Tony Alamo News

Cross Examination of Sharon Alamo by Assistant US Attorney Clay Fowlkes following Direct Examination by Tony Alamo’s attorney Mr. Ervin.

Q Ms. Alamo, I’ve been observing your testimony today and notice that you are referring to some notes that you have up there.
A Yes.
Q The court has allowed me to look at those notes and I’m going to go ahead and approach
A Oh, there was an issue that I didn’t bring them in, but I did make copies that I thought were given to you. It was just my date book which showed the dates, copies of every single page that I looked at, you had copies, should have had copies.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I’d like to see that book.
THE WITNESS: But I can go and get it.

THE COURT: You may see it.
BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:

Q I want to start out talking to you a little bit about what you testified on direct examination. With regard to the trips that you have talked to the jury a lot about today, now you don’t deny that Jane Doe 1 traveled on a bus from Fouke, Arkansas to Saugus, California in 2004; do you?
A No, I don’t.
Q And Jane Doe 1 traveled at the defendant’s direction on that trip; didn’t she?
A No, she did not.
Q Now Ms. Alamo, you testified on direct examination that the defendant decides who goes on what trips.
A That’s right.
Q Isn’t that correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now I want to talk about Count 2 on the indictment. Now you don’t deny that Jane Doe 1 also traveled at the defendant’s direction from California to Fouke, Arkansas in August or October of that year; you don’t deny that, do you?
A I actually do deny that. Yes, I do.
Q Then what is your testimony regarding that?
A When we were in California, excuse me, yes, we were in California, Tony, myself and Angel, we left and everyone that was still there remained there. At that time Jane Doe 1 was staying
at the bungalows, but she came separate from us. She came out to L.A. with her parents – with her mother and her sister and brothers.
Q Ms. Alamo, I don’t think you understood my question.

THE COURT: Excuse me, do you need any time to look at this?
MR. FOWLKES: I would like a little time to be able to review that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don’t you take about five minutes. We’ll just stay right here, you go ahead.
MR. FOWLKES: Okay.
[Off the record from 10:23 a.m. until 10:25 a.m. to allow counsel to look at day planner.]
MR. FOWLKES: I’m ready to proceed.
THE COURT: All right, go right ahead.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Ms. Alamo, I don’t think you quite understood my question.
A Okay.
Q You don’t deny that Jane Doe 1 traveled at the defendant’s direction from Saugus, California to Fouke, Arkansas in August to October of 2005.
A I do deny that, yes, I do.
Q So that is not the truth, that Jane Doe 1 never came from Saugus, California to Fouke, Arkansas.
A Yes, she did travel but that was not under Tony’s direction.
Q Okay, now I thought that you just testified on direct examination that Tony decided who traveled on what trips.
A Yes, but this was not a trip that he was taking.
Q Okay. So it’s your testimony this was an exception to the rule that Tony decides who travels on what trips.
A It was different. I can’t-
Q I’ll move on. Let’s talk about Count 3 of the indictment.

MR. ERVIN: I would appreciate it if the government
would let the witness answer the question.
MR. FOWLKES: I believe she answered the part of the question that was relevant, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I would like to explain, if I could.
MR. FOWLKES: And you’ll have your chance.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. FOWLKES: Your attorney will be able to come up here and ask you some more questions in a moment. But I do believe you have answered my question.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q I want to talk to you about Count No. 3. Now you didn’t
testify about this count, but you don’t deny that Jane Doe 2 traveled from Fouke, Arkansas to Moffett, Oklahoma at the defendant’s direction; do you?
A I do not have personal knowledge of that.
Q Okay. So you don’t deny that.
A I don’t deny and I don’t admit.
Q And with regard to the next trip that Jane Doe 2 took in about March to April of 2001, you don’t deny that Jane Doe 2 traveled from Fouke, Arkansas to Moffett, Oklahoma; do you?
A I don’t have personal knowledge of it.
Q Okay. And you don’t deny that in July of 1998, that Jane Doe 3 traveled at the defendant’s direction from Fouke, Arkansas to Moffett, Oklahoma; do you?
A No, I don’t deny that. Wait a minute, I’m sorry, did you say from Fouke to Fort Smith?
Q Moffett, Oklahoma.
A Oh, from Moffett to Fouke?
Q From Fouke to Moffett, Oklahoma.
A Okay, from Fouke to Moffett. Actually, I do deny that, technically I deny that, yes.
Q Technically?
A Because she went to Fort Smith. She wasn’t going to Moffett.
Q And you don’t deny that Jane Doe 3 traveled at the defendant’s direction from January of ‘99 to February of ‘99 to Nashville, Tennessee; do you?
A No, I don’t deny that.
Q Okay, and you don’t deny that Jane Doe 4 traveled at the defendant’s direction from Fort Smith, Arkansas to New Mexico and back; do you?
A No, I do not.
Q And you also don’t deny that Jane Doe 4 traveled again
at the defendant’s direction in or about April of 1994 through and including May of ‘94 to Huntington, West Virginia.
A No, I don’t deny that.
Q And you also don’t deny that Jane Doe 4 traveled at the defendant’s direction in May of 1994 from Fort Smith, Arkansas to Memphis, Tennessee.
A I deny that. We did not make that trip.
Q Okay, so Jane Doe 4 never went to Memphis, Tennessee; is that your testimony?
A No, she went to Memphis, but she did not go by way of Fort Smith.
Q Okay. I want to talk to you about the last count and you testified to this, you don’t deny that Jane Doe 5 traveled at the defendant’s direction from Fouke, Arkansas to Los Angeles, California.
A No, I don’t deny that.
Q Okay. Now you testified a lot on direct examination about the purpose of these trips and I want to talk to you about that. These trips each had a purpose for the defendant; didn’t they?
A Yes, they did.
Q But you didn’t testify to the jury about really what the purpose was for the defendant to take Jane Doe 1 on these trips; did you?
A No.
Q And you didn’t testify about what her duties were on these trips to California and what her duties were upon her return to Fouke, Arkansas; is that correct?
A I think so.
Q And you also didn’t testify about what Jane Doe 3’s duties were on the trip from Fouke, Arkansas to Nashville, Tennessee; did you?
A No, I didn’t.
Q And you didn’t testify about what her duties were on her trip that she took from Fouke, Arkansas to Moffett, Oklahoma, or as you testify, Fort Smith, Arkansas. You didn’t tell the jury
about her duties on that trip; did you?
A No, I didn’t get a chance to say anything on that.
Q Or what her duties were upon her return to Fouke, Arkansas; did you?
A No, I didn’t.
Q You don’t deny that every one of the victims of these ten counts on the federal indictment traveled in interstate commerce; do you? That they crossed state lines.
A They did cross state lines, yes.
Q And you testified earlier that no one travels except by the direction of the defendant. The defendant decides who travels and who goes on what trips. That was your testimony; correct?
A He – when it was – yes, on trips that he was taking, yes he did determine if they could go.
Q Okay. Are you going to deny today that the defendant had a sexual relationship with each one of those girls, as well?
A I do not have any knowledge of that, personal knowledge, no, I do not so I do have to deny that.
Q You believe that the defendant is a prophet; don’t you?
A Yes, I do.
Q And you believe that he is your spiritual leader.
A Yes, I do.

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. ERVIN: Your Honor, I believe this flies in the face of the Motion in Limine. He’s going into really just dogma, which the court limined out in this case.
THE COURT: The victims have represented that yes, he refers to himself as a prophet, as a religious leader.
MR. FOWLKES: I’m not getting into religious beliefs, Your Honor. I am only using these line of questions to develop this witness’s bias towards the defendant.
THE COURT: I’ll allow bias.
MR. FOWLKES: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: At least that’s been opened by other testimony.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And presented that they believe he was a man of God.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Ms. Alamo, I’m going to ask you those questions again.
A Sure.
Q You believe the defendant is a prophet; don’t you?
A Yes, I do, as everyone that preaches the gospel and that is filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes, I do.
Q You believe that God speaks to the defendant?
A Yes, I do. I have personal knowledge for that. Yes, I’ve seen that.
Q And you believe that the defendant is your spiritual leader; correct?
A Correct.
Q He is the pastor and leader of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.
A Correct.
Q You believe that your salvation is tied to this defendant; don’t you?
A No.
Q So it’s your testimony today that obedience to Tony is not the way to heaven?

MR. ERVIN: Objection, Your Honor, he’s going far afield.
THE COURT: I believe you are going far afield.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I am merely asking these questions to establish bias of this witness.
MR. ERVIN: I object to the statement in front of the jury.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel a second.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, that’s my last question on the subject.
THE COURT: I think all of those victims, all those victims have said yes, that they felt, most everyone of these people said that they felt if they disobeyed or violated his directions they would go to hell. Now that’s already before this jury.
MR. ERVIN: It’s not anything that I put before the jury, Your Honor, and I may have objected to it at the time. I don’t remember.
THE COURT: I think they did say it and I’ll let you for bias.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: I’ll note your objection.
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q So it’s your testimony, Ms. Alamo, that obedience to Tony Alamo is not the way to heaven; is that your testimony today?
A Yes, it is.
Q Okay. How old are you, Ms. Alamo?
A Fifty.
Q And you have a significant financial stake in the outcome of this case; don’t you?
A I never – I never thought of that. I don’t – I never consider that.
Q Well let me talk to you about that. Isn’t it true that the defendant provides for you?
A The church provides for me, as well as everyone else in the ministry.
Q And isn’t it true that the defendant provides your residence that you live in?
A The church provides that.
Q Okay. And the defendant provides your meals?
A The church provides my meals.
Q You testified on direct examination that the defendant controls the finances of the church.
A He does-
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, he’s responsible over it, but everyone has that same benefit in the church as I do.
Q And the defendant provides your clothes too, doesn’t he?
A The church does.
Q Okay, but the defendant controls the finances of the church; correct? The needs list?
A In a general way, but – specifically my needs aren’t only dependent on Tony. The whole church needs, as a whole.
Q The defendant provides your transportation also; doesn’t he?
A The church does.
Q And the defendant has allowed you to garner an ownership interest in several pieces of property in the state of Arkansas; hasn’t he?
A Yes.
Q And isn’t it true that your name is on the deed of three four pieces of property in the state of Arkansas; isn’t that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q And that your name is on the deed at 944 Locust Street in Fouke, Arkansas; correct?
A Yes, but it’s not in Fouke.
Q How do you pay for that property?
A We use church finances to put down to pay it.
Q You use church finances to pay for that property.
A Yes.
Q But this property is not in the church’s name. It’s in your name; isn’t that correct?
A And other names, not just mine alone. I do not have controlling interest in it.
Q And your name is also on a piece of property at 301 Brown Street; isn’t that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q Okay. And how did you pay for this piece of property?
A The church. The church paid for it.
Q The church paid for it, but it’s not in the church’s name; is it? It’s in your name.
A And others, not mine alone.
Q And 560 West 2nd Street in Booneville, Arkansas, and that’s a piece of property that is also titled in your name; isn’t it?
A Yes.
Q How did you purchase this piece of property?
A This also was not mine alone. And this was done for the church’s benefit and it was done by the church.
Q But it’s not in the church’s name, is it?
A No, it’s not.
Q It’s in your name.
A And others, yes.
Q And 200 Pine Drive in Fouke, Arkansas. This residence is also in your name; isn’t it?
A Not that I’m aware of.
Q It’s not in the name of Sharon Miriam Hoffman?
A Oh maybe then it is. I didn’t recall.
Q Now how did you pay for this residence?
A That was paid through the church paying payments on it.
Q Again, it’s not in the church’s name; is it?
A No, it’s not.
Q That piece of property is in your name.
A And other names too.
Q You testified – well actually that piece of property is only in your name; isn’t it, Ms. Hoffman?
A Not that I’m aware of.
Q Sharon Miriam Hoffman.
A I thought there was other people on that property, not me alone.
Q You testified on direct examination that the church, the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries is as much like the church in the Book of Acts, that everyone provides, no one is in need; is
that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q But isn’t it true that the defendant is the only who receives a salary at the church?
A No, that is not correct.
Q Who else receives a salary at the church?
A People, the names – there are several people that live back east, in New Jersey that receive salaries. There are people in Los Angeles that receive – that make money other than where they don’t get any pay.
Q But as far as the people who live in the residence at 100 Circle Drive in Fouke, Arkansas, there is one person in that residence that receives a salary; isn’t there, and that person is the defendant.
A Yes. There are others there too.
Q Who else receives a salary in that residence?
A Angela, Angela Morales.
Q Angela Morales receives a salary?
A Yes.
Q How much does Angela Morales make?
A I don’t know.
Q And who determines what her pay is?
A I’m not sure.
Q Do you believe that the defendant cares about you, Ms. Alamo?
A Yes, I do.
Q And if you do believe that the defendant cares about you, then why is it that the defendant calls you so many unflattering and insulting names? Why is that?
A Because he is brutally honest and when he thinks I’ve done something wrong he lets me know. But he doesn’t hold grudges and he doesn’t become bitter. He lets it all out and it’s over
and it’s forgotten.
Q Do you admit the defendant has called you “a weasel” on previous occasions?
A Yes, I’m sure he has.
Q Do you admit the defendant has called you “a rotten bastard” on occasions?
A That’s very possible.
Q Do you remember the defendant calling you “a liar?”

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, objection 403.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I believe it is highly probative of this witness’s bias towards or against the defendant.
THE COURT: Let’s move on from this.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q The defendant has told you what to say here in court today; hasn’t he?
A No, he has not.
Q Are you sure about that, Ms. Alamo?
A Yes, I am.
Q Okay. The defendant controls everything that goes on in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries; doesn’t he?
A No, there is no possible way to do that.
Q You just testified on direct examination that the defendant controls the finances-
A Yes.
Q Correct?
A Yes, that’s just one.
Q Determines what bills are paid.
A He actually doesn’t hear them individually. He is just given a total figure and he says yes or no. He does not know specifics.
Q He determines whether those bills are paid or not paid; correct?
A He okays them. If he was not there, they would get paid anyway.
Q And the church also has needs or finance lists also; don’t they?
A Yes.
Q And the defendant determines what action, if any, is taken on that needs and finance lists.
A When he’s available. Like for instance, the last ten months he hasn’t done a single list.
Q So it’s your testimony the defendant has not done reports or answers, or needs or finance lists during the last ten months.
A He’s done very little and on the needs list and finances, he’s done none.
Q He controls how the money is spent in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries; doesn’t he?
A Partly, yes.
Q Who else controls how the money is spent?
A The people, the individual purchasers at the individual church locations as needs come up. Repairs, they’re done without double checking with Tony. Anything that comes up that’s urgent is taken care of automatically. Any urgent medical care is automatically always done. Nobody waits for a phone call.
Q Are you required to report everything to the defendant?
A Pardon me?
Q Are you required to report everything to the defendant?
A No, but everything that I deem important to tell him, I definitely do.
Q So it’s your testimony that the defendant did not tell you, in a recorded phone call, that you are to report everything.
A As far as finances being spent at this time, oh yes, he did tell me that.
Q No, that was not my question.
A Oh.
Q Do you deny that the defendant told you in a recent phone call that he – that you are to report everything to him.
A I don’t deny he probably did. I don’t recall, but he may have said that.
Q So the defendant did say that, didn’t he?
A I don’t remember for sure. I honestly don’t remember.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I would like to play a recorded jail phone call at this time in which the defendant did tell this witness that she is report everything.
THE COURT: We have not seen this?
MR. FOWLKES: The defense does have a copy of it, Judge, but I have not played it for the court.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ERVIN: I do, Your Honor. I don’t think that the answers that he has received on cross examination from this witness justify that. They are dickering about semantics back and forth. I don’t think the prejudicial character of the recording that he wants to play outweighs the probative value of this.
MR. FOWLKES: I’m not offering it for evidence, Your Honor. I’m merely offering it to impeach the testimony of this witness.
MR. ERVIN: I don’t think she’s given a definitive answer that
THE COURT: If she doesn’t answer correctly, I’ll let you do it.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Ms. Alamo, isn’t it true that the defendant told you in a recent phone call that you are to report everything to him?
A He may have said that. I just don’t recall.
Q The defendant controls what property is purchased and sold with regard to the church also; doesn’t he?
A Yes, he does.
Q And the defendant controls where members of the church live and reside; doesn’t he?
A Usually, not always.
Q And he controls what jobs these members do in the church?
A On the whole, but not always.
Q I want to talk to you now with your relationship with the defendant. Now you testified – well, you haven’t testified to this, but isn’t it true that you were married to the defendant
in 1989.
A We were together, but we were never legally married.
Q Okay. And you’ve anticipated my next question. You don’t have a marriage license from the defendant; do you?
A No, I do not.
Q But you and the defendant were married; weren’t you?
A We were together but we were never legally married.
Q To this day, you still use the defendant’s last name, don’t you?
A Yes, I do.
Q And the defendant gave you a wedding ring; didn’t he?
A Yes, he did.
Q And you and the defendant exchanged vows; didn’t you?
A Yes. Yes, personally together we did.
Q You don’t have a divorce decree for that marriage either, do you, Ms. Alamo?
A No.
Q So will you explain to the jury how this marriage system works in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries?

MR. ERVIN: May we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. ERVIN: I fear, Your Honor, that the government is again trying to go in the back door to violate the court’s motion in limine. I think this line of questioning is designed to, if not use the word polygamy, to advance the idea that he’s a polygamist. I object to it for that reason.
MR. FOWLKES: I haven’t used the word polygamy.
THE COURT: They told in their testimony – five victims were married. I’ll let you go into that, but not polygamy or-
MR. FOWLKES: I haven’t asked any questions about polygamy, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll note your objection.
MR. ERVIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q So explain to the jury, how does this marriage system work? Did you and the defendant exchange vows in front of your friends and family?
A No, we did not.
Q In a church?
A No, we did not.
Q Explain to the jury how does the divorce system work. Did you and the defendant go see a lawyer?
A No.
Q Contract for a divorce?
A No, we did not.
Q Did the defendant just come to you and tell you, I want a divorce?
A No, he didn’t.
Q So you and the defendant are still married to this day then?
A We’re not together right now.
Q Explain that to the jury. If you’re not married and you’re not divorced, then what are you?
A We were definitely together for a while. And after several years, we on our own we determined to separate, yet we still work together and I still live in the same home.
Q You testified you were together with the defendant for several years, but isn’t it true that you were married to the defendant; correct?
A My relationship with him is just between myself and God and Tony. I don’t have – I know you want me to label it, but I just really can’t do that.
Q It’s not that I want you to label it, Ms. Alamo, I just want to know whether you’re married to the defendant or not?

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me. I object to the argument with the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Not argument, just ask the question and let her respond.
Q Are you married to the defendant or not.
A No.
MR. ERVIN: That question has been asked and answered.
Q Were you ever divorced from the defendant?
A No.
MR. ERVIN: That question has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Proceed. She’s answered.

Q Isn’t it true, Ms. Alamo, that you were married to the defendant in 1989; is that correct?
A We got together in 1989.
Q You moved into the defendant’s residence in Fort Smith, Arkansas; isn’t that correct?
A At a later date, yes.
Q And isn’t it also true that in 1993, Lydia Willis moved into the defendant’s residence; isn’t that correct?
A She was already living there.
Q And isn’t it true that shortly thereafter she and the defendant had a child together; isn’t that also true.
A Yes.

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I apologize, may we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. ERVIN: Well, I’m going to object because of the court’s Motion in Limine has limined out sexual conduct with women who are not minors, with adult women and he’s going into that. I think there were also on the road to going in the backdoor on polygamy again. These questions about marriage and who he’s married to.
THE COURT: Whoever that person is, she’s not a minor.
MR. FOWLKES: No, but Your Honor, but I anticipate the testimony will be that Lydia Willis, as I’ll ask in the next question, was an office worker and that she, in fact, had a child by the defendant. I believe that’s already been testified to with other witnesses here in court.
MR. ERVIN: Sexual conduct with women who are not minors.
MR. FOWLKES: Not sexual conduct, Judge.
THE COURT: Specifically a course of conduct that’s he done, but don’t deal with this. Let’s go on to the crux of this.
MR. FOWLKES: I only have one more question about Lydia Willis and I’ll move on to the next office worker who moved into the defendant’s house. Judge I’m not going to ask this witness if he was married to Lydia Willis at the same time he was married to her. I’m merely establishing the relationship of the parties. That Lydia Willis moved into the house and that shortly thereafter she and the defendant had a child together. Then I’m going to ask this witness about other women that moved into the house and other women that also had children with
the defendant. I’m not going to talk about whether or not the defendant married these women. As a matter of fact, I think the evidence is clear that this witness is just not going to testify
to that and I’m not going to ask her. I’m only going to ask her if these women moved into the house, if they had children by the defendant.
THE COURT: For what purposes?
MR. FOWLKES: To establish the relationship of the parties and also it still goes toward establishing bias on the part of this witness. To establish that she does-
THE COURT: I think you’ve gotten pretty much all the bias testimony.
MR. FOWLKES: Judge, I think that the jury needs to-
THE COURT: The course of conduct of the defendant with other women-
MR. FOWLKES: Correct.
THE COURT: –but don’t dwell on it.
MR. FOWLKES: I won’t.
MR. ERVIN: That’s exactly my objection. The course of conduct that he’s going into is sexual relationships with women who are not minors. The court specifically, in the motion in limine, excluded those things. That’s exactly what he’s doing right now.
THE COURT: 404(b) objection, somebody is a victim of something of that – to that effect. This, I’ll let you do it but try to move quickly.
MR. FOWLKES: I will, Your Honor, and I’ll let the court know and defense counsel know that I’m only going to ask her the question I just asked her about Lydia Willis and then I’ll move on to the next person. I’m not going to ask whether the defendant married any of these women. I believe that complies with the court’s order with regard to polygamy and other marriages.
THE COURT: It’s already out there, but I don’t want to belabor it.
MR. ERVIN: He’s telling the court that he’s going to move on to another adult female and discuss sexual relations of the defendant with them. Again, it smacks of polygamy and it’s a violation of the court’s order.
THE COURT: I’m going to let him ask, but don’t dwell on it.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, sir.
MR. ERVIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Ms. Alamo, I was asking you a question about the next person who moved into the defendant’s residence. I asked you if Lydia Willis moved into the defendant’s residence in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
A Yes.
Q And that happened, didn’t it?
A Fort Smith, Arkansas? I’m sorry, I’m trying to think what year because she was – we were living, already living in the same home in Los Angeles. Okay, so you’re saying when we moved
to Fort Smith after that, she lived there with us, yes.
Q Regardless of the locale, she did move into the defendant’s residence with you and the defendant; didn’t she?
A She was already living with us at the time we moved there.
Q And shortly after that she and the defendant had a child together; didn’t they?
A Yes.
Q And that child’s name is T****.
A Yes.
Q And he’s a half-brother to the child that you and the defendant had together.
A Yes.
Q And you’re child’s name is S***.
A Yes.
Q Also in 1993, a few months later, isn’t it true that J*** F**** moved into the defendant’s residence?
A Yes.
Q Isn’t it true that J*** was 17 when she moved into the defendant’s residence?
A Very possibly, but I couldn’t say for positive.
Q Then isn’t it true that Angel Morales also moved into the defendant’s residence; isn’t that correct?
A She stayed there temporarily and went back home.
Q At some point she moved into the defendant’s residence; didn’t she?
A Oh, at another location, yes.
Q Is that correct? And isn’t it true that J*** S******* also moved into the defendant’s residence?
A Yes.
Q And that J*** was only 17 when she moved into the defendant’s residence along with you and Lydia and the defendant.

MR. ERVIN: Relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed. All right, I’ll note your objection. Let’s move forward.

Q Isn’t it also true that Lizzy Marcado moved into the residence that you shared with the defendant?
A Yes.
Q And Lizzy Mercado was 16 years old when she moved into that residence; wasn’t she?
A I’m not positive.
Q And isn’t it true that shortly thereafter Lizzy and the defendant had a child together; didn’t they?
A Not that shortly, but many years later, yes.
Q And isn’t it true that Jane Doe 4, one of the victims of the charges the defendant faces in this case, also moved into the defendant’s residence; isn’t that true?
A She moved in, yes.
Q When she was 15-years old; isn’t that correct?
A I’m not positive.
Q And then Jane Doe 3 also moved into the defendant’s residence; is that true?
A Yes. Yes, it is.
Q She moved in when she was 14.
A I’m not sure what age she was, and it was – she was with us before it was Tony’s residence.
Q There was a time when it wasn’t Tony’s residence?
A Right because he was in prison and he wasn’t there and she moved in with us.
Q When the defendant was released-
A I’m sorry?
Q When the defendant was released from prison, Jane Doe 3 continued to live in the residence that the defendant now moved into; didn’t she?
A Yes.
Q She was 14 at that time; isn’t that correct?
A I’m not positive.
Q And then P****** R******** moved into the defendant’s residence as well.
A Yes, she did.
Q Isn’t that correct?
A Yes.
Q And P****** was 12-years old at the time she moved into the defendant’s residence.
A I’m not positive.
Q And then Alys Ondrisek moved into the defendant’s residence; didn’t she?
A Yes, she did.
Q At this time she was only 11-years old; correct?
A I’m not positive on everyone’s ages when they moved in.
Q And then Jane Doe 2 moved into the defendant’s residence; isn’t that true?
A Yes.
Q And at the time Jane Doe 2 moved into the defendant’s residence she was only 8-years old; isn’t that correct?
A I’m not positive on her age.
Q And then Jane Doe 5 also moved into the defendant’s residence; correct?
A Yes, correct.
Q And she was 14 at the time she moved in. Is that true?
A I’m not positive on her age.
Q And then Jane Doe 1 moved into the defendant’s residence as well.
A Uh-huh.
Q Didn’t she?
A She lived there on and off several different times though.
Q She was 11-years old when she moved into the defendant’s residence; didn’t she?
A That’s possible one of the times.
Q Ms. Alamo, didn’t you notice that the girls who were moving into the defendant’s residence, the same residence you occupied with the defendant-
A Uh-huh.
Q –were getting younger and younger? Didn’t you notice that?
A No, I really didn’t.
Q We’ve just been over the ages.
A Yes.
Q And do you dispute that the girls who moved into the defendant’s residence were getting younger and younger; weren’t they?
A They were not all in descending order.
Q Isn’t it true that the girls that went behind closed doors with the defendant were also getting younger and younger; weren’t they?
A I don’t know.
Q Is it your testimony that all of these girls that we’ve talked about here today, Angel Morales, J*** S*******, Lizzy Mercado, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 3, P****** R********,Alys
Ondrisek, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, and Jane Doe 1 were all office workers; is that correct?
A No, they did not all do office work.
Q If they weren’t all office workers, then why did they move into the defendant’s residence?
A There were probably different reasons, but they didn’t all work in the office.
Q Did Angel Morales work in the office?
A Yes, she did.
Q Did J*** F**** work in the office?
A No, not really.
Q Then why did J*** F**** move into the defendant’s residence?
A I really don’t recall everything that she did, but I think she was still in school.
Q So J*** F****, it’s your testimony, moved into the defendant’s residence to attend school?
A No. She — I don’t recall her working in the office.
Q So there’s no reason that J*** F**** moved into the defendant’s residence.
A I think she had problems with her – it’s been a long, long time but I think she had problems with her stepfather and – but I really can’t say for positive.
Q Is it your testimony that J*** S******* was an office staff member, that she worked in the office?
A As I recall she took care of her daughter that she had.
Q She was not an office worker.
A No, not at that time back in Los Angeles, no.
Q She lived in the residence along with the defendant, with yourself.
A Yes.
Q With J*** F****.
A Yes.
Q With Lydia Willis.
A Yes.
Q And with Angel Morales.
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony that Lizzy Mercado was an office staff member?
A She helped, yes, she did help in the office.
Q What kind of things did she do in the office?
A She helped with answering the phone and taking care of the day-to-day business with messages for Tony, faxes, helping on checking tracks, literature, checking footnotes. She helped, I think, take care of children and-
Q So is it your testimony that at the time Lizzy Marcado was an office worker and lived in the defendant’s house, she also had a child with the defendant?
A Yes.
Q Is that true?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony today that Jane Doe 4 was an office worker?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony today that Jane Doe 3 was an office worker?
A Not mainly. She did a little bit in the office, but not mainly.
Q Is it your testimony that P****** R******** was an office worker?
A No, not when she first came to the house, no.
Q That Alys Ondrisek was an office worker?
A No.
Q That Jane Doe 2 was an office worker?
A No. She did other chores around the house.
Q That Jane Doe 5 was an office worker?
A Yes, she definitely helped in the office.
Q And that Jane Doe 1 was an office worker?
A At different times everyone did different things. So I can’t say across the board because she did help at times, but she was a babysitter at the beginning, as I recall. She just help watch, actually, my grandchildren every day she watched them.
Q Is it your testimony that the relationship between all of these girls and with Tony Alamo is that they were just office
workers; is that your testimony?
A No.
Q And what was the relationship between these girls and Tony Alamo?
A Well, what I know is they were – they definitely had a close – a lot of them had a pretty close relationship with Tony. I can’t tell you everything. I can’t tell you what would have
gone on behind closed doors. I know that they seemed very affectionate and loving toward Tony. So, you know, it would just be me to conject what it was.
Q Isn’t it true that Jane Doe 4 was married to the defendant?
A I don’t know that for a fact, but I do know that she seemed pretty close with Tony and she definitely seemed to truly love him and care about him.
Q Did the defendant exchanged wedding vows with Jane Doe 4?
A I don’t have any personal knowledge of that.
Q Did the defendant give her a wedding ring?
A I know she had a wedding ring.
Q And at the time that you saw her with that wedding ring, she was living in a residence with the defendant; wasn’t she?
A Yes.
Q And the defendant was the only adult male who lived in that residence; wasn’t he?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony that Jane Doe 3 was married to the defendant?
A I – no, that’s not my testimony.
Q Did you see Jane Doe 3 with a wedding ring?
A Yes.
Q And at the time Jane Doe 3 had that wedding ring, and you saw her with it, she was living in the same residence as you and the defendant; wasn’t she?
A Yes, she was.
Q There were no other adult males living in that residence were there?
A No.
Q Is it your testimony the defendant was married to P****** R********?
A No.
Q Have you ever seen P****** R******** wear a wedding ring?
A Yes.
Q And isn’t it true that at the time you saw P****** R******** with a wedding ring that the defendant was the only adult male in the residence that she lived in?
A Yes.
Q Isn’t that true?
A Yes.
Q Isn’t it true that the defendant was married to Alys Ondrisek?
A I don’t know that.
Q Isn’t it true that you saw Alys Ondrisek with a wedding ring?
A Yes.
Q And that at the time you saw Alys Ondrisek with that wedding ring, she was living in a residence with the defendant; true?
A Yes.
Q And the defendant was the only adult male in that residence.
A Yes, it is.
Q And isn’t it true that Jane Doe 2 was married to the defendant?
A I do not know that.
Q Isn’t it true that you saw Jane Doe 2 with a wedding ring?
A I really can’t recall.
Q Is it possible that you saw Jane Doe 2 with a wedding ring?
A It’s possible, yes.
Q Isn’t it true that at the time you saw Jane Doe 2 with a wedding ring, she was living in a residence with the defendant; wasn’t she?
A Yes.
Q And that the defendant was the only adult male in that residence; isn’t that true?
A Yes, that’s true.
Q And isn’t it true that you saw that the defendant was married to Jane Doe 5 also; wasn’t he?
A I do not know that, no.
Q Isn’t it true that you saw Jane Doe 5 with a wedding ring.
A I honestly cannot say I have.
Q At the time that Jane Doe 5 lived in the residence with the defendant, he was the only adult male in that residence; wasn’t he?
A Yes.
Q Isn’t it true that the defendant was married to Jane Doe 1 also; wasn’t he?
A I do not know that.
Q Did you ever see Jane Doe 1 with a wedding ring on?
A I really can’t recall. Maybe, but I’m not sure.
Q Is it possible that you saw Jane Doe 1 with a wedding
ring on?
A Yes, it’s possible.
Q And isn’t it true that at the time Jane Doe 1 was living in the residence with you and with the defendant, that the defendant was the only adult male living in that residence?
A Yes.
Q Isn’t that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q Is it your testimony and do you expect this jury to believe that there are no other older women in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries who are capable and competent for working in an office in the defendant’s residence? Is that your testimony?
A I’m sorry, can you please repeat that?
Q Is it your testimony and do you expect the jury to believe that there are no other older women in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries who are capable of working in the church office?
A No, I don’t believe that.

MR. ERVIN: Your Honor, that confuses the jury.
MR. FOWLKES: My next question will clear it up.
THE WITNESS: There’s plenty of people and there are.
THE COURT: Wait, there’s an objection. Let me hear his objection.
MR. ERVIN: Was it your testimony – it wasn’t her testimony.
THE COURT: All right, I’ll sustain that. Go ahead and rephrase your question.
MR. FOWLKES: I believe she has answered my question which may have cleared up the confusion.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q You testified that there are plenty of capable people for working in the defendant’s office; correct?

MR. ERVIN: She didn’t testify to that either.
MR. FOWLKES: She just said that. I will rephrase the question.
THE COURT: Rephrase.

Q Are there any older women in the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries who are capable and competent for working in the church office?
A Of course.
Q Then why when the defendant needs office help does he invariably turn to girls who are 8-years old, or 9-years old, or 10-years old, or 11?
A He doesn’t.
Q Or 12?
A He doesn’t.
Q 13, he doesn’t turn to these girls?
A No.
Q Ms. Alamo, you just testified about all of these girls.
A As office workers, no. They have various things they’d help out with, but no, they were not the – they were not chosen to come and work in the office.
Q I’d like to show you some photographs now and ask you some questions about those. I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 222. I’m going to ask you if you recognize this
document?
A Do I recognize that?
Q Do you recognize this photograph?
A Yes. I’ve never seen it before, but I’m pretty sure when it was from.
Q Is this how you would have appeared in 1993?
A ‘93, very possibly. I can’t ascertain.
Q Was this photograph taken in the defendant’s residence?
A Yes, outside.
Q I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 233 that’s not the right number. I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 237, do you recognize this photograph?
A Yes.
Q And who appears in this photograph?
A Tony and Sion and Lydia and I think – I’m not positive, it looks like it might be Becky and myself.
Q Is this a fair and accurate representation of how you would have appeared at the time that you and the defendant were together?
A I’m not really sure what you mean, but I mean that’s what we looked like.
Q Is this you in this photograph?
A Yes.
Q Is this the defendant in the photograph?
A Yes, it is.
Q And is that Lydia Willis in the photograph?
A Yes.
Q Is this a fair and accurate representation of how you all appeared on the day that you went to beach in California?
A Yes.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I would move to introduce into evidence what has been pre-marked as Exhibit 237.
MR. ERVIN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let it be introduced.

Q Will you point out for the jury where Tony Alamo is in this photograph?
A How do I point it out? He’s wearing the purple shirt.
Q Is this Tony Alamo?
A Yes.
Q And who is this person?
A Myself.
Q And who is this person?
A Lydia.
Q Now I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 223. Do you recognize anyone in this photograph?
A Yes.
Q Who do you recognize?
A Lydia, Sion and myself.
Q And can you tell where this photograph is taken?
A The motor home.
Q Is this a fair and accurate representation of how you and Lydia and Sion appeared when you were in the motor home on the day this photograph was taken?
A Yes.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I would move to introduce into evidence what has been pre-marked as Exhibit 223.
MR. ERVIN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let it be introduced.

Q Ms. Alamo, I’d like for you to point out to the jury who this person?
A Lydia.
Q Who is this person?
A Myself.
Q And this person?
A Sion.
Q Okay. And this photograph, you’ve already testified, was taken in the motor home; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now Ms. Alamo, I know that we’ve been over this several times, but I’d like for you to tell the jury again, who was living in the defendant’s residence at the time the search warrant was served on his home in September of last year in Fouke, Arkansas.
A Okay, some were not there at the time, but you mean who would live there generally?
Q That’s correct.
A Okay, Tony and myself and let’s see, Mishael, Lizzie, A*********, Alys, Angel, Lydia, Isabelle, and then there were some girls that were staying at the time there too. They were
not there permanently thought, they were just there temporarily.
Q The list of people that you just told me about, any of those women or young women married?
A They are – were they married?
Q That’s correct.
A Not that I know of.
Q Any of those young women engaged-
A Not that I know of?
Q –to be married?
A No, not that I know of.
Q I’m going to show you another series of photographs that I want to ask you a question about starting with Exhibit 157. Can you see that photograph on your screen?
A Yes.
Q It’s already been introduced into evidence. And I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Exhibit 156. Do you recognize this photograph?
A Yes, I do.
Q And 157, and then I want to show you what’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 172. Do you see that photograph?
A Yes, I do.
Q And I’m going to show you what’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 173, can you see that photograph?
A Yes.
Q I’d like for you to explain to the jury, Ms. Alamo, why in a residence in which the defendant is the only adult male, which is filled with women and young girls who are not married, not
otherwise attached, has fertility kits located in drawers throughout the residence. Can you explain that to the jury?
A I would have to guess because they’re not mine.
Q I’m asking you if you can explain that to the jury.
A I would guess that somebody bought fertility kits.

MR. HARRELSON: She said she’d have to speculate.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain speculation.
Proceed.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q I want to show you what’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 168. Do you recognize these?
A Yes, I do.
Q What do they appear to be to you?
A They’re massaging units.
Q And these are massaging units that the residents of the defendant’s home would use on the defendant; aren’t they?
A Yes, they have been.
Q They have been or that is their purpose?
A That is the purpose.
Q And these were located in the defendant’s bedroom; weren’t they?
A Yes.
Q I’m going to show you what’s been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 169 and Exhibit 170 and Exhibit 171, do you recognize these?
A No, I do not.
Q These were recovered from the defendant’s room during the search warrant that was served in September. Can you explain to the jury why the defendant has so many wedding rings in his
residence?
A Sometimes people have turned in like donations of old jewelry and things and I think some were donated.
Q You think some of these rings were donated to the defendant?
A Possibly some were – not specifically to him but he was holding them. A lot of times if someone needed a ring–

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I think the witness is being called upon to speculate. She said she doesn’t know.
THE COURT: That’s possible. I’ll sustain that. Move on.

Q So you’re testimony is you don’t know why the rings were located in the defendant’s residence?
A Yes, I don’t know. It would be speculation.
Q Ms. Alamo, are you aware that Angel Morales testified under oath in this case, in a previous hearing

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, that’s a violation of the rule of evidence telling one witness what another one said.

MR. FOWLKES: That was not testimony in this hearing. Angel Morales has not testified in this case.
MR. ERVIN: The rule was in force in that hearing too.
THE COURT: Well we don’t know.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I believe that this witness did not testify at that hearing and I’m not sure that Rule 615 precludes her from being able to know what a witness testified to.
THE COURT: Well, if she knows what she testified to, Rule 615 – 616?
MR. FOWLKES: 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
THE COURT: Yes, I’m looking at it.
MR. FOWLKES: Sequestration of witnesses, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. You’re asking her what another person testified to under oath that she heard?
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor. She was in the audience at that hearing.
THE COURT: All right, I’ll allow that.
MR. ERVIN: The question was if somebody said something in another hearing.
THE COURT: All right, that’s vague, but I’ll let you ask her if she was in the audience to hear a witness testify who was under oath, yes.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Were you in the audience when Angel Morales testified under oath at a previous hearing in this case?
A Yes.

MR. HARRELSON: That’s hearsay.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, this is removed from the hearsay rule because this is not an out of court statement. It’s an in court statement.
THE COURT: It’s an in court statement, yes, and subject to cross examination. Go ahead.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q You were in the audience that day that Angel Morales testified; weren’t you?
A Yes, I was.
Q And Angel Morales testified and you heard her say you are married to the defendant; didn’t she?
A She probably did.
Q And that’s true, isn’t it? You are married to the defendant.
A I just don’t – I’ve already answered.

MR. ERVIN: This should probably be taken up with Angel Morales who will be a witness in this case.
THE COURT: She will be a witness?
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I’m merely impeaching this witness’ credibility based on the fact that she testified she was not married to the defendant.
THE COURT: You can ask that to Angel Morales. Now move on.
MR. FOWLKES: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FOWLKES: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q You testified there were several women who were residents of the defendant’s home. Can you tell the jury, where is Lizzie Mercado today?
A I don’t know where she is.
Q Where is A*********, her and the defendant’s daughter?
A I don’t know.
Q Do you know where she is?
A No, I do not.
Q Where is Lydia Willis today?
A I don’t know.
Q And where is T****, the defendant’s son?
A I don’t know.
Q You testified on direct examination that the defendant primarily resides in California; is that correct?
A No, I said about half and half.
Q Isn’t it true that he has an Arkansas identification card that lists an address in Fouke, Arkansas?
A Yes.
Q And isn’t it also true that the defendant is a registered voter in Fouke, Arkansas?
A Yes.
Q Is that true?
A Yes, it is.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, may I have just a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FOWLKES: No further questions for Ms. Alamo at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.

THE COURT: All right, thank you.
Redirect?
MR. ERVIN: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. ERVIN:

Q The prosecutor initially, when he began cross examining you, went through a number of counts in the indictment. Some of those counts you testified on direct examination about and some of them you didn’t; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Those counts that you did testify about on direct examination, do you wish to change your testimony as to any of those counts about what the purposes of those trips were?
A Well, I was hoping to add to but not change.
Q Well no, please listen to my question. Just answer my question, okay?
A Okay, yes.
Q Do you change your testimony about any of those counts?
A No.
Q Okay. Now you were asked on cross examination if you believe that Mr. Alamo is a prophet.
A Yes.
Q And you said that you did believe that he was, that you believe that God speaks to him.
A Yes, I do.
Q And that he is a spiritual leader.
A Yes.
Q There are a lot of people that feel that way; aren’t there?
A Yes.
Q A lot of people all across the country and all over the world.
A Yes.
Q Now you were asked questions about – a series of questions about what is provided to you by the church. I believe there were several questions asked about your meals, about
transportation, things like that. Do you remember that on cross examination?
A Yes.
Q And he kept saying, the prosecutor kept saying “Tony provides that for you.” You said, “No, the church provides that.” “No, Tony provides that.” You said, “The church provides it.” “No, Tony provides that.” So, there’s a difference between what Tony provides and what the church provides; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Would you explain that to the jury?
A Sure. In the church everyone is given their basic needs, everybody gets that whether you’re living at Tony’s house, whether you living elsewhere. Everybody has that benefit. Everyone knows that. And if there is anything unfairly done, they have right to object. I have no added benefits by being at that house that anyone else shouldn’t have. My added benefit is actually receiving more of the gospel there because I’m able to hear from Tony more than they do. But,
as clothing goes, as housing goes, food goes, what we call “bucks” where you get spending money every week, all these things, many medical needs, schooling for the children, physical
fitness, going to the gym, all these things are provided to everyone at the church. That’s the main point.
Q Okay. So you don’t regard and other members of the church, as far as you know, don’t regard Tony as your provider. They regard the church as their provider.
A Right.
Q Okay. Now you were asked questions about properties that are held in your name.
A Yes.
Q Okay, I’m going to ask you what you have knowledge of. What properties do you have knowledge of that are held in your name?
A Partial, I don’t own anything alone. There is several names on different properties.
Q Well, I’m glad you mentioned that, but let me ask the question this way.
A Okay.
Q Properties that your name is on, that you are partial owner of.
A A property in Booneville, Arkansas.
Q Where, I’m sorry?
A A property in Booneville, Arkansas.
Q Okay. What is that property?
A It’s a warehouse.
Q Okay, and what else?
A A house in Texarkana.
Q Okay. And where is that house in Texarkana.
A It’s on Locust.
Q Locust Street?
A Uh-huh, yes.
Q Okay. And who are the other people that own that with you, individuals?
A I think-
Q I’m talking about the deed now, do you understand what I’m saying? Who are the people on the deed beside you?
A Yes. Angela Morales is on the house with me and Elizabeth Marcado is on the warehouse.
Q Okay, along with you.
A Along with me, yes.
Q What other properties do you know about that your name is on?
A I’m really not aware. I know I took part, partial ownership in a trailer home, but I don’t have the address.
Q Okay. How did it come about that properties are put in the names of individuals in the church? Would you tell the jury that?
A Sure. Quite a few years ago when there was a civil judgment, a default judgment against the church, all of the properties became subject to seizure and they took the properties that were in the church name and they sold them for pennies on the dollar. It was all the properties throughout Arkansas and Nashville. The churches, the properties were gone and so we realized that every time there’s a suit against the church that puts everything the church owns in danger and it’s for the people so it made more sense to have people put the properties in their names, their own ownership just to try and help protect what the church had, just to keep the church going.
Q Okay. Now you were asked on cross examination if Tony was the only person, Mr. Alamo, was the only person in the church that got a salary.
A Right.
Q And your answer, I think, was yes?
A No, my answer was no. I know there were others.
Q You know that there are other people who have salaries.
A Correct.
Q And who are those people?
A Several people in New Jersey and Angela Morales in Fouke, and Dave Scheff in Los Angeles.
Q Okay.
A Off-hand. There may be more, I just don’t know their names.
Q Do you know how it came about that Mr. Alamo started receiving a salary from the church?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you tell the jury why?
A Yes, he did not receive a salary until the IRS case came up and he was convicted of not paying the taxes, but he had not been receiving a salary. So basically, to suffice the IRS, Tony
was given a salary so that he could pay the IRS every year and that’s what we’ve done. But really, when there’s been shortage on funds, he hasn’t received his salary. He still pays the
taxes on it, but he has not gotten it. He puts in his money just like everyone else at the church. We receive everything and we give everything. That’s the way we’ve always worked.
Q Now you were asked several questions about whether or not Tony controls everything.
A Yes.
Q Now the jury knows at this point that Tony is in jail and has been in jail for quite sometime. How many phone calls does he get a day?
A He’s allowed two maximum.
Q And how long can he talk to you on the phone, each phone calls?
A They’re fifteen minutes each.
Q Okay. Have there been times, especially recently, where the phone system was down and he was unable to call at all?
A Yes. Yes, there was.
Q Is there any way under those circumstances, for Mr. Alamo to control everything?
A No. And there never can be that chance. Because he cannot-
Q Okay. You’ve answered my question. Thank you.
A Yes.
Q Now the prosecutor asked you questions about marriage.
A Yes.
Q Was this person married, was that person married. Were you married.
A Uh-huh.
Q And you replied that you weren’t legally married.
A Right.
Q What kind of marriage were you talking about when you say that you were married-
A Well we-
Q Other than a legal marriage?
A It was a personal agreement between us to be together, you know.
Q Is it just between you and Tony?
A Yes, it is.
Q Okay. Is there any biblical implication to the marriage between you and Tony?
A Well, I’m kind of not understanding – biblically, we-
Q Let me just ask you if you’ve ever heard the expression, “biblical marriage.”
A Well, marriage is biblical, so I guess, yes.
Q So it has a biblical nature by it’s very name?
A Yeah, it’s biblical to be married.
Q Okay. Was that the way you would characterize your marriage to Tony, biblical?
A As opposed to a legal licensed marriage. We were together as people-
Q As opposed to a basic marriage.
A Yes, people would consider us, I guess they would look at us as, you know, a married couple, but I never legally was married.
Q Okay. I understand.

MR. ERVIN: May I approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MR. ERVIN: The defendant needs to go to the bathroom again.
THE COURT: Now?
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: How much longer do you have?
MR. ERVIN: Well, not that much. I could probably finish up in about five minutes.
THE COURT: But he’s got to go to the bathroom.
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir, that’s what I’m told.
MR. FOWLKES: My re-cross shouldn’t take any more than about a half day, Judge.
THE COURT: What?
MR. FOWLKES: My re-cross shouldn’t take any more than about a half a day [laughing].
MR. ERVIN: Oh, I’m relieved to hear that.
THE COURT: Oh, I’m so glad.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to have to take another short recess. Let’s say about 15 minutes.
[Break from 11:30 a.m. until 11:45 a.m.]
THE COURT: We’re back in session. I apologize for the confusion. What we had thought maybe
having, breaking so close to dinner that you’re dinner might be here, your lunch might be here. It hasn’t arrived yet, so we’ll continue to work until we see that it is here. It shouldn’t take long.
Proceed.

BY MR. ERVIN, Continuing:
Q Ms. Alamo, you were asked a number of questions about a number of individuals as to where they moved into the Alamo residence, the Alamo office area, a long list of older women and
young women.
A Yes.
Q Would it be safe to say that the reason that some of these young women moved in there was to be with their friends?

MR. FOWLKES: Objection, Your Honor, leading. The attorney is suggesting the answer that he expects from the witness.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. Please rephrase.

Q What are some of the reasons that you know that the girls moved in?
A Like Jane Doe 5 moved in with her sister, S******* when they moved from New Jersey after their mom left and their dad and they came out and they both came and lived with us. And I know that S***** and R****** H****, they both lived at the house for a while and I think they wanted to be with their friends there and they went to school there. They spent a lot of time playing outside with the other girls, so they stayed there for a while.
Q Well, let me just stop you right there.
A Okay.
Q Let’s talk about their schooling.
A Okay.
Q The girls who lived in the house. What – can you briefly describe for the jury what that entailed?
A In the far end of the house, we refer to as “the rec room” the girls had school in there until we had a school built next to the church also. Like Debra Ondrisek was one of the teachers
for a lot of the time. She taught all of the girls that were in school there. That would have included S*****, R******, J****, D******, Y*****, and other girls too, I just can’t recall
offhand.
Q Generally speaking, how long would these girls spend in school everyday?
A The first half of the day. At one point I think they went until one and at another point they would break for lunch and they went till three. That’s currently up to 2008 what they are doing.
Q Uh-huh.
A But I can’t recall for sure their hours.
Q Now in addition to the hours they actually spent in school, did they have homework?
A Oh, yes.
Q And just ballpark, how much homework, in terms of hours, would a child have a day?
A I don’t think it was tremendous a lot, but I would – it would be a guess. I would guess maybe one, possibly a little more of time, but I’m not positive.
Q What other activities would these girls engage in during the daytime?
A After school they helped in the kitchen. As different years, different times things change. Linda, we had Linda would come in and cook everyday a certain amount of years and the
girls went in the kitchen with her and they learned to cook. They also helped clean and, you know, cook with her whatever she had planned. They also did chores like vacuuming, or you know, cleaning the bathrooms, something like that. Then they would go outside and play if it was warm weather there was the pool. There’s a big yard. They would play badminton or inline
skating. Later on we had ponies and puppies, but it varies at the times when they lived there.
Q Okay. Now you were asked a question about Lizzy Mercado having a child with Mr. Alamo.
A Yes.
Q When Lizzie Mercado had that child with Mr. Alamo, how old was she?
A I have to think back because I don’t know offhand.
Q An approximate age, I’m not asking for an exact date.
A I’ll guess 20, maybe 22. I’m not positive.
Q Okay. She was an adult.
A Yes.
Q All right. Now you were asked questions by the prosecutor about a search warrant being served in Fouke on September 20, 2008.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember – were you there?
A No, I was not.
Q Okay. Where were you at the time of the raid?
A In California.
Q Okay. So you have no personal knowledge of what happened there at that time?
A No.
Q Okay. You were asked about a series of individuals and you were asked if you knew where they were.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember who the prosecutor asked you about?
A Yes, he asked me where was Lizzy. Where was Antoine***. Where was Lydia. Where was Tab**.
Q Okay, and you said you didn’t know where they were?
A Right. Correct.
Q Is there some reason that you don’t know where they are?
A Because they’re gone and they haven’t told me where they are.
Q Do you know why?
A Well, after the general pick up order to pick up every child in the whole church, everybody scattered. I was actually, the day of that order coming out I was in court wanting to testify at some of the girls case and I got back and they were telling me everyone is like scattering. I found out that almost everyone was gone.
Q And they took their kids with them.
A Yes.
Q Because they didn’t want the government to get them.
A Yes.

MR. ERVIN:
THE COURT:
Pass the witness, Your Honor.
Further cross?
Proceed.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FOWLKES:
Q Ms. Alamo, do you recognize the object I’ve just placed on the computer screen?
A Yes, I do.
Q What does that appear to be to you?
A That’s one of the date books I have.
Q One of the date books that you have.
A Yes.
Q And this is one of the date books that you were referring to when you were on the witness stand today; is that correct?
A I didn’t use this one at all, but it was one I brought with me.
Q I want to show this book to you.

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor. She said it’s not one she used, that’s improper cross.
MR. FOWLKES: I’ll lay a better foundation for this document, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, if you can. Proceed.

Q Why did you bring this document to court with you today?
A In case there was any reference that I needed for a particular date to look back at it.
Q And did you reference it before you came to court?
A Did I – yes, I did look at it before I came to court.
Q You used it to prepare for your testimony in court; didn’t you?
A I looked through it to – yes, to see where and when I did different things, when we went on different-
Q Did you make this just to get ready for court today?
A I’m sorry?
Q Did you make this calendar and these notations just to get ready for court today?
A Oh, absolutely not. I’ve had it since 2005 when I wrote these things.
Q Okay. Do you keep an accurate record of the trips that you and Mr. Alamo travel on in this calendar?
A I try to.
Q I want to note for you that this is a page from the calendar; correct?
A Correct.
Q In August of 2005, it references no trips were taken by you and Mr. Alamo; is that correct?
A August of 2005, we were already in Los Angeles at the time from April through August 2005.
Q So is that a no, that it doesn’t reference any trips you took with the defendant.
A Right, it does not reference a trip.
Q Okay. Now I’m going to show you what’s a notation in here in September of 2005. This does indicate that a trip was taken; doesn’t it?
A Yes, it does.
Q One trip in September of 2005; correct.
A That is when we left, the date we left.
Q Now I’m going to show you October 2005, and this also notes a trip that was taken; doesn’t it?
A When we left L.A., yes.
Q So that’s one trip noted in September and one trip noted in October; correct?
A This is a little bit confusing because – just because we left on one date in a month doesn’t mean the visit concluded that trip concluded in that – because sometimes a trip would be four months in a row.
Q This calendar only shows one trip; doesn’t it?
A There is one departure on this page.
Q One trip for September and one trip for October; correct? And one trip for November.
A See, the calendar that you’re using is not the most complete. That’s why I didn’t even touch it.
Q Okay. Well, I’m asking you about your calendar. It does note some trips.
A I have three calendars.

THE COURT: Wait just a second.
MR. ERVIN: I may be confused but I think she is testified that she did not review from the witness stand but before she came to court. I don’t see the relevance of that.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, it’s certainly relevant. She has already testified she did use this to prepare for her testimony today.
THE COURT: That she didn’t?
MR. FOWLKES: That she did use it to prepare for her testimony today.
THE COURT: Oh, all right. I’ll let you proceed.
MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor. It is my understanding the witness said she did not use it and used something else because this is not complete.
THE COURT: I’ll let you clarify it, if you would, please.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q You’ve already testified on re-cross examination that you did review this document prior to testifying today; correct?
A Correct.
Q And you used it to help prepare yourself to testify.
A Correct.
Q Okay. So the document does note some trips; doesn’t it?
A This is the most incomplete of the three calendars I brought with me today.
Q I don’t think you understand my question, Ms. Alamo. This calendar–

MR. ERVIN: She did answer that question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What?
MR. ERVIN: She did answer the question.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FOWLKES: That’s Mr. ERVIN’s opinion, I suppose, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please, just ask your question.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q I don’t think you quite understood my question.
A Okay.
Q This calendar that I’m looking at here-
A Uh-huh.
Q –it does include some trips; doesn’t it?
A It’s incomplete and it does include some trips, yes.
Q Okay, and so it notes a trip for September, for November and for December; correct?
A Without looking at it, I’m not positive.
Q We just did.
A Okay, we’re back in-
Q This is December.
A Okay, it doesn’t – there’s no trip noted on this page.
Q So one trip for September, one trip for October, one trip for November and none for December; correct.
A None for December, but I would have to look at the other pages to answer your question.
Q Now we’re going to look at January. There aren’t any trips noted in January, are there?
A See, yes there is one and it’s complete. But I can tell by what I wrote there because we went to Capitol on the 31st and that was in L.A. and the beginning here Fennell, that was an
appointment in Texarkana. So there is a trip, but this is an incomplete calendar you’re referring to.
Q Let’s look at February. Does February note some trips on here?
A As far as I can see, that’s all in Los Angeles. I don’t see any trips during the month. We were in L.A. for the whole month.
Q Okay.
A According to that page.
Q And March? No trips indicated in March, are there, Ms. Alamo?
A March, I’m sorry, what month is this?
Q March of 2006.
A 2006. Well, it looks like we were in Los Angeles for this whole month, according to this incomplete calendar.
Q So no trips in March.

MR. ERVIN: I would like to object to the relevance of this cross examination, Your Honor. The witness says the calendar is incomplete.
THE COURT: Well, I understand that. I understand your objection. Let’s get through it. Let’s move through it.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q And no trips for April either, is there, Ms. Alamo?
A No, we’re still in Los Angeles, but really, if you looked at the others it would give you the true picture.
Q Okay. And May?
A It’s completely blank. I probably didn’t even use it in that month.
Q Okay. And June?
A It’s blank except for a cancelled appointment.
Q July?
A There’s one trip there at the bottom.
Q Isn’t it true, Ms. Alamo, in this document that you reviewed to prepare for your testimony does not reflect every trip you took with Mr. Alamo; does it?
A No, it doesn’t.
Q As a matter of fact, it is incomplete.
A Yes.

MR. ERVIN: Excuse me, Your Honor, she’s already testified to this. This is repetitious. She testified five minutes ago-
THE COURT: That is correct. Let’s go.

Q The calendar is incomplete because it only contains a few trips; doesn’t it?
A Yes.
Q And it’s your testimony there were other trips that weren’t contained on that calendar.
A Because they’re in the other calendar.
Q Isn’t it true that you only put the dates on that calendar that you felt were important to this case?
A Oh no, no, no. I left that in the original form and I had them copied so you all could see the same pages that I was looking at, if I would be able to look at them. Because I wanted to have everything straight what was done on every trip. And so they said I could ask to refer to my calendars. That’s why I gave you a copy of everything.
Q You testified on redirect examination about the marriage that you had to Tony Alamo. You were asked several questions about that; correct? Isn’t that correct?
A We’re going to go through this again. The time I was together with Tony, yes, I was asked several questions.
Q Isn’t it true that you didn’t have a public ceremony with the defendant, did you?
A No. That’s true.
Q And that you and the defendant were behind closed doors; weren’t you?
A Yes, we were.
Q That it was just you and it was just him; isn’t that correct?
A Yes.
Q And the defendant and you exchanged vows behind closed doors; didn’t you?
A Yes, we did.
Q And you promised to be his husband – or to be his wife and he promised to be your husband; didn’t he? Isn’t that correct?
A We said some words. I can’t tell you exactly what we said.
Q Would you classify those words as “vows” to each other?
A I would classify them as promises.
Q But you have testified on cross examination earlier that you are not, in fact, legally married to the defendant; correct?
A Correct.
Q You don’t have a marriage license.
A Correct.
Q And how is it that you are using the defendant’s last name on legal documents, such as the deeds that you testified to that your name appears on?
A Actually the deeds don’t have my – don’t have that name. I used my birth name or Hoffman.
Q Isn’t Hoffman the defendant’s last name?
A Yes, that’s true. I think usually I use my birth name.
Q The deeds do include your named and the defendant’s last name; don’t they?
A No-
Q Sharon-
A You told me Hoffman was on there. I don’t – so going by what you said, yes, I used that name on that.
Q Fair enough. And isn’t it also true that you used the defendant’s last name here today in this court of law today; didn’t you?
A Yes, I did.
Q You introduced yourself as Sharon Alamo.
A Yes.
Q And you’re testifying today as Sharon Alamo.
A Yes.
Q And you testified on direct and cross and redirect about the defendant and how his position relates to the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.
A Yes.
Q I want to touch on that again with you. Isn’t it true the defendant is in charge of most things that go on at the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries? Isn’t that correct?
A Most things, yes.
Q And you testified on cross examination that the defendant only handles general requests for things like money and clothes and travel; isn’t that correct?
A No. He – I said like the bills that are due, it’s a general total. A subtotal of like maybe property payments totals this, there’s miscellaneous bills, that’s as detailed as it gets and a total and he says, yeah, go ahead and pay those. But he doesn’t hear what the – whose phone bill is for how much or whose insurance bill is for how much, details to that degree.
Q If someone wants to buy a new set of clothes-
A Uh-huh.
Q –they have to specifically ask the defendant for that; don’t they?
A No, they do not specifically ask him.
Q Are you familiar with what’s been characterized as “needs lists?”
A Yes.
Q And those are lists that people submit to the defendant with their requirements for living; correct?
A It’s compiled at each location and sent in to the office, but the people in the office, not Tony specifically, go through it and make sure everything looks normal.
Q Isn’t it true-
A And then-
Q Excuse me. Isn’t it true that people have to actually write to the defendant and request things like clothes, money; isn’t that true?
A On regular normal things, no. On bigger, on larger items maybe yes. But when we’re talking about shoes for someone, shirt for someone, these things get put on a list that’s compiled and then if everything -if they’re just run of the mill normal things, they’re automatically okayed without Tony hearing about it.
Q Ordinary run of the mill things.
A Yes.
Q Correct?
A Correct.
Q Do you remember a letter that Nina Romero wrote to the defendant and says, “I am told there are no maternity clothes my size. I am now six months pregnant and need them badly. May I have permission to go with a purchaser and $250 to get some maternity clothes?”

MR. ERVIN: Your Honor, he’s reading from something, I don’t think it’s in evidence. I object.
THE COURT: What-
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I’m impeaching this witness. She has testified that the needs list are not reported to Mr. Alamo on an individualized basis.
THE COURT: I understand she said some are, some aren’t.
THE WITNESS: Right.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, she just testified that general run of the mill things are not run by on a specific basis to the defendant.
MR. ERVIN: You can ask her questions about that but you can’t read from the document.
THE COURT: Look, we’re never going to get through. Please proceed and ask the question and I’ll note your continuing objection.
MR. ERVIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. FOWLKES, Continuing:
Q Is that true that Nina Romero wrote a specific request to the defendant for those maternity clothes?
A According to what you read, I believe that it’s true.
Q And in fact, specific requests do have to be run by the defendant.
A There would be no possible way that Tony could get everything done if he had to hear every single request. That’s $250 and she was also asking to go somewhere. It was kind of a
combined thing she wanted to check on. We can’t afford to just send out $250 here and there without having a little bit of control over where the funds are going. And so, in that case I
believe Tony did say, that it was asked Tony. What I’m saying, that on the whole, every week the lists that come in do not have to be specifically item-by-item okayed by Tony.
Q So is it your testimony that this particular need needed to be specifically addressed because Nina not only wanted to spend money, but also that she wanted to travel; is that your
testimony?
A Yes.
Q And in fact, members of the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries do have to request specific permission to travel; don’t they?
A Generally no.

MR. KUHN: Asked and answered.
A In this case she did.
THE COURT: Let’s move on. I think we’re just going back and forth here. Let’s get onto something productive.

Q And you testified on redirect examination about the church’s property. Can you tell the jury why there is no bank account in the church’s name?
A Because it’s under a different name that all the funds go out of for the different uses. It’s not in the name of the church.
Q Why is there no property that’s legally entered in the church’s name.
A I did explain that, but do you want me to explain it again?
Q No, that’s fine as long as you testified that there is nothing in the church’s name. No property; correct?
A That I know of, yes.
Q No bank accounts?
A Well, it is part of the church, so just because it doesn’t have the name on the top of the check, it still is the church account.
Q It’s not in the church’s name though, is it? Correct?
A It’s – I don’t know.
Q Is it your testimony the defendant is in charge of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries?
A Yes.

MR. KUHN: Your Honor, that’s been asked and answered.
MR. FOWLKES: I’ll move on, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Asked and answered, proceed.

Q Isn’t it true that you will do what the defendant directs you to do?
A Within reason, of course.
Q Within reason. Isn’t it true also that you do what the defendant directs you even over what this court directs you to do?
A No.
Q Isn’t that true?
A No.
Q Didn’t that happen just last week? Do you recall a phone conversation that you were involved in with the defendant that you left the room because you were subpoenaed to testify in this case. Do you remember that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you remember that the defendant directed you to come back into that room no matter what this court and the attorneys had informed you about this court’s rules.
A Only because he was not going to be talking about the case anymore, so I did come back.
Q Isn’t it true that the defendant did talk about the case though; didn’t he?
A That I recall nothing that was disallowed. Just in general terms.

MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
[BENCH CONFERENCE]
MS. JENNER: This will be our last thing and then we can be done.
Your Honor, we have a jail recorded call in which she, in violation of this order of sequestration, she came back to the telephone when Mr. Alamo directed her to come back and listen to
information that was discussed about the goings on at the trial. And it’s a very short clip that’s on the jail recorded call that we wish to play because it directly impeaches the statement she
just made and it won’t take long and then we’ll be done.
MR. ERVIN: We’re beating a dead horse here, Your Honor. There’s been testimony and testimony and testimony and testimony about Tony Alamo controlling the activities of the
church and the people who are members of the church. I don’t know, I haven’t heard the phone call, but my guess is that it’s something of a sensational nature in terms of the way he talks to her and everything. It’s a 404 – it’s a 403 situation where the prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of it. It’s also repetitious in this trial because this issue has been addressed and addressed and addressed.
MS. JENNER: This is not an issue that has ever been brought up until just now. This is an issue about the credibility-
THE COURT: What is the purpose of it?
MS. JENNER: To discredit her. She has no credibility because she is misleading the court and misleading the jury.
THE COURT: I’ll let you do this, but we are spending a great deal of time, you’ve already impeached her credibility tremendously. Now if you want to go do this, get all of these let’s
do it now and let’s move on.
MS. JENNER: How long with this last?
MR. FOWLKES: Probably less than five minutes.
MR. ERVIN: I would like to hear the clip, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, let’s take a recess and let’s go on from there. Okay?
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’m going to take a recess, let these people eat. You’ve got a make a motion, hopefully you can clear the courtroom out.
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We’re just going over and over a bunch of telephone calls that is to impeach this woman and I think she’s been impeached.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: But I’m not the jury. I’ll let you do that.
MR. FOWLKES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
[OPEN COURT]
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to take our noon recess. I think your food is here, is it not, Robin?
MS. GRAY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, good. I’m going to let you go eat lunch. While we’re having lunch, maybe I can get some things done with attorneys here. We’ll be in recess for lunch.

[Noon recess from 12:16 p.m. until 1:18 p.m.]

[OUT OF PRESENCE OF JURY]
MR. ERVIN: I object to what he wants to play because again, it’s a situation where it’s — to me is a classic 403 situation where the prejudice that’s developed by his demeanor far outweighs the probative value of showing that he controls members of this church. There’s been testimony and testimony and testimony about his control of the church. Now the
government wants to play something that will be prejudicial and the court will understand that when it hears the tape, that will be prejudicial just because of the demeanor he uses and for that reason I object.
MR. FOWLKES: Your Honor, I believe it directly impeaches the statement she just made on the witness stand.
THE COURT: What statement did she make?
MR. FOWLKES: The questioning went like this, I asked
her-
THE COURT: I’ve forgotten.
MR. FOWLKES: I’m not 100 percent clear on my exact words, but I did ask her if she followed the defendant’s directions and she said, “Within reason.” I said, “Within reason? Isn’t it true that you would follow the defendant’s direction even over the court’s direction in this case?” And she said, “No.” And I said, “Well, isn’t it true that you were part of a phone call that took place last week between you and the defendant when the defendant called you back into the room, even though you had left because you knew you weren’t allowed to hear the testimony about the trial and that when the defendant called you back into the room you came back in and you heard things about the trial.” That’s where I was going to when the objection came up.
MR. ERVIN: I think that is in violation of the rules of evidence.
THE COURT: I think this is way too prejudicial and I will sustain your objection.
MR. ERVIN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Now, you know, we’re not going to get through this week here – we’ve had this Sharon Alamo on and-
MR. ERVIN: I think she’s our longest witness.
THE COURT: Let’s get it moving. We’re going over plowed ground.
MR. ERVIN: I understand.
THE COURT: Now you’ve got to make some constitutional -when do you want to make that?
MR. ERVIN: I’d like to do it after lunch just because of the Marshal’s schedule.
THE COURT: Do you want to do it in chambers or out here?
MR. ERVIN: If we could do it – if we could just block the courtroom off after lunch and do it in here, or we could do it in chambers. Chambers will be fine.
THE COURT: Let’s do it – is that all right with y’all?
MS. JENNER: It is. I think it’s risky to try to close the courtroom.
MR. ERVIN: You’re right.
THE COURT: Let’s do it in chambers.
[Noon Recess 12:16 p.m. to 1:18 p.m.]

[In Chambers 1:18 p.m.]

THE COURT: We’re in chambers. I understand there’s a motion that will be made by the defendant.
MR. ERVIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Ervin.
MR. ERVIN: It’s a matter of law that is properly brought to the court’s attention.
THE COURT: All right, good.
MR. ERVIN: There are two objections that I’d like to make. One of them is under the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the language that is
characterized as separation of church and state.
Just a minute, Your Honor. [Conferring with defendant.]
The U.S. Constitution prohibits the prosecution of church by secular courts. It is our position that this prosecution is tantamount to prosecution of this church, even though Mr. Alamo
is named in the indictment and we object to the prosecution of it.
THE COURT: First Amendment.
MR. ERVIN: Yes, Your Honor. The second objection is that the church is a sovereign entity, much like the Catholic church who handles many of its criminal matters, such as pedofile priests and so on, within the church without interference from secular law. We assert that sovereignty for the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries now and ask that this prosecution cease.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. ERVIN: No, sir, those are my two matters of law that I would bring up and my two motions.
THE COURT: All right. Response?
MS. JENNER: Your Honor, there is a separation here because the indictment is brought in the name of Bernie Lazar Hoffman, a/k/a Tony Alamo. It is not brought against the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, nor the church entity.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ERVIN: My answer to that, Your Honor, is that the church is being – the reality of it is even though Mr. Alamo is named in the indictment, the reality of it is it is that the church is being prosecuted.
THE COURT: All right, I’m going to deny that. I think that the government’s interpretation of the law is accurate and correct. Now you have the sovereignty of the church, as well.
MR. ERVIN: That’s correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same thing with regard to the First Amendment and the sovereignty. I’ll note your objection to the record.
Let’s proceed and continue. Let me ask you, how many – well, you’ve still got cross.
MS. JENNER: We have nothing more for Ms. Sharon Alamo.
THE COURT: Who are your next witnesses?
MR. ERVIN: My next witness will be Sandford White, Your Honor.