alamo-arrest-mugshot0908

Tony Alamo’s Secrets Exposed


10/01/07 – The SPLC Reports on Tony Alamo’s Hate Group – October 2007

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
October 2007
By Susy Buchanan

SECRETS EXPOSED

The Ravening Wolf
Catholic-Hating Organization Reemerges

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — Clad in matching T-shirts with bejeweled cross logos, members of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries are once again saving souls on Hollywood Boulevard. Since the late 1960s, followers of notorious cult leader Tony Alamo have recruited and distributed literature on this star-studded sidewalk.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2000-2007, Secrets Exposed!

Tony Alamo’s Fabricated Conversion Story: The True Story behind Tony’s promotion of Bobby Jameson and Tony’s so-called “super-natural conversion”

The True Story behind Tony’s promotion of Bobby Jameson and Tony’s so-called “super-natural conversion”

“A written history of Bobby Jameson and his search through the past. Working my way back through the jungle of drug addiction and booze. My family life as a kid was the breeding ground for addicts.
No self worth, no help, and one chance to get out alive. Music was the horse I rode out on…and the music business was the horse I rode into hell.
Pronounced dead twice from drug over doses, I lived to tell how the pursuit of fame is as deadly as any narcotic I have ever used.” Bobby Jameson

“I had picked up a boy singer, a complete unknown, and did a gigantic promotion on him. I had him booked to all the top television shows.” Tony Alamo

Read the rest of this article »

In: Secrets Exposed!

4/22/10 – Court Document (Broderick): Nov 2009 Custody Appeal; Court Affirms Alamo Parents Failed to Protect their Children from Tony Alamo’s Sexual Abuse, Beatings, ordered Fasts and Underage Marriages

Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 771
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA09-351
BRIAN BRODERICK
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered: NOVEMBER 18, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV-2008-261-1]
HONORABLE JOE E. GRIFFIN,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

This appeal is one of three cases decided today that involve children who were taken into emergency custody by DHS from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in Fouke, Arkansas, in September 2008. Appellant Brian Broderick is the father of two girls, S.B. and A.B., taken into custody and challenges the circuit court’s order adjudicating his daughters dependent-neglected. Judge Joe Griffin heard this case and the one concerning Alphonso Reid’s daughters, A.R. and C.R., at the same hearing. Judge Jim Hudson heard the proceeding concerning Greg Seago’s daughter, V.S. Many witnesses testified at both hearings, and some testimony was consolidated in all three cases. Where possible, we will refer to the evidence discussed at length in the Seago opinion in order to avoid repetition.

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

4/14/10 – Legal Court documents (Thorne): Alamo members (current and former) recount beatings, forced fasts, underage marriages, polygamy, educational and medical neglect as commonplace on compound ***COMMENTS***

Leagle.com
April 14, 2010

THORNE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

No. CA 09-583.

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

1/11/2012 – TONY ALAMO CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES v. SELIG

Leagle.com
January 11, 2012

TONY ALAMO CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES v. SELIG

TONY ALAMO CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES v. SELIG
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, A Division of Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
Albert Ralph Krantz; Gregory Scott Seago, Plaintiffs,
v.
John M. Selig, Director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, in his Individual and Official Capacity; Steve Mason, Administrator of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Texarcana, Miller County, Arkansas Division, in his Individual and Official Capacity; and Gwen Lovelace, Administrator of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Fort Smith, Arkansas Division, in her Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1424.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

4/28/11 – MYERS v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Legal.com
April 28, 2011

MYERS v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

2011 Ark. 182
BETHANY MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLEE.

No. 10-692.

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

4/28/11 – PARRISH v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Leagle.com
April 28, 2011

PARRISH v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

2011 Ark. 179
CARLOS PARRISH AND SOPHIA PARRISH, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLEE.

No. 10-691.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2011, Legal & Court Documents

4/28/11 – SEAGO v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Leagle.com
April 28, 2011

SEAGO v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

2011 Ark. 184
GREG SEAGO, Appellant,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 10-693.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2011, Legal & Court Documents

4/28/11 – KRANTZ v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Leagle.com
April 28, 2011

KRANTZ v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

2011 Ark. 185
MIRIAM KRANTZ AND ALBERT KRANTZ, Appellants,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 10-694.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2011, Legal & Court Documents

4/28/11 – REID v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Leagle.com
April 28, 2011

REID v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

2011 Ark. 187
ALPHONZO REID, Appellant,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2011, Legal & Court Documents

CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHARON ALAMO BY ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY CLAY FOWLKES ***COMMENTS***

USA v Bernie Lazar Hoffman, a/k/a Tony Alamo
No. 4:08CR40020-001

To protect the identity of the victims they have been referred to as Jane Doe 1-5 throughout this document

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

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2009 Court Transcript

2009 Alamo Trial Court Transcript: Prosecutor Kyra Jenner’s Closing Arguments

Tony Alamo News will occasionally present excerpts from Tony Alamo’s July 2009 trial to provide those interested with a more detailed record of courtroom events beyond what was reported in the news media. In particular, we hope current Alamo members and sympathizers will use this opportunity to weigh for themselves the evidence and arguments on which Tony Alamo’s conviction was based.

We start with the closing arguments of Prosecutor Kyra Jenner.

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2009 Court Transcript

12/5/10 – U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Oral Arguments United States vs. Bernie Hoffman ***COMMENTS***

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Oral Arguments United States vs Bernie Hoffman

To listen to the oral arguments United States vs. Bernie Hoffman, September, 21, 2010 click here: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov

On the left side of the page, click on Oral Arguments

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

12/2/10 – COURT DOCUMENT: United States of America versus Bernie Lazar Hoffman

COURT DOCUMENT
United States Eighth Circuit Court

United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* United States District
v. * Court for the Western
* District of Arkansas.
Bernie Lazar Hoffman, also known *
as Tony Alamo, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: September 21, 2010
Filed: December 2, 2010
___________
Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
BEAM, Circuit Judge.
A jury found Bernie Lazar Hoffman, a/k/a Tony Alamo, guilty of ten counts of
transporting five minor females across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illegal
sexual activity in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2423. The district
court1 sentenced Hoffman to consecutive terms of imprisonment on all counts, for a
total term of life imprisonment. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the
verdict on each of the ten counts and the district court appropriately sentenced
-2-
Hoffman under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) and
the Constitution, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The government charged Hoffman with ten counts of violating the Mann Act
for transporting minor females in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in
criminal sexual activity. These charges followed an investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into Hoffman’s travel with certain young
children between 1994 and 2005. The trial evidence in this case is voluminous and
includes testimony from many people, including each of the five girls that Hoffman
made his “wife,” some even at the tender age of eight. We are not going to document
the specific nefarious activities that occurred between these individuals and Hoffman.
For purposes of the federal charges in play, it suffices that these girls testified that
Hoffman engaged in illegal sexual contact with each of them either during or shortly
following interstate travel and that, regardless of whether Hoffman actually traveled
with them, all their travel was taken under the direction of and under the control of
Hoffman. In the instances where Hoffman did not travel with the girls, the testimony
revealed that Hoffman, alone, determined the length of the trip and directed the girls
when to return to Arkansas, where he engaged in sexual intercourse with each girl
shortly upon her return.
At sentencing, the district court accurately conveyed that the imposed sentence
was based upon an application of the Guidelines, which the court appropriately
applied in an advisory fashion; information from the Presentence Report; trial
testimony; arguments and objections by both sides. Further, the imposed sentence
followed the submission of evidence in the form of testimony and letters at the
sentencing hearing itself. The court sentenced Hoffman to life imprisonment. At one
point during its colloquy, the district court stated:
-3-
[h]opefully, this sentence, life imprisonment, will uphold the law and
respect for the law and send a message to others that violation of
children, young girls like these victims, shall not be and will not be
tolerated in the courts around this United States of America. Mr. Alamo,
one day you will face a higher and greater judge than me. May he have
mercy on your soul.
Hoffman appeals, claiming that the evidence presented does not support the
jury’s verdict and that the imposed sentence was tainted by the district court’s personal
sense of religion.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial de novo,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the government’s favor. United States v. Coleman, 584 F.3d
1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1752 (2010). We find that
sufficient evidence exists to support Hoffman’s conviction.
[I]f after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for
determining the sufficiency of the evidence is strict, and a guilty verdict
should not be lightly overturned. We view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the verdict, giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, and [we] will reverse only if the jury must have had a
reasonable doubt concerning one of the essential elements of the crime.
United States v. Dugan, 238 F.3d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 2001) (second and third
alterations in original) (internal quotations omitted).
2According to the government, Hoffman could have been charged with violating
various Arkansas criminal statutes.
-4-
The statutory antecedents of the current Mann Act were enacted to outlaw the
use of interstate commerce as a calculated means for effectuating sexual immorality,
and date back to the early part of the twentieth century. Mortensen v. United States,
322 U.S. 369, 375 (1944), United States v. Vang, 128 F.3d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir.
1997). Under its current version, § 2423(a) states:
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained
the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any
commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent
that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for
which any person can be charged with a criminal offense,[2] shall be fined
under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
In the instant case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, Hoffman’s intention that these girls engage in illegal sexual conduct was a
dominant motive of their interstate travel. Even in the instances when Hoffman did
not travel with the girls, the evidence supports the conclusion that he directed their
return to Arkansas so that he could resume his sexual activity with them. This is not
a case, warned of by the Court in Mortensen so many years ago, and hypothesized
about by Hoffman, of an immoral person merely traveling from place to place
indulging in illegal or immoral acts incidentally. Mortensen, 322 U.S. at 376. The
evidence here clearly demonstrated that in each instance Hoffman directed the travel
and transport of these girls across state lines for the purpose of engaging in proscribed
sexual acts, thus supporting the jury’s conviction on each and every charge.
In United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010), a case relied upon
by Hoffman at oral argument to bolster his argument that sex was merely incidental
to these trips, the court reversed a § 2423(a) conviction because the mens rea of intent
-5-
did not coincide with the actus reus of crossing state lines. 616 F.3d at 129. There,
a hockey coach entered into a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old player.
Relevant to the § 2423(a) violation, the coach drove the girl from New York to her
home in Pennsylvania one Sunday following practice and had sex with her before
leaving New York. On those facts, the actus reus and mens rea did not coincide. Id.
at 127-30. Unlike Broxmeyer, however, the evidence in the instant case supports the
jury’s conclusion that at all times Hoffman’s intent in transporting these girls across
state lines was for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity.
As to Hoffman’s intent, we have held that “[t]he illicit behavior must be one of
the purposes motivating . . . the interstate transportation [of the minor], but need not
be the dominant purpose.” United States v. Cole, 262 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation omitted). The sexual activity just may not be merely incidental to
the trip. Id. Indeed, the jury instructions, which Hoffman does not challenge on
appeal, accurately reflect the required determination. In particular, jury instruction 12
stated:
It is not necessary for the government to prove that illicit sexual activity
was the only, or sole, purpose for transporting the minor across state
lines. However, the government must prove that sexual activity with the
minor, which is prohibited by law, was a dominant motive of the travel.
In determining whether the government has met its burden, you should
keep in mind that a person may have several different motives or reasons
for doing a particular act such as traveling and all such reasons may, in
varying degrees, prompt the act.
It is the purpose for the transportation of the minor that is our focus under the Mann
Act, not per se a defendant’s reasons for travel generally. That a defendant facing
charges under § 2423(a) need not have even traveled at all further supports this fact.
In his brief, Hoffman views the standard through a different lens and argues,
erroneously, that it requires proof that the illegal conduct was a “dominant purpose”
3In this regard, we duly note the government’s objections to the notations
written by hand on the corrected page 7 of Appellant’s Brief that was filed with the
court on September 22, 2010.
-6-
of the trip, generally. He claims, that at best, sex was merely incidental to each of the
out-of-state trips, and not a dominant purpose of the trip. Our focus, however, is on
Hoffman’s intent in having these girls transported across state lines.
Hoffman concedes that the proof is “admittedly stronger” as to certain of the ten
convictions under the Mann Act in this case. But, Hoffman argues that there is no
basis for a Mann Act conviction for others of these girls based upon the evidence
presented. There were trips, he claims, where the record is “singularly devoid” of
evidence of sex in relation to the trip at all, and all that the government proved was
that Hoffman was having sex during that time period with that minor and that she took
a trip. Additionally, despite Hoffman’s arguments that the girls’ return travel to
Arkansas does not support Mann Act violations in this case, the return journey can be
considered apart from its integral relation with the round trip as a whole, in the
determination whether a violation of the Act has occurred.3 Mortensen, 322 U.S. at
375. Indeed, we have held that the “illicit intent must [be] formed only before the
conclusion of the interstate state [sic] journey.” Cole, 262 F.3d at 708 (second
alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted).
As one example of the failure of proof, Hoffman highlights the testimony of
Jane Doe #3. Her testimony revealed that she became Hoffman’s wife at the age of
fourteen. Before Hoffman would consummate the marriage, however, he directed the
girl to travel to Oklahoma so that she could placate her father, who had misgivings
about her residing with Hoffman and had threatened to contact the FBI. Hoffman told
Jane Doe #3 that he did not want to have sexual intercourse with her before the trip
for fear that while in Oklahoma, someone might take her to a doctor and discover she
was no longer a virgin. Jane Doe #3 was in Oklahoma until Hoffman directed that she
return. Hoffman engaged in sexual intercourse with this girl the day she returned to
-7-
Arkansas. Hoffman claims the evidence is sketchy, at best, regarding the Mann Act
violation on these facts, especially since Jane Doe #3 traveled to be with her family
and Hoffman did not accompany her. Yet, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, the evidence wholly belies this assertion and supports the
conviction because Hoffman transported Jane Doe #3 from Oklahoma to Arkansas so
that he could have sex with her.
In this case, the evidence amply supports the jury’s determination that Hoffman
intended to have sex with these girls and that he transported them across state lines for
that purpose. In fact, the inference easily gleaned from the evidence is that there was
no other purpose for the girls to be on the trip at all except to service Hoffman. It is
disingenuous to suggest that Hoffman’s intentions for these minor girls’ transportation
across state lines was for any purpose other than their sexual exploitation. He
orchestrated and controlled their travel through interstate commerce so that they
would be available to him to engage in illegal sexual relations.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the jury’s
verdict that Hoffman knowingly transported these minors in interstate commerce with
the intent to engage in sexual activity prohibited by law was reasonable. We therefore
affirm the verdict.
B. Sentencing
Hoffman also argues that the district court’s statement “Mr. Alamo, one day you
will face a higher and greater judge than me. May he have mercy on your soul,”
demonstrates that the imposed sentence was impermissibly influenced by religious
factors, which are irrelevant and should receive no weight. He bolsters this claim by
further noting the court’s acknowledgment that some of the victims were frightened
into believing they risked a loss of their salvation if they didn’t surrender, as well as
the court’s reference to Hoffman’s abuse of power as the girls’ pastor, a person of trust
4Although it appears that Hoffman equates an abuse of discretion under §
3553(a) with a violation of due process, nowhere does he expand upon this
constitutional claim. As we have done in similar past circumstances, we decline to
hold–as a matter that would be of first impression–that any procedural error at a
criminal defendant’s sentencing violates such defendant’s due process rights. United
States v. Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886, 894 n.7 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, Nguyen v.
United States, 2010 WL 3184138 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010) and Nguyen v. United States,
2010 WL 3074284 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010).
-8-
and supreme authority in Hoffman’s church. Taking these statements together, claims
Hoffman, there is no doubt the district court was predisposed to impose a harsh
sentence given its own personal sense of religion, thus abusing its discretion under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and violating due process.4
We apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing the imposition
of sentences. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009). We “first
ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error,” which
includes failing to calculate the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion when it
“(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2)
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the
appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.”
Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (quotation omitted). In the absence of procedural error
below, we consider “‘the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under
an abuse-of-discretion standard.'” Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). If the
defendant’s sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court “may, but [is] not
required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.” Id. (quotation omitted).
-9-
There was no abuse of discretion here. Reviewing the entire sentencing
transcript and placing these challenged comments by the district court in context, as
we should, the district court based its sentence on its analysis of appropriate factors.
The court’s acknowledgment that Hoffman used his position of power over these girls
in the commission of these crimes was most certainly reasonable, and in fact it is
expected this would play a role in the court’s analysis at sentencing. Further, the brief
comment about a “higher and greater judge,” and “[m]ay he have mercy on your soul,”
may be interpreted to be religious in nature but in no way does it appear to have been
an inappropriate driving force or improper consideration during the court’s sentencing
of Hoffman. Indeed, religion was a pervasive theme underlying the entire trial. It is
thus not surprising that religion might have been mentioned at sentencing.
Given the court’s sentencing colloquy, the record reflects that the court
appropriately based the sentence on the sum of the evidence in light of the advisory
sentencing Guidelines and the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. But see United
States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740-41 (4th Cir. 1991) (questioning, in a pre-
Guidelines case, whether a judge’s comment starting with “those of us who do have
a religion” was proof of an impermissible use of religion in sentencing and reversing
for resentencing out of an abundance of caution). Hoffman goes too far in
characterizing these comments as proof that the sentencing court’s own sense of
religious propriety might have clouded its imposition of sentence.
Nothing suggests that the district court’s personal view of religion in any way
influenced an aspect of Hoffman’s sentence. We have no “apprehension” here
regarding the basis for the court’s imposed sentence. Id. at 741. Accordingly, giving
deference to the district court, we find no abuse of discretion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.
______________________________

In: 2010, Legal & Court Documents

5/19/10 – Most Recent Decision by Arkansas Court of Appeals Re: Don Thorne and Arkansas DHS

Arkansas Judiciary
May 19, 2010

Arkansas Court of Appeals
Don Thorne V. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 443
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISIONS I & II
No. CA09-583
DON THORNE
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered MAY 19, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JV-2008-323-1]
HONORABLE JOE E. GRIFFIN,
JUDGE
SUBSTITUTED OPINION ON
DENIAL OF REHEARING;
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Read the rest of this article »

In: Legal & Court Documents

Videos: Unsolved Mysteries: Episode with Tony Alamo

This video first aired around 1991.

Unsolved Mysteries: Tony Alamo Part 1 on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries: Tony Alamo Part 2 on YouTube

In: Tony Alamo's Secrets Exposed, Video Clips

6/08/09 TG: Legal Notice to Bernie Lazar Hoffman and John E. Kolbek

Texarkana Gazette
June 8, 2009

Legal Notice to Bernie Lazar Hoffman and John E. Kolbek

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
SPENCER ONDRISEK AND SETH CALAGNA, PLAINTIFFS
VS
BERNIE LAZAR HOFFMAN a/k/a
TONY ALAMO AND JOHN E. KOLBEK, DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08CV4113(JURY)
WARNING ORDER
Defendant John E. Kolbek is hereby warned to appear in this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of first publication of this Order and answer the Complaint filed against him by the Plaintiffs.
Failure to file a written answer thirty (30) days may result in an Entry of Judgement by Default against you or otherwise bar you from answering or asserting any defense you have.
Witness my hand and seal as Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, this 8th day of June, 2009.
CHRISTOPHER R. JOHNSON
BY: Charlotte Powell
Clerk for the United States District Court
Western District of Arkansas

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2009 - (Trial year), Legal & Court Documents

Tony Alamo’s Secrets Exposed!

NOTE: THE ARTICLE BELOW WAS WRITTEN IN 2006

TONY ALAMO CLAIMS TO BE THE WORLD PASTOR BUT HE IS IN FACT A SEXUAL PREDATOR (A POLYGAMIST, A CHILD MOLESTER AND A RAPIST), AND ABUSES MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.

TONY ALAMO’S SECRETS EXPOSED!

Read the rest of this article »

In: Secrets Exposed!

1988 Child Abuse Charges Against Tony Alamo Were Dropped Due to His Imprisonment for Tax Evasion!

Tony Alamo has a document on his website with headlines from newspapers stating “Lawyers Drop Alamo Case”, “Alamo Child Abuse Charges Dropped”, ” Evangelist Alamo Won’t Face Child Abuse Charges”, and so on, but there are no articles to follow, only the headlines. The reason for this is clear. Tony Alamo has claimed that the charges were dropped because he was innocent but the articles that belong to the headlines tell another story. A story of Tony Alamo in hiding for several years once he found out there was an investigation and then a long drawn-out trial for tax evasion that became the focus of prosecutors instead of the child abuse charges. Research the articles for yourself and you will not find one that says Tony Alamo was innocent of the charges or that the charges were dropped because Alamo was found not guilty. Below is just one of the articles in their entirety.

Los Angeles Times
March 7, 1995
by MarK Sabbatini

Read the rest of this article »

In: 1990-1999, Secrets Exposed!

5/14/08 – NYC Village Voice: The Barely Legal Empire of Tony Alamo

The Village Voice
May 13, 2008
by Maria Luisa Tucker


The Barely Legal Empire of Tony Alamo

The nutty evangelist rebuilds his young-girl-lovin’ empire—with help from New Yorkers

Tony Alamo

Read the rest of this article »

In: 2008 - (Trial year), Secrets Exposed!

« Previous Entries

| Back to Top |