MR. JAHN: Thank you, Your Honor. Let's start talking about the evidence, and I think you all noticed, ladies and gentlemen, that you really can't sit down and break this all apart. There is so much going on atall the times, people were so busy, that it's necessary for us to kind of keep three, four balls in the air at one time. At the same time it can be broken down into certain, separate areas. Let's talk about, for instance, Jim Guy Tucker and his need for money in 1985.
We heard testimony from David Hale that Jim Guy Tucker needed money, that he had spent a lot of money in connection with his campaign, that he couldn't pay his campaign debts and he had other matters he had to go to. We had testimony from Mr. Denton that Jim Guy Tucker was overextended, that he knew that Jim Guy Tucker was overextended. We have the evidence itself. Government's Exhibit 107, for instance, is a loan application that shows on June 27, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Tucker, under the name ofCablevision Management, Incorporated were borrowing $125,000 from David Hale's company and signing on that personally, signing on that individually as Jim Guy Tucker and Betty Tucker, individually.
David Hale testified that that was an act of friendship on his behalf, that he looked to and wanted to support Jim Guy Tucker and Betty Tucker. I'm not clairvoyant. I can't tell you what the defendants are going to argue, and that's the reason I have a chance to respond. But I can see one of the things they might argue, for instance, is that even the government's own exhibits belie that, even the government's own exhibits indicate that Jim Guy Tucker didn't have to go and borrow money through fraud, through deceit, that he could go out and borrow it legitimately. Even though he would go to David Hale, who might be described as a federally licensed loan shark, that he could actually go out and borrow money.
And one of the exhibits is Government's Exhibit 25. Government's Exhibit 25 is a financial statement by Mr. Tucker dated July the 15th, 1985, and when you look at it, ladies and gentlemen, it shows healthy assets. It shows total assets of a million seven hundred thousand dollars, it shows liabilities of $462,000, it shows a net worth of a million two hundred forty-four thousand seven hundred twenty-six dollars and seventy-two cents.
Now, the problem with that kind of argument, though, is, of course, like I was saying before, you have to look at these documents the same way you look at the exhibits -- I mean the same way you look at witnesses. Is there a motive to lie on this document? Is there a reason to conceal on this document? Are there facts that are not reported accurately on this document?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think it's now beyond question that in the summer of 1985 Mr. Tucker did, in fact, owe Savers Federal Savings & Loan 131,000 -- you saw the check that was used in October of 1985 to pay it off -- 131,000 some odd dollars in connection with the guaranty. Ladies and gentlemen, the assets that are shown here reflect fairly substantial assets. The liabilities reflect only $462,000, but if you go over to the back page of this particular matter, you can see that Mr. Tucker had kind of shifted things back in what he called contingent liabilities. And the notes show that these are all notes and debts that he had signed on that he was personally responsible for. $58,500 at First Commercial Bank, timberland. Citizens Bank of Marshall, timberland, $72,000. And the note down there says this is part of the Tucker-Smith-McDougal transaction still. First Commercial Bank, trustee, $858,000. Worthen Bank & Trust, $115,000 for Kings River Land Company. County Cable Limited Partnership, $2,100,000 in contingent liability. Beebe Cablevision, $431,000. Mr. Denton said he was overextended.
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that by using your common sense and looking at these contingent liabilities, it's easy to see, yes, Mr. Tucker in the summer of 1985 was overextended. His contingent liabilities wiped out any of that net worth that he still showed out there. And, ladies and gentlemen, the interesting feature is you can't rely on this document because nowhere in here is that $131,000 that he owes to Savers Federal Savings & Loan. It's not listed under contingent liabilities, it's not listed under mortgage debts.
There is a notation that he owes Savers Federal Savings & Loan $30,000, initially, that the present balance is $25,000 secured by pension fund and IRAs. There is a notation that he did, in fact, have a debt there. So it wasn't a question of oversight on the part of Mr. Tucker, it wasn't a question of mistake on the part of Mr. Tucker. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, it's a question of concealment; that you cannot take this document at face value. And if there is, in fact, an effort made to convince you that this document itself establishes that David Hale was lying, that Don Denton was lying, that Jim Guy Tucker could go out and borrow money from anybody under any circumstances, I submit to you first of all you ask yourself is that reasonable, and secondly, you use your common sense that, well, if that's so, why didn't he do it? What compelled him to keep coming back to his friends David Hale and Jim McDougal during this period of time? I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, the idea is that because he couldn't go out and do it. He had to come back and do it through concealment and he had to come back and do it through false representations.
So what was his financial situation? I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence establishes that his financial situation in the fall of 1985 was not good. He had it coming due, he had that note coming due. He sent memos and communicated with Mr. McDougal. This is the one that I showed Mr. McDougal where Mr. McDougal said he didn't remember anything about Irene Garner, and he didn't remember anything about any debt or anything. But here it is, a call slip, a call slip in October, October 22, three days before that $260,000 loan, three days before Mr. Tucker is calling Jim McDougal and talking about Irene Garner has a 10,000-dollar CD to set off for a loan, okay, for her loan. So he's still trying to convince Mr. McDougal to lend money to Irene Garner, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen. He needed that particular money.
The only way he could get it, ladies and gentlemen, is by accepting Mr. McDougal's offer which couldn't be refused. The only way he could get that, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. McDougal had his own plans, I submit to you the evidence shows. Mr. McDougal had his own ideas as to what he wanted to do with that Industrial Development Corporation property, the one that he just bought for a million plus dollars, the one that he had part of it in Seth Ward's name.
And if you remember correctly, he told Breck Speed that he had him do it that way in order to avoid the six percent limitation. This was another effort, ladies and gentlemen, to get around the rules, to get around the regulations. This is a method of trying to place themselves above the law.
So what happened here? Mr. Tucker needed that money. He needed $131,000 and some odd dollars. He goes to Mr. McDougal, and Mr. McDougal, in the words of David Hale, makes him an offer he can't refuse. And that's corroborated by his representations to RTC down the road, to a certain extent, that he was coerced. He wasn't coerced, he wasn't compelled. But if he wanted that money, he had to go along and buy this particular piece of property.
Now, I'm sure there was an agreement going on, and this evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is primarily motive evidence. This shows why these individuals were working so closely. This shows that it was an agreement. This shows the relationship, the friendship, the business relationship that existed between Jim Guy Tucker, Jim McDougal, and David Hale.
So they did make him an offer he couldn't refuse, but in order to pick up on that offer, he had to borrow $260,000 from Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, and that's reflected in Government's Exhibit 623, which is a note in that amount, signed by Jim Guy Tucker, dated October 25, 1985, on the same date as that telephone call slip, Government's Exhibit 5-G, where he talks about going out to the lot and looking at the lot. He's just now gone to look at the Pratt Road property. "Will be by Madison at 4:30. Sue Strayhorn." The very day that he signs off on this property, the very day he signs off on this note is the very day that he goes out and looks at that particular piece of property. That's the same day, ladies and gentlemen, that this particular property is logged in at a nice, healthy profit.
Remember Greg Young's testimony? This is what you have to do. You have to go back and tie all these exhibits together now, you have to go back and tie in the testimony. Remember Greg Young? Greg Young came in and testified about how he was given these figures by Jim McDougal that reflected a sale of that property for $125,000. It reflected a cost of goods sold, which is the basis of $18,800, reflected commissions of $12,500 paid to Susan McDougal.
Now, Susan McDougal is not charged in the indictment any more, but at the same time, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the commissions that Mr. McDougal could arrange to be paid to his wife and thereby benefit him indirectly were one of the compelling reasons for some of these transactions. These were commissions that were being generated, this was a source of income for him.
He testified concerning how he had not taken very much money out of this institution a couple of years before, and you go back and look at his income tax returns and it reflects he didn't get very much from this institution in 1984. But starting in 1985, ladies and gentlemen, he got a pretty penny, and starting in 1986 up until the time that he was removed from the institution, I submit to you the evidence is that he got a pretty penny.
You remember the testimony that he paid himself a commission in January of 1986, he paid himself a commission in excess of -- a bonus in excess of $75,000, even though that was the same time he was signing a letter to the Frost & Company acknowledging that this institution was below the minimum requirements for regulatory net worth. So let's keep all these things in mind as we go through and examine this.
So here we are. We are creating a false profit, we're creating a substantial commission, and for what? In order to sell a piece of property, to make a piece of property available to Jim Guy Tucker, okay?
This sets the scene, ladies and gentlemen, because you heard the testimony of Mr. McDougal that the examiners were coming, and that you can't do a lot of things when the examiners are there. You have to find some other way in order to finance some of these situations, some of these organizations and some of these operations.
You heard Mr. Denton talk about how there had been some testimony, even prior to this particular time, concerning getting money into the SBIC; that he had talked to I believe Mr. McDougal concerning finding a source or getting some money into Mr. Hale's SBIC.
You heard the testimony from David Hale, ladies and gentlemen, concerning the phone call that he received and the call that he got to come and meet -- to come and meet Jim Guy Tucker and Jim McDougal at Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and the trip out to look at this property. I'm not going to go back over it again. You heard Mr. Hale's testimony for nine days. I submit to you, you remember the details as far as going out to the property, looking it over. It wasn't worth very much, the property was low. The limitation on how much could be used. You've seen the map, you've seen the chart that shows the floodplain going through, reducing it. You remember the testimony by Mr. Hale that this was, in fact, an offer that he couldn't refuse.
When did this conversation occur? Well, the evidence -- there's no direct evidence, not other than Mr. Hale's. Mr. Hale remembers it occurred sometime in the fall of 1985, sometime prior to, or between late October and the early part of November.
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that you also heard testimony concerning urgency by which some of these operations were done. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that conversation occurred quite urgent, quite frequently, because this was a situation in which Mr. Hale and Mr. -- I mean Mr. McDougal and Mr. Tucker needed another source of funds, needed some money. The $135,000 was going to go off and pay off Savers Federal Savings. If they were, in fact, going to make something out of this piece of property, they needed some financing, they needed David Hale's help, they needed his input. They knew, ladies and gentlemen, however, that there was a limitation to what an SBIC could do.
Remember Government's Exhibit 66. And it's an interesting story about 66. Mr. Hale testified that during the course of that meeting that he had with Jim Guy Tucker and Jim McDougal, that there was, in fact, testimony about how much money do you have invested, what is your legal loan limit, how much capitalization you had in it, and then discussion concerning some rules and regulations as to how SBICs would operate. And he testified that he recalled that Jim McDougal had, in fact, applied for an SBIC, and, in fact, it was his belief had even qualified for it; that he had called him and talked to him at one particular point concerning, "How much would you charge to handle my application for the SBIC?", and he said, "Normally it costs $25,000, that's what I understand, but if you want to come down and take a look at my papers and copy whatever papers I have, feel free to do so."
Now, one of the issues that they are going to raise during the course of their argument is that David Hale obviously is incredible, you can't believe him, he's a liar, he's a con man, he's a cheat, he's a thief.
Surprising enough, though, ladies and gentlemen, Government's Exhibit 66 is the kind of corroboration, the kind of document that he didn't even know about.
Remember the cross-examination by Mr. Heuer. "Mr. Hale, do you know how much investigation has been done to try to prove what you say?" Mr. Hale didn't even know about this particular document, ladies and gentlemen. Didn't even know about this particular file. And yet here it is. And what does it show? It shows that not only was he correct in terms of the information that he had been provided, which he said came from Jim McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker, which came from sources other than himself. He was relying upon what he was told by these two individuals.
The document itself establishes that what he was testifying to was correct; that he was, in fact -- there was, in fact, an application made by Mr. McDougal and Mrs. McDougal, handled by Jim Guy Tucker; that there is, in fact, communications in here concerning the apprehension that the SBIC and the SBA has about real estate loans.
"Jim McDougal: I spoke today" -- and today is February 15, 1984. "I spoke today with Joseph L. Newell, Chief, Midwest region of the Small Business Administration, regarding the status of your SBIC application. It seems to be in good shape, but Mr. Newell was emphatic in stating that they definitely have a prejudice against real estate investments by SBICs, and that especially because the applicant in this case is an S&L, they have some concern. I assured him you wanted to help a bunch of neighborhood nonreal estate commercial entrepreneurs. Our application does, of course, emphasize real estate related -- ", and it underlines related, " -- investments. I don't see any problem, but we'll have a further report later this week."
And, in fact, if you will, ladies and gentlemen, when you go back into the jury deliberation room, you can find the SBA was so concerned about investment into real estate matters they required Mr. McDougal and Mrs. McDougal to read and sign certifications that they had, in fact, reviewed the regulations and knew what the regulations provided.
This is March the 6th, 1984. "Dear Mr. Newell: This is in response to your letter of February 23, 1984. "We have reviewed the documents you enclosed entitled Small Business Administration's Position in Project Financing and Real Estate Regulations. "Mr. McDougal, the proposed officers of applicant -- ", which includes Susan McDougal, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen. When we get down to Master Marketing, this is something you can really take into consideration in evaluating her knowledge, her intent, and her activities. She signed off on this. She signed off as a vice president.
You saw that resume of hers where it lists, quite proudly, and Mr. McDougal even acknowledged that it was truthful, her activities in the banking industry. She signed off on this application, ladies and gentlemen, March 6, 1984, a little bit more than two years before April the 3rd, 1986, she walks into David Hale's SBIC, exactly the sort of thing, and purportedly makes an application which she now, or which is now being advanced as a defensive theory that it was used for real estate development.
This shows that this was not true, ladies and gentlemen. This shows this was not a true representation at the time the application was made. "Enclosed is a certificate of compliance signed by Mr. McDougal and applicant's officers," and the applicant's officers signed off on it; James McDougal, Robert Keller, and Susan H. McDougal, as well as John Latham, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, David Hale testified that he never knew what happened, that as far as he knew it had gotten approved but never funded. The last page, or the first page of this particular document shows a letter dated June 21, 1984, addressed to Jim McDougal, from James E. Smith on behalf of the law firm, enclosing a letter from John Werner, the United States Small Business Administration, concerning that SBIC application. And the letter itself says down toward the bottom, "We tried to set up a meeting. No one showed up. On May the 10th, 1984, a letter was sent requesting that your office -- ", and this is addressed to Jim Guy Tucker, " -- contact this agency so a meeting date could be established. Since that date there's been no communication from you. Therefore, we are considering the application withdrawn."
Now, David Hale, ladies and gentlemen, could not have gotten into Jim Guy Tucker's files and created that document. David Hale, ladies and gentlemen, could not have gotten into Jim Guy Tucker's files or Jim McDougal's files and read that particular document. David Hale, you have to remember, is nothing more than a pipe. He's a pipe through which words are flowing into this court from people who spoke to him.
He reports not necessarily what may be true, not necessarily what may be supported by the facts, but he reports what he was told. This is one of the things you'll have to do, is go back and evaluate his testimony and evaluate what it is he was told and whether or not David Hale was even told the truth.
In this particular instance he was told Jim McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker knew about SBIC regulations, and he testified that he believed during the course of that conversation they knew about SBIC regulations, and lo and behold, the documents tell, ladies and gentlemen, that he was telling the truth
. Documents he could not have created, documents he could not have reviewed, documents he didn't even know existed. What happens? He said there was a meeting, and at that meeting they talked about infusing money. They talked about putting more money into David Hale's organization. And this goes back to the basic Dean Paul agreement. And we talked about it during opening statement, you heard about it during the argument, but at the same time, it's a very important part, because it starts the ball rolling.
There would be an agreement by the end of the day, his testimony was there was an agreement that he would, in fact, set up a sale of inflated property, property that was inflated, property that everybody in that meeting, Jim Guy Tucker and Jim McDougal, knew it was going to be inflated. Property they knew was not going to be worth the amount that it was supposedly going to be sold for, property that was entrusted into somebody else's name.
And when you sit back, ladies and gentlemen, you think about that situation. You heard -- and there were discrepancies between Dean Paul's testimony and David Hale's testimony. No question about it. In fact, if there hadn't been discrepancies, you, ladies and gentlemen, should have been suspicious. If there hadn't been discrepancies, that would indicate to you that this goes back to a credibility issue. It's not human nature, it's not common sense that people remember events which occurred many years ago. Even when they're trying to be truthful, won't remember the events that occurred. In some instances, in fact, won't remember the events at all.
You heard from the President. You heard from the President concerning the discrepancies concerning his recollection about an event in which Mr. McDougal says there was an offer to employ Hillary Clinton as an attorney on behalf of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. The President doesn't remember that conversation, ladies and gentlemen. Yet Jim McDougal does, okay? There, that's human nature. That's what you have to do. You need to go back and evaluate the circumstances, evaluate and see whether or not there are other supporting documents, other supporting evidence, whether or not there were other witnesses who support it.
So you had the conversation, the basic conversation in which there was an agreement. Well, the agreement was that Mr. McDougal would in fact -- I mean Mr. Hale would, in fact, go out and recruit somebody to buy his property. And lo and behold, what happens? Dean Paul comes in here, and Dean Paul testifies yes, there was an agreement. He was asked -- this property was entrusted to him. He was told he wouldn't be responsible for paying it back. He was told that it wouldn't be his job to pay it back; that there would be deals that would be made between Jim Guy Tucker and David Hale that would be responsible for paying back this property. And that's the reason that he ended up signing, including signing a personal guaranty, a personal guaranty which, by the way, he didn't have to pay back.
So regardless of the exact words that were said to him, in regards to what he recalls the exact words being said to him, ladies and gentlemen, he corroborates David Hale that this was going to be an operation where grossly inflated property -- and Dean Paul said it was grossly inflated, Mr. Palmer said it was grossly inflated, David Hale said it was grossly inflated -- grossly inflated property was supposedly sold to a man who had no ability to pay it back, perhaps, but definitely no willingness to pay it back, in order to generate $502,000 profit. And guess what happened, ladies and gentlemen? That's what happened. Generated $502,000 that was used in the SBA.
What else does Mr. Hale say? He said there was an agreement at that particular time that these other loans would be made. Not particular detail. His recollection was that there was testimony or a statement by Mr. McDougal that he needed to clean up some people in the political family.
There's going to be a lot of allegations made, ladies and gentlemen, concerning David Hale and concerning his credibility and why he said this and why he said that and what he wants out of everything else. You've seen David Hale. You know he's intelligent. He, obviously, had to be intelligent. He had to be intelligent to get through law school. He had to be intelligent to run a business. He had to be intelligent to be a friend of Jim McDougal's. He had to be intelligent to be a friend and a business associate of Jim Guy Tucker's. Ladies and gentlemen, if he was going to make up a story, he could have made up a good one. He could have made up nice, long, detailed conversations in which he could lay out more detail, he could lay out more design, he could lay out features only he would know, only he would be able to approve one way or the other. He could make up a better story. What does he say instead? He said it was for the political family.
Was there any explanation as to what the political family was? No. Were you told what it was? No. Had you ever heard it used before? No. Did you ever hear it used again? No. Ladies and gentlemen, these are things you have to weigh in arriving at credibility.
Now, the interesting feature, of course, is the fact that this particular matter relates primarily to the conspiracy. Was there a conspiracy between Jim Guy Tucker, Jim McDougal and David Hale? David Hale says yes, there was, because these conversations took place. Jim Guy Tucker -- David Hale says yes, there was, because a later conversation in which he claims that Mr. Clinton was present also took place.
These matters, ladies and gentlemen, go strictly to the conspiracy, go strictly toward the existence of an agreement between three people: Jim Guy Tucker, David Hale, and Jim McDougal. Those are the people that are on trial. There's going to be an effort, ladies and gentlemen, made to try to set this up as a major conflict; that if you believe one witness, then you have to disbelieve another witness. I think what you can recall primarily, ladies and gentlemen, was the testimony from the President. He didn't know anything at all about Larry Kuca. He didn't know anything at all about Stephen Smith. He didn't know anything at all about Castle Sewer & Water. He didn't know anything at all about Master Marketing. He didn't know anything at all about Southloop. He didn't know anything at all about 1308 Main and Lisa Aunspaugh. So his testimony, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be limited by your consideration to credibility of David Hale. Do we believe David Hale? If we don't believe him about this, how much do we disbelieve him? And then be limited strictly, or almost entirely to the question of whether or not there was an agreement, and if so, who were members of the agreement.
You were told at the beginning of this, ladies and gentlemen, that no one -- you would be asked to convict no one on the uncorroborated testimony of David Hale. It's only if there is other evidence that supports David Hale will you be asked to return a verdict. There is other evidence in this particular matter, and that's what we're going through right now.
Because what happened then? You saw or heard from Dean Paul that Dean Paul corroborated, yes, in fact, he was approached and he was recruited and he was told this was going to be paid off through deals between David Hale and Jim Guy Tucker and it was going to benefit Jim McDougal. Think about that, ladies and gentlemen. This is something that David Hale told Mr. Paul years ago. Almost 10 and a half years ago.
Now, is David Hale clairvoyant? Does David Hale know that his world is going to fall on its face and that he's going to lose all this money and he's going to make all these terrible investments and he's going to be broke, and he's going to stretch this out for almost 10 years, he's going to drag it out to 1993, he's going to drag it out for seven years, juggling these things around, and yet back in 1986 he thinks, hmm, one of these days I might get caught, so I better start making up some stories now? And one story I can make up is about a politician. What politician can I make it up about? I'll make it up about Jim Guy Tucker. Well, at that time Jim Guy Tucker wasn't a politician. Jim Guy Tucker was his friend, Jim Guy Tucker was his lawyer, Jim Guy Tucker was Dean Paul's lawyer. What motive did he have back in 1986 and 1985 when he told this to Dean Paul to make it up? None whatsoever, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen.
Think about another feature involving credibility. He told Judge Bill Watt basically the same thing. But here this time he talked about President Clinton, he talked about how he had had some contacts with Bill Clinton, the Governor, and that the Governor was wanting him to help all his friends. What was this man thinking? Was he thinking back in '85 and January of '86 that I'm going to get in trouble, I'm going to lose all this money? That seven years from now I'm going to need to come up with a good story, and who can I pick? I'll pick the future President of the United States to incriminate? These are factors that you need to take into consideration, ladies and gentlemen, in trying to recall and in trying to evaluate the credibility of this particular witness and to evaluate how much you believe.
Remember the Judge told you, and I'll repeat it again, you can believe some of what he says, you can believe all of what he says, or you can completely disbelieve what he says. But as far as the testimony itself is concerned, it's there, it's for you to make that determination. As far as the documents themselves are concerned, the documents are there.
We talked about, for instance, the statement that one of the concerns that Mr. Tucker had was the foreclosure on the Irene Garner property, and could he use Mr. Hale's corporation to handle that foreclosure. What do we have? We have Government's Exhibit 639 as an example where the foreclosure actually takes place. And guess what, ladies and gentlemen? It's hired -- it's handled in the particular transaction, it's handled by a member of Mr. Tucker's law firm, Timothy Grooms, attorneys for the plaintiff. And in this particular instance the plaintiff is Arkansas Commercial Realty. It's exactly what Mr. Hale said.
And what happened? The foreclosure was handled, Mr. Tucker's name does not appear on that particular document, the person who's doing the foreclosing, who's foreclosing on the widow lady, Irene Garner, and her son, Daniel Garner, who is a friend of Jim Guy Tucker, is Arkansas Commercial Realty, Incorporated.
Another feature, ladies and gentlemen, to take into consideration concerning corroboration of David Hale. Did David Hale realize when this foreclosure took place that seven years down the road, or eight years down the road he was going to need to come up with a particular story, so he was able to reach back in his background and here's a coincidence, here's an incident involving Jim Guy Tucker, I'll pull that into my particular story? I'll concoct the story and come up with this particular matter.
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that this document was created in 1986, not in response to any story other than what Mr. Hale was told. Mr. Hale was told by Jim Guy Tucker that he did not want this foreclosure in his name. Lo and behold, it is in his name. Mr. Hale testified that he and Jim Guy Tucker and Jim McDougal had meetings, and that they had several meetings during the fall of 1985. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? The documents inside Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan support that.
Here's Government's Exhibit 9-B. This is a call slip on November 19. And what is that, 24 days, 25 days after Mr. Tucker gets an offer he can't refuse? Now, what's it about? It's about a luncheon. "Our" -- I'm sorry. "On" -- no. "Our," maybe. I don't know. You can decide, either "On" or "Our David Hale luncheon." Did he make this up? Did he go back and create a document back in 1986 in order to support his testimony? This is a document that was in existence for almost 10 years, or has been in existence for more than years, just laying there. Did David Hale know that it was in existence? Did David Hale know that it was there?
What about the document relating to the Thanksgiving Eve meeting? And I'll show you that in a few minutes, too, where they talk about having a meeting on Thanksgiving Eve with Mr. Tucker, Mr. McDougal, and Mr. Hale at Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. Did he make that up? Did he fabricate that? I submit to you he didn't, ladies and gentlemen.
We talked in terms of this particular transaction of making an offer that he couldn't refuse and how Mr. Tucker needed that money, okay? He got that money. We talked in terms of Dean Paul and how Dean Paul was brought into this transaction. David Hale said that Mr. Tucker was aware of the fact that the properties that were involved. Talked about the Thanksgiving Eve -- the Thanksgiving Eve message. Here it is right here, Government's Exhibit 9-D, as in dog, dated November 27, 1985, to Jim McDougal from David Hale. "Appointment at 7:30 p.m. tonight, at here, Jim Guy Tucker" -- "he and Jim Guy Tucker here at."
You remember Mr. McDougal was very quick in denying or claiming twice, in fact, that he was out of town? It couldn't have happened. He was out of town on that particular Thanksgiving Eve. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a question then of credibility, go back. How could he be so sure that he was out of town? How, with a man whose memory is so feeble and so helpless, can he recall where he was back on Thanksgiving Eve, 1985? David Hale recalls, and I submit to you it's very much in common sense that David Hale remembered, because this is in a time in which he was trying to get the Dean Paul loan going.
This is a time in which he engaged and embarked on criminal activities, that he had embarked on a decision to violate the law with his lawyer and partner and friend, Jim Guy Tucker, and with a man he respected, Jim McDougal. This was a time at which Mr. Hale would have reason to remember about this meeting and what was going on. What reason would Mr. McDougal have? And does his claim of being out of town, does that belie his claim of a lack of memory, or does it go back and support the theory that the United States has; that he has a very convenient memory, that anything that supports his position he recalls, that anything that doesn't support his position or incriminates him, he denies recollection?
David Hale also remembered that Jim Guy Tucker knew that the Dean Paul transaction was going to be overgraded, overblown, because Jim Guy Tucker had represented him in connection with that purchase of Etta's property. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this, again, is something that he's remembering now and testifying about. Does that mean then that the fact that Government's Exhibit 203, a letter on Mr. Tucker's law firm letterhead, dated December 2, 1985, in which Mr. Tucker talks about that particular real estate closing and establishes a value that the land -- and this is before Mr. Hale cut out that extra little lot -- that the value of that land -- and this only is the real estate and has nothing at all to do with the settlement on the business. That that land is not worth more than twice, $280,000, down here at the bottom, if that's the best, in other words, that's the most that it could possibly be worth? Did Mr. Hale remember this particular event and say, "Ah, yes, I can weave this letter into my story. I can go back and patch it into my story and make it up."
One of the things you need to do when you're looking at these documents and examining them is look at some of the minor things, too. Mr. Hale testified that Jim Guy Tucker was his friend; not just his lawyer, not just his business partner, but his friend. Look at the salutation here, "Dear David." This demonstrates, this corroborates Mr. Hale's testimony that in the fall of 1985 there was a certain familiarity between Jim Guy Tucker and David Hale, a familiarity expressed in the words "Dear David." You might think that's really not that important, but ladies and gentlemen, this is a business letter. There's no question about it. It breaks down how much was spent, it breaks down how much was involved. And, in fact, at the very end Mr. Tucker said that he was even going to hold back $2,000 to cover the fees that were going to be the maximum estimated amount of attorney's fees and costs.
So Mr. Tucker was involved in this as a business situation. Remember, we're judging Mr. Tucker not as Governor Tucker. We're not looking at the man who later occupied the office. We're looking at Jim Guy Tucker in 1985. We're looking at Jim Guy Tucker, the lawyer; Jim Guy Tucker, the businessman; Jim Guy Tucker, the opportunist; Jim Guy Tucker, the man who needed money and was willing to decide what he was going to do in order to get it. That's what we're talking about here. This is not an examination of Mr. Tucker and his position as governor. This is an examination of Mr. Tucker and his activities as a businessman; Mr. Tucker, his activities as a lawyer.
He signs off again in a familiar situation, "Jim Guy." Not Jim Guy Tucker, but Jim Guy. Demonstrating, ladies and gentlemen, and corroborating that there was, in fact, a sense of familiarity between himself and Mr. Hale.
The Dean Paul loan. And I believe you remember there was some testimony concerning an urgency, a sense of urgency that was communicated in connection with the Dean Paul loan. This urgency is also reflected and overflows into the Master Marketing loan. Here's that call slip that you've seen. You've heard from Richard Smith where he talked about how the Flowerwood Farms loan, the loan that had been made back in 1985, had to be moved out of the institution. He was not going to renew it. He had made that determination when he made the loan. And this was his method, he testified, to communicate that to Mr. McDougal, that "You're going to have to move it out, Mr. McDougal."
Mr. McDougal basically denied that. But at the same time I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, the proof is basically overwhelming that in the fall of 1985 not only did Mr. Tucker need money, but Mr. McDougal needed a source of money other than Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. He couldn't keep going back to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and borrowing money in various fashions, or using people like Lisa Aunspaugh to come in and borrow money for him, or use someone like Jim Guy Tucker to come in and borrow money for him like they did on the 1308 Main Street. He had to go and find another source because the examiners were coming. And he testified, and I believe Mr. Young testified, that everybody expected the examiners to come fairly soon. It had been two years, time was due. They hadn't gotten the specific notice yet, but everybody expected the examiners to be coming.
So what happens? Now he's got to go find a source of funds somewhere else. He testified that his competitors prohibited him, or prevented him from going out and finding a source of funds that he could use. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not sure if it was his competitors or not, but I think the circumstances of what happened next, the circumstances of the loans that were made corroborate Mr. McDougal in this particular instance that he didn't have a lot of places that he could go and get a loan from.
He had to turn to people like David Hale. He had to go to David Hale in order to not only help people like Mr. Tucker and his dreams, his expectations, and all for these little side businesses he had going on, he had to go to David Hale for himself. He had to go and get money from David Hale himself. And what does that do? That corroborates David Hale, that there was a sense of urgency, that there was a sense of pressure.
And what did Mr. Hale do? Mr. Hale passed that sense of urgency on to Bill Watt. Bill Watt testified to that, corroborated that. What did Mr. Watt do? Mr. Watt passed that sense of urgency on to Robert Palmer. Remember Mr. McDougal said, "Well, I didn't know anything about Robert Palmer," until I showed him the memo where he was giving directions to Don Denton to have Robert Palmer go out and falsify that bogus appraisal that he did at Castle Sewer & Water. And then he said, "Oh, yes, I must have known about it." Well, ladies and gentlemen, it was so obvious that even Mr. Watt knew that Robert Palmer was an appraiser who would give appraisals as directed, who would inflate the appraisals, if necessary, and all you had to do was tell him, "This is for Jim, for Jim McDougal."
Guess what happens? That's what Mr. Palmer testified about. Mr. Palmer testified, yes, he was told that this transaction was for Jim McDougal. He was told that Jim McDougal had an interest in this transaction.
Now, was this David Hale thinking ahead seven years that "I'm going to get in trouble, so I better sit down and I'll lie to Bill Watt, and then I'll get Bill Watt to lie to Robert Palmer about Mr. McDougal's involvement, and if I'm lucky," ladies and gentlemen, "Mr. McDougal will go to Don Denton and give him instructions to make the Dean Paul loan," because now we know that's what happened. We know that Don Denton testified that he was given instructions. Remember that particular passage? He was being cross-examined. Mr. Heuer was cross-examining him. He said, "These are your initials on the Dean Paul loan." He had testified that he had questions about Dean Paul's ability to pay it back, he had questions about Dean Paul's understanding of this transaction, he had questions about it, and that he would not have made the Dean Paul loan. And Mr. Heuer was asking questions, and saying, "Well, that was your initials on that particular loan", and his response was, "I did what I was instructed." He said, "Well, you mean that was how much pressure was placed on you by Jim McDougal?", and Mr. Denton testified basically that if he wanted to keep his job, that was how much pressure was placed upon him.
Did David Hale make this up? Did David Hale some way force Mr. McDougal to go to Don Denton and override the wisdom of this man that he had hired to handle his loan department? I submit to you, no, ladies and gentlemen. I submit to you that Don Denton's testimony of Mr. McDougal's involvement corroborates David Hale's testimony, adds truthfulness to David Hale's testimony. It defies common sense, ladies and gentlemen, it defies reasonableness to believe David Hale would have made all of this up, and concocted it all to come down to one point, and that one point is here in this courtroom, where these individuals came in and testified concerning these events.