25 harass them, not just the decision to investigate. He knew that
50
1 taking his investigation of research to their home would be
2 taken by them as harassment. He decided to do it anyway.
3 That's knowledge. That is intent.
4 Thank you very much for your patience.
5 * * * * *
6
7
8
9
10 C E R T I F I C A T E
11
12 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
13 the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
14
15
16
17 ________________________________ November 27, 2001
JULAINE V. RYEN Date
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
1 THE COURT: Okay. I have four more instructions. Even
2 though I'm reading them after the closing closing by the
3 government, you are to consider them /SWRUS /-T as though I have
4 read them with the foregoing that I had previously read to you.
5 In /TKE /SAOEUTDing what the facts are, you must consider
6 all the evidence. In doing this, you must decide what testimony
7 to believe and what testimony not to believe. You may
8 disbelieve all or any part of any witness nets's testimony. In
9 making that decision, you may take into account a number of
10 factors, including the following:. One, was the witness able to
11 hear see or hear or know the things about which that witness
12 testified?
13 2. How /WEPL was the witness able to recall and describe
14 those things?
15 3. What was the witness' manner while testifying.
16 4. Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of this
17 case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter
18 involved in the case?
19 5. How reasonable was the witness /AUFPS testimony
20 considered in light of all the evidence in the case?
21 6. Was the witness' testimony contradicted by what that
22 witness had said or done at another time? Or by the testimony
23 of other witnesses or by other evidence? In /TKE /SAOEUTDing
24 whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people
25 ^ some time ^ sometime forget things. You need to consider,
52
1 therefore, whether a contradiction is an innocent slack of
2 memory or intentional falsehood and that may /TKE pen on whether
3 it has to do with an important fact or with only a small
4 detail. The weight of the evidence presented by each side does
5 not necessarily /TKE pen on the /TPHRUFPL /PWER of witnesses
6 testifying on one side or the other. You must consider all the
7 evidence in the case and you may decide that the testimony of a
8 smaller number of witnesses on one side has greater weight.
9 /* than that of a larger number on the other. You should
10 judge the testimony of the defendant just as you should judge
11 the testimony of any other witness.
12 The punishment provided by law for this crime is for the
13 court to decide. You may not consider punishment in deciding
14 whether the government has proved its case against the defendant
15 beyond a reasonable doubt.
16 The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each
17 juror. In order to return a verdict it is necessary that each
18 juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is
19 your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to
20 deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement if you can do so
21 without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must
22 decide the case with your fellow jurors. In the course of your
23 deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and
24 change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not
25 /SUR /REPB /TKEUR your honest conviction as to the weight or
53
1 effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow
2 jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.
3 Remember, at all /TAOEUPLTS you are not party since. You are
4 judges. Judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the
5 truth from the evidence in the case.
6 Upon retiring to the jury room for your deliberations, you
7 will select one of your number to act as the pre/SAOEUTDing
8 juror. The presighing juror will preside over your deliberation
9 and will be your spokesperson here in court. /TPORPLGS of the
10 verdict have been prefared for your convenience. You will take
11 this form to the jury room and when you have reached unanimous
12 agreement as to your verdict, you will have your presiding juror
13 fill in, date, and sign the form which sets forth the verdict
14 upon which you you /TPHAPB I mouse aly agree and then return
15 with your verdict to the courtroom.
16 It's a /WUFPB page verdict form, and it's got a plan being
17 for whatever you find and it is self explanatory, but you shoe
18 read it before you attempt to fill it out, and you will have a
19 copy of these instructions toying with those exhibits which was
20 admitted by the court. But now, there are 14 and there can only
21 be /ST in the jury room. So Susan /REU sin ski and Julie Scott
22 are now excused.
23 There can only be twelve in that jury room to discuss this
24 case.
25 Okay?
54
1 For the first time I will tell you start discussing the
2 case. Just as soon as you get in the jury room which will be
3 right now. Please go to the jury room.
4 Have both parties looked at those exhibits that were
5 admitted by the court?
6 MR. LEEN: I haven't looked at them yet, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Do you want to look at them? Court.
8 MR. LEEN: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Now. The jury is waiting for them.
10 MR. LEEN: Fine, Your Honor. Thank you.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 THE COURT: In anticipation that the jury might want to
13 use the screens again, be prepared upon request, as I won't
14 allow them to go in the jury room to do it. They will have to
15 do it here, on the machines in the presence of the defendant and
16 his counsel. Any miss understanding?
17 MR. LONDON: No, Your Honor.
18 MR. LEEN: No.
19 THE COURT: Was there any evidence in this case
20 admitted that is not now in the jury room?
21 THE CLERK: No, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Is that correct?
23 THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: There's no firearms, there's no con /TRA
25 ban of any kind in this case, is that correct?
55
1 THE CLERK: Correct.
2 MR. LONDON: /TKHR is a set of lock picks that was an
3 exhibit and I don't know if those are considered contraband or
4 not. I don't know if those are admitted or not.
5 THE COURT: Well, if they ask for it, the government
6 will be expected to produce them immediately. Understand?
7 MR. LEEN: .
8 MR. LONDON: Yes, sir.
9 THE COURT: Any questions now?
10 MR. LONDON: No, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: To both parties:Will be expected to
12 immediately respond to any jury questions. Immediately. We do
13 not intend to wait for you. We will /SEPB the marshals for any
14 and everybody everybody. Immediately. Understand?
15 MR. LONDON: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Defendant? The custody of the marshals.
17 THE COURT: Court's in recess. Pending the jury
18 verdict.
19 (Recessed at 1:26 p.m.) 3:36. Kurt court be seated.
20 I received two notes from the jury. One, definition of
21 intent. Two, may we have a Dick /SHUFPB near I and legal
22 definition of intent. Do you want to show it to them, both of
23 them.
24 THE CLERK: Come forward if you want to see it.
25 MR. LEEN: Okay. Thank you.
56
1 THE COURT: Comment from the government. /HRUPB /HRUPB
2 I will confess that I'm not familiar with what the law is
3 regarding a dictionary. I seem to recall from other cases that
4 they are not entitled to have that to. The definition in the
5 dictionary might not be a legal definition as a term of law, but
6 I will see what Mr. Leen has to say about that.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Leen.
8 MR. LEEN: I don't believe that the jury is allowed to
9 have a dictionary in the jury room, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: The /AFRPBS err to that is no. Right?
11 MR. LEEN: I agree.
12 THE COURT: No?
13 MR. LEEN: The answer to the question about eye
14 dictionary should be no.
15 THE COURT: That's right. No.
16 All right. Now, this as to meaning ever intent.
17 MR. LEEN: Ups, we asked at jury charging instruction
18 that the jury be charge /KHARPBLGTD with did definition of
19 intent for this very reason.
20 THE COURT: For what very reason.
21 MR. LEEN: Because it's a term that's not defined and
22 is relevant to an element of the offense.
23 THE COURT: Well the answer to this is read the
24 instructions.
25 MR. LEEN: There is no definition of intent in the
57
1 instructions. /HRUPB /HRUPB there is a definition of knowledge
2 in the definition. It could be they could be referred to the
3 knowledge instruction.
4 MR. LEEN: We would object to /THAFPLT intent Your
5 Honor is acting with the on /SKWREBGT and purpose to commit
6 /ABLGTS which constitute a crime. It's the highest level of
7 knowledge. It's the highest level of mental state in the law.
8 THE COURT: That's your position.
9 What's the government's position /HRUPB /HRUPB I don't
10 believe that it -- that the jury should be instructed that
11 intent means in/TEPBGT to commit a crime, because it
12 specifically is defined in a number of legal definitions as
13 simply tin tent to do the act that has a particular effect. The
14 defendant does not necessarily need to know that he's
15 ^ braking ^ breaking the law, as long as he specifically intends
16 to do the thing that he does that results in the law being
17 broken.
18 MR. LEEN: This is a specific intent crime, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Do I say reread or read the in/STRUS
20 /STRUBGSs?
21 MR. LEEN: I would just say no, it will not be defined
22 for you. /HRUPB /HRUPB I guess it's read the instructions,
23 because we're not going to give them another definition. Then I
24 guess -- I don't think we have another alternative than to tell
25 them they are not getting a definition.
58
1 MR. LEEN: It's not in the instructions, so I think
2 that the appropriate one would be to say no.
3 THE COURT: I said read the instructions and endorsed
4 it.
5 MR. LEEN: We would object to the such a response, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: It's noted.
8 MR. LEEN: Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Anything else?
10 MR. LEEN: No.
11 THE COURT: All right. Jury is in recess pending the
12 verdict.
13 (Recessed at.
14 THE COURT: Bring the jury.) 4:55.)
15 (Jury present /TPH-FPLT (we had been waiting for quite
16 awhile before the June came out. They called me it was before
17 4: 40)) jury present.
18 THE COURT: The let the record reflect all members of
19 the jury are present, defendants present, counsel, the
20 government is represented.
21 To the jury, ^ who's ^ whose the foreperson /-FLT jury)
22 number 3 raises hand.
23 Is that note, sir, come from you? Three three yes, it did,
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: On behalf of the jury three three yes,
59
1 /OEULT did.
2 THE COURT: Read the note in open court. Three three
3 the note says that /KOUPBLTS one and four and five are hung, 11
4 guilty /WUPBG not guilty. Counts 2 and 3 are unanimous guilty.
5 And we ask what do we do now?
6 MR. LONDON: I'm sorry, I just actually didn't hear the
7 last part. After we ask, I didn't hear it. Throw throw counts
8 two and three unanimous guilty and we ask what do we do now?
9 THE COURT: Give the clerk the note and then pleas go
10 back to the jury room.
11 THE COURT: Defendant?
12 MR. LEEN: I'm sorry, are you asking --
13 THE COURT: Any comment?
14 MR. LEEN: Well, I don't --
15 THE COURT: Let the record reflect the jury is not
16 pre/SEFPBT.
17 MR. LEEN: Yes, Your Honor.
18 I don't think the jury can continue to deliberate because
19 they have announced part of their verdict. And so I would ask
20 the court to discharge the jury.
21 THE COURT: Well, do I accept -- what we're talking
22 about here is form.
23 MR. LEEN: Yes, sir.
24 THE COURT: Of the verdict.
25 MR. LEEN: Well, they published a verdict. I guess
60
1 they would have to be /POELD.
2 THE COURT: That's exactly what I want them to do, they
3 /SR-PBL been /POELD yet.
4 MR. LEEN: But I think after they are /POELD, they
5 should be discharged.
6 THE COURT: Government? /HRUPB /HRUPB you know, I will
7 confess I haven't been quite through this set of circumstances
8 before.
9 THE COURT: And we can't find anything. /HRUPB /HRUPB
10 it sounds to me as if it might not be fruitful to inquire
11 whether any further deliberation --
12 THE COURT: I do not inten to. /HRUPB /HRUPB then,
13 Your Honor, I believe they could be discharged after being
14 /POELD and then the United States attorney can decide whether or
15 not the try Mr. Bell on on the counts on which they were hung.
16 It's a matter of prosecutorial /TKREUGS.
17 THE COURT: The only question that I have, do I tell
18 them to go out back and fill /TOUT form? Or do we use this note
19 as the form?
20 MR. LEEN: Well, the problem is that they have
21 published their jury, their numerical counts which they are not
22 supposed to do.
23 THE COURT: I understand?
24 A. /HRAOEPBG /HRAOEPB I think I'm just going to move for a
25 dis/PH*EUS trial.
61
1 THE COURT: That will be denied.
2 MR. LEEN: Then other than /THARBGS I guess then you
3 should treat that as -- as a conviction, I guess, on two counts
4 if that's what it's going to be doomed, but I don't think you
5 can tell them to do anything else. They aren't supposed to
6 disclose their --
7 THE COURT: What I propose to do is pole them on counts
8 two and three. Without mentioning anything else.
9 There is some law on partial verdicts.
10 Any objections?
11 MR. LEEN: I think that the verdicts are --
12 THE COURT: I have in mind your mistrial motion.
13 MR. LEEN: There's some irregularity /HAOER that I
14 can't put in /SPWOEUR. And I can't voice it because I haven't
15 really throughout through the problem. But they can't
16 deliberate anymore and you /K-PBL instruct them anymore, and
17 they haven't re/TERPBD a proper verdict.
18 THE COURT: I'm not asking you that.
19 MR. LEEN: So do I object to what you think about
20 doing?
21 THE COURT: Is /TKHR any objection to pole the jury on
22 counts two and three as to the form of the verdict?
23 MR. LEEN: Well, it would maybe sense. But we would
24 ask that the jury be /POELD before any conviction be received
25 and filed with the clerk.
62
1 THE COURT: It has already been published, their
2 verdicts /AOPB count two and three. Right?
3 MR. LEEN: Yes, sir.
4 THE COURT: I'm trying to put it in the proper form.
5 MR. LEEN: Well, I don't think you can at this point.
6 And I don't think that.
7 THE COURT: So you're saying that I should not ask them
8 to fill out the verdict form as to counts 2 and 3? On which
9 they have reached a verdict as they published.
10 MR. LEEN: I would say that you shouldn't tell them
11 that direction.
12 THE COURT: Should not.
13 MR. LEEN: Objection.
14 THE COURT: Because what they are asking for.
15 MR. LEEN: I will object for the record.
16 THE COURT: Bring them back.
17 Get rid I to pole the jury.
18 THE CLERK: On counts 2 and 3.
19 THE COURT: ^ up ^ mmm?
20 THE CLERK: On 2 and 3.
21 THE COURT: On 2 and 3. /AO*EU.
22 THE COURT: Let the record again reflect the defendant
23 is jury present. Defendant is present with with counsel and the
24 government is represented.
25 What we are going to do now, the clerk is going to ask you,
63
1 each individual juror by number, as to counts 2 and 3 only. And
2 what is the question going to be?
3 THE CLERK: Members of the jury I shall pose a question
4 directed do each of you individually and as members of the
5 jury. Is the verdict as read as to counts 2 and 3 your verdict
6 and the verdict of the jury.
7 THE COURT: Now, that's going to be the question.
8 Okay? Start with juror number 1.
9 THE CLERK: Please respond yes or no as I call your
10 number. Number.
11 JUROR NO. 1: One /KWRU.
12 THE CLERK: Number 2.
13 PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 2: Yes.
14 THE COURT: Number 3?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Number 4?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Number 5?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Number 6?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Number 7?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Number 8?
25 A. Yes.
64
1 Q. Number 9?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Number 10?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Number 11?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Number 12?
8 A. Yes) on number 2 both one and two answered yes /STPH-RT)
9 (court tort verdict will be accepted. The jury is now excused,
10 but before you leave, let me tell you something. You do not
11 have to talk to anybody. Do you than /UPBG /TKEUR stand what I
12 said? I'm not telling you you can't. All I'm telling you, you
13 have no responsibility, except to yourself, to talk to anybody.
14 About your service on this case.
15 You are now free to go home.
16 JUROR NO. 5: Thank you.
17 THE COURT: What do we do now?
18 THE CLERK: Give them back.
19 .
20 THE COURT: Do we set sentencing.
21 THE CLERK: Yeah, on two and three.
22 THE COURT: /KWHRAS the date?
23 THE CLERK: July 6th.
24 THE COURT: July 6th at, 2001, at 9:30 or as soon there
25 /AFR as the court can be heard will be the sentencing date and
65
1 there will be a probation report on this case. As to counts 2
2 and 3.
3 Anything further to take up, either party?
4 MR. LEEN: Defense would move for dismissal of Count 1,
5 4, and 5 /HRUPB /HRUPB any dismissal we would appreciate being
6 without prejudice and giving us the ability to refile if we so
7 choose.
8 THE COURT: They're dismissed without prejudice.
9 MR. LEEN: We also move for dismissal of counts 2 and 3
10 for /EUR /RELG you /HRAR jury verdicts.
11 THE COURT: That will be denied.
12 MR. LEEN: Your Honor, ply the defense have ten days to
13 file a motion for new trial.
14 THE COURT: Whatever the rule is.
15 MR. LEEN: I understand that I'm allowed to ask you at
16 this point to extend it from seven days to whatever time the
17 court /TKAOEPLS reasonable, and I have some other matters to
18 take care of. Ten days would be helpful. /HRUPB /HRUPB.
19 MR. LONDON: No objection.
20 THE COURT: You've got it.
21 MR. LEEN: Thanks.
22 THE COURT: Meanwhile, the defendant is in the custody
23 of the United States marshals.
24 THE COURT: The note from the jurors will be part of
25 the record and it will be filed.
66
1 MR. LEEN: May the defense have a copy of it, Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: I said it would be filed.
4 MR. LEEN: Yes, sir.
5 THE COURT: Anything else to take up) defendant taken a
6 wane /HRUPBL /HRUPB yes Your Honor /-FPLS I have one thing I
7 don't think the defendants need to be. We /SHRAEURD a courtesy
8 copy of the exhibits with Mr. Leen and now that trial is
9 concluded we would like to have those back.
10 THE COURT: What's the procedure of the clerk's
11 office?
12 THE CLERK: That would be discovery. /HRUPB /HRUPB
13 it's just -- we believe Mr. Leen has those and we do need to get
14 them back.
15 THE COURT: If I understand -- what's the rule? On
16 exhibits?
17 THE CLERK: At the /EPB of the trial I return exhibits
18 to the parties. And they maintain them during the appeal
19 period. I don't have anything to do with the government and
20 defense counsel exchanging exhibits. /HRUPB lube B.
21 MR. LONDON: I would like clarification of this court's
22 order with regard to the /SAOELG of the file. These exhibits,
23 courtesy copies given to defense counsel is not technically a
24 part of the file which has been ordered sealed until further
25 notice of the court but we are concern that information in those
67
1 exhibits not be published as a kind of back door exceptions to
2 this court's order so we are asking that those be returned at
3 this time. Or at least that Mr. Leen be given instruction that
4 he should not ^ chair ^ cheer any of that material with members
5 of the press or otherwise. I say it because I know there have
6 been requests made.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Leen, you are ordered by the court not
8 to reveal to your client or any news media the names, addresses,
9 or any identification of the jurors in this case.
10 MR. LEEN: Certainly, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Do you understand that?
12 MR. LEEN: I understand that. Thank you.
13 MR. LONDON: But what about did victims, Your Honor? I
14 think you just mentioned jurors, but what is /TPWHR that
15 notebook is not jurors names but victims names and other
16 personal address information of people who really don't need to
17 have that information displayed on the Internet or elsewhere.
18 THE COURT: What you're saying is I'm supposed to
19 anticipate a crime by the -- I don't think I have the authority
20 20 to do that. Do I?
21 MR. LONDON: Well, I'm not /SHURBGS Your Honor. I --
22 my view of it is this.
23 THE COURT: They testified in open, court, right?
24 MR. LONDON: Yes.
25 THE COURT: /THAO can be printed can't it.
68
1 MR. LONDON: Yes, that can. That's a matter of public
2 record, but as to specific exhibits that are in the possession
3 of the defense we already have a ruling from your an order from
4 you saying that this court file will be sealed --
5 THE COURT: My order goes to the jurors, period.
6 MR. LONDON: All right. Thank you. The jurors,
7 period.
8 Now, both parties herd what I told the jury. They don't
9 have to talk to anyone. But if they do, I can't do anything
10 about that. As far as I know.
11 MR. LEEN: Yes, sir.
12 THE COURT: Understand?
13 Okay. Court's in recess.
14 (Recessed at 5:10 p.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HTML by Cryptome.