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

This court handed down an opinion on April 14, 2010, affirming the trial court’s order adjudicating appellant Don Thorne’s children dependent-neglected. The same day, we issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order adjudicating the children of Bethany Myers dependent-neglected, in part for the same reasons expressed in our decision affirming the
order in Thorne’s case. Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 326. Thorne and Myers filed petitions for rehearing alleging that this court’s decisions contained mistakes of law and fact. In response to Myers’s petition, we issued a substituted opinion correcting a nonmaterial mistake of fact and denying her petition. Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. __. We correct the same error in this substituted opinion and deny Thorne’s petition.

This is one of four appeals decided today that involve children who were removed from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in Fouke, Arkansas, in November 2008. The circuit court heard the cases together in one adjudication hearing. Appellant, Don Thorne, is the father of three children placed in DHS’s custody. He challenges the circuit
court’s order adjudicating them dependent-neglected. We affirm the court’s order.

In September 2008, DHS took emergency custody of six minor females who lived in Tony Alamo’s residence at the Fouke compound. DHS presented evidence that their parents were aware of beatings administered to the ministry’s children by adults; that some of the
parents and other children witnessed the beatings; that the parents condoned the marriage of underage females to adult males and placed their daughters in the residence of Tony Alamo without parental supervision; that Alamo sexually abused one of the girls (M.B.1) and spent
time in his bedroom with others; that the parents neglected to provide the children with proper medical care and education; and that they condoned extreme disciplinary measures for young children, such as fasting. On November 18, 2009, we affirmed the circuit courts orders
adjudicating the girls dependent-neglected. See Broderick v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009
Ark. App. 771, ___ S.W.3d ___; Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767,
___ S.W.3d ___; Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 784.

The evidence taken at the girls’ adjudication hearings led DHS to seek emergency custody of many more children in Fouke. The circuit court held an adjudication hearing that began on January 12, 2009, for the Reid, Seago, Broderick, Ondrisek, Krantz, Thorne, Myers, Parrish, and Avila children. Many of the children sought by DHS, including some of
the Thorne and Myers children, were hidden by their parents or other ministry adults. The court granted DHS’s motion for directed verdict as to the Reid, Seago, Broderick, and Ondrisek children because their siblings had already been adjudicated dependent-neglected. On February 17, 2010, we affirmed appeals from those adjudications because the appellants had raised their arguments for the first time on appeal. Today we affirm the orders adjudicating the children of the Thorne, Krantz, Myers, and Parrish families dependent-neglected.

Don Thorne is the father of a daughter, A.T.1, aged fourteen, and two sons, A.T.2, born in 1995, and A.T.3, aged twelve. From an earlier marriage, he is also the father of one of the other appellants, Sophia Parrish, aged twenty-three. He has been a member of the ministry since 1974, when he was nineteen. There was testimony that A.T.1 lived in Tony Alamo’s residence. Thorne works for the ministry and lives on its property in Fouke. At the time of the hearing, his wife, Luisa Cordero-Thorne, was in hiding with A.T.1 and A.T.3 with Thorne’s help. Although Thorne claimed to not know where they were, the circuit court held him in contempt until his wife brought the children back.

The witnesses at the adjudication hearing were G.P.1 (the son of Carlos and Sophia Parish); Jessica C. (a former member of the ministry); M.B.1 (a former member); Nicolas B. (a former member); S.B. (a former member); H.D. (a former member); Don Thorne; Sophia Parrish; Carlos Parrish; Bert Krantz; Debra Ondrisek; Miriam Krantz; Richard Ondrisek; Cindy Allen (a DHS supervisor); Brian Broderick; Alphonso Reid; Bethany Myers; Rebecca Avila; and Jose Avila. Nicholas, M.B.1, and S.B. are siblings of M.B.2, who was a subject of this hearing. J. C. is their aunt. Like Thorne, the Krantzes, the Parrishes, Bethany Myers, the Ondriseks, the Avilas, Brian Broderick, and Alphonso Reid are parents of some of the children with whom this hearing was concerned.

Jessica C. testified that she was born in the ministry in 1972 and married her husband when she was sixteen and he was twenty-seven. She said that the ministry is not a safe environment in which to rear children and testified at length about its communal lifestyle; its secrecy; the reporting system that encourages members to inform on each others’
transgressions; the imposition of fasting as punishment; and the restrictions on members’ contact with the outside world. She said that she left because she wanted her children to go to college and that it was not customary for girls to finish high school because they usually
got married. She gave several examples of girls no older than sixteen who married grown men. She stated that, in the past, Tony Alamo had run the organization from prison; that he encouraged parents to give up their parental authority to him; that the parents adopted Alamo’s views and were blind to the risks to their children; and that children were often
separated from their parents, as she was at the age of twelve. She described being in a group of children present when Justin Miller was given 140 licks with a three-feet-long paddle at Alamo’s direction; when it was over, blood seeped through his pants.1 She said that Alamo had spanked her with a board and had beaten others mercilessly, and she named numerous people whom she had seen beaten. Ms. C. said that, before she left the ministry, her son confided to her that he was thinking about suicide.

S.B. described being beaten at Alamo’s direction by one of his wives, Michelle Jones, when S.B. and her sisters M.B.1 and A.B. were living at Alamo’s residence. She said that A.T.1 (Thorne’s daughter) and L.K. (one of the Krantzes’ daughters) were in the room during her beating. She also said that A.T.1 lived in Alamo’s home, which L.K. visited. She
stated that Alamo had slapped her four or five times and that he had hit B.S. (Greg Seago’s daughter), C.R. (Alphonso Reid’s daughter, aged ten), and A.O. (the Ondriseks’ daughter). She also said that some girls were forced to fast. S.B. said that she was threatened with a spanking by John Kolbeck [Kolbek] if she told anyone what happened at Alamo’s house. She testified that, in February or March 2008, she and the other girls at Alamo’s house, including A.T.1 and M.M., were forced by Alamo to participate in recording Tape No. 564, in which they denied being molested by him.

In detail, M.B.1 described the ministry’s secrecy and the members’ isolation from the outside world; Alamo’s teaching that the Bible permitted girls to marry at puberty; her sexual molestation in the shower by Alamo when she was living in his home; her beating by John Kolbeck; Kolbeck’s beating of other children; Alamo’s living arrangements with adult women and girls as young as age eight; his time spent alone in his bedroom with the young girls; her participation in Tape 564 with N.M.1 and M.M.; and being forced to help hold down S.B. (aged eleven or twelve) while Michelle Jones beat her. M.B.1 said that she heard B.S. scream while John Kolbeck beat her and that Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to the beating. According to M.B.1, Myers’s daughters N.M.1 and M.M., while living in a separate residence with Myers, spent a significant amount of time in Alamo’s household. M.B.1 also said that two men in their twenties had asked her to marry them and that she had friends her age who had already married and had children and who hated their lives. She stated that most older boys leave the ministry; that it is not safe for children; and that Alamo would continue to control the ministry while he was in jail. She said that the parents believe that Alamo is a prophet and do not question his authority.
Nicholas B. described witnessing John Kolbeck’s savage beating of Spencer
O., Phillip Avila, and A.O., while the Ondriseks were present and did nothing. He said that Kolbeck once slapped him, but did not beat him, because Nicholas stated that he was going to leave the ministry. He explained that it was normal for boys to drop out of school by the age of seventeen and that there were few boys in school above the tenth grade,
after which he dropped out. He said that he was forced to fast a few times and experienced “diesel therapy” (being forced to ride with a driver of a ministry truck). He added that young girls were at risk of becoming child brides; that J.G. married a man in his thirties; and that R.S. married when she was fourteen.

H.D., aged seventeen, testified that she had left the ministry when she was twelve. She said that she was forced to fast for a week at the age of ten because she had failed to perform a chore after suffering a head injury in a fall. She stated that the fall caused her to lose consciousness, and when she came to, people were praying over her; no one, however, took her to a doctor. In fact, she did not think that ministry members were supposed to go to the hospital. She said that she had suffered memory loss and pain and swelling on the back of her head. She said that her sister had also been placed on a fast. H.D. described being present when J.G. was informed that she was going to get married at the age of twelve. She said that she and J.G. were playing with Barbies when J.G.’s mother received a phone call in which she learned that the marriage would occur; J.G. and her mother were upset, and
J.G. cried. She said that J.G. had a typical wedding with a bridal dress and bridesmaids.2 H.D. stated that she was taught that it was permissible to lie to people outside the ministry.

Bethany Myers acknowledged violating the court’s order by not producing her children for DHS. She said that she had no idea where her husband and children were. The trial court held her in contempt and placed her in jail.

Don Thorne denied having any first-hand knowledge that John Kolbeck or anyone else had beaten the children or that children had been forced to fast. He admitted giving Sophia away in marriage at the age of twelve. He claimed that the ministry no longer permitted young girls to marry but admitted that he had heard Alamo preach that the Bible
condones polygamy and the marriage of girls at puberty. Thorne denied letting A.T.1 live at Alamo’s residence but admitted that she had stayed there for a couple of weeks. He was
untroubled by Alamo’s using her to create Tape No. 564 without his permission. He
acknowledged that his wife had told him that she had asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2 while Thorne was driving a truck for the ministry.

G.P.1, aged seven, testified that his father had spanked him and two of his younger sisters with a paddle that had their names on it. He said that both of his parents had slapped him on the face when he was six, leaving red marks, and that he was afraid of being spanked by John Kolbeck.

Sophia Parrish admitted slapping and “popping” G.P.1 in the mouth on two occasions but denied leaving any marks. She admitted spanking him and G.P.2 with a paint stirrer or with her hand. After obviously lying under oath and being threatened with a perjury charge, Sophia returned to the stand and admitted that she had spanked G.P.1 with a paddle; that she had married at twelve when Carlos was nineteen; that her father had
walked her down the aisle; that she had sex with Carlos when she was twelve; and that she had given birth to a stillborn baby girl at the age of fourteen. Sophia stated that the Krantzes were at her wedding, which was widely celebrated by the members of the ministry. She affirmed that John Kolbeck had spanked A.T.2 at his mother’s request. Sophia said that she had completed only the sixth grade because she had not wanted to be pregnant while in school. She stated that her friends had also dropped out when they began having children, and she listed four other weddings of young girls that she had attended.

Carlos Parrish testified that he did not believe Nicholas and denied having witnessed any beatings. He stated that he had no intention of moving away from the ministry’s property.

Bert Krantz, who was fifty-seven years old at the time of the hearing, testified that he joined the ministry, in which he is a minister, in 1972, and that he works in disseminating Alamo’s recorded messages. He admitted that he was present at, and approved of, several weddings of young girls but said that the ministry had not permitted underage girls to marry in five or six years. He stated that, although the Bible condones the marriage of young girls at puberty, he would not permit his children to marry during their minority, nor would he let his children fast or be disciplined by anyone else. He stated that he had never witnessed
any physical punishment. He acknowledged having heard Tape No. 564 but said that it had not concerned him. Bert said that he believed that Alamo is a prophet and that it would be a sin against God to leave the ministry. He denied letting Alamo run anything in his life, but
he admitted that he does not drive because Alamo does not want him to do so.

Miriam Krantz, who is twenty years younger than her husband and is the custodian of the audiotapes, also said that no one else disciplined her children; that she was familiar with Tape No. 564; that she also believes that Alamo is a prophet; that she did not know that Kolbeck had administered discipline; and that, when she attended Sophia’s wedding, she was aware that Sophia was twelve, but it did not concern her.

In the adjudication order, the circuit court found the children dependent-neglected and made extensive findings of fact. The court found that the Thornes had failed to protect their children against physical abuse; that they were aware of the pattern and practice of severe physical beatings; that they endorsed and facilitated illegal marriages of underage females to adult males; that they neglected the needs of their children by failing to assure that they received adequate education and by failing to register their children in an accredited school with certified teachers or providing legally approved home schooling. The court also
found that the parents committed or permitted medical and physical abuse by requiring, condoning, and permitting dangerous, involuntary fasts imposed on children younger than fifteen, and by failing to have them properly immunized. The court further found that the parents were aware of multiple instances when Tony Alamo, through his direction to John Kolbeck or others, intentionally caused physical harm to Spencer O., Philip Avila, and A.O. The court found that the parents were aware of Alamo’s pattern and practice of enforcing adherence to his will by brutal physical attacks. The court noted M.B.1’s
molestation by Alamo at the age of thirteen. It further found that the parents were aware that
Alamo claimed to be married to multiple wives and that they permitted and condoned the ministry’s practice of “diesel therapy.”

The court set the goal of reunification and gave the parents supervised visitation. Along with other requirements, it directed them to obtain stable employment and safe and stable housing, separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and to maintain them for at least six months. The court directed Thorne to assist
DHS in locating the children currently in hiding with his spouse. The court expressly found the testimony of M.B., Jessica C., S.B., H.D., and Nicholas B. that beatings, forced fasting, underage marriages, educational neglect, and sexual abuse occurred credible and stated that there was a pattern and practice of such abuse. It deemed not credible the testimony of Carlos Parrish, Sophia Parrish, Thorne, Bert Krantz, and Miriam Krantz that those abuses did not occur.

Thorne first challenges the evidence supporting the adjudication of his children as dependent-neglected and contends that there was no evidence that they were mistreated in any way. He points out that there was no evidence that they were not immunized; although this is correct, it does not require reversal, in view of the overwhelming evidence of other
threats to their well-being, which are discussed below. Thorne also asserts that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that he had educationally neglected his children, pointing out, correctly, that the Christian A Beka curriculum used by the ministry’s school is widely accepted, and that the state does not require private schools to be accredited or that their teachers be certified. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated that young girls frequently drop out of school long before completing high school and that the boys, who often are placed on diesel therapy, do not progress much further. In the ministry, getting a high school diploma is the exception, not the rule.

Thorne also asserts that the trial court did not judge his case separately from the others and thereby contravened Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-325(i)(1) (Repl. 2009), which requires adjudication hearings to be closed. We disagree. First, the trial court did close the hearing. Second, although the trial court’s adjudication orders used similar language, it was apparent that the court considered each case on its own. Third, that statute does not prevent the circuit court from hearing certain cases together when it is appropriate, and
appellants have cited no authority to the contrary.

Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1) (Repl. 2009). Dependency-neglect allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann.
§ 9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Repl. 2009). We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___. In reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus of an adjudication hearing is on
the child, not the parent; at this stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected. Id. An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply dependent-neglected. Id.; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Repl. 2009) defines a “dependent-neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent, guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person who is entrusted with the juvenile’s care by a parent” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . . ;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance, proper or necessary support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care and custody of the juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.

We reject Thorne’s argument that the circuit court erred in finding his children dependent-neglected because there was no evidence that they had personally suffered abuse. As we explained in our November 2009 Seago, Broderick, and Reid opinions, the General Assembly’s expressed purpose in the juvenile code is to protect dependent-neglected children
and make their health and safety its paramount concern; a child may be adjudicated dependent-neglected even if he or she has not yet suffered abuse. Thorne, who lived and worked in this community for over three decades, was rearing his children in a secretive, communal environment that included sexual abuse of young girls, underage marriage, fasting,
and beatings. Thorne admitted that his wife asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2 while he was absent and that he gave his twelve-year-old daughter in marriage to an adult man. A.T.1, who apparently lived in Alamo’s home, witnessed S.B.’s beating by Michelle Jones. Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to be beaten by Kolbeck. Additionally,
Sophia Parrish admitted “popping” G.P.1 on the mouth, as he had testified. Striking a child six years of age or younger on the face or head, with or without physical injury, is abuse.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(a). Thorne’s assertion that the evidence of corporal punishment should not be credited because there was no medical evidence is disingenuous in view of the testimony showing that the ministry discourages its members from seeking
medical assistance.

Thorne’s second argument is that two provisions of the case plan violate his right to freely exercise his religion as protected by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. The circuit court ordered Thorne to “obtain safe and stable housing separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and maintain said housing for at least six months” and to “obtain stable employment separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members and maintain said employment for at least six months.” Thorne contends that, in essence, the case plan makes him choose between his children and
his church.

DHS and the attorney ad litem argue that Thorne failed to make this argument below and that the circuit court therefore never ruled on it. We disagree. Thorne’s lawyer raised the constitutional issue at the beginning of the hearing: “Your Honor, this case is purely a free exercise of religion case.” Thorne and other witnesses testified about the importance
of communal living within the ministry. When asked whether living off ministry property would have an effect on his “Christian walk,” Thorne responded “[a]bsolutely.” The circuit court, in ruling from the bench on the dependency-neglect issues, recognized Thorne’s beliefs. “[T]he parents involved have very strong feelings and very strong convictions
concerning their spiritual beliefs and how they wish to live.” And the court recognized the legal decision it faced.

[W]e have the intertwining of the allegations of the state concerning abuse in various forms and various forms of neglect coupled with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the mothers and fathers and families that are participants in this case. That right, as given to us as citizens of the United States, that is freedom of religion to believe as we cho[o]se I consider to be one of our most important rights and one that I, as a judge, believe that I am charged to protect within the law as within the facts.

The circuit court’s order, finally, required Thorne to make substantial changes in his religious practices to pursue reunification with his children. Taking this record as a whole, we conclude that Thorne preserved the constitutional argument. Every person’s right to make decisions of conscience about religious matters is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by an even more sweeping provision of the Arkansas Constitution. Article
2, section 24 of Arkansas’s Constitution provides, in part, that “[a]ll men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience . . ..” As another court stated the legal principle in another case involving this ministry, “[r]eligious and political beliefs, no matter how bizarre and nonconforming, are personal matters, and the courts are not instruments of orthodoxy charged with the responsibility of keeping citizens on the ideological straight and narrow.” Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695, 698 (W.D. Ark. 1990) (Morris S.
Arnold, J.); see also West Virginia State Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). To judge the constitutional issue fairly, therefore, we must acknowledge and consider the circuit court’s unchallenged finding about the sincerity of Thorne’s religious beliefs. We do.

A parent’s right of conscience in religious matters, however, sometimes collides with state laws of general application promulgated for the protection of children and other citizens. There are familiar examples. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (a state may not compel Amish children to attend high school until age 16); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (a child-labor law was constitutional even though it kept a child from selling religious tracts as part of her faith); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and
Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a state may not require students to attend public schools; a parent has the authority to provide, and his or her child has the right to receive, sectarian schooling with secular schooling). These fact-specific cases strive for a delicate balance, one that respects all the important interests involved: parents’ rights of conscience and of child-rearing and the state’s interest as parens patriae in protecting children.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate balance. “Parents, of course, have a fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their children. But the State of Arkansas has an equally compelling interest in the protection of its children.” Porter v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177, 185, 286 S.W.3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal citations omitted); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2009). And in child custody disputes, for example, a parent’s religiously motivated choices and actions are material if they affect a child’s well being. Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark. App. 207, 212, 288 S.W.3d 244, 248 (2008). In some cases, the facts tip the balance in favor of protecting the child, and against the parent’s liberty—even in matters of conscience and religious conviction. E.g., Prince, 321 U.S. at 167.

This is one of those cases. As the circuit court found, the most pressing potential danger facing Thorne’s children was simply living on ministry property. The record is full of testimony about beatings, sexual abuse, underage marriages, and other problems, all of which victimized the children of families living on ministry property. In fashioning its case
plan, the circuit court responded to the potential danger with a narrowly tailored solution—requiring Thorne to obtain housing separate and apart from the ministry. And because ministry life was communal in almost every respect, the court also required Thorne to obtain employment outside the ministry so he could earn the money to pay for this new
housing arrangement and other living expenses. Here, as the circuit court implicitly concluded, the State’s interest in preventing potential harm to these children outweighed Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on ministry property, work for the ministry, and depend on the ministry for his family’s every need. We see no constitutional infirmity in the
circuit court’s disposition order on this record. We therefore affirm on Thorne’s second point.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, KINARD, GLOVER, BAKER, and BROWN, JJ., agree.
18 CA09-583

2. A wedding picture from 12 year old J.G.’s wedding ceremony was introduced into evidence.

Link to photo

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.

Broderick has been a member of the ministry for over twenty-five years. He works
for and lives on property used by the ministry. S. B., the mother of S.B. and A.B.,
married Broderick in 1989 in the ministry when she was fifteen or sixteen. She left the ministry in early 2008 and is now living in Virginia with her fourteen-year-old daughter, M.B., and her adult son, N. B.. Although S. B. was involved in the
adjudication proceeding, she has not appealed the adjudication order. The Brodericks’ fifteen year-old son lives with his father. S.B., who was born December 1995, and A.B., who was born June 1997, lived at Alamo’s residence before they were taken into custody by DHS.

S. O. testified in this hearing and in the Seago hearing. As in the Seago
case, he talked about the iron control held by Tony Alamo over the members of the ministry. In both hearings, he testified about being beaten by John Kolbeck [Kolbek] when he was twelve; his second beating by Kolbeck in 2006, when his sister, A.O., was also beaten; and a third beating in October 2007. S.O. stated that parents must get permission from Alamo to take their children to the doctor, and that he never saw a parent try to prevent their child from being beaten. He explained that fear played a vital role in keeping everyone under control. He testified that the members of the church were taught that if they left, they would fall into sin; that they could not trust the government, which was the “anti-Christ”; and that they could not go to the government for help. S. O. said that his parents would not speak to him after he left the ministry.

M.B., who also testified at the Seago hearing, testified that she, S.B., A.B., A.R., V.S., B.S., A.T., and M.E. were underage females who lived at Alamo’s house with the adult women who were known to be Alamo’s wives. She said that D.K. moved into Alamo’s house when she was eight, and that S.H. moved there when she was about ten. M.B. said that she saw both D.K. and S.H., who were known as his wives and had wedding rings, go into Alamo’s bedroom and shut the door, staying there for hours. As in the Seago hearing, she described her sexual molestation and threats by Tony Alamo when she was in the shower. She
said that she did not tell her parents about the molestation because they would not have believed her over Alamo. As in the Seago hearing, she described her beating by John Kolbeck when she was ten years old, and talked about being forced to participate in a recording with B.S., V.S., and A.R., wherein the underage girls denied having been molested by Alamo.

M.B. also testified that she witnessed her sister S.B. being beaten by Michelle [Misheal] Jones, one of Alamo’s wives, with a board, while M.B. was forced to help hold her sister down. Another time, she said, she observed Alamo catch B.S. by the throat and shove her against the wall. She also said that she heard B.S. being beaten by Kolbeck as she screamed that she wanted her mother.

D. O. also testified in both hearings. He described his punishment on “diesel therapy” and said that the whole church was placed on a week-long fast when he was eight or nine years old. He stated that, after his sister Alice [Alys] moved in with Alamo when she was ten or eleven, his family’s status improved. His mother received a new Dodge Caravan; his father got an expensive digital camera; they moved into a very large house in Texarkana; and his parents obtained better jobs in the ministry. He stated, “It is common knowledge that if you move into Tony’s house and you are spending a certain amount of years there, you are one of his wives. I mean he definitely doesn’t have boys coming over all the time. It’s only little girls and they usually never move out.”
A. D. also testified in both hearings. She said that her sister Pebbles was one
of Alamo’s wives and described seeing several young girls go into Alamo’s bedroom; she saw Alys Ondrisek go into Alamo’s room and stay for three or four days. She stated that Alamo talked about how beautiful Alys Ondrisek was and referred to her as his wife. As in the Seago hearing, she described her periods of imposed fasting and her physical punishment. She described the beatings of other young girls, including A.O., and Kolbeck’s beating of D. O. and S. O. She testified that, when they were tipped off about an upcoming raid, the younger girls who were Alamo’s wives were sent out of Alamo’s residence, and that she observed some pictures of his underage wives being removed from his belongings.

The video taped depositions of N. B. and J. C., which were played in the Seago hearing, were also admitted in this hearing.

A.R., Alphonso Reid’s stepdaughter, also testified about being beaten and
forced to fast as punishment. She said that the primary reason why she left the ministry was because Alamo did not permit her to obtain medical attention for her son, who was born with a serious medical condition. A. R. testified that Alamo has multiple wives and that she witnessed J.G. and W.T. marry thirty-year-old men when J.G. was twelve and W.T. was thirteen. A. said that she had only completed the eighth grade.

Dr. Karen Worley’s testimony in this hearing was significantly similar to her testimony in the Seago hearing. She said that the girls in this proceeding did not reveal any sexual abuse.
She stated that C.R., A.B., and S.B. talked about how the government thought that Alamo was a pedophile and appeared to have been coached before their interviews with investigators.

Robbie Polite, with DHS, testified that, although S.B. and A.B. had received some
immunizations, they were not up-to-date, according to the records in Arkansas.
S.B. testified that, since she was eleven years old, she and A.B. had primarily lived in Alamo’s house. She described a spanking that Alamo ordered one of his wives, Michelle Jones, to give her: “After he got off the phone, Tony said he was going [to] have Michelle spank me and I begged him not to and he said, yes, he was going to, I needed to learn my lesson and he took me into his room and got the paddle from behind his desk and had all my friends and everybody in the office come into his room and said for all them to watch me. . . .I was scared. I was crying. I asked him not to do this. We went into Tony’s room and he had four people hold me, hold my arms and legs down and he told me to bend over on his bed and I believe it was, do I need to say the name? It was Lydia, Sharon Alamo, Yvonne. She is known as Pebbles. And I can’t remember who else . . . but I got beat four times with the board. . . . He didn’t know how many licks I was going to get. He . . . had a smile on his face and just watching me and he whispered something to Michelle and Michelle just gave me four. After it was done I said thank you. I said that because I believed that he was doing it because he loved me and that’s what he said. . . . I had marks on my thighs. They were big bruises and, you know, my blood vessels had broken inside my skin. They were blue, purple, and black. They hurt. I felt the pain for about three weeks. About the first week I couldn’t sit down, but the second week after that I could. I did not report the pain because I was scared. Tony has slapped me probably five times. I think, five. He slapped my face. Well one time it was because he said I was giving him a dirty look, and which I wasn’t but. [sic] That caused me to question him being blind.”

S.B. said that she did not tell her father about the spanking or that Alamo had slapped her.

Bernie Lazar Hoffman, aka Tony Alamo, testified that he did not have total control over the members of the church. He denied the allegations of sexual abuse. He affirmed his belief in the Bible’s teachings that polygamy is acceptable and that girls can be married after they reach puberty. He denied, however, actually practicing polygamy, or condoning or permitting the marriage of underage girls.

He said that he had not witnessed A.O.’s “spanking” by Kolbeck, but acknowledged that he had witnessed S.O.’s “spanking.” He called the reports of beatings “exaggerated.” A significant amount of his testimony concerned his religious beliefs and was not relevant to the issues presented in this
appeal.

Alphonso Reid denied having any knowledge of beatings, sexual abuse of young girls, underage marriages, or fasts. He admitted that he had permitted Tamela to live in Alamo’s house since she was eleven or twelve; that A.R. and C.R. had also lived there; and that he had lived apart from the girls in Fouke. He said that when he was not traveling for work with the ministry, he lived in the brothers’ dorm, and admitted being away from Fouke for months at a time. He acknowledged seeing J. G. with her husband, and that he knew about the recording Alamo had made with the girls, as well as the allegations of sexual abuse. He admitted asking Alamo for permission to marry A.D., but said that the marriage did not occur because she was underage and she did not want to marry him; he said that the idea “was from the devil.” He said that he thought that Alamo was a prophet and did not believe that Alamo had sexually abused any girls.

Brian Broderick denied knowing that children had been beaten, sexually abused,
slapped, or forced to fast, and described the ministry as a great environment in which to raise children. He did not believe any of the witnesses testifying to such abuse and called his children, M.B. and N., liars. In fact, he said that there was nothing anyone could do to make him believe that Alamo, whom he considered to be a prophet, had molested M.B. He acknowledged that he had been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse because he had heard the recording of Alamo and the girls and had attended some Fouke city council meetings. He admitted permitting his daughters to live at the mission, where Alamo resides, while he worked out of town for months at a time. He said that he has done construction work for the ministry most of his life, and that he is totally dependent upon it for all of his needs.

On January 6, 2009, Judge Griffin entered an order adjudicating S.B. and A.B.
dependent-neglected for the same reasons that Judge Hudson gave in the Seago order. He found S.O., D.O., A.R., M.B., J. C., and S.B. credible. He found Broderick, Reid, and Tony Alamo not credible. He imposed the same requirements on Broderick as Judge Hudson did on Seago—that he obtain housing and employment outside of the ministry.

The same day, Judge Griffin entered an order adjudicating A.R. and C.R. dependent-neglected for the same reasons, and imposing the same requirements on Reid. He made the same credibility findings.

Broderick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjudication order and attacks the credibility of the witnesses who said anything negative about the ministry. As Seago argued, he contends that there was no medical evidence that the fasts were dangerous or that the children were injured. He disputes that the children were neglected medically or educationally. He also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that the trial court’s requirement that he obtain employment and housing outside of the ministry is unconstitutional. We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

See Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.
v. Jones, 97 Ark. App. 267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007).
Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1) (Supp. 2009).
Dependency neglect allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Supp. 2009).

We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Brewer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 71 Ark. App. 364, 43 S.W.3d 196
(2001).

In reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit court’s
evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent. At this stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected. An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply dependent-neglected.
See Howell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 138; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248
S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Supp. 2009) defines a “dependent neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent, guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person, who is entrusted with the juvenile’s care by a parent,” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . . ;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance, proper or necessary
support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care and custody of the
juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.
The evidence introduced at this hearing presented a clear picture of the danger to
children in the ministry compound at Fouke. There was testimony that many children were beaten, including M.B., S.B., and their brother; A.R.; and C.R. Several were placed on fasts. S.O. was given “diesel therapy” and his brother D. was imprisoned in a warehouse for eight months. Alamo slapped S.B. and shoved B.S. against a wall. There was evidence that Alamo molested M.B., and that he “married” several young girls. There was testimony that it was normal for underage girls to be married to much-older men. In spite of the evidence demonstrating that sexual abuse of underage girls, beatings, and fasts were widely known within the ministry, Broderick denied knowing of any potential danger to his children.

The evidence presented at this hearing sufficiently demonstrated that the environment in which Broderick placed his children was dangerous. Given the juvenile code’s goal of preventing the abuse of children before it occurs, if at all possible, we have no hesitation in affirming the circuit court’s finding that these were children dependent-neglected.

Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and MARSHALL, J., agree.
10 CA09-244

THORNE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

No. CA 09-583.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I.

April 14, 2010.

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge.

This is one of four appeals decided today that involve children who
were removed from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in
Fouke, Arkansas, in November 2008. The circuit court heard the cases
together in one adjudication hearing. Appellant, Don Thorne, is the
father of three children placed in DHS’s custody. He challenges the
circuit court’s order adjudicating them dependent-neglected. We affirm
the court’s order.

In September 2008, DHS took emergency custody of six minor females who
lived in Tony Alamo’s residence at the Fouke compound. DHS presented
evidence that their parents were aware of beatings administered to the
ministry’s children by adults; that some of the parents and other
children witnessed the beatings; that the parents condoned the
marriage of underage females to adult males and placed their daughters
in the residence of Tony Alamo without parental supervision; that
Alamo sexually abused one of the girls (M.B.1) and spent time in his
bedroom with others; that the parents neglected to provide the
children with proper medical care and education; and that they
condoned extreme disciplinary measures for young children, such as
fasting. On November 18, 2009, we affirmed the circuit courts orders
adjudicating the girls dependent-neglected. See Broderick v. Ark.
Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 771, ___ S.W.3d ___; Seago v.
Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___; Reid
v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 784.

The evidence taken at the girls’ adjudication hearings led DHS to seek
emergency custody of many more children in Fouke. The circuit court
held an adjudication hearing that began on January 12, 2009, for the
Reid, Seago, Broderick, Ondrisek, Krantz, Thorne, Myers, Parrish, and
Avila children. Many of the children sought by DHS, including some of
the Thorne and Myers children, were hidden by their parents or other
ministry adults. The court granted DHS’s motion for directed verdict
as to the Reid, Seago, Broderick, and Ondrisek children because their
siblings had already been adjudicated dependent-neglected. On February
17, 2010, we affirmed appeals from those adjudications because the
appellants had raised their arguments for the first time on appeal.
Today we affirm the orders adjudicating the children of the Thorne,
Krantz, Myers, and Parrish families dependent-neglected.

Don Thorne is the father of a daughter, A.T.1, aged fourteen, and two
sons, A.T.2, born in 1995, and A.T.3, aged twelve. From an earlier
marriage, he is also the father of one of the other appellants, Sophia
Parrish, aged twenty-three. He has been a member of the ministry since
1974, when he was nineteen. There was testimony that A.T.1 lived in
Tony Alamo’s residence. Thorne works for the ministry and lives on its
property in Fouke. At the time of the hearing, his wife, Luisa
Cordero-Thorne, was in hiding with A.T.1 and A.T.3 with Thorne’s help.
Although Thorne claimed to not know where they were, the circuit court
held him in contempt until his wife brought the children back.

The witnesses at the adjudication hearing were G.P.1 (the son of
Carlos and Sophia Parish); J. C. (a former member of the
ministry); M.B.1 (a former member); N. B. (a former
member); S.B. (a former member); H.D. (a former member); Don Thorne;
Sophia Parrish; Carlos Parrish; Bert Krantz; Debra Ondrisek; Miriam
Krantz; Richard Ondrisek; Cindy Allen (a DHS supervisor); Brian
Broderick; Alphonso Reid; Bethany Myers; Rebecca Avila; and Jose
Avila. Nicholas, M.B.1, and S.B. are siblings of M.B.2, who was a
subject of this hearing. J. C. is their aunt. Like Thorne,
the Krantzes, the Parrishes, Bethany Myers, the Ondriseks, the Avilas,
Brian Broderick, and Alphonso Reid are parents of some of the children
with whom this hearing was concerned.

J. C. testified that she was born in the ministry in 1972 and
married her husband when she was sixteen and he was twenty-seven. She
said that the ministry is not a safe environment in which to rear
children and testified at length about its communal lifestyle; its
secrecy; the reporting system that encourages members to inform on
each others’ transgressions; the imposition of fasting as punishment;
and the restrictions on members’ contact with the outside world. She
said that she left because she wanted her children to go to college
and that it was not customary for girls to finish high school because
they usually got married. She gave several examples of girls no older
than sixteen who married grown men. She stated that, in the past, Tony
Alamo had run the organization from prison; that he encouraged parents
to give up their parental authority to him; that the parents adopted
Alamo’s views and were blind to the risks to their children; and that
children were often separated from their parents, as she was at the
age of twelve. She described being in a group of children present when
J. M. was given 140 licks with a three-feet-long paddle at
Alamo’s direction; when it was over, blood seeped through his pants.[
1 ] She said that Alamo had spanked her with a board and had beaten
others mercilessly, and she named numerous people whom she had seen
beaten. J. C. said that, before she left the ministry, her son
confided to her that he was thinking about suicide.

S.B. described being beaten at Alamo’s direction by one of his wives,
Michelle [Mishael] Jones, when S.B. and her sisters M.B.1 and A.B. were living
at Alamo’s residence. She said that A.T.1 (Thorne’s daughter) and L.K.
(one of the Krantzes’ daughters) were in the room during her beating.
She also said that A.T.1, N.M., and M.M. (Bethany Myers’s daughters)
lived in Alamo’s home, which L.K. visited. She stated that Alamo had
slapped her four or five times and that he had hit B.S. (Greg Seago’s
daughter), C.R. (Alphonso Reid’s daughter, aged ten), and A.O. (the
Ondriseks’ daughter). She also said that some girls were forced to
fast. S.B. said that she was threatened with a spanking by John Kolbeck
[Kolbek] if she told anyone what happened at Alamo’s house. She
testified that, in February or March 2008, she and the other girls at
Alamo’s house, including A.T.1 and M.M., were forced by Alamo to
participate in recording Tape No. 564, in which they denied being
molested by him.

In detail, M.B.1 described the ministry’s secrecy and the members’
isolation from the outside world; Alamo’s teaching that the Bible
permitted girls to marry at puberty; her sexual molestation in the
shower by Alamo when she was living in his home; her beating by John
Kolbek; Kolbek’s beating of other children; Alamo’s living
arrangements with adult women and girls as young as age eight; his
time spent alone in his bedroom with the young girls; her
participation in Tape 564 with N.M.1 and M.M.; and being forced to
help hold down S.B. (aged eleven or twelve) while Michelle Jones beat
her. M.B.1 said that she heard B.S. scream while John Kolbek beat her
and that Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to the
beating. M.B.1 also said that two men in their twenties had asked her
to marry them and that she had friends her age who had already married
and had children and who hated their lives. She stated that most older
boys leave the ministry; that it is not safe for children; and that
Alamo would continue to control the ministry while he was in jail. She
said that the parents believe that Alamo is a prophet and do not
question his authority.

N. B. described witnessing John Kolbek’s savage beating
of S. O., P. A., and A.O., while the Ondriseks were
present and did nothing. He said that Kolbek once slapped him, but
did not beat him, because N. stated that he was going to leave
the ministry. He explained that it was normal for boys to drop out of
school by the age of seventeen and that there were few boys in school
above the tenth grade, after which he dropped out. He said that he was
forced to fast a few times and experienced “diesel therapy” (being
forced to ride with a driver of a ministry truck). He added that young
girls were at risk of becoming child brides; that J.G. married a man
in his thirties; and that R.S. married when she was fourteen.

H.D., aged seventeen, testified that she had left the ministry when
she was twelve. She said that she was forced to fast for a week at the
age of ten because she had failed to perform a chore after suffering a
head injury in a fall. She stated that the fall caused her to lose
consciousness, and when she came to, people were praying over her; no
one, however, took her to a doctor. In fact, she did not think that
ministry members were supposed to go to the hospital. She said that
she had suffered memory loss and pain and swelling on the back of her
head. She said that her sister had also been placed on a fast. H.D.
described being present when J.G. was informed that she was going to
get married at the age of twelve. She said that she and J.G. were
playing with Barbies when J.G.’s mother [Shelly Garner] received a phone call in which
she learned that the marriage would occur; J.G. and her mother were
upset, and J.G. cried. She said that J.G. had a typical wedding with a
bridal dress and bridesmaids.[ 2 ] H.D. stated that she was taught
that it was permissible to lie to people outside the ministry.

Bethany Myers acknowledged violating the court’s order by not
producing her children for DHS. She said that she had no idea where
her husband and children were. The trial court held her in contempt
and placed her in jail.

Don Thorne denied having any first-hand knowledge that John Kolbek or
anyone else had beaten the children or that children had been forced
to fast. He admitted giving Sophia away in marriage at the age of
twelve. He claimed that the ministry no longer permitted young girls
to marry but admitted that he had heard Alamo preach that the Bible
condones polygamy and the marriage of girls at puberty. Thorne denied
letting A.T.1 live at Alamo’s residence but admitted that she had
stayed there for a couple of weeks. He was untroubled by Alamo’s using
her to create Tape No. 564 without his permission. He acknowledged
that his wife had told him that she had asked John Kolbek to spank
A.T.2 while Thorne was driving a truck for the ministry.

G.P.1, aged seven, testified that his father had spanked him and two
of his younger sisters with a paddle that had their names on it. He
said that both of his parents had slapped him on the face when he was
six, leaving red marks, and that he was afraid of being spanked by
John Kolbek.

Sophia Parrish admitted slapping and “popping” G.P.1 in the mouth on
two occasions but denied leaving any marks. She admitted spanking him
and G.P.2 with a paint stirrer or with her hand. After obviously lying
under oath and being threatened with a perjury charge, Sophia returned
to the stand and admitted that she had spanked G.P.1 with a paddle;
that she had married at twelve when Carlos was nineteen; that her
father had walked her down the aisle; that she had sex with Carlos
when she was twelve; and that she had given birth to a stillborn baby
girl at the age of fourteen. Sophia stated that the Krantzes were at
her wedding, which was widely celebrated by the members of the
ministry. She affirmed that John Kolbek had spanked A.T.2 at his
mother’s request. Sophia said that she had completed only the sixth
grade because she had not wanted to be pregnant while in school. She
stated that her friends had also dropped out when they began having
children, and she listed four other weddings of young girls that she
had attended.

Carlos Parrish testified that he did not believe N. and denied
having witnessed any beatings. He stated that he had no intention of
moving away from the ministry’s property.

Bert Krantz, who was fifty-seven years old at the time of the hearing,
testified that he joined the ministry, in which he is a minister, in
1972, and that he works in disseminating Alamo’s recorded messages. He
admitted that he was present at, and approved of, several weddings of
young girls but said that the ministry had not permitted underage
girls to marry in five or six years. He stated that, although the
Bible condones the marriage of young girls at puberty, he would not
permit his children to marry during their minority, nor would he let
his children fast or be disciplined by anyone else. He stated that he
had never witnessed any physical punishment. He acknowledged having
heard Tape No. 564 but said that it had not concerned him. Bert said
that he believed that Alamo is a prophet and that it would be a sin
against God to leave the ministry. He denied letting Alamo run
anything in his life, but he admitted that he does not drive because
Alamo does not want him to do so.

Miriam Krantz, who is twenty years younger than her husband and is the
custodian of the audiotapes, also said that no one else disciplined
her children; that she was familiar with Tape No. 564; that she also
believes that Alamo is a prophet; that she did not know that Kolbek
had administered discipline; and that, when she attended Sophia’s
wedding, she was aware that Sophia was twelve, but it did not concern
her.

In the adjudication order, the circuit court found the children
dependent-neglected and made extensive findings of fact. The court
found that the Thornes had failed to protect their children against
physical abuse; that they were aware of the pattern and practice of
severe physical beatings; that they endorsed and facilitated illegal
marriages of underage females to adult males; that they neglected the
needs of their children by failing to assure that they received
adequate education and by failing to register their children in an
accredited school with certified teachers or providing legally
approved home schooling. The court also found that the parents
committed or permitted medical and physical abuse by requiring,
condoning, and permitting dangerous, involuntary fasts imposed on
children younger than fifteen, and by failing to have them properly
immunized. The court further found that the parents were aware of
multiple instances when Tony Alamo, through his direction to John
Kolbek or others, intentionally caused physical harm to S.
O., P. A., and A.O. The court found that the parents were
aware of Alamo’s pattern and practice of enforcing adherence to his
will by brutal physical attacks. The court noted M.B.1’s molestation
by Alamo at the age of thirteen. It further found that the parents
were aware that Alamo claimed to be married to multiple wives and that
they permitted and condoned the ministry’s practice of “diesel
therapy.”

The court set the goal of reunification and gave the parents
supervised visitation. Along with other requirements, it directed them
to obtain stable employment and safe and stable housing, separate and
apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and to
maintain them for at least six months. The court directed Thorne to
assist DHS in locating the children currently in hiding with his
spouse. The court expressly found the testimony of M.B., J.
C., S.B., H.D., and N. B. that beatings, forced
fasting, underage marriages, educational neglect, and sexual abuse
occurred credible and stated that there was a pattern and practice of
such abuse. It deemed not credible the testimony of Carlos Parrish,
Sophia Parrish, Thorne, Bert Krantz, and Miriam Krantz that those
abuses did not occur.

Thorne first challenges the evidence supporting the adjudication of
his children as dependent-neglected and contends that there was no
evidence that they were mistreated in any way. He points out that
there was no evidence that they were not immunized; although this is
correct, it does not require reversal, in view of the overwhelming
evidence of other threats to their well-being, which are discussed
below. Thorne also asserts that the evidence does not support the
trial court’s findings that he had educationally neglected his
children, pointing out, correctly, that the Christian A Beka
curriculum used by the ministry’s school is widely accepted, and that
the state does not require private schools to be accredited or that
their teachers be certified. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated
that young girls frequently drop out of school long before completing
high school and that the boys, who often are placed on diesel therapy,
do not progress much further. In the ministry, getting a high school
diploma is the exception, not the rule.

Thorne also asserts that the trial court did not judge his case
separately from the others and thereby contravened Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-27-325(i)(1) (Repl. 2009), which requires
adjudication hearings to be closed. We disagree. First, the trial
court did close the hearing. Second, although the trial court’s
adjudication orders used similar language, it was apparent that the
court considered each case on its own. Third, that statute does not
prevent the circuit court from hearing certain cases together when it
is appropriate, and appellants have cited no authority to the
contrary.

Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in
a petition are substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-327(a)(1) (Repl. 2009). Dependency-neglect allegations must be
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Repl. 2009). We will not reverse the circuit
court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Seago v. Ark.
Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___. In
reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit
court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus
of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent; at this
stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the
child is dependent-neglected. Id. An adjudication of
dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed
the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is
simply dependent-neglected. Id.; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Repl. 2009) defines a
“dependent-neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial
risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse,
sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in
section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent,
guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person who is entrusted
with the juvenile’s care by a parent” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when
the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or
has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing,
shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment
necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . .;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile
from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect,
or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known
or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the
essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the
juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a
risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance,
proper or necessary support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary
care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care
and custody of the juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the
responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results
in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in
inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a
situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.

We reject Thorne’s argument that the circuit court erred in finding
his children dependent-neglected because there was no evidence that
they had personally suffered abuse. As we explained in our November
2009 Seago, Broderick, and Reid opinions, the General Assembly’s
expressed purpose in the juvenile code is to protect
dependent-neglected children and make their health and safety its
paramount concern; a child may be adjudicated dependent-neglected even
if he or she has not yet suffered abuse. Thorne, who lived and worked
in this community for over three decades, was rearing his children in
a secretive, communal environment that included sexual abuse of young
girls, underage marriage, fasting, and beatings. Thorne admitted that
his wife asked John Kolbek to spank A.T.2 while he was absent and
that he gave his twelve-year-old daughter in marriage to an adult man.
A.T.1, who apparently lived in Alamo’s home, witnessed S.B.’s beating
by Michelle Jones. Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged
B.S. to be beaten by Kolbek. Additionally, Sophia Parrish admitted
“popping” G.P.1 on the mouth, as he had testified. Striking a child
six years of age or younger on the face or head, with or without
physical injury, is abuse. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(a).
Thorne’s assertion that the evidence of corporal punishment should not
be credited because there was no medical evidence is disingenuous in
view of the testimony showing that the ministry discourages its
members from seeking medical assistance.

Thorne’s second argument is that two provisions of the case plan
violate his right to freely exercise his religion as protected by the
United States and Arkansas Constitutions. The circuit court ordered
Thorne to “obtain safe and stable housing separate and apart from the
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and maintain said
housing for at least six months” and to “obtain stable employment
separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its
members and maintain said employment for at least six months.” Thorne
contends that, in essence, the case plan makes him choose between his
children and his church.

DHS and the attorney ad litem argue that Thorne failed to make this
argument below and that the circuit court therefore never ruled on it.
We disagree. Thorne’s lawyer raised the constitutional issue at the
beginning of the hearing: “Your Honor, this case is purely a free
exercise of religion case.” Thorne and other witnesses testified about
the importance of communal living within the ministry. When asked
whether living off ministry property would have an effect on his
“Christian walk,” Thorne responded “[a]bsolutely.” The circuit court,
in ruling from the bench on the dependency-neglect issues, recognized
Thorne’s beliefs. “[T]he parents involved have very strong feelings
and very strong convictions concerning their spiritual beliefs and how
they wish to live.” And the court recognized the legal decision it
faced.

[W]e have the intertwining of the allegations of the state
concerning abuse in various forms and various forms of neglect coupled
with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the mothers and fathers
and families that are participants in this case. That right, as given
to us as citizens of the United States, that is freedom of religion to
believe as we cho[o]se I consider to be one of our most important
rights and one that I, as a judge, believe that I am charged to
protect within the law as within the facts.

The circuit court’s order, finally, required Thorne to make
substantial changes in his religious practices to pursue reunification
with his children. Taking this record as a whole, we conclude that
Thorne preserved the constitutional argument.

Every person’s right to make decisions of conscience about religious
matters is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and by an even more
sweeping provision of the Arkansas Constitution. Article 2, section 24
of Arkansas’s Constitution provides, in part, that “[a]ll men have a
natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to
the dictates of their own consciences . . . . No human authority can,
in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right
of conscience . . . .” As another court stated the legal principle in
another case involving this ministry, “[r]eligious and political
beliefs, no matter how bizarre and nonconforming, are personal
matters, and the courts are not instruments of orthodoxy charged with
the responsibility of keeping citizens on the ideological straight and
narrow.” Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695, 698
(W.D. Ark. 1990) (Morris S. Arnold, J.); see also West Virginia State
Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). To judge the
constitutional issue fairly, therefore, we must acknowledge and
consider the circuit court’s unchallenged finding about the sincerity
of Thorne’s religious beliefs. We do.

A parent’s right of conscience in religious matters, however,
sometimes collides with state laws of general application promulgated
for the protection of children and other citizens. There are familiar
examples. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (a state may not
compel Amish children to attend high school until age 16); Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (a child-labor law was
constitutional even though it kept a child from selling religious
tracts as part of her faith); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the
Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a state may not
require students to attend public schools; a parent has the authority
to provide, and their child has the right to receive, sectarian
schooling with secular schooling). These fact-specific cases strive
for a delicate balance, one that respects all the important interests
involved: parents’ rights of conscience and of child-rearing and the
state’s interest as parens patriae in protecting children.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate balance. “Parents, of course,
have a fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their
children. But the State of Arkansas has an equally compelling interest
in the protection of its children.” Porter v. Ark. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177, 185, 286 S.W.3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal
citations omitted); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2009).
And in child custody disputes, for example, a parent’s religiously
motivated choices and actions are material if they affect a child’s
well being. Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark. App. 207, 212, 288 S.W.3d 244, 248
(2008). In some cases, the facts tip the balance in favor of
protecting the child, and against the parent’s liberty—even in matters
of conscience and religious conviction. E.g., Prince, 321 U.S. at 167.

This is one of those cases. As the circuit court found, the most
pressing potential danger facing Thorne’s children was simply living
on ministry property. The record is full of testimony about beatings,
sexual abuse, underage marriages, and other problems, all of which
victimized the children of families living on ministry property. In
fashioning its case plan, the circuit court responded to the potential
danger with a narrowly tailored solution—requiring Thorne to obtain
housing separate and apart from the ministry. And because ministry
life was communal in almost every respect, the court also required
Thorne to obtain employment outside the ministry so he could earn the
money to pay for this new housing arrangement and other living
expenses. Here, as the circuit court implicitly concluded, the State’s
interest in preventing potential harm to these children outweighed
Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on ministry property, work for
the ministry, and depend on the ministry for his family’s every need.
We see no constitutional infirmity in the circuit court’s disposition
order on this record. We therefore affirm on Thorne’s second point.

Affirmed.

MARSHALL and BAKER, JJ., agree.
1. See Miller v. Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695 (W.D. Ark. 1990).
2. A wedding picture from J.G.’s wedding ceremony was introduced into evidence.
Click here to see the photo.

A Look at Each Charge Against Alamo

The following is a count-by-count breakdown of the charges pending against Tony Alamo. Penalty ranges were acquired from Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Plumlee.

Count 1

Prosecutors allege that Alamo had sex with Jane Doe No. 1, now 17, while they traveled on his private bus to California in September 2004, when she was 13. She said Alamo “married” her at age 11. She currently lives in Colorado.

Later she was allegedly brought back to Arkansas and continued a sexual relationship with Alamo in his Fouke, Ark., residence.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

Count 2

The indictment accuses Alamo of having sex with Jane Doe No. 1 after she traveled from Colorado Springs, Colo., to Saugus, Calif. to Fouke, Ark. between August and October 2005 on the minister’s orders. Prosecutors say she was 14 at the time.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes fourth degree sexual assault.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

Count 3

Jane Doe No. 2, allegedly married to Alamo at 8, was sent by Alamo, to Moffett, Okla., to visit her family in 2000. Alamo also allegedly dictated when and how she returned to his Fouke, Ark., residence to continue a sexual relationship.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 4

Jane Doe No. 2 allegedly was sent again by Alamo to Moffett, Okla., to visit her family in 2001. Alamo also allegedly summoned her again to his Fouke residence and continues her sexual relationship with him. She is now 18 and told jurors that child-welfare officials helped her find a job in Arkansas.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 5

Authorities say Alamo “married” Jane Doe No. 3 while he was in prison in 1998, when she was 14. They say she was sent to Oklahoma by him to allay her father’s fears that she was living with the evangelist. Her father was no longer a church member. Prosecutors say she later returned to Arkansas, where Alamo had sex with her. She is now 25.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 6

Jane Doe No. 3 allegedly traveled with Alamo to Tennessee in 1999 and back to Arkansas, where their sexual relationship allegedly continued.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 7

Prosecutors say Jane Doe No. 4, allegedly married to Alamo at 15, traveled on a motor home to New Mexico with Alamo in 1994. The trip was supposed to end in California but ended early because a court date Alamo had regarding an ex-wife and children is postponed.

She is now 33 and lives in Florida.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 8

Jane Doe No. 4 allegedly traveled to West Virginia from Fort Smith, Ark., and back with Alamo in 1994 for a court date. Alamo had traveled there on a custody matter involving an ex-wife.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 9

Jane Doe No. 4 allegedly traveled to Tennessee from Fort Smith at Alamo’s bidding in 1994, while he was on trial for tax evasion in federal court.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 10

Prosecutors say Jane Doe No. 5 and Jane Doe No. 4 flew from Arkansas to California, where Jane Doe No. 5 was sexually assaulted by Alamo. She was 16 then and is 20 now.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes first degree sexual assault.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

The girls were all underage when the alleged crimes occurred though some were older when they traveled than when they married.

Each of the 10 counts is punishable as well by a fine of up to $250,000.

Jurors convict evangelist on 10 sex-abuse counts

Tony Alamo, a one-time street preacher who became an outfitter of the stars and fought the federal government over claims he underpaid followers for church work, was convicted Friday of taking five girls across state lines for sex.

The jury of nine men and three women found Alamo guilty of transporting girls as young as 9, in violation of a nearly century-old federal law. He was accused in a 10-count indictment that said the abuse started in 1994.

Women ranging from age 17 to 33 told jurors that Alamo “married” them in private ceremonies while they were minors, sometimes giving them wedding rings. Each detailed trips beyond Arkansas’ borders for Alamo’s sexual gratification.

Alamo, 74, never testified. His lawyers told him he should not directly challenge their testimony and they argued to jurors that the girls traveled for legitimate church business.

The evangelist could spend the rest of his life in prison, since each count is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing will be held in six to eight weeks.

State and federal agents raided Alamo’s compound last Sept. 20 after repeated reports of abuse.

Defense lawyers said the government targeted Alamo because it doesn’t like his apocalyptic brand of Christianity. Alamo has blamed the Vatican for his legal troubles, which include a four-year prison term for tax evasion in the 1990s.

With little physical evidence, prosecutors relied on the women’s stories to paint an emotional portrait of a charismatic religious leader who controlled every aspect of his subjects’ lives. No one obtained food, clothing or transportation without him knowing about it.

At times, men were ordered away from the compound and their wives kept as another Alamo bride. Minor offenses from either gender drew beatings or starvation fasts.

In the end, prosecutors convinced jurors in Arkansas’ conservative Christian climate that Alamo’s ministry offered him the opportunity to prey on the young girls of loyal followers who believed him to be a prophet who spoke directly to God. They described a ministry that ran on the fear of drawing the anger of “Papa Tony.”

Alamo remained defiant as jurors heard testimony for a week. He openly referred to the Branch Davidian raid at Waco, Texas, muttered expletives during others’ testimony and fell asleep at times – while alleged victims spoke from the witness stand and again as prosecutors urged his conviction.

The evangelist built a multi-state ministry on the backs of followers who worked in various businesses to support the church. In the 1980s, he designed and sold elaborately decorated denim jackets, hobnobbed with celebrities and owned a compound in western Arkansas that featured a heart-shaped swimming pool.

Federal agents seized a large portion of his assets in the 1990s to settle tax claims after courts declared his operations a business, not a church. Among items offered for auction were the plans for the studded jacket Michael Jackson wore on his “Bad” album.

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers his ministry a “cult.”

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

CLICK ON THE ARTICLES BELOW FOR NEWS RELATED TO THE ABOVE LEGAL NOTICE

Lawyer seeks ruling in case tied to Alamo

Plaintiffs ask to seek fugitive by publication

Teens given longer time to serve suit

Lawyer has 90 days to find alleged Alamo enforcer

TONY ALAMO’S SECRETS EXPOSED!

Written By: Concerned Citizens, Former Members and Children Born and Raised in the Alamo Cult in summer of 2006

Tony Alamo is posing as a Spiritual Leader, but he is an abuser of the innocent, a sexual predator preying on children and young women. He now controls the will of over 400 followers, the Men and Women (who are terrified of him and his dictates of abuse) and the Children, who have no voice and no human rights and must suffer the endless beatings, fastings and molestations in the name of God.

Many men, women (including Alamo Foundation school teachers) and children have been beaten by the minions (blind followers) of the Alamo Ministries, as well as by Pastor Alamo himself. Many were beaten, put on extended fasts, and mentally abused by this once thriving sect. Newspaper articles have recorded these facts. Everything you are about to read and much more can be found at www.tonyalamonews.com. Visit this informative site for verifiable facts, detailed history and current information on this dangerous and destructive religious group. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

ALAMO ABUSES

Tony Alamo has committed many morally reprehensible and illegal acts against his followers and he continues to perpetuate his abuses with out remorse. Below is a list of his atrocities. Some of these abuses are detailed, further on in this pamphlet.

Tony Alamo aka Bernie Lazar Hoffman is a convicted felon proclaiming himself to be a prophet and self-titled World Pastor, setting himself up as the infallible despotic spiritual leader of duped, ill-informed, followers (being deprived of their most basic freedoms) and their unprotected children, along with a handful of devoted followers doing Tony Alamo’s psychotic, controlling, dirty work, as he lives as sumptuously as possible off all their labors, all the while professing to be a holy man of God.

Tony Alamo is a deceiver for profit. His organizations, Arm Full of Help and Action Distributors are fronts to fund his lavish lifestyle, his radio broadcasts, and the enormous amounts of literature produced and distributed annually to propagate his radical agenda.

Tony Alamo is a pedophile. Raping, molesting & fondling young female children. He molests and rapes girls as young as 8 years old, then calls them his “wife” and proceeds to brag about “how tight they were” on his pulpit all the while professing to be a holy man of God.

Tony Alamo abuses under age children including his own son Tabor. He orchestrates and sanctions the marriages between young female children and older men. A few cases are: Jackie Garner at 12 years old was married to Dale Shono (a 30 year old). Wendy Tiner married at 12 yrs old to a much older man. On March 5th 2006 the Ft. Smith, Arkansas police department was alerted to an illegal wedding between 13yr old Leah Willis to a 34 year old ex-convict. Alamo’s followers are so afraid of being kicked out of the group, put on extended fasts, or beaten that they willingly do whatever tyranny he dictates, including giving these men their young, innocent 12 and 13 year old daughters as brides..

Tony Alamo is violent and dangerous. He has ordered the brutal beatings of countless women, and children for well over 35 years and in some instances administering the beatings himself. He has been drunk on numerous occasions, at which point he beat and/or raped one or more of his many wives all the while professing to be a holy man of God.

Tony Alamo is a plagiarist Changing a few paragraphs then claiming authorship of Fred John Meldau’s the Messiah Book, all the while professing to be a holy man of God.

Tony Alamo is an opportunist. He uses his followers for his own gain by taking all that they have and leaving them no way out (even if they wanted out) and living lavishly off of their efforts. They give him everything and get beaten, starved, and raped in return. They obey his every command because they think him a prophet and a holy man of God. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

VIOLATION of the FAIR LABOR STANDARD ACT

For the first decade or so the Alamo Ministries owned many lucrative businesses, most notable being the “Alamo” line of clothing. The “employees” of these operations were Alamo Foundation volunteers who had pledged to work as their “service unto the Lord”. In return, according to Tony Alamo, the workers received room and board, training, healthcare, and had all of their other basic necessities met. All Alamo Foundation members (with outside employment) were ordered to turn over their paychecks and assets to further the work of the ministry.

[In 1976, the Department of Labor determined that the Alamo Foundation was in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act for failing to pay wages to its many workers. The IRS eventually revoked the church’s tax-exempt status in 1985 after determining that it was really a profit-making entity meant to fund Alamo’s luxurious lifestyle. However, the pastor continued to ignore his taxes, and the IRS eventually seized millions of dollars in Alamo’s church property and business interests and put him behind bars [in 1994]. After Alamo served four years of a six-year sentence, all of his properties, businesses, and nonprofits were registered under the names of his followers. Since his release in 1998, he’s been trying to make a comeback and has targeted New York/New Jersey as one of several areas for growth—and for his polygamous radio message.] –Village Voice 5/14/08

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PROFITEERING SCHEMES

Many have unknowingly supported the Alamo Ministries by tithing or donating to Tony Alamo’s organization through Arm Full of Help and other Alamo charity frauds. According to a recent Village Voice article dated 5/14/08,

[Alamo has a local following that runs at least two of what ex-members describe as profiteering schemes. One is named Arm Full of Help, a charity that former workers say misleads people by taking donated goods that are supposed to go to people in need but are instead sold for profit, which is then sent to Alamo. The other is Action Distributors Inc., a New Jersey salvage business that is accused of participating in a scheme to sell for profit thousands of mattresses that were supposed to be donated to Hurricane Katrina victims. Tempur-Pedic had donated approximately 8,000 mattresses and 7,000 slippers to a New Jersey nonprofit called Waste to Charity, which then contracted Action Distributors to give out the goods in storm-ravaged areas. Tempur-Pedic grew suspicious after being tipped off that those specific mattresses and slippers were being sold out of the back of trucks in Tennessee and Kentucky, and later on eBay. The mattress company hired an undercover consultant to pose as a buyer and instigated an FBI sting that found 2,650 of the donated mattresses in an Arkansas warehouse registered to two of Alamo’s “wives,” whose address was listed as a supermarket owned by Tony Alamo Ministries.

An undercover FBI investigation revealed that Scarcello had been selling the donated mattresses for profit to a number of secondhand retailers. While the connection between Waste to Charity and Alamo remains unclear, Tempur-Pedic’s complaint against Waste to Charity and Action Distributors calls Scarcello a “known associate” of the pastor.]

[According to former workers for the charity, Arm Full of Help is an Alamo-controlled business that sells donated goods for profit. Ex-workers say the charity is part of the same network of businesses and nonprofits as Action Distributors, keeping Alamo’s empire afloat. They estimate that up to 70 percent of the donations—meant to help the needy—are sold for profit.] –Village Voice

Alamo denies affiliations with these charities but according to Arm Full of Help’s website , contributions are tax deductible through Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. According to documents filed with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, available on their website , Holiness Tabernacle Church is an arm of Alamo Ministries. In addition, several of the spokespeople of Arm Full of Help, such as Susan McElroy (Susan McElroy-Miller-Scarcello), identified in a Los Angeles Times article shown on the Arm Full of Help website, are members of Alamo Ministries. The Village Voice goes on to report;

[When the Voice called Alamo’s church office in Arkansas, church volunteer Jennifer Kolbeck seemed to think that she’d answered the phone for Arm Full of Help: She identified herself as a volunteer at Arm Full of Help’s Arkansas branch and immediately launched into an explanation of how the charity and Alamo’s church were, in fact, separate entities. She said that Alamo gave money, food, and clothing donations to Arm Full of Help, as well as many other nonprofits, but that was the extent of the connection. But Kolbeck answers the phones at both the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and Arm Full of Help, and she couldn’t say who her boss was at Arm Full of Help. “I don’t have that information,” she said, seeming not to understand the term “executive director.” (Many ex-members say they left the church simply because their kids weren’t learning anything in the church-run schools.)]

Were all these facts known to Arm Full of Help and Action Distributors’ contributors, it would be interesting to know how many would knowingly continue to contribute to Alamo’s lavish lifestyle, his radio broadcasts, and the enormous amounts of literature produced and distributed annually to propagate his radical agenda. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHILD LABOR VIOLATIONS

One of the Alamo Ministries’ many, million dollar enterprises was their rhinestone studded clothing sewing houses (in 1980s). Not only did Tony Alamo unlawfully use free labor from hundreds of his followers but he also forced children to spend hours (daily) setting rhinestones for Alamo Designs, depriving them of a quality education. According to a recent (2008) article by the Village Voice, these child labor violations continue today;

[Sarah remembers that even the kids were put to work for Arm Full of Help’s Arkansas branch, preparing donated food for resale. “They called it ‘volunteer work’ ” she says. “The kids would get nail-polish remover and take off the dates, then they repack it really nicely in these boxes. I did it, and the little treat for the kids is to go get an ice cone.”]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHILD ABUSE

Children are subjected to abusive corporal punishment, as well as fasting, for minor infractions in the Alamo Ministries. This went on for years before it was exposed by the media in 1989. In 1988 he ordered the beating of an 11 year old child (Justin Miller) in the community, via speaker phone, ordering four male followers to hold the child spread eagle while being struck vigorously 140 times with a large wooden paddle, while Justin’s mother looked on. On March 25, 1988, this prompted a raid on the Saugus, California compound. Justin Miller was removed by the state and returned to his father, who had left the cult months earlier. Ex-members were starting to come forward with their stories that Alamo wielded such control over his followers that he literally would split up families and rearrange marriages at will.

The FBI launched a manhunt for Tony Alamo after he went on the run, following the charges. After years on the run and the tax evasion conviction the charges were, sadly, dropped. A 1995 article in the LA Times said this about the case;

[Prosecutors have decided not to pursue a child abuse case against flamboyant evangelist Tony Alamo because of a six-year federal prison sentence he received last year for tax evasion, authorities said. Alamo was accused of ordering followers at his Saugus church in 1988 to paddle a misbehaving 11-year-old boy about 140 times. The evangelist's case has been frequently delayed because he was a fugitive for two years and was then tried and convicted on the tax charges. Alamo would probably have served only five months in state prison if convicted of child-abuse and child-endangerment charges, Deputy Dist. Atty. John Asari said. He said that wasn't a long enough addition to the federal prison sentence to fight what would have been a difficult trial.]

In a recent taping (2008) of the Dr. Phil Show entitled “Cults’, a young girl accused Tony Alamo and his followers of putting the children on fasts for weeks at a time. Here is what Hannah said happened to her;

[“I got in trouble for not vacuuming the hallway, and my stepmom told me I had to go on a two-week fast. She would not allow me to eat or drink anything but water,” Hannah recalls. “I think it was going on to the second week, and I was playing with my friends outside. I passed out and fell to the ground. They came and picked me up, and they called my dad. My dad came to see me, if I was all right, and they told him it was from sun exhaustion, and I know it wasn’t. I couldn’t even move sometimes, because I was so weak.”] —Dr. Phil Show

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

POLYGAMY, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Alamo continues to deny charges of polygamy, sexual abuse, and domestic violence but many people have come forward with detailed accounts of what they have experienced first hand in the Alamo group. The SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] did an article in March ’08 where Tony Alamo’s own stepdaughter claims he raped her ;

“Tony raped me in Vegas, and my mother didn’t believe it and told me to get my ass out and I was a liar and I was trying to take her man.” She goes on to say, “They [Tony and Susan Alamo and a few followers] beat me into insensibility. All of them. I had my baby in my arms, so it was all I could do to [keep] her from getting hit. My eyes were black, my lips were big as balloons, my nose was busted, hair ripped out. Some of them even pinched me. They were going to put me in a coma and say I’d fallen down the stairs.”

Alamo is regularly heard on his radio programs promoting polygamy. He has been stated as saying that as soon as a girl menstruates she can be married, even as young as 10 years old. In an October ’07 article , the SPLC reports;

“Alamo argues that girls should marry once they start menstruating — even if they are as young as 10. In one September 2006 broadcast, he put it like this: “God impregnated Mary when she was about 11 years old. So the government idiots, the people that don’t know the Bible, what you’re going to have to do is get a hold of God now, you’re going to have to get up there and ‘cuff him and send him to prison for statutory rape.”

The SPLC has also added the Tony Alamo Ministries to their list of Hate Groups. Steven Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor and an exit counselor was a guest on Anderson Cooper 360° and was quoted as saying ,

“Two cult groups that authorities need to expose is the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries – the similarities to power hungry Warren Jeffs is frightening – and another organization called The Children of God, also known as The Family. Both these groups sexually abuse children and women.”

Hassan is author of Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults, and Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE DOCUMENTED ACCOUNTS OF POLYGAMY, SEXUAL ABUSE, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (1989 – 2000)

In 1989 Alamo married Sharon Ast-Kroopf (now Sharon Miriam Hoffman), in her late 30’s at the time – after Tony removed her husband, David, from the group. She married Tony, who at the time was a fugitive, in hiding from charges of felony child abuse in California. Tony and Sharon had a son, Sion, together in the summer of 1991, while Tony was in jail awaiting trial for threatening Federal Judge Morris Arnold.

In California in February 1993 Tony Alamo took Lydia Willis, an African American, as a second wife. Lydia was in her early 30’s. They have a son, Tabor, together. She and her son are mistreated more than the others and are both referred to as “nigger” by Alamo. A woman in Tony’s house witnessed the following:

“Lydia was sitting beside me one night in Tony’s office. She was reading something to Tony and messed up on her wording, so Tony got up from his chair and stormed over to me and Lydia and punched her in the face so hard that we both fell backwards. She tried to crawl away from him and that only made him madder. He grabbed her pant leg and pulled her back and continued to punch her. Then he stopped and went back to his chair like nothing ever happened and made Lydia come back and sit down and made her finish reading to Tony, as blood was gushing out of her mouth where Tony had beat her. He would not let anyone even give her a Kleenex or washcloth to help stop the bleeding. He said he wanted to see that “black nigger” try and talk with her face and mouth all swollen. To Tony it was entertaining.”

Lydia often reads responses on Alamo’s radio broadcast. In California in February 1993 Tony Alamo “married” Jody. She was 17 years old. Her Testimony:

“Tony began talking about the flames of hell and how someone in the room wasn’t listening to God and marrying him and such. Well, the only other person in the room besides me would be him on most occasions when he would talk about these things. After hearing him say all this stuff, how I was going to die very shortly and go to hell. I finally told him crying that I lived my life for God and I wanted to do God’s will. He then made arrangements to take me to Palm Springs to “marry” me. I was terrified and asked to call my mom back in Arkansas. Tony told me I could not and he would make sure I never saw my family again unless I “consummated” the marriage. He even threatened to have some of the “brothers” drive me out to the desert and leave me there unless I slept with him. It was February 15th. Niki R. was there in Palm Springs. She knew how awful it was for me. I was dry heaving and couldn’t sleep for days (found out lack of sleep was something I needed to become accustomed to later). The consummation didn’t happen for a while, but I knew he would sooner or later force himself. That did happen, and at first it was awful. I would cry the whole time. But in time I learned a very valuable trick on “my nights” with Tony. I learned how to separate myself from myself. I would actually allow my mind to take me elsewhere during that time. That is why he went around telling people that sleeping with me was like sleeping with a corpse and that I didn’t like sex so something was wrong with me. Tony was very careful when he took me for a wife. He didn’t want the church to know because the idea of polygamy wasn’t accepted by his following yet. It later became pretty common knowledge around the church. Anyway, after a few months went by, I saw Tony take, Isabel, Misheal (breaking up their marriage and taking her for himself), Tami (breaking up their marriage and taking her for himself as well), and Angel”.

Jody left Tony and the Foundation in Dec 1993 and was a witness for the IRS in the tax case in June 1994.

In California in 1993 Maria Isabel Mendoza (aka Isabel Mendoza) became another Alamo “wife” at age 19.

In 1993 Misheal Eden Jones-Williams became Tony’s “wife” at 18 years old. She was already married to Kenya Williams (African American) and pregnant with his child at the time. Alamo kicked Kenya out of the group and took his wife. Kenya was the son of Diana Elena Williams- Alamo, a legal ex-wife of Alamo’s in the late 80’s. Jordan (Kenya’s son) was born in Alamo’s house and Alamo currently refers to him as “the bastard” and “the nigger”. There are witnesses that can verify that Alamo, in a rage, cruelly beat and kicked Jordan. (Diane Elana Williams-Alamo testified against Tony in the IRS trial which could account for the revenge of treating her grandchild so brutally.) Jordan and Misheal are still there and she often reads the responses on Tony’s radio broadcast.

In California, on October 15, 1993 Tami became Tony’s “wife” at age 17. She was already married at the time to Randy and they had a small baby. Tony kicked Randy out of the group and then took his wife and child. Tami’s Testimony:

“In summer of next year (1994), he was incarcerated on charges by the IRS. That story is a book in itself, but now I was living in even more trauma. He had amassed twelve wives by now. Twelve women locked in a house, day in and day out. The only thing we could count on was his phone calls, ever increasing, always a ride. We were God’s chosen on one day. We were blessed, everyone was the most beautiful, and we were on top of the world. The next day, we were the scum of the earth, unworthy, cut off. We never knew if we might find ourselves sitting in a house that was not paid for, with no food, and no money. We needn’t have worried. Then, I thought he was God’s best friend. Now I know he depended on us to give him his power. I slept, but I never slept. I ate, but the food went right through me. In my dreams I ran away. In the daytime I pretended. After two and a half years, I began to wake up. I believed in God still. I cried to him every day. I was thousands of miles away from my family. I had no money. I was only nineteen. I didn’t know how to run away with my baby, but that is what I desperately needed to do. I knew it”.

Tami left Tony and the group in January 1996 and shortly thereafter reunited with her husband, Randy.

In 1993 Angela Marie Morales (aka Angel Streit) became a “wife” in Arkansas at age 20. Her mother Suzanne and step-father, Bob Streit, are still with the Alamo group.

In Arkansas in January 1994, Elizabeth Mercado (aka “Lizzy” Gutierrez) became Tony’s “wife”. She had just turned 16 years old. She bore a child to Tony, a girl, Antoinette, in June of 2001. Lizzy and her parents were threatened with expulsion from the group and eternal damnation if they did not comply with Alamo’s demand for her virginity.

In Arkansas in February 1994, Jeanne became another Alamo “wife” at age 15. Her parents were kicked out of the group a few years later.

Tony raped and/or consummated the “marriages” in all of the above relationships. He never got marriage licenses but to his congregation he refers to these women/girls as his wives and he gave them all wedding rings.

In May & June of 1994 – IRS trial in Memphis, Tennessee resulting in Alamo’s conviction and incarceration in Federal prison. Tony lived in Memphis, TN with his “harem” during the trial proceedings. In November of 1994 he was moved to Federal prison in Florence, Colorado. His “harem” moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado at the end of Nov 1994. Right before (and during the time Tony was incarcerated in Colorado) (approx Nov 94 to late 95) the following girls joined his household (and visited him regularly in prison):

Eliza, at 8 yrs old, came to Tony’s wives’ house in Sept 1994 while he was in Memphis jail, under the pretense of being a playmate for Tony’s stepdaughter, Becky Kroopf (Cunneen). Eliza was being “groomed” as a wife and Tony was constantly asking if she had reached puberty yet. She visited him in Colorado prison and was fondled by him and subjected to vile sex talk there. She left Colorado and the Alamo group at the end of 1995 with her family.

Katrina was 11 years old when she was at Alamo’s wives house in Memphis and later in Colorado. She also went there under the pretense of being a playmate for Tony’s stepdaughter, Becky. Alamo told Katrina that she was his “wife”. She visited Alamo in prison in Colorado, was fondled, and subjected to vile sex talk. During this time Tony Alamo would not allow her to go home to her parents. She and her family have been out of the Alamo cult since 1996.

Cindi was married and had two children (and was pregnant) when her husband was kicked out of the group. When he was kicked out Alamo demanded that Cindi come to live with the “harem” in Colorado. She was being groomed as a wife.

“His message to me was if I didn’t become one of the wives, my daughter would die. In my state of mind, (brainwashed) I believed him. I agreed to become one of the wives. Shortly after, I was sent a pass to the prison.”

She visited Tony in prison and was subjected to vile sex talk. (She left the group in 1995.) In Dec 1995 Tony was moved to Federal prison in Texarkana, Arkansas. In July 1998 Alamo was moved to a halfway house in Texarkana. In Dec 1998 he was released from prison.

The following girls joined his household while he was still in prison, in the halfway house, or after his release. The following girls are in no specific order of when they came to his house. According to eye-witnesses the girls are beaten regularly by Alamo and also Alamo makes the girls beat each other.

Amy, 14 years old when she went to Tony Alamo’s house and became a “wife”. She moved into the house with the other “wives” and was wearing a wedding ring given to her by Alamo, while he was still in prison. Many witnesses can verify that Amy has been severely beaten by Alamo on many occasions.

“I saw Amy beaten. She was beaten until she was covered in blood. Her lips, nose, and eyes all swollen to a bloody mess. Her white shirt had blood spattered all over it. Tony had beaten her with his bare hands punched, slapped, and kicked her. She was screaming and crying so bad. I will never forget it. He continued beating her about 20 minutes non-stop from one end of the house all the way to her bedroom and shut the door. After that all I heard were the screams. I could no longer see what was happening.”

Nikki was 13 years old when she first visited Alamo in Texarkana federal prison and subjected to his vile sex talk. After his release she lived in his home in Fouke, Arkansas. She was assaulted by Alamo at age 15 and escaped out of his house in fear of her life. She left the group immediately afterwards. She also witnessed him beating other girls (Amy and Jeanne) and Jordan (Misheal’s son).

In 1999, Pebbles Rodriguez (aka Yvonne Rodriguez) was 12 years old when she went to live with Alamo in Fouke, Arkansas and became Tony’s “wife” shortly thereafter. Witnesses have stated they saw Pebbles going into Alamo’s bedroom and coming out with her sheets. She told witnesses that she was a wife and wore a wedding ring. Sometime after that, Alamo changed her name to Yvonne Rodriguez.

Alys Ondrisek went to Tony Alamo’s house in Fouke, Ark at 11 yrs old. Her brother, Erik, who is out of the group, called Ark Child Protection in 2000. Her parents, Richard and Debbie Ondrisek are still in the group and feel privileged that there daughter is married to the World Pastor.

D. K. (born spring of 1991) was 8 years old when she went to live in Tony’s house in Fouke, Arkansas in the spring of 1999, and shortly thereafter became his “wife”. D.K.’s aunt, Misheal Jones Williams, is also an Alamo wife. D.K.’s parents are John and Jennifer K.. Jennifer solicits charitable contributions for Arm Full of Help.

Jamie (born approx ‘89) was approximately 11 years old when Alamo claimed her as a new bride. She has lived in Alamo’s house for many years. Her mother stated in 2006 on factnet.org that Jamie no longer lives with Alamo and is home with her. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

THREATS AND INTIMIDATION

Anyone who attempts to expose the atrocious crimes that Tony Alamo is committing against children gets a heavy dose of threats and character assassinations from Alamo and his devoted followers. On several recent Alamo internet/radio broadcasts (found on the Alamo Ministries website), Alamo threatened Nancy Grace and her twins, as well as Dr. Phil. The community of Fouke, Arkansas, where Alamo resides, has been harassed and threatened for years. On a May broadcast of the Dr. Phil Show, a private investigator, Harold Copus, was sent to the Alamo compound and told Dr. Phil this;

[Dr. Phil confers with Harold Copus. “The police have told you that these people are heavily armed and dangerous?” “They certainly are,” he replies. “We have a problem with this group.”]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

RESOURCES

To learn more about Tony Alamo’s exploits from former members or to get more information on cults, in general, log on to www.factnet.org and go to Cult Discussion Board. To read testimonies from people who lived through the abuse go to the Alamo Factnet Discussion Board.

If you do not know for sure if you may be involved in a cult, go to ICSA web site (International Cultic Studies Association) at www.csj.org to get more detailed information and make an informed decision.

If you believe you are a victim of spiritual abuse there is help available to you. Contact Wellspring Retreat at: www.wellspringretreat.org or (740)-698-6277.

Another resource for information and help: Contact Freedom of Mind Center at: www.freedomofmind.com or (617) 628-9918.

If anyone has any information that will lead to the arrest and conviction of Tony Alamo please contact your local law enforcement agency immediately and then send a detailed email to info@asp.arkansas.gov.

LOCATION: FEDERAL BUILDING FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS

SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT
I, Susan Alamo, hereby certify that I have read the above and foregoing deposition given by me in Case No.
CIV 79-2173, filed in The United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, DON WYLIE, ET AL V. TONY ALAMO, ET AL, on this ____ Day of March, 1980, consisting of one hundred, forty-three (143) Pages, and that the facts and matters therein contained are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
SUSAN ALAMO

STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIUPLATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT THE DEPOSITION OF SUSAN ALAMO MAY BE TAKEN BEFORE DOUGLAS AT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED TIME AND PLACE THE PLAINTIFFS FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES.

ALL FORMALITIES WITH REFERENCE TO NOTICE, TAKING, TRANSCRIBING, SIGNING, FORWARDING AND FILING OF SAID DEPOSITION ARE HEREBY WAIVED, BUT THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AT THE READING OR OFFERING THEREOF ON THE GROUNDS OF INCOMPETENCY, IRRELEVANCY AND IMMATERIALITY IS EXPRESSLY RESERVED.

SUSAN ALAMO, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
TESTIFIED, AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. GARNER:
Q. State your name, please, ma’am.
A. Susan Alamo.
Q. Mrs. Alamo, my name is Charlie Garner, and I am the attorney for Don and Kathy Wylie and Richard Hydell. The purpose of this deposition is, as probably Mr. Gean has told you, for the purposes (not legible). That means just what it says, (not legible). It’s not for the purpose of asking you embarrassing questions, although some may be embarrassing both to me or to you, but that’s not the purpose of it. It’s rather to acquire information which I think will be useful in presenqint the plaintiff’s side of the lawsuit. If I ask you any question which you don’t understand, I want you to please ask me to ask it again, or repeat it, or ask the Court Reporter, because certainly if you don’t understand the question, it would be impossible for you to give a proper answer. So, please feel free to confer with Mr. Gean at any time you want to or ask me to repeat the question, or the Court Reporter. So, with that understanding, we will proceed. Incidentally, would you rather me to call you Mrs. Alamo or Mrs. Susan or what had you rather, however?
A. It really doesn’t make any difference.
Q. All right. Thank you. Mrs. Alamo, when were you born?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. Do you–where do you think you were born?
A. Either Fort Smith, or Joplin, Missouri. And I’m not sure which.
Q. Do you recall or do you have any idea as to the year?
A. No. I went–my first year of school with Roy Gean, you could ask Mr. Gean, and I’m sure he would know more about it than I would.
Q. All right. Where is your first memory of being in Fort Smith or Joplin?
A. Fort Smith.
Q. And did you start to school in Fort Smith?
A. Yes. My father died in Van Buren. I was two-and-a-half years old when he died. And I understand that I started to school at DuVal at five.
Q. All righty. What do—
A. But there are no records of my birth, so I don’t know.
Q. How old do you consider yourself?
A. Twenty, going on twenty-one.
Q. Well, when—for purposes of Social Security, how old are you?
A. I don’t have any Social Security, I’m a housewife. Twenty, going on twenty-one.
Q. All right. When did you start to school at DuVal?
A. I was five years old. I don’t know–I don’t know the year. Mr. Gean would know, I–I don’t know. I don’t remember the year. As a matter of fact, we have discussed it and I don’t know. Q. All right. Do—what was your name when you were born, please, ma’am? A. Mr. Garner, I was Susan Fleetwood, you see I am an Indian. I was Susan Fleetwood, from the time I was 15 years old, until I became Susan Alamo. So, you’re asking me about something, Let’s say, from fifty to fifty-five years ago. My name is Susan Alamo.
Q. Do you know the name under which you were born? A. I know what people say, but that would be hearsay, you know, and –
Q. That’s all right. Tell me what people say your name was?
A. Well, Mr. Gean, I don’t see that that has anything whatsoever to do with this case he’s talking about something from fifty to fifty-five years ago.
Q. Well, what were you known as in school?
A. Edith.
Q. Edith, what, please, ma’am?
A. Horn.
Q. Who?
A. Horn.
Q. H-O-R-N?
A. Right.
Q. Mrs. Alamo, what was your father’s name?
A. My father is deceased.
Q. I understand. But what was his name when he was living?

MR. GEAN:
Charles, is that material?

MR. GARNER:
Yes. Sure.

MR. GEAN:
To this particular lawsuit?

MR. GARNER:
Sure. I’d hate to pick a juror that was her father’s best friend.

MR. GEAN:
Well, that’s true. In that light, yes, that’s fine.

A. I don’t think you would do that, Mr. Garner. You see, my father enlisted in the Armed Forces to defend this Nation, and he sailed with the first ten thousand, and fought in Division Number One with General Pershing’s groups, so I was born several years after that, after he came back from the service. My father has been dead since I was two-and-a-half years old, so the probabilities of your finding anyone in the local area that was a friend of my father’s would be–

MR. GARNER:
Q. What name did your father go by?
A. My father’s name was Samuel Edward Horn.
Q. And what was your mother’s maiden name, please?
A. Mr. Gean, what—

MR. GEAN:
If it’s in regard to deciding a jury, that would be all right.
A. McAlister.

MR. GARNER:
Q. What was her given name?
A. Geneva.
Q. And were they both from around here?
A. No. My father was originally from the east, and my mother’s family pioneered the Ozark Mountains.
Q. In what area, please, ma’am?
A. From McAlister, Oklahoma; Gravette, Arkansas;
Benton, Arkansas; the whole Ozark Mountain region, and have intermarried into families for years. I understand that the Lucases also were relatives of my father, that, I’m very vague about. I really don’t know them.
Q. All righty. So, you started to school at DuVal in Fort Smith, Arkansas, do you recall what year?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do they have any records at DuVal?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. How many years did you go to DuVal?
A. One year.
Q. And then—that, I assume, would be the first grade?
A. No. I think they had a pre-school grade at that time.
Q. All right. Where did you start the first year, what we call—
A. DuVal.
Q. —first grade?
A. First grade at, oh, I don’t even know what the name of it would be. My mother purchased some property in the ridge area and there was a small local school near there. Do you know what that school would have been?

MR. GEAN:
If you don’t know, just say I don’t know.
A. I don’t know.

MR. GARNER:
Q. All right. And how many years did you go there, please?
A. I think one.
Q. You think one year there?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then, where did you attend the second grade?
A. Dyer.

MR. GEAN:
Charles, what difference does it make about her going to school, or not going to school, as far as the lawsuit is concerned?

MR. GARNER:
Well, some of her classmates may be on the jury,
Roy.

MR. GEAN:
Well, that’s possible.

MR. GARNER:
Sure it is. My age and your age—

MR. GEAN:
Is that what you’re trying to find out, Charlie, just in regard to—

MR. GARNER:
Yeah. Background material, sure.

MR. GEAN:
—interrogation concerning the prospective jury.

MR. GARNER:
Sure, sure, of course.

MR. GEAN:
Okay. We’ll have jurors from down in that area.

MR. GARNER:
You’re right, we will.
Q. Now, Mrs. Alamo, you went to the second grade at Dyer, you say?
A. Yes, now–I am really vague on it. You are talking about a long time ago. I think I went one year to a little local school, in that ridge area. The school has been torn down, I understand, for years, and I don’t even remember what the name of it was.
Q. Were you living in that area at that time?
A. My grandfather and grandmother and my mother purchased a lot of property up in that area. My dad left quite a lot of money at the time he died and my mother purchased quite a lot of property in that area.. And my grandfather and my grandmother maintained that farm, and we went to school there, I–I am not sure; I think it was one season. I had a teacher, Hazel Inman.
Q. All right. And then where did you go to the second year to school?
A. It must have been Dyer.
Q. And the third?
A. Dyer.
Q. What school do you recall going to or attending after Dyer?
A. None, night classes.
Q. Well, I’m talking about as a–as a juvenile?
A. None.
Q. How far did you go to school in Dyer?
A. That was eight grades, I think, seven or eight grades. I don’t even remember that.
Q. Through the eighth grade, you think?
A. I don’t know. I think it was seven or eight grades, and I don’t remember, because most of my education I got years ago in night classes at–

MR. GEAN:
You don’t need to go into that.

MR. GARNER:
Q. No. Where did you go to high school then after you left Dyer?
A. No, I didn’t—I didn’t attend high school.
Q. You did not attend high school. And when you were in Dyer, I assume that you went–you just told me approximately the eighth grade, you would be about what, then—thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years old, something like that?
A. No, I wasn’t that old. I had gone to DuVal, Mrs. Zinneman placed me in the second or third grade during the first year, I don’t remember, and then I made two grades at Dyer somewhere along in there, I don’t remember exactly when. I had tuberculosis when I was nine years old.
Q. And who treated you for that, please, ma’am?
A. Dr. Kennedy.
Q. At where?
A. St. Edwards Hospital.
Q. Were you cured?
A. The Lord cured me.
Q. All righty. How long did you have TB?
A. My father died with tuberculosis. He contacted it from poison gas overseas in Europe.
Q. Well, you had it–you told me you had it when you were nine. And I asked you the question, how long did you have it?
A. Well, I was—I was saved and baptized, for six months, somewhere along that period of time.
Q. And along–this would be when you were nine or ten?
A. I was nine years old.
Q. And you think you were cured when you were nine?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. And did you have any other diseases up until, say, you were fourteen or fifteen years old?

MR. GEAN:
Now Charles, I’m going to object to that. You don’t have to answer that, diseases hadn’t got anything to do with this.

MR. GARNER:
Well, she was the one who brought it up, Roy, I wasn’t trying to—

MR. GEAN:
She was talking out loud, trying to figure out how long she was in school—

MR. GARNER: Okay.

MR, GEAN:
–in Dyer.

MR. GARNER: Okay.
Q. But do you recall finishing–did they have a graduation ceremony, Mrs. Alamo that you recall?
A. No.
Q. Had—do you recall why you did not go to high school?
A. No.
Q. All right. When was the first time you married, please, ma’am?

MR. GEAN:
I object. I am going to object to any activity of Susan Alamo’s until the time the Alamo Foundation was organized. I think it’s not relative under the rules, Charles, and I’m going to instruct you, Mrs. Alamo, not to answer anything, other than basic questions concerning who you are and where you lived in regard to your life, and except since the foundation of the Alamo Foundation, which is one of the party Defendants and which is your activities in the Alamo Foundation is the basis of this lawsuit.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Mrs. Alamo did you–do you have any children?
A. Two.
Q. And what are their names, please, ma’am?
A. Mr. Garner, I have a son, who is a business man. Christian Foundation has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Q. What—what is–just give me his name.
A. He knows his name.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Well–I–we can–it’s a proper question.
A. Charles Brown.

MR. GARNER:
Q. And where is he, please, ma’am?
A. All right. He’s a sales person.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t think that’s material, you don’t need to answer that. If you want to take his deposition, why, Charles, we’ll try to get it for you and your daughter’s name?
A. Susan.
Q. Brown?
A. Mick.

MR. GARNER:
Q. How old is Mr. Brown, your son?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. Do you recall when he was born?
A. Yes. I’m fifteen years older than he is.
Q. But you don’t know how old you are?
A. No.
Q. So, therefore you don’t know when your son Charles was born?
A. No. I don’t.
Q. How about Susan?
A. Susan was born in 1950.
Q. Do you recall the date?
A. August.
Q. Where is she now, please, ma’am?

MR. GEAN:
Now, that’s not material. The location of your daughter has nothing to do with this lawsuit. We’re not going to have her found and brought into this, unless the Court tells us to.

MR. GARNER:
Q. When—when did you divorce—when did you marry Mr. Brown’s father?

MR. GEAN:
That’s not material, hasn’t got anything to do with this lawsuit, whatsoever.

MR. GARNER:
Q. What was Mr. Charles Brown’s father’s name?

MR. GEAN:
Charles, how, all this happened, if you want to go into matters from the time of the Alamo Foundation was organized, that’s fine. But anything prior to that time, we’re going to object to. Now, that was more, much more than ten years ago. I think it was going on eleven–eleven or twelve years ago that the Alamo Foundation was organized.

MR. GARNER.:
Well, Roy, of course, we don’t need to argue. That’s the reason I wanted the Judge here.

MR. GEAN:
Well, he’s not here.

MR. GARNER:
I understand he isn’t.

MR. GEAN:
I was–I was under the impression that he was going to be here, too, Charles.

MR. GARNER:
I wonder if Judge Miller is down there?

MR. GEAN:
I don’t know, I’m sure he isn’t. He hasn’t been back to the office since he–he can hardly walk, he can’t–

MR. GARNER:
I thought he came down some.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t think so, Charles, not in the last month.

MR. GARNER:
In other words, you’re telling me for the purpose of the record that nothing prior to the date that the Susan Alamo—Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation was formed, or incorporated, you’re telling–instructing both of them not to ask–answer?

MR. GEAN:
No. You have asked some questions that have occurred prior to that time, Charles, and we have allowed that, but other matters—you ask them and I’ll object to them individually. Basically, the matters concerning the lives of these people prior to the Alamo Foundation, which is the central theme of this lawsuit. The activities of these people in relation to the Alamo Foundation concerning your clients, that’s the theme of this lawsuit, is not relative under the rules and we’re going to object to them.

MR. GARNER:
Well, for instance, Roy, she told me originally that her–she had two names, Susan Fleetwood and Susan Alamo, I have information that now that her name at one time was Susan Brown, and I also have information that her name—she had another name.

MR. GEAN:
Well, if you want to question her about her activities in the Mulberry area, or in this area, where you are going to have jurors, that’s fine.

MR. GARNER;
Q. Well, okay, that’s what I’m asking you. What was your–Mr. Brown’s name?

MR. GEAN:
Well, these–I think there needs to be some preliminary questioning to that as to whether or not, she–when she left this particular area, and when she came back to this area, Charles.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I tried to find out when Mr. Brown–

MR. GEAN:
You’re not going to get any juror’s from outside of the State of Arkansas that I’m under the impression that all of the things you are now questioning her about occurred outside the State of Arkansas,

MR. GARNER:
Well, I understand that Mr. Brown’s father still lives in Alma. Now, that’s my information and I can’t find it out unless I ask her, Roy.

MR. GEAN:
Well—If—
A. I was a fourteen-year-old girl. I do not know whether that man is dead or living. I have not seen him since I was fourteen years old.

MR. GARNER:
Q. What was his name?

MR. GEAN:
Did she give you the name of Mr. Brown?

MR. GARNER:
No. She gave me the son’s name.
A. Well, I’m not going to answer that because Mr. Gean has told me not to and I don’t see that it has any bearing, whatsoever.

MR. GEAN:
Q. How long has he been gone? How long have you— when’s the last time you saw him?
A. I was fourteen years old.
Q. So, that was more than fifteen or twenty years ago?
A. I would say so, yes.

MR. GARNER:
Well, Roy, my information is that he still lives in Alma. Now, I don’t know whether he does or not.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Do you know where he lives in Alma?
A. No, I don’t.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I —
A. Nor have I seen him.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t even know who he is.
A. I would not recognize the man if I met him on the street.

MR. GARNER:
Okay. Are you instructing her not to answer?

MR. GEAN:
She says she doesn’t know where he lives.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I’ve asked for his name.

MR. GEAN:
Q. What was his name, when you were fourteen years old, as best–
A. You told me not to answer.
Q. Well, go ahead and answer that.
A. Tom Brown.

MR. GARNER:
That’s the information I have, and my information, again, Roy, is that he lives in Alma,

MR. GEAN:
Well, he might do that.

MR. GARNER:
I don’t know.

MR. GEAN:
She said she didn’t know.

MR. GARNER:
Q. All right. That, I take it, was your first marriage to Mr. Tom Brown?

MR, GEAN:
Now, Charles, we’re not going into the marriage of this person–this woman, unless the Court instructs us to do so, unless you want to ask her if she had any other husbands that lived here in the State of Arkansas with her. I would be willing to let her answer that question.

MR. GARNER:
Well, if you could prove to me that they didn’t have any relatives, Roy, or they weren’t know, or–

MR. GEAN:
Q. Did you have — were you married to anyone that has lived in the State of Arkansas, other than Tom Brown and Tony Alamo?
A. Never.
Q. Do they have any relatives here?
A. None.
Q. Do you know of any relatives of Tom Brown that lives in the State of Arkansas?
A. Oh, I don’t–I would imagine there would be several of them.
Q. But do you know who they are and where they would be located? A. Not at all. I know one sister that lives in Fort Smith.
Q. Of Tom Brown? Is that the only relative you would know–
A. Yes, I don’t—

MR. GARNER:
Q. What’s her name, please, ma’am?
A. Isaacs.
Q. First name?
A. Pauline.

MR. GARNER:
When did Judge Williams say he’d get back?

MR. GEAN:
He’ll be back here the twenty-he finishes in Harrison on the 28th day of April and will be back here sometime in May.

MR. GARNER:
The what day of May?

MR. GEAN:
Sometime in May,

MR. GARNER:
Where will he be going?

MR. GEAN:
He’ll be in Harrison, Arkansas.

MR. GARNER:
All that time?

MR. GEAN:
That’s what I was told. He will finish in Harrison, Arkansas, on about April the 28th and will return to Fort Smith, sometime in May. Today he is in Omaha, Nebraska, at some sort of a Chief Judge’s meeting.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Do you recall your first place of employment, Mrs. Alamo?

MR. GEAN:
Now, Charles, if it was in the State of Arkansas, tine, of course, people that were employed with her now are entitled to know, if it was in the State of Arkansas and they were prospective jurors.
Q. Was that in the State of Arkansas?
A. No.
Q. We are going to object to that.

MR. GARNER:
Well, Roy—

MR. GEAN:
Unless you can show some relationship.

MR. GARNER:
Well, Roy, you understand that part of this course of action took place in California, as you well know, Roy, I hope you know that.

MR. GEAN:
Well, anything after the Foundation Organization, fine.
We’re willing to go into that.

MR. GARNER:
All right.

MR. GEAN:
But you’ve asked about her first place of employment.

MR. GARNER:
Well, is there some reason I shouldn’t know, I mean—

MR. GEAN:
Well, I just don’t think its relative. And I don’t want to go into matters that aren’t relative, I don’t think that it’s proper, that’s the reason that the laws say that matters not relative are not to be presented.

MR. GARNER:
The law says either relative or might be relative, Roy, the way the law says.

MR. GEAN:
Well, we’ll submit it to Judge Williams.

MR. GARNER:
Well, we’ll have to.

MR. GEAN:
Yeah.

MR. GARNER:
Or some federal Judge.

MR. GEAN:
All right.

MR. GARNER:
Because there is no need of me continuing to continue to ask questions and get answers such as I’ve had.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I have told you that we are willing to answer questions that have to do with this lawsuit.

MR. GARNER:
From 1969, forward?

MR. GEAN:
No. We are willing to answer others that have to do with this lawsuit, about some relative—

MR. GARNER:
Of course. Who is to decide whether or not it’s–

MR. GEAN:
Well, I’ll have to decide now and, then, there’s a federal Judge that will decide if you want to present it to him.

MR, GARNER:
Okay. Okay.
Q. You stated that your name was Mrs. Fleetwood, Susan Fleetwood?
A. I said I worked under the name.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t think she said Mrs. Fleetwood.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Oh, I’m sorry. Susan Fleetwood.
A. Right.
Q. All right. How did you acquire the name Susan Fleetwood?
A. I am a relative of the Fleetwood.
Q. Who–
A. My great-grandmother was a Fleetwood.
Q. All right. From over here around Roland—
A. Yes.
Q. Muldrow, that area?
A. Red Cloud.
Q. Was Rex Fleetwood one of your relatives?
A. Yes.
Q. You were never married; I take it, to a Fleetwood, then?
A. No. I was never married to a Fleetwood.
Q. And how long did you go by the name of Susan Fleetwood? A. Many years.
Q. During what span of time, please, ma’am?
A. Many years. From the time I was fifteen until Tony and I were married. I used the name Fleetwood professionally.
Q. Was that the only name you used from the time you were fifteen, until the time you and Mr. Alamo were married?
A. No.
Q. What other name did you go by?

MR. GEAN:
Charles, does that matter?

MR. GARNER:
Well, Roy, it could.

MR. GEAN:
Tell me why it’s relative.

MR. GARNER:
Well, how can I find out about her unless I know what name she went under?
A. Well, I ‘didn’t know you were supposed to be finding out about me.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Charles, if it’s not a name, did you use any other names in the State of Arkansas, other than the ones you’ve already given?
A. No.
Q. You’ve professionally been involved in other activities in other states?
A. Yes.

MR. GARNER:
Of course I want to know what that professional activity is, Roy. I understand she was a singer, or a dancer. I don’t know that it’s true, but I’m entitled to find out.

MR. GEAN:
I think you can find out her occupation, that’ll be all right. I won’t make any objection to that.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I—that’s all I’m trying to find out.

MR. GEAN:
Well, you’re asking about different names that she might have used.

MR. GARNER:
Well, how can I find out what her occupation is, where she worked and so forth, unless I do?

MR. GEAN:
I’ll let you ask her about her names and where she worked.

MR. GARNER:
All right.
Q. What–I think my last question to you, Mrs. Alamo, was that, did you use any other names between the time you were fifteen and the time you married Mr. Alamo and you told me yes. Now, I’m asking you what those other names were.
A. I don’t remember.
Q. All right. What profession were you in when you were using the name Susan Fleetwood?
A. You’re talking about something a long time ago, that involved an awful lot of different things, I don’t remember.
Q. Well, I–you’ve just heard me say, I had understood from someone, and I don’t know who it was, that you were a singer and a dancer under the name Fleetwood.
Is my information correct?

MR. GEAN:
Is that before the Alamo Foundation was organized, Charles?

MR. GARNER:
I don’t-really know.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I don’t see that that’s material until– unless it’s after the Alamo Foundation was organized.

MR. GARNER:
Q. All right. Did you give me the names other than Fleetwood?
A. I told you I don’t remember,
Q. Were you married to any one other than–

MR. GEAN:
Now, Charles, we’re going to object to that unless you ask it in such a way that it has to do with since the Alamo Foundation has been opened.

MR. GARNER:
Mrs. Alamo–Roy, for the purposes of the record, I’m going to do what you suggested here, it seems that we are not getting anywhere and the Court Reporter is charging us by the word here, and there’s no need of me going in and having you keep interjecting and say you are not going to answer and have her confer with you. So, I’ll try to get along as best I can from 1969 on, I suppose.
Q. When was the Susan Alamo—Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation formed, Mrs. Alamo?
A. We were in operation for three years before, or maybe four, before we applied for—three years before we applied.

MR. GEAN:
A charter?

SUSAN ALAMO TO TONY ALAMO
A. I don’t remember, honey. I don’t remember.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, ask him, ma’am, if you’d like.

MR. GEAN:
She said three or four years, is that right?

TONY ALAMO
A. Yeah.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I thought he mentioned five.
A. Well, it could very possibly be.

MR. GARNER:
Q. I make no objection, I just want to know.
A. I didn’t make a statement, I asked a question. He is possibly right.
Q. Well, it would be several years, at least.
A. Yes.
Q. And where was this operation you mentioned, please, ma’am?
A. Hollywood,
Q. What year do you–could you best estimate that this foundation or operation, I believe you called it, was formed?
A. The charter or the operation?
Q. No, ma ‘am, the operation.
A. Oh, about fourteen years, no, thirteen–fourteen.
Q. That would be putting it–fourteen years would put it in ‘66?
A. Well, you see, I’m not positive about those I’m saying it would be in that frame of time, some- where.
Q. All righty. I understand. I have trouble thinking, about what happened in ‘66 myself, Mrs. Alamo, that’s not unusual.
A. Yes, I know.
Q. But if you can refer to it as some two or three, four or five years prior to the time that the articles were actually filed, then it would be within that time or frame work.
A. In that frame work.
Q. What did the operation consist of prior to the actual filing of the articles?
A. It consisted of going out into the streets and walking up to drug addicts and hippies, and saying, why are you destroying your mind, your soul and your body, don’t you realize that this is the reason why Jesus died, that you can have life and have it more abundantly? And pointing out the alternatives of the type of life that they were living, that the inevitables were a mental institution, a prison ward, or a marble slab; where, on the other side, there was eternal life through Jesus Christ; and asking them i£ they would like to exchange the lives they were living for One that was-life, and life more abundantly, and we found that they were like sponges, they were ready to make that decision.
Q. How many of you were there in this operation at that time, Mrs. Alamo?
A. Tony and I.
Q. Just the two of you. When did you and Mr. Alamo meet, please, ma’am?
A. About, well–this was before the…the–

MR. GEAN:
Q. Foundation?
A. The Foundation, yes.
Q. Than how much before?
A. Tony and I have known each other for years around Hollywood. We knew all the same people.
Q. When were you married?
A. Tony’s father was a choreographer.
Q. When—he’s not asking you all that, when were
you all, married?
A. ‘66.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Where, please, ma’am?
A. Three times.
Q. All right. Where was the first one, please, ma’am?
A. Mexico.
Q. Where in Mexico?
A. Some small town in Mexico. We wanted a church wedding. We went to Las Vegas and we worked for six months to have a church wedding, we were married in a Baptist Church in Las Vegas.
Q. All right. And where was the third time, please, ma’am?
A. The third–the first time was–as a matter of fact, Tony bought two marriage licenses in one day.
Q. Where, please, ma ‘am?
A. In Las Vegas, because I didn’t feel that we were married with the Mexican divorce and marriage, so I wouldn’t sleep with him. He purchased two marriage licenses in one day. We were married first by a Justice of the Peace and we were married that evening in a big Baptist Church. You’ll find both those licenses there.

MR. GEAN:
In Las Vegas?
A. Right.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Do you recall the date that this occurred?
A. Yes. It was August the 20th.
Q. Of 1966?
A. Right.
Q. And what name did–under what name did you appear on the marriage licenses? A. Do I nave to answer that question?

MR. GEAN:
Yes. That’s all right.
A. Susan Lipowitz.
Q. Susan Lipowitz?
A. Right.
Q. Now, how do you spell Lipowitz, please, ma’am?
A. You spell it with a “P”, Hebrew, pronounced with a “B”.
Q. Well, that don’t tell me much.
A. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

MR. GEAN:
Spell the last name for him.
A. No. Let him—I’m not going to do his homework for him.

MR. GEAN:
Well, he has the right to ask that. What’s the —L-E–
A. You don’t know how to spell Lipowitz?

MR. GARNER:
Q. I go L-I-E-B-O-W-I-T-Z.
A. I only finished the eighth grade.
Q. Yes, ma’am.
A. You’re an attorney.
Q. Yes, ma’am. Did I spell it correctly?
A. L-I-P-O-W-I-T-Z.
Q. I-P-Z?
A. “T” as in Tom.
Q. All right. And what was the occasion for that name?

MR. GEAN:
Is that material?
A. No.

MR. GEAN:
Is it, Charles?

MR. GARNER:
I really don’t know, Roy, yet. .

MR. GEAN:
Well, this is even before the Foundation. Now, let’s go back to when—

MR. GARNER:
No. I understood that the Foundation was formed before she and Mr. Alamo were married.

MR. GEAN:
I think it was in “66. She’s talking about they were married.

MR. GARNER:
Yeah, I know.

MR. GEAN:
That’s when they started their organization.
A. Well, he’s talking about a person that I really had very, very little dealings with, had hardly seen him for a period of time.

MR. GEAN:
That’s not necessary for you to go into that. You’re former- -you were married– don’t know how many times you were married, I don’t think it is material and we’re going to object to it.

MR. GARNER:
You’re not going to allow her to answer to the name of Lipowitz?

MR. GEAN:
I don’t think its material. That’s the name that’s on the marriage license.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. And are the marriage licenses, please, ma’am, recorded in Las Vegas?
A. Oh, yes, sir, both of them.
Q. Do you recall where in Mexico?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you recall when?
A. It was in ‘65.
Q. Do you recall what town?
A. Yeah. It was a small town out of–oh–what is the–right out of San Diego, in one of the small towns there.
Q. Tijuana?
A. In that vicinity.
Q. Do you recall it as being Tijuana?
A. No. It wasn’t Tijuana.
Q. It was not?
A. No. It was one of the small towns around there.
Q. Well, as I recall, is Tijuana the first town you come to after you leave?
A. I think so. I’m not sure about that. I’ve never cared about any part below the border and—

MR. GEAN:
If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.
A. —I could not truthfully tell you and there’s no use in me even attempting, because I felt that it was a complete farce, to begin with, and that it had no actual meaning whatsoever.

MR. GARNER:
Q. All righty. After you all were married in Las Vegas, I understood you to say that you all had worked there six months, what were you doing there, what was your occupation there?
A. We were employed.
Q. Where please, ma’am?

MR. GEAN:
What difference does that make, Charles? Well, you organized the foundation—

MR. GARNER:
You’d organized the foundation when she and Mr. Alamo were married they—

MR. ALAMO:
A, January of “69.

MR. GEAN:
Q. That’s when you organized it?
A. Yeah.
Q. Chartered, but you all were actually involved in the operation before then?
A. We were soul winning, yeah. We were soul winning.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Where were you employed in Las Vegas, you and Mr.—
A. Well, I don’t see and I hope that my attorney doesn’t see.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I don’t see that it’s material, Charles.

MR. GARNER:
Well, now, I understood that they were operating the Foundation, at this time.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Were you?
A. No.

MR. ALAMO:
A. We were just witnessing.

MR. GEAN:
Okay.
A. No. We were evangelizing, as a matter of fact; we were the speakers for the Full Gospel Christian Business Mens. We were speakers for the CBMC, the largest Southern Baptist Organizations, for various mission works and operations. But, no, the Foundation had not been–the charter of the Foundation had not been established until ‘69.

MR. GARNER:
Q. I understand. But you told me that you and Mr. Alamo were operating in behalf of the Lord some two, three or four, or five years prior to that time.
A. I’ve been doing that for a long time.
Q. All righty. But you and Mr. Alamo were together?
A. Right,
Q. For that length of time.
A. Right. We were–
Q. And you were–
A. Witnessing everywhere.
Q. Witnessing and so forth?
A. Holding evangelistic meetings.
Q. Yes.
A. And–
Q. Now, I am asking you where you were employed at the time you and Mr.—

MR. GEAN:
She said, Charles that she was—they were involved in evangelism, going from meetings to meetings.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Oh, you weren’t employed then, I take it?

MR. GEAN:
That was their employment.
A. We were in evangelism, we were going from meetings to meetings, we were employed.
Q. By whom?
A. Self-employed.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Is that an evangelistic endeavor?
A. No, no, no, Tony had management of an operation, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything about us today, whatsoever.
Q. Was he involved in the Foundation?
A. No way. No way.

MR. GEAN:
Okay. Well–

MR. GARNER;
Q. What kind of operation?

MR. GEAN:
Now, Charles, we are not going to go into anything that these people did before the Foundation was organized and they were involved in it.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I mean, she said he was managing some operation, I’m just wondering if it–
A. Well, it wasn’t a gambling casino.

MR. GEAN:
Q. You don’t have to go into it, it’s not material. Did it have anything to do with the Foundation?
A. Nothing.
Q. Or leading up the Foundation?
A. Nothing whatsoever.

MR. GEAN:
We are going to object to it, Charles.

MR. GARNER:
Q. How did you come to the form, then–

MR. GARNER:
With that understanding, Roy, I’m going to–I guess you want me to get to ‘69. You don’t want me to–

MR. GEAN:
If they were involved in the organization of the Foundation before it was actually incorporated, I think you can go into that.

MR. GARNER:
They told me that they did it two, three, four, or five years prior to the date the association was formed.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I don’t know—what she means was, I don’t think that she means that they were actually involved in–
A. I said that we were evangelists.
Q. –the Foundation, they were witnessing and doing things of that nature. Whether that was a foundation, I really don’t know. But they were witnessing before that.

MR. GARNER:
Well, what’s the difference in witnessing before the Foundation was formed and witnessing afterwards?

MR. GEAN:
Well, one was on behalf of the Foundation, through the vehicle of the foundation, and the other was just personal appearances and things of that nature.
A. That’s right. Just personal evangelism.

MR.GEAN:
I guess. The way it appears to me from what she has said.

MR. GARNER:
Well, are you still going to keep me from asking questions from ‘66, say, from the time they got married, up until– want to know where they lived, what they did, where they got their money, how they got it, and everything about them.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I don’t think that’s material, unless they had some connection with your clients, Wylie–the Wylie’s and Hydell’s.

MR. GARNER:
Well, obviously, they did.

MR. GEAN:
At that time, in ‘66? I don’t know, it hasn’t been asked yet, I never asked them that.

MR. GARNER:
All right. I’ll—
Q. Which one of the three of the Plaintiff’s that I represent, Mrs. Alamo; Don Wylie, Kathy Wylie, or Richard Hydell, did you meet first?
A. Kathy.
Q. And where did you meet her and when?
A. It was in ‘66.
Q. Where did you meet her?
A. A boy picked her up off the street.
Q. What boy?
A. Just a boy–a Christian boy around Hollywood, I don’t even remember what his name was. She was sleeping in ladies’ restrooms and she said she hadn’t had any food for a couple of weeks.
Q. How old was she at the time?
A. Mr. Garner, I don’t know.
Q. Was she on dope, was she a dope addict or user?
A. Oh, they were all messing with drugs, whether she was–you know, whether she could have been considered a user or not, I don’t know. She–the typical hippie type with the toothbrush in her pocket and sleeping in restrooms, without a change of clothes, whether–you know, I—
Q. She had no job then, I take it?
A. No.
Q. And at that time, were you and Mr. Alamo married?
A. No.
Q. You were not married at that time?
A. No.
Q. Where were you living at that time?
A. I had quite a large…very ultra modern apartment in Hollywood. And I took her in, I felt sorry for her.
Q. Do you recall the address of this—
A. No, I don’t.
Q. —apartment in Hollywood?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall where Mr. Alamo was living at the time?.
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Well, you knew each other?
A. Tony and I have known each other for years around Hollywood and Beverly Hills.
Q. Well, you were dating. I guess that’s a good way to put it at this time, weren’t you?
A. Yeah. But we had known each other long even before that. We knew the same people. The Hollywood area is like Alma, you know, to the people that really live there, it’s like a small town, everybody knows everybody.
Q. Well, was Mr.Alamo living in Hollywood at the time?
A. Oh, yes.

MR. GEAN:
At the time Chat she met Kathy?

MR. GARNER:
Yes.
A. No, I don’t think so. I think he lived in San Francisco at that time.
Q. All righty. So, you took in Kathy in 1966, do you recall the boy’s name that picked her up off the street?
A. I couldn’t tell you if my life depended upon it. It was just one of the hippie boys, that had become a Christian, and it was during the Christmas Holidays, and he found this girl wondering down Hollywood Boulevard, that hadn’t eaten for two weeks, and she was crying, and they were putting up the Christmas trees on Hollywood Boulevard and she told us later that she had kept crying out in her heart, and saying, I believe that there must be a God, if there is, help me. And the boy saw her and saw her crying and he went to her and he said they were holding some evangelistic services up here, why don’t you come with me? And he brought her, and that was the first time I ever saw Kathy.
Q. Were you one that was holding the evangelistic services?
A. Yes.
Q. Where, please, ma’am?
A. It was Wilcox—I couldn’t tell you the address, if I had to.
Q. Was it in a tent or a building–
A. No.
Q. Or a—
A. It was in a building.
Q. Or a theater?
A. A building, building. We were just going out into the streets. I had been doing that for years, that wasn’t anything new for me, I had been doing that for years. And she didn’t have anyplace to go. I fixed food for her, I fed her, Mr.Garner, I adored the girl.

MR. GEAN;
You’re volunteering a lot of information; just try to answer his questions so we won’t elongate this thing. I must ask you to get right to the point on his questions. If he wants to know about it, he can ask.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Was the building on Wilcox under rent?
A. Yes.
Q. You were renting it?
A, Uh-huh (yes).
Q. As an evangelistic hall?
A, No. No. It was–they were modern apartments at that time. It’s a sort of a rundown area now, but they were very modern apartments with pools at that time. No, it was an apartment.
Q. You mean the Wilcox Building, where you were — is preaching a fair statement, Mrs. Alamo?
A. I wasn’t preaching there, Mr. Garner. We were witnessing.
Q. Okay. Witnessing then. Were–
A. I had evangelistic services all over the country. I was speaking at–again I’ll go back and tell you again, CBNC and Full Gospel Christian Business Mens, churches, large evangelistic groups, even missions, on the lower east side of Los Angeles.
Q. Well, this ministering, that you were talking about, when you first brought Mrs. Wylie, was on Wilcox street and it was in your apartment, I take it?
A. Yes.
Q. How many were there at that time that you were ministering to?
A. Let me tell you. I picked up about ten of those urchins, and I had all ten of them.
Q. All righty, and were they all living in the apartment on Wilcox?
A. No, but I fed them there. Kathy, I kept there.
Q. Did you know her as Kathy at that time?
A. No.
Q. What did you know her as at that time?
A. Phyllis Gromoski.
Q. All righty. And Phyllis Gromoski and Kathy, as we are talking here, are one and the same person, correct?
A. Well, from what she says.
Q. Pardon me?
A. From what she says.
Q. Well, I mean we’ve been talking about Kathy all the time and you just told me that you knew her as Phyllis Gromoski?
A. Yes.
Q. So, it must be the same person, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you kept her there, does that mean that she made her home with you?
A. No. I kept her there for about, oh, I would say about a week, and the police came up and arrested her and they took her to jail.
Q. And what did they arrest her for, do you recall?
A. She had—she had been hanging around…she had been hanging around a place in Hollywood that they sold liquor. And–
Q. Was she–how old was Ms. Kathy at this time?
A. Well, I would presume that she was a minor, because she was arrested as a minor.
Q. All righty. And she was taken to jail. How long did she stay in the jail?
A. Oh, Mr. Garner, I don’t know. I would say—

MR. GEAN:
Don’t guess, if you don’t know.
A. I would say a month. I got attorneys and everything to try to get her out of it, to try to get her out of there.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, did you ultimately bail her out or did the attorneys bail her out, or—
A. The attorneys. They eventually got it reduced. They reduced the charge, and I think it was finally reduced to just a minor being in a –
Q. Bar or something?
A. I would say. See, I—I hate to answer anything that I’m not that positive about, but I know that the charges were reduced and I brought her back to the apartment.
Q. Well, it’s perfectly all right, Mrs. Alamo, for you to say I think this is what happened, or–
A. Well, I do think.
Q. And I think she was a minor at the time, and I think that–
A. I’m not–

MR. GEAN:
But you’re under oath, swearing to these things, too, Mrs. Alamo and if you don’t know, say you don’t know.
A. Well, I’m saying that I don’t know. I’m being very vague because I am, and, now, she could have been in jail for two weeks, she could have been there for a month, she could have been there for sixty days, I am not sure but I know that there was a reduction on the original charge and that we were able to get her out of there and I took her back to the apartment.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Was she fined or was she sentenced, or do you recall?
A. I couldn’t tell you that, if I had to. I just don’t remember, I don’t remember.
Q. All right. So, you got her out and brought her back to the apartment and then what happened?
A. Oh, she hung around there for a couple of weeks and she met a fellow and–
Q. What happened?
A. She went to live with him.
Q. Who was the fellow she met?
A. A man by the name of Eddie Seay.
Q. Eddie Seay?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. And do you recall where they were living, where they went to live together, Mrs. Alamo?
A. Tony and I were gone. Tony and I went away and we were gone for–from around that vicinity there. I would say maybe six months. We were walking up Hollywood Boulevard one day and we met Kathy, it was pouring down rain, she hardly had on enough clothes to keep her from freezing to death and said she was hungry, she said that this boy, this man that she was living, with, had broken this leg and that she only had enough money to get a sandwich for him. We took her across the street to Howard’s-it’s a Howard Johnson’s now, but I don’t think it was a Howard Johnson’s at that time.

MR. ALAMO:
Hody’s

A. Hody’s, that’s right.
Q. Hody’s?
A. Hody’s.
Q. How do you spell that now?
A. H-O-D-Y-S.
Q. H-O-D-Y-S. All right, go ahead.
A. And we fed her. And while we were feeding her, I talked to her. And she said that she had had a little job as a waitress, but that something had happened, that she had lost her job and that she had worked a very, very short time. Something had happened and she had lost her job. But their rent was due, that Eddie had broken his leg and I said, Well, Kathy, you know it’s obviously that, you know, you’re not doing any good the way you’re going and just, you know, there can’t be any good come from it. You’re living in adultery, there isn’t any–you have no–obviously, there is no advantage to this arrangement to you, whatsoever, and it’s destructive. We drove her back to the apartment, it was raining.
Q. Still on Wilcox now?
A. No. No. They were living over in a building across off Hollywood Boulevard and more towards the Santa Monica–more towards Santa Monica, in that vicinity. Her sister, Mary, a married man by the name of Buddy Wayne, the father of six children that had hung around Hollywood. Kathy and Eddie were living together. There was no furniture in the house. There was no gas, there was no lights, there was no water. I begged Kathy to come with me and she did.
Q. Well, when you say begged her to come with me, you mean come with us, would that be more proper?
A. Right. Right.
Q. And where were you and Mr. Alamo living at that time?
A. Malibu.
Q. And did she move with you or come with you?
A. Mr. Garner, I used the word, me, because Tony was never fond of Kathy.
Q. All right. I wasn’t trying to—you had just simply said that you and Mr, Alamo were together, we met her, the rain, and she was cold, and that you all took her somewhere and fed her–
A. I also begged Tony to let me take her home with me.
Q. Okay. Fine. And he did, I take it?
A. Well, he did and he didn’t.
Q. All right.
A. You know.
Q. But at any rate, you exercised a woman’s prerogative and–
A. Right. And–
Q. —and took her?
A. And I took her.
Q. All righty. And at that time you were living in
Malibu?
A. Yes. This must have been, really some two years later, actually. It would have to have been about two years later from the time I had seen Kathy, from the time I had got her out of jail. It must—it would be in that frame of time, from–I would say close to two years.
Q. All righty. It would be approximately ‘68, then?
A. Yeah. Yeah. It would have been in ‘68, during the first part of ‘69, somewhere along in there.
Q. So, you took her to your apartment, or did you have a home in Malibu?
A. Home.
Q. Home in Malibu. Did you own the home?
A. Yes.
Q. You–I take it, it was in both yours and Mr. Alamo’s names?
A. Yes.
Q. Joint tenants, or—
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. Husband and wife, so forth. And did Kathy move in with you at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did she stay living in with you?
A. Well, Tony and I were so caught up in our soul winning and our evangelism and we were using our money to feed the hippies, and we lost our house. We lost that house.
Q. You mean lost it, by what method, please?
A. Well, we really didn’t really care about keeping it, to be very truthful with you, because it was in the Malibu area and our work was in the Hollywood—Beverly Hills area, and we were spending most of our time over there. And, Mr. Garner, we would pick those kids up, they didn’t have shoes on their feet, most of them.

MR. GEAN:
Now, you’re volunteering most of it. He’s not asking you that, answer his questions as briefly as possible, if he needs some information
A. But we spent—we fed them, we fed them and we clothed them and it seemed that if we got ten, the next thing we knew we had twenty. You know, the young people at the Foundation never worked for five or six years, after—even after the charter, we wouldn’t let them,

MR. GARNER:
Q. Did Kathy continue at her work as a waitress?
A. No. Kathy got a little job at a pie house.
Q. A pie house?
A. Yeah. In Santa Monica. But that was a very, very short time. And after that, she got a little job in a tiny little restaurant in downtown Los Angeles, I think about ten seats or something like that. That, too, didn’t last very long, that was a very short period of time, both of them, very, very short period of time.
Q. Where was her next job at. Were you supporting her all this time?
A. That was her last job.
Q. The pie house and the restaurant, whichever one she lost first was the–
A. That’s right. That was her last job,
Q. By that, I take it to mean the last gainful employment she had?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she–what is your word, Mrs. Alamo, for becoming a Christian? Accept the Lord, or what is your terminology for that?
A. To be born again.
Q. To be born again? All right, was Kathy born again?
A. Mr. Garner, I thought she was.
Q. When?
A. I thought she was. Can I explain the reason why—

MR. GEAN:
Don’t explain anything, just-

MR.GARNER:
I have no objection, Roy.

MR. GEAN:
Well—

MR. GARNER:
If it would suit Mrs. Alamo better, let her explain it. I’m not trying to tell her—

MR. GEAN:
You’re paying for all this, Charles, for her thoughts.

MR.GARNER:
That’ll be all right. She’s got an idea in her mind about what she wants to say.
A. Well, I want to be truthful with you. I don’t want to just simply answer questions that I don’t know what I’m saying—

MR. GEAN:
Q. Well, you said you thought she was. That’s about, she was—
A. I thought she was. I–Kathy, when she first came, told her story of how she came from a family of fifteen kids. The mother and father were both alcoholics, that the father had raped the little girls from the time they were infants.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Including Kathy?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. All right.
A. That if they told the mother, the mother was an alcoholic, she would take their hands and put it over the fire and accuse them of lying about their father. That they were—well, that actually, two or three of those children were supposed to have been killed, buried in the back yard, the mother and father going to jails and they put them into orphanages, and so on and so forth. The reason I am telling you this, Mr. Garner, I always made every excuse in the world for Kathy. I fought Kathy’s battles all these years, because every time anyone went after Kathy, now, she would say that they would get out of the jails or wherever they were incarcerated, and that the only food they would have would be cases of vegetables, without any labels on the cans, and they would eat cold in the morning, and maybe two cans of beans, a can of peas, two cans of tomatoes, whatever. This broke my heart, you know, I mean the thoughts of little kids being thrown into an old car, dragged by drunks, back and forth across the country. Everything that Kathy became involved in, I always found an excuse for Kathy. When every body else was after Kathy, I always said, Look at the way she was raised. She never had a chance.
Q. Well, do you think that she was born again during the first visit with you?
A. Yes, I do.

MR. GEAN:
Just what visit are you talking about, Charles?

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well–
A. The first time she came.

MR. GARNER:
The first time when she told us she met her during the Christmas Holidays in 1966—
A. Yes, I do.

MR. GARNER:
When they were putting up Christmas trees, Roy.
A. Yes, I do.

MR. GEAN:
Okay.

MR. GARNER:
Q. All right. How long did she stay with you that time?
A. Very-it was a very short time, until they arrested her. They arrested her and–
Q. And which she–and when she got out, were you still in town at that time?
A. Oh, yes. She came back. I took her back to the apartment, yes.
Q. But then, I understood that you had been gone for six months, you and Mr. Alamo?
A. No. You didn’t understand that. That was after that.
Q. Oh. We’re still talking about when you took her–I thought that you told me that you–you all had been gone for a long time and then you came back and you found her walking down the street in the rain?
A. No. You didn’t understand that way, Mr. Garner. I explained to you that you–

MR. GEAN:
He might have understood it that way. Try to straighten it out.
A. –to the apartment and that she hung around there for awhile. And that was when she met Eddie Seay. That was what I said. Then I said the next encounter, I had with her, was possibly from a year and a half to two years later. I met her on the street.

MR. GEAN:
I think you did say six months to begin with but I think you changed it to a year and a half to two years.
A. Roy, it could have been from six months to two years.

MR. GEAN:
Okay.
A. When I thought about the time of the house, I thought wait a minute, it would have to be a two- year time–

MR. GEAN:
Two years?
A. –period in there.

MR. GEAN:
That’s—that’s the confusion.

MR. GARNER:
Well, the first time you met her, you told me that you weren’t married. And the second time, you told me that when you were walking in the rain, you and Mr. Alamo were married—
A. Yes.
Q. — at that time.
A. And living in Malibu.
Q. Yes. And you took her home with you that time?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. That was the second time you had met her, the second encounter with her, so to speak?
A. If you’re not including the time that she got out of jail and came back.
Q. Well, yes.
A. This would have been the third time.
Q. Yeah. Okay. So—
A. Come on. I’m tired, you know, I’ll answer anything, if it’s reasonable.
Q. Then you–she got her job in the pie house and the restaurant and she lost the job and, then, did she live with you and Mr. Alamo permanently, from then on out?
A. No.
Q. Where did she live after that?
A. We had one quite large place on Carlos Avenue and we had another one on Crescent Heights.
Q. Well, is Carlos Avenue, what kind of a place was it?
A. It was a large house, there were a bunch of hippie kids living there.
Q. All right.
A. And then Crescent Heights, the same thing.
Q. Did you–did you own the house on—
A. No. We didn’t. ,
Q. You were renting it or leasing it?
A. Leasing it.
Q. And how long did you least that house?
A. Oh, I don’t remember. I don’t remember. Let’s say about three years, three or four years, between Carlos Avenue and Crescent Heights. I don’t remember.
Q. What was the purpose of the Carlos Avenue house, that was to furnish a home for the wayward, or–
A. Oh, yeah. Sure. That’s what they were both of them. Yeah.
Q. Did you furnish a home, Mrs. Alamo, and keep–I don’t know whether you call them sinners, in the same house as you would the born again?
A. No, Mr. Garner. I kept the boys in one building, and the girls in another.
Q. Okay. Then, would you keep the boys, who were the sinners, if that’s the proper word, and the boys, who were born again, in the same house?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words–
A. We didn’t have sinners. Sinners —

MR. GEAN:
That distinguishes from being born again, right?
A. Yeah. We didn’t have any. Sinners would be interested in that type of operation. Those kids were praying, they were studying Bibles, and they were—

MR. GEAN:
Witnessing?
A. –witnessing. So, there wasn’t any–there wasn’t any sinners.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, let me say this to you, Mrs. Alamo, to ease your mind; It’s my understanding that there was no sex involved between your sinners and non sinners-
A. None ever.
Q. –or Christians and non Christians, or born again and not again, so I’m not asking any questions—
A. I know you’re not.

MR. GEAN:
Charles, they didn’t condone it.

MR. GARNER:
Well—
A. We had one person that was caught in adultery in the Foundation. We’ve had one.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, I won’t—I say that to you to relieve your mind, and I’m not trying to create any impression that there was, because its ray understanding that there was not a –
A. There wasn’t.
Q. –what I call hanky-panky.
A. We had one person that was caught in the Foundation committing adultery, one and only one.
Q. And what was his name?
A. Her name was Kathy.
Q. Oh. It was a woman,
A. Uh-huh (yes).

MR. GEAN:
Q. Kathy Wylie?

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. And you’re talking about Kathy Wylie?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, Let’s go back. We’ll get to that in a minute, talk about your Carlos house, now, and you rented it, you say, and you rented it for three or four years?
A. Uh-huh (yes). Oh, I didn’t—no, wait a minute. I’m not sure of that period of time, I’m really not. We had Carlos Avenue, we had Crescent Heights, and then we had Sagass. And we had Crescent Heights a long time after we had Sagass, so I don’t know. I really don’t know.

MR. GEAN:
Q. He’s asking about Carlos Avenue.
A. I don’t know. I couldn’t answer, if I had to. I don’t know. I would say that between Carlos Avenue and Crescent Heights. I would say five years, now, I could be wrong, it could be four years, but I’m not sure.

MR. GARNER:
Q. To your best judgment?
A. That would be about that period of time.
Q. Now, what did—after Kathy lost her job, either in the pie house or the restaurant, or both, what did she do then?
A. Nothing. She went out with the witnessing groups to witness. I took her home with me a lot.
Q. How did she eat or survive?
A. Oh, we had ample food, always.
Q. There was none of this, as I take it, from what you say, robbing garbage cans or eating bad food, like you were talking about awhile ago?
A. Mr. Garner, there was never anybody that robbed any garbage cans, but I can tell you who went to the back doors of supermarkets and asked for food to feed them. It wasn’t them; it was Tony and I.
Q. All right.
A. We also went to churches and begged for money to feed them. We also went to the large Southern California Baptist groups and asked for money to feed them, full
Gospel Christian Business Men, we supported those kids completely and absolutely. They never did one day’s work in five or six years, nothing. The only reason that they ever took jobs and went to work or that we ever opened businesses, they started getting married. They are young people and having children. Well, it isn’t much of a testimony to Christ to have a bunch of young people wandering around the streets with babies on their backs, talking about Jesus Christ, so we were forced to begin to set up homes for them. Before that time, they never worked a day.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Rather than put it–witnessing and so forth?
A. That’s all.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, did–tell us how you did this witnessing, please, ma’am?
A. I told you. We would just simply walk up, one to one, encounter people on the streets.
Q. And did the people that did this, that were in your organization, were they the ones that did this?
A. They did it and Tony and I did it too. We all did that.
Q. All of you did it?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. Then, did you have services among your groups?
A. Every night.
Q. Pardon?
A. Every night.
Q. How about in the morning, do you have the services then?
A. We have always had prayer meeting at 8:00 in the morning and 8:00 every night.
Q. Would you—where would these people be living, what do you call the born again, were the—again, I’m confused, did you have sinners and born agains in the same house?
A. You asked me that question.
Q. I know, and what was your answer?
A. I told you—

MR. GEAN:
She said no before. I don’t know what it is now.
A. I told you no.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, in other words, you didn’t take anybody in until they were born again?
A. They wouldn’t have wanted to have been in there.
Q. So–so, if they came into your house and stayed, that necessarily predisposed that they were born again?
A. They didn’t have anyplace else to go. But if they stopped using drugs, if they threw their drugs in the trash can, they had no place else to go. They had no money, if the little girls on the streets, if they stopped what they were doing to support their drug habit, they had no way of making money, they had no place to go, so we took them in.
Q. Well, I hope I’m not confusing the issue and I’m not trying to. But, for instance, if I came up and said, I don’t have a place to sleep tonight, and I’m looking for a place to lay my head and a meal, would you take me in?
A. Mr. Garner, I would take you in. You don’t look like an angel to me, but the Bible says not to turn anyone way, that you might turn away an angel, unaware, But I wouldn’t take you, sinner, off the street and put you in with a bunch of young Christian people; no, I wouldn’t. But I would certainly make arrangements for a place for you to be able to stay.
Q. Where would that be?
A. Oh, we have been known to rent rooms for people, and just all sorts of things, but we have never just you know, taken people off the street and put them in there. Like I told you, the Foundation was found out of necessity, it was out of necessity. 1 don’t believe that any intelligent, well-balanced person in the world could go out and look at a thousand drugged-up hippies and say, I’m going to pick them up, because I’ll be able to make a lot of money out of them, I don’t think they would. Because many of them were no more than vegetables, they had overdosed on LSD until their minds were bad. There’s been many of them, who we’ve had to sit up with all night, night after night, and just ask people to gather around and pray that the Lord would restore their mind till they knew what we were saying to them. Because if you ever can get them to where that they can understand what you’re saying, they’ll reach out to Christ.
Q. What would you say to them, Mrs. Alamo, to try to get to them?
A. To make them to understand?
Q. Yes. To make them we born again, so to speak?
A. Well, I’m sure that you wouldn’t say the same thing to every person, every time, because, since we are no things, we are all individual creations of God, and every person has a personality, whether alcohol, full of alcohol, drugs or whatever, I think that you always try to establish something with them as a denominator, you wouldn’t want to die like this.
Q. Well—,
A. You wouldn’t want to bring this kind of grief upon your family, that you would die like this. There is hope for you, just repeat after me, just follow me, Lord Jesus, have mercy upon my soul, a sinner, Lord help me. Have mercy upon me, o Lord, my God, I’m helpless. We’ve seen them repeatedly, if you just stay right there with them that would eventually begin to reach out. I don’t know, there’s something about the human soul that knows when it’s lost. It doesn’t make any difference what condition of—even if you’re not witnessing to them, there is —there seems to be that awareness of God, of searching and a crying out for God. It just seems to be there.
Q. And would you offer them, I suppose, a warm place to stay and a good meal?
A. No. We fed after every service.
Q. I take it your services, as you told me, were in the morning and in the evening?
A. Uh-huh (yes). We fed a meal after every service. It didn’t make any difference whether they stayed there or not, if they were hungry, we fed them.
Q. And if—you fed the sinners and the born again, alike, too?
A. Oh, sure. Well, sure. We never turned anyone away for food,
Q. There would be no discrimination between them?
A. None at all.
Q. Sinner, and &–
A. Oh, no. We fed everybody. Sometimes we fed as many as fifteen hundred meals a day and oftentimes looked at it and looked out at the crowd and say, My God, how in the world can we ever feed all of these people? And we thought it was, you know, funny, that there would be so many there to feed and we’d ask everybody to come and let’s all join hands and pray and ask the Lord to multiply the food, as He did the loaves and the fishes, and I tell you, before the Almighty God, we fed everybody, I don’t know how, but we did. We never turned a person away.

MR. GEAN:
Q. That is for the food, is that right?
A. Right.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Or from help of God or Christianity or—

MR. GEAN:
She did tell you, Charles, I think, and you might be confusing that, as far as spending the night at one of the places, where she kept her Christian young people, she didn’t mix the sinners; I think you said, those that had not accepted Christ?

A. No, of course we wouldn’t. Of course, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t pick up some homosexual and stick them in among a bunch of Christians and you know, let me tell you, that we did do the very, very best that we could possibly do with what we had. Because we had never started out to be what we were. It was something that was simply forced upon us and that was all there was to it. And when you pick those kids up and you lived with them and around them for all those years, you naturally have an attachment to them.

MR. GARNER:
Q. But you made the statement that you wouldn’t put a homosexual in with a bunch of Christians, what if it was a born-again homosexual?
A. Now, we’re going to get into theology and you’re an attorney, and I’m a preacher and I’m going to get the best end of that deal. So, you best stay where you are.
Q. Well, I was just asking you–
A. There is no such thing. There is no such thing, you know, that is the way I believe–

MR. GEAN:
Q. Let’s let that go at that.
A. Right.
Q. Let’s not get involved in theology.

MR. GARNER:
Q. That’s a good enough answer for me. I was simply curious because you had made the statement that–I wondered what—what you would do with a born-again homosexual?
A. Well, let me tell you, in explaining to you this way, the Apostle Paul said, All things pass away, and all things become new in Christ Jesus. The Bible says you become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Paul says some of you were murderers, you were thieves, you were all these things, but, now… So, there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual, there is no such thing as a Christian drug addict, there isn’t any such thing as a Christian adulterer, you know.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Well, you’ve gone through enough for awhile.
A. There may have been.

MR. GEAN:
You don’t want any more of that, do you?

A. Yeah. Well, I like to tell him that.

MR. GEAN:
Now, she–now, you know all about that.
A. I’d like to tell him chat. I know he doesn’t enjoy it, but I like to tell him that.

MR. GEAN;
Well, Charlie does believe like that, too.

A. Huh?

MR. GEAN:
Let’s not get involved in that.

MR. GARNER:
Q. For your information, Mrs. Alamo, until I was about fifteen I thought I was going to be a minister.
A. I never wanted to be.

MR. GEAN:
Now, see how far he’s backslidden?
A. Uh-huh (yes). I never wanted to be, never, never.

MR. GARNER:
Quite a bit of difference.

Q. Mrs. Alamo, during this time, what was Kathy doing in your organization?
A. The same thing everybody else was doing.
Q. Witnessing?
A. Yeah. No job, actually. Kathy never really worked anywhere. Kathy or Don, either one, any periods of time.
Q. When you would go out and minister and get money and food, and so forth, would they bring it in and give it to you?
A. Would who?
Q. The people that were–you born-again people, who were going out and getting—gathering it up and so forth.
A. I didn’t. Who are you talking about?
Q. Well—

MR. GEAN:
You’re talking about Don or Kathy?

MR. GARNER:
Or others like them, I mean—

A. No. You are throwing me a loaded question. I would like to know, first, who they are.
Q. The members of the Foundation, or—

MR. GEAN:
Now, they are not members of the Foundation, Charles
They are just associated with them.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. Associates. When you–you’ve made the statement, for instance, that you served fifteen hundred meals a day.
A. And I also told you that Tony and I were going to the back doors of the supermarkets and begging for food to feed them and also appearing at various clubs and churches and begging for money to feed them with. So, where is your they coming from?
Q. Okay. Then, my question is you and Mr. Alamo were the only two who were gathering–
A. That is right.
Q. –or begging for food, or–
A. That is right.
Q. –money?
A. Absolutely, right.
Q. Then—
A. Now, years later, after we had grown in to a tremendous organization, had papers, we were getting all sorts of things as write-offs. But I’m talking about Crescent Heights and Carlos Avenue.

MR. GEAN :
Q. Contributions you’re talking about?
A. Right. Of food and everything in the world, write-offs.

MR. GARNER:
Q. When did you really start to get large?
A. From Crescent Heights to Sagass.
Q. And then, I assume when you decided that you were so large, you bought Sagass? A. Uh-huh. (yes).
Q. Where is Sagass?
A. About thirty-five miles out of Los Angeles.
Q. North, south or where?

MR. ALAMO:
North.

Q. Is Los Angeles the closest place that you’re near to?

MR. ALAMO:
It’s in LA County.

A. LA County.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Oh, it is? And is Sagass a town, or a mountain range, or what?
A. You could call it anything you like. It’s a — I don’t know. It’s a combination of several little places that are more or less strung in together, you know, New Hall, Sagass, Valencia, there’s about four of them.
Q. Well, are they towns or villages?
A. They’re villages.
Q. Or cities, or cross roads, or—
A. Villages.
Q. How large a place is Sagass?
A. Oh, I don’t know. I understand it’s Town tremendously since we left there, I don’t know.
Q. Well, how large was it when you moved there?
A. I don’t know that either.

MR. GEAN:
Are you talking about population-wise, Charles?

MR. GARNER:
Yes or–yeah–I mean—

A. I don’t know.

MR. GARNER:
Q. I mean was it about like Alma, or Van Buren, or Fort Smith, or—
A. I’d say Alma. Again, I’m making a guess.
Q. Why did you pick Sagass?
A. Well, we had to have space for expansion, they’re– you know, we were running into hundreds of people at that time and we had to–had to have room. We had two large apartment houses there, plus a lot of dwellings and we’d grown into the point that we had to have room to expand.
Q. How much land did you buy there?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s Tony’s department.
Tony takes care of the land department.
Q. Okay. And you say that he—the department or land manager, I guess you’d call him, is that a fair—
A. Tony?
Q. Yes. Is that a–
A. No. I wouldn’t call him a land manager. I would call him… the greatest Christian in the world and the very finest businessman, and the best husband in the world. I would never refer to him as a overseer of land, particularly.
Q. Well, I wasn’t trying to be degrading, Mrs. Alamo, I–you had referred to him as being — as managing–I believe you said he was the manager of that department?
A. And his house.
Q. Okay. And I was–then, my next question was was your organization departmentaled — departmentalized, so that, for instance, you did have a land department that maybe Mr. Alamo was the manager of it and maybe there was —
A. Mr. Alamo is the–
Q. –food department?
A. –manager of everything at the Foundation, everything,
Q. And has been, since it was formed?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. You don’t recall or know what property you have at Sagass?
A. I think I know.
Q. All right. Tell me what you think, then.
A. But my husband sells property, and I could be wrong, So, I don’t know and, therefore, I would be completely inaccurate, possibly, to even answer you, because he has sold several pieces of land.
Q. During the time, from ‘63, I believe, you told me that you finally got back with Kathy and she came into the organization as a born-again, you stated that she didn’t have any jobs. What did she do during the time, other than witness for the Foundation?
A. Nothing. No actual job anywhere, at anytime.
Q. Well, what did she do within the Foundation, did she cook or–
A. Oh, she’d go to the kitchen every once in awhile, when there would be a group of the girls going up there, she’d go into the sewing room every once in awhile, when there would be a group of girls going there. Kathy never stayed with anything for any period of time at all. When we opened the restaurant at Alma, she went in like a fire horse and it didn’t last very long and Don was of the same temperament. You could subpoena a hundred people from the Foundation and they’d all tell you the same identical thing. Kathy spent most of her time, since we’ve been in Arkansas, in the shopping malls.
Q. In shopping malls?
A. Yes. Or wherever she wanted to go.
Q. Did she ever do any shopping for you?
A. Yeah, pick up a couple of bottles of shampoo, maybe stop by the Boston Store and pick up a jar of cream, or –yeah, she sure did, not clothing or anything like that.
Q. That would just be on an occasional basis?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. How did it happen that Kathy was one of the original subscribers to the–signers of the Foundation?
A. That was really nothing more than just being three persons.
Q. Well, did it indicate any more confidence in her than it did, say, some other member of the organization?
A. None at all.
Q. Who was the attorney that prepared those articles?
A. Oh, I don’t remember. I couldn’t tell you, if I had to, I don’t remember.
Q. Pardon?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Does he still represent you?
A. No. No. One of them is dead. I don’t know. I really don’t.
Q. At any rate the articles were filed on the date that it’s shown to be filed, is that correct?
A. Well, I would presume so.
Q. Well, I think it’s 1969, March somewhere along in there,
1969.

MR. GEAN:
January?

MR. GARNER:
January?

MR. ALAMO:
January 30.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Arid you don’t recall the attorney that drew these for you?
A. No. I–
Q. Was he in Hollywood or Sagass, or was he in—
A. Now, if I knew where he was I’d know who he was, wouldn’t I?
Q. I don’t really know.

MR. GEAN;
Not necessarily.

MR. GARNER:
Not necessarily.
A. I don’t know. I really don’t know.

MR. GEAN:
Q. Then don’t say, don’t guess at it.
A. I can’t remember.

MR. GARNER:
Q. You have no recollection of going into some– either imposing building, or some tiny little lawyer’s office?
A. Imposing buildings at all times, with lawyers, always.
Q. In 1969?
A. Always. But just what or who he was, I still can’t answer you, because I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t know.
Q. And you don’t recall the town that they were in?
A. Well, it would have had to have been Los Angeles.
Q. All right. And you say that the only reason you did it was because she was handy and just happened to be there?
A. Yeah. And, again, you’ll have to ask Tony about that. I have nothing to do with business matters at the Foundation.
Q. All right. After the Foundation was formed, was there any change in the manner of operation or method of operation, which you conducted at the time?
A. No.
Q. To your best knowledge what was the purpose of forming the Foundation?
A. Because they had no place to go, most of the people there had no other place to go.
Q. Well, I mean–when I say forming the Foundation, I mean forming the articles, filing the articles?
A. Well, to be legal. But the law of the Bible tells you to abide by the laws of the land.
Q. Well, you’re not telling me that you were illegal the three, four, or five years prior to that?
A. No. I’m not telling you that. But in order, we were growing big, and in order to accept donations from people and be able to keep records with the IRS, and et cetera, et cetera and et cetera, we had to do it that way. That was the proper way to do it.
Q. Who was elected the first president of the Foundation?
A. I don’t remember. I don’t know.
Q. Did you hold any office in it?
A. Yes.
Q. What–what officer were you?
A. What am I, honey? (To Mr. Alamo).

MR. ALAMO:
Secretary.
A. I’m a secretary.

MR. ALAMO:
I was always the President.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Did you have—what would Kathy be, then?
A. What was Kathy, Tony?

MR. GEAN:
If you don’t know just tell him.

A. I don’t know. I really don’t know, Roy, I mean it, I just don’t.

MR. GARNER:
Okay. That’s all right.

MR. GEAN:
She really doesn’t know.

MR. GARNER:
Q. And you say your method of operation did not change after you filed the formal articles?
A. I—what do you mean by method of operation?
Q. Well, just—I don’t know how to break it down any more than just saying your overall operation, your overall picture of the situation.
A. Tell me what you’re accusing me of and I’ll have a chance to answer it.
Q. I haven’t accused you of anything yet, Mrs. Alamo, and we’ve been here almost two hours.
A. I don’t remember. I don’t even know what you’re asking me.
Q. Well, you used the word, operation, first, I didn’t, and—
A. But you’re asking me how it changed?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know in what way you mean, I don’t know what you mean.
Q. Well, did it change? Let me ask you that did it change?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, then it couldn’t have changed if it didn’t.
A. Well, I don’t—I till don’t know what you mean.
Q. Okay. Did you begin—you’ve told me you started keeping records for IRS, did you—I assume that you’re talking about tax records, and—
A. Right.
Q. —the things that they normally require. Who was the business manager, was that Mr. Alamo during that time?
A. My husband, Mr. Alamo.
Q. Did you do it with checks or with cash?
A. That, you ask the business manager.
Q. All righty.
A. Because I have absolutely nothing to do with that. I could not truthfully answer one question to you, if I had to.
Q. All righty. Was Mr. Alamo just as active in ministering as you were?
A. Oh, yes, he always has been.
Q. Or more so, would you say?
A. Well, I would say just about the same. Would you say about the same (to Mr. Alamo)? About the same.
Q. Well, for instance, you told me originally that you considered yourself a housewife. I assume that you would be housewifing while he would be out sometimes ministering or—
A. No, he ain’t out nowhere, ever, not at any time is he ever out anywhere, other than maybe to Mr. Gean’s office and to the attorneys, and you will always notice that
Mr. Alamo will have from two to five of the brothers with him. He is never out anywhere.

MR. GEAN:
It depends upon what you mean by out. It looks like Mrs. Alamo is taking it to mean different things.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I—
A. I know what he means. I know what he’s saying.

MR. GARNER:
Where I was talking about, say—

MR. GEAN:
You mean witnessing, things like that.

MR. GARNER:
–’69?
A, Never, never, ever. If he was out witnessing, I was out witnessing, too. I did my little housework, I washed my dishes and we went together. We have always done that.

MR. GARNER:
Q. The laundry? I mean you—
A. He does good with the laundry, as well as being a business man, he does real good laundry, and he washes dishes real good and he makes beds, and does all those things.
Q. Was—I—and this is even true back in ‘69?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. I mean, for instance, you wouldn’t go to speak as a lady to, say, the POE’s or the–
A. No.
Q. —or the Christian Women’s Association—
A. NO.
Q. And he would go—
A. We have never–Tony and I have never done that.
Q. And witnessed to the, say, the—
A. We talked about this in your office yesterday.

MR. GEAN:
Separately, you have never done that?

MR.GARNER:
Q. The Men’s Fellowship—
A. We have never done that. He never has even accepted invitations to men’s groups, although he has been asked many, many times, even when we go to–people that know us know that. We were invited to a club in Fort Smith not too long ago and they made it, the invitation, to both of us. Was it the Rotary-~do they have a Rotary Club?

MR. ALAMO:
I think it was.
A. Do yon have a Rotary Club?

MR. GEAN:
Yes, there is a Rotary Club.
A. It was some business men’s group, anyway, they asked us and they made it a joint invitation. Tony and I have never done that. We have never taken separate invitations anywhere and, usually, when you see one of us, you see both of us.

MR. GARNER:
Q. In other words, if you were asked to witness to a group that they couldn’t take both of you, they didn’t get you?
A. Then they don’t need us. Then they don’t need the other- one,
Q. All right. In other words, if there’s no—
A. Oh, let me take that back. I think I went to a lady’s luncheon one time in Sagass.

MR. ALAMO:
I was probably in the other room.

A. He was, but that was the only time.

MR. GEAN:
And he was in the other room?
A. And he was in the other room,

MR. GARNER:
Q. And I take it, then, that you would not minister, say— again, I just use this as an example, in Sagass in church on Sunday, and he would be—while he would be ministering at New Hall in church?
A. Never, never. The only time that he would ever go into the church and by ministering in the church was when I was so desperately ill. Sometimes he went in and took the services in our own church, but other than that, never.
Q. And that’s true from the time, January of ‘69, on up to the present time?
A. To today.
Q. All right. Now, let’s talk about—well, let’s talk a little bit more about Kathy and then we’ll be through with her. You say that Kathy went to malls and so forth and so on, and spent a lot of time—well, did she spend a lot of time ministering?
A. No, not after we left California, no.
Q. When did you leave California?
A. I think it’s six years, I believe it’s six years.
Q. Six years. Why did you leave California?
A. My health was terrible. I had terminal cancer, and we went to Nashville, Tennessee.
Q. Why did you go to Nashville?
A. Tony was recording down there. He has a brother that’s in the recording industry, and we were recording down there and I was just terribly ill. We came through Arkansas, we saw that old house at Dyer that I was raised in when I was a kid, and Tony wanted that house. And, as far as medical science was concerned, I had absolutely no chance to live, whatsoever. My sister lives here, my family live here, so I felt at the time that Tony was trying to get me close to my sister, close to home. And it must be six years, because we’ve lived in that house for five years, I’m sure it’s five years, so, it must be six years.
Q. Well, you settled in Nashville, I take it, first?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did Kathy go with you to Nashville?
A. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t remember, but I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so- no.
Q. How many of you moved to Nashville?
A. Mr. Garner, I think it was Tony and I and about twenty of the boys. I could be mistaken, it’s a long time age. We’ve made an awful lot of trips across country and evangelism every direction of vans of fifty, and—but to the very best of my knowledge, it was Tony and I and about twenty of the boys.
Q. Did you buy a home or other property in Nashville?
A. Well, at first we leased a large house in Nashville. And then we have about ten boys that stay in Nashville, and then we purchased a house that the boys live in.
Q. Are they still living there?
A, Oh, yes.
Q. Are they living in what I would call your home, there?
A. In part of it, yes.
Q. They are?
A. I wouldn’t call it my home. I’ve been there, would say, three months at one time, and two weeks at another and three weeks, and something like that. I’ve lived at Dyer since I’ve been here.
Q. Well, I understood that you have a home, or a house, whatever way you want to denominate it—
A. I have a feeling you’ve been made to understand a lot of things that are not necessarily that way. No, we—

MR. GEAN:
Are you talking about a place, living quarters?

MR. GARNER:
Q. Yes, you and Mr. Alamo.
A. Yes, when we go down there, but we seldom ever go there, we go there on business reasons, we run up and down and take care of what we have to take care of and we’re out of there. But, as far as making it a home, we never have.
Q. And nobody lives in it when you’re not there?
A. Oh, yes, there’s ten boys living there.
Q. Are they living in—the boys, in the section you would live in?
A. No, they are living upstairs.
Q. How large is the downstairs?
A. It’s—that house has been remodeled, there’s three bedrooms upstairs, and two downstairs.
Q. Do you have any property in Nashville, other than that house?
A. A store.
Q. Pardon?
A. Store.
Q. What kind of a store, please, ma’am?
A. Clothing.
Q. What’s the name of it?
A. The Alamo.
Q. And you say that Kathy did not follow you to Nashville?
A. Oh, yeah, she eventually followed down there.
Q. All righty. And then you eventually came to Arkansas, six years ago?
A. She followed us down there, and she threw a fit down there and screamed and cursed and raved in front of a bunch of people and we sent her back to California, and I never spoke to Kathy for a year.
Q. Who did she scream and rave in front of?
A. I don’t know. It must have been fifteen or twenty people.
Q. Can you give me the names of any of them?
A. I’ll get a list of the names of all of them
Q. Okay. Thank you. And this happened –
A. In Nashville.
Q. Nashville, all righty. Now, she came to Arkansas soon after you came here, then?
A. Yeah.
Q. And where did she live when she was here?
A. Oh, here in Fort Smith, on Grand Avenue.
Q. On Grand Avenue?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. And where were you living at the time?
A. Fort Smith. We had two—two, two-story houses on Grand
Avenue.
Q. And were you all living next door or in the same house?
A. I don’t remember. I really don’t even remember that Kathy was even there, to tell you the truth. I think Ann and Richard McClelland—I can’t remember that Kathy was there. She could have been, but I’m not—she came out after that. But when we first came—no, Kathy wasn’t. I don’t believe she was.
Q. Well, after she came back here, did she continue to minister for the Lord?
A. No.
Q. She did nothing of that sort here? What did she do here, please, ma’am?
A. Mr. Garner, I told you what she did.
Q. What?
A. What Godzilla wanted to do.
Q. Well, who is Godzilla, now?
A. Well, I mean that’s the only answer I can give you. If she felt like going to the restaurant and working a shift, she went; if she wanted to go to the sewing room, she went; if she wanted to shop, she shopped; and, as far as any actual job, any place, at any time, I could stand before God and tell you that she had none, or has she ever had any, that I am aware of.
Q. Did she spend any time with your personal needs, so to speak?
A. During the time that I was in the hospital and I got out of the hospital, she was very kind and very good in helping me, during the time I was in the hospital and shortly after I go out. Mr. Garner, I’ve heard this story before. You see, I talk to people all the time that this girl talks to across country. My husband basically took care of me through that illness, that’s the truth.
Q. I didn’t mean to imply that Kathy had taken care of you.

MR. GEAN:
He didn’t ask you, don’t go into all that. Just try to answer as briefly as possibly his questions.

A. Well, no, Kathy never had any definite place of employment. And you are at liberty to subpoena two or three hundred people. She was in charge of a work crew, but she was supposed to be figuring out, like the work crews, of how many, in other words, how many of the girls would be available for babysitting, you know, because they switch off and on. Kathy was always into fights with everybody.
Q. Including yourself?
A. Right.
Q. Including Mr. Alamo?
A. Right. With everybody.
Q. And including Mr. Wylie?
A. Right, continuously, it never ceased.
Q. When did you begin to see or notice some dissatisfaction with the Foundation on her part or did you know that she was going to leave, or—
A. Yes, I told her to.
Q. You told her to leave?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Why?
A. Well, I’ll tell you, that it had actually got to the point with Kathy that it was unreal. It was an absolute impossible situation. She would go and tell the girls that I said to do something. And the girls would do it, and she would come back the next day ranting and raving and just swear that she never said it, she didn’t know anything about it, that they were liars, and the girls would say well, if you even attempt to defend yourself, you have to physically fight her. So, the other girls didn’t want to do that and they would just back out of it and then just get out of it and say Suzy, there’s nothing to it, really, it’s just another of her insane fits. And then, again, I’d go back and say look, girls, it was the way she was raised. She was raised in violence. She doesn’t know anything else, you know, you girls, some of you, you come from good parents, good homes, good mothers; she’s never had anything like that. You know, have mercy on her. Suzy, we can’t take any more, you know, Kathy would attack people, physically attack people, she’s known for that. And it was just—it just simply got to a place that–Don never used to be like that. Don was one of the nicest guys in the world, had the nicest disposition.
Q. So, it just got so bad to where you asked–
A. Oh, she got into it with Tony. She never had any—
Q. With who?
A. Tony. She never had any real encounters with me at all. She’d just keep trying to meddle in everybody’s business and just keep one mess going on top of the other and, so, she got into it with Tony and, because I wouldn’t defend herself against Tony, Kathy came to a place that she thought everybody at the Foundation was nuts, but her. That included me. Everybody was crazy, but Kathy. They were all a bunch of nuts, and we were all a bunch of nuts and everybody was crazy, but Kathy. And it just kept going. She finally got to where that she would bust even through the back door at night into the office with all the men in there and throw terrible fits and get knives after people, throw plates of spaghetti at them, and you name it, she did it. And, then, when she came to me and Tony was a liar, and Tony had done this and that, and I said well, Kathy, what did he lie about? Just a liar, he just lies about everything, and he just, oh, he does this, and does—and I said well, tell me one thing that he does, you know, don’t just basically call someone a liar or a thief or any other thing and then not have anything— everything, just everything, everything about him, everything he does. So, because I wouldn’t side with her, Kathy got it into her head that she was going to take over through Foundation. Now, that’s just what her story was, there’s no doubt about what the deal was with her, that’s what it was. Then, when she went up to Tulsa, she sat up a campaign of writing to people, and calling on telephones and—
Q. What did she get into it with Tony about?
A. Coming into the office at night where the men were trying to get the finance list together and the work sheets, just meddling where she had no business.
Q. When did you finally ask her to leave the Foundation?
A. It was on a Saturday. It was on Saturday and she had gone down and was hanging around the store and I went down and picked her up in the car. Everybody was used to Kathy throwing fits that was just an old one.
Q. How long prior to the time she left did this Saturday occur?
A. That she—I’m talking about the Saturday that she left.
Q. Oh.
A. That she left, possibly that night or the next day, but I anyway, I told her, I said Kathy, you can’t stay here any longer. You’re into it with everybody, and it just doesn’t cease. People left the Foundation over Kathy and came back, bunches of them, after they knew she was out of there, and I said it just can’t go any farther.
Q. How did she leave?
A. They hired a truck.
Q. Pardon?
A. I understand they hired a truck.
Q. Well, do they have possessions in the Foundation, I mean you- what do they do?
A. No, but they have possessions that belong to the Foundation. They—she came in with a toothbrush in her pocket and went out with truckloads.
Q. What was in the truckload?
A. Everything.
Q. Well, that’s pretty all encompassing.
A. Well, we’ll make a list.
Q. Well, you want to furnish me that list or do you want to tell me about it now?
A. No, I’ll furnish it to Mr. Gean and he can furnish it to you.
Q. All righty. Then, I take it, that you know what she took in the truck?
A. No, I don’t know everything that she took. How would you know what somebody had taken over a period of ten years? I know that she has about a two-and-a-half carat diamond ring on her finger that belongs to me, plus another ring that has three, twenty-five point diamonds in it.
Q. Where—you say she took the two-and-a-half carat diamond ring with her?
A. Yes.
Q. And she took one that had three, twenty-five points?
A. Yeah, solid gold band with three, twenty-five pointers in it.
Q. Where did you get the two-and-a-half diamond?
A. Tony gave it to me.
Q. Do you know where he got it?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. The three, twenty-five carat diamond, do you know where you got those?
A. Yes, he bought them from a wholesale jeweler house, jewelry house, in California-
Q. When?
A. 1966.
Q. All right. Were they bought with your own individual money?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Where did you get that, please, ma’am?
A, It was Tony’s money.
Q. Where did he get it, please, ma’am?
A. Well, that was before we were ever involved in the
Foundation and it was Tony’s personal money. The rings were bought in 1966.
Q. Okay. How, you say that Kathy never did any shopping for you or anything?
A. I never said that. I said that she picked up shampoo,
maybe stopped by the Boston Store, but, as far as actually-doing any clothing shopping for me, no, she never did any clothing shopping for me, that I am aware of or can remember.
Q. How about hair-do’s or wigs?
A. The wigs that I bought came from my friend, Glenda, and Ray Parsons, that have the shop on Towson Avenue and I can assure you that both of them can tell you I never sent Kathy there.
Q. And that—
A. Unless she would happen to be going by the door and I would say Kathy, Glenda did so and so for me, would you stop and pick it up?
Q. What’s the name of the place on Towson Avenue?

MR. GEAN:
House of Hair.

MR. GARNER:
All right.

A. Glenda and Ray Parsons.
Q. I take it that she never picked up any for you in California?
A. Not that I remember. She picked up wigs for herself. She also picked up wigs for herself at the House of Hair, here.
Q. But none in California, that you ever recall?
A. She picked them up for herself.
Q. In California?
A. Oh, yes, sir, she certainly did. As a matter of fact, she got into a fight with somebody one time and one of them got hung up on a—something on the side of a door.
Q. Here or in California?
A. In California, and another time she got into a fight with a woman in a court room and the woman snatched a wig off her head and there was several of the boys with her that time,
Q. What court room was that, please?
A. I don’t remember, don’t remember. The boys would remember.
Q. Were you there?
A. HO.
Q. Oh, you didn’t see it?
A. No, the boys told—well, she told about it.
Q. Do you recall who it was that she snatched the wig off, or—
A. No, a woman. She got into a fight with a woman i: the hallway and the woman snatched the wig off of her head.
Q. Off her head?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Alamo, I understand that you are in the process of building a home, here in Crawford County, is that correct?
A. No, I’m not in the process of building it, it’s built.
Q. It’s completed?
A. Yes, most of it’s completed.

MR. ALAMO:
We’re building several.

A. We’re in the process of building several homes.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, I understood that there was one particularly large home up there that was your home, or going to be your home?

MR.GEAN:
It’s the Foundation’s home.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. It’s the Foundation’s home. But there’s one in which you were going to live.

MR. GEAN:
Of course, there’s many Foundation homes.

MR. GARNER:
Q. But I understood that it was one you and Mr. Alamo were going to live in?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, we built a house.
Q. Is it finished?
A. Mostly finished.
Q. Are you moved in it?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you bought your furniture?
A. Oh, I’ve had all kinds of furniture for years. I’ve furniture from all over the place, from California, from Tennessee, every direction,
Q. You didn’t buy any over at Mayo’s or—
A. Mayo’s, where is Mayo’s?
Q. In Tulsa.
A. Mayo’s?
Q. Mayo’s.

MR. GEAN:
That’s a furniture store in Tulsa.
A. Are you talking about five years ago?

MR. GARNER:
Q. I don’t know when, I’m just asking you.
A. Yeah, I bought–I don’t believe this. I bought two chairs and a coffee table five years ago.

MR. GEAN:
In Tulsa

A. Yes.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Does either one of you all have a ring with a diamond “A” on it?
A. No—oh, yeah.

MR. ALAMO:
Well, that’s—

MR. GEAN:
Let Susan answer that.

MR. GARNER:
We’ll get to you in a minute.
A. Yeah.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Who has it?
A. Tony has one and I have one, we sell those rings.
Q. With diamonds in them?
A. Oh, yes, sure do. We sell them. The—most of the stars and celebrities have them made with their initials on them. T.G. Shepherd’s having one made with a big shepherd dog, with his initials on it.
Q. But you all have never bought any for yourself, individually, here?
A. Anything we buy, Mr. Garner, anything we wear, we sell.
Q. Well, then, I’ll ask the question, have you bought a diamond “A” ring at Zales?
A. No, Bob Dyer, at Zales, made the original of the—for the rings and made a deal with us to make the rings.
Q. Has he made any since then?
A. Ho, because we could get a better deal on that. We can buy wholesale from the wholesale houses in California. We can buy the diamonds and we can buy the stones, so, there wouldn’t be any reason for it. But he did make the first ring.
Q. Did you have it appraised subsequently?
A No.
Q. Never appraised, okay. Now, you’ve told me about—that the only person that you ever found in the Foundation in adultery or whatever you want to call it, backslid, as we Baptists would call it, was Kathy, is that correct?
A. Right.

MR. GEAN:
And the person with her.

MR. GARNER:
Pardon?

MR. GEAN:
And the person with her.

MR. GARNER:
Q. And who was that person?
A. Ed Mick.
Q. All right. When did this occur?
A. In Sagass.
Q. Pardon?
A. In Sagass.
Q. Do you remember what year?

MR. ALAMO:
Seven years ago.

Q. Approximately 1973?
A. It was a year before she married Don.
Q. And what was the occasion for that, Mrs. Alamo?
A. What was the occasion, Mr. Garner? I went upstairs in my house and caught her in bed with Ed Mick. That was the occasion.
Q. In her bed or your bed?
A. In his bed.
Q. In his bed?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what occurred then, did he or she leave or did—was there any punishment or a prayer meeting or what? What do you do when you do something, find somebody doing that?
A. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing, for one thing, that a female could be so cheap in somebody else’s home. She had sneaked in through the den in the back of the house, obviously, during the middle of the night. When I caught them, it hurt Ed terribly. He started crying and told the whole truth of the story. Kathy was living down at what we called Number Two at that time with another girl, in a small unit there. So, I told her to get out of my house that I never, ever wanted to see her again as long as I lived; that I had had quite enough with her; that it was just—that it never ceased; it was one thing after the other. She went back down to where she was living, a couple of days later she came back and got down on her knees, and the tears running, and I’ve been praying and fasting, and God has forgiven me, why can’t you? I took her back.
Q. Did you forgive her?
A. I forgave her and I went right back to the same identical thing, remembering the way this girl was raised. Her morals were crippled when she was a child. She’s never had a chance. Tony didn’t buy that, he didn’t believe it. He said this girl is absolutely no good, she never was and she never will be. She’s phony from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet. She’s out for whatever she can get off of anybody. She uses you, she cons you, and you fall for her foolishness and she’s nothing you think she is. Get rid of her, and get rid of her now, and, if you don’t, you’re going to curse the day you didn’t do it. I couldn’t put her out.
Q. So, she stayed with you another what, five or six years?
A. Yeah. She met Don and we wished them the best of every- thing.
Q. Now, who is Ed Mick, what was he doing living upstairs in your house?
A. We had an awfully large office in the house at that time and two or three of the boys used to stay there at night. And Ed stayed upstairs and, then, there were a couple or three boys that stayed downstairs in the office den part of the house.
Q. That was at Sagass?
A. Yes.
Q. I’ve got in mind the name Mick is—as being some—
A. My daughter was married to him at one time.
Q. Was that what it was? When was this, please, ma’am?
A. Oh, I don’t remember. I don’t remember. That would have been…that would have been three of four years before that, I’m sure.
Q. Was your daughter married to him at that time?
A. Yes, they were still married.
Q. In other words, you—
A. Kathy was still married to Eddie Seay at that time.

MR. GEAN:
Let me ask you, Charlie, is this relevant?

MR. GARNER:
Well, it’s about my client and I don’t want to—

A, You’ll have to excuse me because I have to go to the rest-room.

MR. GARNER:
That’s all right. Go ahead.
(Deposition resumes after a brief recess)

MR. GARNER:
Q. I believe we were talking about that you had asked her to leave on Saturday and she left that Saturday by a rented truck and that you were going to furnish me with a list or furnish to Mr. Gean the list of property that she took with her, which belonged to you or to the Foundation.
A. To me.
Q. To you?
A. The rings belonged to me.
Q. All right.
A, The other things that she took belonged to the Foundation.
Q. Incidentally, I noticed that you’re wearing on your left hand a ring, a beautiful diamond, it looks like it has about thirty or forty diamonds in it, is that yours?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you acquire it?

MR. GEAN:
Now, Charles, I don’t see that that’s material. I’m not going to let her answer that.

MR. GARNER:
Well, if she says it’s not the Foundation’s.

MR. GEAN:
Well, she hasn’t said that that ring is not the Foundation’s. She said—she hadn’t said it is, but I just don’t think that that’s relevant.

A. You asked me about the rings that she took I told you they were bought in ‘66.

MR. GEAN:
We’ll let the Judge—if I’m out of line on it, the Judge will straighten me out on it, I just don’t think your personal jewelry has anything to do with this lawsuit. MR. GARNER:
Well, you’re assuming that it’s personal jewelry, I want it under oath.

MR. GEAN:
Well, it’s on her hand.

MR. GARNER:
Yes, but it may belong—

MR. GEAN:
Well, I’m not—I don’t think who owns it and who’s wearing it is material.

MR. GARNER:
Okay.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. Now, let’s talk about Don Wylie. When did Don join the group or operation?
A. I would say in ‘70, or ‘71.
Q. And do you recall how he did it, what was the occasion for meeting him?
A. Yes. He came there and said that he had volunteered for drug experiments in a college in Canada, or someplace he had been. I think at the time he came there, he came from Canada. But, anyway, he said that he had volunteered for LSD experiments. And that they had given him an overdose and that for days he couldn’t remember anything, but just a horrible, nightmarish experience that he had been through, days and nights, that he didn’t recall even what the period of time was, and that they had done this to him several times and that he knew that he had to get away from there, and he had to escape from there, in some way, and that he did go to a—either a plane station or some station, and that while he was sitting there, he picked up a Time Magazine and he read a story about us and he said that’s for me.
Q. Where did he meet you?
A. He came to the Foundation.
Q. And where was it at that time?
A. He came to Crescent Heights. He came to Crescent Heights and he said that his father had committed suicide, that he had been involved in drugs for years before these experimental type of things that happened. I would
presume after some of the disclosures and the articles that have come out the past four or five years, that this is possibly the same thing that the CIA was involved in during that time, during the Casey—William Casey type of thing, that they said that they had to use them, you know, experimented with them.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t think he wants to hear about all that.

MR. GARNER:
Q. You think Wylie was involved in it as a CIA?
A. No, no, no—

MR. GEAN:
He came to the Foundation, Charles, you wanted to know how he came.

A. They were using it as an experimental thing in a—in some college, but he had been involved in drugs years before that, before the experimental type of thing. But what I’m saying is that there have been several documents recently that they were doing that.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Well, did he come to you at Crescent Heights as a sinner, so to speak?
A. Don came to Crescent Heights a person torn absolutely to pieces. He said that his father had committed suicide, drunk, that his father was close enough to him until he
blew his brains all over Don and Don had been taken into custody for it; that the mother had drank herself to death, that the mother was also an alcoholic, and drank herself to death; that he had become all involved in the drug culture and in the experimental type of thing. Don really was a born-again Christian. Don really accepted Christ. I believe with all my heart that everything that Don Wylie did, he did with all his heart. Don was a truthful person, he wasn’t a vicious person, he wasn’t any of those things. Don was not a worker. He would enter into some project, just all fire and exuberance, but it never lasted any period of time. And the other boys always laughed about it. If he’d go down and help out at the service station, it would be like the most important thing in the world, he’d be running to and fro and knocking over buckets that were in the way or whatever. And then that would be very short lived and it would be all over. Don was such a likeable chap that everybody just more or less took for granted Don, they felt sorry for him, they thought that he had a rough time of it at home, because Don either slept in the boys’ dorm most of the time or underneath his house, and he always told the boys his problems and everybody loved Don.
Q. So, I take it, he had no regular job—
A. Never.
Q. —during the time that he was at the Foundation?
A. Never, ever, no. Tony used him as a driver back in Sagass and made the payments for him on a new Lincoln Mark IV.
Q. Made payments for who, now?
A. For Don.
Q. You mean he paid—
A. Tony paid for it.
Q. Bought him one?
A. Did you buy the car you made the payments on?

MR. ALAMO:
Leased it with the option, we don’t have to—

MR. GEAN:
If you don’t know, don’t say. Let him get Tony on that.

A. Well, anyway, Tony purchased the car, made the payments on it and Don drove it. Tony more or less gave it to him and said here, you know.
Q. Do you know whose name the title was in?

MR. ALAMO:
It was leased to the Foundation.

A. The Foundation.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. Well, then, how did it occur that he and Kathy were married, I mean do you have romancing in the Foundation? I assume that you do?
A. Don was doing some food runs at that time.
Q. What are food runs, please, ma’am?
A. He was taking sandwiches and coffee and things like that around to the different people at the different Foundations and different locations and job sites and, so, Kathy and one of the other girls started riding with him to help to dispatch the food. And stories started filtering- back that Kathy was after Don Wylie. I had no intentions of going through another one of Kathy’s deals, not at all. I had been through enough of them. So, I called Kathy in, I asked her if it was going on. I said now, Kathy, you’re not going to be out running around with Don anymore, because we can’t take another one of your scenes, we’ve had all of it that we can take. If you are really serious about this boy and this boy is serious about you, then get married. Do it the right way. So, they kept seeing each other at the church from time to time and Don came and talked to me about it and I think he talked to you, too, didn’t he, didn’t he talk to you?

MR. ALAMO:
Yeah, said she had to get a divorce.

A. And we paid for her divorce.

MR. GARNER:
A. Tony’s in charge of that, I don’t know anything about it.
Q. You don’t know where they are stored?
A. I don’t–no, I don’t know.
Q. Pardon?
A. No, I don’t know.
Q. Has anyone ever made a history of the Foundation, that is, do you have a historian or a—kind of like, I guess churches would call it, or secretary-treasurer, that keeps minutes and kind of keeps a history of the growth–
A. Since it is a law to keep minutes, I’m sure that my husband does keep minutes, since that is a law, I’m sure that he does.
Q. Do you – have—who are the only three members—are they still only Kathy and Mr. Alamo and you, are still the only–
A. Kathy was taken off after the Eddie Seay escapade.
Q. Es—what?
A. Eddie Seay escapade.
Q. Wow, you keep saying Eddie Seay, do you mean by that, C-double-E, or S-double-E or–

MR. ALAMO:
S-E-A-Y.

A. And the Ed Mick thing.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Pardon?
A. (not legible) she stayed there, because if Don and Kathy went out in the evening, she stayed with their little girl. But she was there with all the existing problems, also, and there wasn’t much of a place she could have hid to have gotten away from it. So, she knows an awful lot about it and his leaving and being gone for days and the fights and the—everything. And, as a matter of fact, she knows about Kathy sticking money in her pocket that she was supposed to have given to the Foundation.

MR. GEAN:
Well, you’re telling what other people told you now.

A. Mr. Gean, not only one person—

MR. GEAN:
I know, but—

MR. GARNER:
That’s all right. Let her tell it, because it’s going to have to be brought out.

A. It will be brought out.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. How much was she putting in her pocket or how was she getting the money from the Foundation?
A. She would tell Don that she was—Don would give her money and she’d tell him she was giving it to the Foundation. And she’d go over and buy things on lay-a-way and then go back the next day and pick them up and I’d say my, my—

MR. GEAN:
Just what you know of your own personal knowledge.

A. Tony found that out for him, that they were setting up bogus corporations and depleting the trust. But, for the longest time, Don didn’t really get any money at all. And, then, when it went into litigation, less. I’m sure that Don turned most of what he had over to Kathy and I’m sure that Kathy told him that she gave it to the Foundation.

MR. GARNER:
Q. He didn’t ever give any to the Foundation directly?
A. Before he married her.
Q. He did?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. By check or by—
A. I don’t know. Did Don ever give you money by check?

MR. ALAMO:
Some cash, no check.

MR. GARNER:
Q. When—who handled the money for the Foundation, has that been Mr. Alamo or someone under his direction?
A. Tony.
Q. Tony. Would the only money that Mr. Wylie had be that which he got out of trust, as far as you know?
A. Oh, yes, he has returned.
Q. Oh, he’s back in it, again?
A. Oh, yes. He’s back, he’s married, he has a lovely child.
Q. He is not married to your daughter anymore?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Okay. Well, anyhow, after Kathy and Don—did they have a courtship, as we think of it?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. I mean did they date, and hold hands, and go to the movies
A. I don’t know if they held hands or not, I never went with them. I know that they saw quite a lot of each other, to the point that it was becoming nervous. It was a very nervous situation.
Q. In what respect?
A. As in respect of church.
Q. Well, I mean what was nervous about it; I mean I don’t get your point.
A. Well, I told you that we had gone through two previous with Kathy and we were not ready to enter into another one.
Q. Oh, oh, I see what you mean. In other words, you—well, I don’t know what you thought, is there any way you can tell me what you thought?
A. You know what I thought.
Q. Am I thinking that you thought that—that she would create–Was Kathy married at the time?
A. Yeah, she was still married to Eddie Seay.
Q. Eddie Seay. She had married Eddie Seay then?
A. Yes.
Q. The one that broke his leg?
A. Well, when we went back to Hollywood, Eddie Seay began to hang around again, and she was hanging around with Eddie Seay, and I said look, Kathy, you know, everybody in Hollywood knows that you and this boy live together right here on this boulevard, everybody knows it. You’re no witness to Christ; you are nothing, to be running around like this in the streets together, when everybody knows what has transpired between you. So, do something about it, you know, either leave the boy alone, leave this man alone, or do something about it, one way or the other. So, they got married. Kathy’s story was that he had robbed a place in Beverly Hills, whether there is anything to it, I don’t know.
Q. Was he a born again, Eddie Seay?
A. Eddie Seay was a strange person. He has a personality that I cannot explain to you. I don’t know.
Q. Was he living within the Foundation or—
A. Well, after they married, he came and lived in the Foundation for a short period of time, but Kathy was always coming to us that he was robbing places and that he was smoking pot and he was doing this and he was doing that, and finally Eddie just left.
And I take it you didn’t see him anymore for several years? A. Never saw him anymore for years.
Q. Or did you ever see him again after that?
A. We ran on to him one time in Nashville. Well, after Don came to you in ‘70, or ‘71, how long after he was around you was it before he was born again?
A. Oh, Don made a decision for Christ immediately when he came.
Q. You all talked to him and—
A. Oh, yes, immediately. He said that was exactly what he wanted to do with his life, and–yes.
Q. And, then, how long was it had he been in the organization before he and Kathy kind of got attracted to each other or whatever you call it?
A. We had moved to Sagass, we had gone through the Ed Mick thing, I don’t know.
Q. Did it—
A. It could be from two to four years.
Q. Did Ed Mick remain in the organization?
A. Ed Mick left.
Q. At the time of this confrontation that he and Kathy—
A. Yes, Ed left.
Q. And has not returned? another relationship like she had with Eddie Seay–
A. Yes, that’s exactly what I thought.
Q. —and Eddie and cause conjugality—
A. Yes, that’s exactly what I thought.
Q. All right. And, so, where were they married?
A. At the church, at the church. We took them to Beverly Hills and we bought Don a lovely white suit at one of the expensive shops in Beverly Hills, Kathy, a beautiful wedding dress.
Q. White?
A. I would say off-white, you know, I’m not trying to be flip.
Q. And, then, did they have a home within the organization?
A, Oh, yes.
Q. Tell me about their home. I think you described it off the record a few minutes ago, tell me the home that they left.
A. They left a beautiful 100,000…125,000 dollar home, two baths, three bedroom, polished rock floors and a fireplace, furnished in very expensive furniture, name brands, Broyhill, Thomasville. The Foundation paid for that. The Foundation made the payments on the property and the Foundation bought the furniture.
Q. Well, it was all in the Foundation’s name, wasn’t it?
A. Right.
Q. And what was the occasion, you think, for Don leaving, Mrs. Alamo?
A. Don and Kathy had begun to fight between themselves, about everything.
Q. As most married couples do—or beyond that?
A. No, it was beyond that, far beyond that.
Q. Incidentally, do you and Tony have—
A. Arguments?
Q. Squabbles or—
A. If you show me a couple that doesn’t have any, one of you isn’t needed.
Q. Are they pretty good ones, or are they just—
A. Oh, yes, we have several.

MR. GEAN:
Now, that’s not material, Charles. The relationship of Susan and Tony has nothing to do with this.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Okay. Go ahead, he—Roy is always interrupting and getting me off on—
A. Of course, we have disagreements, if you’re two persons, you know.
Q. Probably strong willed.
A. Anyone—I think most of the arguments Tony and I had in ten years was over Kathy. I think the worst argument that we ever had was over me bringing Kathy to Nashville. It was the worst misunderstanding that we ever had.
Q. I assume, then, that since she has gone, everything has— I mean, at least, has been better, put it that way.
A. Yes, I would say it has been better.
Q. Okay. Now, did you ask Don to leave, also?
A. I never talked to Don.
Q. Never mentioned it to him?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Alamo did?
A. I think Tony had seen Don at the back door a few days before then. Don rushed up to the back door and said I’m sorry, Tony, I’ve taken all of her I can take, I just split her out good. And Tony stood there with his mouth open, wondering what in the world was going on. But I don’t—Don said that he was leaving, that he could not stay with her any longer and that he was leaving.
Q. Do you know, in talking about Don, do you know whether or not he was born of a wealthy family, or was his background pretty much the same as Kathy’s, or was he born of wealth?
A. Oh, I think that the father had some money. I don’t think anywhere to where it’s been made to be, from what I understand about it, that most of it was tied up in trust funds. I know that for—and then there was quite a litigation, some attorney beat him out of a fortune.

MR. GEAN:
You’re guessing here, Susan.

A. Yes.
Q. Incidentally, did you all ever have any connection with Elvis Presley?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of connection was that, please, ma’am?
A. Quite a lot down through the years.
Q. Business or personal or—
A. Both.
Q. Were you ever associated, Mrs. Alamo, with what is known as the Fleetwood Foundation?
A. No, there’s never been any Fleetwood Foundation, that I’m aware of.
Q. Do you have a member of your Foundation that owns the Sergeant Pepper chain in Nashville, Dorris?
A. Who?
Q. Dorris.

MR. GEAN:
First name or last name?

MR. GARNER:
Q. I don’t know. Do you know a Dorris or Doris of Nashville?
A. Oh, they’re not any member of our Foundation. We know some people in Nashville that used to have the Sergeant Pepper Stores, they went broke.
Q. Well, what was his name, Dorris what?
A. I don’t even remember, I don’t remember.
Q. Did he marry a girl in the Foundation?
A. Oh, no, heavens, no. He has a wife that he’s been married to, probably, for thirty-five years, grown children. When was this supposed to have happened?
Q. Don’t ask me.
A. You’ve got me curious now. My God, if Dorris left his hus—wife, that is incredible. Q. But you don’t know about it?
A. I don’t think she knows anything about it.

MR. GEAN:
Well, it could have happened.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Do you know a Jeannie Puckett?
A. Yes.
Q. Is she still in the Foundation?
A. Yes, she is.
Q. Where is she now?
A. The last time I saw her, she was at her house in Dyer.
Q. Okay. Will she be available for a deposition?
A. Oh, yes, she will.
Q. Are you telling me that all of the people out there that I want to depose, I can?
A. No, I’m not telling you any such thing.

MR. GEAN:
That can be worked out with me, Charles. We’ll work it out, if you have somebody you want.

MR. GARNER:
Well, I mean all I’ve got to do is serve a subpoena on them, but I—

MR. GEAN:
Well, you don’t—just—you don’t even have to do that. You can just call me, we’ll work that out.

A. You know Jeannie Puckett lived in that upstairs room there with them, so that she would be there with their little girl at night. I think she would be a very, very good one, indeed, because she does know an awful lot.

MR. GEAN:
Q. What’s her name?
A. Jeannie Puckett. And she’s one you’d want, for sure.
Q. Puckett, P-u-c-k-e-t-t?
A. Right, because she—whether she wanted to or not, was involved.

MR. GARNER:
Q. You say she’s one that—one of the girls that slept at the foot of Don’s and Kathy’s bed?
A. No,
Q. Or slept in the room with them?
A. You do have a vivid imagination.
Q. No, I have a hearing problem.
A. I said that she occupied a room upstairs with a private that’s a beautiful outfit Soupy has on. And she she’d say I’ve had it in lay-a-way for months. She sure did. She laid it away yesterday and picked it up today, everything like that, continuously.
Q. Did you ever buy any clothes for Kathy and give her?
A. All the time, continuously, a fur coat at the Boston Store, the winter that she left.
Q. Incidentally, did Richard Hydell ever buy you a coat?
A. Did Richard Hydell ever buy me a coat? Not that I’m aware of.
Q. A mink?
A. Why would Richard Hydell buy me a coat?
Q. I just asked you the question, you can tell me yes or no.
A. Not that I’m aware of, Richard Hydell ever bought me any coat.
Q. Was there ever a mink coat bought for you through Richard Hydell’s account?
A. Richard Hydell’s account? This is most amazing.

MR. GEAN:
Answer, if you know.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Yes or no?
A. What kind of an account?
Q. Bank account.

MR. ALAMO:
She says she doesn’t know. Mr. Garner. Richard Hydell was taken out of all purchasing in California, because we caught Richard Hydell stealing money from the Foundation.

Q. Well, I repeat my question. Did Richard Hydell ever buy you a mink coat?
A. No, Richard Hydell never bought me any mink coat. Richard Hydell probably during the time that he was working on the purchasing very possibly picked up and shipped several coats, and expensive coats, to the Nashville Store. There would have been no reason why Richard Hydell would have been buying anything for me. He might have picked up a coat and shipped it, I don’t know about that. But Richard Hydell never bought me anything in his life.
Q. And no mink coat was ever bought for you through his—one of his bank accounts?
A. Well, I wish I knew he had a bank account.
Q. Well, I—
A. If he has a bank account, it’s Foundation money. Did Mr. Richard Hydell have a bank account?
Q. I take it, then, that your answer is no that he did not.
A. My answer is a question, does he—

MR. GEAN:
Well, we’ll get to that when we take his deposition.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. Did you—was there ever a mink coat bought for you through Richard Hydell’s account, to your knowledge?
A. Richard Hydell never had any bank account, to my knowledge.
Q. So, therefore, no mink could have been bought through his account for you, right?
A. Did Richard Hydell ever have any bank account that you—

MR. ALAMO:
Not to my knowledge.

MR. GEAN:
Just answer it as best you can, of course.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Who are Don and Kathy Hanks?
A. Oh, they’re some people that have been in and out and around Fort Smith for any number of years.
Q. Are they—were they once employed by the Foundation?
A. A very short time.
Q. In what capacity?
A. Music.
Q. Who—him or her or both?
A. Both of them.
Q. And who employed them?
A. Tony.
Q. And in what capacity?
A. Music director.
Q. Music director for the Foundation, down there?
A. Choir.
Q. And how long were he, or they, at the foundation?
A. A very short time, a very short time.
Q. Do you know how much they were paid?
A. I think $1200 a month.
Q. And when you say a very short time, are we talking about the term of one month or one year, or— A, Oh, not a year, not at all. Don Hanks went over and opened up some kind of a little shop here on—

MR. GEAN:
Just ans—how long were they employed?

A. I don’t know, Roy, a short time.
Q. Do you know where they are now?
A. Yes, they’re in Tulsa with Don and Kathy.

MR. GARNER:
Q. Do they live with Don and Kathy or—
A. They’re all there together. Don Hanks owes us quite a bit of money. If you happen to run onto him, ask him to pay his bill.
Q. What does he owe it to you for?
A. Labor, for our boys.
Q. For what?
A. A whole crew of our boys, on a big construction job that he never paid a dime of.
Q. Only one or two more, what banks did you do business -, through in California?
A. I don’t do any business in a bank, my husband does all the banking.
Q. And you still don’t?
A. Still don’t.
Q. Are your weekly television talks, Mrs. Alamo, taped?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they taped ahead or—
A. Yes.
Q. How far ahead?
A. I—really, it would be optional. It would be optional to how often we are taping.
Q. Well, what I see live on Sunday is not live, I mean—
A. No.
Q. —it’s taped ahead, video taped?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. Who has those tapes?
A. We do.
Q. Does the–do you do your own taping or does some studio do the taping?
A. Oh, we have taped everywhere from Hollywood to Nashville, to Virginia Beach, Charlotte, North Carolina, remote control units, that would be optional, again.
Q. Where are those tapes located?
A. Where are the located?
Q. Yes, ma’am.
A. The Ed Mick thing.
Q. How was she taken off?
A. She was just taken off the papers.
Q. And you two are the only two, now?
A. No, no, we’re not.
Q. Who are the other members of the Foundation?
A. I don’t know.
Q. I mean—well, are you an officer, still?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, do you have meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. Who all was present down at the last meeting?
A. There are three of us.
Q. Who is the other one?
A. Larry LaRoche.
Q. Larry Laroche. And where is he, please, ma’am?
A. At the office.
Q. At what office?
A. Our Dyer office.
Q. Dyer office?
A. Uh-huh (yes).
Q. And how long has he been on your board or—
A. Since Kathy was taken off.

MR. GEAN:
You’re calling him a member of the Foundation.

MR. GARNER:
Yeah, member of the Foundation.

MR. GEAN:
I’m not sure about that.

MR, GARNER:
Well, I’m not either. If I’ve used the wrong denominator, descriptio per sonar, you know…

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. You say since Kathy—when did Kathy leave the Foundation?
A. Oh, I have records, but I don’t know, I couldn’t tell you just offhand.
Q. What kind of records do you have about her leaving?
A. Well, the date that she left and letters that she had written back, stacks of them, and all sorts of things.
Q. Who has possession of those letters?
A. I do.
Q. Pardon?
A. I do.
Q. Would you make copies of them available to Mr. Gean, in order that he may furnish them to me?
A. I’ll give them to Mr. Gean and Mr. Gean can do what Mr. Gean wants to do with them.

MR. GARNER:
Roy, will you see that I get Zero: copies of them?

MR. GEAN:
Doesn’t your client have copies of them?

MR. GARNER:
Of course, you don’t make copies when you write personal letters, Roy. MR. GEAN:
Well, I don’t know if they’re personal letters or business letters.

MR. GARNER:
Well, either way, I’m requesting—

A. They had a letter-writing campaign that they were writing, too—

MR. GARNER:
I’m requesting for the purpose of the record that Mr. Gean and his client furnish me with copies of each and every piece of correspondence, which they have, which they allege that my client wrote or signed or caused to be written. Will you do that, Mr. Gean?

MR. GEAN:
Yes.

MR. GARNER:
All right.

MR. GEAN:
I’ll get them and then I’ll get in touch with you about it.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. Incidentally, did you ever borrow any money from Elvis Presley?

MR. GEAN:
What difference does that make? Charlie, who they borrowed money from and so forth, I just don’t think that that’s material.

MR. GARNER:
Well, it’s in the Foundation.

MR. GEAN:
Well, what difference does that make, insofar as holding Kathy Wylie as a prisoner, false imprisonment? We’re going to object.

MR. GARNER:
It goes to the financial status of the thing, Roy.

MR. GEAN:
Well, I’m going to object.

MR. GARNER:
You know, we’re entitled to show financial worth in cases of this sort.

MR. GEAN:
I don’t know whether you are or not.

MR. GARNER:
Well, the Arkansas Supreme Court says you are—

MR. GEAN:
Well, we’re not to that far.

MR. ALAMO: I’m not worried about any financial situation—

MR. GEAN:
-I know—

MR. ALAMO:
I hope they do. Okay, that’s fine.

MRS. ALAMO:
A. Let me say this to you, Kathy Wylie would not know if we did or if we didn’t.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. Well, Mrs. Alamo, to ease your mind a little, please rest assured that I’ve talked to more people and got more stuff than Kathy Wylie, and what I was going to ask you about Elvis Presley—

MR. GEAN:
The question that we’re talking about, Charles, is whether they borrowed money from Elvis Presley, and I don’t think it’s material, and as your attorney, I’m telling you not to answer it.

MR. ALAMO:
I think she’s already explained that I do all the business, anyway, so how can -

MR, GARNER:
Well, whoever told me what they told me was very nice, they said you paid him back, there was no derogatory— I don’t know where you’re getting everything is derogatory, the information—

MR. GEAN:
Nobody says it’s derogatory, it’s not relative.

MR. GARNER:
I thought it was very nice. I mean whoever told me whatever it was was very complimentary, said that you borrowed $700 from Elvis Presley and that you paid him back.
A. That’s not so.
Q. Well, I don’t know whether it was or not.
A, Absolutely not.

MR. GEAN:
Don’t answer any more questions about borrowing money.
A. I know that Kathy told Don that she went out to Elvis Presley’s house with us, too, but it is not so. As a matter of fact, some of the people are still alive that were there, that could tell you it is not so.

MR. GARNER:
Who are those people?
A. Well, Red Webster was.
Q. Red who?
A. Red Webster. Kathy was never at Elvis Presley’s house.
Q. With you?
A. Ever, I don’t think she was ever there, period.

MR. GEAN:
Well, you don’t know.
A. Now, she told Don, I know, because Don asked us about it one time. I said well, Don, Kathy wasn’t—she doesn’t know anything about that.

MR. GARNER CONTINUES:
Q. Mrs. Alamo, when you were down in Mexico, getting married, did you also get a divorce?

MR. GEAN:
How, when are you talking about, what date?

MR. GARNER:
Q. 8-20—after 8-20-1966.
A. Well, now, we’ve gone all through that, Mr. Gean.

MR. GEAN:
You don’t need to answer that. That’s before the Foundation was organized, hasn’t got anything to do with this lawsuit.

MR. GARNER:
Okay. I think that’ll be all.

(DEPOSITION CONCLUDED)

This document vaildates the date that Tony and Susan Alamo offficially began (or filed) the organization known as the Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation.

When telling people what a great promoter he was, Tony Alamo often mentions the “Twenty Original Hits” records. In the audio “Earthquake 2″ on www.alamoministries.com, for example, about 33 minutes into the recording, he says he invented “Twenty Original Hits” and eventually stopped selling new editions only because he “got bored.” Click here to listen to the sound bite from Earthquake on the 20 original hits.- 2 minutes

In several of his tracts, Alamo has bragged about how he came up with the “Twenty Original Hits”. Below are two of his tracts that mention his part in the scam. The first one is from page five of a tract titled “Broken To Pieces” (written December, 1997) and the second one is from page one of Alamo’s tract titled “Biting The Bullet” (written September, 1999).

The fact is the records were $2.98 each and sold because they seemed like great bargains, a fraction of what the twenty songs would have cost one-by-one. How was he able to sell twenty songs so cheaply and still make a profit? Real simple! Tony Alamo never bothered to pay the copyright holders for rights to use the songs. They were pirated. And when the copyright holders finally came after Alamo for their money, he couldn’t be found. It’s funny how he forgot to mention this.

The evidence that “Twenty Original Hits” was pirated by Tony Alamo is all in the public record. A search for “Tony Alamo” on the Lexus legal database turns up three separate court actions, dating from 1966 to 1972, about copyright violations by “Twenty Original Hits” records.

Click on the documents below to download the legal documents in PDF format for easy viewing.

The main case was dated February 8, 1971, and was decided in favor of the copyright holders. Tony was named as a defendant along with the advertising agency which worked for him and the radio stations which carried ads for “Twenty Original Hits.” The copyright holders were unable to find Tony and collected instead from the advertising agency and from the radio station.

Tony’s defenders sometimes argue that one or another charge against him is a manipulation by the Catholic Church. It is hard to see how that could possibly be for the copyright case. If the copyright holders couldn’t find him, it seems highly unlikely anyone in the Catholic Church knew anything about Tony at all. In addition, the evidence against him here certainly in no way depends on the word of “backsliding” and “disgruntled ex-members” of the Foundation. Plus, by the time the case was decided, according to what Tony tells us, he was a born-again Christian. But “born-again” Tony, who certainly knew he had been using songs without paying the copyright holders, apparently felt no responsibility to show up in court or to go back and pay the copyright holders what they were due. And then, we’ve got the coincidence that Tony tells us he “got bored” with “Twenty Original Hits” at just about the same time the copyright holders began looking for him.

Finally, even as theft goes, “Twenty Original Hits” was not a particularly clever or original scheme. The footnotes to a July 18, 1966 ruling, rejecting a motion by the defendants in the case, include the following rather unflattering description of the case and of Tony:

“Record piracy is not of recent origin. Since the early 1950’s it has been a recognized and well-publicized evil of the industry. Its existence was noted by our own Court of Appeals almost ten years ago. Plaintiffs point out that the practice has taken on a particular form in that usually it is carried out by small unreliable operators of dubious financial background who stay in business only long enough to reap their ill-gotten gains and disappear when legal action against them appears imminent. As already noted, plaintiffs here charge that Mark-Fi and its organizer, Tony Alamo, were such operators.”

————————————————————————————————————-
Posted on Factnet Alamo Foundation Discussion Board by “Wilma”:

For people who were at the Alamo Foundation for any length of time, we’ve heard Tony Alamo brag over the pulpit and at his house on numerous occasions about this wonderful idea of 20 Original Hits he brilliantly dreamed up. He bragged about how he made so much money that he even rolled in it with his friends for fun. He told us he had suitcases full of money. Funny that Tony Alamo forgot to mention that these songs were acquired illegally!

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Just like Alamo couldn’t be found to be served papers for court in this instance, we have seen him do this in the Miller felony child abuse case, where he went into hiding from the FBI, disappearing for two years, until he was apprehended in Tampa, FL.

I think Tony and Sue incorporated the Tony & Susan Alamo Christian Foundation somewhere around 1969. At least that’s when Carlos Ave (the first church) started. So this lawsuit was going on all during that time up through 1971, and he never appeared for court. Same ole Tony.