24 November 2001
Source: Digital files from Court Reporter Julaine V. Ryen, Western District of Washington, Tacoma, WA. Telephone: (253) 593-6591

This is Day 4 of the testimony.

See other testimony: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-jdb-dt.htm

           1                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
           2                            AT TACOMA
           4  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    )  Docket No. CR00-5731JET
                                           )  Court of Appeals No. 01-30303-00
           5              Plaintiff,       )
           6          v.                   )
                                           )  Tacoma, Washington
           7  JAMES DALTON BELL,           )  April 6, 2001
           8              Defendant.       )
          10                              VOLUME 4
                                     TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
          11                 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JACK E. TANNER
                       SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a Jury
          13  APPEARANCES:
          14  For the Plaintiff:            ROBB LONDON
                                            Assistant United States Attorney
          15                                601 Union Street, Suite 5100
                                            Seattle, Washington  98101
              For the Defendant:            ROBERT M. LEEN
          17                                Attorney At Law
                                            Two Union Square
          18                                601 Union Street, Suite 4610
                                            Seattle, Washington  98101-3903
          21  Court Reporter:               Julaine V. Ryen
                                            Post Office Box 885
          22                                Tacoma, Washington 98401-0885
                                            (253) 593-6591
              Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
          25  produced by Reporter on computer.
           1                              I N D E X
           2                                                   Page
           3  VOLUME 4                                      471 -  649
                  JEFFREY GORDON
           6           Direct (Continuing)  ..........   474
                       Cross  ........................   504
           7           Redirect  .....................   517
           8      JEFFREY GORDON (Recalled)
                       Direct  .......................   520
              Plaintiff Rests  ...............................    522
                  JAMES D. BELL
          12           Direct  .......................   541
              Defendant's Motion for a Verdict of Acquittal
          15  Pursuant to Rule 29 ............................    523
                 As to Count 1  ..............................    524
          16           Denied  ...............................    525/534
                  As to Count 2  .............................    525
          17           Denied  ...............................    525/534
                 As to Count 3  ..............................    525
          18           Denied  ...............................    526/534
                  As to Count 4  .............................    527
          19           Denied  ...............................    534
                 As to Count 5  ..............................    528
          20           Denied  ...............................    534
          21  Defendant's Motion For a Mistrial Renewed ......    529
          23  EXHIBITS             Admitted
          24    116                   477
                119                   478
          25    127                   486
           1                              I N D E X
           2  EXHIBITS             Admitted
           3    130                   540
                132                   540
           4    134                   540
                135                   540
           5    140                   478
                151                   479
           6    155                   479
                157                   480
           7    162                   480
                170                   482
           8    184                   485
                235                   494
           9    236                   494
                237                   494
                A-1                   592
          11    A-3                   594
                A-4                   598
          12    A-5                   598
           1      (Defendant present.)
           2                           MORNING SESSION
           3      (Jury not present.)
           4           THE COURT:  Are we ready?  Anything before the jury?
           5           MR. LEEN:  No, sir.
           6           MR. LONDON:  Actually, Your Honor, we are prepared now
           7  to file the redacted version of Exhibit 51, so I can hand that
           8  up.
           9           THE CLERK:  Thank you.
          10           MR. LEEN:  Your Honor, may I indicate for the record,
          11  while I object to the exhibit in its entirety, this is the --
          12  the government allowed me to make suggestions of redactions.  We
          13  still object to the exhibit, but I think at least this comports
          14  with what the government felt was relevant about the exhibit.
          15           THE COURT:  All right.
          16      Bring the jury.
          17      (Jury present; 9:40 a.m.)
          18           THE COURT:  Let the record reflect the jury has
          19  returned.  Good morning.
          20      (Jury responds good morning.)
          21           THE COURT:  The witness is on the stand.  The witness
          22  is still under oath.  Redirect -- I'm sorry, direct.
          23                   DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continuing)
          24  BY MR. LONDON:
          25  Q.  Agent Gordon, when we were going through your testimony
           1  yesterday before the break, I believe we, in terms of the
           2  chronology of the timeline things, had gotten up to what you
           3  were observing on the Internet and in other respects about Mr.
           4  Bell's -- some of Mr. Bell's communications and his conduct,
           5  through pretty much, I think, the end of the summer.  I want to
           6  turn your attention to Exhibit 116, an email dated September 15,
           7  2000, to the Cypherpunks.  Did you observe that on the Internet
           8  on or about September 15th?
           9  A.  Yes, I did.
          10  Q.  All right.  And did you notice something about Agent McNall
          11  in that email?
          12  A.  Yes, I did.
          13  Q.  What did you notice about that email that caught your
          14  attention?
          15  A.  On the third page, it mentioned that he thought that ATF
          16  Agent, or BATF Agent Mike McNall would -- he thought it was
          17  Agent Mike McNall who did the deal with Lund to have him
          18  assaulted.
          19  Q.  What did you make of that?  I mean, did it make any sense to
          20  you?
          21  A.  Well, I understood what he was at least claiming.  It
          22  certainly -- and that he was apparently doing more research.
          23  But, no, I mean, it certainly wasn't true, and --
          24  Q.  But had you prior to this ever heard Mr. Bell's allegation
          25  that he had been beaten up by someone at SeaTac named Ryan Lund
           1  and that this had been done at the behest of the government to
           2  try to coerce him into taking a plea in 1997?
           3  A.  Yeah.  I heard that allegation before.  I think it had come
           4  up during his probation violation hearings, and I had seen other
           5  information relating to that purporting to be from him on the
           6  Internet.  But this was the first time that I had seen the name
           7  or even -- ever heard of Mike McNall.
           8  Q.  All right.  Now, when you say you saw Exhibit 116 on the
           9  Internet, was that on a place on the Internet that is a public
          10  site that anyone can access if they simply enter the email
          11  address for that website?
          12  A.  This was on the Cypherpunks list which is public, and the
          13  Cypherpunks list actually can be seen in several -- there's
          14  several different ways you can see or get the Cypherpunks list.
          15  One way is to have it come and sent to you as email, and in this
          16  case, that's what I do.  I set up a separate mailbox, an email
          17  address, to receive the Cypherpunks list.  But the Cypherpunks
          18  list also gets publicly posted to a web page, which they call
          19  the archive, or several web pages that have it so that if you
          20  don't want to set it up and have it emailed to you, you can just
          21  go to the web page and look at the various emails on that web
          22  page.  So there's different places you can see it.  In this
          23  case, when I got it initially, I saw it as receiving it as
          24  email.
          25  Q.  But in any respect or in any manner, were you monitoring any
           1  kind of private email between Mr. Bell and anybody else,
           2  anything that wasn't -- that he wasn't publicly posting to the
           3  email?
           4  A.  No.
           5           MR. LONDON:  We offer Exhibit 116.
           6           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           7           THE COURT:  It's admitted.
           8      (Exhibit No. 116 was admitted.)
           9  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, around about October 10th, did you
          10  also observe another email publicly posted on the Internet?
          11      Exhibit No. 119, I draw your attention to that.
          12  A.  Yes.  I don't remember the exact date that I saw it, but 119
          13  is my printout that I make.
          14  Q.  And what did you notice about 119 that caught your
          15  attention?
          16  A.  This is just publicly posted to the Usenet portion of the
          17  Internet and so it's publicly available.  It's like a bulletin
          18  board that anybody can go see it.  And this is one where he just
          19  discuss -- just says, "Please consider my essay, 'Assassination
          20  Politics,'" and gives the web page -- one of the web pages where
          21  that's located as it is.  And he mentions, "you need to read my
          22  idea of a solution to the problem."  So it was just another
          23  evidence, to me, anyway, that he was still, as of October 10th,
          24  2000, advocating Assassination Politics.
          25           MR. LONDON:  I offer 119.
           1           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           2           THE COURT:  119 is admitted.
           3      (Exhibit No. 119 was admitted.)
           4  Q.  (Mr. London)  All right.  Now, that one was dated October
           5  10th.  A few days later, on October 24th, did you see a message
           6  posted on the Internet with the header, "Say Goodnight to
           7  Joshua"?
           8  A.  Again, I'm not sure the exact date I saw it, but, yes, I did
           9  see a -- that message.
          10  Q.  Was that message dated October 24th?  If you will look at
          11  Exhibit 140.
          12  A.  Yes.  This is my printout that I made.
          13  Q.  All right.
          14           MR. LONDON:  We offer 140.
          15           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          16           THE COURT:  140 is admitted.
          17      (Exhibit No. 140 was admitted.)
          18  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, I believe yesterday you did testify
          19  that you had already observed some publicly available Internet
          20  correspondence between Mr. Bell and John Young or via the
          21  Cypherpunks list about a Mr. Mueller and a CIA Intelink in
          22  Oregon.  Specifically, which exhibits did you download that
          23  included the references to Mr. Mueller in Oregon?  I will ask
          24  you to start with 151.
          25  A.  151 is an exhibit that I received and downloaded relating to
           1  that.
           2  Q.  That was 151?
           3           MR. LONDON:  I will offer 151.
           4  A.  Yes, that was 151.
           5           THE COURT:  Are you offering 151?
           6           MR. LONDON:  Yes, Your Honor.
           7           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           8           THE COURT:  151 is admitted.
           9      (Exhibit No. 151 was admitted.)
          10  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Will you turn to 155?
          11  A.  Yes.  This is also one of the emails that I downloaded from
          12  the Internet.
          13  Q.  What does it describe?
          14  A.  This is again CIA in Oregon.
          15  Q.  Does it mention Mr. Mueller?
          16  A.  Yes, it does.
          17           MR. LONDON:  We offer 155.
          18           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          19           THE COURT:  It is admitted.
          20      (Exhibit No. 155 was admitted.)
          21  Q.  (By Mr. London)  157. What is 157?
          22  A.  157, again, an October 28th email message involving CIA in
          23  Oregon that I downloaded from the Internet.
          24           MR. LONDON:  We offer 157.
          25           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           1           THE COURT:  It's admitted.
           2      (Exhibit No. 157 was admitted.)
           3  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Please turn to 162.
           4  A.  Okay, I have it.
           5  Q.  What is 162?
           6  A.  This is a message again to the Cypherpunks list that I
           7  downloaded from the Internet.
           8  Q.  Concerning Mr. Mueller and the CIA?
           9  A.  162 is the one that is not -- no.
          10  Q.  What is that about?
          11  A.  This is the one, or this is a message which he says, in
          12  discussing apparently government employees, "Under libertarian
          13  principles they are fully guilty of initiating 'force and/or
          14  fraud'.  And there are no 'statutes of limitation' on our
          15  response to these people regardless of current law.
          16      "Now would be an excellent time for anyone to go to their
          17  county voter's registration office, and order a copy of the
          18  voter's registration database for current and future use."
          19           MR. LONDON:  We would offer 162.
          20           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          21           THE COURT:  162 is admitted.
          22      (Exhibit No. 162 was admitted.)
          23  Q.  (By Mr. London)  What is the date of that email?
          24  A.  October 30th.
          25  Q.  Would you turn to Exhibit 170 now.  And as you look at that
           1  exhibit, perhaps you can describe where you were on October
           2  31st, at approximately 10:35 in the morning.
           3  A.  I was in my office, the Treasury Inspector General Office,
           4  in Portland, Oregon.
           5  Q.  And what happened?
           6  A.  The fax machine started making the normal fax machine noises
           7  when a fax comes in, and this is the exact document -- I've got
           8  my initials and the date on the back -- that came in through the
           9  fax machine.
          10  Q.  Now, about this time, had you been involved in discussions
          11  with Mr. Bell or with Mr. Bell's attorney, Mr. Solovy, to
          12  arrange the return of the guns that we heard testimony about
          13  yesterday?
          14  A.  Yes.  Actually --
          15  Q.  And his other property.
          16  A.  By this point, by October 31st, I had just simply shipped
          17  all the property that -- all the other property back to Mr.
          18  Bell's residence.  Since we were at an impasse, we couldn't get
          19  any instructions, so we shipped it to him directly, so we didn't
          20  have that, but I couldn't do that with the guns.  I needed
          21  somebody to come and pick them up, so we had -- even after this
          22  July 31st deadline had past, we had given another deadline to
          23  his attorney to -- and that deadline, I believe, was either
          24  October 31st or November 1st.  I think it was November 1st, to
          25  either have somebody pick up the guns or we were going to
           1  destroy them.  And that was what was going on at that point.  We
           2  had a fixed deadline of November 1st.
           3  Q.  So this fax came in, and what did it say?
           4  A.  Well, most of the fax was my original fax from July 31st.
           5  That's the typed portion.  But written on it was the, "How about
           6  if I drop by your house tomorrow night with my designee to pick
           7  up the four items?  Or maybe you'd prefer at the address above?
           8  Jim B."
           9  Q.  And what was the address above?
          10  A.  The address above is the U.S. Treasury Inspector General, my
          11  office address, at 1220 Southwest Third in Portland, and it has
          12  my phone number and my fax number on it.
          13           MR. LONDON:  All right.  We offer 170.
          14           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          15           THE COURT:  170 is admitted.
          16      (Exhibit No. 170 was admitted.)
          17           MR. LONDON:  And we would ask that that be published to
          18  the jury.
          19  Q.  (Mr. London)  The four items, is that a reference to the
          20  four weapons?
          21  A.  I presume so, yes.
          22           MR. LEEN:  Objection, Your Honor.  Move to strike.
          23  Conclusion.
          24  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Well, how many items remained for you --
          25           THE COURT:  Why don't you read it to the jury because
           1  it looks very difficult to see.
           2  A.  It says, "How about if I drop by your house tomorrow night
           3  with my designee to pick up the four items?  Or maybe you'd
           4  prefer at the address above?  Jim B."
           5  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, the original version of this with the
           6  blue ink handwriting, that was recovered during the search at
           7  Mr. Bell's house, correct?
           8  A.  Yes, that's what we have marked as Exhibit 171.
           9  Q.  So it's your understanding that what happened here is Mr.
          10  Bell took a fax cover sheet, a fax that you had sent to him and
          11  to Mr. Solovy, and simply wrote in hand that message, and then
          12  faxed it back to you on October 31st?
          13  A.  That's correct.
          14  Q.  How is a facsimile transmitted from one person's computer or
          15  fax machine to another person's?
          16  A.  Through the phone lines.
          17  Q.  And --
          18           MR. LEEN:  Objection, Your Honor.  That's conclusory.
          19           THE COURT:  You can cross-examine him on it.  It will
          20  stand.
          21      Go ahead.
          22  Q.  (By Mr. London)  I'm sorry, can you repeat your answer?
          23  A.  Normally all the fax machines, generally speaking, that I'm
          24  familiar with, are hooked to telephone lines.  You plug them
          25  into your telephone or to a telephone line.  I know the one in
           1  our office that receives -- the only way we receive faxes is
           2  through the phone line.  Our fax has a phone number, (503)
           3  326-2246.  That's our fax line, and it's plugged into the
           4  telephone and you call into it, dial into it, and it answers and
           5  receives the fax.
           6  Q.  All right.  Are fax machines and telephone lines used
           7  regularly as instruments in interstate commerce?
           8  A.  Yes.
           9           MR. LEEN:  Objection.  Calls for a legal conclusion.
          10           THE COURT:  As to what he does?
          11           MR. LEEN:  No.  He's asking about how -- about
          12  telephone lines and interstate commerce and such.  I'm saying
          13  that's a legal conclusion.
          14           THE COURT:  As he uses them?  Is that the objection?
          15           MR. LEEN:  No.  As to whether or not this constitutes
          16  interstate commerce, Your Honor.  That's my objection.  That's a
          17  conclusion.
          18           THE COURT:  Well, he may answer.
          19  A.  Yes.  In my experience, and certainly all the time we use
          20  our fax, this particular fax machine, all the time to send faxes
          21  to other offices and witnesses and all sorts of people across
          22  state lines.
          23  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, on November 4th -- please turn your
          24  attention to Exhibits 184 and 185 -- did you see anything more
          25  on the Internet indicating that Mr. Bell, perhaps, now had found
           1  the home of Scott Mueller, this supposed CIA agent?
           2  A.  Yes.  184 is the original that I downloaded off the Internet
           3  of, again, another CIA in Oregon email message.  In this one, he
           4  specifically -- it indicates that he's been out there, or
           5  somebody's been out there because it gives specific information
           6  about the residence.  He says, "This address is a house in a
           7  rather new subdivision," and he also says, "Two vehicles," and
           8  he gives the license plates, "are in the driveway."
           9  Q.  All right.
          10           MR. LONDON:  We offer 184.
          11           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          12           THE COURT:  184 is admitted.
          13      (Exhibit No. 184 was admitted.)
          14  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, that was dated November 4th.  Two days
          15  later the search warrant was executed at Mr. Bell's residence at
          16  7214 Corregidor, correct?
          17  A.  Yes.
          18  Q.  All right.  We've already talked about a lot of the items
          19  that were recovered from the search.  Are you familiar with all
          20  of the CD-ROMs and phone disks and Department of Motor Vehicle
          21  printouts and the spiral notebook with all the information
          22  showing where he had been?  Have you looked at all of that
          23  evidence?
          24  A.  Yes, I have.
          25  Q.  Are you also familiar with the tax assessor printout?
           1  A.  Yes, I am.
           2  Q.  Turn to Exhibit 127, which I don't think anyone has talked
           3  about yet.
           4  A.  Yes, I have it.
           5  Q.  What is 127?
           6  A.  This is a receipt that I found in Mr. Bell's bedroom during
           7  the search.
           8  Q.  A receipt for what, issued by whom?
           9  A.  This was issued by Clark County and it's got an address in
          10  Vancouver, Washington.  It says it's received from Bell, is
          11  handwritten in, and says "For 10 Assr," assessor, "prints."
          12  Q.  So what does that appear to be to you?
          13  A.  This appears to be the receipt, because it's dated
          14  October 11, 2000, for the purchase of what I believe is
          15  Exhibits 125 and 126.  Those are also dated the same day,
          16  October 11, 2000.  The real property records for Jeffrey
          17  Gordon are two different Jeffrey Gordons, apparently.
          18           MR. LONDON:  We offer 127.
          19           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          20           THE COURT:  127 is admitted.
          21      (Exhibit No. 127 was admitted.)
          22  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Now, you had been to the Bell residence on
          23  a prior search warrant in 1997, correct?
          24  A.  Yes.
          25  Q.  You were familiar with the layout of the house, correct?
           1  A.  Yes.
           2  Q.  What evidence was there when you went in October -- excuse
           3  me -- November with the search warrant, when Mr. Bell was
           4  actually living at that residence?
           5  A.  Well, Mr. Bell was present and actually asleep when we
           6  arrived in the bedroom in the basement in the residence.  His,
           7  what appeared to be his, personal possessions were there and his
           8  clothes.  The documents all in the basement area all seemed to
           9  be related to him.
          10  Q.  Is that where he had his computers?
          11  A.  There were two -- as I understand it, two computers in the
          12  basement and an additional computer upstairs.
          13  Q.  Did Mr. Bell say anything at all to suggest that this was
          14  not where he was actually living?
          15  A.  No.
          16  Q.  All right.  Several days after the search warrant was
          17  executed -- we are now on November 9th -- did you see an article
          18  in the Columbian newspaper about Mr. Bell?
          19  A.  I don't recall the exact date, but I know I have seen
          20  articles in the Columbian about him.
          21  Q.  Could you look at Exhibit 214, please.
          22  A.  Yes.  This is an article that I cut out of the Columbian
          23  myself.  I've got my initials up in the corner.
          24  Q.  And what does it say about Mr. Bell, or what did you notice
          25  in this article that might have caused you to be particularly
           1  interested in it?
           2  A.  Well, he made what I consider admissions that he has been
           3  using motor vehicle records and that specifically he had gone to
           4  the homes of agents' houses and taken pictures.  And, you know,
           5  he reiterated, I guess, his feelings that we're absolutely
           6  crooked, things like that.  That was a concern.
           7  Q.  Now, the tracking device in his car, that had already been
           8  installed several days earlier during the execution of the
           9  search warrant, correct?
          10  A.  Yes.  That was done on November 6th.
          11  Q.  Now, were you concerned enough about your safety that you
          12  wanted to be able to have a way of monitoring the tracking
          13  device yourself at home at night?
          14  A.  Yes.
          15  Q.  And what did you do to make sure that you could find out if
          16  that tracking device was getting anywhere near you?
          17  A.  What I did is -- the system was kind of designed for this.
          18  We set it up -- we told the system that if Mr. Bell left a
          19  certain defined area, basically a couple miles square around his
          20  house, so that it wouldn't notify us, for example, if he just
          21  went to the store close by or went to get a drink, but if, you
          22  know, he left that area, that it would alert my pager, and then
          23  I would know to go and check the system so that we could see
          24  where he was going.  And I kept a list of as many targets as I
          25  was aware of, or potential targets for him, of the various
           1  people that I knew he was gathering information on so that I
           2  could hopefully, if I saw him going somewhere, identify who he
           3  was trying to go after and notify them or take whatever steps we
           4  needed to do for their safety.
           5  Q.  And were you at home around 12:15, early in the morning of
           6  November 10th?
           7  A.  Yes.
           8  Q.  And were you monitoring the device, or what were you doing
           9  around that time?
          10  A.  Sleeping.
          11  Q.  And what happened?
          12  A.  The pager went off and alerted me.  I went to the computer
          13  and checked where Mr. Bell -- or where the device, the tracker
          14  was.
          15  Q.  The display that the jury saw yesterday of the progression
          16  of the tracking device going south across the river to the
          17  residence on South Clackamas, were you able to see essentially
          18  that same thing as it was happening in live time?
          19  A.  Yes.  That's -- it looks very -- exactly like that only in
          20  real time, so it's a lot slower because it's not in that fast,
          21  fast pace mode.
          22  Q.  So you watched it, and what did you see?
          23  A.  I think by the time I got on, got on to see it, he was
          24  already southbound.  He had already crossed the border and was
          25  south on 205.  I wasn't sure -- 205 is a main artery, so I
           1  wasn't sure where or what he was doing.  I was concerned about
           2  it because it was so late at night.  That's an unusual time to
           3  be doing a normal trip, so I continued to watch it to see if I
           4  could figure out where he was going.
           5  Q.  And at what point did you figure out where he might be
           6  headed?
           7  A.  At the point he turned on to South Clackamas River Drive, I
           8  recognized that as the Groener/Andrews, the street that they
           9  lived on.
          10  Q.  So what did you do?
          11  A.  I contacted -- the first thing I did was contact 911 and ask
          12  them to have local units respond to the residence to see if they
          13  could get out there as soon as possible to ensure the safety of
          14  the residents.
          15  Q.  And did you try to call the residents yourself?
          16  A.  Yes, I did.  I, I dialed Mr. Groener's phone number.
          17  Q.  And what happened?
          18  A.  I got put into -- I wasn't sure at the time whether it was a
          19  voice mail machine or answering machine, and so I thought maybe
          20  it was an answering machine and maybe he just wasn't answering
          21  because it was so late at night, so I kind of shouted into it,
          22  "Chris, Chris, if you're home, answer the phone.  Answer the
          23  phone.  I need to talk to you," and I identified myself.
          24  Q.  Were you concerned about Agent McNall as well at this point?
          25  A.  No.  I wasn't concerned about Agent McNall because I knew
           1  that he no longer lived in that area.  I was concerned about the
           2  Andrews, I was concerned about Mr. Groener at the immediate
           3  time.  But I did know that -- did contact him because I knew he
           4  was -- or I arranged to have him contacted because he was
           5  familiar with the property and wasn't that far from it and could
           6  respond to the scene.
           7  Q.  Did you call anybody else besides 911?  Did you contact your
           8  own supervisor?
           9  A.  Yes, I did.  I contacted -- I stayed -- I was on line with
          10  911.  I contacted my supervisor.  I contacted another treasury
          11  agent in our office, had him respond to be with me in case we
          12  needed to take some action or response.  I placed him on alert,
          13  and actually I had him make the call to ATF and try to get ahold
          14  of Agent McNall and to alert ATF.  I paged and tried to get
          15  ahold of ATF's case agent to advise them that this was going
          16  on.
          17  Q.  Now, you were aware that Mr. Bell was stopped by the
          18  Clackamas County Sheriff's officers a few miles from the Groener
          19  house, correct?
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  But that he was also ultimately released that evening,
          22  correct?
          23  A.  Yes.
          24  Q.  The next morning, on November 11th, did you see an article
          25  by Declan McCullagh on the Internet on Wired News in which Mr.
           1  Bell was quoted talking about picketing your house?
           2  A.  I'm not sure of the exact date, but I recall a Wired News
           3  article in regard to that.
           4  Q.  Would you look at Exhibit 229.
           5  A.  Yes.  This is an article that I printed out myself.
           6  Q.  All right.  And in that article, was Mr. Bell quoted as
           7  saying that he was thinking very strongly of picketing Gordon's
           8  house?
           9  A.  Yes.
          10  Q.  And that he was hopping mad and feeling very hostile and
          11  that he was not going to be stopped?
          12  A.  Yeah.  He said, "If you think this is going to stop me,
          13  baloney."
          14  Q.  All right.  So Mr. Bell had been present during the
          15  execution of the federal search warrant and you were there,
          16  correct?
          17  A.  Yes.
          18  Q.  He had been stopped now just a few miles from his second
          19  visit to the Groener property, correct?
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  And he was now telling the reporter that he was not going to
          22  be stopped, correct?
          23  A.  Yes.
          24  Q.  All right.  And an arrest warrant was finally obtained for
          25  him and he was arrested on November 17th.  Were you present at
           1  the scene?
           2  A.  I responded to the scene and arrived shortly after he was
           3  detained in the car.
           4  Q.  He was stopped in his car?
           5  A.  Yes.  In fact, we used the tracking device to help make the
           6  arrest so we knew where he was driving and had the Vancouver
           7  Police Department make a traffic stop on him, and as soon as
           8  they got him pulled over, then I responded to the scene.
           9  Q.  All right.  Now, his car was searched incident to the
          10  arrest, correct?
          11  A.  Yes.
          12  Q.  And a number of items were found in there that you believed
          13  to be relevant to this.  Can you tell us what they are?  And I
          14  will direct your attention to Exhibit 235.
          15  A.  Yes.  On the -- 235 is an item that I saw and found in the
          16  car, and my initials are on the back of it.  This is a photo
          17  processing envelope that was sitting on the passenger seat in
          18  the car.
          19  Q.  And can you look at 236?
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  What is 236?
          22  A.  This is the -- one of the pictures that was inside the photo
          23  processing envelope that we just spoke of.  It's got my initials
          24  again on the back.  One of the pictures we found in the car.
          25  Q.  And do you know what that is a picture of?
           1  A.  Yes.  That's -- we had some testimony on this earlier, I
           2  believe.  This is one of Mr. Mueller's -- I think it's his
           3  previous residence.
           4           MR. LONDON:  We offer 236.
           5           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           6           THE COURT:  236 is admitted.
           7      (Exhibit No. 236 was admitted.)
           8  Q.  (By Mr. London)  And look at 237.
           9  A.  Yes.
          10  Q.  What's 237?
          11  A.  237, again, is an item that I found in the car and seized.
          12  This is a receipt from -- while it's dated November 17th, which
          13  is the date of the arrest, at 8:40 p.m., which is just prior --
          14  the time just prior to the arrest, and it's for photo/elec,
          15  which I assume to be electronics.
          16  Q.  Now --
          17           MR. LONDON:  We offer 237.
          18           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          19           MR. LONDON:  And 235.
          20           MR. LEEN:  Let me look.
          21           MR. LONDON:  It's the envelope.
          22           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
          23           THE COURT:  235 and 237 are admitted.
          24      (Exhibits Nos. 235 and 237 were admitted.)
          25  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Agent Gordon, have you had an opportunity
           1  to do what we call a search using a search engine on the
           2  Internet for Scott Mueller?
           3  A.  Yes, I have.
           4  Q.  What is -- describe for those of us who may be less savvy
           5  about the Internet what a search engine is and how you run a
           6  search for someone over the Internet?
           7  A.  Okay.  There's many websites or web pages on the Internet.
           8  There's millions and millions of them.  There's lots of
           9  information.  And so if you're looking or are interested in a
          10  particular subject or particular person, you don't know
          11  necessarily what web page to go to, so there are various
          12  companies or people out there that have set their computers to
          13  go to each different web page and kind of catalog what's on that
          14  site and to create an index, kind of like the card catalog at a
          15  library.  And so if you go to -- and that's the search engine
          16  people.  If you go to that search engine, you can type in what
          17  you're looking for and it will go out and search its memory and
          18  tell -- and point you or tell you which different web pages you
          19  might want to try to find that information.
          20  Q.  So, for example, if you were to type in a name with the
          21  search engine, essentially search all over the Internet various
          22  websites and pull down all of the places where that name
          23  appeared.
          24  A.  Different search engines use different methods of locating
          25  it, but, yes, that's essentially what happens.
           1  Q.  All right.  And what happened when you ran the name Scott
           2  Mueller?
           3  A.  Well, I think I ran the full name -- did it a couple of
           4  different ways.  But when I run, for example, Scott Deforest
           5  Mueller, those three names, I came back basically with the CIA
           6  in Oregon Cypherpunks-type postings.  In other words, the
           7  postings that Mr. Bell made giving all his information.
           8  Q.  And outing Mr. Mueller as a CIA agent?
           9  A.  That's correct.
          10  Q.  Did you have a chance to observe or to look through Exhibit
          11  137, which I have referred to as the stalking diary?  This is
          12  the spiral notebook that was found during the search of Mr.
          13  Bell's home.
          14  A.  Yes, I have.
          15  Q.  And have you had a chance to see that, or whether there are
          16  many telephone numbers recorded in that book?
          17  A.  Yes, there are.
          18  Q.  For various individuals?
          19  A.  Yes.
          20  Q.  Have you had a chance to compare the telephone numbers
          21  recorded in this diary with Mr. Bell's telephone records from
          22  the residence at 7214 Corregidor?
          23  A.  Yes, I have.
          24  Q.  And what does the comparison show?
          25  A.  It's not a perfect match.  There are some phone numbers in
           1  the diary -- some long distance numbers that are in the stalking
           2  diary that aren't on his phone bills, but generally speaking,
           3  quite a few of them are and matched up.  In some cases when
           4  there were dates in the diary and in some cases they matched
           5  up.  But there were some matches.
           6  Q.  All right.  So -- but is it your testimony that on days
           7  indicated in the diary in which telephone number information was
           8  recorded, there's corresponding evidence in the phone records
           9  that he was actually calling those numbers from his home, or
          10  some of them?
          11  A.  Yes.  Except that most of the diary doesn't really have
          12  dates, so it's -- it's hard to correlate exact dates to days.  I
          13  think we have at least one example of it where it did match up.
          14  But in general, yes.  And there were certainly numbers that are
          15  written down in the stalking diary that then the phone records
          16  show -- where there are phone records available, show that they
          17  have been called.
          18  Q.  All right.  Did you have a chance to make up an exhibit or
          19  kind of a diagram to show this?
          20  A.  Yes.  Although the diagram that we have only relates to the
          21  phone bills through a Uni-Tel.  There was another phone provider
          22  for some of the period of time, and those records, even though
          23  the phone calls may be in here, weren't -- that's not included
          24  in this chart.
          25  Q.  All right.  I would ask you to look at Exhibit 180 and tell
           1  us if that's the chart that you prepared showing that Mr. Bell
           2  was actually telephoning some of the numbers that were also
           3  found in his diary.
           4  A.  Yes.  This is the chart that I prepared.
           5           MR. LONDON:  I would like to ask that that be
           6  published.
           7           MR. LEEN:  No objection.
           8  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Can you describe the information --
           9           MR. LONDON:  The jury needs to see it.
          10  Q.  (By Mr. London)  Can you just describe how you prepared this
          11  and what it shows?
          12  A.  Yes.  On the left side is the --
          13           THE COURT:  They can't see.  Members of the jury can't
          14  see it.
          15           MR. LONDON:  Is that better?  That's about as much as I
          16  think we will be able to magnify it.
          17  A.  Okay.  On the left side I tried --
          18           THE COURT:  Why don't you -- have you got a pointer?
          19           MR. LONDON:  You've got a pointer.
          20           THE COURT:  That might help.
          21           MR. LONDON:  Why don't you use that.
          22  Q.  (Mr. London)  Okay.
          23  A.  Okay.  So on the left side I have tried to put what the
          24  stalking notebook, Exhibit 137, what it says and the page number
          25  in parens, so for the first entry it's Larry Olstad with a phone
           1  number 849-4635.  That would be Exhibit 137, page 1.  And then
           2  on the other side, the right side after the line, I have put the
           3  -- again, the phone number that was found on the Uni-Tel phone
           4  bill and the dates that that number was called, the phone
           5  records show it was called.
           6  Q.  All right.  But you're not suggesting that these are phone
           7  numbers of people who are actually being stalked, are you, these
           8  are more -- how would you describe these numbers?
           9  A.  These are just numbers that are listed, and you can see, for
          10  example, there's the assessor's office, or just various people.
          11  They are not necessarily victims in the case.  It just shows
          12  that -- relates the stalking notebook to actual activity.
          13  Q.  All right.  But there are -- do you see the third entry, the
          14  Benton County, Washington, Assessor's Office?
          15  A.  Yes.
          16  Q.  Is the county assessor's office someplace where you can get
          17  property records if you are looking for someone's address?
          18  A.  Yes.
          19  Q.  And the last, the King County Assessor, is that -- the same
          20  question there?
          21  A.  Yes.
          22  Q.  And the second one, assessor/treasurer.  What does that mean
          23  to you?
          24  A.  The same thing, it's some sort of, most likely a county
          25  office or something.
           1  Q.  It's got a 253 area code.
           2  A.  I think that's up in this area, the Pierce County area.
           3  Q.  You're a law enforcement agent, isn't that correct?
           4  A.  Yes.
           5  Q.  You carry a gun as part of your everyday responsibilities,
           6  correct?
           7  A.  Yes.
           8  Q.  What would your answer be if someone were to say to you, why
           9  are you afraid of this guy, or what reason, what cause do you
          10  have to be afraid of this guy?  You're the guy who's carrying
          11  the gun.  He's the guy who had to give up his guns.
          12  A.  Well, there's a lot of answers to that.  One is that he's
          13  clearly targeting me at my residence, at my home where my family
          14  lives, so it's not just me, it's my family.  It's not just when
          15  I'm on duty or working as a law enforcement officer, where I
          16  would normally be carrying my gun in antici- -- you know, have
          17  it ready, but it could be while I'm sleeping at night or when
          18  I'm not there.
          19      There were -- but he's a person who's strongly advocated the
          20  assassination of government officials, and specifically tax
          21  officials.
          22      He -- there's the whole chemical weapon issue, the fact that
          23  he's at least stated that he's made Sarin gas, a highly
          24  dangerous nerve agent.  We found precursor-type chemicals for
          25  that in his residence.  He's got a degree in chemistry from MIT,
           1  so he clearly has the ability to make those.
           2      He's dumped chemicals in an IRS office in retaliation for
           3  rela- -- comparatively minor, I guess, in retaliation for the
           4  seizure of his vehicle.  So what's he going to do because we put
           5  him in jail?
           6      And he's -- the time he spent in jail had no effect on him.
           7  It -- or it certainly didn't deter him from this activity; it
           8  increased it.  He did -- or similar activity was coming after
           9  agents in '97, and we put him in jail on supervised release, and
          10  instead of learning from that, now he's even more aggresive and
          11  escalating.
          12  Q.  In fact, in '97 he was never accused of actually showing up
          13  at anybody's house, is that fair?
          14  A.  Correct.
          15  Q.  What steps have you taken, if any, to try to increase your
          16  security because of this?
          17  A.  I've purchased additional firearms for the family and the
          18  house.  I've installed the first part of the security system in
          19  my residence and gotten an additional one.  I've obtained an
          20  anti-stalking order from the State of Oregon.
          21      My -- I had to, you know, talk to my family about what steps
          22  to take while Mr. Bell was still on the loose or before he was
          23  in custody.  I had to, you know, sit down with my wife and talk
          24  about the situation, and she had, you know, started carrying
          25  around a large firearm with her, you know.  So.
           1      I mean, every morning when I wake up, the first thing I do
           2  is look out the window, or especially when he was -- look out
           3  the window.  When I walked out to my car, I check up and down
           4  the street.  When I come home I take evasive routes and check
           5  the neighborhood, and if there's a car that gets off the freeway
           6  behind me at the same time as I do, I turn a couple different
           7  directions to go a different way to see if they are actually
           8  following me or not.
           9  Q.  What would you say to the accusation, if it were to be made,
          10  that you are just as obsessed with him as he is with you?
          11  A.  Well, from a -- maybe just from a defensive posture.  I
          12  would have been very happy had he gotten out of jail and just
          13  completely left us alone or left me alone.  I really took no
          14  steps upon him being released from custody in April.  I didn't
          15  do -- go near him or do anything other than monitor public
          16  information on the Internet, receive some phone calls when
          17  people called me about him, and that's basically it.  I didn't
          18  try to arrange -- continue, which I had been for at least a year
          19  prior, continue to try to arrange the return of his property
          20  back to him.
          21  Q.  There's been some suggestion, I guess by counsel, that Mr.
          22  Bell's accessing or his use of the Department of Motor Vehicles
          23  database is perfectly legal.  Is that your understanding?
          24  A.  No, it's not.
          25  Q.  What laws govern the use of the Department of Motor Vehicle
           1  materials, such as the material that he has on CD-ROMs and has
           2  been using to search for your address and the addresses of
           3  others?
           4  A.  There's both state and federal laws restricting the use of
           5  DMV data, especially the more recent stuff.  In response to some
           6  of these stalking and harassment problems that there have been,
           7  the government passed, I think it's 2712 -- I don't remember
           8  exactly what statute it was -- that restricts what you can use
           9  and how -- who can obtain the DMV data and what you can use it
          10  for.
          11  Q.  In fact, doesn't it restrict its lawful use to those who are
          12  going to use it for commercial purposes?
          13  A.  Yes.  There's several uses.  For example, law enforcement
          14  can use it or various -- but essentially that's one of the uses,
          15  is for those who are using it for commercial or marketing
          16  purposes.
          17  Q.  All right.  Are you aware that agents who work with you have
          18  tried to obtain a sample of Mr. Bell's handwriting pursuant to
          19  an order of this court?
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  Did Mr. Bell comply?
          22  A.  No, he did not.
          23  Q.  Does that explain why there's no handwriting comparison in
          24  this case comparing his handwriting to the handwriting in the
          25  notebooks?
           1  A.  That's correct.  We were unable to -- we obtained the order
           2  from the court to have Mr. Bell give us exact handwriting
           3  samples.  The examiners need the same handwriting that appears,
           4  the same words, and they need it multiple times in order to make
           5  a scientific comparison to see if it's that individual's
           6  handwriting.  And when the agents on -- after having coordinated
           7  with Mr. Bell's attorney prior to going out to the prison, went
           8  there twice to give him the opportunity to obey the court order,
           9  and both times he refused to even meet with them.
          10           MR. LONDON:  Nothing further.
          11           THE COURT:  Cross-examination.
          12                        CROSS-EXAMINATION
          13  BY MR. LEEN:
          14  Q.  Good morning, Agent Gordon.
          15  A.  Good morning, Mr. Leen.
          16  Q.  In the course of investigating Mr. Bell, you used the
          17  Internet.
          18  A.  Yes.
          19  Q.  And did searches on the Internet.
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  Much the way Mr. Bell did searches on the Internet.
          22  A.  Presumably.
          23  Q.  You did cross-references of telephone directories.
          24  A.  On occasion.
          25  Q.  Much the way Mr. Bell did cross-references of telephone
           1  directories.
           2  A.  I didn't use it exactly the same, but there -- the way he
           3  did it, but similar.
           4  Q.  When did you first open a file on Mr. Bell?
           5  A.  October '96.
           6  Q.  When was Mr. Bell's vehicle seized?
           7  A.  February '97.
           8  Q.  Were you aware that it was going to be seized?
           9  A.  Yes.
          10  Q.  Were you involved at all in the decision to seize his
          11  vehicle?
          12  A.  I was in -- the final decision wasn't mine, but I certainly
          13  had a lot of involvement in the process.
          14  Q.  When the vehicle was seized, was there a copy of
          15  Assassination Politics, that is a hard copy, in the vehicle?
          16  A.  Yes.
          17  Q.  Was that the first time you had become aware of that
          18  article?
          19  A.  No.
          20  Q.  You had become aware of it through an Internet search or --
          21  A.  Yes.
          22  Q.  -- somehow or another were directed to it on line?
          23  A.  Yes.
          24  Q.  Did you pull up tax records from databases regarding Mr.
          25  Bell?
           1  A.  Yes.
           2  Q.  Did you monitor on the Internet Cypherpunk list any email
           3  Mr. Bell may have written or email that was written to Mr. Bell?
           4  A.  At what time period?
           5  Q.  Well, after -- any time after you opened the file.
           6  A.  Later on, yes.
           7  Q.  Were you aware that there was a Special Agent Walsh using
           8  the name Steve Wilson sent to infiltrate the Multnomah County
           9  Common Law Court?
          10  A.  I wouldn't describe it like that.
          11  Q.  How would you describe it?
          12  A.  Well, he -- I was certainly aware of Agent Walsh and the
          13  undercover operation that we had going.  His -- his mission was
          14  not to infiltrate the common law court, though.
          15  Q.  Was his mission to monitor Mr. Bell?
          16  A.  His mission was essentially to determine what Operation
          17  Locate IRS was and to determine if Mr. Bell or anybody else
          18  planned to harm any Internal Revenue Service agents.
          19  Q.  Were you aware that Mr. Wilson, under the name Steve Wilson,
          20  Agent Walsh was communicating email to Mr. Bell?
          21  A.  Certainly, yes.
          22  Q.  Were you aware that some of that email indicated that Steve
          23  Wilson thought that the government was acting out of control and
          24  were a bunch of crooks and much of the same type of rhetoric
          25  that Mr. Bell had been himself writing in emails?
           1  A.  I don't recall those specific words, and I don't think there
           2  was a whole lot of that, but certainly he was playing that role.
           3  Q.  Were you aware that Agent Walsh asked Mr. Bell to build for
           4  him or supply to him an illegal fm transmitter?
           5  A.  In fact, I'm specifically aware that that never happened.
           6  Q.  Are you aware that Special Agent Walsh contacted Mr. Bell
           7  numerous times outside the Multnomah County Common Law Court?
           8  A.  I wouldn't describe it as -- well, it depends on your
           9  definition, numerous.  On occasion, yes.
          10  Q.  And met with him?
          11  A.  On one -- I believe one occasion, yes.
          12  Q.  Now, you said that Mr. Bell was using Mr. East's house for
          13  phone calls and as a mail drop.
          14  A.  Yes.
          15  Q.  And when did that occur?
          16  A.  That was occurring in that same time frame.  I think on his
          17  employment application, which was actually around October '96,
          18  he had used Mr. East's address and phone number -- I believe
          19  phone number.  I know that at one point Agent Walsh received
          20  what we believed was a call from Mr. Bell, caller ID, identified
          21  it as coming from Robert East's house, and that would probably
          22  have been around May of '97.
          23  Q.  All right.  Now, you indi- -- when Mr. Bell's vehicle was
          24  seized for payment of back taxes, approximately how much money
          25  did he owe?
           1  A.  You know, I don't recall exactly, and it depends on how you
           2  define what you owe, because there was audit things going on.
           3  Q.  The principal amount, as opposed to with interest.
           4  A.  I think it was somewhere around 50,000, but it could have
           5  been down from that.
           6  Q.  Are you aware of how he incurred that tax, what kind of
           7  income he had generated prior to that which he had not paid
           8  taxes on?
           9  A.  Yeah.  There was multiple years of it.  There were stock
          10  sales in some years, and then there was a big hundred-thousand-
          11  dollar payment of some sort back in the late '80s that he had
          12  never -- I don't believe he had ever filed a tax return related
          13  to, so they audited him to assess taxes on it.
          14  Q.  Were you aware that Mr. Bell actually was -- ran a business
          15  at one time?
          16  A.  Yes.
          17  Q.  And do you know anything about the particulars of that
          18  business?
          19  A.  I've heard about the business and also some of the IRS side
          20  of that, yes.
          21  Q.  And what type of business was that?
          22  A.  I think it was called Semi-Disk Systems, or something
          23  relating to computer components or something like that.
          24  Q.  So at one point he was a legitimate businessman.
          25  A.  Well, I've heard different stories about that.
           1  Q.  Now, Mr. Bell is not being prosecuted for having authored
           2  Assassination Politics, is he?
           3  A.  No.
           4  Q.  And he's not being prosecuted for the chemicals that were
           5  recovered from his house in 1997, is he?
           6  A.  No.
           7  Q.  Did you, when you searched his residence in November of
           8  2000, I think it was November 6 of 2000, did you recover any
           9  firearms?
          10  A.  No.
          11  Q.  Did you recover any precursor chemicals to make nerve gas or
          12  other dangerous substances?
          13  A.  There were dangerous substances there, but we didn't take
          14  them.
          15  Q.  In particular, what were they?
          16  A.  There was a list that haz-mat gave me -- or hazardous
          17  material guys gave me.  I know mercury, or -- there were some
          18  chemicals there.
          19  Q.  Now, you're aware that Mr. Bell is a chemist.
          20  A.  Yes.
          21  Q.  And you're aware that his -- you've interviewed his parents,
          22  or agents that are working with you have interviewed his
          23  parents.
          24  A.  Agents that are working with me have, yes.
          25  Q.  And you're aware that he's been a hobbyist in chemistry
           1  since he was a preteen.
           2  A.  I've heard that, yes.
           3  Q.  And you're aware that he was exceptionally bright, is
           4  exceptionally bright.
           5  A.  People say that, yes.
           6  Q.  And he attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
           7  A.  Yes, I confirmed that, yes.
           8  Q.  And he graduated.
           9  A.  I believe so, yes.
          10  Q.  And do you know approximately when?
          11  A.  Late '70s or '80s, something like that.
          12  Q.  You've indicated that you returned the weapons that had been
          13  seized in 1997 from Mr. Bell, you returned them to Robert East.
          14  A.  Yes.
          15  Q.  Why did you return them to Robert East if you felt that he
          16  was an associate of Mr. Bell?
          17  A.  Because the United States Attorney's Office advised me that
          18  I had no legal means to maintain them.  That I was required by
          19  law to return them.  They were Mr. Bell's property, and I was
          20  required to return them, and so at that point it was his choice
          21  to -- or his attorney's choice as to his designee as to who he
          22  wanted to have them, and our only requirement was that it was a
          23  person who was legally entitled to possess them.  And since Mr.
          24  East is legally entitled to possess firearms and Mr. Bell
          25  designated him to be his designee, apparently, I returned them
           1  to him.
           2  Q.  Have you ever seen those weapons again?
           3  A.  No.
           4  Q.  Now, there was a tracking device placed in Mr. Bell's
           5  vehicle at the same time that the search warrant took place on
           6  November 6th.
           7  A.  Yes.
           8  Q.  Were there any tracking devices ever placed in Mr. Bell's
           9  residence -- vehicle prior to November 6th, 2000, that you're
          10  aware of?
          11  A.  No.
          12  Q.  Was there any monitoring of Mr. Bell from residents in the
          13  neighborhood prior to November 6 -- well, let's start first,
          14  prior to November 6th, 2000?
          15  A.  No.
          16  Q.  Was there any monitoring at all of Mr. Bell's activities
          17  other than what we've just discussed and your reading of public
          18  emails prior to November 6th, 2000?
          19  A.  Well, certainly we did -- when you say monitoring, I mean,
          20  we were keeping him -- you know, when he's at the court.  We had
          21  Agent Walsh, for example, in contact with him.  But if you're
          22  talking about electronic monitoring or surveillance teams, I
          23  think, for example, the day of the -- that the IRS seized his
          24  vehicle, we had a team out watching for the vehicle that day.
          25  But other than that, there was no sustained effort.  There was
           1  no wire taps or bugs or electronic microwaves or anything like
           2  that.
           3  Q.  Was his phone ever listened to?
           4  A.  The only electronic monitoring of the phone was when Agent
           5  Walsh made phone calls with Mr. Bell or received phone calls
           6  from Mr. Bell's, we used one-party consensual monitoring on
           7  that, which we are legally entitled to do.  And so we tape
           8  recorded, and we consider that electronic monitoring.  We
           9  electronically monitored the calls between Agent Walsh and Mr.
          10  Bell.
          11           MR. LONDON:  I just want to ask for clarification of
          12  the time when that happened.
          13           THE WITNESS:  That would have been in 1997, prior to
          14  Mr. Bell's arrest, when we had the undercover operation going
          15  on.
          16  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  Now, Mr. Bell isn't being prosecuted for
          17  anything that happened prior to 1997, is he?
          18  A.  No.
          19  Q.  Or prior to 1998?
          20  A.  No.
          21  Q.  In fact, he's not being prosecuted for anything other than
          22  the specific dates and crimes in the indictment, is that
          23  correct?
          24  A.  Yes.
          25  Q.  Now, when you first saw the email, "Say Good Night to
           1  Joshua," did you know who Joshua was?
           2  A.  I presumed it was the son of a law enforcement officer, but
           3  I did not know who, no.
           4  Q.  You don't have a son named Joshua?
           5  A.  No.
           6  Q.  When did you start monitoring the Cypherpunks mail list?
           7  A.  Probably late -- mid to late '97.
           8  Q.  So this was a couple of years prior to Mr. -- to these
           9  present acts that Mr. Bell is under prosecution for?
          10  A.  Yes.
          11  Q.  Now, you indicated that you received a facsimile dated
          12  10/31/2000 which was a response facsimile to yours.
          13  A.  I don't think --
          14  Q.  That was a bad question, actually.  Let me rephrase it.
          15      You sent a letter or a facsimile to Mr. Solovy, who was the
          16  attorney at that time who represented Mr. Bell.
          17  A.  In July I had sent a -- that fax with my fax cover sheet to
          18  Mr. Solovy, yes.
          19  Q.  And that -- that was related to the four firearms?
          20  A.  I think at the time it was related to all the property, or
          21  the majority of the property, because in July I hadn't returned
          22  any of it, or hadn't returned most of it yet.
          23  Q.  In fact, you still haven't returned two of the computers
          24  that were seized in 1997.
          25  A.  Right.  We had one of them in here the other day for the
           1  testimony.
           2  Q.  Now, then, on October 31st, Mr. Bell sent the facsimile to
           3  you which we've seen here with the handwriting on it.
           4  A.  Yes.
           5  Q.  Is that correct?  Did Mr. Bell ever direct any other
           6  facsimile to you, that you're aware of?
           7  A.  No.
           8  Q.  So that was the only one instance?
           9  A.  The only fax.
          10  Q.  Now, does -- are you aware that you can send facsimiles by
          11  computer?
          12  A.  Yes.
          13  Q.  You can scan and -- you can scan documents onto a computer
          14  and then facsimile it from a computer.
          15  A.  Yes.
          16  Q.  And you're aware that Mr. Bell's computer had cable access,
          17  not telephone access.
          18  A.  Right.
          19  Q.  You were present at the November 6th search of Mr. Bell's
          20  residence.
          21  A.  Yes.
          22  Q.  Now, you indicated that when the tracking device was put on
          23  Mr. Bell's car there was a list of persons that you were
          24  concerned that he might injure or harm in some way.
          25  A.  Yes.
           1  Q.  Your name was on the list.
           2  A.  Actually, many Jeff Gordons were on the list.
           3  Q.  All right.  And Mike McNall's name was on the list.
           4  A.  Yes.
           5  Q.  You told us about Mr. Groener and Mr. Andrews.  They live
           6  next door to each other.
           7  A.  Yes.
           8  Q.  Who else was on the list?
           9  A.  Peter Avenia was one, Mr. Bell's prior attorney.
          10  Q.  Anyone else?
          11  A.  Yes.  There was another -- I believe there was another
          12  defense attorney that had somehow been involved in his case that
          13  he had been looking up his address to.
          14  Q.  Anyone else, that you can recall?
          15  A.  I believe there were several more, but I can't remember who
          16  right now.
          17  Q.  Now, you obtained a no-contact order at some point.
          18  A.  Yeah.  An anti-stalking order, I believe.
          19  Q.  And that was after Mr. Bell was actually in custody and
          20  arrested on these charges?
          21  A.  Yes.
          22  Q.  But not prior to his arrest?
          23  A.  No.
          24  Q.  Now, you've referred to his -- Mr. Bell's spiral notebook as
          25  a stalking diary.
           1  A.  Yes.
           2  Q.  Does it say "stalking diary" on it?
           3  A.  No.
           4  Q.  Those are your words, a stalking diary?
           5  A.  I usually don't use the word "diary."  I usually refer to it
           6  like a stalking notebook.
           7  Q.  Does it have information that Mr. Bell has accumulated over
           8  -- since his release from custody?
           9  A.  Yes.
          10  Q.  You have indicated that the DMV records are not available to
          11  private citizens unless they meet certain statutory categories,
          12  such as businessman for marketing purposes, things like that.
          13  A.  Correct.
          14  Q.  When did those laws go into effect?
          15  A.  A couple of years ago, I think.
          16  Q.  Do you know when?
          17  A.  Not off hand, no.
          18  Q.  Did you speak to the individual who sold Mr. Bell the DMV
          19  database CD-ROM?
          20  A.  Yes.  Or -- at least one of them, yes.
          21  Q.  And when an individual purchases one of those by statute,
          22  aren't they supposed to sign a certain form?
          23  A.  I don't know whether -- I don't believe the statute
          24  specifically requires the form to be signed, but this individual
          25  wanted people to sign it, yes.
           1  Q.  Was he able to produce it, the form that Mr. Bell signed?
           2  A.  No.
           3           MR. LEEN:  One second.
           4      No further questions.  Thank you.
           5           THE COURT:  Redirect.
           6           MR. LONDON:  Very briefly,
           7                       REDIRECT EXAMINATION
           8  BY MR. LONDON:
           9  Q.  Agent Gordon, when you send a facsimile using a computer, as
          10  opposed to a stand-alone fax machine, you're doing it from the
          11  computer that is essentially functioning as a fax machine,
          12  correct?
          13  A.  Yes.
          14  Q.  And, in fact, doesn't a computer that can do that have all
          15  of the technology that a stand-alone fax machine has built into
          16  it?
          17  A.  For sending the fax.  It might not have the same printing
          18  capabilities.
          19  Q.  All right.  But if Mr. Leen asked you if it was possible or
          20  suggested that it was possible that Mr. Bell might have scanned
          21  your cover sheet into his computer with his handwritten notes on
          22  it and then sent it via his computer as opposed to a stand-alone
          23  separate fax machine and it was that way that the note had been
          24  sent.
          25  A.  Well, it couldn't have been sent over a cable modem because
           1  at some point it had to go through the phone lines because my
           2  fax machine is not hooked to the Internet.  It's only hooked to
           3  the phone line.  So there's no way that that fax can be sent to
           4  my fax machine without using the phone lines.
           5  Q.  In the 1997 undercover work by Mr. Walsh of the Multnomah
           6  County, so-called, Common Law Court, was there any political
           7  motivation ever discussed, that you're aware of, for the
           8  infiltration, as it's been termed, of that group?
           9  A.  No.  And, in fact, the decision to have him go to the court
          10  was made only because that was the only way we could think of to
          11  get him in contact with Mr. Bell to find out what was going on.
          12  Q.  Did the decision to investigate Mr. Bell or try to find out
          13  more about him in '97 depend on Assassination Politics or upon
          14  Operation Locate IRS?
          15  A.  It was probably a combination of both.  The fact that he was
          16  on the one hand proposing, or at least discussing the
          17  assassination of the government officials, and in particular tax
          18  agents, as a, you know, a philosophy, and at the same time what
          19  was apparent to us, imple- -- taking steps towards that by
          20  actually gathering up the names and home addresses which was, if
          21  you were going to be implementing or if you were going to try to
          22  get a jump start by killing off some agents to start the
          23  assassination process, that would be the first step.
          24  Q.  I guess another way to ask the question is, if you hadn't
          25  known about Operation Locate IRS but you had known that you had
           1  simply the author here of an essay entitled "Assassination
           2  Politics," that's all you had known, would you have decided to
           3  open an investigation as a matter of internal security for the
           4  Internal Revenue Service?
           5  A.  No.  I -- you know, in just reading the Internet as a casual
           6  user, even, I come across inflammatory anti-government rhetoric
           7  all the time.  It doesn't make me happy and sometimes it's, you
           8  know, upsetting, but we don't investigate that.  It was the acts
           9  in particular of gathering up the names and home addresses of
          10  this operation that was apparently going on with the common law
          11  court on top of the assassination plan or discussion that made
          12  it -- got it to the point that we needed to investigate.
          13  Q.  As a law enforcement officer, are you legally permitted to
          14  access various databases as a legitimate investigative tool?
          15  A.  Yes.
          16           MR. LONDON:  Nothing further.
          17           THE COURT:  Recross.
          18           MR. LEEN:  No further questions, Your Honor.
          19           THE COURT:  The witness may step down.
          20      We will take a 15 minute recess.
          21      Jury is cautioned, please do not discuss the case among
          22  yourself or with anyone.
          23      Please go to the jury room.
          24      (Jury excused at 10:50 a.m.)
          25           THE COURT:  Anything to take up, either party?
           1           MR. LEEN:  No, Your Honor.
           2           THE COURT:  All right.
           3      (Recessed at 10:50 a.m.)
           4      (Jury not present; 11:15 a.m.)
           5           THE COURT:  Where are we?
           6           MR. LONDON:  Your Honor, I am almost ready to rest.  I
           7  just wanted do briefly recall Agent Gordon to the stand for two
           8  or three short questions.
           9           THE COURT:  Then what's going to happen?
          10           MR. LONDON:  Then we're going to rest.  And then I
          11  understand Mr. Leen has some motions to be taken up outside the
          12  presence of the jury.
          13           THE COURT:  Bring the jury.
          14      (Jury present; 11:16 a.m.)
          15           THE COURT:  Jury's returned.
          16      Government.
          17           MR. LONDON:  Yes.  Just a few final questions of Agent
          18  Gordon.
          19           THE COURT:  Are you recalling the witness?
          20           MR. LONDON:  We're recalling Agent Gordon.
          21           THE COURT:  All right.
          23                         DIRECT EXAMINATION
          24  BY MR. LONDON:
          25  Q.   Agent, just a reminder, you are still under oath.  I just
           1  want to ask you one or two questions.
           2      When you were present at the search warrant at Mr. Bell's
           3  residence on November 6th, did you observe a fax machine next to
           4  his computer?
           5  A.  Yes, I did.
           6  Q.  Where in the house was this?
           7  A.  I noticed one in the upstairs next to the computer
           8  between -- there's like a bar between the kitchen and the dining
           9  room area.
          10  Q.  All right.  Now, the fax message that you received at your
          11  office for which there's a telephone record showing it as a
          12  telephone transmission from Mr. Bell's residence, could that be
          13  shown on the telephone record, if that fax had been sent from a
          14  computer other than through a phone line?
          15  A.  Well, no.  I mean, it clearly shows on the Exhibit 178 on
          16  the phone bill that the phone -- the phone call that we received
          17  that generated the fax came to my fax machine, (503) 326-2246
          18  from Mr. Bell's residence, so it couldn't have come through a
          19  cable modem.  It has to be coming through the phone lines at the
          20  residence.
          21  Q.  All right.  You had a chance to observe the satellite
          22  display, the tracking display for the tracking device for
          23  November 10th when it moved from the vicinity of Mr. Bell's home
          24  on Corregidor in Vancouver and went to the McNall residence on
          25  South Clackamas River Drive, correct?
           1  A.  Yes.
           2  Q.  And it appeared at all relevant times to be traveling on
           3  roads or the road systems, correct?
           4  A.  Yes.
           5  Q.  Federal and state.
           6  A.  Yes.
           7  Q.  Based on your knowledge and experience, are the roads of the
           8  United States and the states used for the purpose of conducting
           9  interstate commerce?
          10  A.  Yes, they are.
          11           MR. LONDON:  Nothing further.
          12           THE COURT:  Cross-examination.
          13           MR. LEEN:  No questions.
          14           THE COURT:  The witness may step down.
          15      (Witness excused.)
          16           THE COURT:  Next witness.
          17           MR. LONDON:  The United States rests.
          18           THE COURT:  Okay.
          19           MR. LEEN:  Your Honor, the defense would like to make
          20  some motions outside the jury's presence.
          21           THE COURT:  How long do you think it's going to take?
          22           MR. LEEN:  Ten minutes.
          23           THE COURT:  Please go back to the jury room.  Still do
          24  not discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone else.
          25      (Jury excused; 11:20 a.m.)
           1           THE COURT:  Mr. Leen.
           2           MR. LEEN:  Yes.
           3           THE COURT:  Before, the court wishes to put something
           4  on the record.
           5           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
           6           THE COURT:  The court -- the record should reflect the
           7  court has observed the defendant and defendant's counsel, Mr.
           8  Leen, discuss the testimony of each and every witness called by
           9  the government in this case.  The conversations and the
          10  exchanges between the defendant and his counsel always appeared
          11  to be congenial to the court, and the court considers that the
          12  defendant has cooperated and participated with his attorney in
          13  his defense.
          14      What have you got to say?  What are your motions, Mr. Leen?
          15           MR. LEEN:  Yes, Your Honor.  I would just like to
          16  respond to the court's comment.
          17           THE COURT:  It doesn't call for a response.
          18           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          19      Rule 20 -- the defense makes a Rule 29 motion for verdict of
          20  acquittal.
          21           THE COURT:  You had better go to the podium.
          22           MR. LEEN:  Oh, yes, sir.
          23      Thank you, Your Honor.
          24      We are now at the end of the state's case in chief.  The
          25  defense would move for a verdict of acquittal pursuant to Rule
           1  29.  As to each and every count of the indictment -- of the
           2  superseding indictment the defense would submit that there is
           3  insufficient evidence as a matter of law to make a prima facie
           4  case.
           5      As it relates to count one -- we would also -- well, I will
           6  just start with the sufficiency.
           7      There was insufficient evidence that Mike McNall was in
           8  reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to himself or
           9  to his immediate family based on the evidence that was adduced
          10  during his examination.
          11           THE COURT:  Wait a minute.  Why don't we go through
          12  each count so I can keep track of your argument.
          13           MR. LEEN:  Okay.
          14           THE COURT:  Under the superseding indictment.
          15           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir. And I will start with count one.
          16           THE COURT:  All right.
          17           MR. LEEN:  As to count one, we have two reasons why we
          18  believe it should be dismissed.  One has to do with sufficiency,
          19  the other has to do with constitutionality.
          20      As it relates to sufficiency, Mr. McNall, I believe,
          21  testified that Mr. Bell's behavior caused him to have concerns.
          22  I don't believe that that's sufficient from which a jury could
          23  conclude or from which the court could conclude that there has
          24  been a prima facie showing that he was in reasonable fear of
          25  death or serious bodily injury to himself and to his immediate
           1  family.
           2      Also, as it relates to count one, we -- we would submit that
           3  count one is an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power
           4  and therefore should be dismissed as an unconstitutional charge.
           5           THE COURT:  That motion will be denied.
           6           MR. LEEN:  As to count two, we would submit that as a
           7  matter of law there is insufficient evidence to establish that
           8  Mr. Bell traveled across the state line with the intent to
           9  injure or harass Jeff Gordon, and also that there was -- as a
          10  matter of constitutional law, that count two, which is the same
          11  statute as count one, but we will adopt that same argument, was
          12  an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce clause.
          13           THE COURT:  Well, if the question of constitutionality
          14  to the first count applies to count one, doesn't it apply to all
          15  the counts?
          16           MR. LEEN:  I would think so.  But I would raise it
          17  anyway.
          18           THE COURT:  Same ruling.
          19           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          20           THE COURT:  On the constitutionality.
          21      Next?
          22           MR. LEEN:  As to count three, Your Honor, there are a
          23  couple of arguments.  First, count three requires that the
          24  defendant use a facility in interstate commerce, and I think
          25  that a telephone line would qualify for that, to engage in a
           1  course of conduct.  There has been testimony of one specific
           2  isolated instance where a facsimile line was used and a
           3  telephone line was used.  We would submit that that does not --
           4  a single isolated instance does not constitute a course of
           5  conduct.
           6      We would also argue that the statute, which is a different
           7  statute than the one in count one and count two, is an
           8  unconstitutional exercise of the commerce clause.
           9           THE COURT:  Same ruling as to constitution.  I will
          10  deny that.
          11      Let me ask that question.  Is there some law out there that
          12  shows the number that must be made, telephone calls, to
          13  constitute a pattern or course of conduct?
          14           MR. LEEN:  Well, pattern in other criminal statutes
          15  requires two or more.  Some require three.  But a course of
          16  conduct, we would submit as a matter of law, is more than a
          17  single instance.  If the congress wanted to say --
          18           THE COURT:  I can't threaten you, as a matter of law,
          19  by one phone call?
          20           MR. LEEN:  You can, but that doesn't constitute a
          21  course of conduct.  It would be a different statute you would
          22  have to use.
          23           THE COURT:  Isn't that a question of fact for the jury
          24  instead of law?
          25           MR. LEEN:  I think it's a question -- there has to be
           1  two or more to constitute a course of conduct.
           2           THE COURT:  Go ahead.
           3           MR. LEEN:  As to count three, this was an amendment to
           4  what is charged in count one and count two, and our argument --
           5  and I filed a memorandum on the point.  I feel that it's -- the
           6  statute, the indictment in count four fails to comply with the
           7  requirement of Rule 7(a), I believe it is -- I will just double
           8  check.  I don't have it here, but the indictment requires that
           9  it track the statute and allege each and every material element
          10  of the offense.  While count four tracks the 1996 statute, it
          11  does not track the 199 -- the 2000 statute.  The 2000 statute
          12  does not say --
          13           THE COURT:  Mr. Leen, let's do this.
          14           MR. LEEN:  Yes.
          15           THE COURT:  Are you going to present any evidence?
          16           MR. LEEN:  We will present a case, yes.
          17           THE COURT:  You will.  Let's do this.  Let's dismiss
          18  the jury and have them come back at one o'clock.  Instead of
          19  having them sitting there.
          20           MR. LEEN:  Sure.
          21           THE COURT:   Bring them back for two minutes.
          22      Tell them to go to jury -- go to lunch, do not discuss the
          23  case among themselves or anyone else.  Be back in the jury room
          24  at one o'clock.
          25      (Mr. Leever excused the jury.)
           1           THE COURT:  Go ahead.
           2           MR. LEEN:  It does not track the statute, Your Honor.
           3  It requires that Mr. Bell did travel in interstate commerce, and
           4  the indictment alleges that he merely traveled from a state line
           5  -- across a state line from one state to another.
           6      Now, the prosecutor has argued to the court, and the court
           7  has pointed out, that the -- that courts in this circuit and
           8  other circuits have said crossing from one state to another
           9  constitutes the same thing as interstate commerce, but the
          10  statute -- excuse me -- but the indictment does not allege
          11  that.  And so while it's a question of fact from which the jury
          12  could find that, it doesn't allege the element of interstate
          13  commerce.
          14      Also, Mr. Mueller was completely unaware of the fact of the
          15  travel, completely unaware of whatever Mr. Bell's intent for
          16  doing the traveling, until he was notified, I think several
          17  days, if not weeks, later.  And so as far as -- as far as Mr.
          18  Mueller was concerned, there was no crime, that he had a
          19  reasonable fear to be of death or serious bodily injury to
          20  himself or his family, until such time as he was notified by
          21  Agent Gordon that he should be in reasonable fear because of
          22  what Mr. Bell's activities were.
          23      And I would just adopt that argument again as it relates to
          24  Mike McNall in count one.  He was completely unaware of any of
          25  Mr. Bell's activities until notified days, if not weeks, later
           1  by Agent Gordon.
           2      Finally, as to count five, we just -- the same arguments
           3  apply as to the 2000 statute.  It doesn't -- the indictment,
           4  which is based on the 2000 statute.  It does not allege travel
           5  in interstate commerce.  It merely alleges in the charging
           6  language in count five that he traveled from one state to
           7  another, and that Agent McNall did not testify to facts
           8  sufficient from which it could be concluded that he was in
           9  reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to himself or
          10  his immediate family.  Also, he was unaware of Mr. Bell's
          11  activities until notified by Jeff Gordon days, if not weeks,
          12  later.
          13           THE COURT:  Okay.  Government.
          14           MR. LEEN:  May I also make my motion for mistrial?
          15      I renew my motion for mistrial that I have made during the
          16  course of the trial, renew it again at this time.
          17           THE COURT:  All right.
          18           MR. LEEN:  Thank you.
          19           MR. LONDON:  Your Honor, with regard to the
          20  awareness --
          21           THE COURT:  Go to the podium.
          22      Go to the podium, counsel.
          23           MR. LONDON:  With regard to the awareness of the
          24  victims, there's nothing --
          25           THE COURT:  Let's take them as they come.  Count one.
           1           MR. LONDON:  I won't address the constitutionality or
           2  commerce clause issue in view of the fact that the court appears
           3  to have decided on that.
           4           THE COURT:  Um-hmm.
           5           MR. LONDON:  The allegation is there's insufficient
           6  evidence of fear by Mr. McNall.  That was the first basis of an
           7  alleged deficiency in proof.
           8      Mr. McNall not only testified that he was concerned, but he
           9  testified as to a number of steps that he took in reaction to
          10  learning that Mr. Bell had drawn a beat on him, was trying to
          11  find his house, and had actually found the last residence that
          12  he had lived at before moving to his current residence.  He
          13  testified about discussing added security measures with his
          14  agency, ATF.  He changed the travel plans to be able to stick
          15  around.  He testified about at least one work-related trip that
          16  he decided to forgo so that he could be there to protect his
          17  family.
          18      I think that you can certainly interpolate from those steps
          19  the fact that he was extremely concerned and fearful about this
          20  gentleman's intentions towards him.
          21      With regard to whether he ever would have learned about Mr.
          22  Bell's stalking of him without being notified by Chris Groener
          23  that he had shown up at the house, or without being notified by
          24  Jeff Gordon that there were emails up there on the Internet
          25  talking about him and Ryan Lund, that's irrelevant.  There's
           1  nothing in the statute that requires that the victim learn of
           2  this until, unfortunately, it's too late, when the guy shows up
           3  on his doorstep.  The critical thing is, if it's reasonable for
           4  the victim to have found out in the way he did, then
           5  unfortunately, Mr. Bell has to take his victim's awareness in
           6  the way that he finds them.
           7      Mr. Bell was posting things publicly to the Internet.  He
           8  knew from his prior prosecution and from the investigation that
           9  law enforcement was watching what he was doing on the Internet.
          10  You can't -- you can't go out there and do this stuff and think
          11  that there's no chance that your victims are going to find out
          12  until it's too late.
          13           THE COURT:  Are you saying that there's nothing in the
          14  statute that says that -- under the stalking statute that says
          15  that somebody gets the first bite?
          16           MR. LONDON:  What I'm saying is that there's nothing
          17  that says under the stalking statute that the victim can't learn
          18  about the stalking --
          19           THE COURT:  Well, what I'm asking --
          20           MR. LONDON:  -- by being notified by law enforcement.
          21           THE COURT:  What I'm saying is, when I say the first
          22  bite, the alleged stalker, surely under the statute, doesn't get
          23  a chance to physically do something to the person, are they?
          24           MR. LONDON:  That is exactly my point.
          25           THE COURT:  That's what I mean by the first bite.
           1           MR. LONDON:  Right.  The first bite.  The rest is --
           2           THE COURT:  So what you're saying, it doesn't make any
           3  difference how the target of the alleged stalker finds out about
           4  it.  The fact he does find out about it is sufficient under the
           5  statute.
           6           MR. LONDON:  Yes, Your Honor.
           7           THE COURT:  Okay.
           8           MR. LONDON:  So that goes not only for Mr. McNall, who
           9  learned in two different ways, one when Chris Groener called him
          10  up and said Mr. Bell had been at in his back yard, but also when
          11  Agent Gordon notified him that his name, McNall's name, was
          12  showing up in emails posted to the Internet by the defendant.
          13      With regard to Mr. Mueller, the gentleman in Bend who Mr.
          14  Bell outed as a CIA agent, true enough, he never knew about Mr.
          15  Bell's activities until he was notified by law enforcement, but
          16  once again, Mr. Bell has to take his victims as he finds them,
          17  and it's a legitimate thing for law enforcement to notify
          18  somebody before it's too late that he is the subject of an
          19  excessive campaign by an individual to intimidate or harass him
          20  by outing him as a CIA agent and posting that on the Internet
          21  for all the world to see.
          22      It's a curious argument that is made because if Mr. Bell --
          23  if law enforcement waited, if we were aware of what this
          24  gentleman was doing and we did not notify potential victims of
          25  what he was doing and then someone got hurt, can there be any
           1  doubt that the victims' families would be suing us for
           2  malfeasance of duty?
           3           THE COURT:  Let me ask a question.  So the government's
           4  position on all five counts -- let me ask you this.  Has the
           5  writing -- what's the name of it, that's been circulated over
           6  the Internet?
           7           MR. LONDON:  His essay originally?
           8           THE COURT:  Uh-huh.
           9           MR. LONDON:  It's Assassination Politics.  It's out
          10  there on the Internet.
          11           THE COURT:  In the government's opinion, is that
          12  sufficient to put people on the alert?
          13           MR. LONDON:  Absolute ---it's sufficient to put people
          14  on the alert.  I wouldn't say that if that's all that he had
          15  done that it would be sufficient for us to charge him with
          16  anything, unless he coupled it with a reference to a particular
          17  individual.
          18           THE COURT:  So there was some sort of overt act, no
          19  matter how subtle, to connect somebody with it?
          20           MR. LONDON:  That -- the continuing availability of
          21  Assassination Politics on the Internet and his continuing
          22  reference in emails to people to go look it up on the Internet
          23  is certainly an overt act in furtherance of this kind of
          24  stalking, I think, but we don't rely on that for our proof in
          25  this case.  We rely on much more immediate overt acts of his
           1  showing up at people's homes and his running reams of database
           2  searches and printouts for them.
           3           THE COURT:  Well, that's a direct overt act that you're
           4  talking about.
           5           MR. LONDON:  Yes.
           6           THE COURT:  Can't there be subtle acts?
           7           MR. LONDON:  Yes.
           8           THE COURT:  That this jury can consider.  They can
           9  consider both direct -- for the purpose of the defendant's
          10  arguments to dismiss, there's insufficient evidence on which a
          11  reasonable juror could disagree, is that correct?
          12           MR. LEEN:  I say -- that's what we have said, Your
          13  Honor, yes.
          14           THE COURT:  The defendant's motions to dismiss on
          15  counts one, two, three, four, five will be dismissed.
          16      Now where are we?
          17           MR. LEEN:  We're at the beginning of the defendant's
          18  case, Your Honor.
          19           THE COURT:  All right.  Does the defendant wish to
          20  testify?
          21           MR. LEEN:  Yes.
          22           THE COURT:  Okay.  How does he wish to testify?  It's
          23  my understanding that you might want to use demonstrative
          24  evidence.
          25           MR. LEEN:  He's indicated he would like to --
           1           THE COURT:  Which means he will be off that witness
           2  stand.
           3           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
           4           THE COURT:  With a United States marshal right next to
           5  him.
           6           MR. LEEN:  That's understood.
           7           THE COURT:  So how are we going to work it?
           8           MR. LEEN:  If he uses the blackboard somewhat near
           9  where it actually is right now, the marshal could be seated in
          10  the chair back there and be seated there.
          11           THE COURT:  Without -- without asking what he's going
          12  to put on there --
          13           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          14           THE COURT:  What we're going to do, we're going to use
          15  butcher paper on one of those easels.
          16           MR. LEEN:  All right.
          17           THE COURT:  And whatever he tends to put on, he's going
          18  to put it on out of the presence of the jury.  We will provide a
          19  pointer.
          20           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          21           THE COURT:  Because I want him on the witness stand.
          22           MR. LEEN:  Is it possible that he could have a pad
          23  to --
          24           THE COURT:  I just do not trust him because of his past
          25  practices as to the security of everyone in this courtroom.  I'm
           1  not saying he can't do it.  But I want the marshals there at
           2  every instance, close by.
           3           MR. LEEN:  It's understood, Your Honor.
           4           THE COURT:  So if he has something he wants to put on
           5  there, have him draw it up, without the presence of the jury,
           6  have him put it on there, and then he can refer to it.
           7           MR. LEEN:  Okay.  Just a suggestion, is it possible
           8  that he could be brought back about 15 minutes before we start
           9  so that he could, with the marshal there, have him put it on
          10  there?
          11           THE COURT:  Just have him here at one o'clock.
          12           MR. LEEN:  The defendant would also --
          13           THE COURT:  Can he take the butcher pad to the lockup
          14  room?
          15           DEPUTY MARSHAL:  Yes, Your Honor.
          16           MR. LEEN:  Would he be allowed to have access to both a
          17  marker and a pen so that he could write some notes and also --
          18           THE COURT:  This is up to the marshals.  They are in
          19  charge of his security.
          20           MR. LEEN:  I think it requires authorization from the
          21  court.  Otherwise they will not allow him to have a writing
          22  instrument.
          23           THE COURT:  What will the marshals permit?
          24           DEPUTY MARSHAL:  We can provide what he needs, both pen
          25  and marker, Your Honor.
           1           THE COURT:  All right.
           2           MR. LEEN:  That would be fine.
           3      Your Honor, the defendant indicates that he needs his notes
           4  from SeaTac before he can testify.
           5           THE COURT:  What?
           6           MR. LEEN:  The defendant indicates that he has his
           7  notes, which are in a counselor's office pursuant to a prior
           8  court order, all notes that he took when he was doing discovery
           9  would remain in the counselor's office.  He doesn't have them
          10  and he needs them.
          11           THE COURT:  And you're just now bringing that up?
          12           MR. LEEN:  I just now have been advised that that's
          13  what the defendant wants.
          14           THE COURT:  When we reconvene at one o'clock, the court
          15  is going to ask the defendant, is he prepared to proceed.  And
          16  the answer is going to be yes or no.
          17           MR. LEEN:  I understand.
          18           THE COURT:  Anything else?
          19           MR. LEEN:  Not from the defense, Your Honor.
          20           MR. LONDON:  No, Your Honor.
          21           THE COURT:  All right.  They've got marking pens.  Give
          22  the paper to the marshals so they can inspect it, do whatever
          23  they have to do.
          24      All right, court's in recess.  One o'clock.
          25      (Recessed at 11:40)
           1                          AFTERNOON SESSION
           2      (Jury not present; 1:09 p.m.)
           3           THE COURT:  Be seated, please.
           4      Where are we?  Jury?
           5           MR. LONDON:  Your Honor, before the defendant takes the
           6  stand, I would like to advise the court that over the lunch hour
           7  the court clerk and the case agent did a review of the exhibits
           8  that were offered, and apparently I neglected to actually offer
           9  four exhibits for which foundation is laid.  I understand from
          10  Mr. Leen that he's not objecting to my offering those at this
          11  time.
          12           MR. LEEN:  That's correct, Your Honor.
          13           MR. LONDON:  We would offer Exhibits 130, 132, 134, and
          14  135.
          15           MR. LEEN:  I have no objection.  If the court wants to
          16  do it outside the jury's presence, that's fine with me.
          17           THE COURT:  No.  Do it in front of the jury.
          18           MR. LONDON:  All right, Your Honor.
          19           THE COURT:  Mr. Leen.
          20           MR. LEEN:  Yes, Your Honor.
          21           THE COURT:  Does the defendant intend to take the
          22  stand?
          23           MR. LEEN:  He does, Your Honor.
          24           THE COURT:  You're going to question.
          25           MR. LEEN:  I am.
           1           THE COURT:  He's to stand to the right, right in front
           2  of the marshal.
           3           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
           4           THE COURT:  With the pointer.
           5           MR. LEEN:  Okay.
           6           THE COURT:  Why don't you turn it around a little so --
           7  juror number six and one are going to have a problem.
           8      Turn it more.
           9           MR. LEEVER:  I'm going to, Your Honor.  I just turned
          10  it so that you could see it.
          11           THE COURT:  Yeah.  Okay.  That's fine.
          12           DEPUTY MARSHAL MOGAN:  Is that okay?
          13           THE COURT:  Are you all right?
          14           DEPUTY MARSHAL MOGAN:  Yes, Your Honor.
          15           THE COURT:  All right.
          16      Okay?
          17           MR. LEEN:  Yes, Your Honor.
          18           THE COURT:  Are you ready for the jury now?
          19           MR. LEEN:  Would you like the defendant to take the
          20  stand first?
          21           THE COURT:  No.
          22      Bring the jury.
          23           MR. LEEN:  Debby, what numbers do I use?  Do I use --
          24           THE CLERK:  You start with A-1.
          25           MR. LEEN:  A-1.
           1           THE CLERK:  Right.
           2      (Jury present; 1:10 p.m.)
           3           THE COURT:  The record should reflect all members of
           4  the jury are present.
           5      Government.
           6           MR. LONDON:  Yes, Your Honor.  Before we proceed to the
           7  next matter, I would like to move to reopen for the limited
           8  purpose of offering four exhibits I neglected to offer into
           9  evidence.
          10           THE COURT:  All right.  What are they?
          11           MR. LONDON:  They would be 130, 132, 134, and 135.
          12           MR. LEEN:  I have no objection.
          13           THE COURT:  They are admitted.
          14      (Exhibits Nos. 130, 132, 134, and 135 were admitted.)
          15           THE COURT:  Government rests?
          16           MR. LONDON:  Yes, the government rests.
          17           THE COURT:  Defendant, first witness.
          18           MR. LEEN:  Thank you, Your Honor.
          19      We would call the defendant, James Bell.
          20           THE COURT:  Okay.
          21           THE CLERK:  Raise your right hand.
          22                 JAMES DALTON BELL, DEFENDANT, SWORN
          23           THE CLERK:  Please state your full name and spell your
          24  last name.
          25           THE WITNESS:  My name is James Dalton Bell, spelled
           1  B-e-l-l.
           2                        DIRECT EXAMINATION
           3  BY MR. LEEN:
           4  Q.  Good afternoon, Mr. Bell.
           5      Would you please tell the jury how old you are?
           6  A.  Well, as of today, I'm exactly 43 years old.
           7  Q.  Mr. Bell, I would like to ask you to tell the jury a little
           8  bit about your background.  Where were you born?
           9  A.  I was born in Ohio, 1958.  The city was Akron.  Well,
          10  actually, it was a suburb called Cuyahoga Falls.  And my father
          11  worked at, I believe it was, Goodyear, I think, or a rubber -- a
          12  tire company.  Needless to say, I don't remember very much about
          13  that time.  But I guess it was a nice place to live.  I drove
          14  back by there on the way back from one year in college and drove
          15  by the place my parents lived before I was born.
          16  Q.  Mr. Bell, where did you go to high school?
          17  A.  Shawnee Mission North High School in Kansas.  It's in the
          18  northeastern portion of Kansas.  Shawnee Mission is sort of like
          19  a general term for a large number of little towns that have
          20  eventually run together.  So it's -- I guess it's sort of like
          21  the Seattle area where all these little, these -- you know
          22  Redmond and Bel-  -- I'm not local, by the way.  I'm from
          23  Vancouver, so I don't know the local area.  But the whole place
          24  basically ran together years ago, and Shawnee Mission is the
          25  general term for a rather large area in the southwest of Kansas.
           1  Q.  Where did you go to college, sir?
           2  A.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  It's a fairly
           3  well-known technical college in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which
           4  is right across the Charles River from Boston.  MIT has been
           5  around for well over a hundred years, and it teaches science and
           6  technology.  Its motto is mens et manus; mens meaning science,
           7  and manus meaning engineering.  I went there in 1976 to get a
           8  degree, and the degree I eventually received from there is
           9  chemistry, but I've also taken, from MIT, in addition to all the
          10  regular chemistry courses that were required, plus many more
          11  that weren't required, I have taken courses in electronics,
          12  material science, silicon for semiconductors, and so forth.
          13  Physics, many courses in physics.  Computer software, computer
          14  hardware.  Optics.  Acoustics.  Various other technical areas.
          15  I pretty much took a lot of courses.  Some people focus on a
          16  particular area.  I took courses in virtually every area that I
          17  could spare the time for.
          18      MIT was a great place.  The reason it was such a great
          19  place, frankly, is because when I got there, virtually everybody
          20  there, in a sense, was like me.  I could have an intelligent
          21  conversation with virtually anybody there on virtually any
          22  technical subject that I could think of.  Everybody there had a
          23  substantial amount to add because of the amount of reading they
          24  did.
          25  Q.  After you graduated from MIT, where did you go?
           1  A.  Well, toward the end of my college career, of course, I --
           2  there was a week where they had career day, and, of course, all
           3  the company -- you know, companies had sent representatives and
           4  agencies, and so forth, to interview various budding graduates,
           5  and I, of course, went to the career day, and I wanted to find
           6  out where I could find a job.  So I went to the career day and
           7  I, I interviewed with a number of people, a number of
           8  companies.
           9      I interviewed with General Electric, in fact, and talked to
          10  them and explained my electronics background.  My very extensive
          11  electronics background.  Building computer hardware, electronic
          12  circuitry, things called op-amps and SCRs, triacs, transistors,
          13  FETS, that kind of thing.  And they were interested in me for
          14  the electronics background, but they were also interested in me
          15  primarily because I had the chemistry degree, and the
          16  combination of being -- having an extreme amount of knowledge in
          17  electronics and an extreme amount of knowledge in chemistry is
          18  rather rare.  People don't usually have multiple areas where
          19  they have large degree experience.
          20      In any case --
          21  Q.  Did you take a job with someone?
          22  A.  Yes, I did.  One of the other organizations I interviewed
          23  with was a company called Intel -- I'm sure you've heard of it.
          24  They are a big company now, but at the time they were rather
          25  small and they were primarily, of course, in Silicon Valley,
           1  California, Santa Clara.  They had a facility in Phoenix, I
           2  think, but one of their facilities, or sets of facilities, was
           3  in Beaverton, Oregon.
           4      Well, I interviewed with them, and one of the interviewers,
           5  after having heard what my background is in both chemistry and
           6  electronics, because Intel does both chemistry and electronics
           7  because they build chips, they were very interested to find out
           8  that I knew all this material about chemistry and electronics.
           9  So the guy asked me, "Well, if you were to work for Intel, where
          10  would you want to work?  We have three facilities," he said,
          11  "Phoenix, California, and Beaverton, Oregon."  And I said,
          12  "Well, frankly, I would rather not go to California."  And the
          13  guy looked at me, and he laughed a bit, and he said, "Yeah, I
          14  know what you mean."  He says, "Well, how about Oregon?"  I
          15  said, "Yeah."  I know a friend, I have an MIT friend who has
          16  inadvertently lured me to Oregon by all the wonderful stories
          17  I've heard about it.  And I said, "Yeah, I would love to see
          18  Oregon."
          19      Well, he scheduled a trip where I visited -- I visited
          20  Oregon, and I -- a few weeks later, so that -- before I had
          21  made -- or actually, after I had made the trip, I believe, an
          22  odd thing happened.  Mount St. Helen's blew.  And I sheepishly
          23  called the guy back, he was back in Oregon at the time, and I
          24  said, "Do I still have a job?"  And he said, "Yeah, our place
          25  missed most of the ash."
           1      So, yeah, I worked for Intel.  I went --
           2  Q.  How long did you work for Intel, sir?
           3  A.  I worked for Intel approximately 18 months.  I was a, what's
           4  called a product engineer for a particular silicon chip.  I
           5  believe -- I can't recall the ac- -- the code name -- excuse
           6  me.  It eventually turned out to be something called the 2186
           7  integraded RAM.  It's a combination of static RAM and dynamic
           8  RAM.  I realize that's a technical subject, but it was an
           9  innovated thing at the time, and I was to be the person to
          10  design the program to test these chips coming off the line and
          11  the manufacturing process.
          12  Q.  Did you eventually leave Intel and take up a different
          13  employment?
          14  A.  Yes.
          15  Q.  Would you tell jury where you worked next?
          16  A.  Yes.  Excuse me, I'm sorry.  I blow the whistle.  (Witness
          17  has a drink of water.)
          18      Yes.  At the very beginning of 1982 I had an opportunity,
          19  because I had been building circuitry, hobby circuitry for my
          20  own, to build a device which acted, in effect, as an electronic
          21  disk.  As you probably know, a physical disk on a computer is a
          22  metal platter that's covered with magnetic particles and it
          23  spins and data is read and written with a head that moves back
          24  and forth.  That's slow.  And I built for my own purposes, for
          25  my own hobby, a board that used a whole bunch of memory, and it
           1  was activated by software to look like a very fast hard disk,
           2  maybe a hundred times faster than an ordinary hard disk and a
           3  thousand times faster than a floppy disk.  And if you recall the
           4  time frame, hard disks back then, hardly anybody had them.
           5  Floppy disks were very slow and didn't hold much data.
           6      I built this board, and on my own I developed a product, or
           7  the idea for a product, and I intended to go into business for
           8  myself, and early 1982 the time was right, and Intel had -- was
           9  going to drop the particular product that I was going to design
          10  -- or not design, but to be a product engineer for, so that was
          11  an appropriate time for me to quit.  I didn't want to cause any
          12  trouble when I -- when I left, and the opportunity arose, that
          13  chip was no longer going to be manufactured.
          14  Q.  So did you start your own business?
          15  A.  Yes, I did.  The company name was Semidisk Systems.  The
          16  term semidisk comes from -- semi is short, in this day, for
          17  semiconductor, and disk, of course, which is a hard or floppy
          18  disk.  Semidisk Systems built these products for various
          19  different kinds of computers for a number of years.  It was a
          20  very small company.  It was about, at most, like five employees
          21  at any one time, and I was the head guy and, you know, I was
          22  sort of the boss.  I didn't really want to be boss, but by
          23  default I became boss.
          24      And we built these products.  We sold thousands -- well, two
          25  or three or four thousand total.  At the time it was about a
           1  three thousand -- or two thousand to three thousand dollar
           2  product, and it eventually, of course, as prices dropped, it
           3  went down to five hundred and so forth.  We sold thousands.  We
           4  sold them to government agencies and sold them to large
           5  corporations.  We sold them to Japan, England, France.  Many to
           6  Australia.  Literally all around the world.  These were computer
           7  boards.  You know what a computer board looks like.  It plugs
           8  right into a bus on a computer.  Very simple to install, and the
           9  software made it easy to install.
          10  Q.  Did the company eventually go out of business?
          11  A.  Yes.  In 1992, semiconductor memory prices plateaued.
          12  Normally they go down in a rather predictable fashion.
          13  Semiconductor prices stopped going down for a number of years,
          14  for reasons I suspected but didn't really understand.  And the
          15  company, because it was -- the hard disks were becoming very
          16  common and available, just simply couldn't turn a profit on
          17  making these products.  And the hard disks were getting much,
          18  much faster also.  So it made it harder to sell this product in
          19  place of hard disks or a floppy -- or not in place of, but
          20  augment a hard disk or floppy.
          21  Q.  What did you do after the business folded?
          22  A.  Well, the simple term for it, frankly, is unemployed.  I
          23  made a little bit of money in the company, and for a few years
          24  I -- I just did a little bit of electronic consulting work.  If
          25  people had a computer or hardware problem.  This was very
           1  informal.  I wasn't like a -- I didn't like have a telephone
           2  directory listing or anything like that.  I built products,
           3  elec- -- or not -- electronic devices.  I designed circuits or
           4  -- that I prototyped.  I didn't really have a really good
           5  follow on idea for a product, frankly.
           6  Q.  Did you incur any tax liability as a result of your business
           7  going out of -- folding, going out of business?
           8  A.  The company itself, no.  It was a corporation, and I
           9  think -- I really -- I really honestly don't recall.  It's been
          10  about, you know, ten years or so.  I think -- it basically just
          11  folded, you know, it went out of business.
          12  Q.  We heard from Agent Gordon that you owed a considerable sum
          13  of money in back taxes.  Do you know how you incurred that
          14  liability?
          15  A.  I have a theory.  I had developed, frankly, in the '80s,
          16  sort of a phobia for handling -- how shall I say? -- large
          17  accounting money.  I don't know how to describe it.  I couldn't
          18  deal with it.  I -- frankly, it was a rather, a rather painful
          19  closing of my company, and -- and the loss of something to do
          20  bothered me quite a bit, and I found it very difficult to deal
          21  with large scale financial matters.  I still have a lot of
          22  trouble doing that kind of thing.  I really -- I really can't
          23  touch it.
          24  Q.  So are you saying that that was -- the failure to pay
          25  quarterly taxes or keep personal records was what caused you to
           1  have tax liability?
           2  A.  I think so.  I believe that was it.
           3  Q.  Did you become aware of the fact that the federal
           4  government, the IRS, was demanding back taxes from you?
           5  A.  Over the years, the middle '90s, frankly, I had a pile of
           6  things that -- most of which I hadn't even opened.  I was -- I
           7  was sort of, how shall I say, passively terrified.  I couldn't
           8  deal with it.  I couldn't handle it.  I might have been under --
           9  maybe I wasn't able to afford it at some point.  I just
          10  couldn't -- I couldn't approach it.  I realize that, that
          11  doesn't make sense.
          12      If -- I don't know if you know anything about phobias, but a
          13  phobia is a fear, and I had, frankly, an irrational fear of that
          14  kind of thing and I just couldn't deal with it.  I don't have an
          15  irrational fear of anything else -- snakes, spiders, heights,
          16  you name it; being outside, being closed up, that kind of
          17  thing.  But that's the one phobia I had at that time, and I
          18  think that was probably linked, probably, to the folding of that
          19  company that I had.
          20  Q.  Did the government tell you that they were -- that they had
          21  assessed you a certain sum of money and they were asking for
          22  payment?
          23  A.  Like I said, I had a pile of stuff that wasn't opened. I
          24  knew --
          25  Q.  So are you saying you don't know?
           1  A.  Really, I don't -- I don't know the details.  I knew in
           2  general terms that whole thing had to be handled, but I just
           3  didn't know how much of a problem it had actually become, and I
           4  just couldn't deal with it.
           5  Q.  At some point, did the IRS take action against you?
           6  A.  Well, in February of 1997, they seized my car.  And I
           7  believe that was in retaliation for my participation in an
           8  organization.  It was my -- it wasn't even a participation.  It
           9  was my attendance at an organization called Multnomah County
          10  Common Law Court.
          11  Q.  Before we go to that, let me ask you, was this -- in 1997,
          12  in February, when the IRS seized your vehicle, was that the
          13  first formal action that you were aware that they took against
          14  you?  To seize assets to pay back taxes.
          15  A.  It's possible in the past they may have taken money from,
          16  from a bank account or something, or bank accounts.  Like I
          17  said, a lot of my papers were simply unopened.  I was so
          18  terrified of even thinking of that.  And, of course, as it got
          19  more, it got worse.  And I just couldn't deal.
          20  Q.  So let's go back to the -- now let's go to the Multnomah
          21  County Common Law Court.  When did you first become involved in
          22  their group?
          23  A.  Well, it was -- I think it was late 1996.  I had heard about
          24  it frequently mentioned on local, what are called bulletin board
          25  echoes, discussion groups.  It was over in Portland, and I was
           1  in Vancouver, Washington, so it was across the Columbia River.
           2  Q.  I didn't ask you, how did you ever get to Vancouver, and
           3  your parents living there, also?  The last time we knew about
           4  your parents, they were living in Shawnee Mission, Kansas.
           5  A.  Oh, you want to know about my parents?
           6  Q.  When did they move to Vancouver?
           7  A.  My parents moved to Vancouver in the summer of 19, I believe
           8  it was, 89.
           9  Q.  Was that because you were there, or was it independent of
          10  that?
          11  A.  Well, they had bought a house that I was living in.
          12  Q.  All right.
          13  A.  And I was -- I need to explain the situation.
          14      When I moved out to Oregon in 1980, my sister had graduated
          15  from Brown University three years earlier.  She had then gone to
          16  dental school to become a dentist in Kansas City.
          17      Shortly, oh, 1982 or 1983 or something -- '83 -- she began
          18  her residency, if you know what that is for doctors and
          19  dentists, at the -- I'm trying to recall the name -- Portland
          20  Hos- -- or Hospital, and she came out to be a resident there,
          21  and she moved into the same apartment complex that I lived in, a
          22  place called Kalevale Village on 185th Street in a place called
          23  Aloha, Oregon, which is actually just to the west of Beaverton
          24  which is just to the west of Portland, Oregon.
          25      So she moved out there, and after a few years, she married a
           1  man, and, of course, shortly after that children happened, and
           2  when -- as you know, when grand -- when children have children,
           3  the grandparents generally want to see them.  So around 1989, my
           4  parents moved out into the house with me in Vancouver,
           5  Washington.
           6  Q.  What are your parents' names?
           7  A.  Sam and Lou Bell.  Samuel and Lou Bell.
           8  Q.  And your sister?
           9  A.  Lou Ann Bell, or Louise Ann Bell.  Or excuse me -- I'm
          10  sorry.  Her last name now is Wadlin.  Her married name is
          11  Wadlin.
          12  Q.  So there were the four of you, two children, and mom and
          13  dad?
          14  A.  No, no.
          15  Q.  In the family growing up, or were there more brothers and
          16  sisters?
          17  A.  Two, yeah.  Myself and my sister, Louise Ann Bell.
          18  Q.  Now, at some point -- we're up to a point in time, I think,
          19  where you told us about your phobias and --
          20  A.  Uh-huh.
          21  Q.  -- you told us about the folding of your business and your
          22  free-lancing.  Why have you -- what are your politics at the
          23  point in time where you're getting involved with the Multnomah
          24  County Common Law Court?  What are your political views?
          25  A.  Well, ever since about, oh, earlier than 19 -- about 1975,
           1  I've been a libertarian. I don't know if anybody has ever heard
           2  of libertarian politics.
           3  Q.  What is a libertarian to you, sir?
           4  A.  A libertarian is a person that believes in individual
           5  freedom and liberty, a minimum of laws and controls and
           6  restrictions.  The primary intent of libertarianism is what is
           7  called the noninitiation of force or -- and fraud.  That is to
           8  say, it's jokingly referred to, the rights of my fist end at
           9  your nose.  That is to say, I can't initiate force or violence
          10  against you and you can't do it against me, and there's a fraud
          11  component.  I can't initiate fraud against you and you can't
          12  initiate fraud against me.  Other than that, there isn't the
          13  need, frankly, for stacks and stacks of law books; the details,
          14  the restrictions, the controls, and that kind of thing.  That's
          15  the principle of libertarian politics.
          16  Q.  Are you actually a member of the Libertarian party?
          17  A.  A dues paying member?  I believe, as of right now I might
          18  be.  I paid my dues for last year.  I don't know when the
          19  expiration date on the dues is, but I have been a member for --
          20  well, I haven't been a dues paying member, but I've been a
          21  libertarian fully since about '75.
          22  Q.  When you vote for presidential candidates, do you vote on
          23  the libertarian ticket?
          24  A.  Every year since or including 1980, yes.
          25  Q.  Now, what about the Multnomah County Common Law Court was
           1  consistent with your views on libertarianism?
           2  A.  Well, at the time -- well, again, I was reading about it on
           3  the local computer networks.  I really didn't at the time have
           4  enough time to visit frequently, and, in fact, there was
           5  previous testimony that said I was there for maybe three visits,
           6  and that's probably about right, I was there for three visits.
           7  And the same guy said that he had been there for 24 visits, and
           8  I think there were -- I mean, I don't know how many total
           9  meetings there were, but it was -- would have been probably
          10  about that.  I don't know.  But I was there for probably three
          11  times.  Mostly visiting.
          12      And let me -- and let me also explain that a number of the
          13  very same people that I had gotten to know over the previous ten
          14  or fifteen years in libertarian politics also visited this
          15  meeting.
          16      And, by the way, it was in a pizza joint, and if you know
          17  anything about me and pizza, well, I would visit anything in a
          18  pizza joint, you know.  And so I -- I -- again, I went over
          19  there just to see what it was like.
          20  Q.  Now, did you meet a man named Steve Wilson at the Multnomah
          21  County Common Law Court?
          22  A.  Yes, I did.
          23  Q.  Did you -- did a relationship or a communication develop
          24  between the two of you?
          25  A.  Unfortunately, it did.  One of the reasons why I went over
           1  to the organization, or to the meeting once, is because I had
           2  been reading over, at least the previous year or two, indication
           3  of complaints, not merely in the mainstream press, but in the
           4  alternative press over the Internet, the fact that governments
           5  would try to infiltrate these organizations to make them do
           6  things that people wouldn't want to do; incite violence or
           7  incite law breaking.  So I was sort of concerned when that
           8  organization was formed, not because of the organization itself,
           9  but I was afraid that the government was going to try to co-op
          10  them or control them or turn them into a publicity issue later
          11  and use that to scare the public.
          12  Q.  Why was that of a concern to you?
          13  A.  Well, in general terms, because I think that it's improper
          14  for a government to infiltrate a political party or an
          15  organization designed to debate and discuss political and social
          16  issues.  It's simply improper.  And while I did go over there --
          17  excuse me.  (Witness has a drink of water.)
          18      While I did go over there just to see how things were going
          19  in general terms, I wanted to go over to also see if there was
          20  any indication of any of that kind of infiltration going on.
          21  Q.  Prior to this you had written an essay that has been
          22  referred to as Association -- Assassination Politics, is that
          23  correct?
          24  A.  Yes.  I --
          25  Q.  When did you write that article?
           1  A.  Well, I started debating the concept -- not really debating
           2  -- thinking about the concept in very, very early '95, or even
           3  perhaps as late -- or late '94.  Just thinking about a concept
           4  that, frankly, is a little too complicated to describe here.
           5  You will get a copy, I think, in at least one exhibit.  And I
           6  thought about it and started debating it, individual bits and
           7  pieces, in the very early 1995 on various areas on a network
           8  called Fidonet.  Fidonet isn't really like Internet, it's not
           9  nearly as big.  It tends to be sort of local, and I would have
          10  debates with people, ideas -- debating ideas.
          11      I started writing the essay itself, I think, in about April
          12  or May of 1995.  I wrote part of one.  I didn't really intend to
          13  write it as a full thing, I just wrote a long article, a fairly
          14  long article.  Not long -- well, medium-sized article.  It
          15  looked good.  I published it, and I debated it.  And people
          16  wanted to debate it, they wanted to discuss it.
          17  Q.  Why, in relationship to this Cypherpunks, why would they be
          18  interested in this essay?
          19  A.  Well, the Cypherpunks itself came -- or the connection to
          20  the Cypherpunks actually came a few months later.  When I first
          21  started writing that essay, I was actually posting it to the
          22  FIDOnet, which is a different thing.  It's a much smaller
          23  network.  Back then, of course, most people -- well, they just
          24  barely heard of the Internet.  Fidonet was a much older -- well,
          25  it was something that existed since about 1984 and was what
           1  people had to do when the Internet was not available.  It used
           2  to be, if you recall, eight or nine years ago, you couldn't get
           3  an Internet account.  I'll give you an example.
           4      I first used the Internet in 1978 or '79, but once I left
           5  MIT, I couldn't use Internet at all because there was no way to
           6  connect to it.  There weren't modems or contacts.
           7      In the absence of something called the Internet, people had
           8  developed from the cult Fidonet.  Fidonet was a whole bundle --
           9  a whole bunch of what are called computer bulletin board
          10  systems.  Think of it as a person.  My computer is sitting on a
          11  shelf, let's say -- well, I didn't do this, but let's say it
          12  were me.  My computer is sitting on a shelf with a telephone
          13  line.  This computer would be a bulletin board system.  People
          14  could call it up over a single modem line, upload messages,
          15  download messages; upload messages, download, all day.  Only one
          16  person could talk at one time, only one person could call in.
          17  Well, that made it harder to use.
          18      These Fidonet systems were a breakthrough.  They were
          19  designed so these computers would call each other about two or
          20  three o'clock in the morning and exchange data.  This would
          21  happen all night.  So that I could upload a message to a
          22  particular area on the system on a particular subject on a
          23  particular area, like geology.  I would ask the question, what
          24  is a, you know, an augen gneiss, which is a particular kind of
          25  rock, let's say.  And at night, two o'clock in the morning, all
           1  these Fidonet systems talk to each other, and eventually all
           2  that message gets out to every area literally in the North
           3  America, and eventually the world, and the answers come back.
           4      It wasn't like the Internet.  It wasn't like, really, real
           5  time like now; it was sort of like overnight.  It was like
           6  FedEx, which by today's standard is slow.
           7      So Fidonet is the area I first started posting the essay
           8  to.  And that was where the debates occurred, and people wanted
           9  to debate the concept and --
          10  Q.  What was so interesting about a concept of an essay called
          11  Assassination Politics?  What was the interesting aspect of it,
          12  as far as you were concerned?
          13  A.  Okay.  As I said in probably the very first paragraph or
          14  two, the title "Assassination Politics" sort of -- it's at least
          15  half of a joke.  That is to say, as somebody pointed out many
          16  months later, it's really sort of the end of politics as we know
          17  it.  The elimination of what I call hierarchical power
          18  structures.
          19      We have hierachical power structures today.  We have, let's
          20  say, a president or a king or a dictator on top.  We have his
          21  work -- you know, lieutenants, you might say.  Below him, more
          22  workers.  It's like a pyramid.  At the top is one guy.  The
          23  pyramid, as it goes down, it gets bigger.  And most of us are at
          24  the bottom of this pyramid.  It's the top of the pyramid, and we
          25  are all -- most of us are at the bottom.
           1      That's how people have been controlled for at least 3,000
           2  years.  Society used to work in hunter/gatherer groups,
           3  families.  That wasn't pyramidal.  Organizations -- as groups
           4  built up, you had kings and Pharaohs, and so forth, and their
           5  work -- their lieutenants, and so forth.
           6      We are now in a situation of virtually everything is a
           7  hierarchical power structure.  Hierarchical power structure in
           8  companies, in religious organizations like the Catholic Church.
           9  Q.  Let's focus on, what was so interesting about a political
          10  theory that had as its central premise killing people in power?
          11  A.  That's -- that's a rather crude -- that's a rather crude way
          12  of looking at it, if you read the essay.  The key here is to be
          13  able to replace the current political system with something that
          14  protects people, where they need to be protected.  The example I
          15  use is to recognize the fact that in the 20th century, over 150
          16  million people died in wars primarily caused by government,
          17  initiated by government, where people didn't have an animus
          18  toward each other.
          19      In World War I, if you know anything about history, it was
          20  caused by the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand.
          21  The people of Germany didn't hate the people of England.  France
          22  didn't hate the people of Russia, or anything like that.  One
          23  guy got killed, and the power structure, they had to act, they
          24  had to -- it's called saber -- it was called saber rattling at
          25  the time.  You know, you rattle your saber to remind the other
           1  guy that he was potentially a target if they acted.
           2      So over the last hundred years, 150 million people have died
           3  in various wars that have been caused by governments.  World War
           4  II was caused by government.  Americans didn't just -- didn't
           5  hate Germans in 1930.  Italians didn't hate -- well, I don't
           6  know -- French in 1930.  The Japanese didn't hate Americans.
           7  Russians primarily didn't hate Americans.  These are people --
           8  ordinary people did not want, or did not ask for those wars.
           9  They simply happened.  And I believe they happened for political
          10  reasons.
          11      Korea, for example.  People of North and South Korea, what
          12  is now, they didn't initiate those wars.  It was a power
          13  structure -- a power struggle between America and Russia.  We
          14  get along just fine now with Russian people.  I know three --
          15  I've met three Russian people within the last four months, and
          16  they are nice guys.  I would love to have them as neighbors.  I
          17  like to talk to them.  They can speak English; I can't speak
          18  Russian.
          19      People, ordinary people, you and me, can get along just fine
          20  if we don't -- if we aren't part of a pyramidal power structure
          21  that's fighting another.  A country fighting another.  When
          22  those fights occur, ordinary people die.
          23  Q.  How does your political paper, Assassination Politics, solve
          24  that problem or contribute to world peace?
          25  A.  The paper, of course, itself doesn't solve a thing.  Ink on
           1  paper is just that, but all ideas in history -- well, up till --
           2  or after the invention of paper have been written down.  People
           3  had a chance to discuss, debate them, read about them, talk
           4  about them, and so forth.
           5      Once I wrote down my idea -- the idea in principle is rather
           6  provocative, and it was intended as a food for thought, a what
           7  if?  What could we do?  And the idea in general worked something
           8  like this:
           9      What if you didn't like somebody who was threatening you?  I
          10  don't mean the individual perhaps threatening you, but
          11  threatening to invade your land or threatening to attack your
          12  people.  A good example of an easily hateable dictator right now
          13  is Saddam Hussein.  Everybody knows that he is and has been the
          14  dictator of Iraq for many years, at least 20 years.  Ten years
          15  ago, we, our county, and many other countries, spent 80 billion
          16  dollars in something called Desert Storm.  Eighty billion,
          17  that's billion with a "B."  That's an eight with ten zeros
          18  behind it.  That's a lot of money.  And many Americans and other
          19  soldiers went to Iraq, and fortunately not many of them died.
          20  But one of the things that didn't happen is that Saddam Hussein,
          21  he wasn't taken out of power.  He continues to threaten Kuwait,
          22  Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Russia.  Any country next to him.
          23      The American public was under the impression in Desert Storm
          24  that we were going to actually take out Saddam Hussein so he
          25  wouldn't be a problem.  His problem right now, he primarily
           1  threatens his own people, and yet for ten years he starved his
           2  people and he's attacked his people.  He's murdered his people.
           3  And that problem wasn't solved in 1990.  Despite the heroism of
           4  American soldiers, it didn't happen.
           5  Q.  Mr. Bell, that's not the situation in the United States.
           6  Let's talk about taking out Senator Hillary Clinton.
           7  A.  Hold on.
           8  Q.  If someone doesn't like her.
           9  A.  I apologize, but remember, I wrote my essay not for America,
          10  but for the world.  I was not addressing specifically American
          11  issues or American people.  I was addressing people like the
          12  people who were murdered in '76 in Uganda, or approximately; '79
          13  to '80 in Cambodia; the Rwanda affair a few years ago in
          14  Africa.  Various clan wars in Southeast Asia.  I was addressing
          15  a lot of issues that have, frankly, no immediate direction,
          16  connection to America.  If you -- I could talk about America, if
          17  you want.
          18  Q.  Let's focus our talk.  I understand your -- what you just
          19  said, but let's focus on someone who might read your essay and
          20  think that you were advocating the death of public officials, or
          21  someone as simple as their boss at work, because they didn't
          22  like that their pay was cut ten percent.
          23  A.  Okay.  Give me a more specific in your question.
          24  Q.  Okay.  I just read on -- I just saw on the news today that,
          25  I think, Agilent Company, a publicly traded corporation, they
           1  cut everybody's salary ten percent.  So let's say I come home
           2  from work and, you know, I'm an Agilent manager, and I say, my
           3  God, I just lost -- I'm pissed.  I think I will use this essay
           4  that Mr. Bell has created and put up a thousand dollars and see
           5  if someone will take out the chairman of Agilent, you know.
           6  Isn't that really a potential consequence of your essay if it
           7  was actually put into play?
           8  A.  It's hard -- first off, let me say, it's complicated.  The
           9  way society is set up today, and the way society would be set up
          10  under this kind of a system eventually, should it come into
          11  place, are dramatically different.  So it's very hard to just
          12  simplistically say, what happens if you add the following?  If
          13  you -- have you ever seen a movie -- there was a movie years ago
          14  about what would happen if America got one F15 jet fighter in
          15  World War II and it would mow down all the German fighters.
          16  What's interesting to think about, that shows you the
          17  inconsistency.  An F15 fighter doesn't fight against, you know,
          18  T38 trainers or Messrs. Schmidts or something.  It would
          19  outclass them.
          20      It's -- it's a -- the point I'm trying to make is, you can't
          21  just insert a whole new system in a little portion of our
          22  current system.  It would appear to have contradiction.
          23      I don't believe there is a contradiction there.  I can
          24  discuss concepts in general, but I wasn't specifically
          25  addressing, adding this concept to a tiny fraction of today's
           1  society.  Particularly, simply that today's society in America.
           2  America is -- America might, arguably, be the last place that
           3  it's needed compared to a lot of other places.  I wasn't really
           4  focusing on America.  I'm an American, so I know the American
           5  system.
           6  Q.  Well, Mr. Bell, no one is saying you can't write whatever
           7  you want.  I'm just asking you, isn't it possible under your --
           8  this track that you put out, that if I didn't like my boss, I
           9  could get maybe a thousand dollars, or maybe get a couple other
          10  employees to put up like a nice sizeable bounty of $20,000, and
          11  someone who wanted $20,000 and really didn't care too much about
          12  taking someone else's life would use this type of plan, if it
          13  were actually implemented, to kill someone?  And you could do it
          14  so that no one would know that I put up the thousand dollars and
          15  no one would know who he was, and therefore get away with
          16  murder?
          17  A.  Only quite hypothetically.  As I -- my essay, I mean, it
          18  also explained, is literally only the first literally few months
          19  of discussion of this concept.  I discussed it in advance -- or
          20  I continued to discuss the concept for a number of years
          21  afterwards, going into a lot of detail about issues of exactly
          22  the kind my attorney is addressing.  Because people noticed and
          23  asked questions about the impli- -- the concept, the idea of an
          24  implementation.  And, of course, I understood that people
          25  under -- had concerns of detail -- about details.
           1      And I had these discussions, and I made -- I made clear that
           2  I believed that society would change to a system that was
           3  more -- instead of that hierarchial power structure I mentioned,
           4  a flat power structure, where more or less we're all -- we're
           5  basically equal people, and there isn't a king or a prince or a
           6  dictator at the top.  It's a, you might say, a flat society
           7  where individuals, there aren't -- there aren't such a thing as
           8  a prominent politician.
           9  Q.  So are you advocating anarchy, the absence of government?
          10  A.  That's -- the problem with -- I understand the question, and
          11  I understand what the word "anarchy" means.  The problem here
          12  is, and let me explain.  People confuse anarchy with chaos.
          13  There's an old libertarian expression that describes what true
          14  anarchy would be, if opposed to chaos.  Anarchy is the lack of
          15  orders, not the lack of order.
          16      Excuse me for a moment.
          17      When people think of the word "anarchy," they think of wild
          18  in the streets.  You know, burning, looting, pillaging, that
          19  kind of thing.  That's half -- that happens, of course, when,
          20  for example, there is no central government.  For example, if
          21  the government falls and everybody can suddenly do what they
          22  want, that often, or sometimes happens.  It doesn't always,
          23  though, by the way.  It does not always happen.
          24      However, that's usually a very transient phenomenon.  People
          25  have lived for thousands of years in small hunter-gatherer
           1  groups without a pyramidal structure, lack of orders, you know,
           2  lack of a big system.  If you live with your family and three or
           3  five or six other families on a plane in Africa 4000 years ago,
           4  you might say that is anarchy.  That is to say, there is no
           5  king.  You don't have a king.  You have 30 or 40 people you live
           6  with.  There's no king, no dictator, because there aren't enough
           7  people to have a dictator.  That's anarchy.
           8      Now, the question -- what happened over centuries or
           9  millenia, I guess, as people get into larger groups, societies
          10  -- cities, for example -- the concentration of people has made
          11  it necessary to have some kind of overall structure.  Technology
          12  has not been available to control that system without having
          13  these kings and princes and their levels of politics down below
          14  them.
          15      So getting back to your original question about anarchy.  I
          16  don't advocate chaos, you know.  Certainly not.  I don't -- I
          17  don't believe there should be a lack of order.  I believe,
          18  however, there should be a lack of orders.  Orders from the king
          19  to his lieutenants, the princes, to the ministers, and finally
          20  down to his soldiers and knights, and finally the sword poked
          21  into the ribs of a slave.  There should be a lack of orders.
          22  Q.  Let me ask you this question:  Your essay uses as its
          23  central premise the concept of encryption.  What is encryption?
          24  A.  Well, the more common term is codes and ciphers, and I know
          25  a substantial about -- amount about the history of codes and
           1  cypher -- well, ciphers.  The oldest ciphers were literally
           2  three -- two or three thousands years ago.  One called, I think,
           3  Caesar's cipher involved wrapping a tape of paper around a
           4  cylinder and writing on it and then pulling it off and then
           5  putting it in a bag, and only if you had another cylinder
           6  exactly the same size and you could wrap it back on there could
           7  you read the message, "Hello, there.  This is Caesar.  Attack it
           8  in May," or something, that kind of thing.
           9      As technology progressed, more sophisticated codes and
          10  ciphers were developed.  They were called the cull substitution
          11  of ciphers.  For example, everywhere in the message you see a T
          12  why don't you put a Z.  Everywhere in the message you want a C
          13  -- a Q, put an M.  That's called a substitution cipher.
          14      There's also what are called transposition ciphers, where
          15  you take your message and you, with some pattern, you move
          16  letters to different places so you end with a jumble of text.
          17  The result is, of course, that I know -- assuming you and I know
          18  how we want to do the cipher ahead of time, we can talk about
          19  it.  When we eventually get far away, I can send you a message
          20  that was developed using this code system, and yet you can, in
          21  effect, undo what I did, and you could see, when you undo what I
          22  did, the message that I originally intended to send.
          23  Q.  What's the purpose of this cipher?
          24  A.  Well, cipher -- actually, traditionally, the first uses of
          25  ciphers, I believe, were commercial.  People had to -- they
           1  didn't have telephones, they didn't have telegraphs.  They
           2  didn't have regular mail or reliable mail delivery.  If you
           3  wanted to send something from London to Paris 200 years ago, it
           4  might go by mail, but you don't -- literally, anybody could read
           5  it, as they can today, to some extent.  And a businessman in
           6  London might want to say to a businessman in Paris, I want to
           7  buy your something or another, here's what I want to offer for a
           8  price.  And so literally codes probably go back almost as long
           9  as writing, a thousand or two thousand years.  But they've
          10  gotten -- they got somewhat more sophisticated in the late
          11  1800s, and they became extremely sophisticated, particularly
          12  publicly, in about 1975.
          13  Q.  What's the significance of encryption when it comes to the
          14  use of computers?
          15  A.  The old encryption systems, codes and ciphers, like I
          16  mentioned before, the substitution or transposition are easily
          17  cracked.  You can -- if you have enough message or volume, you
          18  can look at things and figure out -- an intelligent person can
          19  look through, figure out patterns, figure out whether or not
          20  letters are being substituted or transposed.  And with enough
          21  volume, they can go back and they could figure out what the
          22  message was, even if they don't know how you encrypted it.
          23      Computers, starting about 1975, a new system of encryption
          24  was developed called public key, and interestingly enough, it
          25  was developed partly at MIT where I was in about 1976.  And the

           1  concept in general was a very sophisticated mathematical
           2  algorithm.
           3  Q.  What's an algorithm?
           4  A.  Well, a formula, a procedure for dealing with a number.  An
           5  algorithm, I call -- let's say call plus three is to simply take
           6  a number and add three to it.  So if I take three and I add
           7  three to it, it's six.  If I take four and add three to it, it's
           8  seven.  An algorithm is simply a mathematical series of
           9  instructions.
          10      It's like instructing how to bake a cake.  You know what the
          11  ingredients are, eggs and mix and milk and whatever.  A recipe
          12  is sort of like a list of ingredients, an algorithm, an
          13  instruction manual, and it tells you to mix it up in certain
          14  order, it tells you to put it in the oven at a certain
          15  temperature, and you take it out at a certain time, and the
          16  result you get is a cake.  It's a -- it's an algorithm for a
          17  cake, you might say, plus a materials list.  That's called a
          18  recipe.
          19  Q.  Can you tell us about al- -- tell us about encryption,
          20  though, on the computers.  I interrupted you.  I apologize.
          21  A.  Yes.  Thank you.
          22      A very substantial breakthrough was made in encryption in
          23  about the 1976-'77 time frame.  Unlike older systems that did --
          24  that used very simple modifications, the public key systems that
          25  were invented during that time frame were -- involved large --
           1  huge numbers of thousands of digits, and it's hard to imagine
           2  what a thousand digit number looks like.  I mean, it's there,
           3  but you don't use them for anything in real life.  I mean, you
           4  know about billions and trillions and maybe even quadrillions,
           5  but you don't think of a ten -- or a thousand digit number.  But
           6  in fact in this encryption, text is turned into numbers and it's
           7  operated on using thousand digits -- or thousand bit keys.  A
           8  bit is like a zero one, a computer digit, you might say.
           9      A computer can take a piece of text, anything you want, not
          10  just text, but any file, any file in your computer, modify it
          11  using a complicated algorithm, and turn it into what's called a
          12  cipher text, a cryptic version.  Now, it's very complicated.
          13  Nobody in this room, including me, really understands the math
          14  that involved -- the mathematics involved.  I have a degree in
          15  chemistry and electronics and so forth.  I don't do the higher
          16  mathematics that, generally speaking, that was involved in the
          17  '75, '76.
          18      I will mention one thing.  In -- well, about January 31st or
          19  so of 1977, I was returning to MIT from -- after my first
          20  semester break and I saw something posted on the mathematics
          21  department bulletin board that at the time I didn't realize the
          22  significance of, but I later realized, I later found out what it
          23  was.  If you've been at colleges, they have bulletin boards,
          24  things that people walk by and they post things.  Test results,
          25  problem sets, and that kind of thing.  What I saw about that
           1  time, January 31st, '77 -- and the reason I remember that so
           2  clearly is because of the significance later developed.  What I
           3  saw was a very complicated instruction for dealing with numbers
           4  using what's called exponentiation, taking to the power,
           5  multiplication, and what's called modulo addition, which is --
           6  or division, which is very complex, and I won't attempt to
           7  explain it here.  I barely understand it myself, which is why I
           8  don't want to -- I don't want to embarrass myself trying to
           9  explain that.
          10      This was a multi-page document, I would say probably 20
          11  pages.  It turns out what this document was, it was the first
          12  public revelation, exposure to the public of a particular system
          13  called RSA.  RSA stands for Revest, Chimar, and Adelman.
          14  There's a person named Ron Rivest, who was MIT; Adi Shamir, who
          15  I believe is Israeli; and I think it was Leonard Adelman, and he
          16  might have been in California at the time, I don't really know.
          17  They developed a system of an actual implementation of what's
          18  called public key encryption, which was very, very sophisticated
          19  and solved an extraordinarily important problem that had been
          20  plaguing the cryptography ever since its invention thousands of
          21  years before.  And let me explain what that serious problem is.
          22      If I want to send secret messages to you, for whatever
          23  reason -- maybe because I'm a businessman, I want to sell
          24  something to you and you're far away -- we can agree on a method
          25  -- we can agree on a method of encryption, but we have to get
           1  together.  I have to get up to you and I have to say, well,
           2  here's the way I'm going to scramble my text and here's the way
           3  you're going to scramble your text, so we know when we get back
           4  here, when we get away from each other, maybe ten miles, a
           5  hundred miles, a thousand miles, we have to know when we get a
           6  message in, we have to know how to deal with it and turn it in
           7  to unencrypted, plain text, they call it.  The problem is, we
           8  have to get together, and we might not be able to get together.
           9  And particularly in the modern world.
          10      Suppose I want to communicate which a guy in Sidney,
          11  Australia.  I have never gone to Sidney, Australia.  That guy in
          12  Sidney, Australia, has never been to America.  Let's say I pick
          13  up the phone, and I say to him, let's communicate in writing by
          14  encryption, and I will say, well, my key is, you know, one five
          15  seven two A Q B F, whatever.  Well, what the problem with that
          16  is, what if that line was bugged?  Somebody was listening to
          17  that line and they know, awe, that's his key, and they can
          18  decrypt at that point literally everything that he and I send.
          19  We would have to physically get together and we would have to
          20  exchange keys to come back to actually have a system that was
          21  secure.
          22      There's a problem with that, though.  My luggage could be
          23  rifled, could be tampered with.  Once that key is exposed, I
          24  can't be assured that my communication is secured.
          25      So, since I -- or encryption has had its problem ever since
           1  -- or a thousand, two thousand years ago.  Ultimately you have
           2  to get together and agree on an encryption method, and if you
           3  don't, the system simply doesn't work.
           4      In 1975, there was a concept about what's called public key
           5  encryption, and the way I like to explain it, an analogy is,
           6  imagine a lock box, a metal box, let's say, with a key on it,
           7  and you open it up with a key and you can put something in and
           8  you can close it and send it to somebody else.  Encryption is
           9  sort of like a locked box.
          10      Well, what if there were two keys on it?  Not like ordinary
          11  keys you and I know, keys to open your door, keys to open a
          12  safe, keys to do -- to start a car.  What if there were two
          13  keys?  One key did nothing else but lock the box closed, and the
          14  other key did nothing else than open the box.  Okay.  Two keys,
          15  they're different keys.  They have no relationship with each
          16  other, other than the fact one closes the box and locks it and
          17  the other key opens the box and opens it.
          18      Well, if I send that box to somebody and if he has an open
          19  key but he doesn't have a close key, I can send him a valuable
          20  paper or a diamond or a piece of gold or something or
          21  information, close it up in a box, and use my close key to close
          22  that box, seal it up nice and tight.  I'm the only one who has
          23  that close key, let's say.  I send it to him, let's say.  He
          24  gets it.  He has an open key, and he can open it up.
          25  Q.  So is this the principle of public key encryption?
           1  A.  Effectively, yes.  It's based on the concept that you could
           2  have what's called a private key, which only you know, and you
           3  use it to encrypt things, and everybody else in the world knows
           4  it.  That's called your public key.  Your public key is the
           5  thing that opens up that box.  And so you can send something --
           6  well, somebody can send something to you, close it with the
           7  close key.  When you receive it, you open it up with the open
           8  key.  And you might be the only one that has the open key and
           9  everybody else has the close key.
          10      The system can be reversed, and it's something called
          11  authentication of messages, to verify that the message was from
          12  me as opposed to somebody else.
          13  Q.  I think we're getting a little too deep now.
          14  A.  I understand.
          15  Q.  But as I understand it, the principle has revolutionized the
          16  idea of encryption?
          17  A.  Yes, that's right, because it made it possible for you to
          18  communicate with your best friend in Moscow or Sidney or
          19  Thailand or France.  Without ever having met him, you can tell
          20  him your open key over the telephone, you might say,
          21  mathematically, and he can tell you, and nobody else knows what
          22  the close key is.  So you can send him messages and he can send
          23  you messages, and despite the fact that everybody knows both of
          24  your and his public key, nobody else can decrypt the message
          25  because nobody else has the private key.
           1  Q.  Well, how does this work -- why is this interesting, or why
           2  is it relevant to Assassination Politics?
           3  A.  Excuse me.
           4      The relevance has to do with -- let me explain it.
           5      An article that appeared in June of 1993, I believe, in the
           6  magazine Scientific American, it discussed a concept of what are
           7  called blind signatures, which dealt with -- I realize it's
           8  rather sophisticated, but it basically means ways of verifying
           9  electronically that I'm me and that you're you and that when I
          10  send you things, I'm not accidently sending them to somebody who
          11  doesn't -- who isn't supposed to get it, and when you send it to
          12  me, you know that I am who I am.
          13      This particular kind of encryption system with public key
          14  principles is sufficient -- or can be sufficiently sophisticated
          15  that literally the most important, or most powerful code
          16  breakers with the biggest computer systems in the world cannot
          17  break it for thousands of years, given the fact that the key
          18  length is sufficiently long.  That's very important, and that is
          19  why -- and it is a -- it is probably an essential element in the
          20  actual implementation of a system based on my essay.
          21      The reason my, my essay had been frequently discussed on an
          22  area, again, called Cypherpunks, or Cyphco, where they were
          23  primarily talking about codes, ciphers, electronic technology
          24  and such, is because the people who could understand the concept
          25  of my essay had -- generally speaking, would help do the three
           1  things.  Computers, of course, and how to use them.  That's one
           2  thing.  Computers; hard disks, key boards, screens.  But also,
           3  networking.  That is, me talk to you or my computer talk to your
           4  computer.
           5      The third thing that it had to have is encryption, good
           6  encryption that literally nobody in the world can break.  That's
           7  essential, because otherwise, people would figure out what's
           8  going on and the system simply wouldn't work.  So, you know, you
           9  have to know -- well, you don't have to.  It helps if you know
          10  computers, networking, and encryption.
          11  Q.  Well, Mr. Bell, let me ask you this.  Isn't it true that
          12  taking this premise that you had, using public key encryption,
          13  you used it in an essay, a political essay, to say that this
          14  could be used and directed so that it would be -- while it's not
          15  legal to kill anyone else, this is a way that you could
          16  literally get away with murder?
          17  A.  Generally speaking, that's the concept, put in a nutshell.
          18  Now, again, it's a concept, an idea, a what if.  It was intended
          19  for debate and discussion, and large amounts of debate and
          20  discussion have already occurred, in fact, as early as the
          21  middle of 1995 and since then.
          22  Q.  Did you ever try to kill anybody using this?
          23  A.  No.  Again, it's -- it would require tens or hundreds of
          24  thousands of hours of programing time.  Lots of people would
          25  have to -- to implement this system would require a lot more
           1  than just one person, I can assure you of that.  It would be
           2  like -- the total amount of work would be roughly the same
           3  amount of work that Microsoft -- well -- puts into a program
           4  called Words for Windows.
           5  Q.  But they made Words for Windows, so aren't you saying that
           6  you have a plan here, that you have written a blueprint so that
           7  if people wanted to kill people, they could do it?
           8  A.  No.  You use the term "blueprint," and let me point out.
           9  Blueprint is a plan of a building.  It has walls and a floor and
          10  so forth.  It tells you, the builder, exactly every step to take
          11  to build the building.
          12      What I wrote is not a blueprint.  My -- what I wrote, put in
          13  architectural terms, like Mr. Leen has put it in --
          14  Q.  Let me ask you this --
          15  A.  Excuse me, Mr. Leen.
          16  Q.  Let me ask you this, sir.  In 1930, I think, or maybe even
          17  earlier, in the late 1800s, H.G. Wells talked about a flight to
          18  the moon.  Seventy or eighty years later they actually flew to
          19  the moon.  Are you saying that's the difference between what you
          20  have written and the implementation?
          21  A.  I think H. G. Wells actually wrote this material much
          22  earlier than 1930, but pardon me.
          23      Yes.  There were in fact stories about getting to the moon
          24  back in 1900.  In fact, one of the earliest movies ever made
          25  shows people in Victorian costumes getting into a shell that
           1  goes into a cannon and gets shot into the moon.  That was 1910
           2  or '20.  It was an idea.  It eventually turned into real
           3  technology, but at that time it was sort of like a what if?
           4  Could we go to moon?  And, of course, at the time, 99.9 percent
           5  of the public would have said, awe, that's science fiction, or
           6  whatever they called it.  I think the term was called fantasy
           7  back then.  It was --
           8  Q.  Are you saying that what you wrote is as far removed from
           9  implementation as The Cannon Ball, which was written in 1910,
          10  was going to the moon, as when we actually landed on the moon in
          11  1969?
          12  A.  In terms of years -- well, in terms of years, of course, the
          13  time period between H. G. Wells and the 1969 landing on the moon
          14  -- which I observed in a house in California, interesting
          15  enough -- that was about 70 years, I think.  Things go a lot
          16  faster in the computer arena, but I didn't expect things to
          17  happen for -- well, five or ten years at minimum, probably
          18  fifteen to twenty years at -- possible.
          19  Q.  Let's move on.  I think we -- I think that you have
          20  discussed that.
          21      Did you -- did you post this anonymously or did you actual
          22  use your name?  Did you accept authorship of what you had
          23  written?
          24  A.  I put my name on every page.  It says Jim Bell.  I
          25  intentionally did that.  I wasn't hiding anything.  I -- I was
           1  willing and anxious to debate it with all comers, people who
           2  wanted to talk, people who wanted -- mostly over the Internet,
           3  but up close, in various political meetings, that kind of
           4  thing.  Just in general.  People who understood enough about the
           5  technology to understand the computers and the networking and
           6  encryption.  And, yeah, I did engage in a large number of
           7  discussions over the Internet subsequent to the writing of the
           8  essay.  And there were very interesting and fascinating
           9  discussions.
          10  Q.  Now let's get back to the Multnomah County Common Law
          11  Court.
          12  A.  Yes.
          13  Q.  There is some email evidence that's been introduced.  And
          14  also we saw a video excerpt where you are telling the Multnomah
          15  County Common Law Court, I think I have a solution to your
          16  enforcement policies.  And I believe that, from what we saw, the
          17  Multnomah County Common Law Court, at least when you were there,
          18  was trying in absentia certain IRS agents by disgruntled
          19  individuals who felt that the IRS had either illegally acted or
          20  had confiscated their property improperly.  And you at that
          21  meeting said, "I think I have an enforcement mechanism and I
          22  would like you to read my essay now."
          23      Would you comment on that?
          24  A.  Well, like I said, it would have taken ten years to
          25  implement.  It was not like a -- it wasn't -- I wasn't saying,
           1  do this and you can start tomorrow.  I was wanting to increase
           2  the size of the debate on the subject.  I was there because it
           3  was an organization of people who might be receptive to the
           4  theory, the concept, the -- well, again, I hesitate to use the
           5  word fantasy.  It's a -- it's a -- it's a sketch, you might
           6  say.  It's the difference between a blueprint of a house and a
           7  sketch.  I can draw a sketch with a house or roof, you know, a
           8  chimney or something.  That's a sketch.  It doesn't show you how
           9  you build the house, it just shows you what it looks like.  A
          10  person who has never seen a house might even be able to sketch a
          11  house.
          12      I wasn't trying to propose that this system was operational
          13  or would be in the near future.  I was trying to make it topical
          14  for this organization.  To explain why I thought that they
          15  should take the time to read what at the time was a ten-part
          16  essay that, I don't know, had 20,000 words, or I'm not even sure
          17  what the count is.
          18  Q.  Weren't you trying to proselytize a political ideas which
          19  would lead to the overthrow of the government as we know it now?
          20  A.  Well, I was -- I was talking about a political idea, and
          21  that was the fundamental concept.  I wouldn't exactly say it
          22  overthrows the government.  That has undercurrents and so forth,
          23  overtones.  I would say that it replaces the current system.
          24  Not -- and again, I emphasize, we're not talking about America
          25  specifically.  Potentially we're talking -- we're not -- we're
           1  talking about the entire world.  Replacement of all the
           2  countries that have systems which -- which many people, most
           3  people will agree, many of them are dramatically worse, even,
           4  than our own.
           5  Q.  But all government is structured, isn't it?  It's
           6  hierachical, as you said.
           7  A.  Yes, that's exactly right.  I believe that there are genuine
           8  reasons that that's been the way things have been developed over
           9  hundreds of thousands of years.  I think that absent a
          10  breakthrough in the way societies are structured, that is the
          11  way society has to -- or societies have to form, and that's why
          12  every society virtually we have on the face of the earth is
          13  based on that concept.
          14  Q.  Well, why, why were you mentioning specifically -- and I'm
          15  not going to say the word "targeting" because I think that might
          16  be a misperception of your writings -- but why were you
          17  mentioning tax collectors as a, perhaps, someone, some group
          18  that this theory, in theory, if it was applied, would be the
          19  focus of?
          20  A.  Well, I needed to explain it to the person who reads it in a
          21  way that he can understand.  The average person who read it
          22  might wonder, well, who are we talking about here?  How do you
          23  change society?  What changes have to be made?
          24      Reference to tax collectors, of course, is in reference to
          25  the fact that, well, quite literally, tax collectors have been
           1  mentioned since, including the Bible, as being a not
           2  particularly well-loved set of people, for reasons which I think
           3  are rather clear under the circumstances.  But fundamentally, if
           4  you change society in any substantial way, a lot of changing of
           5  society has to do with how the society governs itself, and a lot
           6  of that has to do with how that governing costs money.  Any
           7  society that governs -- or a society that governs itself has to
           8  raise a certain amount of money for the kinds of services, of
           9  public services that it provides.  A society that provides
          10  virtually no public services doesn't have to raise hardly any
          11  money.  A society that either produces huge amount of public
          12  services or spends money on people who really don't produce, but
          13  just are upon the public payroll, they have to provide a large
          14  amount of money.
          15  Q.  Let me ask you this question.  To paraphrase or to steal a
          16  phrase from Bill Gates, were you trying to cut off their air?
          17  A.  I was -- I wasn't actively trying to cut off their air.  I
          18  was -- you might say, I was -- I was describing the idea that,
          19  were it to be implemented at some point in the mid to -- mid
          20  future, years down the road, would in fact cut off their air.
          21  Q.  Did it surprise you that an IRS agent might find this
          22  something alarming?
          23  A.  In a certain sense they will find it alarming.  In the sense
          24  that if they want to -- if they are, let's say, 25 years old and
          25  their job is with the IRS, if they want -- if they want to have
           1  a job for the next 40 years and a pension for 20 or 30 years
           2  after that, they might be very concerned about the possibility
           3  that somebody would replace that system of governing with
           4  something totally different that makes their job totally
           5  unnecessary and their pension totally unavailable.
           6      Now, to the people -- people are, of course, for good
           7  reason, self-interested.  Everybody is interested in their own
           8  well-being and the well-being of people that they love.  A
           9  person who learns of a system to make something -- to make their
          10  ability to make money in the future impossible might be scared.
          11  Suppose I somehow invented a method to make cars for ten
          12  dollars.  Well, anybody who worked for Ford or GM or Chrysler
          13  would be terrified.  They would lose their job, you know.
          14      Computers used to cost five to ten thousand dollars each.
          15  If suddenly they could start making computers for $500 each, a
          16  very large amount of the people that are employed making $10,000
          17  computers, frankly, would have to be fired if computers got down
          18  to 500.  Fortunately, that drop in price has occurred over a
          19  period of 20 years, so things adjust over time.
          20      But a change in the way things are done to -- to make
          21  commodities dramatically cheaper puts people out of work, quite
          22  literally.  If I could make good steak for ten cents a pound, I
          23  would -- I would be shake -- the farmers of America would be
          24  shaking in their boots.  They -- they have very fixed, high
          25  fixed costs.  Is the very fact that I propose -- let's say I
           1  propose a concept that allows me to make steaks at ten cents a
           2  pound, anybody who -- any farmer who reads about that would be
           3  scared.
           4  Q.  Well, but this was not an economic fear, this was
           5  potentially a life-threatening fear that your article was
           6  directed to.  Would you comment on that?
           7  A.  I think it was -- I think, in general terms, it was an
           8  economic fear, not directly life threatening.  What I mean is
           9  this:
          10      Anybody who has a job now, they can quit and get another
          11  job.  They don't have to worry about that if they are willing to
          12  quit their job.  Even -- again, we're talking ten to twenty
          13  years in the future, probably.  You know, earliest.  So it isn't
          14  like they can't change jobs or get out of the system.  It was a
          15  provocative essay, and it does mention, frankly, death and
          16  killing and so forth.
          17      But that wasn't the fundamental issue involved.  The
          18  fundamental issue was to make it unnecessary to have that kind
          19  of system that raises huge amounts of money that governments
          20  don't really have to have.
          21      We do not have to spend 300 billion dollars a year, this
          22  country doesn't, on our military.  Military people just --
          23  excuse me; I'm sorry -- that's not necessary, I don't believe.
          24  Q.  Well, this was your political philosophy, is that correct?
          25  A.  Well, my political philosophy, of course, is
           1  libertarianism.  This was a political concept, an idea, a
           2  proposal.  Well, not really.  A proposal in the same way that
           3  the, as you pointed out, the Jules Verne or the H. G. Wells for
           4  going to the moon idea was to space craft.
           5  Q.  But my original question was, do you -- it certainly
           6  shouldn't have surprised you that governmental officials, and
           7  particularly IRS officials, would -- might find some threat in
           8  these -- in this essay.
           9  A.  I would say they had reason to, to worry, just simply in the
          10  sense that their way of life would eventually end.
          11  Q.  Did there come a time that you believed you began to be put
          12  under surveillance?
          13  A.  I know the particular time that I was put under
          14  surveillance.
          15  Q.  Let's fix the time you believe this surveillance began, as
          16  best you can.  Either in terms of events or dates.
          17  A.  What I will say to you in a moment is not the time I believe
          18  the surveillance first occurred.  It is the time that I first
          19  learned of surveillance that already -- or that existed.  I hope
          20  to make that distinction pretty clear.
          21  Q.  When did you first become aware that you were under
          22  surveillance?
          23  A.  Not myself personally at the time did I know, but one of the
          24  things that I took to that Multnomah County Common Law Court
          25  meeting was a small device, electronic device, I made called a
           1  field strength meter.
           2  Q.  What is that, sir, briefly?
           3  A.  An analogy, a sound strength meter is to sound like a radio
           4  signal or a field strength meter is to radio.  It is a little
           5  device that if you bring your transmitter, like a cell phone or
           6  a walkie-talkie or something like that, if it detects
           7  emanations, radio signals, it could do whatever you want, buzz
           8  or vibrate or beep or whatever, warning you that there is
           9  something nearby.  It's what -- it's a way of just finding out
          10  if a transmitter is nearby.
          11  Q.  All right.  And is that -- you brought one of these to the
          12  meeting with you?
          13  A.  Yes.  I made one -- actually, I have made several over many
          14  years.  I -- again, I have an extensive electronic background.
          15  I built this device a few years back, or before that.  And I was
          16  concerned that maybe this organization was going to be
          17  infiltrated, and I figured as long as I've showed up, I would
          18  try to figure out if there was any surreptitious recording or
          19  monitoring going on.
          20      The concept would be basically this.  If I have this in my
          21  pocket, and I walk up to somebody who has a hidden microphone,
          22  let's say, or, for that matter, a cell phone they have out
          23  openly, if that device is transmitting at the time, it will --
          24  it will activate.  The activation could be a beep or a buzz or a
          25  vibration, if I don't want it to make a noise.  But basically I
           1  made mine vibrate a little bit.  It had a little bit of monitor
           2  with an offset cam, and the idea was if I walked up to somebody
           3  who was wearing a bug, I would know.
           4  Q.  Did you find someone with such a bug at one of these
           5  meetings?
           6  A.  Yes, I did.  I -- I must say, I do not recall the specific
           7  date of the meeting, but the person I shortly, within minutes
           8  after, I determined the guy's name was -- well, he was going
           9  under the name of Steve Wilson.  We heard in this case he was
          10  actually IRS Agent Steve Walsh.
          11  Q.  Is that the man who was testifying as one of the first or
          12  second government witnesses in the case?
          13  A.  Yes, that was him.
          14  Q.  And did you subsequently have communications with him
          15  outside the Multnomah County Common Law Court?
          16  A.  Well, both in and outside the -- the meeting itself.  The
          17  meeting for the Multnomah County Common Law Court at the time
          18  occurred in a place called Stark Street Pizza.  Again, another
          19  pizza joint.  It was in a room that was specifically dedicated
          20  for third-party organizations to come and have their meetings,
          21  and it was some -- I don't know if you know, some places have
          22  that kind of thing.  They want to attract customers, and one of
          23  the things they like to do is attract meetings of dozens of
          24  people who buy pizza and beer and so forth.  And that was where
          25  the thing was occurring.
           1  Q.  Did he subsequently contact you over the Internet?
           2  A.  Yes.  In fact, he did.
           3  Q.  I would like the clerk to show you A-1 through A-4.  She
           4  will bring it to you.
           5  A.  Yes, I see it.
           6  Q.  The first, A-1, what is it dated?
           7  A.  It's dated January 31st, 1997.
           8  Q.  From?
           9  A.  It's from me, Jim Bell, and it has my email address,
          10  jimbell@pacifier.com.
          11  Q.  And who is it to?
          12  A.  This is email address swils@cybernw.com.  I recognize the
          13  cyber northwest dot com as the site cybernw.
          14  Q.  Is that the address, as you knew it at the time, for Steve
          15  Wilson?
          16  A.  Yes.  At the time.
          17  Q.  And what was that communication -- what was that email
          18  about?  Would you read from it?
          19  A.  Excuse me.  I have looked at the title so far.  I have to
          20  read the whole thing.
          21  Q.  Yes.
          22  A.  I apologize.
          23      Okay, the --
          24  Q.  Read the relevant portions, sir.
          25  A.  I was quoting in this message a message that Mr. Wilson had
           1  sent to me previously.  He says, quote, "I didn't get a chance
           2  last night to say thanks for the disk, because I was busy being
           3  a juror."
           4  Q.  What disk is he talking about?
           5  A.  I had filled out, or I had -- I had made many copies of my
           6  essay and put it on floppy disks.
           7  Q.  So AP, or Assassination Politics, was on floppy disk?
           8  A.  That's right.  I made a number of copies, five or ten or
           9  something, and I had taken them with me to the meeting and I had
          10  handed them out to people, and Mr. Wilson was one of the people
          11  that I handed it to.
          12  Q.  What was the date of this email, by the way?
          13  A.  January 31st, 1997.
          14  Q.  So when he says the other night, so sometime in late January
          15  of 1997 is when this meeting that he is talking about took
          16  place?
          17  A.  Excuse me, let me read this again.
          18      Well, it refers to "last night" in the quotation I quoted
          19  from him.  And he said that on 1/31/97, so, yeah, it was
          20  probably a meeting on 1/30/97, I believe.
          21  Q.  So he says -- I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I just
          22  wanted to set the context -- he was serving as a juror.  Had you
          23  ever served as a juror on the Multnomah County Common Law Court?
          24  A.  Once.  I happened to show up, and these people select jurors
          25  from the people who come in.  Just ordinary meeting members.  Of
           1  course, I -- I was happy to serve as a juror.
           2  Q.  Did he serve as a juror also?
           3  A.  Well, there were 12 other jurors on the jury that I served
           4  on.  I think that -- I think he was one of those.
           5  Q.  So read the email, the relevant email message that he wrote
           6  to you.
           7  A.  Okay.  I already -- let me read the whole thing.  The part
           8  that I quote from his previous message is the following:
           9  Q.  Did it have carets?
          10  A.  Yes, it has those -- well, I will turn it around.  Those
          11  carets indicate this is a quoted portion of the message.  This
          12  is the portion of the message that Mr. Wilson -- or I don't know
          13  whether to refer to him as Mr. Wilson or Mr. Walsh.  We now know
          14  his name actually is Walsh.  I'm going to call him Wilson
          15  because that's the way he addressed himself to me.
          16      He said, quote, "I didn't get a chance last night to say
          17  thanks for the disk, because I was busy being a juror.  I only
          18  took a quick look at 'Assassination Politics' today -- it looks
          19  interesting -- When I get some time, I'll read it carefully.
          20  Maybe we can discuss it at the next meeting."
          21  Q.  Now, what did you say?  Did you write back to him?
          22  A.  My response to him, in this message, is this:
          23      "It's an essay that I've been circulating on USEnet and
          24  various Internet lists and FIDOnet echoes for more than the last
          25  year.  While it wasn't originally intended to be used as an
           1  enforcement device for commonlaw verdicts, it would be
           2  relatively straightforward to fund rewards based on jury
           3  verdicts.  This would allow totally-anonymous enforcement,
           4  avoiding most clashes with the status-quo legal system.
           5      "Keep in mind that in a smoothly-functioning
           6  commonlaw-court system, the vast majority of offenses will be
           7  dealt with purely with fines; very few people would actually get
           8  killed, and those people would be the ones who were really
           9  serious offenders or repeat offenders, and didn't pay their
          10  fines, etc."
          11  Q.  All right.  So in this particular variation of your theory,
          12  you were going to let common law courts decide who should be
          13  targeted for killing?
          14  A.  With the proviso that we're talking ten years into the
          15  future at least.  That was the idea.  Instead of -- or allowing
          16  courts -- I don't -- I'm not specifically referring to common
          17  law courts.  I mean, I don't subscribe to most of those beliefs,
          18  or I don't know most of their beliefs, but basically that was
          19  the concept, and I wanted to interest the people in the area in
          20  just reading my essay, and to do that I have to make topic.
          21  When you want someone to read something, one of the things you
          22  do is you say, hey, it fits into what you already discussed and
          23  what you are interested in.  I wanted to make it topical to this
          24  group of people.
          25  Q.  So he initiated a communication to you, or did you start the
           1  communications with him, do you recall?
           2  A.  I'm virtually certain that he started communicating with
           3  me.  I believe I had put my email address on the disks that I
           4  was handing out because I wanted to participate in discussions.
           5  Q.  And that is jbell@pacifiercom?
           6  A.  Actually, jimbell@pacifier.com, with no space between the
           7  Jim and the Bell.
           8           MR. LEEN:  I offer A-1.
           9           MR. LONDON:  No objection.
          10           THE COURT:  A-1 is admitted.
          11      (Exhibit No. A-1 was admitted.)
          12  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  Now let's go to the next email.  What is it
          13  dated?  Just put it down.
          14  A.  Put it under the stack here.
          15      The next one is dated the 3rd of February.  Monday, the 3rd
          16  of February 1997.
          17  Q.  So this is three days later?
          18  A.  Yes, that's right.
          19  Q.  And what is the -- who is this particular email from and who
          20  is it to?
          21  A.  It's from me, jimbell@pacifier.com, and it's to
          22  swils@cybernw.com.  From me to Steve Wilson.
          23  Q.  Are you replying to one of his emails in this or are you
          24  initiating the email?
          25  A.  No, I'm definitely replying.  There's a quoted section here
           1  that -- that I'm referring to here.
           2  Q.  Did it have the carets?
           3  A.  Yes, it has those carets.
           4  Q.  What has he said to you in that email?
           5  A.  It says, one line, it says "Jim."  Two lines down it says,
           6  "I had a little more time to look over AP.  I had a couple
           7  questions/comments to throw out to you.
           8      "My biggest question has to do with the organization that
           9  oversees the system."
          10      And then I respond to that with about a -- well, I guess --
          11  hold on.
          12      This is a one-page note.  It continues on until it seems to
          13  stop in the middle, and it says page 1 of 3.  And I --
          14  Q.  Look at the next one then.  Is the next one the same email
          15  series?
          16  A.  Yes.
          17  Q.  A-3.
          18  A.  A-3 seems to have the first page -- excuse me.  And it --
          19  yes, it includes the first page.  And it goes on to the second
          20  page.
          21  Q.  All right.  So you respond to that, and you explain how it
          22  will be implemented or overseen.
          23  A.  Yes.  I wrote approximately two pages here.
          24  Q.  Is there any response to that by --
          25           MR. LEEN:  I would offer A-3, then.
           1           THE COURT:  A-3 is admitted.
           2      (Exhibit No. A-3 was admitted.)
           3           MR. LONDON:  This one I haven't seen.  I don't have a
           4  copy.
           5           MR. LEEN:  I will show it in a minute.  Let's just wait
           6  on that.
           7  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  What about A-4; what does A-4 say?  And
           8  what's the date of A-4?
           9  A.  The date of A-4 is the 15th of February 1997.
          10  Q.  So now this is about two weeks after you first met -- first
          11  started corresponding with email?
          12  A.  Assuming I had -- I -- I don't recall that we did correspond
          13  before approximately the 31st of January, but as far as I know,
          14  this was the beginning.
          15  Q.  All right.
          16  A.  You wanted to know the date here.
          17  Q.  Yes.  You said February 15th?
          18  A.  February 15th.
          19  Q.  And this is from you, again, to Mr. Wilson, his email
          20  address.
          21  A.  Yes.  Both mine and his email addresses are here.
          22  Q.  What is Mr. Wilson saying in his portion of the email?
          23  A.  He says -- well, the quotation from his material is, "Jim.
          24  Thanks for the info.  Personally, I think the Government," in
          25  parens, it says, "(such as it is)" close parens, "has gotten
           1  away with way too much for way too long.  But it's like that old
           2  saying, 'everyone talks about weather, but no one does anything
           3  about it.'  Everyone knows the government is dysfunctional,
           4  corrupt, and abusing the citizens -- there is a solid majority
           5  in this country that distrusts and dislikes our Government," in
           6  parens, it says, "(although not much of an agreement on a
           7  solution)."  Out of parens.
           8      That's the first paragraph of what Mr. Wilson wrote to me.
           9  Q.  All right.  Did you respond to that?
          10  A.  There is a second quoted portion.
          11  Q.  Just a second.
          12  A.  He continues.
          13  Q.  Read the second part.
          14  A.  He continues in the second paragraph.  "That's why I was
          15  interested in the Common Law Court.  It seemed to me that
          16  finally there was an avenue for those of us who wanted to do
          17  something!  Louis Whispell is an obvious example of someone who
          18  was blatantly terrorized by the IRS.  But in listening to Chuck
          19  Stuart and Jeff Weakley, they say that enforcement of the
          20  verdicts is up to Louis.  While I hope he succeeds, I think
          21  you're right, the de-facto system will just view us as
          22  irrelevant."
          23      That was the second paragraph Mr. Steve Wilson wrote to me.
          24  Q.  Was that the end of the message from him?
          25  A.  That's the end of the -- that's the end of the portion of
           1  the message that I quoted when I responded to him.
           2  Q.  And what did you respond?  How long did your response --
           3  does it run?
           4  A.  Rather substantially.  About two pages here.
           5  Q.  Could you summarize briefly what you told him in response?
           6  A.  Well, I -- I have to read it first, and that will take a
           7  minute.  Believe me, this is a --
           8           THE COURT:  Let's take a 15-minute recess.
           9      The jury is cautioned, please do not discuss the case among
          10  yourself or with anyone else over the recess.  Please go to the
          11  jury room.
          12      (Jury excused at 2:40 p.m.)
          13           THE COURT:  Mr. Leen, the defendant is charged with
          14  five counts.
          15           MR. LEEN:  I understand, Your Honor.
          16           THE COURT:  It doesn't include any worldwide
          17  conspiracy.
          18           MR. LEEN:  Your Honor, the defense in the case --
          19           THE COURT:  Never mind.
          20           MR. LEEN:  I will move along.
          21           THE COURT:  I call it to your attention.
          22      Let's have questions and answers.
          23           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          24           THE COURT:  Instead of narratives.
          25           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
           1           THE COURT:  Okay?
           2      Fifteen minutes.
           3      (Recessed at 2:45 p.m.)
           4      (Jury not present; 3:10 p.m.)
           5           THE COURT:  Are we ready?
           6           THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.
           7           THE COURT:  Call the jury.
           8           THE WITNESS:  What exhibit are we on?
           9           MR. LEEN:  You were looking at A-4, I think.  I'm just
          10  going to ask you some brief questions about those two exhibits.
          11      (Jury present; 3:12 p.m.)
          12           THE COURT:  The jury has returned.  Continue direct
          13  examination.
          14           MR. LEEN:  Yes, Your Honor.  Thank you.
          15  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  Mr. Bell, at the -- when we recessed, you
          16  were looking at A-4.
          17  A.  Yes.
          18  Q.  Is that an email correspondence exchange between you and Mr.
          19  Wilson?
          20  A.  Yes.  That is apparently my response to Mr. Wilson's email.
          21  Q.  And what date is that, sir?
          22  A.  My response appears to be dated 15th of February '97.  And
          23  according to the quotation, the date of the original quotation
          24  on my message, or the portion of the message that was sent --
          25  that was -- quotes his message, Mr. Wilson -- I'm sorry if I'm
           1  destroying that.  He apparently responded or sent a message to
           2  me on the 5th of February.  My response was on the 15th of
           3  February.
           4           MR. LEEN:  I offer A-4.
           5           MR. LONDON:  No objection.
           6           THE COURT:  It's admitted.
           7      (Exhibit No. A-4 was admitted.)
           8  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  Now A-5, look at that for a second, please.
           9      What's the date that -- is that the other email exchange
          10  between the two of you?
          11  A.  Yes.  Jimbell@pacifier.com and to Steve Wilson.
          12  Q.  And what's the date of your response to this email from Mr.
          13  Wilson?
          14  A.  28th of April 1997.
          15  Q.  So we have some emails --
          16           MR. LEEN:  I offer A-5.
          17           THE COURT:  A-5 is admitted.
          18      (Exhibit No. A-5 was admitted.)
          19  Q.  (By Mr. Leen)  So the two of you were exchanging emails at
          20  least from January 31st to April 28th, is that correct, sir?
          21  A.  That's right.
          22  Q.  Were there other contacts that you had with Mr. Wilson other
          23  than through email and other than through the common law court?
          24  A.  Yes.  I believe -- well, he did talk to me outside the Stark
          25  Street Pizza a few times.
           1  Q.  Did he talk to you on the phone at all?
           2  A.  Yes, he did.  I think -- I don't recall how many times, but
           3  a few times.
           4  Q.  Did he ever ask you to do anything illegal?
           5  A.  Yes.  Outside --
           6  Q.  What did he ask you to do that was illegal?
           7  A.  He apparently knew I was a ham radio operator, and he asked
           8  me if he knew how I could get ahold of a transmitter for an FM
           9  pirate radio station that he was considering building.
          10  Q.  Did you agree to do that or not?
          11  A.  Oh, no.  That's illegal.
          12  Q.  Now, other than -- after Mr. Wilson, sometime in 1997, your
          13  house was searched, is that correct?
          14  A.  Yes.  On April 1st, 1997.
          15  Q.  So this was before the last of the email exchanges, is that
          16  correct?
          17  A.  Yes.  The search was before, was about a month before the
          18  last -- well, I don't know whether it's the last email
          19  exchange.  It's the last one here.
          20  Q.  You were exchanging email with him after the search.
          21  A.  That's right.
          22  Q.  When did you -- other than Mr. Wilson, who we've talk about,
          23  who is really Special Agent Walsh, was there any other
          24  surveillance that you felt was taking place against you during
          25  -- from '97 through 1998?
           1  A.  I later -- well, excuse me.
           2  Q.  Yes or no?
           3  A.  I now believe that there was indeed surveillance at the
           4  time.  It wasn't clear from where it came.
           5  Q.  But you believed you were under surveillance?
           6  A.  Well, given --
           7  Q.  Yes or no?
           8  A.  Yes, I did.
           9  Q.  And subsequent to 1998, did you believe that you were under
          10  surveillance?
          11  A.  I wouldn't say subsequent.  During 1998, I was --
          12  particularly on a particular day I was definitely under
          13  surveillance.
          14  Q.  Did you believe that there was surveillance from houses
          15  adjacent to where you were living?
          16  A.  I strongly suspected that as of late '97, and I continue to
          17  suspect that to today.
          18  Q.  Did you tell -- did you tell anybody in the media about
          19  this?
          20  A.  In July of 1998, very shortly after I had been rearrested on
          21  a probation revocation violation, I called John Branton, of the
          22  Columbian, and I made very specific accusations of government
          23  spying against me.
          24  Q.  And was that the James Branton who testified here the other
          25  day?
           1  A.  John Branton.  Yes, that was him.  The reporter from the
           2  Vancouver Columbian newspaper.
           3  Q.  Did you outline for him why you believed you were under
           4  surveillance and from what sources?
           5  A.  Not in a great -- the why, not a great deal of detail as to
           6  why, because my communications with him were limited to
           7  15-minute phone calls.  But I told him what I thought and where
           8  I thought the surveillance was occurring from.
           9  Q.  Now, in 1997, you entered a guilty plea.  Is that right?
          10  A.  That's right.
          11  Q.  And that was -- what was it specifically that you had done
          12  to the IRS office in Portland?
          13  A.  Are you referring to the plea, or are you referring to what
          14  I actually did?
          15  Q.  What did you actually do?
          16  A.  Okay.  It was actually Vancouver.
          17  Q.  I'm sorry, Vancouver.  I apologize.
          18  A.  In -- I don't recall the exact date.  It may have been March
          19  17th or 18th.
          20  Q.  Of 1997?
          21  A.  About two months after I discovered that Steve Wilson was --
          22  almost two months after -- was infiltrating the Multnomah County
          23  Common Law Court, and approximately a month after they had
          24  seized my car, I injected a small amount of nontoxic but smelly
          25  material into the federal building in Vancouver, Washington,
           1  late at night.
           2  Q.  And did you admit that you did that in the guilty plea?
           3  A.  Yes, I did.
           4  Q.  And were you punished for that?
           5  A.  Well, I was -- I was definitely punished for that.
           6  Q.  And were you also prosecuted for using false IDs -- excuse
           7  me -- false social security numbers?
           8  A.  Yes, I was -- well, that was part of the charges.
           9  Q.  And what was -- what did you specifically do with social
          10  security numbers?
          11  A.  It turns out I didn't really do what I said I did on the
          12  plea agreement.  Let me explain.
          13      I have never believed, or haven't believed -- for 15 years
          14  or more, I haven't believed in the use of social security
          15  numbers as a general means of identification.  During
          16  particularly the '80s and the early '90s, organizations would
          17  ask people -- of course, me, being a person -- for a social
          18  security number as an identifier, as a way of tracking data, and
          19  my response has been, for 20 years, I've said, well, I really
          20  don't feel comfortable using that.  Could you -- do you really
          21  have to have a social security number or could you just have an
          22  identifier for me that's unique to your organization and mine?
          23  And almost always when I've talked to these people they say,
          24  well, we just need a number to put -- to type into the machine
          25  that the software says we have to type it in.  So I said, okay.
           1  I'm going to give you a number.  This is not my social security
           2  number.  It is what I call my ID number.  You can use this to
           3  communicate with me and store records.  I don't tell them it's
           4  my social security number because it isn't.  But in the plea
           5  agreement that I signed three-and-a-half years ago, they charge
           6  me with using false social security numbers.
           7  Q.  Were you working back in 1996, 1997?
           8  A.  Yes.  I had gotten a job with a company called Control Tech
           9  in Vancouver, Washington, which is an electronics design and
          10  manufacturing company with about -- well, I don't know what it
          11  had; it has now about 30 employees, 30, 40 employees.
          12  Q.  Did you use your correct social security number when -- for
          13  purposes of payroll?
          14  A.  As it turned -- I found out I -- I had swapped two digits.
          15  I don't recall which particular two digits were swapped, but I
          16  used my social security number so infrequently that I, I -- I
          17  had gotten the number wrong.  Two digits were reversed.
          18  Q.  Did it cause -- was money withheld?  Did you pay taxes?
          19  A.  Money was withheld.  I claimed the standard deduction, as I
          20  recall.  That's all I -- I think.
          21  Q.  Did you file a tax return during those years?
          22  A.  Well, I, I had not been filing tax returns for a few years,
          23  just again associated with my phobia about dealing with this
          24  problem.  But I eventually did file the tax return for
          25  '97.  Or '90 -- excuse me, '96.
           1  Q.  All right.  In 1998 your house was searched again, is that
           2  correct?
           3  A.  Yes, that's right.
           4  Q.  And as a result of that, your supervised -- your supervised
           5  release was violated, is that correct?
           6  A.  That's the term they used.  Basically they are saying that
           7  in my probationary period they -- I did -- I did something, they
           8  say, that I shouldn't have done.
           9  Q.  And you went back to jail.
          10  A.  That's right.
          11  Q.  For how long?
          12  A.  Well, waiting for --
          13  Q.  Altogether, how long did you serve?
          14  A.  Approximately 22 months.
          15  Q.  Now, is that -- now, how long did you serve as a result of
          16  your '97 conviction?
          17  A.  The original conviction, I served 11 months.
          18  Q.  And the supervised release violation?
          19  A.  That was, again, 22 months all tolled, I believe.
          20  Q.  So approximately another 11 months, is that what you're
          21  saying?  Or 11 and 22?
          22  A.  Eleven months first, and then twenty-two months afterwards.
          23  Q.  So when were you finally released completely from supervised
          24  release and from prison?
          25  A.  It was in April of 19 -- or excuse me, of 2000.
           1  Q.  All right.  Now, at this point, there has been introduced
           2  evidence that you had communications while in prison with
           3  reporters where you expressed great anger at the IRS and
           4  expressed that you were going to not let the matter drop.  Is
           5  that -- is that a fair summary of what your attitude was?
           6  A.  Basically, yes, for a lot of reasons which haven't yet been
           7  discussed here.
           8  Q.  I understand.  Now, why, why did you feel this way?
           9  A.  Well, for one thing, I -- the plea agreement was coerced in
          10  a phony -- it did include a couple -- well, a couple things that
          11  I had done.  It may have been a mistake, but they didn't fulfill
          12  the terms of the agreement, and apparently didn't intend to, and
          13  in fact specific portions of this agreement were violated
          14  intentionally repeatedly by various government people.
          15  Q.  And what specific government officials violated the
          16  agreement?
          17  A.  Well, one of them is present in this courtroom.  His name is
          18  Jeff Gordon, and he's sitting at the prosecution's table on the
          19  right.
          20  Q.  All right.  Anyone else?
          21  A.  Well, I believe a probation person named Leslie Spier.  I
          22  believe it's spelled S-p-i-e-r, but I'm not absolutely certain
          23  about that.
          24  Q.  All right.  Anyone else?
          25  A.  The prosecutor Robb London, who is to the left of Mr. --
           1  well, my left of Mr. Gordon, sitting at the prosecution table.
           2  Q.  Now, was Mr. London involved in your 1997 prosecution?
           3  A.  He eventually was.  The initial prosecutor in that charge
           4  was named Annmarie Levins, who I heard later on went to work for
           5  Microsoft in defending against their antitrust case.
           6  Q.  Did she -- so she wasn't involved in your '98 case?
           7  A.  No.  I believe -- well, I don't know when she left service,
           8  but she wasn't then there.
           9  Q.  Mr. London was involved in your '98 case?
          10  A.  Yes, sir.
          11  Q.  '98 violation.
          12  A.  Yes, that's right.
          13  Q.  So do you feel that Mr. London had violated any -- done
          14  anything improper?
          15  A.  Oh, very much so.  Very much so.
          16  Q.  So, Mr. London, Ms. Levins, Ms. Spier.
          17  A.  Um-hmm.
          18  Q.  And Mr. Gordon.  Now --
          19  A.  Basically, yeah.
          20  Q.  -- anyone else that you had felt who worked for the
          21  government, either the U.S. Attorney's office, the judiciary,
          22  probation office, or federal law enforcement, did you feel had
          23  done anything improper, other than those people?
          24  A.  Well --
          25  Q.  As of your release on -- in April of 2000?
           1  A.  Well, I have to think about this for a moment.  That covers
           2  a lot of territory.
           3      I think there was probably a substantial amount of violation
           4  beyond what I was aware of, but I'm not aware of the names of
           5  the people responsible for all of the violations.  Those are the
           6  main names of the responsible parties, that I'm aware of.
           7  Q.  In particular, is there -- we've heard mention of a man
           8  named Ryan Thomas Lund.
           9  A.  That's right.
          10  Q.  Now, did you have a -- when you were incarcerated in 1997,
          11  was there an altercation between you and he?
          12  A.  Yes, there was.
          13  Q.  Could you briefly explain to the jury what that altercation
          14  was?
          15  A.  Well, there was -- I should -- I should mention the -- well,
          16  okay, I will answer your question.
          17      On November 25th, 1997, Mr. Ryan Thomas Lund assaulted me, I
          18  believe for purposes of extorting my agreement to go through
          19  with the plea agreement that had been previously signed.
          20  Q.  Now, when you say assaulted you, you mean beat you up?
          21  A.  It wasn't as serious as that.  He was actually trying to
          22  fake a fight, to make it look like a fight had occurred.
          23      To explain that, I need to explain that the policy of SeaTac
          24  FDC, Federal Detention Center, is, when there appears to be a
          25  fight or an altercation or an assault, they put everybody in a
           1  place called shoe.  Think of it as solitary confinement, you
           2  know.  They call it the hole, basically.  The reason they put
           3  everybody in, not just the perpetrator, but the victim, is
           4  because at the time they don't necessarily know who the person
           5  guilty is, you know.  The victim may be a victim, and they don't
           6  know, the perpetrator could be -- they don't know that.  In
           7  addition, of course, even if they knew, the person who did the
           8  assault might actually have friends, other inmates, who would
           9  victimize the victim further if he wasn't put in the hole
          10  immediately.  So they have this policy that says whenever they
          11  appear to have an altercation of any kind, they put people in
          12  the hole.
          13  Q.  Why would this altercation and having you put in the hole in
          14  some manner make your guilty plea, where you told Judge Burgess
          15  it was voluntary, why -- why would that affect the voluntariness
          16  of that agreement?
          17  A.  Because of -- well, I had become aware -- excuse me.  I had
          18  previously signed this plea agreement.  I had become aware of
          19  violations before the date of my original intended sentencing.
          20  Q.  So are you saying the procedure is that you enter your
          21  guilty plea and enter into a plea agreement, and then some
          22  period of time elapses and then you're supposed to be sentenced?
          23  A.  Yes.  The plea agreement -- again, I do not recall the exact
          24  date.
          25  Q.  That's all right.  But that's the chronology of events.  So
           1  are you saying that between the time that you entered into the
           2  plea agreement, where you told the judge that you were doing it
           3  voluntarily, and the time that you were sentenced, this
           4  situation happened with Ryan Lund?
           5  A.  That's true.  But I should add that the original scheduled
           6  sentencing date passed, and I was actually sentenced at least --
           7  about a month and a half after I was originally scheduled to be
           8  sentenced.
           9  Q.  Now, at any time did you indicate to anyone that you wanted
          10  to withdraw your guilty plea before your sentencing?
          11  A.  Oh, yes.
          12  Q.  Who did you indicate that to?
          13  A.  Well, my attorney at the time.  His name is Peter Avenia.
          14  It's spelled A-v-e-n-i-a.  I told him that I wanted to
          15  withdraw.
          16  Q.  Did he file a motion to withdraw your guilty plea?
          17  A.  No, not that I recall.
          18  Q.  Did you notify the court or anyone else other than Mr.
          19  Avenia that you wanted to withdraw your guilty plea?
          20  A.  Well, I think I told many other inmates.  I probably told my
          21  parents over a telephone that was monitored by the jail.  I
          22  believe my attorney, Avenia, at that point had maybe a
          23  paralegal -- I don't know whether I talked to -- I can't even
          24  recall her name.  Maybe I talked to her as well.  Those people.
          25  Q.  Did you tell the judge at the time of sentencing that you
           1  wanted to withdraw your guilty plea?
           2  A.  Well, my eventual sentencing was November -- or December
           3  12th, 1997, and, no, I didn't tell him.
           4  Q.  Well, did you feel -- at the time that you were sentenced,
           5  did you feel that the altercation with Ryan Lund had anything to
           6  do with your decision not to seek to withdraw your guilty plea?
           7  A.  Well, yes.  I had told Avenia the last week of October that
           8  I wanted to withdraw my guilty plea, and the assault by Lund
           9  occurred November 25th, about six o'clock in the afternoon.  And
          10  that is what made me accept, or not withdraw from this
          11  agreement.
          12  Q.  And why is that, sir?
          13  A.  Well, I was scared, actually.  I -- I felt absolutely,
          14  totally, positively certain that Mr. Lund had been put up to it
          15  by someone in the government.
          16  Q.  Why?
          17  A.  That's an involved question, and I will try to answer.
          18      The incident itself occurred.  I was in a TV room on the
          19  second floor of an area in the SeaTac.  Lund was coming down the
          20  hall.  I was inside of two other inmates.  I had not made any
          21  contact with Lund for the four days since I had first met him,
          22  and he hadn't tried to contact me.
          23      He was looking in the other TV room for somebody, I didn't
          24  know who, and then he opened the door and he walked over to the
          25  TV.  And at that point he asked people what we wanted to watch,
           1  and I said, I just very passively -- he asked one person, and I
           2  very passively answered another thing, I want to watch the news,
           3  and so forth.  At which point he started turning everything that
           4  I said into an argument.  I mean, I thought it was theatrical.
           5  I -- I -- it looked like he was picking a fight, literally.  I
           6  didn't really care what we watched, but he looked like he was on
           7  a mission.
           8  Q.  Mr. Bell, let's assume he was picking a fight with you
           9  because he just didn't like you.  Why did you conclude that this
          10  was an act or something that was directed by some government
          11  agent?
          12  A.  Well, in the midst of the assault that followed, as he
          13  knocked me out of the door of the TV room, he said something
          14  about, you had better take the deal they're offering you.
          15  Q.  All right.  Did you -- so that's the basis -- that's the
          16  germination of where you felt it was from the government?
          17  A.  No, actually it wasn't.
          18  Q.  Well, where did you begin to think that Mr. Lund was put up
          19  to this by whom you eventually put in you writings, the case
          20  agent on Ryan Lund's case, Mike McNall?
          21  A.  Okay.  Let me explain.  I first met Ryan Thomas Lund in the
          22  basement, literally, of this very building on the morning of
          23  November 21st, 1997.  He -- I was put into his cell.  People
          24  down there wait to come up here in cells.  I was put into his
          25  cell and he had some paper with him, and he was an inmate --
           1  well, he was dressed in street clothes, not -- the jail gives me
           2  this.  He was in street clothes, and they put me into a cell,
           3  and he had a fax copy of his, what's called information.  Think
           4  of it like a charge.  A claim --
           5  Q.  A criminal complaint?
           6  A.  Well, at the time I think it was an infor- -- well, I don't
           7  want to be too technical since you're laymen.  Basically a
           8  complaint, yeah.
           9  Q.  Okay.
          10  A.  I don't recall if it was an information or a complaint.  But
          11  there are two things they are called.  I don't know the
          12  technical details.
          13  Q.  All right.  So why was the possession of this and the fact
          14  that he was in street clothes, why did that make you feel that
          15  something was unusual?
          16  A.  Well, the first thing that was unusual was the fact that he
          17  had a copy, a fax copy of his complaint with him.  I had
          18  substantial experience at the time going to and from SeaTac
          19  facility, and one thing the policy was, the marshals who were
          20  responsible for this -- and you see a few of them around here
          21  doing their job -- they virtually never allow anybody to have
          22  paper in those cells downstairs.  You might ask what's wrong
          23  with that.  Well, I will tell you why in general terms.
          24      Sometimes inmates want to keep their paper secret from other
          25  inmates.  They may be an informant or they may have done
           1  something they are embarrassed by.  They have -- the marshals
           2  have a general policy that says that you do not get paper when
           3  you are waiting in the cell, particularly if you have -- if you
           4  are in with another inmate.  They don't let you do that.  Even a
           5  single piece of paper like that, they do not allow that.
           6      The only time I have ever seen it done otherwise is
           7  literally a few days ago, when they were kind enough to let me
           8  take a paper in a cell that I was alone in, absolutely alone,
           9  for preparation of trial work.  Nobody was there.  Most of the
          10  time having paper might not be a problem.  These people are
          11  ultra cautious and they wouldn't allow anybody to have paper in
          12  a cell with somebody else.  They wouldn't have allowed that.
          13  Q.  So that struck you as unusual?
          14  A.  Oh, immediately.
          15  Q.  And then he had this fight with you, and you heard him say,
          16  "You should take the deal."
          17  A.  Well, there was a lot more that made me very suspicious of
          18  him.
          19  Q.  But what made you feel that particularly it was Mike McNall
          20  that was behind it all?
          21  A.  That's two years later.  I had already established in many
          22  different ways over the next few days that Mr. Lund was a
          23  government informant, but I did not know at that time who he was
          24  working with on the government.  That is to say, I saw his
          25  paper, but I didn't necessarily see who he had been associated
           1  with, the person who prosecuted him or the investigator.
           2      Two years later, however, when I was released from prison
           3  the last time, on April of 2000, I went into a substantial
           4  amount of research to try to find out about the Ryan Lund
           5  incident, and one of the things I -- among the things I did was
           6  I literally purchased his court paperwork.  You may not be aware
           7  that court paperwork is legally purchasable.  I can get copies
           8  of it.  I bought two court case files, one from the Tacoma court
           9  and one from the Seattle court, of two cases that Lund was
          10  involved in.  One was criminal --
          11  Q.  Did you do this legally?
          12  A.  Oh, yes.  It's available to anybody.  I think I wrote a
          13  check or something like that, and anybody can do it.  You can do
          14  it, he can do it.  Anybody who walks in or mails a letter can.
          15  Q.  So you bought his entire criminal file?
          16  A.  For that particular charge, yes, and also a civil case that
          17  was assoc- -- I thought associated with it.
          18  Q.  And in this civil case, was he a plaintiff or defendant?
          19  A.  He was a plaintiff.  Ryan Lund had sued SeaTac,
          20  interestingly enough, for a slip and fall accident that
          21  occurred, I believe, on December 15th, 1997, three days after I
          22  eventually pled guilty to -- to the charge that I -- I had
          23  signed the plea agreement to.
          24  Q.  So what were your -- what were your conclusions after you
          25  read these two files?
           1  A.  Well, after -- after I read the files, I was at that point
           2  absolutely certain, if I wasn't before -- and for many reasons
           3  that haven't been mentioned up till now, I was absolutely
           4  certain before.  But I verified in the file that, yes, Mr. Lund
           5  virtually had to be an informant and that he had been doing
           6  something for the government at that time.
           7  Q.  So one of the things in your email is a discussion of his
           8  points and his range, his sentence range should have been around
           9  ten years and he got a sentence of maybe 27 months.  Is that
          10  what caused you to believe that he was an informant?
          11  A.  Well, no, no.  I -- I -- I knew he was -- well, I knew he
          12  was an informant from probably five minutes after I met him in
          13  the basement here on this November 21st, 1997.  But with respect
          14  to the documents I got, there was a substantial discrepancy
          15  between the time that he should have gotten as a four-time
          16  violent felon with two drug convictions, a sawed-off shotgun
          17  conviction, I think a car theft.  He had previous convictions
          18  for assaulting or intimidating witnesses, or in a certain
          19  cases.  He had a long criminal history.  Four felonies, four
          20  serious felonies.
          21  Q.  So you felt that the sentence he ultimately got was some
          22  kind of quid pro quo for something?
          23  A.  Oh, yes, absolutely.
          24  Q.  Now, this civil suit.  What was the result of this civil
          25  suit and what did you conclude?
           1  A.  Well, I purchased the case file in about September of 2000,
           2  and it didn't really say what the answer I wanted -- or it said
           3  the two parties, the government and Ryan Lund, motioned to have
           4  the case dismissed because of a settlement, which means they
           5  agreed to solve it.  But it didn't say the amount of money that
           6  they agreed to pay or, if any, to Ryan Lund.  He had asked
           7  originally for a million dollars.  The settlement, or the
           8  answer, the last pages I got simply said, case dismissed because
           9  of a settlement with the right to reopen it if the parties do
          10  not actually carry through with the settlement.
          11  Q.  Well, do you know whether he got either a million dollars or
          12  maybe a penny or nothing?
          13  A.  I have no idea.
          14  Q.  Why -- okay.  So what else did you do to investigate Ryan
          15  Lund other than look at the two files?
          16  A.  I did a great deal of investigation on this.
          17      Ryan Lund had told me a number of things and showed me a
          18  number of things in the paperwork and about his case that
          19  made -- well, that -- I had already known, five minutes after I
          20  met him I knew he was a foreman in a plan of some kind.  But he
          21  also told me a lot of things about his criminal record in front
          22  of cameras and microphones down there.  He told me he was guilty
          23  of the crime of which he was being charged at that point in
          24  front of cameras, a camera and a microphone.  He told me things
          25  about how he had been arrested and how he had been moved from a
           1  place -- Eugene, Oregon, which is substantially south of
           2  Portland, all the way to this courthouse.
           3  Q.  Well, rather than going into all of the things that you --
           4  that he told you, how many hours did you spend after you were
           5  released from prison investigating Ryan Lund and seeing who
           6  might have been the person who had made the deal with him?
           7  A.  Oh, on Lund alone, many dozens of hours spread over a period
           8  of months.  Buying the court file, for example.  Lund was a
           9  Vancouver, Washington, local.  I'm from Vancouver, Washington.
          10  I went to the Clark County Courthouse and I bought certain
          11  copies of criminal case files for Ryan Lund that they had
          12  there.  I called up a place called Clackamas County, Oregon,
          13  Courthouse, which is just south of Portland, and I bought -- or
          14  -- and I asked the clerk about various convictions he had in
          15  the past.  I called Multnomah County, that's Or- -- or Portland,
          16  Multnomah County Court, and I asked them about things there.  I
          17  found in some of my paperwork that he had a parole officer with
          18  a Hispanic name in Portland, and I tried calling him a few times
          19  but I never got an answer.  I was just going to ask him about
          20  Ryan Lund's criminal history, his convictions and so forth.
          21  Q.  Did you look up Ryan Lund through databases with tags and
          22  addresses?  We've seen a lot of that type of stuff introduced
          23  into evidence.
          24  A.  Oh, yes, definitely.  First off, one thing is I filed a
          25  Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Marshal's
           1  Service in Washington, D.C., because I was told that I could do
           2  that.  I asked to find out whenever Ryan Lund had been moved
           3  back and forth by the marshals, and the marshals do that job.
           4  And I figured -- I was told that information is publicly
           5  available.  You can get it on anybody.  You can get it on me, if
           6  you want.  So I did.
           7  Q.  What's the purpose of this research?
           8  A.  There was a discrepancy, a very serious discrepancy, in Mr.
           9  Lund's appearance, and I don't mean physical appearance.  I mean
          10  the fact that he appeared at the -- Tacoma here, this
          11  courthouse, on November 21st, 1997, when I first met him, when I
          12  was put in his cell.
          13  Q.  I'm saying, but why?  Let's just say that you're right, he
          14  was an informant and he did get a quid pro quo for doing
          15  something for the government.  In 2000, in April of 2000, why
          16  did you want to know this information?  What were you going to
          17  do with it?
          18  A.  I was going to expose it all.  I was talking to two
          19  newspaper reporters, a guy named John Branton of the Vancouver
          20  Columbian newspaper, and another guy named John Painter of the
          21  Portland Oregonian.  In addition, I was talking to an Internet
          22  journalist named Declan McCullagh.
          23  Q.  Is that the gentleman who testified the other day?
          24  A.  Yes, that's right.  And he is in the audience, in fact.
          25  Q.  And what were you going to expose?
           1  A.  An assault on me for the purpose of forcing me to accept a
           2  phony crooked plea agreement that was broken probably within
           3  days of the date it was signed by me.
           4  Q.  And why would you -- why did you think that the government
           5  would go through such elaborate, difficult, and illegal methods
           6  to get you to plead guilty to something or to maintain your
           7  guilty plea?
           8  A.  Well, the guilty plea -- or the guilty -- when the plea
           9  agreement was originally offered to me, in approximately late
          10  June of '97, I was told by my attorney then, Mr. Avenia, that it
          11  was offered by the prosecution but the government investigators
          12  did not like it at all.  They hated what it was giving me.  It
          13  was giving me 11 months.  They hated that.  They really were --
          14  they were very opposed to that.
          15  Q.  Why was that?  Did they want more time?
          16  A.  Oh, yes.  Very much more time.
          17  Q.  Who was the case agent on your prosecution in '97?
          18  A.  I believe Jeff Gordon was.  I don't know if there was any
          19  others that were associated with it, but it's been a long time.
          20      Excuse me.
          21  Q.  So you wanted to expose this illegal conspiracy.
          22  A.  That's right.  Well, I don't tend to use the word conspiracy
          23  very often, but under the circumstances, I -- well, okay.  I
          24  think it would apply in this case.
          25  Q.  Did you want revenge?
           1  A.  Generally speaking, I find I never wanted revenge on
           2  anything in my entire life.  I wanted the exposure in the news
           3  media as to what happened to me.  Excuse me.  I wanted it
           4  exposed, what happened to me.
           5  Q.  And why would you think that anyone would think that was
           6  newsworthy?
           7  A.  Most people would assume that prisoners aren't normally
           8  assaulted to get them to continue to agree to a plea agreement.
           9  Most of you wouldn't believe that if you heard it, I don't
          10  think.
          11  Q.  Did you find that most people didn't believe your
          12  accusations?
          13  A.  Let me see how to explain this.  This is not a thing of
          14  believe or disbelieve.  They didn't disbelieve it, but they --
          15  they agreed with me.  I was the first one to say it.  My amount
          16  of proof at that time was very inadequate.  There was a lot of
          17  research that had to be done, a lot of investigation.  And I was
          18  apparently the one who was going to have to do it because in my
          19  phone calls with John Branton of the Columbian in 1998, many of
          20  them in July, I believe, shortly after I was rearrested, it was,
          21  ho hum, you know, we're not interested.  We don't want to bother
          22  with it.  Or he listened to my complaints, and he hardly did
          23  anything to check them out.  And under the circumstances, I
          24  guess that was reasonable because he was just a crime reporter
          25  and all he did was he goes -- he goes to the courthouse locally
           1  and he writes some stories.  He wasn't an investigative
           2  reporter.
           3  Q.  So did you eventually figure out Mike McNall was the case
           4  agent for the Ryan Lund prosecution?
           5  A.  Oh, yes.  The criminal case file that I had purchased -- the
           6  criminal case file was from the Tacoma court.  I purchased it,
           7  and I looked through it very carefully, and, yes, Mike McNall
           8  was listed as the -- well, the person who participated in the
           9  search warrant of Lund's case and the person who wrote up the
          10  application, I believe, for the search warrant.
          11  Q.  Well, other than the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol,
          12  Tobacco, and Firearms is a Treasury law enforcement agency and
          13  IRS is a Treasury law enforcement agency, why would you think
          14  that there would be any connection between Mike McNall, who was
          15  in charge of the prosecution, from law enforcement standpoint,
          16  of Ryan Lund, and Jeff Gordon, who was handling your prosecution
          17  back in 1997 when you wanted to withdraw the plea agreement?
          18  Why would you feel there was any connection between the two?
          19  A.  Well, in the original search of my residence, April 1st,
          20  1997, was attended by about 30 -- well, I don't know -- maybe 30
          21  federal agents from IRS, DEA, FBI, even the Environmental
          22  Protection Agency, and U.S. Marshals.  I, I may have forgotten
          23  one or two, but there were about 30 federal agents, and the ATF
          24  was one of those agencies that showed up.  Since they're both
          25  Treasury, it's reasonable to assume that there's a connection.
           1      But again, I -- that was based on all the people that had
           2  shown up on April 1st.  I remembered that, and it was obviously
           3  some suspected connection.
           4  Q.  Well, you felt there was a connection.
           5  A.  Oh, yes, very much so.
           6  Q.  So what did you do to try to prove that there was a
           7  connection?
           8  A.  Well, I -- like I said, I investigated Lund dramatically.  I
           9  did a lot of the research to get his court file to find out who
          10  he --
          11  Q.  Other than -- you've told us about Ryan Lund.  What did you
          12  do regarding Mike McNall and what did you do regarding Jeff
          13  Gordon to find out if there was a connection at -- to connect
          14  the dots between those two?
          15  A.  Well, unfortunately, it's so hard in this case to connect
          16  the dots.  I felt that there was probably an association, but it
          17  might have been something that didn't have a paper trail, you
          18  understand.  One person called on another person on the phone
          19  and say, you know, "Can you do this?" and it might not have left
          20  a record.  So it wasn't like I felt that there was a clear
          21  provable connection at the moment because I'm an individual.
          22  I'm not a -- I investigate as an individual, not as a government
          23  agency.  I knew I couldn't immediately prove the connection, but
          24  I believed that there was a connection.
          25      I did a lot of other research in the summer of 2000 on
           1  various issues.
           2  Q.  Well, you're a trained scientist, is that correct?
           3  A.  Most of my training is in the scientific field and
           4  engineering.
           5  Q.  And you know what a hypothesis is.
           6  A.  That's right.
           7  Q.  What was your hypothesis about all of this?
           8  A.  Well, about -- with respect to Ryan Lund, I believe that he
           9  had been moved up to meet me on that particular day in the cell
          10  in this building for the purposes of getting him to know me,
          11  connecting me, the government informant with the other guy.  I
          12  believe that nothing was done for four days.  And I believe that
          13  at some point Ryan Lund got a phone call or letter, probably a
          14  phone call -- actually made a phone call outside to his -- I
          15  don't know what they call that? -- a handler, a government
          16  connection between an informant and a --
          17  Q.  The case agent who is responsible for him?
          18  A.  It might have -- it might have been.  Not being really
          19  familiar with how the agents do their job, I would assume that
          20  he would have been the person to contact, Ryan Lund.  But, of
          21  course, I know that government's a big organization.  They have
          22  thousands and thousands of people.
          23  Q.  So you felt that he had contacted someone, and you didn't
          24  know who at that point, but now you're telling me that you think
          25  it was Mike McNall.
           1  A.  Yeah.
           2  Q.  Okay.  So tell us the rest -- let me hear, for the jury's
           3  sake, the rest of your hypothesis that you are trying to prove.
           4  A.  Well, I had a -- again, I had a theory that on November
           5  25th, Ryan Lund had made a call based on prearrangement -- an
           6  informant, of course, is probably given a way of contacting his
           7  -- the people who are running him, and I think he did make the
           8  call and I think he talked to somebody.  And that somebody, I
           9  believe, even though this recording was almost certainly not
          10  recorded, I believe that person said something like, there's a
          11  felon inmate there and we would like you to have him -- or we
          12  would like -- we would like this guy put in the hole.  Okay?  In
          13  solitary confinement.  That will make us very happy, Mr. Lund.
          14  Understood?  And, of course, Lund would say, sure.  And Lund, of
          15  course, knowing the policy of SeaTac Federal Detention Center,
          16  he knew that if there was any kind of, well, altercation, fight,
          17  assault, whatever, he knew that were he to start that, both he
          18  and I would immediately be directed straight to the hole, which
          19  in fact is what happened.
          20  Q.  You testified to that aspect of it, but what is the rest of
          21  the hypothesis?  Where does the connection between Gordon and
          22  McNall fit in?
          23  A.  Well, since they are both Department of Treasury, the ATF
          24  and the IRS, or whatever the organization currently is, I
          25  figured that they were working together.  Jeff Gordon had a task
           1  to do and Mike McNall had an informant that he -- or the BATF
           2  had an informant they were running.  And informants are at least
           3  fairly numerous, but if a government person wants something to
           4  happen in a prison or something, they have to find, I guess, an
           5  inmate that is positioned, you might say, to do that job.  And
           6  it's possible that the IRS did not have somebody, per se, in
           7  SeaTac FDC ready, willing, and able to do that, but BATF had a
           8  guy who was just ready to be -- or who could be arrested at a
           9  moment's notice down in -- near Eugene, Oregon, and brought up
          10  to handle a task that they wanted to accomplish.
          11  Q.  Now, are you saying that Jeff Gordon had somehow or another
          12  asked Mike McNall to have his informant do this?  Is that the
          13  theory?
          14  A.  Whether it was -- I mean, whether it was Jeff Gordon
          15  personally or one of many other of his associates -- well,
          16  frankly, again, I was in jail at the time.  I don't have
          17  personal knowledge of their communication 150 miles away in
          18  Portland, Oregon.  But I believe that in general it was those
          19  organizations which were interested in having me put in the hole
          20  for purposes of keeping me away from the telephone, my attorney,
          21  calling home, that kind of thing, because there's virtually no
          22  phones in the hole you can get except once a week.  In regular
          23  population in this jail you can call almost any time you want.
          24  Except, of course, at nighttime or when you are locked down.
          25  Q.  Mr. Bell, if the government, if the government agent, Mr.
           1  Gordon, was distressed, because apparently, according to you,
           2  the government had offered you a better deal than he wanted you
           3  to receive, what would be his interest in having you go through
           4  with the plea agreement when, if you just revoked it, then you
           5  would get more time?
           6  A.  That's a good question.  I hope -- I think I have a
           7  satisfactory answer for that, I hope.
           8      The deal they offered was apparently all they could get, and
           9  based on what I believe subsequently, or I have learned
          10  subsequently, I believe that they couldn't afford to have a
          11  trial in this case because they were using undercover evidence
          12  that they didn't want to expose.
          13      You see, let me explain.  Sometimes you might learn
          14  something that you might be able to use but you don't want to
          15  admit having gotten the information in the first place.  For
          16  example, you know, 40 years ago Martin Luther King's bedroom was
          17  bugged by the FBI or something.  Well, what if they heard that a
          18  murder occurred in the bedroom by two totally unrelated people?
          19  Are they going to admit that they bugged Martin Luther Kings'
          20  bedroom and expose their entire bugging operation to thousands
          21  of Americans or hundreds of Americans at the time just to
          22  prosecute a murder?  Probably not.  And my theory here is that
          23  they couldn't -- at the time they couldn't -- they couldn't
          24  afford prosecution because they had surreptitious evidence taken
          25  and they knew that all they could do is have a deal, and they
           1  didn't want to go back and have a trial.
           2  Q.  So you felt that you were the subject of illegal
           3  surveillance because of what reason?
           4  A.  Well, that's certainly a different -- okay.  The first --
           5  well, the first -- well, I thought it was illegal surveillance
           6  when Steve Wilson was bugging me and the common law court.  The
           7  next, and, frankly, outrageous example of surveillance was in
           8  the days between, I think, the third Thursday of June -- excuse
           9  me -- June 1998 and Fathers' -- or Fathers' Day Sunday, which is
          10  June 22nd, 1998.
          11  Q.  All right.
          12  A.  This was two-and-a-half months after I had first -- had
          13  gotten out of prison on the original charge.  I was on
          14  probation.
          15  Q.  Why were they -- why were they expending res- -- what was
          16  your theory as to why they were expending these resources on
          17  you, or did you feel that this was just something that the
          18  government did as a matter of course?
          19  A.  At the time I, I really didn't know.  At the moment it
          20  happened, I didn't know why they were doing what they were
          21  doing.  They were -- they were following me and some of my
          22  family members around Vancouver, Washington.  There was an
          23  instance where I had gone to a very small libertarian group
          24  meeting at a place called Smokey's Pizza in a place called
          25  Orchards, Washington, which is a little bit northeast of
           1  Vancouver.  It was the third Thursday of June.  It was seven
           2  o'clock, and I was at the meeting with other people, and --
           3  yeah.  And I had gone there by way of bus.  I didn't have a car,
           4  of course.  And during the last leg of the bus trip, there was
           5  this bald man who was on the trip as well.  He was -- he looked
           6  rather interesting.  I mean, in terms of what I thought he was.
           7      About four or five hundred yards before the bus even got
           8  where -- to Smokey's Pizza in Orchards, he stood up from
           9  across -- diagonally across, and he walked over to the bus
          10  driver, and I was sitting right beside the bus driver, and he
          11  said to the bus driver, "Where -- can you tell me where Smokey's
          12  Pizza is?"
          13      Okay.  We were on a bus, on the last leg of the journey.
          14  Why was he going to Smokey's Pizza?  And he was 400 yards away
          15  and he didn't know where Smokey's Pizza was.  Most people have
          16  cars, I didn't.  Most people don't go to places by bus if they
          17  don't know where they are, you understand?  You know, you do not
          18  take a bus to a place you don't know where it is.  This guy was
          19  standing up in front of me asking the guy, where is Smokey's
          20  Pizza, my destination.
          21  Q.  So you felt he was some kind -- this was some kind of effort
          22  to alert you to something or to -- or the man had inadvertently
          23  said something he shouldn't, or what did you think?
          24  A.  No, I don't think he in- -- he didn't do it for purposes of
          25  alerting me.  I -- or -- I don't think it was inadvertently
           1  said.  I think the purpose of this was this.  Let me explain.
           2  He, of course, if he was who I eventually believe he was, he
           3  doesn't want to make it look like he was following me.  Do you
           4  understand?  If you're going in a relatively rural area with a
           5  bus and one person gets off and the other -- another person
           6  follows, guess what happens?  The person who goes off first
           7  thinks, or I'm thinking, I'm being followed.  Well, he obviously
           8  wanted to get off, or eventually at the time he got off at the
           9  same stop I did.  But he probably wanted to be able to sort of
          10  show me that he knew he wanted to get off at Smokey's Pizza
          11  before I demonstrated I wanted to get off at Smokey's Pizza.
          12  Q.  How would he have known that you were going to Smokey's
          13  Pizza?
          14  A.  Well, if he was a government agent who was assigned to
          15  follow me, the reason he knew was because this was a group of
          16  libertarians, that we had literally been meeting together for
          17  ten years.  Very small, close -- I shouldn't say close knit.
          18  With respect to this meeting, was very close knit.  We rarely
          19  got anybody other than those four or five people, or families
          20  of people.  Sometimes, but very rarely.
          21      So when -- excuse me.  So we just didn't often get that.  An
          22  extra person.
          23  Q.  Is this before or after Steve Wilson met you at that
          24  location?
          25  A.  Oh, that was a year.  The incident I just described is a
           1  year -- about a year after Steve Wilson met me at -- I believe
           2  we haven't mentioned the Steve Wilson --
           3  Q.  Didn't you say that he did -- at one point did you say that
           4  he met you at Smokey's Pizza?
           5  A.  Well, the common law court meeting was at a place called
           6  Stark Street Pizza in Portland.
           7  Q.  Okay.
           8  A.  The Smoke -- the Smokey's Pizza was in Orchards, Oregon --
           9  or Orchards, Washington, and he -- and Steve Wilson also met me
          10  at Orchards, Washington --
          11  Q.  My question to you is, is this before or after he had met
          12  you there?
          13  A.  The -- the -- the man following me on the bus was June of
          14  '98.  The Steve Wilson thing there was a year earlier.  More
          15  than a year earlier, actually.  May of '97.
          16  Q.  So you felt that this man was conducting surveillance of
          17  you.
          18  A.  I believe so, because if he was following me, he had to have
          19  been following me for a reason, and presumably he's not just
          20  there to look at me.  He was there to do something in addition
          21  to that.  But at the time, when -- when he and I left the bus, I
          22  didn't know for sure -- I felt fairly confident that he was
          23  following me at that point.  The very fact that he would say,
          24  "Where is Smokey's Pizza?" immediately --
          25  Q.  Okay.
           1  A.  -- said this guy doesn't know where he's going.  I said,
           2  that's weird.
           3  Q.  Now, let's move ahead a little bit.  You have this theory
           4  that you believe -- you truly believe this.  You truly believe
           5  the government has been engaged in a pattern of illegal behavior
           6  towards you for several years at this point, by the time you are
           7  released from prison in April of 2000.
           8  A.  Oh, well --
           9  Q.  You firmly -- you firmly believe that to be true?
          10  A.  They are probably arguing --
          11  Q.  I'm not asking you what they believe.
          12  A.  Okay.
          13  Q.  I'm asking you what you believe.
          14  A.  There has been a substantial amount, I believe, of illegal
          15  activity, illegal surveillance, including the Ryan Lund assault,
          16  some threats previous to the Ryan Lund assault at Pierce County
          17  Jail and Kitsap County Jail in '97, and surveillance, illegal
          18  surveillance in other ways.
          19  Q.  And you believed that your home was under surveillance from
          20  next door neighbors.
          21  A.  As odd as it may sound, I believe that.
          22  Q.  You believed that your -- that when you were driving with
          23  John Copp, he testified that your -- that his car was being
          24  watched, followed by an airplane.
          25  A.  Yes.  And, in fact, I have a -- an exhibit here that I have
           1  drawn up over lunch that describes -- which I can describe the
           2  route we took and what we saw, and so forth and so on.  But,
           3  yes.
           4  Q.  And John Copp testified to why he thought that the two of
           5  you were under surveillance, also, didn't he?
           6  A.  Yes, that's right.  That's what he said.  He was convinced
           7  that we were under surveillance.  He was the person, actually,
           8  who first spotted the airplane that night.  The sky was black,
           9  the airplane had lights on.
          10  Q.  What I'm saying is, but when you were released in April of
          11  2000 from prison, you, personally, Jim Bell, were convinced that
          12  the government had engaged in a pattern of illegal activity and
          13  illegal surveillance -- maybe legal, also -- of you, but that
          14  they were watching you and that there was a coordinated effort
          15  to cover up the fact that you had been assaulted at the
          16  directions of a government agent.
          17  A.  I was and am absolutely convinced of it, totally and
          18  completely.
          19  Q.  Now, if you believe that to be so, what was your reason for
          20  trying to personally contact Jeff Gordon at his home rather than
          21  anyplace else?
          22  A.  Well, I was actually threatened with arrest through another
          23  attorney, a Mr. Solovy who represents -- who represented me.
          24  Q.  Is that the same Mr. Solovy who we saw that fax where you
          25  wrote that note on it?
           1  A.  I don't think it was a fax, but, yes, I wrote -- it was a
           2  letter to Mr. Solovy, my attorney, and I had written the letter,
           3  and I believe I had faxed it to him and I kept the original.
           4  Yes, that Mr. Solovy.
           5  Q.  Okay.  So -- okay.  So my question to you is, why were you
           6  wanting to contact Jeff -- first of all, why were you trying to
           7  find out where Jeff Gordon lived, and then why were you trying
           8  to contact him at his home?
           9  A.  Well, I believe that this illegal activity has been going on
          10  since -- again, certainly since Steve Wilson infiltrated the
          11  Multnomah County Common Law Court, and many other instances.  I
          12  thought that Jeff Gordon either was personally responsible for
          13  this or in fact was one of many government agents who were a
          14  part of this activity, that he certainly should have -- would
          15  have or should have known about this, and I wanted to talk to
          16  him.  And I also wanted to talk to Mike McNall, who appeared to
          17  me to be the case agent for Ryan Lund, because he was the one
          18  who participated in the search of Ryan Lund's house on July 2nd,
          19  1997.  He was the one who wrote up the application for the
          20  search warrant a couple days earlier.  He was the one -- well,
          21  he -- the paperwork in the case showed that he was the main
          22  federal agent associated with that case and Mike McNall.
          23  Q.  Well, why would speaking to him at his home be any more
          24  effective than either talking to him on the phone or talking to
          25  him at his office?
           1  A.  I believed that it's conceivable -- more than conceivable --
           2  that the communication between Mike -- or between Ryan Lund and
           3  whoever asked him to put me in the hole, occurred -- one person
           4  talking to another person over a phone that might not have been
           5  monitored or recorded.  In other words, quite literally there
           6  would be no evidence of the fact that somebody called Ryan Lund
           7   -- or excuse me -- Ryan Lund called somebody.  You can't call
           8  into the jail.  And I thought that -- I thought that Mike McNall
           9  would know who it is or he would know who contacted -- who was
          10  contacted by Ryan Lund.
          11      Why I wanted to go to him personally at his residence?
          12  Well, if there was illegal activity going on, that I suspected
          13  for a number of -- for a few years, it's possible that it was
          14  either a rogue operation or a few people who just sort of got
          15  together and did things.  And if I were to have visited him at
          16  the official office, everybody else around him would be alerted
          17  that Jim Bell was talking to Mike McNall, and Mike McNall might
          18  not be willing to tell me something that he might be, well,
          19  willing to tell me if nobody else was around.  And if I were to
          20  call into the agency and say, "My name is Jim Bell.  I would
          21  like to talk to Mike McNall," that, of course, would be a red
          22  flag.  And if Mike McNall wasn't the person who was responsible
          23  for Lund's activities, calling in for him would be literally
          24  pointless.
          25  Q.  Did you ever try?
           1  A.  No, I didn't.
           2  Q.  So how do you know it would have been pointless?
           3  A.  My assessment of the situation, I concluded that.  I knew
           4  that if I tried, the moment I tried it would wave a red flag,
           5  and once you have waved a red flag, you can't unwave the flag.
           6  I didn't --
           7  Q.  Could you call from a pay phone and use a phony name?
           8  A.  Could I?  Well, in hindsight, I suppose I could, but it
           9  could be -- it could be that those lines are monitored at his
          10  organization, and it's possible that I would -- that in asking
          11  him the question, somebody else in his organization would also
          12  find out that -- and, well, that he was being contacted about
          13  Ryan Lund.  And, in addition, even if I said, I asked about Ryan
          14  Lund, that itself would raise some warning flag, particularly if
          15  Ryan Lund was in fact what I thought, a government informer.
          16  They get very touchy about their own informers, I suspect.  And
          17  they're not going to ask -- answer questions about their
          18  informers.
          19      He may have been an informant -- correction.  He might be an
          20  informant doing something for the government and he just
          21  assaulted me as an extra little thing that he did one day.  He
          22  was -- may have had a bigger fish to fry somewhere else.  But
          23  somebody who said, oh, we need -- or somebody said, we need Bell
          24  in the hole.  Lund is convenient, let's ask him.
          25  Q.  So are you saying that the real purpose of all of this was
           1  to show that Ryan Lund had done this at the direction of someone
           2  else; that was really what you were trying to prove?
           3  A.  That's true.  And also potentially to identify, if possible,
           4  the person responsible.
           5  Q.  Okay.  But when you went to -- now, turning to Scott
           6  Mueller.  Scott Mueller was a name that you -- you knew it as a
           7  different name originally.  It came to you from John Young, is
           8  that correct?
           9  A.  Yes.  Let me explain.  The Mueller thing has literally
          10  nothing to do with the -- any of the other stuff in this case.
          11  I subscribe to an area called Crypherpunks, which I believe has
          12  been discussed.  It's an Internet mailing list.  Messages come
          13  in and I can respond.  We do favors for each other.  We will ask
          14  questions, ask for information, check out information,
          15  whatever.  One day a message appeared on the Cypherpunks list
          16  from a person named John Young, a person who I had never
          17  physically met.  I had never called him up.
          18  Q.  Did you know of him?
          19  A.  Oh, yes, I knew, because he was another person who posted or
          20  was interested in the Cypherpunks list.  I knew him as a
          21  subscriber, of course.
          22  Q.  Did you know what his -- did you know that he had this
          23  philosophy that there should be no such thing as government
          24  secrets?
          25  A.  I really -- generally speaking, yes.  He ran a site which
           1  clearly indicated that -- that he wouldn't have run if he didn't
           2  believe what you just said.
           3  Q.  And that he also believed that the names of government
           4  operatives and their personal addresses should be posted on the
           5  Internet?
           6  A.  Yes.  In fact, I seem to recall, one of the things that was
           7  posted on his site was something that came from a -- I don't
           8  know -- a Japanese secret service or Japanese version of the
           9  CIA, a list of a hundred of their alleged operatives.  It was
          10  posted on his site.  I don't recall where he got it.  Basically
          11  it was like outing a hundred members of the Japanese version of
          12  the CIA.  That's all in a day's work for, I guess, for people
          13  like Mr. Young.
          14  Q.  Did you assist him in this, in this belief he had by going
          15  to Mr. Mueller's residence and putting where he lived, the
          16  vehicles that he had, the friends that he had, the license
          17  plates and his telephone number?  Weren't you assisting him in
          18  doing that?
          19  A.  Well, he didn't request assistance, and I -- and frankly, I
          20  didn't even offer assistance.  I simply took the information
          21  that he had posted, a single page, which I believe has been
          22  entered into evidence in the prosecution, and I took that
          23  information, and I happened to have an Oregon DMV database --
          24  actually a number of them -- and I looked through that Oregon
          25  DMV database for the name that, according to the file that Mr.
           1  -- I guess Mr. Young -- understand, when something appears on
           2  the list that says, let's say, John Young, I can't know who
           3  actually sent it.  Although the first, first approximation, I
           4  would assume it's John Young.
           5      Excuse me.
           6      I took that name and I ran it through.  I looked through the
           7  Oregon DMV list.  The first search I did is, the name was
           8  Deforest X. Mueller.  That's all it said, Deforest X. Mueller.
           9  I said, well, gee, Deforest is a rare name, so -- relatively, so
          10  I searched the Oregon DMV database for every Deforest that
          11  appeared in -- as a registered owner of a vehicle or as a
          12  license plate owner, you know, registered -- a registered driver
          13  or registered vehicle owner.
          14  Q.  For the sake of time, Mr. Bell, let's skip by all of the
          15  exhausting things you did.  What was your ultimate conclusion by
          16  running all of these different databases, spending hours and
          17  hours and hours of researching?
          18  A.  Well, it wasn't all --
          19  Q.  What was your --
          20  A.  The Mueller thing was simply to verify the truth or the
          21  falsity, not to vari -- to gather information as to the truth or
          22  falsity of the theory that maybe this guy had something to do
          23  with the CIA.  I found a few things which made it rather
          24  substantially more interesting than it started out being.
          25  Q.  Okay.  So there were anomalies and curiosities that made you
           1  think, maybe in fact he is a CIA operative?
           2  A.  Possibly.  I thought he might have been possibly a very
           3  low-level CIA employee.  I don't mean somebody who's a spy or
           4  anything.  I just mean a local guy who just --
           5  Q.  Well, you didn't know.  He could have been, for that matter,
           6  the deputy director of the CIA, for all you knew.
           7  A.  Well, I wouldn't think they would put him in Bend, Oregon,
           8  but --
           9  Q.  But you really didn't know.
          10  A.  That's true.  I had -- and, of course, I'm fully aware, and
          11  I have been for years, of course, that literally anything can be
          12  typed into a computer.  You could put a message that says Jim
          13  Bell, CIA Director.  Insert whatever name you wanted.  People
          14  can type anything they want.  The existence of that name on --
          15  in that database is by no means proof of the truth of the
          16  allegation.  The only thing I recall hearing or reading in the
          17  message was that the database came from a governmental
          18  organization, I believe called ISTAC -- I-S-T-A-C.  It's an
          19  acronym that I don't know, or don't know what it stands for.  So
          20  it was a government database that listed this guy, the name.
          21  Q.  Did you confirm that?
          22  A.  No.
          23  Q.  Did you rely on the fact that John Young had typed it on the
          24  Internet?
          25  A.  Well, it didn't -- I didn't know whether a person
           1  specifically named John Young typed it.  The message simply
           2  appeared in a name that sounded familiar -- or was familiar,
           3  John Young.
           4  Q.  And you accepted it as true?
           5  A.  No.
           6  Q.  Well, you --
           7  A.  I asked a whole lot -- let me explain.  Let me be completely
           8  accurate here.
           9      For the purposes -- I accepted that, the assertion that this
          10  information was collected from the government, open -- perfectly
          11  open database, and that it said what it was printed out to say.
          12  As for whether or not the information of that printout was
          13  actually correct, no, I didn't accept it as being true.  I -- it
          14  was, as far as I was concerned, it was a mystery.  At that point
          15  it was a mystery.
          16      I don't know if any of you have ever gone to Bend?  Maybe
          17  you haven't, but I -- I went to Bend many times in the mid '80s
          18  for caving purposes, for spelunking.  I hadn't been to Bend for
          19  ten years.  And Bend is not the kind of place that I would
          20  suspect them to put a federal government agency.
          21      Now, John Young wouldn't have known what Bend, Oregon, was.
          22  I knew it as, ten years ago, as a small town.  So it was a
          23  mystery why anybody would be listed with a little initial cia
          24  and a name and an address in Bend, Oregon.  It didn't make
          25  sense.
           1  Q.  So ultimately you went to Bend, Oregon, and took photographs
           2  of this house.
           3  A.  Yes.  But the reason -- the reason I actually went, as
           4  opposed to what I had initially done, go through the database,
           5  is I found very interesting and curious inconsistencies and
           6  problems, well, with the data that came through.  Let me give
           7  you an example.  The name --
           8  Q.  Let me just ask you, did the databases that you were
           9  accessing in the Internet, you were accessing, were you hacking
          10  into computers or was this publicly accessible information?
          11  A.  Oh, absolutely publicly accessible.  I did access a number
          12  of sites that drew maps.  If any of you know the Internet, you
          13  know there are various sites that will allow you to type in an
          14  address, and it will print out a map for you, full color with
          15  roads and everything.  Well, they are publicly available, free.
          16  Anyone of you can access it.  It's just like -- it's like being
          17  able to have a map of the entire United States, just by typing
          18  it in the computer.  It's publicly accessible.
          19      I didn't -- you know, despite the fact that I'm somewhat of
          20  a -- I'm sort of a computer nerd, I have never even attempted to
          21  try to get into any computer system illegally in my entire
          22  life.  And the only time I inadvertently got into somebody's
          23  account, about 23 years ago at MIT, the only reason I got in
          24  inadvertently is because the system had been mistakenly
          25  programmed, so when the guy hung up without logging off, the
           1  next guy, who I was, called in, I got logged in under his name.
           2  I found that out, and I immediately logged out.  That was an
           3  inadvertent thing, 23 years ago, I guess, probably.
           4  Q.  So you're not a hacker?
           5  A.  Well, you're raising a -- I'm sorry, you sort of hit a hot
           6  bud here.
           7      When I went to MIT, the term "hacker" referred to anybody
           8  who is expert in anything.  That's because --
           9  Q.  As the term is used today.
          10  A.  Well, as the term is misused today, tends to use -- to refer
          11  pejoratively to somebody who likes to break into computer
          12  systems and erase data and modify things, do bad things.  The
          13  term "cracker" is, because they crack the system, they break
          14  into it, that's sort of the preferred term on the Internet now.
          15  Those are -- crackers are the people who like to do illegal
          16  things.  Hacker, I would like to think -- unfortunately, because
          17  of its abuse, its hard to say -- is sort of just simply a
          18  general purpose term for a person who is familiar with the
          19  concept and the technology.
          20  Q.  Have you -- in your search of Mr. Mueller or any of these
          21  searches that you did in connection with the matters that you
          22  are on trial on, did you go into any computers that required
          23  passwords and log ons which weren't appropriate for you to do
          24  so?
          25  A.  Oh, I've never done anything like that.
           1  Q.  So this is all publicly accessible information?
           2  A.  Yes, it is, publicly available.
           3  Q.  So as a result of all of your searches, maps, checking, DMV,
           4  you ultimately determined, or at least felt, that this gentleman
           5  was actually a CIA operative?
           6  A.  No.  Because all -- well, what I had determined through the
           7  database search was there are inconsistencies in the name, the
           8  domain Deforest X. Mueller, which is as it appeared in the
           9  message claiming to be from ISTAC.  And I found a -- the name in
          10  the database, the DMV, was Scott Deforest Mueller, not Deforest
          11  X. Mueller; Scott Deforest.  In other words, the guy had sort of
          12  slightly modified -- or I assumed he had -- sort of slightly
          13  modified the name.  A different first name, of course, and
          14  shifted the -- or the middle name was shifted to the first, and
          15  the X was added.  And so -- and that seemed rather odd to me.
          16  It seemed vaguely like you might expect a very low-level CIA
          17  person to do.
          18      In addition, I found a car registered in the database for a
          19  Deforest Scott Mueller.  Not Scott Deforest Mueller.  And that
          20  reversal of the first and the second names looked odd, again.
          21      In addition, in the same -- at the same address that Mr.
          22  Mueller was at, there was a guy -- listed a person, John Ashe
          23  and, I believe, an Anna Ashe.  And they were at the same
          24  address -- same address during, I guess, the same year, but it
          25  wasn't clear if they were the same or different people.  And at
           1  one point I thought, well, maybe that's an alias or something.
           2  Q.  Would it be fair to say that you spent tens, if not
           3  hundreds, of hours on this project, including traveling to Bend
           4  to check out your various suspicions?
           5  A.  No.  On the computer, probably only about two to three
           6  hours.
           7  Q.  Okay.
           8  A.  As to driving to Bend, that -- that was a -- that was mostly
           9  a sight-seeing trip, and I could -- I would have done that
          10  anyway.  I mean, I have a long history with John Copp of just
          11  driving out in the wilderness, in the boonies.  We've done that
          12  for years.  Literally drive 50 or 100 miles and camp or -- on
          13  forest roads, if you have driven on forest roads.  We do that.
          14  That's one of the things we do.  And driving to Bend, I guess,
          15  is a hundred miles away or -- that's, to him, he likes to
          16  drive.  He's been a cab driver in the past and he's been a cop
          17  in the past, and he drives for fun, really.  So going to Bend --
          18  Q.  As a result of all that, though, there was an email where
          19  you sent back to John Young that you have "outed" Scott Mueller,
          20  or Deforest X. Mueller, or whatever various names he has, and
          21  sent back all of this personal information about him which was
          22  then posted on a website.
          23  A.  Well, I concluded from all the different discrepancies, and
          24  there were a number of different discrepancies, that made it
          25  look like a genuine -- like a genuine name, Scott Deforest
           1  Mueller, had been changed in so many different ways and adjusted
           2  and -- and the name of the Anna Ashe and John Ashe, I concluded
           3  that some very low-level government person was making these word
           4  games or name games in his business or his life, and that it
           5  probably was somebody who wanted a certain level of security or
           6  privacy, and it may have been a very -- a very, very low-level
           7  employee of some agency, possibly the CIA.  I -- that was one
           8  possibility.  I didn't know for sure.  And that's what -- it was
           9  the discrepancies that got me curious enough to want me -- to
          10  want to go to Bend, Oregon.  In addition, I wanted to sightsee
          11  Bend, Oregon, as I hadn't been there for ten years, and I wanted
          12  to see how Bend, Oregon, had built up over the years.
          13  Q.  You heard him testify he doesn't work for the CIA and he's a
          14  real estate broker.  So at this --
          15  A.  Yes.
          16  Q.  -- point do you think that he's lying or do you think he
          17  works for the CIA?
          18  A.  I think he's probably telling the truth.
          19  Q.  So you were wrong.
          20  A.  Well, in saying -- well --
          21  Q.  You were mistaken?
          22  A.  The one thing that I said, of all the email exchanges
          23  saying, quote, something like I "outed" the CIA guy, that
          24  conclusion, which at that point was really only preliminary,
          25  appears to be wrong.  But if you look at the way I worded all of
           1  my searching, I didn't conclude the truth of the original
           2  assertion, I merely tried to collect data to verify and to show
           3  the inconsistencies and to basically figure out what really went
           4  on, why -- or what's going on, who's there, what's happening.
           5  Q.  Do you feel you acted irresponsible?
           6           THE COURT:  That's enough, counsel.  The jury is going
           7  to go home.
           8      Please do not discuss the case over the weekend among
           9  yourselves or with anyone else.  9:30 Monday morning.
          10      (Jury excused; 4:30 p.m.)
          11           THE COURT:  Nobody is to leave the courtroom until the
          12  jury has cleared the corridor.
          13      Anything to take up?
          14           MR. LEEN:  No, Your Honor.
          15           MR. LONDON:  No, Your Honor.
          16           MR. LEEN:  Oh, Your Honor, one matter.
          17           THE WITNESS:  Discovery notes.
          18           MR. LEEN:  There is one matter.
          19      Your Honor, we would need, for Mr. Bell to be able to have
          20  his discovery notes, which are in the counselor's office at FDC
          21  pursuant to the court's order, we would need another court order
          22  allowing Mr. -- allowing his counselor to give the notes to the
          23  marshal so that he can bring them to court.
          24           THE COURT:  What notes?
          25           MR. LEEN:  Mr. Bell's notes of the discovery that he
           1  reviewed in the counselor's office.  The court entered an order
           2  saying that Mr. Bell could review discovery in the counselor's
           3  office at FDC and could take notes when he was in the
           4  counselor's office, but he was not allowed to bring the
           5  discovery or his notes back to the cell with him.  And when he
           6  wanted to bring them to court, he was told by his counselor
           7  there needed to be a court order authorizing her to release
           8  those to the marshals so they could be brought to court for his
           9  review.
          10           THE COURT:  There is not going to be a court order.
          11           MR. LEEN:  The defendant does need those notes, Your
          12  Honor, to assist in his testimony.
          13           THE COURT:  There will not be a court order.
          14           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          15           MR. LONDON:  Does he -- may I ask for clarification?
          16  Does he have access to his notes when he's at SeaTac?
          17           THE DEFENDANT:  No.
          18           MR. LONDON:  When he's at SeaTac, at the FDC, can he go
          19  in that room --
          20           MR. LEEN:  When he's in the counselor's office he has
          21  access to his notes.
          22           THE DEFENDANT:  No.  No, I actually don't.
          23           MR. LEEN:  Okay.
          24           THE DEFENDANT:  They're else -- I sealed them in an
          25  envelope with the discovery that I looked at to generate the
           1  notes, but I do not have access to that material, and I haven't
           2  since I last looked at that discovery material approximately a
           3  week ago.
           4           MR. LEEN:  Mr. Bell, if you ask the counselor to see
           5  your notes when you went to the room, would she let you see
           6  them?
           7           THE DEFENDANT:  The counselor is not frequently there.
           8  I couldn't -- most of the time I couldn't even ask her for it
           9  anyway.  It is very unlikely -- she probably is not going to be
          10  there on the weekend.
          11           MR. LEEN:  She doesn't work there on the weekend, I
          12  would indicate, Your Honor.  She works Monday through Friday.  I
          13  just was clarifying that point.
          14           THE COURT:  I will tell you one more time, there will
          15  not be a court order.  At this time.
          16           MR. LEEN:  Yes, sir.
          17      Have a nice weekend, Your Honor.
          18           THE COURT:  Anything else to take up?
          19           MR. LONDON:  No, Your Honor.  It is late.  I don't know
          20  if this is a time for Mr. Leen and I to do an instructions
          21  conference with the court, but we could do that Monday morning
          22  as easily.
          23           THE COURT:  Well, the instructions, if we ever finish
          24  the testimony, other than the one that says he has a
          25  constitutional right not to testify, will stand as they are.
           1           MR. LONDON:  Well, Mr. Leen has a couple of objections.
           2           THE COURT:  I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
           3           MR. LONDON:  Well, pretrial Mr. Leen filed some
           4  objections to two of our instructions.  I have since looked at
           5  those instructions and am prepared and willing to make some
           6  modifications in them that I think are acceptable.
           7           THE COURT:  Well, bring them up when you -- does the
           8  court have them?
           9           MR. LONDON:  Not yet.  I will -- you know, now that
          10  we're going over the weekend, I can alter them myself.  I will
          11  bring them Monday.
          12           THE COURT:  That's all.
          13           MR. LEEN:  Your Honor, I -- nothing more.  9:30 Monday
          14  morning?
          15           THE COURT:  That's when we will be here.
          16      Court's in recess.
          17      (Recessed at 4:35 p.m.)
          19                        C E R T I F I C A T E
          20       I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
          21  the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
          24  ________________________________             October 22, 2001
                      JULAINE V. RYEN                            Date

HTML by Cryptome.