"Judge" John Lawson (Part Time Pro Tem) of Aukeen Court, Kent, Washington: Complaint to the Washington BAR Association 4-20-02

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 259^th 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 259^th? 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.

        &