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

This is the closing argument of the trial.

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

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

HTML by Cryptome.