Formatted for convenient printing:

 

HOME

The phrase "can't see the forest for the trees" is no more apropos anywhere
in human endeavor than in the American legal and judicial system. sgn


Complaint to the Washington BAR Association Re:

Part Time Pro Tem Judge John Lawson
Aukeen Court, Kent, Washington
4-20-02

Including Transcript of Hearing Before "Judge" John Lawson, 3-23-01

This document includes opinions, conjecture and editorial comment

Preamble

The following document has been sent to the Washington State BAR associate as part of a complaint against part-time pro tem Judge John Lawson, operating out of Aukeen Court, in Kent, Washington.

As we know, the BAR is made up of attorneys. As we know, attorneys stick together like lovesick sardines in one of the most tightly compressed and shameless "good ol' boy" networks on the planet.

That being the case, we expect no useful or productive benefit to society to emerge as a result of this complaint. This complaint is made mostly in the interests of disclosure---to disclose to the public just how silly, unprofessional and dangerous our judges have become, and to demonstrate to the public that there is almost no legal recourse when judges act irrationally, irresponsibly, and illegally.

If the reader wants to have the best "feel" for what it was like to be in John Lawson's courtroom on 3-23-01, I suggest you read through my polygraphs and written testimony to the court first (accessible from the home page). By doing so, the reader will be able to more closely appreciate my viewpoint on the proceedings, knowing the truths and facts of the case as I did, and then watching Lawson twist and wring those facts until they were no longer recognizable. John Lawson didn't judge this case; he prosecuted it.

This is a public record---anyone is entitled to the tapes. We will be posting the tapes on this site in time, so as to further demonstrate the foul, backward, counter-productive demeanor of John Lawson in the courtroom. Several attorneys, after hearing the tape, have told me they, personally, would have punched Lawson in the face, and they are astounded that I was able to refrain from doing so.

The portions of the document which are underlined and italicized, are my editorial interjections to the transcript---what I might have WANTED to say at the hearing, and what, perhaps, I should have said.

And now, if you want to see something REALLY scary, read on:


CASE NO. 01-2-12968-6 SEA, 01-2-12966-0 SEA

[Dart employee], Appellant/Defendant, vs. DELANN LAMB, Respondent/Plaintiff;

[Dart employee], Appellant/Defendant, vs. MARK McFARLAND, Respondent/Plaintiff.

  

THE COURT:  Are we ready to proceed?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  We are, your Honor.

            THE COURT:  OK.  Judge Basin did order all cases be consolidated.  I think we can hear the case of Mark McFarland and Dee Lamb v. [employee] at the same time.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  OK.  Thank you, your Honor.

            THE COURT:  Let me ask the petitioner.  Have you seen the numerous papers filed by [employee]?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  They have seen it, yes.

            THE COURT:  I think he wants to file more papers.  I told him he’s already filed voluminous papers.  If he wants to file more, he may.  Do you have copies for the other side?

            [employee]:  No, I’m sorry, I don’t.

            THE COURT:  How big are they?  I don’t want to . . .

            [employee]:  This is what you already have (holding up a sheaf of papers).  Just a few more pages.

            THE COURT:  What do you mean by a few?

            [employee]:  Actually this has to do with cases that were dismissed (holding up other papers).

            THE COURT:  If it has to do with them, you don’t . . .

            [employee]:  I won’t file those.

            THE COURT:  OK.

            In the above exchange, I was seeking to file a second copy of my written testimony that had already been delivered to the court. I was beginning to wonder if the court had actually read or considered my written testimony.

            [employee]:  I’m going to forego this at this time.  The only thing I’ll ask is that if the Court has any reason to doubt anything that I have submitted, I would like to ask for a continuance until I can bring in three witnesses.

            THE COURT:  I think we ought to go ahead with it, {}.  I don’t see any usable purpose in extending the Order, the temporary order and having a continuance.

Okay, Delann Lamb?

            In the above exchange, I was trying to again reserve the right to ask for a continuation if the court had any doubts as to my credibility. I had previously (several days prior) made it known to the judge that I could bring any number of witnesses to refute the testimony of Lamb and Mcfarland, but that three of those witnesses had expressed great fear of losing their jobs had they been forced to testify against their bosses. Therefore, I wanted to avoid subpoenaing them if at all possible. I had offered to make arrangements so that the witnesses could be interviewed by the judge in secret. This was clearly spelled out to “Judge” Lawson in a written document. I was merely bringing it up for the record, as the hearing began. I was taken aback by the fact that he had made no objection to the request days prior, but now, on the record, was refusing to allow it.

            DELANN LAMB:  Yes.

            THE COURT:  Do you want to raise your right hand and be sworn in?  Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in this case be the truth?

            DELANN LAMB:  Yes I do.

            THE COURT:  Do you want to state your name and, unless it’s confidential, your resident address?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  We request, your Honor, that she give her business address.

            THE COURT:  That’s fine.  That’s why I prefaced it the way I did.

            DELANN LAMB:  Thank you.  My name is Delann Lamb and my business address is 7724 South 259th Street, Kent, Washington.

            THE COURT:  What business is that?

            DELANN LAMB:  Dart International and T&L Leasing.

            THE COURT:  And are the same as contained in your petition of Order to Ban Harassment true and correct?

            DELANN LAMB:  Yes they are.

            The above is Lamb's first instance of perjury.

            THE COURT:  OK.  [], do you want to raise your right hand and be sworn in?  Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in this case will be the truth?

            [employee]:  I do.

            THE COURT:  Do you want to, unless it’s to be confidential, indicate your name and your resident address?

            [employee]:  My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

            THE COURT:  What’s that, apartment number 1202?

            [employee]:  Yes it is.

            THE COURT:  And the zip on that is 98121?

            [employee]:  Correct.

            THE COURT:  OK, you’re on.  You want to indicate or show cause why the Court should not make the permanent Order on behalf of Delann Lamb?

            [employee]:  My position is that in order for the Court to order something to be stopped, it first has to incur. The court must have a reasonable belief that it might occur.  In this case no harassment has ever occurred, directly or indirectly.  I haven’t even thought of harassing anybody.  That’s essentially my case.  No harassment has occurred nor will any harassment ever occur.  I have posted my beliefs and opinions on the Internet and as far as I’m concerned, that’s it.  The case is over.  I’m sorry that these people want to take it further.

            THE COURT:  Do you have any questions (inaudible)?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  With respect to these pictures [], isn’t it true that you have in fact placed Ms. Lamb’s face on other bodies?

            [employee]:  Oh sure.  Lots of times.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  And you have in fact placed her face in pornographic pictures?

            [employee]:  Depends on what you want to call pornographic.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your Honor, if I might, I do not want this to become part of the record, but I would like to show it to the Court for illustrative purposes.

            THE COURT:  I don’t have any problem with that.

 

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  These are examples of some of the pictures that [] created.  You’ll note that in some of them, he’s pasted Ms. Lamb’s face on other people’s bodies.  In the most liberal definition of pornography, you see, these are not innocuous.  It’s your position, isn’t it [], that you can use these however you like.

            [employee]:  Yes and no.  I was given permission to use these.  These are pictures that were created over a period of three years.

            At this point I hadn’t yet caught on. All of the pictures I was allowed to view had been made by me, at the request of Lamb or Mcfarland, or, in a few cases with no direct request, but with much appreciation, spoken, demonstrated and implied after the fact. See polygraphs #1 and #2. At this point I didn’t grasp that Tift (counsel for plaintiffs) was trying to intimate to the court that the pictures had been used by me in some illicit manner. 

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Let me ask you a question.  Are you saying she gave you specific permission to create these pictures?

            [employee]:  She not only did that, she posted these prominently on the walls of the office and I can supply probably in the neighborhood of 100 witnesses to testify to that during a three-year period.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  [], did you in fact say you had an AK and knew how to use it?

            [employee]:  I think something to that effect was said in a joke fax that was sent to (inaudible).

            Tift is referring to a joke fax that was written by me, one of many dozens, or even hundreds, and delivered to the office on weekends. The fax in question (attached) was written on 8-3-00, (some SEVEN MONTHS before the filing of these complaints, and FOUR MONTHS before Lamb expressed her great disappointment, in writing, at my quitting her employ) and so warmly received by Lamb and Mcfarland that they congratulated me on it as one of the best I'd written. Mcfarland told me at that time, repeatedly, that he also had a flair for writing (he was aware that my literary work could be found in any library), and he kept me in the office for the following 20 minutes or so to show me a letter he had written to an ex wife in California, chastising her for asking for additional child support. The letter was rank, insulting, crude, and virtually without punctuation. Still, this was Mcfarland’s way of showing me that he, also, was a writer of some repute. I complimented him on his literary flair, and made as hasty an exit as circumstances would allow. Curious, now, that Mcfarland’s questionable attorney would bring it up as though the fax was somehow, mysteriously, seven months after the fact, to be considered an instance of harassment. Mcfarland had gleefully shown the fax to numerous employees in the context of a joke. Those employees could easily have been brought in to refute Mcfarland’s tall tale that he felt threatened by the fax in any way. Mcfarland had even stated in court documents that he had considered the fax a joke. Yet here we were, with Tift trying to convince the court that, after all, the fax was a serious threat.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Isn’t it true that you now represent to the Court that you do not own an AK despite your written representation to the contrary?

            Of course I never HAD represented seriously to anyone that I had owned an AK rifle or anything that looked like one, and Tift knew this, of course. See polygraphs #1 and #2 (attached).

            [employee]:  That is correct.  I never owned an AK.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  So were you lying?

            [employee]:  No.  I was making a joke as I just indicated.  And I challenge anyone to interpret  it as anything but a joke.  There’s no possible way.  It so happens that making jokes is my side business. I have a number of samples if the court would like to see them. . .

            I had brought with me to court a number of products that my company created, in order to demonstrate to the court that my side-business was, indeed, the making of jokes---similar to the joke faxes I had given to the company over three years.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  “I think that violence in the workplace does have its place.”  Isn’t that a direct quote from some of your correspondence?

            This was, indeed, a line from the fax (see attached). It worked as a joke only because I was so absurdly non-violent. The fact that I was so non-violent had been commented on by Mcfarland and Lamb numerous times. That’s why a joke about me being violent worked.

            [employee]:  Why don’t you read the entire fax so that we have it in context.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  “I really do have a collection of assault rifles and I think that violence in the workplace does have its place.”  Isn’t that a direct quote from your correspondence, []?

            [employee]:  Excuse me, is that the entire text?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  I read the entire sentence.

            [employee]:  You read the entire sentence as you did before. You’re taking it out of context.

            Tift is clearly trying to make it look as though the fax was not a joke, and was never considered a joke. She’s very careful to be sure she takes only those few sentences from the fax that sound bad out of context, and she vehemently refuses to read any of the surrounding text, for fear the judge might catch on. It’s a common ruse used by sleazy attorneys---and it often works.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Isn’t it true that you accused Ms. Lamb of illegal drug use?

            [employee]:  I state that it is my opinion that she is very heavily involved in drug use.

            In point of fact, I had made no such allegation in my original website, which is what the complainants are objecting to. I had simply stated the fact that I had found Lamb with a drug pipe (actually, it was a crack pipe, not a pot pipe). Only in my statement to Tift before the hearing did I state that it was my opinion that Lamb was a druggie. In the first place, I was and am entitled to that opinion. In the second place, I had pulled my punch considerably by not mentioning other instances of illegal drug use by Lamb. All of this is moot in any case, as no such allegation had been made at that time.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  When did you last see her use drugs?

            [employee]:  I found a pot pipe---

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  (interrupting) No, no.  When did you last see her use drugs?

            At this juncture I was STILL trying to refrain from bringing the drug issue out in the open. But finally I relented…

            [employee]:  I have seen her do things that indicated to me that she was probably using drugs.  I have not seen her do drugs.  It is my opinion . . .

            I was referring to instances of seeing Lamb stand in the window of the office, sucking on a small, brass pipe, holding the thin smoke in her lungs, then coughing it out. I was referring to an instance of witnessing Lamb and Mcfarland in Mcfarland’s green van, passing a small pipe back and forth and giggling. Was this drug use? I didn’t test the substance. Would I stake my life on the notion that this was illegal drug use? Of course. Without reservation. Still, whether or not this WAS illegal drug use remained “my opinion”, and that’s all I ever represented it to be. Tift, apparently, thought that I did not have a right to that opinion, even though she felt very good about expressing her own stupid and rancid opinions later on in the hearing.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  (interrupting) Have you ever seen her with drugs?

            [employee]:  I have seen her with a pot pipe.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Have you seen her with drugs?

            [employee]:  The residue in this pot pipe, if it’s drugs . . .

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Did you test the residue?

            [employee]:  No I did not.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Are you an expert in the analysis of residue in so-called pot plants?

            [employee]:  I have about two years experience with the Federal Government in narcotics enforcement.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  For whom?

            [employee]:  For Metropolitan Enforcement Group.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Metropolitan Enforcement Group of what?

            [employee]: It was a Federal Agency. Look it up.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your Honor, I would submit that . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) Anything else, []?  I always allow on these cases the petitioner to have the last word because they have the burden of proof.  So any other statements or do you wish to ask any other questions from the petitioner?

            At this point I was becoming a little nervous. The judge had been delivered a 28 page document which was clearly marked as my entire testimony and rebuttal to the allegations against me. I was deathly ill that day and had been for a week prior. I submitted my testimony in writing because I wanted a clear record of it, because I was sick, not thinking clearly, and it hurt to speak. The cases that Lamb and Mcfarland were trying to make were so obviously without merit that I figured any competent judge could have seen through them in the first five minutes. I thought it curious, then, that Lawson appeared to be trying to wrap the hearing up without even referring to any of my written rebuttals. It was as if he hadn’t even bothered to read my testimony…but certainly he was more competent than THAT---

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your Honor, it is clear that [] has made remarks that in a modern workplace are alarming and threatening.  He has used Ms.. . .  Let me ask you . . .  Let me inquire of my client.  Ms. Lamb, did you ever give [] permission to create these pornographic pictures?

            What remarks was Tift referring to? Exactly, what remarks had I made and when had I made them, and to whom? Lamb's complaint which alleged “threatening and alarming” remarks had, I thought, been utterly and conclusively refuted by her own written words to me, stating that she wished I hadn’t quit, wanted to stay my friend, and had the utmost respect for me as a friend and a co-worker. This letter from Lamb to me had been submitted to the court with the appropriate explanation. Lamb wrote it AFTER she claimed I had made threatening and abusive remarks to her. It was clear-cut, I thought. She had lied. She had perjured herself. It was not one person's word against another in this particular instance---her lie was exposed right there in her letter to me, in her own words. So why was Tift now so casually assuming that she had convinced the court that these threatening and alarming remarks had been made? Why wasn’t the judge picking up on this? Why didn't he say, “Uh, Ms. Tift, just a minute--- Your client says that [] made a bunch of threatening and alarming remarks to her, yet after this supposedly occurred, she writes this mushy letter saying how much she respected him. How do you resolve this, Ms. Tift? But the judge never realized what had just been put past him. He simply bought that I had threatened Lamb in some way. Lamb’s second instance of perjury lies in her response, below:

            DELANN LAMB:  No.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Have you given him permission to post your altered picture on the Web at all?

            DELANN LAMB:  No.

            Lamb’s third instance of perjury lies in her response, above. And Delann Lamb's fourth instance of perjury lies in the exchange below, easily verified by innumerable witnesses, and by drug screening:

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Ms. Lamb, do you use illegal drugs.

            DELANN LAMB:  No.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Nothing further, your Honor.  I just think that it’s very clear that he makes these bald assertions of criminal misconduct without the slightest basis of fact.  And then as justifications as well, it’s my opinion.  He creates these pictures which are not innocuous and are in fact very harmful.  He makes directly threatening. . .

            --Bald assertions without the slightest basis in fact? Lamb didn’t even DENY that she had been seen smoking a small, brass pipe. What does she contend she was doing, blowing bubbles for Christ's sake? "He creates these pictures which are in fact very harmful"? If they were harmful, then Lamb shouldn't have asked for them! And in at least ONE of the many instances in which I asked Lamb to be sure and let me know if any of the depictions ever bothered her, she should have said YES! (see polygraphs #1 and #2). "He makes directly threatening…" What? I made directly threatening remarks? When? What were they? Let's see them! Let's hear them! At least they could be quoted, couldn't they?

            THE COURT:  The pictures express a little bit more than an opinion in the Court’s view.  I say, the pictures express a little bit more than an opinion in the Court’s view.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Yeah, that seems the case.

            It was beginning to dawn on my antihistamine-logged brain that Tift was trying to intimate to the court that inappropriate pictures of Lamb had been posted on the Internet. This perplexed me, because Lamb had never alleged this. Surely the judge would soon begin to question Lamb about these things. That was his job, right? To get at the truth? He was probably just biding his time, waiting for Tift to get all of her crap out in the open, then Lawson would begin chipping away at it and the truth would emerge.

 

            THE COURT:  Sir (speaking to Delann Lamb), you indicated your business address 7724 South 259th?  And that’s the business address of Dart International T&L Leasing . . .

            Sir? It was very clearly spoken. Was this judge off in some fogworld somewhere? Now he doesn't know a sir from a ma'am?

            DELANN LAMB:  (inaudible)

            THE COURT:  Do I understand that [] is no longer an employee?

            DELANN LAMB:  That is correct.

            And why was I not an employee any longer? I had quit about six weeks earlier, due to the frustrations brought about by the incompetence and dishonesty of my bosses, probably brought about by their damned drug use. But I was immediately and passionately asked to reconsider. So I stayed on awhile longer. But quit again in mid December for the very same reasons. I've no doubt Tift wished mightily that I'd been fired. That would have made her case seem so much more juicy. Disgruntled ex-employee, and all of that.

            THE COURT:  I asked that for a question.  We often get these requests where people are next door neighbors, where people in apartment complex or otherwise, where people work in the same workplace, where people go to school in the same school and obviously there are going to be some areas of some chance encounters and we have to tailor our Orders if that be the case.  But if there’s, you’re not involved in those kind of situations, then there’s no need to try and tailor it.  Alright, let me indicate where the Court’s coming from on this.  I’m satisfied in this case that the petitioner has proven by the fair preponderance of the evidence that there has been a course of conduct.  I’m also satisfied that it has been unwanted conduct.  It has been communicated several times by the petitioner to the respondent that she doesn’t want to have anything further to do with him and yet he persists by various means to attempt to maintain that contact, or has in the past, and maybe that’s all over.  If it’s all over, that’s great.  Sometimes sometimes (sic) it takes a club sometimes to convince people that their area of human relations with another one is at (tape cut off).  (beginning of side two of tape - missing text)  to resist and let they go their own way.  What I often find in the case of lovers falling out of love or split up or whatever where they just can’t accept that.  I guess there was a movie on that one time.  But they can’t accept it and so they continue to want to see the other party even though the other party doesn’t want anything further to do with them.  Again, the Court also finds based on the testimony and evidence in the file that the submitted . . ., on behalf of the petitioner, that this has caused the petitioner to experience extreme, not just substantial, but extreme emotional distress for her own safety and her own well-being.  So the court’s going to issue an Order.  I’m going to ask the petitioner how long you feel the Order should be in effect.  I’m thinking of five years.  Things start to cool off after awhile and, of course, you can always within 30 days of the expiration petition the Court to renew it..

            Where was Lawson getting this crap about “ex-lovers”? I had done a delicate dance for three years to avoid this woman's advances (see polygraph #1 and #2!), and yet now, Lawson was trying to skew the case such that this was a lover's issue of some kind? This was a First Amendment issue through and through. I had posted my reasons for quitting my job on the Internet, and that made Lamb and Mcfarland look bad. They were trying this sleazy route of tricking the court into shutting down that site. Nothing more or less mysterious than that. That Lawson was now apparently thinking of this with a romantic angle ignited the notion that he didn’t have a damned clue about the case, what it was about, or why we were all there in front of him.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Ms. Lamb appreciates the Court’s consideration and (inaudible).

            THE COURT:  Would five years be adequate?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Yes, sir.

            This is a curious remedy offered (not acquiesced to, but OFFERED) by Lawson. He only had the authority, under the circumstances, to issue an order for one year. Yet little things like laws and rules don’t seem to bother this man.

            THE COURT:  I want to read some portions of the Order.  The respondent is restrained from making any attempts to keep the petitioner under any surveillance.  The respondent is also restrained from coming near or making any attempts to contact and from having any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail or any other means, and I emphasize any other means, directly or indirectly with the petitioner.  I have indicated in the area of no contact that any depiction or reference to petitioner in any form will be considered unlawful contact under this Order.  She doesn’t want to have anything more to do with you and it’s done.

            Lamb and Mcfarland were inwardly rolling on the floor about this time. I’ve no doubt they couldn’t BELIEVE how easy it was to trick this man Lawson. And what was this line about keeping the petitioners under surveillance? No one had made even a passing remark about that being a danger. No one had accused me of even THINKING about doing such a thing. It was included in the requests of Mcfarland and Lamb so as to keep me from videotaping them smoking dope as they drove around during working hours in Mark’s green van. The thought hadn't even crossed my mind at that point. But they had certainly thought to cover that contingency. My God they’re smart.

            [employee]:  Excuse me.

            THE COURT:  Just a minute.  Let me finish and then I’ll listen.  The respondent is also restrained from entering or being within 500 feet of the petitioner’s residence or her place of employment which is presently at Dart International.  And I’ve given the address.  I’ve also indicated that contact may be had through legal counsel.  I think that’s always appropriate anyway, but I like to put it in there.  OK, [].

            [employee]:  Is the Court aware of the document that I had delivered to both of these people?

            THE COURT:  Yes, I’ve read through it.

            At this point my numbed and assaulted brain was finally realizing that Lawson HAD NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ MY TESTIMONY. The document he was referring to, which he HAD read, was my hastily pecked out letter to Tift upon my receiving her notice of complaint to try and shut down my website. I could prove that Lawson had been delivered a copy of my written testimony (enclosed). So why hadn’t he read it? Was it incompetence? Mcfarland had told me that he had a contact, a “connection” in the Kent police department who could fix tickets for him. Mcfarland had told me this guy was “way up there in the department”, and that he (Mcfarland) often “played golf with those guys”. Mcfarland had even offered to have a ticket of mine fixed. So just how far did Mcfarland's influence go? Kent, Washington is nearly world renowned for its corruption---there's even a TV show that focuses on it. But was the place so rancid that Mcfarland was capable of buying a judge? Lawson clearly wasn’t the brightest bulb in the string, but was he also blatantly crooked? I didn’t know, but it was becoming clear that no matter what evidence or testimony was presented to refute Lamb's or Mcfarland's bogus complaints, Lawson wouldn’t hear it.The document I was referring to at this particular time was a no-contact order I had served on Lamb a week or so after I quit. She had been crank-calling my home and hanging up. I served her with the no-contact demand, and so she immediately called me again, and apologized for the hang-up calls, then continued to call me for weeks or months after that. I filed a police report later in the year. Yet even though this document had been delivered to Lawson, he seemed not to know anything about it. I asked him flat-out if he had a copy. He’d have to reply, right? And if he didn’t have a copy, I supply him yet another. And then what would he have to say about Lamb's allegation that it was ME who was bothering HER--

            [employee]:  That it advised them that it was I who wished no more contact?  Do you have a copy?

            THE COURT:  Then you should have no objection to the Order.  Let me, let me, uh, also indicate.  When this first came down the pike, a number of us felt, a number of judges felt that we could, if both parties didn’t want to have anything further to do with the other party, we’d just go ahead and make the Order mutual.

            [employee]: Fine.

            THE COURT: It cuts both ways.  We’ve been told now by the appellate courts that we can’t do that.  That if the other party wishes a no contact order  and if they can show a basis for a no contact order or order to ban harassment, then they are entitled on their own petition to get one.

            [employee]:  What contact does the Court maintain that I have or tried to have with either of these people?  And does the Court also have a copy . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting, nearly yelling) In paragraph 5 of the Statement of Declaration it indicates “[employee] asked me out on a date in early December of the year 2000.  I refused his advances.” 

            This is Delann Lamb’s fifth instance of perjury. No such invitation was ever extended to this Godd*mned skank of a woman, nor would it ever be (see polygraphs). If any one thing had caused me to continue with this crusade, it is this one evil allegation by Delann Lamb. See polygraphs #1 and #2.

            [employee]:  (interrupting)

            THE COURT:  You asked me to indicate what the Court found.  “A few days later, he accused me of having an affair with Mark McFarland.  This allegation is completely untrue.  He admitted to me that he was jealous of my friendship with Mark McFarland.  Throughout his employment, [employee] took pictures of employees at the company.”  Now that doesn’t directly relate to her, but “at one point he started creating pictures of me, my head attached to people engaged in pornographic acts.  I asked him to stop.  I don’t believe [] did stop.  I did, however, keep some of the pictures as an example of []’s behavior.”  I think refusing your advances and asking you to stop indicates she doesn’t want any further contact with you.

            “I asked him to stop.” This is Lamb’s sixth instance of direct perjury. She asked me for specific pictures. She asked me to email them to her. I refused. She asked again, and again. She told me she liked them, that she had no problem with them, that they were fun. Not only did she NOT tell me she wanted no contact with me, she angrily told co-workers that she was mad at me because I wouldn’t come to visit her after I quit! There are witnesses to this for God’s sake! I tried feebly to communicate the insanity of these allegations, but I was beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland, a strange place where there was no such thing as truth or logic or comprehension. I frankly and honestly began to wonder if Lawson was insane. As for Lamb's assertion that I had accused her of an affair with Mcfarland, I made no such accusation. Did I believe it was the case? Yes. But I had made no such accusation because I did not feel it had any legitimate place in a website which sought simply to voice an employee's reason for quitting his job. In point of fact it (an affair) was considered common knowledge around the area. In point of fact, Lamb's cellular phone accidentally auto-dialed the office one day. The conversation between her and Mcfarland, and associated sounds, were quite clear. I later related to Lamb that she might want to secure her phone from that kind of thing in the future. She and Mcfarland offered in their defense only that the conversation and sounds were “taken out of context”. Who cares if they were or they weren’t having an affair? The gripe of the employees (including me) and drivers was that Lamb and Mcfarland were unreachable for well over half the working day, almost every day of the week. That had the effect of making drivers sit in semi-trucks all over western Washington, waiting on some decision that could only be made by a dispatcher (Lamb or Mcfarland). No one cared if they were boinking donkeys---if only they'd answer their phones! Again, why was this issue even relevant in this proceeding? Why was Lawson prattling on about it? How was this to be construed as harassment? Why did Lawson automatically and without reservation blindly accept every single allegation made by Lamb and Mcfarland, yet dismiss out-of-hand every single rebuttal made by me? Thank God modern society has polygraph technology, or Lamb and Mcfarland would STILL be coming at me with harassing nonsense and lies.

            [employee]:  There were no advances.

            THE COURT:  Pardon?

            [employee]:  I’m sorry.  There were no advances.  Is Ms. Lamb willing to take a polygraph test because I certainly am.

            THE COURT:  That’s not necessary.

            HUH? A polygraph may not be ADMISSIBLE, but it was sure as hell NECESARRY! But what Lawson is really saying here is that he doesn’t WANT anything to be admitted into the case which would prove my side. If he had meant that a polygraph wasn't admissible, he'd have said that. But he didn’t. He said it wasn’t NECESARRY, as in, everything I had said was a lie, and everything Lamb and Mcfarland had said was truth, and there was no need of some pesky polygraph that would show that assumption to be false. Why? How had he arrived at this determination? Why did he so vehemently protect his position? Finally “getting it”, that a polygraph wasn’t going to make it into the courtroom (something which would have saved the court a huge amount of time, and would have saved Dart Trucking close to $20,000 in legal fees), I finally decided to try my luck with plain old DOCUMENTATION. Perhaps that was still admissible in a court of law. Lawson had already been given a copy of Lamb’s letter to me, written some time AFTER I quit, and written AFTER I supposedly threatened her, stating that she wanted to be my friend, she had the greatest respect for me, etc., etc. ad nauseam—I tried to see if the judge would react to that letter. How would he explain it? I plunged ahead:

            [employee]:  I have an e-mail from Ms. Lamb right here dated about five days after I quit expressing that she would like to remain my friend and she valued my friendship (inaudible).  Does the Court have a copy of that?

            THE COURT:  I don’t think that cuts any difference.  She asked you to stop.

            [employee]:  I didn’t do anything that needed to be stopped.  She knows full well  (inaudible).

            THE COURT:  I’m satisfied it’s unwanted contact.  As I tell everybody, if you’re aggrieved by the Court’s decision, you have the right of appeal with the King County Superior Court.

            [employee]: I will do that.

            THE COURT: On the appeal, the Court will take a look and see if the Court had substantial evidence to support its findings by the fair preponderance of the evidence.

            [employee]:  (inaudible)

            THE COURT:  Pardon?

            [employee]:  We will bring with us three witnesses from Dart.

            THE COURT:  OK.  I just would indicate something to you, [].  Uh, I really don’t know what you hope to accomplish because you’ve indicated you don’t want to have any other contact with her.  So . . .

            Lawson doesn’t know what I would hope to gain by appealing the decision? Let’s see, I hoped to gain my basic, constitutional right to free speech, and my right to travel freely about the area! What did he THINK I hoped to gain? Was the man really this obtuse? Naw, he couldn’t be. He was a judge. He had an education. He was picked as the cream of society, to defend the truth and bring justice to all---or was this guy just some sleazy attorney himself, with no more common sense than God gave a crowbar, masquerading as a sentient being? How many bogus decisions had he made on this bench? How many outrages had he perpetrated? How could any system allow a man this far removed from reality to hold such a position? I remember a documentary about a clannish bunch of folks in southern Pakistan. They’re primitive. A clansman was accused of murdering some guy. He was caught and taken to trial. The trial consisted of him walking a thirty foot stretch of hot coals, barefooted. His feet were then bandaged and he was sequestered for 24 hours. Then his feet were unwrapped. If they were unharmed, then it was the will of Allah that the truth be known, and he would be judged innocent. If his feet were blistered, however, it would be a sign that he had done the deed. Of course his feet were blistered all to rat shit, and he was executed. That’s how I was coming to see Judge John Lawson’s courtroom. Real Planet of the Apes stuff.

            [employee]:  (interrupting)

            THE COURT:  Wait a minute, wait a minute.  If this hearing hasn’t done anything else, it’s demonstrated as a matter of record that she doesn’t want to have any contact with you, so . . .

            [employee]:  That’s fine, I’ve wanted no contact with her.

            THE COURT:  Wait a minute, wait a minute.  If you appeal this to the Superior Court, and they decide, they agree with you and they order the petition be dismissed or sent back for rehearing or whatever, you still have been put on public notice that she wants no contact and if there is any contact from this date forward in any form, you’ll be in violation.

            Lawson is saying, for the record, that if the order is reversed on appeal, I would STILL be in violation if I got within 500 feet of Lamb or Mcfarland. So now Lawson is more powerful than even a higher court.

            [employee]:  There has been no contact.

            THE COURT:  OK.  If there’s not going to be any contact, then what’s the problem?

            Lawson STILL thinks this is about contact between Lamb and myself. I hadn’t contacted her AT ALL, not even ONCE except to tell her to stop crank-calling my house and to ask for a damned written reference so that I could counter her defamation when I was seeking new employment! Even then I hadn’t WANTED to contact her, but every time I sent my reference request in, Lamb said it had been destroyed by spilled coffee or ruined in the fax machine or lost---- who was perpetuating the contact! I couldn’t care less about the contact issues. All I wanted was my First Amendment right to say true things and to voice an opinion, and to be able to travel about the area without worrying over whether or not I was accidentally coming within 500 feet of either of these idiots, Lamb or Mcfarland. Lawson made an ass of himself voicing his own opinions in the court that day, as did Tift. Yet they were both conspiring to strip me of any right to voice MY opinion! Ever read “Animal Farm”? I think it’s a movie now.

            [employee]:  The problem is these people are seeking to restrict my freedom as punishment for me posting facts and images on the Internet.  That’s the case.

            That was the case in its entirety. Neither Lamb or Mcfarland had had any problem with me AT ALL until I posted my exit interview on the internet. They were simply making up lies in order to attempt to build a case substantial enough to get the site shut down, and get their dirty laundry out of public view. Even then, it was only Tift who was convincing them that they could get the site shut down. In reality, as demonstrated upon appeal, they had NO CASE in the first place! But Tift sure did make some dough stringing them along. As far as I’m concerned, Dart Trucking ought to sue Tift’s firm for incompetent and dishonest representation. Tift's work on the case was a D-.

            THE COURT:  You mentioned these people.

            [employee]:  These people, these two people right here.

            Who the hell does Lawson THINK we’re talking about? He had consolidated the two cases. They were one and the same case now. Lamb and Mcfarland. Same case. Same hearing. Same people What planet is Lawson circling now?.

            THE COURT:  We’re talking about Delann Lamb at this time.  She’s seeking to have no more contact with you.  She doesn’t want any contact with you.

            [employee]:  I don’t want any contact with her.

            THE COURT:  Alright.  So?  It’s being accomplished, so what have you got to kick about?

            [employee]:  I can prove that Ms. Lamb contacted me at least two times after she was served with a notice to stop contacting me.

            THE COURT:  What does that prove?

            [employee]:  It proves that she was the instigator of the fraud.

            THE COURT:  Let me tell you something.  We issue ancillary no contact orders.  We issue no contact orders under the State Domestic Violence Law all the time.  Occasionally, the victim, person being protected in those orders, will contact the other party and say, “Well, why don’t we try to work things out?”  So the other party comes to meet with them and as long as everything goes fine, no problem.  But if anything gets out of hand as far as the victim’s concerned, then they blow the whistle.  The police come up and pick up the other party, the person who’s ordered to have no contact, find (tape cut off).  If somebody doesn’t want to have any contact, particularly if a Court has issued an Order (tape cut off).  I’ve issued an Order in this case.  This hearing’s done.  Thank you.  We’ll proceed with the last case.

            [employee]:  At this time I’m going to ask for a continuance until I can bring three employees of Dart.

            At this point I had concluded that Lawson was wacko, no question or doubt about it. He didn’t seem to have a grasp of what the case was about. He wouldn’t allow witnesses. He didn’t seem to know who was whom in the courtroom. He was acting and speaking illogically. I decided there was little I could do but try to get issues recorded for the appeal process. Lawson was a write-off.

            THE COURT:  Motion to continue is denied.  Mark my filing.  Want to raise your right hand and be sworn in?  Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in this case be the truth?

            MARK McFARLAND:  I do.

            THE COURT:  Just have a seat.  You want to state your name and, unless it’s confidential, your resident address?

            MARK McFARLAND:  Yes.  Mark McFarland, business address is 7724 South two hundred---.

            THE COURT:  That’s the business address?

            MARK McFARLAND:  Yes sir, yes your Honor.

            THE COURT:  Are the statements contained in your petition of Order to Ban Harassment true and correct?

            MARK McFARLAND:  Yes, your Honor.

            This is Mcfarland’s first instance of spoken perjury (he had already perjured himself many times in writing).

            THE COURT:  OK.  []?  Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in this case be the truth?

            [employee]:  I do.

            THE COURT:  Again, do you want to state your name and your resident address for the record please?

            [employee]:  [employee], XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

            THE COURT:  With respect to the petitioner Mark McFarland, do you want to indicate, give reason or show cause why you feel this temporary order should not be made permanent for a period of one year or more?

            [employee]:  Once again, I refer the Court to state that something should not be done again unless it had first occurred.  In order for the Court to state that something should not occur, understanding of some reasonable suspicion that it might occur . . .

            THE COURT:  I have sworn testimony.

            [employee]:  So do I.

            THE COURT:  OK, but I’m a trier of fact.

            This is an interesting exchange, in that Lawson tries to bolster his position by stating that he has “sworn testimony” (notice how he has transformed from the judge to the prosecution, not seeking truth, but simply supporting the case for the complainants). I retort that I have sworn testimony too. That puts us on even footing for whatever obscure point Lawson is going to try to make. He doesn’t LIKE being on even footing, so he makes the next stupid comment “OK, but I’m a trier of FACT.” Apparently HIS sworn testimony, whatever it is, is fact, while mine, whatever it is (he hasn’t even asked at this point), is not fact---it is something less than HIS sworn testimony.

            [employee]:  Once again, . . .

            THE COURT:  Just like a judge or a jury, a trier of fact is required to determine the credibility of the evidence presented to it.  If I determine that Mr. McFarland’s evidence is credible and if I also determine the evidence supports the petition of anti- harassment, then he satisfied the burden of proof by the fair preponderance of the evidence.

            --Odd—the hearing for Mcfarland has just begun. No verbal testimony has been entered. Yet Lawson feels compelled to announce that he’s going to side with Mcfarland. No one has argued anything yet---Lawson simply announces he is siding with Mcfarland. I haven’t even begun to refute Mcfarland’s story! Yet Lawson has decided.

            [employee]:  Mr. McFarland can’t possibly have any proof because no harassment occurred, nor would it occur.  Once again, I’m going to ask for a continuance to bring in two witnesses.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  May I inquire, your Honor?

            THE COURT:  Surely.

            Tift wants to move past this issue of witnesses. I do think she was dumb enough to believe most of what Lamb and Mcfarland fed her, but still, she might have had doubts, and, after all, the TRUTH was certainly nothing she wanted to see come out unless it benefited her. She’d been sitting there for half an hour, wondering just what my witnesses would have testified to. It bugged her. She didn’t want any witnesses. Change the subject.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Thank you.  [], is it true that you demanded that Mr. McFarland give you a letter of reference after you ceased employment with Dart---with T&L Leasing?

            [employee]:  I asked him a number of times for (inaudible).

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  You demanded a letter of reference from him and you told him to think carefully before blowing you off again because it was not in his best interest to do so.

            [employee]:  I don’t believe it is in his best interest.

            I began requesting a written reference when numerous people began contacting me and relating extremely defamatory comments that Lamb and Mcfarland were making about me. I wanted their position in writing. It was a simple request, they could have said anything they wanted, just so it was in writing and could not be changed later. They resisted writing a reference for several reasons, among them: (1) They knew that anything they put in writing could not be changed later. (2) They knew that if they lied in writing, I would sue them for it. (3) They knew that, in order to be truthful, there was not one single derogatory thing they could say about me. (4) They didn’t WANT to say anything nice about me, because they were angry that I had quit, that I couldn’t be replaced, that my route had gone to hell untended, that all the duties I had tended to were now SCREWED UP, and they were going to “teach me a lesson” for quitting. Lamb had admitted to me on several occasions that she had done that to other employees, and that she was good at it (see polygraphs). I told Mcfarland and Lamb that it was not in their best interests to continue to blow off my requests for a written reference BECAUSE IT WAS NOT. And it is not in their best interests on this very day, two years later, to continue to do so. To continue to blow off this request will continue to subject them to lawsuits and other penalties---not to mention the damage to their conscience. Mcfarland, I’m convinced, doesn’t have one. Lamb might have a small, cold, broken one, but after witnessing her little charade in court where she whined that I had asked her out on a date and she’d had to “refuse my advances”, well, perhaps I misspoke--.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Isn’t it true that Mr. McFarland’s face is also pasted into these pictures which were earlier shown to Judge Lawson?  True or false?

            [employee]:  Yes, lots of them.

            Mcfarland had a table in his office which was dedicated solely and exclusively to my pictures of him. Nothing else was allowed on the table. It was in place there for as long as two years. Mcfarland invited dozens, if not hundreds of people into that room to view the pictures he displayed so proudly. Is the man so utterly Godd*mned stupid as to think those witnesses can not be located and subpoenaed? Mcfarland also kept a private collection of the more risqué pictures I made for him. He only brought a handful to court---in reality I had made many dozens for him over three years. Mcfarland had offered on a number of occasions to pay me to make pictures. He had imposed upon me to make pictures of his teenage daughter. Mcfarland proudly called certain drivers into his office and pulled out the risqué pictures I had made of him, and he laughed with the other drivers and said things like, “aren’t these great?” Lamb and Mcfarland also imposed upon me to create gag products for corporate people in California.These drivers and others could have been subpoenaed and brought into Lawson’s courtroom. These were friends of Mcfarland, not friends of mine. For the most part, they are honest, hard-working souls who, I must believe, would never lie to protect Mcfarland, even though he thinks they might. The office secretary, Sarah, was well familiar with Mcfarland’s collection of pictures. She told me she’d testify for me. She apparently told Tift she wouldn’t. Yet Sarah’s father is a Graham, Washington patrolman, and I have a hunch he would have cautioned his daughter about the folly of committing perjury. Mcfarland told me many times that if I ever got rich off his pictures on the internet, he wanted 50%. I paid no heed to the comments, because I had no reason or desire to post Mcfarland’s composite pictures on the internet, even though he’d made it clear, repeatedly, that it was okay to do so. So we have all this talk about pictures which were supposedly used over a three year period to harass and terrorize Mark Mcfarland, one of the most crude and sexually obnoxious men I have ever had the misfortune to know, and Lawson virtually leaps at the opportunity to make these pictures an issue. They were never, ever unwanted (see polygraphs), they were asked for, they were proudly displayed, yet Lawson decided they were objects of harassment and he vehemently refused all efforts to allow anyone or anything into his courtroom which could effectively refute that notion. Lawson bluntly severed any thread which led toward solving the mystery of why Mcfarland hadn’t bloody-well FIRED me if I had been making harassing pictures of him for THREE AGONIZING YEARS. No one would EVER explain that!.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Do you, were you under the impression that Mr. McFarland gave you permission to post his face in these pornographic pictures?

            [employee]:  I’m sorry.  Post them where?

            For just a minute there, I was starting to think that Tift was going to try and make the court believe that I had posted these pictures of Mcfarland on the Internet. She obviously didn’t want to be cornered in such a way that she had to admit for the record that she had no evidence of them ever being posted on the Internet, so she changed the direction of her allegation.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  To make these composite photography.

            [employee]:  As I’ve stated before, I’m not sure the Court has a copy of it.  Mr. McFarland had a desk in his office that was dedicated to nothing but my pictures and there were perhaps 60 pictures in his office.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Let me ask you again . . .

            [employee]:  Which he probably showed to every single person who came in.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Let me ask you again [].  Do you believe that you had Mr. McFarland’s permission to put his head on these pornographic pictures?

            [employee]:  Absolutely.

            What is it this woman doesn’t understand about what’s being said to her?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Do you continue to post Mr. McFarland’s face on your Internet site?

            [employee]:  I have removed every trace of these people I can find.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Beginning when?

            [employee]:  Probably….when I was first served with notice—

            Here’s where it begins to turn tricky. When I was first served notice of these complaints, I read Mcfarland and Lamb’s outrageous intimations that I had posted pornographic pictures of them on the Internet. I knew I hadn't. Still, I thought I’d better go through every single file that WAS posted on there, just to make sure that one didn’t slip through somehow, before I began spouting off about them being liars and such. My site is a graphics site, and it’s huge, at least it was at the time. It was a formidable task to view every single image. But, of course, I found none of Lamb or Mcfarland in anything but a straightforward portrait, about 1 x 2 inches, that had never been composited (the very same appear on the home page of this site). What I did find were two or three images of Mcfarland, and two or three images of Lamb. They had been used as insets, about 1 by 2 inches in size. They were used to illustrate where the customer’s picture would go when they ordered a particular gag product. Lamb’s and Mcfarland’s portraits were the same ones that appear on the home page of this website, but they were branded over with big, block letters which read, “Your Photo Here”. They were converted to grayscale, and they were grainy as heck, just like they are on the home page. With the text pasted over them you would have been hard-pressed to identify the people in the images. But, again, all that’s moot, because the images were taken with Lamb’s and Mcfarland’s full knowledge (just look at their poses), I am the copyright holder of the images, and I had been given permission to use them in any way I wished. As it happens I hadn’t “wished” to use them at all. They had simply, inadvertently been left on some product samples when they got posted. Neither Lamb’s or Mcfarland’s names were ever used. When I was notified of their skunky complaints, I also wanted to be sure that no likenesses of ANY persons of this low caliber were representing my business. I removed the three or five images, even though I did not have to. These are the images I was referring to when Tift was questioning me about “images posted on the Internet”. I assumed that’s what she was talking about, because I had written to the woman and told her what I had found on the site, and that they had been removed. Of course Lamb and Mcfarland knew this to be the case---they both knew full well that I had never posted any images of them that were in any way not “G” rated. If they had found such images, don’t you think they’d be able to supply the court with URLs? Of course they didn’t find any such images, and they admitted for the record that they “didn’t have that information” when asked WHERE the images had been posted.. Tift knew perfectly well that no "pornographic" pictures of anyone had been posted by me on any site. She also knew that three or five simple portraits HAD been posted. So she used the old bait and switch routine to make it look like I was admitting to posting PORNOGRAPHIC PICTURES, when in reality I had only posted simple portraits, and she knew it. But Lawson was just too slow to stay on the track here, and he thought I was admitting to posting pornographic images. Even Halpert, the appeals judge, after this trick by Tift was explicitly pointed out to her by my attorney, STILL ruled that I had posted pornographic pictures on the Internet! Thank Jesus Christ that we have the polygraph!

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  So approximately two weeks ago you did that.  And up until then, you were using Mr. McFarland’s face on your Internet site.  Posting his face for example as a person who is caught and charged as a child pornographer or pedophile.  Isn’t that true?

            “as a person who is caught and charged as a pedophile”? What the hell was this? I had never, EVER created such an item, not even for fun, as I find pedophiles no joking matter, and I had no idea what Tift was talking about. If Lamb or Mcfarland had made this claim to the court, they’d be guilty of yet another count of perjury. But they didn’t make the claim. Tift did. Now, if Lamb or Mcfarland told Tift that I had made any such thing, then they lied to her, and Tift was dumb enough to believe them without asking for any sort of proof of any kind. If Lamb or Mcfarland did NOT tell Tift this tall tale, then Tift made it up on her own and is guilty of defamation and perhaps perjury. Perhaps someday we’ll get to the bottom of this one too. I wouldn’t put perjury past Tift for a New York second.

            [employee]:  Not even true.  This is a G rated site (inaudible).

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your revenge on the (inaudible) site never accused, never put Mr. McFarland’s picture in an area where he was accused of criminal misconduct?

            [employee]:  My revenge on the boss site?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Yeah.

            My “Revenge on the Boss” site? Was Tift going to simply begin making things up out of thin air now? Revenge on the Boss site? I’d never HEARD of such a thing. If such a site ever existed, why didn’t Tift have the Internet address of it? The URL? Why hadn’t someone printed it out? Why was there no sample of it in court? Was Tift simply lying? This was beneath even Tift, and getting lower than her is tough. Tift is, in my view, the very EPITOME of the mean-boned attorney. The BAR Association has recently announced that it is going to begin cracking down on attorneys who are simply mean---mean just for the sake of meanness, for some perverted thrill it gives them to hold their knowledge of the system over others, and to use it like a mean little girl uses a magnifying glass to torture a bug on a hot day. Meanness for no other reason than that it feels good to them, turns their screw somehow, and makes them feel big. That, I believe, describes Leigh Ann Tift. Unfortunately, there are those in the world who don’t cower to such tactics, but who come back ten times as hard. Tift did her clients a huge, colossal disservice by using meanness and dishonesty as a tactic against me.

            [employee]:  Show me a picture or a URL where this was--

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  I don’t actually have a copy of that.

            [employee]: I see.

            WHY don’t you have a copy of that, Tift? Because you bloody well MADE IT UP.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Do you feel that you are, up until two weeks ago, were free to post Mr. McFarland’s pictures on your Internet site?

            [employee]:  Mr. McFarland made references many times over the years that if I ever make money off of posting his pictures on the Internet, he wanted 50%.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  And if Mr. McFarland disputes that, you’d just call him a liar.

            [employee]:  Will Mr. McFarland take a polygraph?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  The polygraph is not an issue here.  The question is, Mr. McFarland thinks that you’d call him a liar.

            [employee]:  Yes I would.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Because you think you had unqualified permission to put his head on any body that you chose.

            [employee]:  Yes I did.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  And that seems reasonable to you.

            [employee]:  Based on these people, yes it was, absolutely.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Mr. McFarland, I mean [], isn’t it true that you made reference to having an AK and knowing how to use it?

            [employee]:  We’ve been through this.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Isn’t it true that you directed that communication to Mr. McFarland?

            [employee]:  (inaudible)

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Actually I would appreciate it if you would just answer the question.

            [employee]:  I’ll answer it in the context it requires to answer it.  That reference was made in a joking fax, one of many hundreds over a period of three years, all of which were very warmly welcomed by McFarland and his people and faxed around to his friends, yes.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  And in fact, in your communications with the Court you now say you do not have an AK but you are going to get such a contrivance as when you call it, you’d get the Uzi because the AK is an inferior machine.

            In my letter to Tift, immediately after being notified of the complaints, I made this statement to Tift to demonstrate that an AK rifle was about the last kind of rifle I’d own, if, in fact, I was predisposed to owning that kind of crap. Of course Tift attempted to use even that. Tift tried to make it look as though someone who DID aspire to own an UZI would be some sort of bad person. In truth, the UZI was the military issue of the Israeli army for many years. It is a perfectly legal device to own in the United States, and a person would be breaking no law by owning one. Or five. Yet Tift is trying to use this to demonstrate to the court that even if I DID want to own an UZI, my credibility should somehow be penalized for it. This is the tactic of an attorney who has no case, who knows she has a soft-minded judge, and who cares NOT ONE WHIT about the remotest semblance of truth or fact. She simply enjoys her mastery of meanness.

            [employee]:  If I was a person who was interested in assault weapons of any kind, that might be a choice. But I’m not a person who has any interest--

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Did you say this in a letter that if you were to get such a contrivance, you’d get the Uzi because the AK seems to be a somewhat inferior machine?

            [employee]:  From what I see in the movies, yes.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Nothing further, your Honor.  I would like to inquire of my client.

            THE COURT:  You’ll have that opportunity.  [], anything else?  Anything else you want to testify about?

            [employee]:  Once again, I’m going to ask for a continuance until I can bring witnesses from Dart to clarify these matters.  These are three people who have indicated to me that if they testify in this matter, they fear for their jobs.  However, they have indicated that they will testify if they need to. I’d like to bring them.

            THE COURT:  What will their testimony be?  It sounds to me like . . .

            [employee]:  The posting of these pictures in public spaces regarding (inaudible)

            I was attempting to reply to the judge by saying that the witnesses would testify regarding Mcfarland’s displaying of the images and his boasting about them to his drivers---this, I would argue, would demonstrate to the court that Mcfarland could not POSSIBLY have felt threatened, harassed or intimidated by the pictures in question, because all of these people had seen him display them proudly, conspicuously, and over a period of nearly three years. The judge asked what their testimony would be, and I was attempting to reply. I thought it odd that Lawson kept asking about my witnesses, who they were, what they would testify to, because this had been very clearly spelled out to him in painstaking detail over 28 pages of written testimony. Why did he keep saying he’d read it, yet he didn’t seem to know anything that was contained therein? BECAUSE HE HADN'T READ IT!

            THE COURT:  Let me warn you about that.

            [employee]:  Sir?

            Warn me about WHAT? I was simply trying to answer his question! Where the hell was this man going NOW?

            THE COURT:  Let me warn you about that.  In my opinion, some of those pictures could be considered to be defamation of character which is actionable and will subject you to a civil suit.  Now it becomes actionable when you publish the pictures and the publishing means you show them to more than one person.  If these people come in and say that they’ve seen these pictures that you prepared, that you put together as composite pornographic pictures, then you’d be guilty of defamation of character.

            Once again I found myself questioning Lawson’s sanity. What courtroom was he in? He didn’t seem to be following the flow of logic. He seemed INCAPABLE of following the flow of logic. Or was this his dumb-act, meant to so exasperate me that I couldn’t maintain a logical defense? What in THE HELL was he talking about? I decided to give up on answering his original question, and to concentrate on defusing this defamation tack he was veering off on. But it was becoming very hard to follow the man.

            [employee]:  In order for these pictures to be actionable, they have to be not liked by the recipient. Every witness that I can bring in . . .

            THE COURT:  That’s not true.

            At this point I began to wonder if someone had slipped Lawson some LSD. Lawson could not POSSIBLY be this far removed from reality, could he? If I make a picture for someone, and they love it, and they thank me, and they offer to pay me for it, and they ask me to make more, and they show all of their friends, and they tell their friends that they love the pictures, and they post the picture on their wall for three years, and ten or fifty or a hundred people are willing to testify that they’ve seen all this---Lawson is telling me that I could be sued for defamation for making the picture? The man needs psychiatric help, and he needs it now. He not only does not belong on the bench, he does not belong out in public, driving cars, crossing streets. This was outrageous. It was NUTS. And I kept right on talking.

            [employee]:  …will testify the recipients liked them so much, they pinned them on the walls in public view hundreds of times over three years.  Now they’re saying they never liked a single one of them.  There’s a huge amount of traffic in the office over a period of years.  The number of witnesses are unlimited.  They’re proud of them.  They handed them out.  They faxed them to their coworkers.

            THE COURT:  Are these people that you want to call in to testify of the same vein as you are, the same beliefs regarding sexuality?

            This was yet another stupid question by Lawson. How could I make that determination? One of the witnesses was Mcfarland’s best friend. But Lawson stuck his hairy hindquarters out their in the atmosphere and rammed right on ahead:

            [employee]:  I can’t answer that.  I don’t know what their beliefs are.

            THE COURT:  Cause I think this kind of conduct is sick.

            Then, Mr. Lawson, Lamb and Mcfarland are sick, and you ought a be chastising them as well. Moreover, I think that dishonesty, bias and incompetence on the bench of a far sicker offense than making funny pictures which everyone enjoys.

            [employee]:  If these people also feel that this conduct is sick, why did they so proudly post these pictures publicly for nearly three years?  Why did they do that?

            THE COURT:  I’ll allow you to answer that question Mr. McFarland.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Mr. McFarland, did you post the pictures?

            MARK McFARLAND:  Not these pictures here, no.

            [employee]:  I don’t believe there is a single picture here that was not posted in the office.

            Curious that at this point Lawson gives up on the issue of whether or not Mcfarland posted the pictures on his walls. I thought there was just the slightest chance that we might get to the truth of at least one issue here. The witnesses could have done it. The judge could have done it, had he pressed Mcfarland just a little--- But maybe Lawson sensed he was getting close to the actual crux of an issue, and wanted to move right along to something else before any truth could get accidentally coughed up like a hairball. "Let’s see", Lawson must have been thinking, "maybe Tift has EVEN MORE pictures she could introduce, and that would make [employee] look even worse! How about that, Tift?" But alas, I was wrong. Tift had no more pictures, poor, poor Leigh Ann. Yet now Lawson wanted to know if “I” had any more. Had any MORE!? I never had any to begin with! Tift wouldn’t even allow me to see all of hers! So what the hell was Lawson referring to THIS TIME?

            THE COURT:  Do you have any other pictures to present?

            [employee]:  Sir, who are you addressing?

            THE COURT:  You, [].

            [employee]:  I have no pictures at all.

            THE COURT: Huh?

            [employee]: I have no pictures at all.

            THE COURT:  OK.  So how can I determine what pictures you’re talking about?

            Has Lawson had a stroke while I was blinking? What pictures are we talking about? The same pictures we’ve been talking about all day! The pictures Tift paraded around in front of you---the pictures she has been referring to for an hour---the pictures that are lying RIGHT HERE ON THE TABLE for God’s sake!

            [employee]:  I’m talking about these pictures here (holding up the sheet of pictures from counsel for the plaintiffs side of the table).

            THE COURT:  You may have pictures from Good Housekeeping.  I don’t know.  I don’t know what kind of pictures they are unless I see them.  I’ve seen these pictures.

            I’m trying to cut the senile bastard a break here. I reply politely, calmly. It’s like helping your Alzheimer’s Grandmother find her way out of the bathroom for the 25th time in eight minutes. It’ll do no good to yell, no good to accuse. You have to be gentle and know that even this shall pass. I don’t want to call Lawson incompetent to his face. I’m already going to lose both cases, but I don’t also want to go to jail. Well, on second thought---

            [employee]:  The pictures in question are here.

            THE COURT:  Those?

            [employee]:  Yes!

            THE COURT:  Alright.  Ask Mr. McFarland, those pictures there, do you approve with those being posted around?

            But the issue on the table was not whether or not Mcfarland “approved” of “these pictures” being posted around. It didn’t matter what he said. What mattered was that ten or thirty or a hundred witnesses could testify that they had seen these very same images in Mcfarland’s office for three freaking years! It was, however, lost on Lawson.

            MARK McFARLAND:  No I do not, your Honor.  Those pictures were never posted in my office.  Never.  Never.  I would not allow those pictures to be posted.

 

            Yet another instance of perjury by Mark Mcfarland, and everyone who’s ever been in his office knows it.

            [employee]:  I would say that almost every picture in here was posted in his office I’m willing to bring witnesses to testify.

            THE COURT:  Alright.  So you bring the witnesses in.  I choose not to believe the witness.   I choose to believe Mr. McFarland.  Where are we?

            Well, here it is, right out on the table. Lawson is informing me upfront, before knowing who the witnesses are, before knowing how they’d hold up on the stand, before knowing what they’d testify to---Lawson is demonstrating that he may well simply decide not to believe them. He's warning me that this will almost certainly be the case. To believe ten or thirty or a hundred witnesses would mean that Lawson had been WRONG about these cases, and God knows we’re not going THERE--- Biased son of a bitch. I’m reminded of a case in which I was driving a semi in California. The Kenworth was equipped with a brand-new computer controlled Cat engine. The Cat had two methods of auto-controlling the speed of the truck. One was with the regular cruise control. That could be set and reset and disarmed at any time by the driver. The second mode was the engine computer, which could control a great many aspects of the truck’s performance, among them its top speed (even its top speed in any gear). This was my personal company truck. I’d enjoyed a PERFECT driving record for ten full years. I didn’t want to get a ticket. Not for anything. I went to great lengths not to get a ticket. I was proud of my record, and enjoyed company perks because of it. I took my truck to the Cat dealer and had them set the maximum speed of the truck to 61 mph. They do this with a laptop computer which plugs into the engine. The engine computer cannot be set, or reset, or disabled without the security code---which only the dealer has. This was a slow speed to be limited to, but it was a speed which ASSURED that I’d never get a speeding ticket. But one day I did get a ticket. For 71 mph in a 55 zone. I was shocked and appalled. The trooper had estimated my speed---no radar or timing marks. I informed him that his estimate was wrong, and could be easily beaten in court. I explained to him about the engine computer. I called the Cat dealer right then and there, using my cell phone, alongside the highway, and asked the Cat tech if he’d be willing to testify regarding the speed control. He’d be delighted. I informed the trooper of this. The trooper shrugged, smiled, and wrote the citation for 71 mph. I took it to court. That cost me $600. In the end, the judge ruled that he would not allow the Cat tech to testify in court on my behalf. Why? I never heard a reason. My attorney fought valiantly---but she lost, and I was fined another $200 and lost my perfect driving record and my perks. Judges are beginning to scare me as no violent gang-banger can..

            [employee]:  So you would choose to believe Mr. McFarland--

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) Well so far, I have no reason, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the credibility of his testimony.  None.  I have a lots of reasons to doubt on the same rules that we use for measuring credibility a lot of reasons to doubt the credibility of your statements.

            [employee]:  For what reason.  I asked of the Court many times to take a polygraph.

            THE COURT:  Your conduct, your actions,

            [employee]: Specifically?

            THE COURT: Your demeanor.

            [employee]:  Specifically.  What conduct?

            THE COURT:  Posting things on the Web site, on the e-mail, taking pictures like that, superimposing somebody else’s pictures on a pornographic pose.

            [employee]:  What pictures have I posted on the Internet?  These?  Are they saying these were posted on the Internet?

            THE COURT:  They were saying that pictures of the other witness were posted.

            Neither my attorney or I can find ANY reference in the record in which any of the plaintiffs or their attorney made this allegation regarding anything pornographic. They tried to INFER that it happened, but they knew it hadn’t, and so they never actually came out and said that it had. But their merest inference was obviously enough! Even though I was never outright accused of it, Lawson FOUND that I had posted pornographic pictures on the Internet! I don't know how he figured ever to demonstrate where they were located on the Internet, but, heck, details, details, Lawson has no time for details.  I wasn’t accused, I didn’t do it, there was no evidence submitted, yet Lawson decided that it had been done. I have never been accused of killing the Lindberg baby either---perhaps because I was not alive when it happened. But I wonder…..would Judge John Lawson find me guilty of that, as well, if someone suggested that it might have occurred? The man is not fit to sit in judgement of ANYONE, and I submit that he is ruining lives with unspeakably dangerous decisions even as I write. The man, in my view, Judge John Lawson, is a clear and imminent danger to society as long as he is allowed to sit on any bench. At this point in the hearing I KNOW that Lawson has not read my defense testimony. I KNOW he never will. But since I have brought a second copy, I want it included in the record that I have submitted it YET AGAIN to the court. At this point I am nearly speechless:

            [employee]:  I, perhaps, I’m not sure the Court has all the documentation here.  I did, when I received this order I did go through the Internet site which is the G rated site.  I did find, I believe, two of McFarland and three of Lamb.  They were about 1 inch and 2 inch insets that were barely, if at all, recognizable, showed nothing but their head not posted on the Internet.  Are they saying there’s some other pictures posted?  If so, where?  At what address?  When?  Let’s see copies of them.

            Incredibly, Lawson simply ignores this demand to get at the FACT of this issue. He SIMPLY WILL NOT BE BOTHERED WITH IT. He doesn’t WANT to get at the truth. He doesn’t WANT to know if anyone can supply the urls of where these pictures might have been (in his own mind) posted on the net. He doesn’t WANT to know if anyone has copies of pictures that were posted on the net. Lawson doesn’t want anything introduced which could even marginally change his mind about the case. He wants no truck with reality. Lawson simply moves on to something he thinks he can make more headway with. When backed into a corner, Lawson drops the picture issue like a hot potato, and tries for something else.

            THE COURT:  You don’t consider this to be a threat, []?  On your letter of, your statement of January 7 of the year 2001.  “I haven’t yet submitted my exit interview.  How you handle this will dictate how I complete the form and what I post on the Web.  Please think carefully before blowing me off again.  Believe me, it’s not in your best interest to do so.”  You don’t consider that to be a threat?

            This statement, made by some other person in some other situation, had already been ruled on by a higher court, and had been found to be “not a true threat under the law”. It’s “okay” to tell someone, “Hey, you better not bust into my car!” That’s not a threat, because no penalty was demonstrated for failure to comply. Similarly, it’s perfectly OKAY to make the statement: 'Believe me, it’s not in your best interests to do so.” I did make this statement to Mcfarland after the third message from Lamb stating that the fax machine had destroyed my request for a written reference. I was fully prepared to go to court to force Dart to supply a written reference. I was also planning to post every single problem I had with this company on the Internet, as a warning to others. If Mcfarland caused me even more troubles, such that I had to take him to court, then that would certainly be a dictating factor in what I posted on the Internet. I would post that I had to take the company to court to extract a simple reference. And I would post how much Mcfarland tried to thwart that effort. And I was thinking seriously of taking up a sandwich board and positioning myself in front of the Dart gate and handing out fliers which detailed some of my experiences with the company (for instance the fact that I had been shorted on my paycheck often, and in ever single case the error had been in Dart’s favor). I felt, and still feel today that these are things any prospective Dart employee should know about, and I was, and am, and will continue to be perfectly within my legal right to expose these things, and to say to Mcfarland or anyone else that “it is not in your best interests to continue to actively work to screw me over simply because I had the audacity to quit your employ! But even though Lawson MUST HAVE KNOWN this was NOT a true threat under the law and had been ruled on as such, he simply didn't care. Or was he too lazy to go look it up? Or was he so utterly incompetent that he didn't KNOW how to look it up, or even that he should?

            [employee]:  Not even remotely.  No I do not.

            THE COURT:  What do you mean, “it’s not in your best interest to do so.”

            [employee]:  Because my saturation level of the drug use and dishonesty in this company had reached a point where I felt compelled to make my opinions known on the Internet.

            THE COURT:  Even at the risk of being sued for defamation?

            [employee]:  It’s all stuff I can prove.  I pulled my punches considerably . . .

            THE COURT:  So you don’t it consider a threat.

            [employee]:  No.

            THE COURT:  I do.  The Court does.

            Had Lawson known the law, or had he taken the time to look up those things he did not know, Dart might have been saved fifteen thousand dollars or more, I might have been saved two years of extreme anger, and the courts might have saved a bunch of time that would have been far better spent prosecuting a rapist. But Lawson didn’t know, and he didn’t care, and he simply wanted to nail me for standing up to him when he was so clearly, so blatantly, so obviously wrong. Arrogance is, I think, that man’s worst enemy.

            [employee]:  I see.

            THE COURT:  Not necessarily to do physical harm, but to do harm.  And you’ve already admitted that you were going to start posting things on the Net, not for any useful purpose but to do harm against the person.  To annoy them, to bother them.

            [employee]:  This was posted in order to save other employees trouble.

            THE COURT:  I don’t believe that for a minute.

            [employee]:  I see.

            THE COURT:  I believe that you wanted to post those things to do harm, to annoy, to bother Mr. McFarland.  You weren’t interested in . . .

            [employee]:  (interrupting)

            THE COURT:  Your interest in saving the world doesn’t impress the Court.

            [employee]: I see.

            [employee]:  Would the Court object if I posted the polygraph records on the Internet?

            THE COURT:  Polygraph of whom?

            [employee]:  Sir?

            THE COURT:  A polygraph of whom?

            [employee]:  I’m sorry.  I still can’t hear you.

            THE COURT:  A polygraph of whom?

            [employee]:  Of myself and Mr. McFarland, if he would take one.  I’ve offered many times to pay for it. (Long pause)

            Lawson simply will not answer this question. Part of him knows he's made a horrible mistake in the case---at least if there's anything left of his mind he knows it, so he won't even reply to this request which will help me counter some pretty aggressive defamation in the community by Lamb and Mcfarland. Lawson simply won't answer. If he refuses, he has to explain why. If he agrees, he knows that will help me with my case. So he remains mute. Curiously, a few minutes later, he DOES reply when I ask him if I may post this transcript on the net. He thinks that will be detrimental to me, so he has no problem with that. He hears the question clearly and replies promptly.

  [employee]: I’m going to ask that the rest of these documents be entered into the record because I’m not sure that the Court has them all.

            THE COURT:  Give them to the Clerk.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your Honor, may I just review them briefly?

            THE COURT:  Sure.  (long pause) Let me see the other papers if you’re done.  (long pause)  What did you mean by this statement I’ve spent the time looking for?  “I am going to let the no contact order stand.”

            When I was first served with the complaints, I just glanced at them. I thought they were merely a request for no further contact with Mcfarland or Lamb. That was no problem; it was about time to take them to court for the reference anyway, and that didn’t require that I have any personal contact with them. I thought it was chickenshit in the extreme to go to such lengths to try and get out of giving me a simple reference, but then these are chickenshit people, with not a morsel of honor to their names. I dropped a quick note to Tift stating that I would not contest the complaints. There was no reason to. But later that same day I decided to read the entire document. I was apoplectic to discover that Lamb and Mcfarland had lied about me, over and over and over, and that it was not REALLY a no contact order they were seeking, but an order to shut down my website. THAT rankled, and at that moment it became a crusade. Our right to expose wrongness and evil is all we have left. We’re not allowed to fight it. You can see what a joke the courts have become. All we can do anymore is DESCRIBE injustice. And that’s my personal line in the sand. I’ll fight for it. I’ll die for it. Tens of thousands of good men before me have done so. Who am I to shirk the same responsibility? I find it curious that we no longer fight the Commies to preserve our Constitution. Now we must fight our elected officials. Except, of course for Lawson---he was merely appointed, and I can’t help but wonder what manner of human being is responsible for THAT.

            [employee]:  That was my original intention.

            THE COURT:  “Because it doesn’t affect my life in any way whatsoever.  I probably don’t have reason to go to Kent more than once a year and even then, any stores I might visit are not within a mile of the Dart office.  As far as for not going near Lamb’s or McFarland’s residence since I don’t know where they are, I can’t guarantee not to actually get within 1,000 feet of them.  I said once, I wish to purge my life of these two together.  How else can you deal with those you perceive to be scum.  Unfortunately, these two do not seem willing to allow me to move forward and forget them.  So be it.  It’s off to court we go.”

            [employee]:  What part of that does the Court not understand?

            THE COURT:  “I’m going to let the no contact order stand.”

            [employee]:  As I have stated, that was my original opinion and I changed it due to the principle of the matter.  I think if you’ll continue to read, you’ll find a statement that said something to the effect that there really is such a thing in the world as principle and right and wrong.  Perhaps the Court doesn’t agree with that.

            Actually, it was becoming very clear that the court didn’t agree with that.

            THE COURT:  Have you turned any of your information over to law enforcement regarding . . .

            [employee]:  Yes I have.

            THE COURT:  Have they brought any, have they filed any complaints against Dart or anyone else for drug abuse?

            [employee]:  I have no idea.  They just received it I think yesterday or the day before.  I would expect that investigation to go at least a year.

            This was another interesting exchange. I’d had trouble with the Kent police before, and with the Aukeen court staff, which is the courthouse Lawson uses to perform his witchcraft. I’d documented what I felt to be corruption in the court staff, and corruption in the Kent police department. This was years before the Mcfarland mess, and I had maintained a website exposing some of this stuff, for about a year. Suffice it to say I was hated for that by the Aukeen court AND the Kent police. Oh well. And on top of that, we have the fact that Mcfarland boasted about having “connections” in the Kent PD who would willingly fix tickets for him and his friends, among other things. Now, in the above passage (highlighted in yellow), right in the second to the last yellow line, where it says, “They just received it, I think.....yesterday or the day before”--- I was trying to remember which day I had delivered my knowledge of the drugs in the Dart office to the Kent police. Was it one day ago, or---and right then someone on Mcfarland’s side of the table whispered to someone else over there, “Two days.” And sure enough, it had been exactly two days since my documentation had been received by the Kent police department. Someone in the Kent PD, and I only sent the document to one person via registered mail, had informed Mcfarland about my complaint within hours of his receiving it. So much for investigating Mark Mcfarland and Dart International Trucking for drug use and the transporting thereof. Good freaking grief. This little tidbit was dutifully passed to the Bureau in Olympia.

            THE COURT:  So how long has this drug use being going on?

            [employee]:  I believe we could document it back at least six years.

            I was referring to Mcfarland’s failed drug screens, which had been mentioned in my written testimony, but I remembered too late that Lawson hadn’t even read it and wouldn’t know what I was talking about.

            THE COURT:  And so you’ve sat on it all these six years.  In other words . . .

            [employee]:  I was only employed there---

            I was merely trying to clarify for his befuddled honor that while I could document the abuse going back at least six years, I was only employed by T&L Leasing for three years, and that probably only those three years would be relevant in this case. Still, the problem had existed, in my view, for at least six years---but as usual Lawson was not interested in clarification or accuracy, he simply bludgeoned ahead with one of the most asinine Godd*mned statements a judge has ever made. Perhaps he hoped it would discourage me from pursuing my allegations about Mcfarland’s drug use:

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) Just a minute.  You keep interrupting.  In other words, you’ve been aiding and abetting this.

            [employee]: Aiding and abetting? (sigh).

            THE COURT:  In other words, if you have knowledge of criminal activity and don’t go to the police, aren’t you in a sense helping that criminal activity?

            [employee]:  Perhaps I was.  I wished not to be involved in it.

            THE COURT:  It seems to be your duty to do just the opposite.

            [employee]:  When you get pushed to a point, your priorities change, yes . . .  The truth of this matter is not an elusive thing.  I think it can be gotten to if the Court so desires.  If the Court desires not to get to the truth of it, it can simply render a decision now.

            THE COURT:  That’s the purpose of a hearing, sir.  That’s what we’re doing.  You’ve said one thing.  They’ve said something else.

            This is another loo-loo out of left field for Lawson. I’m telling him that there’s no point in taking any more of the court’s time; it’s clear he’s reached a decision, however uninformed and illogical, and so why doesn’t he just go ahead and render that decision so we can move the matter along to a higher court and (hopefully) encounter a higher life form. But Lawson comes back with this nonsense about “That’s what we’re doing here.” Well, okay then, I think we all know what we’re doing here. Make your decision and let’s go home! The man is nothing short of belligerent. He's been told to make his decision, but he'd rather whine and argue.

            [employee]:  That’s correct.  That’s why I’m willing to bring witnesses.  Even though it will ruin their jobs, I will do it (inaudible).

            THE COURT:  When did you, you wrote this yesterday?  This document?

            [employee]:  The three-pager, yes.  It’s in response to . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) “Re the matter of Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland.  I’m informed these new parties have joined in a harassment action against me.  I know neither of these people.”

            Lawson off on yet another tangent that has nothing to do with anything. Mcfarland’s and Lamb’s bosses, two prizes named Paul Martin and Colleen Butler, had jumped on the bandwagon the day before, also filing anti-harassment complaints against me. Perhaps they felt that by increasing the numbers, they could scare me into not showing up for the hearing. The fact that I had never heard of them probably had something to do with the fact that their stupid and frivolous complaints were thrown out of court. But in any case, those are the two people I was referring to in whatever documnent Lawson was perusing. I was referring to Martin and Butler, with REGARD to the Lamb and Mcfarland case. What's confusing about this? He wasn’t looking for anything that might legitimately prove my case. He was merely browsing for material to try and make me look stupid. He was angry now, often nearly yelling, making less and less sense, and he simply wanted to belittle me. In so trying, he just made himself look all the more foolish and unprofessional. Read this gem of an exchange:

            [employee]:  We’re talking about two corporate people.

            THE COURT:  Pardon?

            [employee]:  We’re talking about the two corporate people.

            THE COURT:  No. “Re the matter of Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland.”

            [employee]:  Regarding . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) “I’m informed these two new parties have joined in harassment . . . I know neither of these people.”

            [employee]:  That’s the two new parties that have joined.  I know neither of them.

            THE COURT:  OK.  S. Paul Martin?

            [employee]:  I believe that’s his name.

            THE COURT:  You’ve never heard of him?

            [employee]:  Never heard the name.

            THE COURT:  That really doesn’t have much to do with the matter of Mr. McFarland, does it?

            [employee]:  I think parts of that may.

            THE COURT:  I’ve already taken care of those faces.  I don’t think this really helps one way or the other.  I don’t think it helps you at all.

            It’s Lawson who has brought up this topic of Martin and Butler. I have no idea where he’s going with it, or why he’s trying to re-hash it, since their cases were thrown out and we’re now working on Mcfarland and Lamb. But Lawson, ever obnoxious, presses ever onward:

            [employee]:  It may or it may not, I’m just asking that it be part of the record…

            (I had submitted the document to him nearly two hours before—I had no idea why he’d gone back to it, but I wanted to be sure it remained as part of the record, just in case there was anything in it that we’d need on appeal. Perhaps Lawson was trying to get me to retract it from the record? I haven’t a clue. I just wanted to go home and get started on the appeal).

            THE COURT: (interrupting) Sure, but it doesn’t seem to me to have any relevancy in materiality.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  There is one thing, your Honor, that I would like to draw your attention to.  That initial group of papers.  As you can see at the back, [] dummies up gag products.  These are the kind of things he thinks he has the right to continue to do.

            Tift refers to an article that Lamb had specifically asked me to write (she was mad at her boyfriend again for sleeping around, she’d said). I created the article and presented it to Lamb. She said it was her favorite. She posted it on the wall above her desk along with many others. I objected, saying it wasn’t appropriate for an office environment. Lamb persisted. It hung there for months before I finally took it down myself, saying, again, that it wasn’t suitable for an office environment. Yet Tift tried to make it look like I had created this article against Lambs wishes as part of my on-going harassment campaign against Lamb (see polygraphs for clarification on this issue). Knowing this (refer to the polygraphs if you like), go back and re-read Tift's comments in yellow above. That will help the reader understand the mentality we were dealing with in Leigh Ann Tift, counsel (?) for the plaintiffs.

            [employee]:  This is an article that was also posted very prolifically by Ms. Lamb the moment she was doing it.  She also faxed it to all of her friends.  If she didn’t object to any of these pictures then, why is she objecting now?

            THE COURT:  These articles, I don’t see where they have any bearing on anything.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  They don’t, your Honor.  It’s just . . .

            THE COURT:  What do they have bearing on?  Do you know?

            At this point I would not have been surprised to hear Lawson ask, "Where do I live?  Do you know?"

            [employee]:  These people are trying to claim that my joke fax from clear back in August is now somehow perceived as not a joke.  I’m demonstrating to the court that it is my business to make jokes and they were the recipients of several hundred of these jokes.  If they didn’t object to my fax in August, why would they object to it now?  If they thought that any part of my fax was real or serious, they should have fired me on the spot.  And yet, I have e-mails that you have there from Delann. . .

            THE COURT:  Yeah, but these articles don’t say anything about . . .

            [employee]:  They are an example of the type of work I do. That’s what they’re there for. That’s their purpose. You’ve asked me their purpose and I’ve told you their purpose.

            THE COURT:  I think they’re stupid. (judge physically throwing several documents off the bench without examining them)

            Lawson had actually picked up a handful of documents that I submitted, including Lamb’s letter to me which stated she had the utmost respect for me, etc., etc., and literally threw them off the bench with that idiotic, pubescent, stupid comment. I reiterate: The man needs psychological help. He does NOT belong on the bench, making important decisions over the lives of others. He is not suited to this job, and I wonder if he is suited for any job beyond minimum wage. If Lawson were jerked off the bench at this moment and thrown to the wolves in the real world, I would not be satisfied. I would not be satisfied BECAUSE A MAN LIKE THIS HAD SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS AND HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO JUDGE EVEN ONE SINGLE CASE. THAT scares me.

            [employee]:  That’s fine.  That’s certainly your opinion and I’m glad that you’re allowed to express it.

            How curious it is that the court is only minutes away from taking away MY right to voice an opinion.

            THE COURT:  They don’t demonstrate anything.  Well, I guess as you stated yourself, with respect to these two pictures, that they have no bearing on this case.

            [employee]:  They may or may not. They were included---

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) That’s what you say.  You’re using them.  I’m not using them, but you say, then you say this has no bearing on the case.

            [employee]:  They may or may not depending on what questions the Court asks me. 

            THE COURT:  Why did you submit them?

            [employee]:  I submitted them so that you’d have the documentation in front of you in case you desire to ask me certain questions.

            THE COURT:  What bearing do these have on the case?

            [employee]:  Mr. McFarland made the statement at least a couple of times that he couldn’t understand how I could be so stupid as to make references to Dart International when I actually worked for TNL. I’m showing the court why confusion exists as to who we work for.  We were issued t-shirts that said Dart International.  We drove trucks that said Dart International.  Therefore, there is a bit of confusion as to who we worked for. 

            THE COURT:  Some people in the Renton area work for Boeing but there is no Boeing.  There’s a Boeing airplane company, corporation, but there is no Boeing as such.  Bill Boeing died many years ago.

            [employee]:  What merit does that have on this?

            THE COURT:  Well, I was just demonstrating that Dart International as I understand does business as TNL.

            [employee]:  That’s fine.  I already explained to the Court why the confusion.

            THE COURT:  I don’t know you as somebody that’s in the know how you would be confused.

            [employee]:  I’m sorry.  Say again?

            THE COURT:  I don’t know how you as being somebody in the know would be confused.

            [employee]:  Maybe because we were issued t-shirts that said Dart?

            THE COURT:  But you knew that Dart, who Dart was.  You knew who TNL was.

            [employee]:  I didn’t understand what the relationship was and I still don’t understand what the relationship is.

            THE COURT:  I’ve only heard this case a very short time.  I understand the relationship.

            [employee]:  Well, I’m glad you do.

            THE COURT:  So what’s wrong with you?

            What, exactly, is the point of this tirade? I’ve already told the man to make his decision. We’re simply wasting time with this. I could care less what decision he makes at this point. I know I’ll have to have it overturned on appeal. I’ve already mentally gone into “appeal mode”. Just make the decision and stop subjecting us to your psychosis---that was my thought at this point.

            [employee]:  I must be stupid.  (pause)  Can the Court indicate to me why it refuses to allow witnesses to be brought?

            THE COURT:  Because I think that their cumulative testimony, I think this is the date for the hearing and I think if you wanted to have those people here, you should have had them here today.

            [employee]:  I tried very hard to protect their jobs.

            THE COURT:  OK.  How about if I grant you your continuance but order that you pay terms of $1,500 to the petitioner.

            [employee]:  I’m sorry.  I couldn’t hear you.

            THE COURT:  Suppose I grant your request for a continuance and order that you reimburse for costs that you pay the petitioners $1,500 each.

            “I” hadn’t even been prepared for a statement this idiotic from this man. These people earned about a hundred dollars a day. To demand that I pay $1500 per day, per petitioner, demonstrated once and for all that Lawson would do ANYTHING to keep my witnesses out of court. I think that he had been considering what an ass he’d been about not allowing the witnesses, and he knew I was going to appeal it, and he knew that his stubborn, steadfast refusal to allow witnesses would be judged against him in an appeal, so he decided to try and throw this outrageous offer out as a bone to satisfy the appeals court (see, I really DID give [employee] every possible opportunity to prove his case). Lamb and Mcfarland worked two blocks from the courthouse. They spent most of every day driving around smoking dope or in some motel anyway---it certainly wouldn’t be a hardship on them to come back to court for an hour in two weeks. A reasonable payment would have been $150 per day. They would have STILL made money on that deal.

            [employee]:  So you would be penalizing me because I wish to get at the truth.

            THE COURT:  No no no, I’m penalizing you because you’re not ready to go today on the day of the hearing and you’re asking them to come back a second time at cost and expense to them and that’s not fair to them.  We try to be fair . . .

            [employee]:  All I’m asking the Court is that I tried to save these people’s jobs.  They  know full well they could be fired and/or ostracized if they testify against these people.  They have communicated that to me.

            THE COURT:  Do you want a continuance at $1,500?  I think that’s fair occurrence because we spent almost the entire afternoon on this case.

            (Both cases, Lamb and Mcfarland, took 82 minutes, most of which was spent silently watching Lawson scribble notes. Go back and read this testimony sans my commentary. How long did it take you? About 25 minutes. So why is Lawson trying to make it look as though the court has so graciously given me “an entire afternoon”? Answer that for yourself.

            [employee]:  I can’t afford it.  I believe the Court knows that and I believe the Court has imposed that simply to keep me from bringing these witnesses.

            THE COURT:  You want to be fair, don’t you?

            [employee]:  I want to tell the truth.

            THE COURT:  What would be fair to the petitioners who took their time and their expense to be here in court?  Isn’t that fair that they be reimbursed?

            [employee]:  How did the Court come up with the amount of $1,500?  These people make $28,000 a year.

            At this point Paul Martin piped up from the very last row in the courtroom, where he had been presumably sulking for having lost his case against me, “Well, ‘I’ make more than $28,000 a year!” he yelled! Of course neither Martin or Butler were entitled to any reimbursement from me---their cases had been heard, and thrown out. But it seems Martin was so pissed off at having lost so flatly, so completely, that he had been sitting back there stewing all this time, and he just HAD to say something obnoxious and inappropriate. Lawson ignored him. Tift snickered.

            THE COURT:  I could easily ask them to justify $1,500.  I think they could do it in a minute.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  I could indeed submit a cost bill.

            [employee]:  Let’s try a different tack here.  Does the Court object to any of these people posting their testimony on the Internet and if so, for what reason?

            (Refering to my witnesses)---I was considering giving up on any form of “justice”, and giving up on the posting of my “opinions” regarding Lamb, Mcfarland, T&L Leasing, or Dart International Trucking, National Transportation, whatever--and instead posting nothing but polygraph results of myself and the witnesses. How could the court object to the posting of polygraph results? How could it POSSIBLY? Tift was acting very smug and condescending by now. She had Lawson wrapped around her fat little finger. She was in control. They were buds. They were pards. They were fighting the common enemy together (me). They were on a roll---safety in numbers, Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead...

            THE COURT:  Several reasons.

            [employee]:  So the court will deny these people their right to free speech--

            THE COURT:  No no no, I didn’t say that.  If they want to exercise their rights of free speech and make statements that are not defamatory on the Internet, they can do so anytime they want.

            [employee]:  So in other words, they are free to make statements if they are true.

            THE COURT:  Of course.

            [employee]: And can be proven so.

            THE COURT: Of course.

            [employee]:  And I am free to make statements that are true and can be proven.

            THE COURT:  Of course.

            [employee]:  OK.  Thank you.

            THE COURT:  I don’t have any problem with that.  It’s not evidence in Court though.

            [employee]:  I will continue to make truthful statements on the Internet.

            This is another curious exchange. Lawson is telling me, for the record, that he is allowing me or anyone to make any statements they want on the Internet, as long as they’re not defamatory. In the first place, Lawson’s court was not asked to decide whether any statements made were defamatory; in the second place, his court does not have the authority to make that determination. That’s an issue reserved for a civil court, after a suit has been filed alleging defamation. It’s highly curious, though, that Lawson goes to great lengths to tell me that I can make non-defamatory statements on the Internet, yet he had already issued a court order in Lamb’s case, and was about to do so in Mcfarland’s case, which pointedly, explicitly and specifically restrained me from making ANY statement, on the Net or at any other time or place, to anyone, in any context, that was either defamatory or perfectly truthful. This man (Lawson) obviously doesn’t have a clue what the law is, he doesn’t care, he has no clue what the cases are about, he has no clue as to what his role is in these matters, and, again, he doesn’t care. He is simply babbling nonsense, taking up time, making a fool of himself, which I suspect he has been doing for many years.

            THE COURT:  I’ll tell you why it isn’t evidence in Court.  Because any evidence has to be subject to . . .

            [employee]:  I’m not saying that the testimony, the Internet testimony of these witnesses (inaudible).  That’s not a question.

            THE COURT:  What has this got to do with your additional witnesses?

            [employee]:  I’m just trying to find out what lengths this Court is willing to go to to suppress these people.

            THE COURT:  I haven’t done anything to suppress. . .  You know, you were given notice of today’s hearing.  If you wanted to have witnesses, you could have brought them here today.

            [employee]:  I stated to the Court by registered mail that if the Court had any reason not to believe anything that I’ve alleged, it should let me know immediately so I could bring the witnesses in.

            THE COURT:  [], you should know in any legal action, there’s always a chance that the testimony of any person will not be regarded as the truth.

            I thought we were talking about whether or not my witnesses and I could post statements on the Internet, or about Lawson's refusal to allow the witnesses, yet Lawson has veered off on another tangent about how witnesses may not be believed. Again, Lawson seems to drift from one topic to another without any logic in between. It was nearly impossible to follow him.

            [employee]:  That’s fine, but you seem to be indicating that while you’ve been hearing these people’s testimony . . .

            THE COURT: No, no, no.  I’m asking you, why didn’t you have the people here today?

            [employee]:  I stated that several times.  Because they fear for their jobs.

            THE COURT:  OK, OK.  But now you’re willing to jeopardize their jobs. 

            [employee]:  Apparently we have no other recourse in getting at the truth than to bring these people in.

            THE COURT:  That can’t be given the reason for your continuance.

            [employee]:  Sorry, say again?

            THE COURT:  Therefore, that can’t be given a reason for your continuance.  You’re contradicting yourself.  I didn’t bring these witnesses because I wanted to protect their jobs.  Now you say, now I’m going to be willing to bring them in as witnesses even though it jeopardizes their jobs.

            Of course the above had been explained to Lawson previously, as well. I had resisted bringing in the witnesses because they KNEW they’d be fired by Lamb or Mcfarland if they testified against them. Mcfarland had recently made this comment regarding Tim Conner, Mcfarland’s friend and employee, “You know, if Tim wasn’t my best friend, I’d fire him today.” These witnesses all knew that it was dangerous to their jobs to go against Lamb or Mcfarland. They didn’t want to do it unless there was no other choice. I respected that, and promised I’d try to keep them out of it. I frankly didn’t think they’d be needed. The case was SO bogus, SO transparent, and SO EASILY defused by any even marginally competent judge. Still, I had tried to reserve the right to bring in the witnesses if the court was disinclined to believe my testimony. Well, not only did the court not believe my testimony, IT NEVER BOTHERED TO READ IT. So I was attempting to invoke the right to bring witnesses after all, as a last resort, even though it would harm them to do so. Lawson, however, simply didn’t want them in his courtroom. Lawson wanted NOTHING introduced into the proceeding that could support my story. Lawson, it was increasingly clear, would do ANYTHING to avoid looking as though he was making a mistake. I have absolutely NO DOUBT this is exactly how innocent people end up on Death Row. This is precisely how it happens. Were Lawson in a position to be deciding on Capital Crimes cases, I’ve absolutely no doubt he would have already killed innocent people. In my mind, that makes him as dangerous as a psycho on the sidewalk with a gun..

            [employee]:  That’s what they stated to me, sir.  They stated they did not want to come in here and testify because they feared for their jobs, but they stated that if it was required to get to the truth, they would do so.  That’s not my statement, it’s their statement. It’s obvious that the Court has made up its mind here, and I would suggest that the court go ahead and issue its determination now.

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  Your Honor, [] has indicated that he may very well appeal this and so for purposes of making a record, I would like to represent to the Court as an attorney that I have spoken with Sara and there is actually no possibility that she would testify as []’s suggesting.  I’m offering that for purpose of the record in case it does (inaudible).

            Another curious statement from the infamous Tift. It’s not Sarah’s CHOICE to testify or not testify if she’s subpoenaed! That’s what subpoenas are for! Sarah WOULD testify if called. Whether or not she would perjure herself was the issue at hand, not whether she would testify. Sarah had committed to me that she would tell the truth on the stand. Apparently she had told Tift something else. The moment of truth would have been when she actually spoke under oath. There’s little doubt she’ll be called in civil trials against these people. We’ll see if she’s willing to commit perjury at that time. I personally don’t think she will, but then this case in and of itself is proof that I am far too eager to see the good in people.

            [employee]:  She has indicated to me as late as a week ago that she would, so (inaudible).

            THE COURT:  The Court continues the present order in effect for two weeks.  We’ll set another hearing in two weeks.  [] will be given the opportunity to bring in witnesses.  The hearing must be held before me so it may be longer than two weeks because I’m not here every day.  We’ll have the Clerk’s office find out when my next availability might be and we’ll reschedule the hearing for that day.

            This was great news, even coming out of left field and without warning as it did! The little ball-bearing inside Lawson’s brain which completes the circuits of his faulty neural net must have inadvertently rolled to the logical side of his head for a moment. I could bring in witnesses! Fine! Now some ass would be kicked! How would Lawson refute the testimony of all those people? Was he wacko enough to call every one of them a liar? Perhaps he was! But that would make the appeal that much easier.

            [employee]:  That’s fine.

            THE COURT:  Then you bring in your witnesses.

            [employee]:  I shall do so.

            THE COURT:  The Court will also indicate for the record that the Court will consider based on the presentation whether or not terms will be imposed against the respondent for the delay and unnecessary bringing in of the . . .

            Well, dang. The respite from mental illness was brief. That little ball bearing had obviously rolled back to the insane side of Lawson’s cranial cavity. You could almost hear the echoing 'clang' in there. Now he was back to imposing fines. I began to wonder if the man might, at any moment, start foaming at the mouth and vibrate right off the bench onto the floor in a glob of purple protoplasm. My God he was one f*cking wacko. Didn’t Lawson realize how this was going to look in the transcripts and in the appeal? Didn’t he realize how bizarre his performance was? Didn’t he realize that even counsel for the plaintiffs was probably blown away by his irrational shenanigans!

            [employee]: I did not agree to that! If it is the Court’s intention to penalize me financially . . .

            THE COURT: (interrupting) Now wait a minute . . .

            [employee]:  For bringing in the witnesses, then I would ask that the Court make a decision now.

            THE COURT:  On terms?

            [employee]:  No.  On this case, because I cannot afford . . .

            THE COURT:  Well you make up your mind.  If you want a continuance to get these witnesses, go ahead.

            Make up my mind? Make up MY MIND? It was about this time the security guard took up a position next to me in the courtroom. I was soothed by his presence. Lawson was clearly nuts. Period.

            [employee]:  I’ll be happy to bring these witnesses in if the Court is not going to penalize me financially for doing it.  (inaudible)

            THE COURT:   So it’s alright if I financially penalize the petitioners.

            [employee]:  I don’t care.

            The petitioners had brought this mess onto themselves by lying and conspiring and conniving. They harassed me with hang-up calls. They had defamed me to the point where I could not find the lowliest of jobs in a driver’s market. They had dragged me into court with the admitted intent of stripping me of my most basic constitution rights, simply because THEY didn’t want THEIR scurrilous, amoral and illegal actions known. I figured they deserved whatever they got. They were going to be sued in civil court for defamation and conspiracy to defraud, regardless of how this hearing turned out. I couldn't care less if that had to drive two blocks to show up in court again in a few days time. They should have thought of that possibility before they decided to lie and make up stories about me.

            THE COURT:  No, of course you don’t.  You’re not interested in fairness.

            [employee]:  I beg your pardon.

            THE COURT:  You’re not interested in fairness.  You’re not interested in justice.

            At this moment, I felt Lawson deserved to lose some teeth. This was beyond outrageous. “I” am not interested in justice. F*ck this imbecile and the horse he rode in on. This was so far beyond outrageous that I cannot find adjectives in my thesaurus to describe it. This man was clearly over the line with this remark. Who wasn't interested in fairness? WHO, for Christ's sake, wasn't interested in justice? The stupid son of a bitch---

            [employee]:  That’s why I have offered, how many times, 30 or 40 times, to take a polygraph.  I have offered to pay for this man’s polygraph (indicating Mcfarland). . .

            THE COURT:  Let’s assume you did that.  Polygraphs are not admissible in court.  You also offered to ask the questions yourself.  That’s not allowed in a polygraph test.

             Lawson was positively gleeful to be telling me how I wasn't allowed to introduce polygraphs. Tift nearly wet herself she was so pleased. But if Lawson HAD been interested in fairness, in truth, in the difference between truth and lie, right and wrong, morality and immorality, fact and fiction, he would have gone down this road reluctantly, apologetically. He might say something like, "I wish the court COULD consider polygraphs; it would make our jobs easier, but I'm sorry, we can't." But he didn't. He was poking the fact down my throat like it was a long, dry stick, and enjoying every minute of it. A polygraph test was the LAST thing he and Tift wanted introduced in this case, and Lawson was pleased to be able to deny it.

            [employee]:  The last part . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) You also indicate in your statement that you would ask the questions yourself of Mr. McFarland.

            What? I had been speaking with polygraph examiners since the day I was notified of this hearing. I knew exactly, in the most technical sense, what was required, and how the questions would be posed. You write up your questions and the examiner puts them into a form he can use on the test. Was Lawson REALLY so stupid as to think I didn’t know this, or was he purposely trying to make me LOOK stupid for the record. This guy was a menace.

            [employee]:  I’ll pose a number of questions.  He’s free to ask his own questions, certainly.

            THE COURT:  That’s not the way a polygraph . . .

            [employee]:  (interrupting)

            THE COURT:  That not the way a polygraph is administered.  The technician asks the questions.

            [employee]:  In my speaking with them the last couple of weeks they have told me we are free to submit the questions to them.

            THE COURT:  That’s right.

            [employee]:  Then will turn them into polygraph-ese as they call it.

            THE COURT:  That’s right.

            [employee]:  But they will be the same questions that we submit.

            THE COURT:  Then once you do that and have the results of that, what do you do with that?

            [employee]:  Hopefully the court would . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) No, the Court’s not allowed under the law to consider that as evidence.

            [employee]:  Then we’ll post them on the Internet.

            THE COURT:  What does that do for this hearing?  Nothing. 

            [employee]:  Apparently not.

            THE COURT:  Pardon?

            [employee]:  Apparently nothing.

            THE COURT:  I can’t order someone to submit to a polygraph.

            [employee]:  So we’re left with . . .

            THE COURT:  I can’t consider the results of a polygraph.

            [employee]:  How did we establish that?

            I had been told by someone who would know that there ARE circumstances in which the court can, if it so desires, consider polygraphs.

            THE COURT:  That’s outside the realm of the Court.

            [employee]: (inaudible) if that’s just the way it is then we’ll move on to something else or . . .  As far as I’m concerned, I believe you demonstrated the Court, and the transcripts will show it, that you do not have a genuine interest in getting at the truth and I don’t believe that if I brought three witnesses in, the Court indicated that it may not believe their testimonies anyway . . .

            THE COURT:  (interrupting) [] . . .

            [employee]:  You said you would believe the testimony of one person against the testimony of four other people without even hearing the testimony, so as far as I’m concerned, the truth cannot be gotten to in this courtroom.  I’m going to ask you to make a determination on this case now so that we can move along to another Court.

            THE COURT:  [], your comments are entirely unworthy of you or anyone else.  This Court has exhibited considerable patience…

 

            I think my assessment was dead on the money.

            [employee]: OK, that’s fine, then make a decision.

            THE COURT: …and normally these hearings take about 15, 20 minutes.  We’ve extended this hearing 3 hours.  We’ve given you every latitude.  I’ve read through every bit that you submitted.

            Again, the entire TWO HEARINGS took 82 minutes. Why was the man lying?

            [employee]:  Except you won’t let me bring in witnesses.

            THE COURT:  Alright, I bring in some witnesses, at the very best, their testimony would be cumulative of your testimony if it supported it.  So it’s repetitious testimony.  You would expect them to testify as to the same things that you’ve told.

            [employee]:  I would expect them to testify that they have reason to believe that no harassment has ever taken place and no harassment . . .

            THE COURT:  That’s a legal conclusion and that’s not their . . .

            [employee]:  Is that not what this case is about?

            THE COURT:  It is, but that’s a legal conclusion and they can’t make that legal conclusion because harassment consists of a series of . . .

            [employee]:  I’m not asking them to make a legal conclusion.  I’m asking them to offer their testimony so that the Court can make that decision . . .

            THE COURT:  That’s not what you said just a minute ago.

            [employee]:  I see.

            THE COURT:  I’ll offer you a continuance.  I’ll do that.

            [employee]:  I don’t believe, based on your attitude in this courtroom, I don’t believe that testimony of these people has a snowball’s chance in heck.  I don’t see any point in bringing them in before you. If it were going to be before another judge, yes.

            THE COURT:  [], another judge has already ruled that there was substantial reason to believe that a temporary ban on harassment should be issued.  He also made a finding that a temporary order should be issued as an emergency order.

            Of course the judge who issued the initial, temporary order to shut down the website did so without ANY input from me, and without asking for input. He made the ruling before I was even aware of it. I’d love to hear a transcript of the crap Lamb and Mcfarland fed that judge when they knew there was no one present to even refute their stories. I've no doubt we'd uncover another snake's nest of perjuries.These orders are issued like aspirin in a hospital. The issuing judge doesn’t KNOW what the other side is, and he doesn’t care. He relies on the professionalism and sense of the trial judge to sort it all out. Lawson, here, is trying to make it look as though the issues have been put through two separate trials, and that the judge before him has decided against me. Now, Lawson KNOWS this is not the case. He is simply trying to get statements onto the record which support his ignoramous decision. And it worked! In the appeal, while Judge Halpert ultimately ruled in my favor, she actually quoted nonsense like this from Lawson, in order to sort of demonstrate why she might not have to rule in my favor. She even quoted Lawson’s factually incorrect statement to the effect that the hearings had taken three hours, when they took 82 minutes, most of which was silence while Lawson contemplated his navel! So maybe Lawson is smarter than we think---he knew he could introduce nonsensical, factually inaccurate statements, and that, once admitted into record, they lived on as a sort of unremovable monolith. Do these people spend their entire LIVES dreaming of ways to convolute truths and to act sneakily? I believe they do. But I submit that their dubious talents could be more productively utilized. Burger King has openings. Naw, that's an insult to a corporation whose burgers I enjoy..

            [employee]:  He has ruled that based on the statements of these two people without any supporting statements.  I’m offering to bring the Court statements to the fact that their position is nonsense.  The Court seems to be trying very hard not to want them.  That’s fine.

            THE COURT:  I’m not trying hard not to allow them.  I didn’t deny anyone the opportunity to testify today.  Where are your witnesses?  We’ve gone over this a number of times.  Now you say, I’ll bring them next time.  And then if they don’t show up next time, well, I’ll bring them next time, Judge.

            The issue of whether or not any subpoenaed witnesses would “show up” is not in question. It has nothing to do with anything. Lawson simply stuck that in so as to make it look as though any witnesses I might call would “probably” be so unreliable, and therefore un-credible, as to not even show up in court. Of course he has no reason to believe this, because he has no idea who the witnesses are. He WOULD know who the witnesses are, and how important their testimony would be, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY CONSIDERED MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY. He keeps saying he read it. But he did not. If he had, all of these questions would have been answered for him and he would not be asking them.

            [employee]:  They weren’t asked to show up this time.

            THE COURT:  No, you’re the one that asks.  We don’t ask them.  If they’re going to be your witnesses, you had the responsibility of subpoenaing them.

            Huh? Of COURSE I’m the one who asks them. Where in the name of Satan is this man going NOW?

            [employee]:  I was asked several times by the witnesses not to bring them in unless it was absolutely necessary.

            THE COURT:  I heard that.

            [employee]:  Then why are you asking me the same question?

            THE COURT:  I’m not. I’m not asking the same question.

            [employee]:  OK. You have indicated that we’re taking too much of the Court’s time.  Let’s render a decision so we can all go home.

            THE COURT:  Alright.  Did the counsel have any other questions you wanted to ask of your witness?

            PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:  No, your Honor.

            THE COURT:  Just for clarification I might indicate to both parties that the Court did not consider in any way the allegations regarding any weapons for the primary reason that part of that’s based on hearsay and part of that is based on that there was no direct threat of use of weapons as far as this petitioner was concerned.

            Another curious statement by Lawson. I was prepared for him to make a statement to the effect that he knew for a FACT I had been running around threatening people with AK rifles, as Lamb and Mcfarland suggested, even though I had never owned one, never touched one, never been close to one (see polygraphs). Instead, Lawson spouts forth with this tiny fleck of logic and truth. How odd. Perhaps he did this to try and balance out some of his other irrationalities which he must have known were piling up against him. Still, even though Lawson threw the issue of guns and the fax out of the case, the appeals judge, a woman about half as wacko as Lawson, put it back in, and found, as a matter of FACT, that the mention of an AK rifle seven months before anyone objected to it, was the “first instance of criminal harassment”. Halpert's (the appeals judge's) part in this matter is being covered in another document posted on this site, also as a complaint to the Washington BAR Association.

            [employee]: Will the Court kindly also mark for the record exactly what harassment it feels did occur.

            THE COURT:  We have a record which consists of a tape recording.

            Yes, there IS a recording of the session. But if the session contains no specific instances of harassment, what good is it? I was trying to get Lawson to state exactly when, where, to whom and in what manner I had harassed anyone. I knew he couldn’t do that, because no harassment had occurred. Lawson knew he was unable to state any specific incident as well. So he brushed past the question yet again. How many times in this hearing had I asked someone, anyone, to state one specific thing that I had done except ask for a written reference, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do after quitting a job? Many times. Not once was I answered. Did I make a threat to Delann Lamb at 1:35 p.m. on January 19th in the K-Mart in kent? Did I call Mcfarland at 5:45 on March 3rd and tell him I was going to kick his ass? WHEN did anything occur? Where did it occur? How can you find someone guilty of something when you won’t say when, or how, or where, or even IF it occurred? For a few moments there, I wondered if the entire world had gone insane, and if I should bolt from the courtroom to save myself. I was reminded of an old Chevy Chase movie about a wacko judge with a nose that looked like a penis. Chevy was caught speeding through town, and was sentenced to death. Lawson is that judge..

            [employee]:  Does the Court have any objection to that transcript being posted on the Internet as a public record?

            Lawson allowed this because he felt it would make me look bad. He couldn't be prompted to reply when asked if I could post polygraphs on the net, yet now his hearing has suddenly cleared up and he's eager to comply…

            THE COURT:  No.

            [employee]:  Thank you.

            THE COURT:  The Court will make findings in this case.  The Court finds from the testimony of both parties by fair preponderance of the evidence that there has been a knowing and willful course of conduct directed by Mr. [employee] towards the petitioner Mr. McFarland which seriously annoys, alarms or harasses or is detrimental to Mr. McFarland, which conduct served no legitimate or lawful purpose.  This course of conduct did cause Mr. McFarland to suffer substantial emotional distress.  I’m satisfied that he had indicated that he wanted nothing further to do with [] but despite that, [] continued to attempt to contact him.

            [employee]:  When did these contacts occur?

            THE COURT:  These contacts occurred at various times as indicated in the testimony from a period of time from December 21 of the year 2000 up to the time this petition was filed.

            [employee]:  No contacts have occurred, not by a third party, not by telepathy.  Therefore, Mr. McFarland may be proved guilty of perjury.

            THE COURT:  The Court also finds that the respondent has made direct threats which could be certainly interpreted by Mr. McFarland as constituting threats to do his person, his business or his property substantial harm.

            This is a new one--- “direct threats”? What threats? Be specific, Lawson! What, when, where, how and to whom? For God’s sake, this man is insane! What’s he doing on this bench?!

            [employee]:  Once again, we will seek a charge of perjury.

            THE COURT:  The Court also finds that [] had accused Mr. McFarland of threat, misfeasance, an illicit affair with an employee of the office, all of which were untrue, and which [] intended by that Web page to annoy, bother or harass Mr. McFarland.

            I have accused Mcfarland of “threat”? Huh? What? What am I missing here? Lawson has suffered a stroke during this proceeding. I’m sure of it now. He couldn’t possibly be this irrational and confused all the time. He’d be locked up, right? And let’s see now---it is not the job of this court to decide whether or not my statements about these people were defamatory. Yet Lawson has DECIDED (1) that Mcfarland is NOT guilty of malfeasance (how does Lawson know this?), and (2) that I did, in fact, accuse Lamb and Mcfarland of having an affair. In fact, I did not. I described the circumstances of their suspect relationship, all of which was absolutely factual. It’s up to the reader to decide for or agin', on that issue. Yet Lawson finds as fact that I made this allegation. So where is it? When was it made? And not only that, Lawson finds that Lamb and Mcfarland did NOT have an affair! Well, maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t, but Lawson doesn’t know either way, and he has no WAY to know either way. This is not an issue Lawson CAN decide, yet he has done so! Lawson may also CONCLUDE FOR FACT that the sun revolves around the Earth. But that don’t make it so (contrary to what Lawson probably believes). Lawson also concludes, as fact, that my INTENT in posting the web site was to harass and annoy Mcfarland and Lamb. This, too, is a conclusion Lawson cannot make. It’s clear he hasn’t even read the website, but has only skimmed parts of it offered as tasty morsels by the illustrious Leigh Ann Tift. As it turns out, my website was PERFECTLY LEGAL and was also protected, wholly and completely, by the First Amendment---you know, that obscure little line appended to the Constitution which so many decent human being have DIED protecting. But Lawson doesn’t care about any of this crap, and, to him, it is, indeed crap. It’s an obstacle to his mission---which is to stomp down a man who has shown the gall and audacity to stand up to him with logic, reason, and a quiet insistence that at least SOME semblance of law and logic be followed. That’s intolerable to Lawson, however, and he’s piling nonsense on nonsense, in a valiant struggle to bury the issues where the sun will never shine again. And he nearly, nearly succeeded. I submit that past successes in this despicable pursuit have made him bold. And careless..

            [employee]:  The Court is presuming to somehow magically know my intent?

            THE COURT:  It doesn’t require intent, [].  It is whether or not the course of conduct has those effects as viewed by a reasonable person. 

            What does he mean “it doesn’t require intent”? That wasn’t my question. My question was, “is the court deciding what my intent was”? I asked the question because Lawson was writing in his record that he knew what my intent was in posting my website. In point of FACT, the man had not a whit of a clue what my intent was, and likely never will, but even if he thought he did, it’s not a conclusion that any human being can make, stated as a fact, about any other.

            THE COURT: I think that this whole matter could have been handled in a much more mature, reasonable fashion. 

            [employee]:  And so do I.

            THE COURT:  That’ll be the Order.  Thank you.


 

After the hearing on 3-23-01 (see home page for background info) was presided over and decided upon by Lawson, I immediately went to work on the appeal. That the appeal would succeed was not a "gray area". It was a certainty. I believe Lawson knew this as well, and simply "hoped" that his decision wouldn't be appealed due to monetary constraints on my part. At any rate, I approached a number of attorneys trying to select one to handle the appeal. I spoke to perhaps 15 or 18 in all, over a course of months. In each interview I described what had occurred in Lawson's courtroom (I didn't have this transcript at that time). Roughly a dozen of these attorneys had dealt with Lawson personally in the past, and were painfully familiar with his antics.

Now, it's uncommon in the first place for any attorney to bad-mouth any judge. Apparently it's part of a delicate and seemingly counter-productive code of respect among persons working in the judicial field. I say it's counter-productive because I believe an idiot should be called an idiot, a rapist a rapist, a pedophile a pedophile, a fool a fool. That helps us understand who we're dealing with. In the old days, when the population was relatively stable, and people didn't relocate all the time, folks in any given village were able to get a pretty fair idea of what to expect from others in the village. After all, they'd known each other since birth in most cases. Thieves were pretty well known in the community as thieves; drinkers were known as drinkers; wife-beaters were known as wife-beaters; honest men were known as honest men, etc.. But in the modern world, the entire population is being reshuffled like a deck of cards, almost on a monthly basis. No one knows anyone, or what they're capable of, unless others give you the low-down. When people refuse to say anything derogatory about another, even though it's true, it makes it hard for the uninitiated to know how to interact with someone. After all, you may not know that a man has raped seven women if no one clues you in. You have to be much more cautious in your dealings with those around you, because you have no background on them. That's why I think it's counterproductive for attorneys to tend to sweep the incompetence and dishonesty of judges under the rug. Rather, I would say: Let it out where it can breathe and let the chips fall where they may. An honest man is an honest man; a skunk is still a skunk.

In the case of all those attorneys I spoke with while planning my appeal of Lawson's bizarre decision(s), a curious thing happened. This is a statement of fact: Every single attorney with whom I spoke, who also had interacted with Judge John Lawson personally, described him not only as incompetent or dishonest or stupid or foolish or biased or----, all of which would have been a horrendous and nearly unprecedented breach of professional etiquette in and of itself, but every single one went far beyond those paltry put-downs, and described Lawson as mentally impaired. And these opinions were extended to me absolutely unsolicited. That is a fact. Every single attorney used the word "mentally" to describe their opinion of Lawson's shortcomings. They didn't say he was "tough", or "hard", or "strict", or "flakey" or "not the brightest bulb in the string", or "difficult to deal with" or "professionally incompetent" or "dishonest". They said he was mentally impaired, which is exactly, precisely, the conclusion I had come to myself after watching his bizarre thread of logic unravel in his courtroom on 3-23-01. I believe Judge John Lawson is mentally impaired, wholly unfit for any type of employment where his decisions have consequences one micron more weighty than the flavor of your soft drink. I mean that literally, and I shall explain how I, and so many others, arrived at this conclusion.

When I pushed these attorneys to explain to me how such an obvious dimwit as Lawson could garner---and hold onto--- a position on the bench, even if it was only a part-time, pro tem position, most said it was "political".

Great.

So the public in need of accurate, responsible, unbiased, intelligent judicial services must founder at the mercy of a madman (my opinion) because he either has some obscure political connection which allows him to practice witchcraft on the bench, or because the man was born into or married into some lucky happenstance, politically. Well that's just ducky. Next time you're drowning in a river and are keen for some professionalism and competence from your rescuer, remember that our system may not have installed the person best qualified for the job---you may be entrusting your life to some incompetent nut-case whose third cousin thrice removed had a friend who knew the governor's maid who slipped between the sheets one night and convinced the governor to have his aide hire this guy for the rescue squad. And because of that you drown in that river. And that's bullshit. (Note: No one is even beginning to suggest this was the case with Lawson---it's merely an example of how things "can" happen).

Okay, on to the BAR complaint:

OOPS!

This space was to contain the formal BAR complaint re Judge John Lawson. The complaint had actually taken on some weight over the past few days, as we discovered that when the above hearing was over, John Lawson and his court clerk had a little bull session about the case, with the tapes still running merrily along. Lawson demonstrated his extreme and unreasoning bias in this case---in fact, we may well go back to court with this little clip to overturn those small parts of Lawson's order which remained in effect through the appeal. Lawson's comments to his clerk, and those of his clerk regarding this case, were about as defamatory and irresponsible as one could get. This may well have been the straw that broke the camel's back---this few minutes of tape between Lawson and his clerk, with other people apparently standing there as well, may very well have given us enough to bump Lawson right straight off the bench.

There's good news and bad news in this concluding editorial regarding Judge John Lawson. One piece of news is that the complaint to the BAR regarding Lawson won't be made. Another piece of news is that the reason no complaint will be forthcoming, is that Lawson is dead. I'll let the reader figure out for himself which is the good news, and which is the bad. Lawson apparently had a heart attack while leaving his chambers on 12-27-01. We were informed of it on 4-25-02. Here's an excerpt from the Seattle Times obit:

 

By Jack Broom
Seattle Times staff reporter

Even at 73, Judge John Lawson loved his work too much to retire completely. So it seemed in character that when he died, he was on his way out of a courthouse. Mr. Lawson's professionalism and his regard for people were signatures of his work on the bench, Sollitto said. "He was very good at it, always very fair. If someone was in front of him for a first offense, he would bend over backward to give the guy a second chance." "He always wanted to work with people and help them," said his daughter, Pamela Essex of Delta, B.C.

 

Do we feel that the judicial system has been improved now that Lawson (by whatever mechanism) is no longer a part of it? No. The same good 'l boy network that allowed this man on the bench, and allowed him to stay on the bench, is still in place and operating fine. We need to examine WHY a man of the caliber represented in the transcripts above was ever allowed to sit on one single case, and why he was not removed when his behavior became documented. His decisions on 3-23-01 have, ultimately, caused the petitioners far more grief and financial outlay than they would ever have been subject to had Lawson gotten to the truth of this case right then and there in his courtroom on 3-23, and had put a stop to the nonsense at that point. But he did not. The petitioners are right back where they started, nearly $20,000 poorer after having tried unsuccessfully to fight an appeal, and now even more of their dishonest, sleazy, illegal and amoral behavior has been exposed and reported. This is what America's judicial system, with Lawson at the helm, and Leigh Ann Tift as First Mate, did for them.

 

HOME