To learn about our experiences with Littler-Mendelson (lawfirm, Seattle, Washington), Dart Entities, Dart International Trucking, T-L Leasing, Leigh Ann Collings Tift, Mark Steven McFarland, Delann Todd Lamb, Judge Helen L. Halpert, Judge John Lawson, Paul Martin, Colleen Butler, go to the HOME PAGE of this website. You'll be amazed. Google is now shadow-banning some listings in this website.


Formatted for Convenient Printing



Defense Testimony, 3-23-01


This Page Contains My Defense as Originally Submitted to Judge John Lawson in Aukeen Court in Kent, Washington, on 3-23-01. Much of it has now, at This Late Date, Been Proven by Polygraph Testing. While Judge Lawson Claims to Have Read the Text, He Does not Seem to Have the Slightest Idea What it Said. I Have Concluded that Judge John Lawson Simply DID NOT READ MY STATEMENT. He Has Now Been Quite Spectacularly Reprimanded by the Appeals Court---Who ALSO(!) Did Not Read it! Both Courts Rendered Decisions Anyway.

[Note] In the T&L / Dart office in Kent, Washington, the company names, Dart, and T&L, were used almost interchangeably. Some were employed by T&L, certain management was employed by Dart, other management was employed by T&L, etc. Drivers were employed by T&L, but drove Dart trucks and were asked to wear Dart t-shirts. In the following document, the names of Dart and T&L were used sloppily and often erroneously by me. I could go through and edit the document to reflect the proper names in the proper places, but then it would no longer be an exact copy of the document I submitted to the courts. The errors, while embarrassing, do not affect the meat of the statement in any way. It's probably all irrelevant anyhow, as both courts were so bloody unprofessional as to have not read my defense at all. One wonders what the point of going to court is.



Judge [John Lawson]:

I apologize. I am suffering from a rotten cold and possibly a more serious throat condition. To speak is painful. I am asking the court to accept this written statement in lieu of a spoken one. Were I capable of speaking without pain, I would be compelled to read this statement to the court anyhow---and I doubt that would be a pleasant experience for the court. I will be happy to answer any questions regarding this document.

[employee] 3-23-01



Aukeen Division

King County Court

1210 So. Central

Kent, WA.


RE: Y104034 (Mark McFarland)

RE: Y104035 (Delann Lamb)

Statement for court hearing scheduled 3-23-01, by [employee], Respondent

Iím going to apologize profusely in advance for taking up so much of the courtís time with this relatively long document. But there really is such a thing as principle, as right and wrong, as civil and human rights. Itís too bad itís such tedious, difficult, time-consuming work to protect them. This document would not be so lengthy, had the two complainants not made so many utterly outrageous accusations against me. But they have been made, and the court has asked me to respond to them, and that response must be complete in order for the court to have a chance of getting at the truth.

I have spoken briefly with an attorney regarding this matter. Unfortunately, I was unable to afford his fee to accompany me at this hearing. Using this attorneyís guidelines, however, Iíll state my case in the following way.

I also make the statement that this document contains opinions, conjecture, suspicions and fact. Iíve tried to be diligent in making clear which is which. But I am only human. If the court finds any statement unclear, or its purpose or meaning unclear, please ask for clarification.

The first statement Iíll make is that two current employees of Dart/T&L Leasing have stated that they will, if necessary, appear in court to corroborate a good deal of my statement. Both employees, however, have expressed an extreme reluctance to do so, because of a very substantial (and warranted) fear of reprisals from Mark McFarland and Delann Lamb, their superiors in the office. Both employees believe that if they are even found to have spoken to me, even out of the workplace on their own time, they will be punished in either direct or indirect manners by McFarland and Lamb. I maintain friendships with both of these employees that has nothing to do with Dart or T&L. Several months ago Lamb and McFarland discovered that one of the employees had visited me at my home. In that employeeís words, "they [McFarland and Lamb] went absolutely berserk, and I donít want to go through anything like that again."

This particular employee has stated she will testify on my behalf if asked to do so. However, both this employee and the other employee mentioned above have stated that they wish me to avoid calling them to testify at all costs. Both believe that if they testify on my behalf, they will either lose their jobs outright, or will be ostracized to such a degree that they will be forced to quit. I have promised both employees that I will do everything I can to keep them out of this mess. However, I have also stated to them that, if it appears that I have no other choice in proving my case, I will subpoena them. Both have said they understand, and, if subpoenaed, will show up and say the truth, no matter where it might lead. I have cautioned both employees in this manner: "I want you to be very careful NOT to "side" with me in any way. If I do have to bring you to court, I want you to say nothing but the truth, no matter where it leads. If something you might say would put me in a negative light, then you should have no hesitation in saying it if it is true." Both have stated that thatís how they feel as well. I believe the court would obtain very accurate and reliable testimony from both parties.

There is a third employee who has, Iím told, expressed the same sentiment as the two above. However, I have not spoken to this employee. I have, however, referenced these employees by name throughout this document, and I have supplied contact points. I donít believe any of them would have any objections talking to the court, as long as their employers, Mark Mcfarland and Delann Lamb, were not made aware of it.

For the record:

Steve Ottosen, driver, available by cell phone all day: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Sarah (secretary, last name unknown), available at: xxx-xxx-xxxx, cell: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Tim Connor, dispatcher, available at his job with T&L: xxx-xxx-xxxx

My purpose in laying the above groundwork is this:

If the court has any questions as to my credibility in this or any other statement, I wish to reserve the right in this proceeding, to ask for a continuance which would allow me time to subpoena these three employees. If the court feels that my testimony alone is not sufficient to solidly make my case, then I will ask that the court stop the proceeding, and issue a continuance so that I may supply these witnesses. As Iíve said, I am loathe to do this. I know what kind of twisted, vindictive minds these employees are subjected to at work. While I stop short of saying I fear for the safety of these employees should they be called to testify against their superiors, I will say absolutely that I believe these employees will suffer immeasurably as a result of such testimony. These are good, solid, hardworking people, and I wish to cause them no harm whatsoever. It is my most sincere hope that my testimony alone will be sufficient to end this case.

I wish to state, also, that the court need not take my word for any part of this statement. I am more than eager to take a polygraph regarding every single word contained herein, or on the accompanying documents. For the past several days, I have been contacting polygraph testing companies in western Washington. Iíve been, frankly, shocked at their prices. I am short of cash, because, mysteriously, I have not been able to find employment since quitting Dart/T&L. That is another case that will be taken up at another time, in another court. At any rate, it is one of my hopes that this court will be so sufficiently interested in getting at the truth, that this court would offer me a polygraph test at its expense. I realize this is a tall order. I donít even know if itís within the courtís power to grant such a thing. But it seems the most effective way of getting at the truth when people lie. I do confess some trepidation about the contrivances; Iíve read the horror stories like everyone else. But I think malfunctions and misinterpretations are rare, and Iím willing to take my chances. I say the opposition is lying; they say I am lying. So, letís get to the bottom of it once and for all.

I apologize again for taking up the courtís time with the above preamble. This is my case:

In reading over the two "anti-harassment" orders signed by Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland, I find it curious that I can find few specifics to respond to. Both statements seem to be mostly vague references. I will, then, go through each vague reference step by step, as follows:

Mark McFarlandís statement, paragraph 4, states:

[employee] first mentioned violence in an August 2000 memo to Ms. Lamb. We both took this as a joke. [employee] said his memo had to do with Ms. Lamb and me "asking him to do extra jobs." After complaining that he did not want to fuel his truck, pre-trip his truck, or hook up his own trailers, he accused our dispatcher of making sexual advances toward him-which was absolutely untrue. [employee] stated "Tell him to lay off or it'll go hard on him. I really do have a collection of assault rifles, and I think that violence in the workplace does have its place. I'm not afraid to use my AK, Delann [Lamb]. Please remember that."


Itís difficult for me to even respond to this one.

I am attaching herewith a clearer copy so that there will be no mistake in reading it. Yes, I did write and send this fax. As anyone can see, it is an absolute joke. I wrote many, many joke-faxes to Mark and/or Delann. Mark used to ask me for them, and when a weekend would go by without Mark finding a new one on the fax machine Monday morning, he might feign disappointment, and ask "whereís todayís fax?", He often told me how much he enjoyed them; the staff often circulated copies; Mcfarland often tried to impress me with his own "writing abilities". This was all referenced by me, in my original web site. McFarland and Lamb are now, apparently, trying to insinuate that they have, for some reason, come to believe that this fax was not a joke---? Mark states this fax was sent by me in August of 2001. It very well could have beenóI donít recall. Let me reference, for the court, an email sent to me by Delann Lamb on 12-16-00. I have attached a copy herewith. The whole thing is worth reading, but the section that interests us here is the last paragraph, as follows:

"I hope, in time, youíll feel better about having worked with me, than you obviously do now. I have a great deal of respect for you and will always consider you a friend as well as a co-worker. Ėdelann

Lamb had four long months between 8-00 and 12-00 to ponder my joke fax to her, and to decide that it was somehow meant in a sinister way. Yet, clearly, as of 12-16-00, when Delann emailed me with the above lines, Delann Lamb had no problem with me, my behavior, or my faxes. Why, at this late date, in March of 2001, is she trying to convince the court that my fax of 8-00 makes her feel threatened? I submit that Delann Lamb had no idea I had saved a copy of her email to me on 12-16-00, and has taken to rampant and unchecked lying to try and cause me grief, per her "anti-harassment" order of 3-01. The idea of a fax that was worded in such a way came from a conversation in the office an evening or two before I wrote the fax. Both McFarland and Lamb expressed much concern regarding a number of ex-employees, none of whom I knew. Lamb and McFarland talked often about how they feared that one or more of these ex-employees might come back and do them harm. They talked so much on this topic that I began to glean the notion that they were suffering from a mild form of paranoia. Paranoia is often associated with long-term use of crack-cocaine, cocaine, and amphetamines, though I have not seen it occur much in pot smokers. I attributed this low-level paranoia to that factor, and also I began to believe that McFarland and Lamb had parted company with many employees on less than ideal terms. I had witnessed it, in fact. Employees have a tendency to act badly when fired, and, based on the quality of truck driver thatís available today, itís not unusual for a trucking company to have to fire their drivers. Therefore, itís certainly possible that McFarland and Lamb really did suffer from some legitimate fears regarding ex-employees. The trouble was, they talked about it SO MUCH, that I began to wonder how much of the trouble was in their imaginations, and how much of the trouble they had instigated. In my three years at T&L I saw employees treated very shoddily indeed. Many were treated far worse than me. Iíve personally heard Mcfarland make racial comments on at least two or three occasions. I believe he treated his African American employees with slightly less dignity than he treated the whites. Polygraph, polygraph, polygraph! I donít want to hear the words "Thatís a lie; I never said any such thing." My feeling is: Just take the polygraph, and there will be no more need for accusations.

At any rate, an evening or two before I wrote the offending fax, McFarland and Lamb had, once again, been talking about ex-employees they were afraid of. At one point Lamb made the comment that if she had to worry about any ex-employee, sheíd have to worry about me. I told her thanks a lot. Then she said she was kidding---that she expected, rather, that I would act more like that big fat guy on "Survivor", and that I would be a mellow person to fire. This was all said in jest, with everyone chuckling. Then she stated that she knew I was the kind of guy who might "drag her butt into court", but that she knew she would never have anything other than that to fear from me. The court is certainly welcome to ask the three employees referenced above if they remember the statement. I do "seem" to recall that Sarah was present. In any case, we joked around the office about this for some time. That gave me the idea to write the gag fax, which has never been objected to until now. Still, I stand by my fax! I contend that there is no one on the planet who could take such a silly and far-fetched document seriously, of even half seriously. I am astounded that even McFarland or Lamb would try to use such a document against me. It demonstrates to me that either (1) they are farther off their rockers than I ever dreamed, or (2) they are so desperate to come up with things to use against me, where little or nothing actually exists, that they will go to bizarre and outlandish extremes such as this and simply make things up. Or both. If we were able to somehow magically look inside the heads of McFarland and Lamb, we would clearly see that neither of them feels threatened by my fax to any degree. Yet, in lieu of anything real, they feel compelled to try to make the court buy their stories. As I have found so much other of their behavior and moral codes disgusting, I find this ploy particularly putrid.

Ms. Lamb further states (under penalty of perjury):

[employee] voluntarily resigned his position with the company on December 21, 2000. Prior to that time, and subsequent, he began to make statements to me that I believed were threatening, abusive, and alarming.

Once again I will direct the courtís attention to Ms. Lambís email to me on 12-16-00 the last two lines of which read:

"I hope, in time, youíll feel better about having worked with me, than you obviously do now. I have a great deal of respect for you and will always consider you a friend as well as a co-worker. Ėdelann

Ms. Lamb does not tell us exactly what the threats were that I supposedly made against her, or when I might have made them, except to say that they were made prior to my quitting T&L. Well, letís see now. Ms. Lamb was perfectly happy with me on 12-16. That was on a Saturday. That was the day I quit. I worked Monday and barely spoke to Lamb at all. I doubt that five words passed between us. I avoided her almost entirely. I did not work Tuesday, nor was I in the office or around the office. I retrieved Ms. Lambís email on Wednesday, which I also did not work. I did not work on Thursday, either, which was technically my last day as an employee of T&L. I didnít work these days because, very honestly, to be in the presence of either of these two people made me physically ill. So letís look at the facts. This is one of those cases which do not require the services of a polygraph tester, nor does the court need to hear from reluctant witnesses to get to the bottom of this particular mystery. Ms. Lamb states very clearly in her deposition to the court that, prior to my quitting, "[he made] statements to me that I believed were threatening, abusive, and alarming." This is taken directly from Lambís statement. Iíd like the court to ask Lamb, without giving her prior knowledge of its reason for asking, exactly when I made those alleged statements that were "threatening, abusive and alarming". Kindly ask her exactly what those threats were. Please ask her these questions under oath, so that I may supply the answers to the King County Prosecutorís office when I ask that a charge of perjury be filed against Ms. Lamb. This is not a rhetorical request. I am, herewith, officially asking the court to perform these acts. It is the courts responsibility to get at the truth in this matter. The court has demanded that I respond to this case in order that it may get at the truth. So be it. I am affording the court an opportunity to get at the truth. The court has a legal and moral obligation to not overlook paths which are likely to lead it to the truth. I ask that the court follow through on its own agenda. If it is Lambís contention that I made threats to her between 12-16 (when she obviously had no problem with me whatsoever), and 12-18-00, which was the last day of my physical employment with the company, when could I have made these threats? Ms. Lamb is lying, and I sincerely hope this court is adept enough to figure that out for itself.

Ms. Lamb states: On August 3, 2000, I received a message from [employee] that complained that [employee] did not want to fuel his truck, pre-trip his truck, or hook up his own trailers. He then accused our dispatcher of making sexual advances toward him and stated "Tell him to lay off, or it'll go hard on him. I really do have a collection of assault rifles, and I think that violence in the workplace does have its place. I'm not afraid to use my AK, Delann. Please remember that. You are all a bunch of stinking Christmas Poops, and if you don't lighten up on me, Iím going to make you all very, very sorry." Although I believed that [employee] was joking, I also believe he has an AK and other guns. Since [employee] has left, the fact that he has all of these guns does trouble me.

Lamb states that she believed the aforementioned fax was a joke. This material has been covered previously, and I wonít go through it again here. Of course the fax was a joke. Corky Thatcher himself would know itís a joke. Ms. Lamb has felt that she needs to assert that my humorous accusation of Tim Connor making sexual advances toward me is untrue. Of course itís untrue! Itís a joke! Tim Connor certainly wasnít offended by it. He has made many (many!) similar comments to me, about me. Those were jokes as well. Please feel (more than) invited to speak with Mr. Connor. Youíll find that he has never had trouble understanding that the accusation was a joke, and he will, Iíve no doubt, further advise the court that he does not believe, in his wildest dreams, that McFarland or Lamb ever thought it was more than a joke, nor do they think so now. Once again, itís clear that these two have nothing legitimate to base their complaints on, so they have tried to turn a joke into a serious accusation. By struggling to make the point that my humorous accusation about the dispatcher (Tim Connor) is not true, they (Lamb and McFarland) they are working hard to turn it into a statement which requires denial. The entire issue is hogwash and is not worthy of further comment, except to say that this should further demonstrate to the court that Lambís and McFarlandís sole purpose in filing these complaints at all is not to defend their own safety or privacy, but to retaliate against me for simply telling the truth when I posted my opinions on the Net, and to maliciously, even viciously, conspire and endeavor to harass me by making me respond to utterly ludicrous allegations, an act I find wholly disgusting.

[employee] asked me out on a date in early December of 2000. 1 refused his advances. A few days later he accused me of having an affair with Mark McFarland, an employee of Dart. This allegation is completely untrue. [employee] then admitted to me that he was jealous of my friendship with Mark McFarland.

This particular allegation is one that makes me quite angry, and I find that I am having trouble formulating a coherent defense. I most assuredly did not ask this woman out on a date. I did not speak words that could in any way be construed as meaning that. I have never asked Delann out on a date even in jest. She knows this very well and it is, in a backhanded kind of way, part of the problem. I even felt compelled to explain to Delann Lamb that I had never asked her out on a date. I felt this was necessary because she kept referencing an incident which had occurred in about September of 1998, and here it is: Delann Lamb had been making references to the fact that she was going to be in Seattle sometime in the next few days, and would be about two blocks from where we live downtown. Lamb brought this up about a dozen times within one working day. I finally said this: "Well, Delann, if youíre going to be in Seattle, feel free to give me a call and we can go for coffee". I had no way of knowing if she would be with her husband or anyone else, and I could have just as easily been with my wife. I did not say, "please give me a call". I did not say "Iíd like to take you Ďoutí for coffee". I simply left it open. At the moment I said it, I had a flash of thought which made me wonder if she had taken it the wrong way. But she did not refuse the offer, nor did she accept it, nor did she bring it up again, nor did I. In the midst of work, I forgot about it as well. My open invitation was not romantic in nature. Unfortunately, I feel that that very fact has contributed to some of Lambís behavior of late. I was surprised when, about a year and a half after this conversation, while sitting in the office, Lamb made some kind of statement to me about my asking her out. I stopped, thought for a moment, and then remembered the coffee invitation from about a year and a half year before. I realized than that Delann had some kind of issue with it, and I knew it had to be dealt with right then and there. I very gently explained to Lamb that the coffee offer from 1998 was simply an offer from me for conversation, and that no romantic overtones were involved at all. I could see in her face and hear in her voice that she understood that, and that it miffed her in some small way. But, as my wife of 29 years constantly tells me, I always underestimate the wrath of a woman. This statement by Lamb that I "asked her out on a date in December of 2000 and that she was forced to avoid my advances" makes me as angry as I can remember being in my life. I spent three years at T&L trying to AVOID any situation where any female employee could make any such allegation against me. But now, to have one go ahead and make one up in lieu of a real one? Lamb oughta get six months in the hole for it. Itís disgusting. It is a very desperate ploy by Lamb, and, frankly, as much as I disrespect the woman, this is a low blow even for her. I never, ever would have even remotely imagined that Delann Lamb was capable of this. This is a very serious allegation, and one which must be dealt with via polygraph. One way or another, no matter how this case is decided, if I can afford no more than one lousy question at the polygraph examinerís office, I will, with God as my witness, take a polygraph to this particular question, and publicize the result. This allegation is heinous. And it constitutes clear, direct and premeditated perjury. Period. My wife has always been, and always will be, made well aware of every single interaction Iíve ever had with the infamous Delann Lamb. My wife and I have had a number of conversations regarding this woman. After my wife met her for the first time, she couldnít believe that I would work with people such as Lamb and Mcfarland. At the time, I didnít know what she meant. I know now. Please feel very free to contact my wife at home or at work as follows: XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, 206-XXX-XXXX. She takes Sunday and Wednesdays off, otherwise she is there from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and she doesnít take a break four hours a day with her boss.. Ask her any question you like.

Regarding Lambís statement that I "accused" her of having an affair with McFarland, I wouldnít use the word "accuse", but she may if she wishes. I told her that I "believed" it was probably true, but that I was not completely sure, and had no need to be sure. The issue being discussed was the counter-productivity of not being available for hours during the heart of every workday, when drivers needed managerial decisions regarding the movement of freight. I made this statement after considering the following pieces of information: (1) Lamb and McFarland "vanished" from work, when they were supposed to be working, as many as 4.5 hours per day (that I personally witnessed), nearly every day. (2) They were almost always unreachable during these periods. (3) I overheard somewhat intimate conversations between McFarland and Lamb; they seemed to converse in a manner that indicated a relationship far beyond co-workers. (4) I based my opinion also on the fact that Lambís cellular phone, untended, "accidentally" called the office one day, and was "somehow" routed to the speakerphone. Itís anyoneís worst nightmare, and the contents of the conversation that was transmitted to the office left no, or little doubt in my mind as to whether or not an affair was occurring. (5) Lamb admitted that her husband felt she was having an affair. (6) Mcfarland made comments to the effect that his wife had also expressed the same concerns. Still, an "affair" was not my concern---what was my concern was my inability, and the inability of all other drivers, to be able to contact Lamb or McFarland for many hours of every day, when they were supposed to be working. I had tried to help Lamb head off a general revolt among the crew by advising her that there were some very, very angry employees over this problem. Lamb, however, in her usual arrogant form, vehemently defended her actions. I didnít care if Delann Lamb took up with a herd of donkeys, as long as we could get ahold of her when decisions needed to be made regarding shipments.

But I discover that I have lost the track of the argument here.

Lamb seems to be using the affair issue to try and demonstrate that I was jealous of McFarland and his relationship with Lamb, and that that might give me some twisted motive for harassing Lamb and/or McFarland. I think if you will speak with the office secretary, Sarah, who fears desperately for her job if she is ever discovered "helping [employee]", you will uncover an inkling of my true feelings for Delann Lamb. Iím going to insert a short segment from the web site for clarification of my feelings for Delann Lamb. As always, I will take a polygraph regarding my statements. In one case, however, as noted, no polygraph is needed as the secretary, Sarah, was present.

From the website:

[employee]: In December of 2000, as I sat talking with (the secretary) after work, Delann, completely out of the blue, stated, verbatim: "You know [], I would never go to bed with you." Sarah and I both looked over at her, and didn't know what to say. Finally, I said, "Well, Delann, in order to refuse, it's customary to have first been asked." Delann looked flustered for a moment, then said, "Well, I know, but still, I'd never go to bed with you." I replied, "Well, when I ask you, you can refuse." Then I turned back to my conversation with Sarah. Once again, let's put myself, Sarah and Delann on a polygraph. Well, heck---there's no need to put Sarah on a polygraph because I'm sure she'll tell the truth without one. In December of 2000 Delann Lamb called me over to her car as she was leaving the parking lot, and stated: "You know, [], if I thought you'd be a good Daddy to my kids, I'd be on you like XXXXX." This is a verbatim quote, and, once again, can be verified by both parties (Lamb and myself) taking a polygraph test. Once again, I herewith offer to pay for said test.

These statements are 100% true, and can be verified to be true by scheduling me for a polygraph. I think these statements should demonstrate to the court that I was certainly not "hot after Delann Lamb", or anything close to it. Iím going to relate one last incident to finish up this particular topic. About one year ago Lamb financed a breast implant procedure at a local hospital. She was quite proud of her new breasts, and asked virtually every single man who came through the office what they thought of them. I knew that the office was quite loose, sexually, and I had no problem with that, except that I felt it best to keep things at armís length to some degree. Iím no prude, and I joked and bantered with the best of them, though once in awhile the tone of the ambient conversation bothered even me, and I found myself opting out or leaving the room altogether. But on one occasion, probably in the late summer or early fall of 2000, Delann came back into the driverís room and, as usual, made some reference to her breasts. She asked me if I wanted to see her scar. Before I could answer, she had pulled her shirt up to expose the bottom third of her left breast, and part of the right. She lifted her left breast up slightly so as to expose the scar underneath it.. I expressed surprise, saying that I thought the procedure was usually done under an arm. She stated that usually it was, but that for some reason they had inserted the implants under each breast in her case. Iíll say again that I am not a prude. Some might say my sense of humor is disgusting, and I wouldnít contest it. But this act frankly shocked and disgusted me, and I told her so then and there. I believe this hurt her feelings, and I am sorry for that. I should have been more sensitive. My comments were a knee-jerk reaction. In truth, I might have enjoyed seeing a womanís breasts. But I did most definitely not enjoy seeing a womanís scar. Again, put me on a polygraph machine, please. I can tell the court exactly where the scar is located, and what it looks like. How could I do this if I had not seen it? I cannot and will not tolerate being called a liar, and I will not tolerate those who lie about me. I had never intended to bring any kind of sexual issue into this dispute. Itís ungentlemanly. I am most sorry that McFarland and Lamb have forced me to respond to sexual issues. It was beneath even them to enter them into the equation.

Lamb continues: Throughout his employment, [employee] took pictures of employees at the company. He used his computer skills to attach these pictures to funny images like fish or articles on lottery winners. At one point, he started creating pictures of me with my head attached to people engaged in, pornographic acts. I asked him to stop. I don't believe that [employee] did stop. I did, however, keep some of the pictures as examples of [employee]'s behavior. When he was still working for T & L, [employee] emailed me directly at home. He sent some of these computer pictures to me at home.

Yes, I did take pictures of the employees, Ms. Lamb among them. Yes, I did use my computer skills to make composites of those pictures. Lamb states that "at one point, [employee] began making pictures of me in pornographic acts." In point of fact, I made many pictures of Lamb, McFarland and Connor, with clothes on, and with clothes off. These pictures were, in my opinion, always tasteful. More importantly, they were asked for. This is such an easy allegation to disprove that I truly wonder why Delann grasped at it. First: Lamb never asked me to stop making pictures of her, even pictures with sexual overtones. I asked Lamb many, many times to please let me know if my pictures even approached anything she would find offensive. She replied, many times, that they did not. She did ask, however, that she be allowed to see them before anyone else did. I agreed completely. Unfortunately, a few months later, after this request, I did forget about the request, and showed one or two new pictures I had created of Delann, to Tim Connor, without having cleared them through Delann first. Lamb called me on it, and, in a flash, I remembered the promise I had made her. I had broken it, and there was not one thing I could say in my defense. I apologized profusely to Lamb then, and I apologize profusely to her now. I was wrong. At the time, Lamb took the pictures I had showed Connor, said she had no objection to them, and passed them around. The fact that Lamb was not offended by the pictures and was, apparently, even proud of them, does not diminish the fact that I made a mistake and was wrong for not clearing the pictures with Lamb first. I apologize once again for not honoring Lambís request.

Lamb states that I emailed her at home, and sent her some of these "pornographic" pictures at home. I did email Lamb several pictures of McFarland, which Lamb specifically asked for. I do not believe I ever emailed Lamb any pictures of herself, mostly because the file sizes on all my works are huge, and itís just too much trouble to email them. Had Lamb asked for pictures of herself, I would have emailed them when I had time. I only remember her asking for pictures of Mcfarland. Any pictures I made of Delann I gave to her at the office, in front of numerous witnesses. Lamb happily faxed many of my pictures of her, to various T&L or Dart offices around the country. Iím sure we could find some of those recipients. Apparently Lamb is trying to paint the picture here that I was some crazed pornographer, who harassed her by making unacceptable pictures of her, and then bombarding her email account with them. This is 180 degrees opposed from the truth, and McFarland and Lamb know this very, very well. As proof of the fact that Lamb and McFarland both held my artwork in high regard, I am prepared to do the following:

(1) I will take a polygraph regarding the issue.

(2) I will pay for Lambís polygraph regarding this issue.

(3) I will pay for McFarlandís polygraph regarding this issue.

(4) I will supply on the order of one to two dozen witnesses who personally witnessed pictures of Delann in all sorts of poses and states of dress and undress, posted very prominently on almost every vertical surface of the office, including the corkboard above Lambís desk. I would estimate that somewhere around 100-150 pictures were displayed in this manner, of Lamb, Mcfarland, Connor, Sarah, and others, over the course of three years, almost all of which were placed on display by Lambís own hand. In addition, Lamb made a broad practice, over the entire three years, of taking many of these pictures out of her desk drawer and showing them to out of town drivers, out of town corporate management, delivery drivers, maintenance people, and pretty much anyone who came into the office with which Lamb established any kind of personal interaction. These pictures littered the walls and bulletin boards of this office for three years---and were there the last day I worked. There are, likely, literally hundreds of witnesses to this. Iím sure that I, personally, can come up with one or two dozen, if it will satisfy the court. Lambs attempt to convince the court that I made these pictures against her will is beyond ludicrous. Again, this allegation is so easily proven false that I have no explanation for why she would even try to assert it. I just canít imagine anyone being that dumb. Again, I attribute this to long term, heavy drug use, and the resultant loss of cognizant abilities which so often accompanies long term drug use. Thatís my opinion.

Lamb, over the years, emailed me many times---perhaps as many as thirty. Usually, her emails included copies of raunchy jokes and/or pornographic pictures. Some of the jokes she sent me did, in fact, offend me, and I am, as Iíve stated, very, very hard to offend. Lamb sent me images and stories and jokes that I would never allow on my computer, let alone to send to someone via email. I never "really" complained to Lamb about these more revolting pictures, because, as Iíve said, this was a very loose office, and I realize that everyone has different tastes. I didnít consider Lambís emails to be any kind of significant problem. Iíve already provided the court with one email from Lamb to me which shows certain of her statements to be untruthful, libelous and perjurious. In the hours left before this hearing Iíll do my best to go back through my archives to try to find other emails from Lamb to me which demonstrate that she could not possibly be offended by anything anyone might email to her. This is one rank woman, and I deeply resent her trying to portray herself as some timid wallflower who was harassed by some porno-crazed bad man who sent her inappropriate emails. I recall a situation a couple of years ago when a corporate manager called Lamb and asked her if she knew of any sexual harassment in the office. Lamb replied, seriously, "No, why, did someone complain about me?" Polygraph, polygraph, polygraph.


Lamb states: On December 19, 2000, my house keys were stolen from my car, which was parked at work, and my home was burglarized. The only things stolen from my home were the computer generated pictures, the hard drive to my computer, jewelry and my DVD/Stereo system

This is another of the very hard accusations to read---and respond to. Lamb stops short of saying I committed this act. But she certainly seems to hint at it, just by brining it up in the context of this complaint. In point of fact, Lamb knows for certain that I had nothing to do with any burglary which might have (I said "might have" and Iíll explain shortly), occurred at her house. She seems also to be insinuating that someone (me, presumably), stole only her pictures and the hard drive out of her computer (!!??), and that, therefore, she has no proof of the awful pictures I made of her, which harassed and offended her for three long and dreadful years. Well, letís examine this issue as weíve examined the others. Hereís Lambís account of what befell her, some few days or a week after I quit:

Lamb states: "On December 19, 2000, my house keys were stolen from my car, which was parked at work, and my home was burglarized."

Had I been, in some fluke of fate, in a position to have captured anyone stealing things out of Lamb's car, or out of her house, or anyone else's car or house, it would not have fared well for the thief. My life is based on honor and truth. Hereís the rest of Delann Lambís most amazing story:

Lamb claims that she parked her car next to the Dart company office as usual. That's in plain view of the office windows, as is the only entrance to the yard. Lamb admits she left her entire key set in her car ignition as she always did (smart). Lamb states that, in broad daylight, in full view of the large, open, uncurtained windows of the office, someone came into the (truck) yard, opened the trunks and doors of several vehicles parked next to hers, and removed such items as "weed-eaters" and "vacuum cleaners", and who knows what else. She claims that the thief or thieves then moved to her car (or maybe they ransacked her car first) and took several items, among them her car and house keys. The thieves then, she claims, went to her house (how did they know where she lived?), broke in the front door, and stole stereo equipment and a DVD player, and whatnot. Then they ransacked the house and left. At no time did she ever mention to me that the thieves had stolen any pictures from her---that's a new one, made up, we might presume, for her anti-harassment order. Also, at no time did she mention to me that the thieves had stolen "the hard drive out of her computer"???? When asked if she had neighbors who might have seen anything, she replied to me that she did have neighbors who could see her house. When asked if her neighbors had seen anything, she said they did not (!) (possible, but unlikely). She also stated that the thieves left some bunch of valuable items in the house. Now, strange things do happen from time to time, but quite honestly, I have a hard time with this scenario. I have a hard time believing any of it. I have found myself wondering if this event even occurred. They stole the hard drive out of her computer? That one line alone is enough to make me wonder if this whole thing was some LSD trip gone horribly wrong. To steal someoneís hard drive would require that the computer be opened up and taken apart. How would anyone know what kind of hard drive she had? Why would anyone want it? Maybe it was a tiny one that no one would want. Maybe it was a drive that was compatible with no other computer. And why not steal the whole computer? Even a large, desktop CPU is not hard for even a small child to carry out of the house. Why steal just the hard drive? What kind of brazen crook is going to spend time in her house, after bashing in the front door, to painstakingly remove the hard drive from her computer? I doubt that I could remove a hard drive from a computer in less than, say, 20 minutes. What crook is going to risk detection by remaining in a house as a burglar for 20 minutes or more, when he could simply pick up the whole CPU (leave the monitor and keyboard), and walk away? I think Lamb either filed a false police report if, indeed, she claimed to the police that the hard drive was stolen, or she is, once again, brazenly committing perjury in her statement to the court in this anti-harassment order. It just doesnít make any sense. Perhaps Lamb was short on cash, and needed a little insurance money. Perhaps she simply imagined the entire affair in a druggie haze. Or, perhaps she was thinking she might make up such a story in hopes up setting me up and blaming it on me. This last possibility has crossed my mind many times. At first glance, it seems unlikely that anyone would think such a ploy could work. After all, Lamb would have no way of knowing where I was on the given day, and she would have no way of knowing if I could provide an alibi for my whereabouts. No sane person would make such an accusation against another, knowing that they probably wouldn't be able to back it up. As it happened, I was at home all day, with witnesses, and never left the house, some 30 miles away from the Kent area. But after seeing what other bizarre kinds of stories Lamb has come up with, I find myself wondering anew if she didn't create the whole burglary thing in hopes of causing me grief. Remember, I said no sane person would concoct such a tale. Perhaps Lamb---well, I refuse to speculate further. This particular part of Lambís story is, to me, about as credible as an alien abduction tale, and I wonít waste my, or the courtís time on it anymore. I state categorically that I had nothing to do with Lambís burglary if, indeed, it even occurred. I donít know where Lamb lives. I donít even know what area of the region she lives in. I have never wanted to know. I have never sought to know. Lamb called me the day this supposedly occurred, and told me that the police were at her house, and they were instructing her to call everyone she knew, and to ask them if they had committed this crime. ĖSeems like odd behavior for the Kent PD, but who knows. I wish I would have asked to speak to them at that time, to find out if they were even there. Incidentally, this call from Lamb to me occurred well after I had served her with a very explicit demand that she not contact me again (enclosed). Anyhow, I told Lamb that I certainly had not had anything to do with anything! She said she knew that, and was sorry she had bothered me. I told her I was deeply offended by her question, and I reminded her that I had served her with formal notice, in writing, to cease and desist contacting me. We terminated our conversation on neutral terms, and that was the last time I spoke with the woman. Lamb seems as though she might be using this story to insinuate that she had proof of my "unwanted advances" or of my "unwanted art" of her on her computer. But Iím not sure I ever sent her any pictures of herself via computer, which would then be stored on her computer. So, even if I were the bloody culprit in this highly improbably crime, why would I want her lousy hard drive? In truth, Iím just not convinced that anything was stolen from this woman by anyone. I just donít believe it. Perhaps it did happen, but Iíd have to see something more convincing than Iíve seen so far, in order to believe it.

Lamb states: [employee] has created a web page where he ridicules and defames me. The site is located at and its titled Are You Thinking of Doing Business with T & L Leasing and/or Dart Trucking in Kent, Washington? He attributes untrue statements to me.


I had to look up the word "defame" to be sure I could answer this correctly. To defame is to ruin a reputation by slander. The definition of slander is this (I realize the court knows this better than I; Iím writing in this manner to help keep my own train of thought clear in this document):

1. The communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Lamb and McFarland are trying to convince the court they feel they have been defamed. In point of fact, however, they have not. They know they have not been defamed. I submit that they are embarrassed by my statements on the website (the court has a copy), and that they may have found themselves under increased scrutiny by their employer. Theyíre angry because of this, and thatís understandable. The police and the judges put people in jail for crimes. Those criminals are angry at the police and the judges. That does not mean, however, that the police and the judges should not have done what they did. By defaming and slandering me in their complaints, Lamb and Mcfarland are doing their own cause no good. They are making it worse. When I posted the website which covers this mess, I pulled my punch by a wide margin (and I still am). I did not care to delve into issues which were true, yet which I could not easily prove. I stayed out of the gray areas. I posted the truth, as cleanly and as accurately as any human being is capable of distilling it. Lamb and McFarland know full well that the website is pure truth. Iíve offered over and over and over ad nauseam to pay for their polygraph tests. Such would break me financially, but Iíll do it, if theyíll take them. I would think their employer would be asking for them. My site does not defame either party. I could have defamed them. But it is not within me to do so. Iíll meet the truth face to face, anytime, anywhere. And I expect the same from others. Lamb and McFarland could resolve this entire issue in five minutes, by simply standing up straight, like honorable human beings, and tackling the truth head-on. Fight me on even ground, where all we have to fear are facts, and Iíll respect them for it. But they would rather crawl and slither, wimpering that theyíve been defamed, all the while knowing they have not.

I am allowed by the law (and guaranteed by the Constitution) my right to say the truth. If I say other than the truth, then nail me to the cross. Sue me. Imprison me. Cut out my tongue. Iíll deserve it, and Iíll apologize to my executioner for the trouble Iíve put him to. But allow me to tell the truth no matter what. Itís just about the only action thatís still allowed us when someone does us wrong. We canít afford to sue. The police are busy. We canít afford to gain satisfaction through the legal system anymore. About all thatís left to us is to say our piece, and then let it go. Please donít take that away from us as well! When I wrote the website I was ready, willing and able to defend my words. I am ready, willing and able to do so now. The court cannot punish me for stating truths, and it cannot prevent me from telling truths. Period.

I am also allowed to voice my opinion. My web sites states, very prominently, right at the header, the following, verbatim:

This web site contains my opinions, reflections, observations, hunches, suspicions as part or all of the text. This text is copyrighted 2001, Seattle, Washington, in order to prevent it from being used out of context. This text, including any and all text contained within the web of this site, may not be copied, re-written, appended, edited or used in any manner without the express written permission of the author(s).

This text was entered into the file before a single word of the body was written. It has appeared on this document every single moment of its life. There is not one minute in which this text was missing from the document. There is not one page of the site that does not prominently post these words. I reiterate: I am allowed to voice my opinion. Period. Any reader of my opinion should assign credit or remove credibility from my words and statements as he/she sees fit. They are free to dismiss it as unadulterated bunk. Or they may accept it as fact, or anything in between. It is my opinion, and I have a God-given right to it. If Lamb and McFarland do not like my opinion, they should not have committed acts which lead me to form those opinions. But I believe that concept is wholly beyond them. Consequences for actions; they just donít get it.

Lamb states: For example, he states "My respect for McFarland was further reduced, if that were, possible, when Delann told me, `You'd be amazed if you knew how much company stuff got taken home by these guys.' (Meaning McFarland and whoever happened to be part of his imaginary family at any given moment)." These are things I never said, but he has posted on his web page.

The statement Lamb references above most assuredly was made to me by Lamb. Let me try to reconstruct the event, for clarification:

The statement in question was made to me approximately one year ago, give or take. It was shortly after T&L had transferred to the new yard, in south Kent. I was out in the yard tending to something---I donít recall what. I was on-duty. Lamb was also out in the yard, walking from one area of the yard, toward the office. She passed within about ten feet of me, and altered her course to come over to me to say something. I donít remember what she first said to me. As I recall, I then made the comment to her that a number of things had been disappearing of late---like mud flaps off the trucks, light cords, and misc. whatnot. We seemed to go through phases of heavy, petty theft, then relative calm. This was a phase of theft. Something was said about certain kinds of things coming up missing. I think the specific topic was oil in the driverís room, and tools. This was, Lamb explained, why the office had no more tools with which to work on the trucks. As I recall, I asked why (motor) oil had not been made available to the drivers in the new office. Lamb replied that it all came up missing anyway, and so the containers were always empty at the old office, so no one was going to bother keeping oil at the new office. I mentioned again how so many things had been missing of late, and Lamb replied: "If you knew how much stuff got (packed off or taken home) by these guys, youíd be amazed." Actually, I was amazed by both that insight, and Lambís communication of it to me. I had never thought of McFarland as being capable of doing anything like that in the past, and this took a minute to digest. While I was thinking about that, Lamb continued (this is not verbatim, just to the best of my recollection): "Oh yea, oil, services, you name it. They keep their cars in tip-top shape (with T&Lís goods). Itís (a lot, or quite a bit, or something to that effect)." Then she said: "These guys help themselves." Or something very close to that. When she was speaking of "these guys", she motioned with her head toward the office and laughed. The only person in the office was Mark McFarland. I could add a lot to this topic, but it would mostly be hearsay, and I wonít get into it right now. Perhaps in the future, certain other parties can be convinced to come forward. At any rate, the comment was made by Lamb to me on that occasion. I did not misunderstand it. I have no doubt she regretted saying it as soon as it left her mouth. Once again, a polygraph may be the only way to get to the bottom of this one, and I herewith, for about the twentieth time, beg to take one.

Lamb states: The website has many more examples of untrue statements and behaviors.

Such as? I canít defend against allegations unless I know what the allegations are. Lamb and Mcfarland are simply throwing out nonsense, hoping to paint a picture thatís so murky, it canít be seen for what it is. I implore the court not to allow this case to persist in a fog. Get to the bottom of every single fact. Where no fact exists, dismiss the issue and move on.

Lamb states (under penalty of perjury): I also have reason to believe that [employee] has published a distorted picture of me on another, of his websites. [employee] does not have my permission to use my picture, in either an original form or imposed on any other body or thing.

Once again, I cannot defend myself if the blows come from an invisible hand. In the first place, Lamb willingly posed for every picture. The pictures themselves demonstrate that. Lamb gave me verbal permission to use the pictures she "okayíd". She okayed all pictures. I do believe I have every right to post pictures of Lamb on any web site I wish. As it happens, I have no desire to do so. After quitting T&L, I went through my picture collection (about 135 gigabytes), and deleted every picture and reference that existed, pertaining to either Lamb or McFarland. I simply did not want those people, or their likenesses, on my equipment, or in my home. I believed that, over time, Iíd purged out nearly every image of them, or, perhaps even every single one. When I was first notified of Lambís and McFarlandís anti-harassment complaint, I immediately went to my website and manually sorted through every single image. I found three of McFarland, and one of Lamb. All four images were very well done, very clean---even "Disney" rated. They were small, 1 x 1 inch insets, covered over with text. I doubt you could recognize the individuals anyway, which is probably how I missed them. At any rate, I immediately deleted the files off the server, and replaced the pictures with images I felt were more appropriate anyway. I did this not because I believed I had no right to host the images, but because I consider these human beings to be barely human beings, and I want no part of them. Lamb states that she has reason to believe I have posted distorted pictures of her on "another" website. I have done no such thing and Lamb has no reason to think I have. She is, once again, simply making things up in a disgusting attempt to win sympathy from the court. What other web site? What picture? Lamb has access to computers. Whatís the URL? The one picture that was posted of her was a simple 1 x 1 inch portrait---not one pixel had been altered, except to cover the image with big, bold text which read "your picture here". That was located at a "G" rated commercial site. The court is more than welcome to peruse it. What other site does she so mysteriously allude to? Whatís the URL? If such a site existed, and such an image existed on that site, Iíd want it off more than she or McFarland does. So, please supply me the URL so I can remove it. In fact, however, no URL will ever be forthcoming, because no other images exist. Lamb knows this full well. Her mention of some other site with some other "distorted" images of her on it is nonsense, designed and perpetrated by an evil, cunning mind, a mind which will do anything, including committing multiple counts of perjury, to get back at me because I (1) stayed neutral about her romantic advances, and (2) had the unmitigated audacity to quit my job with T&L, and (3) had the guts and sense of honor to speak the truth about what I witnessed within that company. By making up lies and submitting them to the court, Lamb is harassing me---and making a mockery of the court. And she needs to cease.

Lamb states: I am concerned for my safety and well being. I feel threatened by [employee]'s reference to weapons and have come to believe that he is capable of harming me physically and/or via his, communications. I have seen [employee] become physically violent and fight with another person who he felt was blocking his truck on the road.

Lamb is "concerned for her safety"? WHY?.

Exactly, precisely what events have transpired to make Delann Lamb fear for her safety at the hands of [employee]? In point of fact, she does not fear for her safety at all, but is simply engaging in more "spin doctoring". But letís say, just for argument, that Lamb really is concerned for her safety. Where would such a concern come from? I have never threatened Delannís safety. Ever. Not once, not directly, not indirectly, not via a third party, not in any veiled manner, not in writing, not via email, not via telephone---Delann Lamb knows all this. I can honestly say I have never even pondered doing harm to Delann Lamb or Mark McFarland. They both know in their hearts this is true. Delann Lamb can be afraid of anything she wishes. She can be afraid of the dark. She can be afraid of snakes. She can be afraid of spiders. She can be afraid of blue sweaters. But if none of those things has ever done anything to justify those fears, then you canít go around killing spiders and stomping on snakes and cursing the darkness and burning blue sweaters, simply because YOU have ELECTED to be afraid of them. I had an old horse once that was deathly afraid of tree stumps. That didnít mean the tree stumps were evil, nor did it mean the tree stumps meant him harm, nor did it mean that any tree stumps had plotted against him or harassed him or threatened him---nor did it mean that those tree stumps should be issued a restraining order which restricted their natural freedom to go where they please (maybe I should have used a house cat analogy). But the court gleans my meaning. Iíve not done one single thing to Delann Lamb or Mark McFarland. Not in any way, shape or form. And they know it. They are attempting to use the court to get a kind of twisted revenge on an employee who quit because he was sick of drugs, incompetence and dishonesty in the office. I hope the court is angered by their ploy. Once again, the court does not have to take my word for anything. It need only put me on a polygraph, and then subpoena three other T&L employees. Take this entire statement and throw it out the window if the court so desires. But in lieu of this statement, take the steps Iíve just outlined. The truth, the truth, in this particular and relatively rare case, is a fat plum, hanging on the limb, just waiting to be picked. I implore the court to pick it. This is not the average case in which the truth is halfway between both stories. Get the to bottom of it. I beg the court to do that. The court has an obligation to oblige me, since I have obliged it.

Lamb states: I would like [employee] to be restrained from contacting me, from coming within 500 feet of my workplace and home, transmitting, using,, or publishing my picture, and threatening, abusing or defaming me.

Lamb asks that I be restrained from contacting her, coming within such and such of her house, job, etc. etc. When I was first advised of this complaint, I mentioned to the officer who brought the paperwork that I had no intention of showing up for the hearing, and that Lamb and McFarland could have anything they wanted, as long as it meant I was going to finally be able to purge them from my life forever. But within an hour (and after reading their ludicrous statements, I realized that I was not willing to be punished for something I didnít do. Iím not willing to have my freedom restricted simply because Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland are angry because I spoke the truth and posted my opinions. They donít deserve that much power. Were this whole incident a "gray area"Öif I had, letís say, committed even one or two of the ludicrous things these people accused me of, I might be tempted to soften my views. But I didnít. Not one bloody, blasted thing. This isnít a case where Iím "mostly" innocent. Iím not even 99% innocent. Iím 100% innocent. My only wish and desire was to POST THE TRUTH, and then move forward in my life. And I did so---at least until these two came up with this harassment thing. I submit that these two are like gum in the hair, dog crap on your shoeÖ.you just canít ever seem to be completely rid of them. Our system allows that Lamb and Mcfarland, not agreeing with my opinions, can sue me. If they can provide any proof at all of their allegations, they might win the suit. Thatís the punishment I would expect and deserve if I was lying on my web site. But if Iím telling the truth, they do not have the right to win a suit against me, and if I have not done one single thing to threaten, harass, bother, worry or pester these two people, then I do not, similarly, deserve to be penalized by having my freedom of movement restricted. American common sense tells us that you must first do something wrong in order to deserve punishment. Well, I havenít done anything wrong, and I think I can prove it, with the help of a polygraph machine, and with the testimony of at least three other T&L employees, two of whom are just about as bloody sick of the adolescent and irresponsible shenanigans of Lamb and McFarland as I am. And the third is getting there.

So. Yes. I very much do contest Lambís request that I not get within whatever it is---500 or 1000 feet of her, her house, her office, whatever. I canít promise to comply with their demands that I not come near their houses because I havenít the faintest, foggiest notion where they live, and I donít want anyone to tell me! Do I ever plan to cross within these boundaries of 500 or 1000 feet? I couldnít even contemplate such a thing. These people are two of the lowest forms of life Iíve ever run across. Theyíre not the worst---but theyíre down there in the bottom five, circliní the drain. Since I quit my job at T&L it has been my choice to stay away from them. Early on, I was forced to threaten them with criminal action if they didnít stop crank calling me. Iíve enclosed a copy, and I can prove they received it. It will show on my phone records, their phone records, and in addition, Lamb called me back yet again not five minutes after receiving it, and even had the gall to reference it in that call! Iím sure Sarah was present at the time. Ask her. So Lamb and Mcfarland have the gall to try to spin this around, to try and make it look as though THEY need protection from ME? To hell with Ďem. As it happens, thereís nothing I need in the Kent area. I wonít work in Kent again, because the commute is too far. I know of no stores I need to go to more often than, perhaps, once every year or two. As it happens, I had to go to the Office Depot in Kent about two weeks ago, about five miles from the company office. Thatís as close as I got. More on that in a minute. I think the odds of me ever having to drive down the road that T&L Leasing is on are about as likely as me getting bonked on the head by a meteor. I would probably never have cause to drive down that street. If I did need to, for some unforeseen reason, and I ran across Lamb or McFarland also on that street, I would ignore them utterly. If they said hello to me, Iíd say hello back to them---and keep on moving. Both of these people KNOW this is how Iím put together, and thatís why their stupid, asinine cries of fear for their safety is so damned irritating and insulting. If the court has not guessed it yet, I do not like being lied about. They need to stop doing it.

Iím asking the court to refuse Lambís and McFarlandís dishonest attempt to deny me my basic rights of travel. Itís the principle of the thing. In order to seek relief from the court, there must be something to seek relief from. Neither of these two individuals has offered the court a single fact with regard to what I might have done or how I supposedly did it, with regard to their imaginary harassment. Theyíve offered no facts, no times, no dates, no instances, in fact, no specifics at all, because no such acts have occurred. Nor will they, ever. I want these people out of my life, not in it. The court cannot tell a man that he must stop doing something he has never done. Nor can the court spend its time and resource telling a man not to do something heís not even remotely likely to do. Thatís my case with regard to Delann Lambís outrageous accusations and request for a restraining order against me. In my view, this woman needs psychological help.

Lamb states: Although I believed that [employee] was joking, I also believe he has an AK and other guns. Since [employee] has left, the fact that he has all of these guns does trouble me.

Letís examine this closely, as I believe it treads dangerously close to perjury, and perhaps beyond. Delann Lamb is first stating that she "believes" I have an AK rifle. Why? In point of fact, easily verified by a polygraph test, and by statements from dozens of people who have known me throughout my life, I have never owned an AK rifle, I only have a rudimentary sense of what one is, I have only a vague and shadowy notion of what one looks like. I have seen them referred to on TV, as they seem to be a popular item for the para-military fringe. What little I have heard about them suggests to me that they are poorly made, unreliable, inaccurate, and heavy. I have never dreamed of owning an AK, I have never, not in my wildest dreams, aspired to own one. I have never touched one. I used the reference of an AK rifle in my fax because it is perhaps the most well known of assault rifles, and because McFarland and Lamb seemed to prefer to refer to an AK rifle in the office, every time they imagined some employee or ex-employee was out to get them. If I were going to tell a humorous story about cars, I wouldnít use the example of a 1947 Edsel. Iíd say the car was a Chevy, or a Honda, because thatís what people relate to. Lamb and Mcfarland know full well my fax was humorous. Not even a mildly retarded person could mistake it for that. So why does Lamb state that she believes I own such a device as an AK rifle? I do not like to talk about guns. I donít like people who DO talk a lot about guns. I hold people who talk about guns in the same regard as those hot-headed nut cases who are always so eager to show you their guns, when youíre over for dinner or a party. I have no use for those people and will generally leave their proximity at the earliest opportunity. Iíve never, ever talked about guns while in the employ of T&L Leasing. Not in the office, not around the office, not even on my own time at home for Godís sake! Lamb and McFarland both know I never referenced guns at work except for that one joke fax. You wonít find a single employee who has ever heard me discuss guns. I wonít even allow myself to be dragged into a conversation about guns if someone brings the subject to me. So why does Delann Lamb "believe" so wholeheartedly that I have an AK, or any other gun of any other type? She either does not believe it, and is, once again, tweaking the courtís nose, or, some part of her has worked herself into such a paranoid frenzy that she really does believe it. In any case, itís a fantasy of her own making, and has no basis in truth at all. I own no assault weapons of any kind. Nor do I have even the smallest, slightest desire to own any such thing. Delann Lamb needs either a good spanking for making up such a story, or she needs professional help. Now, it is unfortunate that Delann Lamb was not satisfied to merely allude that I might be some crazed lunatic who was going to "go postal" on the office staff of T&L Leasing. Thatís bad enough. But in her next statement, she crosses from skirting the edges of perjury, right smack into the middle of perjury---and she commits it with hardly a break in stride.

Delann Lamb states, for the record, to this court, under penalty of perjury, the following:

Lamb: Since [employee] has left, the fact that he has all of these guns does trouble me.

"Since [employee] has left, the fact [THE FACT] that he has Ďall these gunsí does trouble me."

Once again: WHAT GUNS?

What guns is Lamb referring to? And how does she represent this supposed inside knowledge as fact. Exactly, precisely, what guns is this woman referring to? Exactly how can she prove this "fact" to be true? I submit that Delann Lamb, in her breathless excitement and panicked flurry of activity designed to DEFAME [employee] AT ANY COST, has, once again, simply manufactured the truth. Lamb has no idea what guns I might or might not own. She has no idea if I even own one single gun. Yet she has told the court that she knows for a fact that I have "all these guns". (And it troubles her.) I will ask the court, directly and specifically, to ask Mcfarland and Lamb exactly what guns they "know for a fact" that I own. I have never, not once, mentioned any firearm to them, not even in passing, except in my joke fax from way back in August. So thereís no way that either of them would know anything about any guns I might or might not own. Yet they have stated to the court, under penalty of perjury, that they know "FOR A FACT" (that I own some bunch of guns). If they know this for a fact, then they must have seen such guns, or they must have heard me reference such guns on at least one occasion in three years. Please, please ask them to tell the court what guns I own. Theyíre not saying they "believe" I own a bunch of guns, or that theyíre afraid I "might" own such guns; theyíre saying it is FACT that I do. THAT is defamatory, and that, I contend, is clear and straightforward perjury. Even as I type this statement, I have another letter started, which asks for an appointment with the King County Prosecutorís office. Iíll provide that office with whatever it desires in hopes of exposing Lambís statements as perjurious, and of causing her to be charged with perjury. If the prosecutorís office refuses to file the charges, I will petition a King County judge for due process, and file the charges myself. I am sick of being lied about by Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland.

McFarland states: [employee] became more unhappy with his scheduled work, and also had a long, standing, conflict with the owners and customers of an Oroweat bread outlet. [employee] became convinced that the bread outlet customers were deliberately blocking him from accessing his delivery site, the Tacoma Mall Sears store. [employee] wrote me he'd called the Tacoma 911 20-28 times to have cars towed from the Oroweat store.

I donít know how to respond to this paragraph, because I am unable to discern what McFarlandís complaint is. On the off chance that McFarland can, someday, tell us why he even included this statement in his document, Iíll explain the background and context of this situation, so that my side of it will be available.

Except for the following, the above statement by Mcfarland is all true, yet it is not even remotely germane to this case that I can see. Perhaps I am stupid.

Mark states I was unhappy with my scheduled work. Thatís absurd. I was unhappy with my un scheduled work---none of which was supposed to be part of the bargain when I hired on three years ago. Thatís all covered on the website. McFarland states that I had a long-standing conflict with the owners and customers of an Oreowheat bread store. In fact, I did, as did most other drivers who delivered to a certain store in Tacoma. By Lambís own written statement of 12-16 (enclosed), the problem goes back five or six years---or two or three years before I even applied for work at T&L. What point is McFarland trying to make here? He states: [employee] became convinced the Oreowheat store was blocking him, specifically, and that he ([employee]) had called 911 numerous times in order to try to clear the blockage. Again, whatís McFarlandís point? How does this relate to whether or not Iíve harassed him? In point of fact, I had only partially accepted the notion that the lunatics at the Oreowheat bread store were blocking me, specifically. The thing that made me pretty well accept the notion, was when Mark McFarland told me point blank that was the case!!! He said he had been told this by a woman who worked for the property management company which leased the premises to the Oreowheat Bread store in Tacoma. Her company name is:

JSH Properties

10655 NE 4th #300

Bellevue, WA.



Her name is: Lisa.

I found her to be a nice enough woman, although she did not seem to be capable of solving the bread store problem. Still, McFarland told me that Lisa had told him that she had uncovered facts which led her to believe that the bread store people were specifically targeting my particular truck, so as to prevent me from physically getting to the customerís store to make my deliveries. I had been wondering if this was the case for some time, but I gave this theory more credence after Mcfarland told me that it was the case, about one week before I quit. Now, however, in McFarlandís statement to the court, he seems to be trying to say that, for some unknown reason, I had adopted this crazy notion that the bread store people were targeting my truck. Huh? Once again, Iím at a loss as to why Mcfarland would bring this up. Is it designed to make me look bad in some way? If so, then the court should contact Lisa, and ask her if she did, indeed, relate this theory to Mcfarland. If she did, then it lends great credibility to my assertion that "I" got the story from "MARK". In point of fact, per Lambís statement of 12-16, she admits that the problem seems to be between me and the bread store people more than with other drivers. Lamb says the conflict IS between me and the bread store---Mcfarland tries to convince the court that I must be unbalanced to think the problem is between me, specifically, and the bread store. I wish theyíd get their stories straight. Why would the bread store people specifically target MY truck, as opposed to any others? Because I was the only driver who made that delivery every single day. The other drivers went in there perhaps once every other week. I was the one who most often asked them to move their vehicles (by a factor of about 15), therefore they vented their venom mostly on me. Very simple concept. Mcfarland also states that I told him the single biggest reason for me quitting was the bread store problem. Yes, it was! I was sick of his utter and total inability to handle the problem.

McFarland states: After [employee] resigned, he began to send messages to Ms. Lamb asking for a letter of reference which he insisted be written on Dart letterhead, although he was employed by T & L Leasing. According to company policy, T & L Leasing wrote a letter setting out [employee]'s dates of employment, job title, and reason for leaving the company. This letter incensed [employee]..

I never did quite understand the relationship between Dart and T&L---not until I quit. I did find it curious that although we worked for T&L, they asked us to wear t-shirts that said DART. Oh well. Silly me, for making the mistake. Iím sorry that McFarland could not figure out that when I asked for a reference from Dart, I actually needed it from T&L, who was my employer. McFarland states that I began writing letters to Lamb, asking for a simple, courteous reference. In fact I did. Lamb played dumb, saying, in many cases, she had received no such letter, or that she had spilled something on it, and couldnít read it, or that the fax machine had malfunctioned, and my request was, once again, destroyed. After 11 attempts, I realized her game. Some said I was slow and naÔve. Iím smarter now. McFarland states that T&L finally did send me a letter according to their policy, which stated only dates of employment, etc. McFarland states "this letter incensed him". I liken that statement to the one Lamb made about "knowing" [employee] has "all those guns". McFarland knows no such thing about me. How can I be so sure McFarland doesnít know I was incensed about T&Lís response? Because I wasnít incensed! Not even close! I was merely irritated at the corporate dribble. I was not overly surprised to receive such a short and ineffective letter from the main office. Thatís the way of the corporate world these days. What I had been asking for all along was a letter from the local office anyway. Lamb and Mcfarland knew this perfectly well. McFarland has no cause to say I was incensed by what the LA office sent. Again, he is trying to use hysteria in place of truth. Iím sick of it. If the LA office was not going to send the reference I asked for, it need only include a note with the reference it did send, and say "thatís the best we can do, due to company policy". End of disagreement. If Mark and/or Delann were unwilling to supply to me the reference I asked for, they need only have supplied to me a one sentence note, stating, what else? "We regret that we are unable to supply you with the reference you seek due to restrictions in company policy." I would have thought they were skunks for denying me a reference that, by all accounts, I deserved. But at least they would have been stand-up about their dirty deed, and I could have found something in that to respect. Instead, I was to learn that Delannís statement to the office staff was: "You know, whatever [employee] asks for, weíre going to do the exact opposite." Now that incensed me. I didnít deserve such treatment, and I didnít deserve such an action. I find it very curious that although I am a highly experienced class-A driver, with a nearly perfect driving record, I cannot find a driving job in a sea of desperate trucking companies. I want to know what Mcfarland and Lamb are telling employers Iíve applied to. And I now have no choice but to have my attorneyís office set up a number of calls to T&L in Kent, posing as prospective employers, to find out exactly what Lamb and/or Mcfarland are saying about me. After reading their statements in this matter, I believe they are capable of saying absolutely anything, and thatís a low-down, scurrilous dirty trick, even for these two. The only transgression I committed while in the employ of T&L Leasing, was to quit.

Mcfarland states: [employee] writes "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 is not in your best interest to do so.

Indeed I did write that line. Indeed McFarlandís handling of my request did have an impact on what I represented in my web site. Whatever dirty tricks Lamb and/or Mcfarland committed, were going to be aired to the world. Therefore, how they continued to act very much did dictate how I handled the matter on my web site. And it still holds true. This very document should be appended to the web site, along with polygraph results, and both statements made to the court by Lamb and Mcfarland. So, to reiterate, yes, indeed, their behavior dictates how I will handle and proceed with this case. I wrote about my experiences with Mark McFarland and Delann Lamb. When I had new experiences to report, I added them to the text. What is Mcfarland getting at here? That I was using a veiled threat against him to try to extract from him a reference I didnít deserve? Mark was certainly free to see things that way. As an analogy, I have this notion that if I stand on the railroad tracks, and a train comes, how I act in the next few seconds is likely to have an effect on me in one way or another. Has it been in McFarlandís best interests to refuse to respond, even with a simple and polite refusal, to my repeated requests for a simple, one-paragraph, truthful, non-glowing reference? Please ask McFarland.

McFarland states: On this web page he accuses me of theft, misfeasance, an illicit affair with an employee in the office, and illegal drug use, all of which are patently untrue.

On what page did I accuse McFarland of theft? I did no such thing. In point of fact, I related a statement that had been made to me. No more, no less. If Mcfarland wants to be angry at someone for accusing him of theft, be angry at Lamb, for the accusation came from her. If the court or the public desires to KNOW my opinion on the matter, yes, in fact, I DO believe McFarland is guilty of theft---probably on a long-term and substantial scale. But thatís just my opinion.

Did I accuse Mcfarland of malfeasance? I donít recall doing so, but it is certainly my opinion that he is guilty of it, if not downright incompetence.

Did I accuse Mcfarland of illegal drug use?

I did no such thing. Iím sorry Mcfarland cannot seem to read more carefully. I related what I saw in the outer office, and in his inner office on two occasions. Perhaps Mcfarland had just taken these pot pipes away from an offending driver. What is my opinion on this matter? Based on conversations Iíve overheard, and on a whole litany of sources, based on their behavior, based on what appears to me to be a drug-damaged intellect, and based on a number of other factors, some of which can, I believe, be turned into documentation, it is my opinion that Mcfarland and Lamb are two of the biggest and most prolific dopers I have ever known. Does anyone assess any credibility to my opinion? Yes? Fine. No? Fine. I donít care either way.

Mcfarland states: He ([employee]) also states that he wishes to "purge [me and Delann Lamb] from my life forever.

God yes. Please. I wish to purge these two from my life forever. And I would have accomplished it, too, had they simply accepted my statement of truth and opinion, secretly vowed to treat their next employees better, and gotten on with their lives. They would have never heard from me again. I would have likely taken the site down in a week or two, and that would have been that. But this is McFarlandís pissing contest, if the court will excuse the language, and Lamb is his minion. I believe she will do anything Mark Mcfarland tells her to do, whether right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal. And that is largely why she finds herself in the middle of this mess. He has decided heís going to punish me for speaking my opinions. Iíll repeat my statement any time, anywhere. I defend it; I stand behind it. I wish to purge these two persons from my life forever. Unfortunately, with regard to their anti-harassment complaint against me, I have found their behavior to be so dishonest, so cowardly, so reprehensible, that I feel honor-bound to try and save even one unwitting prospective employee from falling into their spider web. Working for Mcfarland and Lamb has cost me a lot---perhaps even my reputation as a solid, hardworking, reliable, conscientious driver. It is my hope that others could avoid paying the same price. To that end, I will continue to voice my opinion of how this company treated me, all the while wishing that I could simply turn away and forget these people. I so much wish I could do that. But I will not retract or apologize for my statement. I do want to purge these miserable people from my life forever.

McFarland states: He has superimposed my face and that of Ms. Lamb in nude and pornographic poses and has shown these pictures to others both in the office and outside the workplace.

If my artistic portrayals of McFarland and/or Lamb were so objectionable to these two, have them answer these questions: (1) Why did neither Mcfarland or Lamb never once ask me not to make any more pictures of them. Not verbally. Not in writing. Why. It is because they had no problem with my art work, and often requested it, and offered to pay for it. Lamb did ask me not to take any new pictures of her. But she never asked me to destroy the pictures I did have, or to stop using them or modifying them. She knows this is true! McFarland told me many times: "If you ever get rich off my pictures on the Internet, I want 50%". Polygraph, witnesses, bring them on. (2) Why did Mcfarland have a virtual shrine set up in his office? Frankly, I found it justÖ..a little spooky. My pictures were, I hope, good---but they werenít worthy of a shrine, and there is no other adjective that adequately describes the deployment and arrangement of my pictures in Mark Mcfarlandís office, on a table that appeared to be dedicated to my pictures and nothing else. Once again, how many witnesses can I supply? The court may wish to begin by asking the three employees Iíve referenced herein. Nothing was placed on a whole, dedicated table, except MY PICTURES. The witnesses to this number in the dozens over three years, perhaps even in the hundreds. Pick a name at random, who has ever been inside the T&L office. Theyíve seen the pictures very proudly displayed. Iím tired of answering to accusations that my art was somehow unwanted. I wonít dignify the subject with further comment.

McFarland states, under penalty of perjury: Ms. Lamb and I have asked that [employee] not email, us or call the workplace. I have contacted the local police.

This is as blatant a lie (the first sentence) as Iíve seen in either of these two statements. Neither McFarland or Lamb have ever asked me to not contact them. Not ever. Not once. Not verbally, not in writing, not by smoke signal, not by carrier pigeon, not by telepathy. This is a clear and blatant lie by Mark McFarland. It constitutes a direct and blatant act of perjury. Again, a polygraph of McFarland, Lamb, and myself will get right straight to the bottom of this. In lieu of a polygraph, let us ask the question: When, and in what manner, did either Mcfarland or Lamb ever ask me not to contact them? On what date(s) did this occur? What were the words? Was the request or demand made in writing? Was it verbal? Were there witnesses? Where was I? Where were they? Since I have had no contact with either of these people since a few days after I quit, when did they make this request of me? And, more importantly, even for the sake of argument, saying they DID make such a request of me, when did I ignore or break that request? What contact have "I" made with "THEM". I submit that I have initiated zero contact, and I have HAD zero contact with either of these fine human beings, not because of any request or demand they made of me, but because they make me physically ill and I refuse to get near them or to even think about them more than is absolutely necesarry! I will offer the above statement by Mcfarland to the King County prosecutorís office, to see if there is some way we can prove the truth of this. If we can, I will see to it that McFarland is charged with (yet another count of) perjury, and that his case makes it to trial. The more of these accusations I am forced to defend against, the angrier I have become, and the more resolved I have become to take this to whatever court is necessary to allow me to exercise my constitutional right to say the truth and voice my opinion. I may never remove this text from the Internet. My God what irresponsible hillbillies.

McFarland says he has contacted the police. Good for him. So have I. A copy of this text will also be supplied to the Kent police. Itís time they got a handle on Mcfarland. This man has got to be stopped. I will, at the courtís request, supply a copy of the statement I recently made to Ed Crawford, Chief of Police, Kent, Washington. I will ask that said statement be kept by the court in confidence. I may have more information to append to it in time. The court must understand that the statement may be used in a criminal investigation, and that the security of that investigation should not be compromised until it is completed. I submit that Mcfarland may have gotten the idea that I was working with the Kent PD regarding his possible drug use, possible drug transporting, and possible (though on a petty level) drug sales. And that fear is one of the more obvious factors prompting Mcfarland to go to any lengths, endure any risk, even commit perjury, to try to keep me out of his area. I will state this: Iím too old for chasing druggies. It was fun in the 70ís. I donít have the stomach for it anymore. Itís up to the Kent police now. I wish them luck. End of story.

Mcfarland states: I have contacted the local police. However, as recently as last week, [employee] went to the Sears store where he used to make deliveries and asked that someone there send a message to one of my employees.


The above (second) statement is absolutely true. Now letís fill in the blanks:

About one week ago, I needed some office supplies. I rode a motorcycle down to the Office Max at the SODO center, and was amazed to find it closed down. Not know where any other office supply was located, I decided to ride down to the Office Depot in Kent, which I had shopped at while working in Kent. I also wanted to stop and visit with a number of friends at the Sears SLS warehouse, about a quarter mile from the Office Depot store. It was a nice day, and this would make a nice spring ride. I did my shopping at Office Depot, then rode over the Sears. I went inside, and spoke for a few minutes with Carol Love. I discovered that many of my friends were not at work that day, so, after securing several Sears addresses from Carol Love, I exited the building. As I did so, I saw a Dart truck drive into the warehouse yard. The driver was one Steve Ottosen, 416 s 48th St. Tacoma, Wa. 98408 (donít use daughterís number except in emergency) 253-476-5069. Steveís personal cell: 253-677-3214. Steve is as honest as the day is long, and I always liked and respected him. I walked over and had a nice conversation with Steve for about three minutes. As I was leaving, I said, "Hey, say hello to Tim and Sarah over there; theyíre the only two worth saying hello to." Steve laughed, and said sure, he would pass the salutation. I departed and drove home, thinking no more about that exchange. When I read what Mark had written (the statement above), I was shocked. I called Steve and read Markís statement to him. Steve was also shocked. Steve said that when he went back to the T&L office after our conversation, he walked in and told Sarah hello, from [employee]. She said something to the effect of "Say hey back". I had talked with her on the phone, at her home, only a week or two before. Mark Mcfarland was not in the office at all. Delann Lamb, however, immediately piped up with a derogatory comment about me (I donít yet know what it was). Steve told her that that didnít sound like the [employee] he knew and worked with for three years, and she shut up. That was the end of the exchange, and Steve thought no more about it either.

A matter of hours after that, Mark Mcfarland sought his anti-harassment order against me, and included in his statement, the above reference. Let me repeat it here:

McFarland states: However, as recently as last week, [employee] went to the Sears store where he used to make deliveries and asked that someone there send a message to one of my employees.

First off, Mcfarland doesnít even know what transpired at Sears. And I donít believe he cares. He took some shred of information that was probably not even represented to him, third or fourth hand, as being in any way sinister, and used it in a legal statement, whose purpose is to accomplish nothing more than to harass me, and seek to remove certain liberties and Constitutional rights from my life. Thatís wrong, and itís illegal. Is Mark Mcfarland telling the court that he wants the court to prevent me from coming within 5 miles of his office? Because thatís about the distance between the Sears in question, and the T&L office. Is Mcfarland telling the court that he doesnít want me to go to a Sears warehouse/store? Is he saying that he is not going to allow me to visit with my friends at that location, five miles or more from his office? Is he saying that I am not allowed to talk to his employees who happen to be my friends? Is he saying that I am not allowed to ask one friend to pass a friendly hello to another friend, who was glad to receive it? Just exactly how much power does Mark Mcfarland think he has over other human beings? This is at the root of Mark Mcfarlandís problem! Iíll ask that the court use this example, one among many, to try and glean an insight into the character of Mark Mcfarland. This is a man who seems to think he controls all. He seems to think he can make up lies, jerk the strings of the court, and make the court dance to his bidding, even when there is no logic or reason in his demands! I urge the court to contact Carol Love at the Sears SLS warehouse, to contact Steve Ottosen, and Sarah, the secretary at T&L Leasing. Take all their accountings of this specific incident, then use that information to extrapolate an insight into the rest of Mcfarlandís actions in this case. The man is, in my opinion, out of control. Totally out of control.

Mcfarland states: [employee]'s behavior, since his termination, has caused me a great deal of distress.

In what way? I need specifics if I am to defend myself. I cannot swing at thin air. Once again, I submit that any distress Mcfarland suffers is from guilt. That is, if he has a conscience at all in the first place. Any distress Mcfarland feels is by his own hand. I am not responsible for the truth. I donít make up the truth. The truth simply IS. If Mcfarland doesnít like the things heís feeling of late, I submit that a change in his moral code might help to prevent those unpleasant feelings from recurring in the future. Once again, I donít believe Mcfarland will ever "get" that.

Mcfarland further states: I have considered hiring a security guard for the work premises, and I am concerned for the safety of my family and my employees.

I wish he would do so (hire a security guard). I think that would be one of the most poetically just things I could see come out of this. --Waste even more of T&Lís money. Please.

Mcfarland finally concludes: I would like the Court to enter an order of anti-harassment which prohibits [employee] from contacting me in any fashion, coming within 500 feet of my workplace and residence, transmitting, using, or publishing my picture, and threatening, abusing or defaming me. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct,Mark McFarland

Iíll offer the same argument I offered when Lamb asked for the same things. (1) In order to seek relief from something, that thing must first have occurred, or there must be a reasonable suspicion that it might occur. I donít see NASA seeking earthquake insurance to cover the new space station in orbit. I donít see many people taking out flood insurance in the Sahara. I donít see judges putting signs on their benches which read: PLEASE, NO TIPPING. They donít take these steps because thereís no need to take these steps. And if, in some parallel universe, I really was a crazed killer, do you think I would waste my time imploring the court to allow me to go visit these people?

Iím tired of saying this, but Iíll say it one last time for the record. I have never harassed either of these two amazing people. I have never remotely considered harassing either of these people. I have no plans to harass either of these people. I have no reason to harass either of these people. The telling of the truth and the freedom to VOICE MY OPINION satisfies me just fine. Truly, itís far more gratifying than any act of violence anyone could think of. I think prisoners guilty of violent crimes of revenge should be taught how to express themselves in a manner which defuses any amount of anger they might accumulate. Itís a tonic.

I am formally, strongly, vehemently contesting Lambís and/or Mcfarlandís requests to take away my freedom. Iíve done nothing wrong. Iíve done nothing illegal. Iíve done nothing immoral. Iíve only voiced my opinion regarding two individuals that I regard as pond scum. Iíve even pulled my punches in doing that. I merely want to be left alone to enjoy my constitutional right to free speech. I want Lamb and Mcfarland to leave me alone. Iím asking the court to help me accomplish these things.

It has been suggested to me that I should, in some twisted show of retaliation, seek a court restraining order requiring these two individuals to stay away from me and my family. But Iím frankly not scared of them. And there is no reason to waste the courtís time, or my time, with silly, whimsical, counter-productive orders like the ones that are being sought against me.

How do I feel this whole mess could be resolved? I would ask that the following steps be taken:

Mcfarland and Lamb would enter drug rehabilitation.

Mcfarland and Lamb would agree to never, ever contact me again. Not directly, not indirectly, not through any third party. Not ever. They were asked to do this in writing way back on 12-21-00. Lamb specifically ignored that demand by calling me again five minutes later, and by emailing me that very evening (copy enclosed). She telephoned me once or twice after that as well, as phone records will reveal (she called me on my cellular phone, on which ALL calls are logged). I WANT IT ALL TO CEASE. Period. Fini. No more. End. Enough.

Mcfarland and Lamb would agree to stop accessing my commercial website. They are not welcome on that site. I will no longer tolerate their use of the site, which costs me money in bandwidth. Bandwidth theft is a crime. We are now logging all IP addresses. Any IP addresses that trace back to either Mcfarland or Lamb, will be handled as a matter of theft. This does not apply to my opinion site, at This is not a commercial site, and I do not pay anything for bandwidth usage. Anyone is free to peruse this site as much as they wish.

Mcfarland and/or Lamb would provide me with the simple, one-paragraph reference I so politely asked for in the beginning. It needs to state the following: (1) that I was totally reliable, (2) that I never damaged a single piece of equipment, (3) that I performed my duties well, efficiently, and in a timely manner. I deserve more than that, but Iíll settle for that, just as Iíve said from the beginning. Lamb states that company policy does not allow them to supply that statement. I do not believe that is the case, but they could not be bothered to extend me the simple human courtesy of even making that statement.. Additionally, a witness is willing to testify that not only was Lamb not willing to grant me that simple courtesy, she publicly vowed to do the opposite of whatever I requested. Once again, thatís a fine way to repay a good employee for three years of work. Iím sorry Lamb and Mcfarland were angry when I quit. But this is no way to show me that quitting was a mistake.

Lamb and Mcfarland will stop defaming me and committing perjury against me. They will stop seeking to restrict my freedom. Period.

Whatever legal steps I may take to handle this mess in the future, and the length of time I feel is appropriate to continue to post my opinions on the Internet, may depend on what further troubles I experience, or donít experience, at the hands of Delann Lamb and Mark Mcfarland, employees of T&L Leasing, Los Angeles, California, after 3-23-01.

I apologize profusely for taking up so much of the courtís time. But there really is such a thing as principle, as right and wrong, as civil and human rights. Itís too bad itís such tedious, difficult, time-consuming work to protect them.



Iíve attached several documents, only two of which have any relevance in this case. The others are enclosed just in case the court needs them. The two documents that I feel are very relevant are attached directly after this page, and are marked #1 and #2 with a felt pen. The rest of them may be read, or not.

The document marked #1 is my fax to Lamb and Mcfarland after someone at that office crank-called me two or three times in rapid succession and hung up. I faxed this demand that they stop. So Delann called me five minutes later---and called me several times in the next few days, as well. She also emailed me that very night. If Lamb tries to say she didnít receive this fax, I offer the following: (1) when she called me back, she referenced it. (2) The incoming fax may well show up in the office phone system records. The system there is a good one for a small office. I know that 1-800 lines log all calls incoming and outgoing. Perhaps the calls on the rest of the system are logged as well.

The document marked #2 is Lambís email to me after I had asked her not to. If Lamb denies sending it, we can for certain subpoena her ISP records (through AOL), which will have records of this very fax, and many others from her email to me. It is so easy to trip these two up. They really ought to consider some profession other than lying.

The very last document (not numbered) is a copy of the web site as it appeared the day Lamb and Mcfarland filed these complaints.




NOTE: The above statement, along with associated and relevant documents, was formally submitted to the court (Lawson's court) twice, as my entire basic defense in the form of sworn testimony. We can prove by documentation and transcripts that Lawson received it. The transcripts also show that he did not read it. This statement was written before any polygraphs were taken. Lawson ruled on this case without having even considered my testimony. Now that's bad enough---it's enough to frighten anyone. But here's the really scary part: When this case was sent to the appeals court, we (my attorney and myself), felt that an important aspect of our challenge was the fact that Lawson had never bothered, through stupidity, incompetence and/or dishonesty, to even consider my side of the case. We felt this was one item in a long list which would demonstrate to the appeals judge that Lawson's ruling had been downright nuts. The appeals court judge, a woman named Helen Halpert (Superior Court, Seattle), was informed as part of the appeal brief that Lawson had not even read the testimony of the opposing side, that it was important testimony (it was my entire defense for God's sake), and that it needed to be considered. I think at that point we all felt Lawson's outrageous bungling of the case could be construed as a fluke, and that any other court would easily straighten it out. So we sent the case to appeal. I remember my attorney telling me that while the "Lawson Experience" had indeed been one of the worst things she'd seen in her career, she was eager to provide me with a sane and logical experience in appeals court. As it turned out, even though Helen Halpert was advised as part of the record that my entire written testimony had never been considered by the trial court (Lawson), and that she needed to consider that fact when making her decision on the appeal, the really terrifying fact is that Judge Helen Halpert then commenced to render her decision also without reading my testimony either. How do we know she didn't read it? Because she stated in her finding that I had never refuted the claims of the petitioners! Yet the entire lengthy document above does nothing but vehemently refute the testimony of the petitioners! And it was formally submitted to two courts on five separate occasions! Now just what the F*CK does it take to get through to these people? Additionally, even though we based part of our appeal on the contention that Lawson's court had been biased, illogical and unfair, Halpert showed up in court, fully prepared to render her decision on the appeal, admitting that she had not bothered to read the original hearing transcript either!

Now folks.....what in THE HELL is going on here?

In the end, Halpert ruled in our favor on most of the case. But she still contended that Lawson's court was fair and unbiased, even though she lambasted him for making inappropriate comments (!!?!)

How is the public to conclude anything BUT the apparent fact that those who make up the judicial system are nothing short of barking mad. As much as we are loathe to conclude that, as nuts as the conclusion itself seems, at some point we've got to accept reality.

On to Hearing Transcript of 3-23-01. This is what actually happened in
Lawson's court after the above document had been submitted to him.