Re: Delann Lamb, Mark
Mcfarland, T&L Leasing,
Dart International Trucking, National Transportation
Final Hearing, Aukeen Court,
Judge: (name pending)
An editorial overview, with
transcripts, of the final hearing in this portion of the case...
Copyright (c) 2002 Seattle
On 4-25-02 the Aukeen court in Kent, Washington, held a
final hearing on the case of Delann Lamb and Mark Mcfarland,
re the Dart International Trucking, National Transportation, and T&L Leasing
This hearing was final only in the sense that it was the
last hearing in this particular portion of the case. There are
many more hearings and trials still to endure, in the portions of the case
which deal with Lamb's and Mcfarland's perjury, and civil suits against
Lamb, Mcfarland, Dart Trucking, and T&L Leasing. We anticipate this mess
taking another three to five years, perhaps longer. Having said that, it
still astounds me that Lamb and Mcfarland could have settled this entire
matter in two point five minutes, clear back in December of 2000, had they
so desired, and it would not have cost them or their company one red cent.
Well, some folks just gotta do things the hard way. So be it.
The hearing on 4-25-02 was poignant, however, in that only
Lamb showed up, sans sleazy attorney Tift, and Mcfarland apparently could
not be bothered to show at all. Sarah, the office secretary, showed with
Lamb as an apparent specter of moral support for her employer. At this point
I can only say that I feel Lamb is the perfect friend for Sarah.
The tapes of this hearing have been ordered, and the
transcripts will be posted here as time allows.
I think it's a fair statement that Lamb
made a fool of herself in court, getting up when the session was not quite
over, making a crude statement, something to the effect of "I don't need
this shit,", then stomping out of the courtroom. The transcript will tell
the story. I think it's safe to say that even the judge was able to glean an
insight into the mentality we've been dealing with these past 15 months, as
Lamb continually made inappropriate comments and asked questions of the
judge that had less than nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing. I
remember at one point Lamb piping up and saying, "all that stuff he wrote,
it didn't happen." (referring to the polygraphs). Of course that had nothing
to do with anything at this hearing, whose sole and specific purpose was to
formally correct the wrong that Lawson's kangaroo court had wrought way back
on 3-23-01, which had already been decided in the appeal. Did Lamb actually
think that this judge had not read the case file and didn't know the score?
And in any case, this judge's job
was only to craft the actual language of the reversal, which had already
been decided months before in appeals court, yet Lamb seemed to
think this judge was interested in whether or not my polygraph tests had
been accurate---documents which had never even been allowed in court! At that moment I was saddened to see, from a fresh
perspective, just how irrational Lamb had become. My attorney was, I think, appalled,
saying that she thought I'd been exaggerating about Lamb before. I think the
judge felt Lamb was prone to temper tantrums. Lamb seemed to be playing a
role, trying to appear as the concerned and wronged, innocent little girl, when I submit that everyone in the room
It's significant to point out that this court, presided over
by a judge who was bright, intelligent, logical and rational (if somewhat
prone to instantaneous flares of temper which I found somewhat
unprofessional and off-putting), even restored my right to post "distorted
pictures" of Lamb and Mcfarland on the Internet. It seems that courts must
always swing too far, either one way or the other, like an unrestrained barn
door in a hurricane. The problem with this is that sooner or later the barn
door flies right off its hinges, which is just about where the judicial
system is right now in this country. But whatever. Before long I'll be back
at home in the seemingly empty wastes of Alaska, where the insanity mostly
does not reach, and from where this mess can be handled by remote control.
I have a bit of a moral problem with the court restoring my
right to post distorted pictures of Lamb or Mcfarland on the net. In the
first place, no such pictures were ever posted, nor would they ever be, and
everyone except Tift and Lawson knows that (well, Lawson doesn't know
ANYTHING, now, 'cause he's dead). To what end post such pictures for God's sake?
But more significantly, does anyone really have the right to ridicule
someone in such an adolescent manner? Perhaps, but I'm not yet convinced.
What I respect is the bottom line, the TRUTH, wherever it leads, and no
matter who it puts in a negative light---even myself, if that's the way the
cards fall. But to post pictures of someone in a public place that depicts
them in any manner that serves no useful purpose except to harass or
humiliate---there's no good reason to allow that, that I can see. We weren't
even asking for this right, yet the court gave it to us. The problem is that
this kind of behavior (publishing weird pictures) falls under the protective
umbrella of satire and parody, which does have it's usefulness to society.
The court cannot---NO ONE CAN--- decide what kinds of satirical imagery
"should" be allowed, and what shouldn't, so the government has taken the
tack that all should be allowed. I understand what the founding fathers had
in mind when they drafted the constitution---I'm just not convinced that in
the case of imagery, the constitution doesn't allow as much room for evil as
it does for good.
Similarly, the constitution allows us to say just about
anything we want about someone in published form. I have the same moral
problem with that. People should NOT be allowed to publish lies about
another person. In point of fact, they aren't---that's what slander and
defamation laws are for. But should the government even allow the seeds of
defamation to be planted in the first place? Should the government take the
approach that it's not a crime to rob a convenience store, because if you
do, the store owner has the option of civil court as a recourse? No one
would argue that's ridiculous. Yet the constitution allows that published
matter, no matter how outrageous, which can easily do as much damage to a
person as a robber, is allowed nearly without restriction. Again, it's
impossible for any court to accurately determine the truthfulness of every
single statement any person makes, so it must allow ALL, and let the
citizenry sort it out after the fact.
Having seen the wonders of the polygraph machine, my
guideline, were I King of America, would be to require polygraph testing of
anyone who wished to publish information about another, and state that it is
true. I am astounded at the accuracy of that technology, and
believe it it to be as close to faultless as anything the world has ever
seen. The judicial branch must also feel that way, because it is allowable
that a prosecutor may consider a polygraph even when determining whether or
not to charge a person in a capital crime. That says they believe a GREAT
DEAL in the polygraph. So why not allow it in court? It's simple---that
would prevent too many sleazy attorneys from winning too many cases they
shouldn't have won in the first place. Read: Leigh Ann Tift.
I'd like to also see every witness on the stand be hooked to
a polygraph during any trial or hearing in which sworn testimony is to be
given. That would have cut this particular mess to a duration of about ten
minutes, way back in 3 of 01---even before it came to a hearing in front of
Judge Lawson, but when Lamb and Mcfarland were first concocting their tall
tales to the original judge who issued the orders that shut this site down.
He's nearly as guilty as Lawson..
Of course the public always has at its disposal its own
common sense when determining fact from fiction, truth from lie in any
published testimony. Trouble is, how many folks POSSESS common sense any
more? Indeed, how many JUDGES have access to it? Not many, it would seem.
The transcript of the final hearing on 4-25-02 will be
appended here, along with editorial insertions to explain what is happening
at any given point in the proceeding. The hearing was only about 15 minutes
in length. But I think the reader will find it an enlightening look into the
character of Delann Lamb, and it will further mystify the reader as to how
these two, Lamb and Mcfarland, got as far as they did before being beaten
back in the courts. And that's what this site is about.
Would I have any advice for
people of this ilk? Yes:
Don't ever come at me with treachery and
Don't ever do it.
I'm the most reasonable and forgiving
person I know. But we all have our limits.
One last aside: On 4-25-02, for the first
time, I was given an opportunity to finally view the pictures Lamb and
Mcfarland brought to court, way back on 3-23-02, the very ones that drove
Lawson mad. I was astounded, horrified, perplexed, amazed, scared, stupefied
and bewildered to discover that most of the images they submitted ARE NOT
EVEN OF THEM, but are of people they don't know and have never met. That
Lamb and Mcfarland, and their faithful attorney, Leigh Ann Tift, would use
pictures of OTHER PEOPLE to trick the court into granting an illegal court
order, is frankly beyond my ability to address at this time. What's ten
thousand times worse is the fact that Lawson even went for THAT. No human
being could possibly be that stupid, could they?
(pending as of 4-29-02)