House Caucus
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HR1079
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR 1079 Concerning expulsion of Representative Mickey Gates from th…”
|
CONCERNING EXPULSION OF REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY GATES FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. | Shepherd | READ AND ADOPTED. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
The caucus of the House of Representatives for the 92nd General Assembly will please come to order. I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer by the House Chaplain
Rex Horn and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Representative Lane
Speaker 6
0:28
Jean. Would you pray with me, please?
Our Father, we come today thanking you first of all for another day of life, for health, for the ability to discharge responsibilities that you have given us, or in this historic chamber that the people of Arkansas have given these men and women. Lord, I thank you for them. I thank you for their willingness to serve. I thank you for both their compassion, but also their conviction. I pray that you will bless them and that you will give them the spirit that's needed in every transaction across legislative sessions and special sessions, whether it's times
that are wonderful because of the people you help, the policy, or times that are challenging. So, Lord, as always, we pray for every day and every occasion that the words of our mouth and the meditation of our heart would be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, our strength and our Redeemer. In Jesus' name, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
May God. Members, please indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Thank you.
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. With 95 members present, the chair sees a quorum. Are there any requests
for leave? Mr. Clerk, please read House Resolution 1079.
Speaker 12
2:45
House Resolution 1079 by Representative Shepard concerning expulsion of Representative Mickey Gates from the membership of the House of Representatives, whereas Article 5, Section 12 of the arkansas constitution provides that each house of the general assembly shall have power to
determine the rules of its proceedings and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member and whereas the arkansas constitution and the rules of the house of representatives of the 92nd general assembly are controlling documents by which the body should conduct itself and making determinations regarding discipline up to and including expulsion by two-thirds vote of its members and whereas act 894 which was passed by the 92nd general assembly during the 2019 regular session amended arkansas title arkansas code title 21 chapter 8 subsection 3 to add section 21-8-305
which states that in part if a person is pleading guilty or no low contendery to or has been found guilty of a public trust crime he or she shall not one file as a candidate for constitutional office to run for candidate for constitutional office or three hold a constitutional office and whereas act 894 of 2019 also amended arkansas code section 21-8-301 to include the definition of public trust crime as a crime prohibited under arkansas constitution article 5 section 9 and whereas article 5 section 9 of the arkansas constitution lists the following prohibited crimes for service
as a member of the general assembly embezzlement of public money bribery forgery and other infamous crime and goes on to state that infamous crime includes felony offense and whereas on july 29th 2019 house district 22 representative mickey gates entered a plea of nolo contendery to a single charge of violating arkansas code section 26-18-202 failure to pay or file a tax return a felony offense and whereas representative gates entered into a nolo contendery plea agreement under which he will serve six years of probation and pay restitution to the state of Arkansas
the amount of not less than seventy four thousand seven hundred eighty nine dollars and eighty nine cents for tax years 2012 2013 and 2014 and whereas act 894 of 2019 is not the main premise for the action requested in this resolution but it offers further support as to the 92nd general assembly considers grounds for expulsion of a sitting member from the membership of the general assembly action taken to punish representative gates pursuant to this resolution is undertaken and in accordance with the power granted by the Arkansas Constitution to the house of representatives and is a sole authority for discipline of its members therefore be resolved by the house of
representatives of the 92nd general assembly of the state of Arkansas that that House District 22 Representative Mickey Gates has plead, has pled Nolo contendery to public trust crime as defined by law and the House of Representatives finds that the plea of Nolo contendery and the conduct that is subject to Representative Gates' plea agreement is unbecoming of a member of the House of Representatives and is punishable by this body and that the exercise of its sole authority to discipline its members under the Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 12, the House of Representatives hereby expels House District
22 representative mickey gates from the membership of the house of representatives of the 92nd general assembly read the resolution a second time house resolution 1079 without objection read the resolution a third time house resolution 1079 representative
Speaker 19
6:00
payton for what purpose a motion let's hear your motion mr speaker i move that the vote for final passage of house resolution 1079 be made by secret ballot proper motion it is debatable
you're recognized explain the motion thank
Speaker 19
6:24
you mr. speaker and members I really appreciate the speaker taking this motion at this juncture in the proceedings instead of waiting until it's time for the vote and here's why I think it's important that we subdue our passions here today and we cast a vote
based on our true best best ability to weigh the facts and not be influenced by friendships or or maybe enemies, or party, or outside influences. If you want to leave this chamber and tell the press and tell your people back home how you voted, that's fine. I intend to do that myself. And, but by the same token, this process has not been taken up in over a hundred years.
And we're probably setting precedents for the next hundred years. And regardless of the merits of today's case. The next case may be something where a private secret ballot is important. And I believe that we should move forward with a secret ballot when it comes to final vote on this resolution. So as it may be, your decision will not be based on a friendship or somebody you're mad at, or whether or not it means you'll get reelected in the next election cycle.
And I believe it's important that we do our best job of weighing this and voting on it based on the merits and not on those type of influences. So I'll be happy to take any questions if you want to. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative
Payton has explained the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? Speaker Shepard,
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
8:15
you're recognized to speak against the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with all due respect to my colleague, Representative Payton, as he indicated, we did allow that motion to come forward, and he advised us in advance of his intentions, and I appreciate that. I think it's important to keep in mind that we're an elected body of the people of Arkansas. And I think that Representative Payton touched on that he thought it was important in order for us to use to the best of our ability to weigh the facts.
I'm confident that we can do that as we do every other day when we're here in the chamber voting on bills, resolutions, and other matters. I'm confident that we can do that. And, you know, I think that we've talked a lot about transparency over the last number of years. We've talked about trying to set a higher standard as we move forward. And with regard to the outcome of this resolution, I want you to vote your conscience. I want you to vote what you think is right and how you believe you should vote.
But I believe that it would be, regardless of the outcome, I think it would be a far greater injury to the House and to this institution to cast these votes privately and without the sunshine and the light of day. I think it also, in consultation with legal counsel, I think it also could potentially raise some concerns with regard to Representative Gates' due process and the means by which we cast those ballots. And so for the sake of our constituents knowing how we voted,
I think for the sake of Representative Gates knowing how each and every one of us voted, I would ask that you vote against this motion. Representative Miller, for what
purpose? Question? The speaker has left the well. Speaker Shepard has spoke against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion?
Against the motion? Representative Payton, would you like to close for your motion? Representative Payton indicates he is closed for his motion. The question before the House is the passage of this motion. All in favor say aye.
Speaker 15
10:45
Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. The motion has failed.
Speaker Shepherd, you're recognized to explain the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this resolution today, and let me just say at the outset that my motivation for bringing
this is not personally against Representative Gates, and I've expressed that to him, who I consider a friend, but rather is out of my sense of duty and responsibility to the House and the people of Arkansas. I'd like to share a quote with you this afternoon. That quote states, we should hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct and ethics. I ask that you join me in this effort to move our state in a positive direction to make our citizens, neighbors, and children proud of the work we do.
Does anybody know who said that? I did. I believe it was June 15, 2018, when I became speaker. Many of you will recall that we were in the Big Mac building because this chamber was being renovated. And so it's with that idea in mind that I bring this resolution for the expulsion of Representative Mickey Gates based on his plea of no law contendere to felony charges of failure to file or pay income taxes and further based on the subject of that plea.
Quite honestly, I believe I should be able to conclude my remarks at this point by merely stating that, by stating that he pled no contest to these felony charges. but I will go ahead and go further to detail why I believe he should be expelled. Let's review what brought us to this point. In June of 2018, Representative Gates turned himself in to authorities and was originally charged with six felony counts of failure to file taxes for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Representative Gates initially pled not guilty to those charges. You will recall that while many called for his resignation and or removal at that point, I did not. I indicated that given the allegations that were made, I believe Representative Gates was entitled to his day in court. On July 29, 2019, Representative Gates had his day in court. He entered into a plea agreement whereby he did not challenge the charge and actually pled no lo contendere or no contest to one felony count of failure to file or pay taxes for the year 2012.
The other charges were null-priced or not prosecuted based upon the plea agreement. Representative Gates was advised at that time that he was waiving certain constitutional rights. including the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to call witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses, and the right to appeal. Representative Gates pled to willfully not filing or paying taxes for the year 2012. Representative Gates was sentenced under Act 346,
and it is correct that Representative Gates has not been convicted and will not be if he complies with the terms of his plea agreement and probation. Representative Gates was placed on six years probation. Based on the court documents, it appeared that he was ordered to pay a minimum of $74,789.89 in taxes, penalties, and interest for 2012, 2013, and 2014. A further hearing will be
held with regard to restitution in December of this year to determine the full amount owed.
He was further fined $500, and he agreed to file his tax returns for 2015, 2016, and 2017 by August 28th of 2019, among other terms of the plea agreement. He is prohibited from possessing a firearm, he is ordered to submit DNA, and he is restricted in his ability to travel. Now what is our basis for expulsion? Arkansas Constitution article 5 section 12 states in part each house shall have
the power to determine the rules of its proceedings and punish its members and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member. Quite simply we have the power to expel a member for any reason that we see fit. By pleading no contest Representative Gates did not contest or challenge the allegations and elements of the charge of felony failure to file or pay taxes. While there may be compelling reasons for Representative Gates and indeed any other criminal defendant to enter into such a plea deal and take that arrangement, I believe at the point that he pled no contest
that it placed the onus on us to take steps to expel Representative Gates. I believe that the plea of no contest to a felony, indeed to a felony charge of the nature of this charge, particularly when you consider it in light of our work and our duties as state representatives, justifies expulsion. The filing and paying of taxes to the state is a basic responsibility of us as citizens. Indeed, we all know, as Benjamin Franklin once said,
there's two certainties in the world, death and taxes.
And I would suspect that none of us particularly like filing or paying taxes, but nonetheless, it's our obligation. the failure to at
least file and the nature of the plea agreement is such that i believe it warrants expulsion given that we have the power and authority unto ourselves without further authority we have that authority necessary to expel representative gates but you can go even beyond that we can look back to earlier this year and we have a clear expression by this chamber
of what our intentions and our will would be in this situation. You'll recall that just a few months previous, 71 members of this body, including Representative Gates, voted to approve a measure prohibiting a person in the circumstances of Representative Gates, who's pled no contest to a felony, from filing, running, or holding office. That act is Act 894. It's codified at 21-8-305. it says if a person is pled guilty or no lo contendere to or has been found guilty of a
public trust crime he or she shall not file as a candidate for constitutional office run as a candidate for constitutional office or hold a constitutional office now i know that when you read that there's some words there that we maybe there's questions about what does that mean So we know if we take that statute piece by piece, we first look, it's as if a person is pled guilty or no
lo contendere. Clearly, I think it's unquestionable that Representative Gates pled no contest, no lo
contendere to a charge. In this case, the statute says no
lo contendere to a public trust crime. What's a public trust crime? It's defined in Arkansas law at 21.8301. A public trust crime means a crime prohibited under Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 9. What does the Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, Section 9, say what kind of crime is prohibited?
Article 5, Section 9, says the crimes referenced are embezzlement of public money, bribery, forgery, or other infamous crime. What is an infamous crime? An infamous crime is a felony offense. So if you
connect the definition to a situation where A equals B, B equals C, C equals D, so thus A equals D, we can read that if you plead no contest to a felony charge, you shall not
file, run, or hold a constitutional office.
And I guess some might say, well, what is a constitutional office? Well, that's
also defined. A constitutional office means the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, on down to the general assembly. and so we have this statute that 71 members of this body passed including representative gates that clearly expresses our belief as to what should happen in this circumstance and i would suggest if we took a position contrary to that we'd have to ask ourselves what changed is it because we're uncomfortable now applying it to one of our own
i would hope that that's not the case and let me just say that as i've approached this situation And as someone referenced, I believe it's been 180 years since we've gone through this process. There's been a lot of different facets to it that we've had to look at. And we've done our best with advice of the parliamentarian and legal counsel and others to try and establish a process that's fair to the membership and fair to Representative Gates. But at the end of the day, I think that we'd have to ask ourselves,
what really changed since the spring that would justify us taking a position that's contrary to what we've already taken. Furthermore, since the statute passed and it was passed by this body, I believe it's binding on us anyway. I understand it's been reported that, and I think Representative Gates, I think we've probably talked about this or had communication about it, that there may be some challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. All I can say is the statute that's
passed by the General Assembly is presumptively constitutional. It was passed by this body, thereby it should be binding upon us. But even if that were not the case, we had the power and authority under the Constitution, and the passage of that statute, I believe, clearly shows what our intention, what our desire was in this circumstance, and again, I think it would be very difficult for us now to say, well, we don't want to apply that, we don't want to hold the same
position now, is it just because it's one of our own? When you read the statute together, it's clear that the intention is no person who pleads no contest to a felony offense, should hold a position in the General Assembly. From Representative Gates' position, at best, it's merely an expression of the General Assembly's and the House's position on this issue, and at worst, it's binding state law that mandates that
he be expelled. Ultimately, each one of us will have to decide for ourselves. But as for me, I believe that this plea of no contest to the felony charge, a failure to file or pay taxes, warrants Representative Gates' expulsion. I'll be glad to take any questions.
Representative House, for what purpose? Question. You recognize for a question? Thank
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
22:47
you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Shepard, would you confirm that the judge asked Mr. Gates twice in the court proceeding whether he had been promised, coerced,
or threatened in any way to accept this plea bargain? I've got the transcript. I
believe that there is reference on a couple of occasions. I know certainly the list of items that I went through as far as what he was waiving
and the constitutional rights he was giving up were part of what the judge discussed with him, and I believe that is correct, that as would be the case in any circumstance where a plea is being entered, the judge asked a number of questions of Representative Gates before accepting the plea. Follow-up
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
23:40
question. Recognize. A particular statute under which he was sentenced as a first offender has an exception, and it has to do with criminal history.
Can you discuss that with the body for that exception as far as being regarded as a
convicted felon? So I believe the statute that Representative Gates was sentenced under, it contains certain exceptions for purposes of whether you're convicted or not. One such exception relates to the possession of firearms, I believe. On down it refers to criminal history. It says that it's an exception for criminal history. I've looked at that. I couldn't ultimately come to any firm opinion on how that plays out.
I think clearly it can be utilized by prosecutors and courts as they move forward. If there were further charges that they would be able to look back and consider that, but I can't speak to that particular segment as to whether that would, whether that in and of itself would have justified us taking the position that he's convicted for purposes of our proceedings. And so therefore, out of an abundance of caution, I am not suggesting that he is convicted. I believe he is not convicted of that, but I feel like we have the authority in and of
ourselves from the Constitution, and then furthermore, when you lay the statute that we passed, on top of that, we have a clear expression of the
will of this body, and quite possibly, and at this point, we have
binding state law. Representative De La Rosa, for what purpose? Question. You're
Speaker 51
25:21
recognized for a question. Thank you. Speaker Sheppard, can you tell us why you chose to
Speaker 52
25:27
file this as a resolution versus
going through the Claims Commission? Because I've heard that throughout the body as a question, because when things go through the Claims Commission, there's a defense, there's a prosecution, there's evidence, there's all of that, and we don't have that in this body, so
I'm curious why we're not taking that process. As we worked through this process, as we looked at the options available, clearly, let me just say at the outset, I worked with the parliamentarian, House counsel, and Bureau legal staff,
as well as reaching out and looking at a number of resources to try and make sure that we handle this in an appropriate fashion. quite honestly this expulsion could have been taken up by way of motion in fact Tennessee actually expelled a member just in the last few months just by expulsion by motion taken up and voted on with regard to your specific question I believe you're referring to Arkansas code 75805 that refers it says
that references actions for expulsion and that it should be referred to the Claims Commission for a non-binding recommendation to the House. And so as I looked at that statute and consulted with others, the first and foremost is, as we've probably often heard, one legislature can't bind a future legislature with regard to process. mason's manual says rules of procedure passed by one legislature or statutory provisions
governing the legislative process are not binding on subsequent legislatures and there's actually even attorney general's opinion not on this particular statute but on other similar statutes where the attorney general said essentially cited to this fact that it's a well well held legal principle. So we're not bound by that. Beyond that, I would say, for those that might say, well, is this a position you've just all of a sudden taken? We actually, in our old House
rules, there was a citation to the statute, but we actually removed that from the House rules going into this session. Actually, the parliamentarian recommended it because it was of no force and effect for the current General Assembly. And so my understanding is that was part of what was removed at the outset. But even beyond that, if you looked, even if by chance it could apply, it refers to an action for expulsion. And this isn't an action. An action,
as understood by common legal principles and by Arkansas courts, is an ordinary judicial proceeding. That would be going to court. I've not gone to court. We've merely taken up an internal house matter. And so all the legal authorities that I've consulted with have indicated to me that we are very, let me say this, courts generally don't weigh into matters of internal legislative matters with regard to discipline. But we believe that we're
on firm footing. Even if it were a close call, I still believe this is a matter for the house to decide. I don't know why we would refer it over to somebody else to make some kind of recommendation. I believe the nature of the resolution in that my focus is on the plea of no contest. It's very simple and straightforward, and so I'm comfortable with the process we've laid out. You know, as with anything else, and certainly with regard to anything that when you go to court or otherwise, you know, this is something that has not been taken up in many years. And we're handling this
in the way that I best see fit, ultimately, with regard to constitutionality of the other statute or any other issue. People can file lawsuits and challenge all kinds of things. And we see that legislatively all the time, threats of litigation or otherwise. I believe that this is appropriate. It's consistent with our responsibility to the House and that this is a matter for us to take up today in short mason's manual legal authority says previous legislature can't bind us with regard to process but even beyond this this is not
a judicial proceeding thus it's not an action
thank you speaker shepherd has spoke for the resolution
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
30:11
would anyone like to speak against the resolution Representative Gates, you're recognized to
Speaker 55
30:23
speak against the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Speaker, members, guests in the gallery, and constituents watching online.
Speaker 58
30:30
I earlier went to Representative Eubanks and told him he owed me an apology, and he kind of looked at me dumbfounded, and I said, I remember when my freshman class came in the year, they looked at us and they pointed us and they said, this is not about you. That's a joke. You're supposed to laugh there. Today it is about me, but it's not about me. It's about the issues at hand. And one of the things that I want to do is I want to relieve some of the thoughts and
dispel some of the things that are out there. But before I do that, I would like to, and I'm going to read my remarks. I normally don't do that, but on the advice of my friends who know that I have a tendency to get on rabbit trails, I said you need to stick to your notes. So I'll try to keep it strictly to my written remarks. I'd like to first begin my remarks by expressing the great honor it is to serve among you as legislators,
representatives of the people of the great state of Arkansas we've not always agreed but I hope as you do that I feel like that we've even when we've disagreed and even when we've bantered back and forth but it has done so with integrity and it's done with civility and with respect we've passed legislation where we could find consensus I appreciate all who were able to come by earlier that came by the fourth
conference room looked at my tax returns going back to 2008, my W-2s going back the last 10 years, my receipts for having paid over $50,000 in state income tax over the last three years alone. I appreciate you taking the
Speaker 55
32:24
time out of your schedule to do that. I'd like to express my gratitude
Speaker 58
32:32
to my constituents for their uh electing me to the position and the 59 percent
of the vote that chose to return me to this seat even after the states came after me after my 20 years as justice of the peace and my five years in the arkansas house of representatives i'm overwhelmed by their support i pray i have not failed or disappointed them i am very humbled by their vote of confidence in me despite the charges leveled against me. Many of those constituents heard from me before I was ever elected and before I ever ran about reforming state government and reducing the devastating effects it sometimes has
on over-everyday Arkansas lives. Lastly, to my wife, Susan. My daughter, Elizabeth, my son,
Speaker 55
33:21
Ben. My parents, Eddie and Patsy Gates, who are in the gallery also. My close friends and family, I'd
Speaker 58
33:27
like to publicly apologize for all the hellish nightmare that you have had to endure because of my political involvement. It is not fair that you have had to suffer with the result of my fight to make political change. I'm sorry the price has
been so costly. While I have served for 20 years as Justice of the Peace in my five years in the state legislature, I've talked about the concept of limited government. I've talked about how government had become the master of the people instead of the servant of the people. I have talked about the ideals of government employees being more than simply another employee, but actually public servants. Way too little discussion these days about public service has led to the idea that somehow we the people are servants of the state. Making history can be a good thing.
That's what we're doing today is history. This is very historic. Examples of making good history are jesus coming to earth to redeem man another example is dawn july the 4th 1776 our forefathers pledged their lives fortune sacred honor and their their sacred honor for the document called the declaration of independence that was an illegal activity that they that they committed that day i'm appreciative that they were
recognize that there was a higher law that needed to be taken up that day. On January the 1st, 1863, our great emancipator president, Abraham Lincoln, proclaimed in the Emancipation Proclamation that all persons held as slaves are and henceforth shall be free. Lincoln was on the right side of history. On June the 6th, 1944, members of the greatest generation stormed the beaches of Normandy in what we now call D-Day. They were on the right side of history in that war for my personal family august the 17th in 1951 68 years ago
my parents who are up in the gallery today were married for my brother truett who lost his life as a result of his service in vietnam and my two sisters susan and jan march the 6th 1963 history was my parents' favorite child's birthday. That's when I was born. That's supposed to be humor again. There's some sibling rivalry there. On August the 28th, 1963, the great civil rights
leader Martin King Jr. spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. those iconic words, I have a dream. Making history can also be on the wrong side. On March the 4th, 1857 James Buchanan was sworn in as president by the Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney. The Supreme Court two days later handed down one of the worst decisions ever, the Dred Scott and Stanford case. It was Taney who said blacks are so inferior that they had no right which right men were bound to
respect. They were wrong on that side of history. Thankfully the Dred Scott decision was reversed ruling and proved not every Supreme Court decision is right. At 11.40 p.m. on April the 14th, 1912, the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg after it failed to slow down for a possible collision with an iceberg. History has proved that was the wrong decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plesley, Ferguson, that segregated schools was legal because they had determined separate but equal
was true. They were on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, on May the 17th, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the earlier court's decision. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orville Eugene Faubus was on the wrong side of history by refusing to comply with Brown v. Board of Education by ordering the Arkansas Guard to prevent nine black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. I wonder what members of this assembly would have thought if
one of those National Guard members who prevented those students from attending would have refused that service and allowed them to exercise their constitutional rights. Starting on March of 2006, Duke lacrosse players were arrested and prosecuted by District Attorney Mike Nyfong. For over a year, he called them a bunch of hoodlums and charged them for beating, raping, and sodomizing a woman. Thankfully, a year later, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper stepped into the case.
Nifong was eventually disbarred. The players declared innocent. It seems the prosecutor had proof of their innocence for over a year. In this case, the Attorney General Roy Cooper stood on the right side of history by standing in between a government prosecutor and innocent citizens. on september 11 2001 2977 people were killed and over 6 000 were injured by 19 radical islamic terrorists when they hijacked planes flew one into the twin towers one into the pentagon
and the third crashed in a pennsylvania field as passengers towarded the hijackers plans their sadistic philosophy is on the wrong side of history today in this chamber we are on the verge of making history. But as I have stated previously, making history is not necessarily a good, bad, right, or wrong. Today, I wished I could discuss everything that my family has endured at the hands of some employees at DF&A. I imagine many of you here in this chamber and those watching
by the internet thought I would try to prove my innocence to those charges. However, those charges are still being dealt with in this court. I have not been sentenced. There is no adjudication of guilt, and under Act 346, there isn't adjudication of guilt. I could talk about going through an over 10-year audit in my personal and my business's finances. I could talk about trying to justify the expenses of employees who have been proven in federal court to have stolen from and virtually
bankrupted my company. I could show where weekly taxes have been withheld from my paycheck from my company and from my paycheck as a state representative and my paycheck for 20 years as a justice of the peace. I could talk about a DFA auditor who asked me to give them a part-time job as a bookkeeper at the same time they were auditing my books. I could talk about state auditors making ridiculous decisions as to what businesses needed to conduct business. I could talk to you about the outright lies that have been spoken against me over the last year and a half.
I could list some DFA agents who have lacked the integrity to step forward and show my tax returns that I have filed, the W-2s, and over $50,000 worth of income tax paid in just the last three years alone. I could talk about the illegal activity that has perpetrated in the last year and a half and by attacking my integrity and my character. If I were going to use any of those defenses today, I would start by saying that I am a flawed individual. I have many failings and many weaknesses. At 59, I still make bad decisions. Some of you in this noble establishment
have shared with me some of your mistakes and your weaknesses. So to be clear, I have made plenty of wrong decisions, and I'm sure I will make more in the future. So today I will not be presenting the boxes of evidence as to my innocence. Today I would like to discuss the reasons I will not be voting for House Resolution 1079. First, let me say that my case is still in the courts. What was not mentioned was that my pleading no contest
was not a plead of no contest devoid of Act 346 that was passed by the legislature of the state of Arkansas and been upheld many times by the Arkansas Supreme Court. I have not been adjudicated or determined guilty. Currently, this is the plan. Upon fulfillment of the terms and the conditions the judge gave me, I shall be discharged by the court without adjudication of guilt. The court
shall enter an appropriate order dismissing the case discharging me and expunging my record in supreme court ruled in lynn versus state quote we have repeatedly recognized a plea of guilty or no low contende tendered pursuant to act 346 is not a conviction in other words a plea of no contest tendered pursuant to an Act 346 is not to be considered the same way that any other plea
of no contest. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 in Gage v. State, the Supreme Court overturned a circuit judge who had adjudicated a defendant guilty, and they overturned it because he had pleaded guilty pursuant to an Act 346, and the Supreme Court said you can't find him guilty because he pleaded guilty pursuant to a 346. And under 346, there is no adjudication of guilt.
The judge got it wrong. Why did they overturn the judge? Because they said, we have repeatedly recognized that a plea of guilty or no law contendered pursuant to an Act 346 is not a conviction. While a plea pursuant to Act 346 doesn't guarantee the charges against me will be dropped, it is clear by Supreme Court rulings that the current plan to have charges dropped doesn't look anything like someone who is about to be found guilty.
Thankfully, I am still afforded the right of due process and the right of a presumption of innocence until I am found guilty. I have not been found guilty. Secondly, I'd like to address Act 894 of 2019. There are many times we vote for a bill without knowing all of the ramifications. How many times has this body voted for a measure while opposing
voices said they could not vote for it because they believed it would violate our Constitution? I cannot recall any alarm being sounded about the constitutionality of this bill when it was presented. While I don't always agree with the alarm being sounded, it does always give me extra concern. Since this act went into effect, which coincidentally was, I think, five days before my last court date, and I have another one in December, I have had time to learn about the legislative overreach concerning the ability to remove House members.
If one is to consider removing a House member solely on Act 894 of 2019, they would have superseded the Arkansas Constitution by adding another disqualification from serving in public office. simply put act 894
Speaker 64
44:56
violates due process law that we are now in the present innocent
Speaker 58
45:03
until proven guilty and right here today i stand before you an innocent man
why because under u.s law and arkansas law we are innocent until proven guilty thirdly if the argument to me to remove me is based on the argument that the house can arbitrarily remove a house member at will then none of us are safe did the writers of our constitution intend that members could decide who served with them and can remove anyone they choose if that were the case then 67 republicans could vote one by one to unelect 24 democrats
then there'd be a hundred republicans or 67 males could vote out 25 females and then we'd have a hundred males surely that kind of power was never intended for the house to determine who represents another district you sit here where you are today because approximately 30,000 people elected you they chose you and in Arkansas house district 22 they chose me and they chose me after the state
filed charges against me in Arkansas house I was chosen I was chosen by widows who after their husband died was audited by the state of Arkansas and had no way of defending themselves because their husbands who handled all their finances. Their husband is now dead. I was elected by many rural, many middle-class voters who know what it's like to get a letter in the mail saying they owe more taxes than they believe they owe, but end up paying it anyway. I represent small business
person who starts a business with little to nothing and gets behind, gets caught up, gets behind and gets caught up. District 22 elected me after the state's action. 59 percent was the percentage that I garnered after. Thankfully, I had campaigned on what it was like going through an over 10-year audit and all the grief you experience as a result. I retold my challenging the auditors and winning most of everything I appealed. Wrapping this up, I would like to tell
you a story I found in Daniel 6 in the Bible. At the urging of some conniving politicians, King Darius passed a law that for the next 30 days, if any man worshiped any God or human being other than him, they would be thrown into the lion's den. The politicians didn't want a normal everyday decree because the king could change his decree. They wanted one of those kind of constitutional laws if you read it was they wanted a law that was pursuant to the laws of the Medes and the
Persians because the king himself couldn't even change that law and if you study that you will see that after Daniel's arrest the scripture says that King Darius spent all day trying to figure another way out is there some other way than throwing Daniel in the lion's den and at the end of the day the conniving politicians came and said look there's no other way and he called king he called daniel and they hauled daniel away and throw him in the lines
and as they was hauling him off he said to daniel may your god who you have served continually rescue you the bible says the king did not sleep all night i've heard some of you had a hard night last night wrestling with this and i'm so sorry for that but at first light he hurried to the lion's den when he came near he called out to daniel in an anguished voice he said daniel servant of the living god has your god whom you have served continually been able to rescue from
you from the lions and daniel answered may the king live forever my god sent his angels and he shut the mouth of the lions they have not hurt me because i was found innocent in his sight nor have i ever done any wrong before you your majesty you know the rest of the story daniel was pulled out of the lion's den the king had the conniving politicians their wives and their children thrown into the lion's den the bible says the lions were so hungry they overpowered them and
crushed their bones before they even reached the floor of the den that's pretty swift and pretty short appeals period. Please do not go away from this chamber thinking I have called anyone or inferred that anyone was King Darius, the conniving politicians, or Daniel. Rather, this is a story of conflict. For King Darius, he did not want to throw Daniel in the lion's den. At the same time, he acknowledged this wasn't just any edict that had passed. This law was passed
pursuant to act three for this it was passed pursuant to the law of the medes and the persians and couldn't be changed today our constitution is much like the law of the medes and persians we cannot pass laws that supersede the constitution no matter how much we want it all statutory laws are to be subservient to the constitution now comes the choice for your vote do you vote yes on a resolution that may violate the Constitution? So today is not a vote on my innocence or my
guilt. The question of the day is if I vote yes on the resolution in order to comply with statutory law act 894, could it be considered by some to violate a constitutional law? How is one to vote? are you required to vote are you legally morally required to vote have you ever not voted have you ever not conveniently been out of chambers when a vote was taken have you ever voted present on april the 5th 2019 five days before the session ended y'all remember those days when we're
got all the bills coming out 29 of you did not even vote yes some voted no some voted present and some didn't vote at all 29 of you did not vote for sb 650 which became act 894 i was one of the people that voted for it i now wish i had questioned i had questions about its constitutionality. I did not, you don't know what you don't know, and you can't see what you cannot
see. Unlike King Darius, who had no options, we do. You can vote yes for the resolution to remove me. You can vote no to not remove me. You can vote present and let the voters of District 22 determine who represents them at the next election cycle. Or you can simply not vote at all and not take any position at all I will not judge you on your vote your constituency may I won't I do wish this were being heard by the Arkansas Claims Commission because it is there
that I could actually have legal counsel which I should be afforded under the constitution to have legal counsel I recognize this is not a court of law where we're afforded those privileges But I am not an attorney. I'm a layman. Therefore, I cannot answer matters of the law. I can only go what my esteemed attorney, who's in the gallery, has given me counsel on. I do believe that I should be afforded the right to counsel before 30,000 people's representative is removed from them.
Men and women in this chamber today, you will cast your votes. people of integrity will come to different conclusions. Just like Daniel after surviving the lion's den responded to the king after the king called out to determine his fate I say to you respectfully, may you live forever. I have high respect for Speaker Shefferford and I do not question his integrity.
I believe, like King Darius, the speaker felt he had no other option. Regardless of where you stand right now, I'd like you to hear me very clearly. I am not your judge. I encourage you first to vote your conscience and then vote your district. I believe today there will be votes for different reasons. I trust you to do what you were sent here to do. you do what is right first then try to make the people happy sometimes we get to do that at the
same time and sometimes the people in my district are not happy with me i was told yesterday by a member of this house that this has been the hardest decision that he has had to decide on in all his years of service in this chamber i will tell you what i told him I will not judge you on how you vote today. You are not accountable to me. Do not consider me.
I appreciate your friendship, your loyalty. I appreciate most your integrity that guides your decision. Fellow members, I will not be asking you to vote against this measure. I will not be asking you to vote for this measure this historic vote will not be judged by me or those in this room it will be judged by those who come after us it is our posterity to determine if our vote
was right cast on this day I pray that the peace of God would rule and reign in your hearts and in your minds as
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
55:37
Representative Gates has spoke against the resolution. Would anyone like to speak for the resolution?
Against the resolution? Speaker Shepard, you're recognized to close for the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in closing, to respond to just a few items, no one
is suggesting that this is a conviction. If he had been convicted, then the resolution and the action would probably look a bit differently. But what I am suggesting is we have the power and authority of the House by virtue of the Constitution to take action. I believe the statute that we passed at least expresses what our intention would be and what the will of this body is. And beyond that, at this point, it's binding law.
I understand that Representative Gates may challenge that. He may challenge the constitutionality of that, but we still have the legal authority to take the right and proper steps forward. You know, with regard to the legal proceedings that Representative Gates has been involved with, and while they are ongoing, the fact of the matter is he pled no contest to a felony charge of failing to pay taxes. Part of that plea agreement was paying back $74,000-plus to the state of Arkansas,
surrendering his ability to possess a firearm, submitting to a DNA test, restricting his travel. I think it comes back to just the fact that as we think about this, as we think about who we are as an institution, I think if you went out and asked the average Arkansan, do you think you should file your taxes, they'd probably begrudgingly say, yeah, we should. But then if you ask the average Arkansan, do you think that someone who has pled no contest to failing to file those taxes,
who is under probation to pay back money to the state of Arkansas, who has had their rights somewhat restricted, who has waived their ability to contest those charges, do you think that person should still be in the General Assembly? I think that most Arkansans would say no. If Representative Gates, as I alluded to, as long as he pled not guilty, I was of the opinion that he should have his day in court.
But now he's had his day in court. He pled no contest. He took advantage of the statutes that are out there, and properly so. But at the point that he pled no contest, at the point that he agreed to the terms of that plea agreement than, as I said previously, that puts the honest on us. There's been a lot over the last four or five years about what kind of legislature we are. There have been a lot of misdeeds by some of our former members,
and I think today this is a question for each of us. What are our standards? What kind of house are we going to be? How do we want the people of Arkansas to view us? Representative Gates is correct. He was re-elected by the citizens of his district at a point when he was pleading not guilty to the charges. But the fact of the matter is he has now pled no contest. He is now serving as probation, and therefore I believe it's entirely appropriate and proper
for us to approve this resolution and to expel Representative Gates. And I want to disagree slightly with something else that Representative Gates said. He said today is about him. I'm going to remind you of something I said on the first day of this session. What we do here is not about us. Our service here is not about me. It's not about you. It's about the people of Arkansas.
I don't want you to vote on this based on Representative Gates or who he is or whether he's your friend or whether you like him or whether he's a Republican. I want you to vote based upon the fact of the matter that an individual has pled no contest to a felony charge, is serving probation, And are we going to allow that to stand in our house? I would hope that we have higher standards than that, with all due respect to Representative
Gates. And I'll close as I begin. We should hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct and ethics. I ask that you join me in the effort to move our state in a positive direction, to make our citizens, neighbors, and children proud of the work we do. Thank you for your time and consideration,
and I would appreciate a vote in
favor of this resolution. Speaker Shepard is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is passage of House Resolution 1079. A yes vote is for the expulsion of Representative Gates.
Speaker 35
1:00:43
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the
ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 88 yeas and
four nays, the resolution has passed.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:01:13
Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There being no further business before the body, I move the caucus of the House of Representatives of the 92nd General Assembly of the
State of Arkansas be adjourned. It's a proper motion. It's not debatable. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.
Agenda
Call To Order
Prayer
Pledge of Allegiance
roll call
HR 1079 Concerning expulsion of Representative Mickey Gates from the membership of the House of Representatives
Announcements
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 12
Speaker 19
Representative Jon S. Eubanks Chair
Unverified
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
Speaker 15
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Speaker 51
Speaker 52
Speaker 55
Speaker 58
Speaker 64
Speaker 35
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified