Summary of Investigative Journal Radio Program with Greg Anthony on First Amendment Radio

October 14, 2014

I am going back to the Tony Alamo story which I have been going over meticulously. Tony had a Bible-believing Christian ministry. He didn’t fall into lockstep with Rome, and they tried to put him away for years. He was targeted, and in his trial he was convicted on circumstantial evidence in violation of the Mann Act, which is to transport minors across state lines for the purpose of having sex with them being aided and abetted by others. The Mann Act was a ripe possibility for the prosecution to use against Tony because his ministry traveled a lot across state lines on buses and other vehicles to his ministries in other states. Tony said that there were no violations, and they were looking to silence him. He was aware that they were trying to frame him a year before they arrested him. From a logical point of view, a man like this who had a lot of land holdings in the multi-millions of dollars is not going to take risks; a man who realizes what is going on is going to be extra careful.

In 2008, his ministry was raided and 36 kids were removed. This is not the first guy that has been railroaded with tainted and manufactured evidence and witnesses who lied with the idea that they would get money in the future. There were 5 girls who agreed to testify for the government. Three of them had been taken to a place called Wellspring Retreat where they had been coerced and coached and promised money and gifts for their testimony against Tony. However, there were 15 or so witnesses who didn’t get to testify on the behalf of Tony including an FBI agent who had been hired to bring him and his ministry down, but he was never contacted by the defense attorneys. The lawyers for Tony were inefficient and there was almost no preparation for trial. Ultimately Tony was convicted and given 175 years in prison.

Let’s look at the evidence at trial. Mr. Hoffman (Tony Alamo) was tried and convicted on 9 counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity aided and abetted by others. You’ll find that in 18 USC 2423. There is another count in there under the Mann Act but a little different. His attorney stated that the evidence that was brought out at trial that went to the elements of each of these counts of conviction, as well as the evidence presented by the defense, would serve to rebut the essential elements of the crimes charged. There was such a close call here, I’m saying, that I believe with a little more time and the proper defense I would have been confident that no jury could have convicted this man, but when they get only part of the story, it’s pretty easy to do that. (Even with the bad defense he had, it was a close call.) The factual calls on each of the 10 counts were close ones, and the convictions closed on gleaning Mr. Hoffman’s dominant purposes for transporting individuals who are part of his household, sometimes traveling in response to their own requests or back to their parents’ residence, from circumstantial evidence. Ask yourself a question here. Why did they use the Mann Act? It’s a pretty flimsy Act to begin with, from the prosecution. This gives me a strong indication that they have a weak case, otherwise they would have come up with a straight rape charge, right? There should have been a strenuous defense and a hard fight to get all the evidence into the trial to show that there was no intent here, and these crimes weren’t even committed, but he had a terrible defense and a lot of loose ends, and the jury was thinking the worst, and the government knew that. But the defense was saying a lot of these people were traveling because they wanted to. He wasn’t forcing them on the bus to travel across state lines. They were traveling on their own requests, sometimes to visit their parents, with their parents’ permission, in addition each count required a jury finding that the defendant was aided and abetted by others. These other people might have testified about this, but they never got called. But one lawyer took $350,000 and left Tony hanging. They give jury instructions and instruction # 9 stated that a person who had no knowledge that a crime is about to be committed, but who happens to act in a way that advances an offence does not thereby become an aider or abettor. We are dealing with aiding and abetting and a whole lot of things that a jury can get confused about, but apparently this thing only lasted 10 days so they probably just threw up their hands and said, “Oh, the government’s got to be right.” There was very little testimony, according to his new lawyer, indicating that the individuals who drove the young women were unaware that a crime was being committed, and any such finding must have rested on purely circumstantial evidence.

Count 1 was based on a trip from Arkansas to California between September and December 2004 where Jane Doe, under the age of 18 at the time, traveled to California with Mr. Alamo and others on church business. She testified that she had sexual intercourse in a bus bedroom while the bus was on the road with 10 or 12 people nearby. In addition she testified that the only thing he used her for was sex while she was there. She did not state whether it was her or the defendant’s idea for her to go to California. She testified that she returned then to Arkansas from this trip. Under cross examination she testified to the defendant’s own purposes for the travel which were both religious and personal including the recording and distribution of sermons and message tapes, attending to his congregation in California, and attending his scheduled doctor’s visits. Defense testimony also established that the defendant did not request Jane Doe to accompany him on the trip, and that it was never planned for her to go, but that she and another individual asked to go on the trip at the last minute. Defense testimony from the other girl indicated that the travel in count 1 was incidental and not the dominant purpose of the trip as the charged trip was planned and was going to occur with or without her and with or without Jane Doe. Such testimony established that Jane Doe asked to go on the trip indicating that the defendant did not direct her travel nor bring her for sexual purposes. As a result, the facts on this count as far as purpose of travel, a necessary element of the offense, was, if anything, a close call and should have been ruled in favor of the defense. Similarly, defense testimony refuted Jane Doe’s assertion that the defendant had sex with her on the bus trip. Multiple witnesses testified that the air conditioning was not functioning on that trip, and that any sexual activity on the bus on that trip would have been observed by witnesses, and was not observed. These facts indicate a close, tenuous credibility on Jane Doe’s assertion of the fact that was highly determinative to the question of the dominant purpose of the trip. So what needed to be done was for more witnesses to testify in behalf of him. Who was on that bus? This is a bus trip with a whole bunch of people on the bus, and we’ve got some testimony here that nothing occurred.

Count 2 involved a trip where Jane Doe traveled from Colorado with her mother and siblings to California staying in California from August to October 2005. She stated that she moved to California to meet Tony at his direction. We have very little rebuttal on the defense’s behalf. Even with a terrible defense it was a very close call.

I want you to look at this from both sides and make up your own mind and understand what happened here. I’m not trying to sway you one way or the other. When I saw all the government hanky-panky going on and the media outcry here, I started to wonder what really is going on behind the scenes, and does anybody really care. I think it’s an important case to show what happens to anyone who comes against Rome’s authority, and that is very dangerous to a free country.