"Judge" Helen L. Halpert
http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/Superior Court/judges/halpert.aspx

We would give everything we own or ever will own to be able to sue this woman and confront her with the evidence and FORCE her to explain her behavior, on the record, in front of witnesses, and in a venue which would have within its power the authority to penalize her when she lies -- because she HAS no moral, logical, legal or technical excuse for her behavior. Every attorney we've brought into this case tells us the judicial system has arranged itself so that bad apples like this can never be held accountable for the damage they inflict through their stupidity and malfeasance. They have simply proclaimed themselves immune. What a surprise. The woman featured in this editorial, Helen L. Halpert, cares less about her factually erroneous decisions, which have life-changing power over her victims, than does the 19 year old clerk at 7-11 who makes a mistake in ringing up your raspberry slurpy. This page documents that statement utterly. And if that doesn't scare you, you're brain-dead.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have never, in decades of living in three countries (Canada, 11 states in the US, and Mexico), in years of being employed by law enforcement on the Federal level, in decades of investigating and exposing government corruption, stumbled upon a more corrupt, clueless, unprofessional, downright dishonest, dishonorable and outright stupid "judge". This woman is a liability to the dignity of any society. She is a liability to the judicial system itself. She is a liability to logic, reason, truth, professionalism, decency, competence and honor. She is utterly incompetent. She has no place as a shift supervisor in a coffee shop, let alone making life and death, life-changing decisions from the bench. That this woman still presides over any case in these United States drives home the painful realization that the judicial system in America is a write-off, a classic example of a Planet-of-the-Apes mentality run amok and unchallenged, a thing to be avoided at all costs, to be feared to a far greater degree than any middle-eastern terrorist organization. Against the idiot-terrorist there is at least the HOPE of recourse. Against mindless judges the caliber of Helen Halpert, there is no hope of recourse whatever. Society is simply at the mercy of her clueless, illogical ministrations. She cannot be held accountable for, or, indeed, even forced to explain her bizarre, factually incorrect and outrageously biased and stupid decisions. She is legally immune from the very concept of right and wrong. She is to be feared exactly as a drunk driver must be feared. This woman is another in a long line of judicial terrorists, who make decisions not based on fact, or common sense, logic, reason, study, comprehension, truth, honor, or any other of the tests intelligent society uses to determine the validity of any concept, idea, opinion or decision. She makes decisions based on raw, unprincipled, ignorant emotion, and when she is shown the documented proof of at least her factual errors, she still cannot be bothered to set the record straight and do the morally correct thing. As a human being, this woman is a genetic blank. Society does not evolve because of human beings like this; it evolves in spite of them, assuming it can overcome the damage inflicted by such mindless parasites, and it evolves at all. When you go to court in Washington state, be afraid. Be very afraid. Because even if your judge makes a series of documented factual errors and rules incorrectly, that judge will almost certainly be of such low moral character as to be unwilling to correct their outrageous behavior, and you'll remain a victim of their incompetence and amorality just as if you were the victim of any other thief. The judicial branch in Washington state doesn't steal you belongings -- at least not directly. They steal your trust in government, your sense of American worth, your ideologies, your faith, your love of country, your spirit and your soul. And those are possessions far more valuable than a stereo or a TV. The ultimate insult comes when, even as these judicial screw-ups are exposed in black and white, printed out directly from the record and disseminated, these judges simply ignore their errors as though they don't matter. This site exists to demonstrate that stupid decisions made by stupid judges using flawed logic and factual error DO matter. They matter just as much as any other criminal or amoral act against society, any other act of theft and immorality, any other act of bullying. Judges are so accustomed to getting away with judicial murder that they are amazed, amazed when it's brought to light. But the world is better for it.

Governments wonder why they're feared; judges wonder why they're reviled; public servants wonder why they're universally suspect; attorneys wonder why they're the butt of sad jokes. THIS IS WHY:

 

FACT: "Judge" Helen L. Halpert stated that she was ready to make a judgment in an appeals case even though she had not read the brief (by her own admission).

FACT: "Judge" Helen L. Halpert found AS A FACT that certain events had occurred, even though plaintiffs either had made no such allegations, or had denied that said events occurred. Helen Halpert manufactured these events in her own imagination, then stated in the record that these imagined events had occurred in real life.

FACT: "Judge" Helen L. Halpert accepted a 28 page written defense from the lower court, and again as submitted to her by our appeals attorney (it's in the record), then Helen Halpert refused to read it, then stated for the record that no defense had been offered.

FACT: Only a cursory investigation reveals that this Governor Locke appointee performs her job this poorly on a regular basis -- and refuses to acknowledge her mistakes when brought to her attention.

OPINION: Washington state not only doesn't need any more of this judicial incompetence, arrogance and dishonor, it can't handle any more!

 

Formatted for Convenient Printing

 

 

Any person, in a position of power and authority over other people, who is petty, mean, dishonest, corrupt, conniving, underhanded, even merely unrepentantly incompetent, is no more than a schoolyard bully. And schoolyard bullies have no place in any evolved and intelligent community.

 

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

 

In the year 2000, Washington Courts of Appeal and the Washington Supreme Court reversed entirely 119 rulings. They affirmed entirely 241. And affirmed in part and reversed in part 26 more cases. This means that of a sampling of 386 cases taken to appeal in 2000, 145 of them were deemed so bogus and unacceptable by the next higher court that they were overturned. It's likely that only a small percentage of the cases which should have been taken to appeal, were. It's likely that only a small percentage of the cases that should have been overturned, were overturned. So what we're looking at, folks, is a failure rate of the lower courts approaching 100%. If that doesn't scare you, you're brain dead.

 

Halpert Editorial

 

When the judicial system enforces stupid, irrational laws, reason dictates that the people work through the system to change those laws. When the judicial system utterly ignores the laws it is bound to adhere to, reason dictates that the people work through the system to purge those individuals from it. When the judicial system refuses to even censure those individuals who ignore the laws and thereby corrupt and dilute the credibility of the system, the system must be considered null and void, and other means of attaining justice must be sought.

 

 

Complaints Against:

Appeals Court Judge, Helen L. Halpert

Incompetent? Yes.

Dishonest? We wish we could come to some other conclusion---any other conclusion. But we cannot.

We fear this woman more than we fear Osama bin Laden. Against the terrorist there is at least the hope of protection. Against an incompetent, dishonorable judge, there is, we've learned, no option at all.

 

  

 

Halpert, Helen L.
Appointed: November 23, 1999
Court: King County Superior Court
Effective: December 20, 1999
 

helen.halpert@metrokc.gov

King County Superior Court
516 3rd Ave., Rm C-203
Seattle, WA 98104

206-296-9235
206-296-0986 (fax)

This document includes my opinions.

On 12-10-01, the Appellate Judge, Helen L. Halpert, in Superior Court, in Seattle, Washington, largely overturned the ruling that Judge John Lawson had erroneously entered way back in 3-01. My right to free speech was restored; that's what allows this site to exist. Unfortunately, by lying to the court, Delann Lamb and Mark Mcfarland tricked the court into also restricting me from coming within 500 feet of them. Now that's not a physical problem. I had not been within many miles of them since I quit my job back in 2000, nor did I have any intention of visiting them, nor did they have any reason to suspect I might, nor had I threatened to, nor did they tell the court I had threatened to, nor did they tell the court I might! But it's a matter of principle. If you don't do anything wrong, no one is supposed to be able to punish you. At least that's the theory. The decision to restrict my freedom of movement was a result of some unprincipled lying, a sleazy attorney who hasn't the slightest appreciation of truth or fact (Leigh Anne Tift (Leigh Ann Tift) (my opinion!)) and a wholly and utterly incompetent judge (my opinion which is shared by every single (bar-none) attorney I spoke with who had ever interacted with Judge John Lawson).

 

While it was gratifying to have my basic constitutional rights restored, and to know that the opposition had spent nearly $20,000 trying to take them away from me, it rankled that my freedom of movement had not been restored by the appellate court. It rankled me more that the decision by the court was not based in fact or evidence---it was arrived at because the petitioners, Lamb and Mcfarland, had simply tricked the court into making assumptions which were not true. They didn't even have to lie in some cases---they needed only to "vaguely suggest" things, to sneakily plant little seeds in the judges' minds, and voila! The courts took the balls and ran. The courts simply swallowed the bait. The courts were duped by these people, and duped almost effortlessly. Since it is financially prohibitive to file yet another appeal (and the deadline is only days away), I have elected to simply file my objections with the appeals court. My own version of that document appears immediately below. It galls me to admit that there are many times when to actually obtain justice is impossible, and that we must be content with merely describing it, as this site endeavors to do.

 

hON. HELEN HALPERT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

for king county

 

[employee],

 

Appellant/Defendant,

 

vs.

 

DELANN LAMB and

MARK McFARLAND,

 

Respondents/Plaintiffs;

 

CASE No. 01-2-12968-6 SEA

01-2-12966-0 SEA

 

 

OBJECTION OF APPELLANT TO MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT IN RALJ COURT’S DECISION

 

 

TO: The Court and the Hon. Helen L. Halpert:

 

On 12-10-01 this Court entered a decision in this matter, affirming in part and reversing in part. I object vehemently to a number of statements in that judgment.

 

(1) You assert that it is fact that pictures of unclothed persons had been posted on an internet site. The Court is incorrect. Nowhere in the record does anyone, not counsel, not petitioners, state that any nude, unclothed, pornographic or semi-nude pictures were posted on any website. The only reference made to it is when petitioners said they have "reason to believe" that "distorted" pictures had been posted on some site that was unknown to them. No nude, semi-nude or unclothed pictures were ever posted on any website by me, nor would they ever be. I have, however, taken a polygraph regarding this issue, and have posted THAT on the Internet. During the trial court hearing, once I began to suspect what opposing counsel was trying to pull, I asked opposing counsel, for the record, if she was saying that the pictures in question had been posted on the internet. She refused to reply. I then asked her for the URLs of any pictures that she might be trying to suggest had been posted. She admitted that she had no such information. This is in the record! She had no such information because no such pictures were ever posted on the internet. The pictures that were submitted to the court were taken off the walls of the offices occupied by Delann Lamb and Mark Mcfarland and photocopied as a ruse to trick the court. [as it turned out many months later, when we were finally allowed to view the images submitted to the court, the pictures were not even of Lamb or Mcfarland but of people they didn't know and had never met or heard of, and who were fully clothed!]. And it worked gloriously. These pictures were presented to the court with the hope that the court would somehow infer that they had been used as a harassment technique. Not only did the trial court bite on this very fishy bait, the appeals court did also! How can the court state that an event occurred when no one even alleges that it has? The court may as well state for the record that I murdered the Lindberg baby. Of course no one is alleging that I did---but why should that concern the court?

 

(2) Neither the RALJ court nor the lower court appears to have read one word of my written testimony, which was submitted to the trial court before the hearing, and again during the hearing, in lieu of my spoken testimony. An additional copy was also supplied to the appeals court. The RALJ decision states: "The factual basis for entry of the above orders was virtually undisputed [by defendant]." Yet the entire case of the petitioners was vehemently disputed in my 28 page written testimony, and my attorney clearly spelled out many of the factual errors made by the trial court! The appeals court admits that it considered and heavily relied on the testimony of the petitioners, yet it did not even read the written testimony of the defendant! I wrote out my testimony so there would be no misunderstanding as to my rebuttal. As it turns out, it wasn’t misunderstood---it was totally ignored by two courts! I feel that because I was not represented at the lower level by an attorney, the courts simply elected to ignore my testimony. As far as I’m concerned, not possessing a legal mind, that one fact renders the appeals court decision erroneous. It is unjust to consider one side, yet not consider the other side, simply because the judge (Helen Halpert) is too damned lazy and/or incompetent to READ THE STATEMENT! It’s just plain wrong, and supremely, unspeakably disappointing to this citizen.

 

(3) The trial court ruled that the joke-fax referencing guns was, indeed, a joke, and was not to be considered in the case. Yet by a path of logic which is mysterious to all who read it, the appeals court has decided that the joke fax is, somehow, after all, not a joke (even though petitioners said it was!), and is to be considered an "instance of harassment" notwithstanding the factual finding to the contrary by the trial court. The appeals court seems to be concluding that since the statement I made to Mark Mcfarland: "It would not be in your best interests to blow me off again," made him uncomfortable some eight months after the joke fax was written, the joke fax from eight months previous, which has nothing to do with this or any other case, must also be considered some sort of threat. In point of fact, the phrase "It would not be in your best interests to blow me off again," is not a "true threat" under the U.S. Constitution and is therefore not actionable. If the second statement was a perfectly legal and non-threatening statement to make, the court cannot conclude that because a perfectly legal and non-threatening statement has been made, some other statement must be a threat because of it! There is simply no logic to this conclusion. In point of fact, what I had in mind when I made the latter statement, was to station myself in front of Dart’s gate with a sandwich-board describing my experiences with the company. This too is a wholly lawful act---the perpetration of which has now been denied me by both the trial and appeals court rulings! ---Which is exactly what the petitioners had hoped for!

 

The above few objections represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The remainder of my objections are aired online. I am unable to afford any further appeal. I most honestly believe this decision should be appealed. However, I submit this objection in the hope that the appeals court will understand what it has done, and will be honorable enough to correct it. If the court wishes to find me guilty of something based on events which actually occurred, then the court is welcome to its judgment. But a court cannot make up events that never occurred. It simply cannot do that.

 

Once again, my entire defense (sans witness depositions) is attached.

 

If any court, in any land, is going to consider the testimony of one side, it must also consider the testimony of the opposing side. That’s a basic concept of decency, of right and wrong, of good versus evil and of fair-play that cannot ever be ignored, by any government, anywhere, at any time.

 

The fact that two courts have now ignored this most basic of all concepts of conflict resolution frankly terrifies me.

 

SUBMITTED this ____ day of January, 2002.

 

By _______________________________

[employee]

 

Update:

 

03-08-02: The above document was delivered to Judge Helen Halpert over 60 days ago. The document was a significantly scaled-down version of what should have been said, and it only touched on a few highlights of this woman's bizarre judgment. The document pulled its punch by about 75% in deference to my attorney's pleas to "go easy" on Halpert, "because she was probably overworked". My attorney also suggested that I not complain about Halpert's decision too loudly because any judge I might come before in the future may conclude that I "hate all judges". This conclusion by any future judge, my attorney intoned, may well sway that judge's treatment of any case I might bring before him/her, and cause me to lose solely because that new judge thought I had "disliked" any previous judges. It cut crosswise to my grain to grant Halpert slack 60 days ago because I do not for one minute feel that being overworked excuses decisions that are this biased, this unrealistic, this non-factual, this uninformed, and this nuts. Neither do I believe that incompetent judges should be treated with kid gloves because other judges might be offended if they're not, and be thereafter "out to get" the person who called a judge on a ludicrously erroneous judgment. The notion that we (the taxpayer) must be "nice" to all judges, no matter how bizarre or wrong their rulings, because other judges might turn on us out of spite and retaliation, while painfully true, rankles to the core. The judicial system is one of those avocations in which the work ethic must be quality first. The judicial system cannot be the Burger King of justice---but that's exactly what Judge Helen Halpert has made it. 

 

Or is it even worse than that? It was bad enough that the woman (Halpert) made such unspeakably uninformed decisions in this case. That cost her about 97.3% of my respect. But when my attorney and I again spelled out the facts to this woman in the above document, and Halpert then chose, over the course of the past 60 days, to simply ignore those mistakes, that put me over the edge. Part-time pro tem Judge John Lawson, way back on 3-23-01, made a number of decisions in this case that should frankly cost him his job. Judge Halpert was made aware of those factual errors, and it was her job to undo the imbecilic wrongs that Lawson had wrought. Halpert not only failed to correct many of the mistakes, she made them a second time, herself even though they were pointed out to her before she decided on the case, and then she refused to take responsibility for them when they were shown to her again after she made the mistakes! At this time we have no choice but to detail Halpert's factual errors and submit them to the bar. 

 

I have little (or no) faith in the BAR, nor does anyone else I've ever known or spoken with, and most people would tell you they wonder why it exists, but I also do not believe the citizenry of western Washington should be subjected to judicial incompetence on a staggering scale. I will, therefore, begin the long and laborious process of making sure the voters know what they're getting, when they vote to retain Helen Halpert on the bench. 

 

One item seems to stick in my craw more than any other---that is the fact that while no pornography was ever posted on the web by me or anyone I know, that no nude or semi-nude pictures were ever posted on the web, that even if I had posted such pictures it would have been because I had permission to do so from Lamb and Mcfarland, that even though no one even claimed that I had posted pornographic, nude, or semi nude pictures of anyone on the Internet, Judge Helen Halpert wrote in her finding that it was a fact that I had done so! This is not a situation where a judge is given two sides of a story, and must decide which is true. This is a situation where Judge Helen Halpert had no reason to believe I had done this thing, no one said I had done this thing, no one offered even one scrap of evidence to suggest that I had done this thing, yet Halpert pulled her determination out of thin air and found that the event had occurred! This isn't a faulty decision---this is plain old biased, unadulterated defamation. I see absolutely no other explanation. Let's say a man is brought to court and accused of stealing a candy bar from the corner grocery. He hasn't done the deed, but he's accused of it. The prosecution offers NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that he has stolen the candy bar, but the judge not only finds him guilty of stealing the candy bar, she finds the man guilty of also killing the liquor store owner next door. "But," the poor man laments, "No one is accusing me of killing the liquor store owner---look! He's alive, right here in front of you!". But the court is undeterred; it rules that the man has, indeed, killed the liquor store owner. That's the anatomy of madness, folks, and it's exactly what Helen Halpert has done in this case.

 

Inasmuch as governments and judges seem to be adept at least at the business of isolating themselves from the consequences of their frequent mistakes, I would not be surprised to find that a judge cannot be sued for defamation even under circumstances as blatant as these. But the reader may rest assured I'll try.

 

Since Halpert could not muster the simple professionalism, honor, or simple human decency to even respond to the above objection, which was duly and properly filed with the court, we have no choice but to move on to a formal complaint to the bar, as follows:

 

 

Washington State Bar Assn  
2101 4th Ave   Fl 4
Seattle,WA
98121

 

Summary of the case:

 

This is a case in which a man worked for a Kent-based trucking company for three years. He was given every raise, asked to promote up so often that he asked his bosses, in writing, to stop asking! He was well liked, and invited to go fishing with his boss. He quit in the fall of 2000 due to drugs, dishonesty and incompetence on the part of his two superiors, Delann Lamb, and Mark Mcfarland. He was asked to reconsider his termination, which he did. However he quit again in December of 2000 for the same reasons. After he quit, one of his bosses, Delann Lamb, emailed the ex-employee and made several very positive statements to him and about him, and this document was submitted to the court on 3-23-02. Both employers expressed extreme disappointment and anger to numerous witnesses, regarding this employee's quitting, because he was a valued employee. Many months later, this ex-employee happened upon a document issued by his former employer, which listed the employee's rehire prospects as "excellent". None of this is in contention.

 

Due to subsequent problems with his ex-employers, including crank calls which traced to them, and including a good deal of defamation about the ex-employee by the ex-employers, the ex-employee decided to post his "exit interview" from the company, on the Internet. The ex-employee felt the despicable post-employment actions of his former employers had become more than newsworthy. This Internet document highlighted only a very few of the ex-employers activities, and pulled its proverbial punch by a factor of about 85%. No pictures of any type or description were posted on this site, however the ex-employee did find several pictures of his employers on his commercial site. Those pictures had been posted on that site for two years or more, with the full knowledge of the employers. The images in question were about 1 x 2 inch in size; they were simple portraits (head and shoulders), fully clothed, and were covered over with large, bold text which read, "Your Picture Here". No one had complained about these images in the two years or so they were posted.

 

The ex-employers, Lamb and Mcfarland, didn't like the ex-employee's exit interview being made public on the Internet. The document made them look bad. They began to plot ways of getting the information removed from the Internet. Unfortunately, they ran headlong into that pesky thing called the First Amendment. This perplexed them, until they hooked up with an attorney, one Leigh Anne Tift (Leigh Ann Tift)of Seattle, who apparently convinced the pair of ex-employers that while they couldn't legally force the material to be removed from the Internet as things stood, they might be able, she apparently advised, to make it look as though the Internet posting was part of some larger picture of harassment. So Lamb and Mcfarland skedaddled along home to see if they could come up with a story that would convince a judge that this ex-employee was bothering them in some other way sufficient to warrant the exclusion of his First Amendment rights. Of course they had not been harassed in any way---but that irrelevant fact didn't dissuade them, or their attorney, Tift.

 

We believe Tift knew full well that no harassment had taken place. We also believe that Tift knew full well that even if it had, she could not legally force the ex-employee to give up his First Amendment rights. Tift imagined, however, that this ex-employee probably wouldn't fight too hard. She figured she could slip this little favor through the system, and then, perhaps, cash in on a lucrative retainer from a grateful corporation, Dart International Trucking, Lamb's and Mcfarland's employer, out of Los Angeles, California. So Tift put all this in motion and took it to court, petitioning John Lawson in Aukeen Court, Kent, Washington, to grant identical restraining orders against the ex-employee, shutting down the ex-employee's website and stripping him of any and all First Amendment rights to tell ANYONE why he quit his job.

 

Now, as it happens, Lawson was a madman. I use the past tense because he's dead. But Lawson was famous for his illogical rulings, and has been described by every single attorney with whom I've spoken, who had ever interacted with the man, as "mentally" unbalanced, handicapped, disturbed, what have you. Lawson's irrational rulings were legendary, and everyone knows it.

 

I came to Lawson's court on 3-23-02, prepared for a formality. I knew I had harassed no one. I knew that my First Amendment rights were safe. I knew I was safe from successful defamation action, because I could easily prove everything I had said on the website as true, and those things I couldn't readily prove, I identified as my opinion, based on events which had transpired which I could prove. It was cut-and-dried. They may as well have accused me of killing the Lindberg baby. My defense of that accusation was just as solid as my defense of this allegation from Lamb and Mcfarland. I didn't do it----easy to prove. They were simply lying, and I could easily prove it, right there in the courtroom, with documents written by their own hands. Should be in and out in ten minutes. Who needs an attorney for that.

 

As it turned out, Lawson was feeling particularly insane that day. He disallowed me to bring witnesses, even though at the beginning of the hearing he had voiced no objection when I asked to reserve the right to bring them. Lawson threw several of my documents off the bench without reading them, saying, "Well I think this is just stupid." How could he judge my documents as stupid when he refused to even look at them? One of the documents he tossed off the bench was a letter written by Delann Lamb, to me, some time after I quit, stating that she had the greatest respect for me, that she would always consider me a friend, etc. etc. I thought that letter in and of itself would nicely counter Lamb's sworn testimony to the court that I had threatened and abused her even before I quit her employ. But Lawson threw the document off the bench without glancing at it! And so the hearing went, for some 82 minutes. In the end, Lawson made a ridiculous ruling, stripping me of any and all First Amendment rights in the matter, and I went home and began to prepare for appeal.

 

The appeal came before Helen L. Halpert, in Superior Court, Seattle. Halpert rendered her decision on 12-10-2001. Halpert did overturn the lion's share of Lawson's ruling, but she left some shards in effect which should not have been affirmed. I state that she did this not because she weighed both sides of the case and arrived at an educated opinion, and then formally rendered it. I state that Halpert arrived at her conclusion through incompetence and a distressing lack of logic, in that she utterly ignored, misstated and invented the facts of the case. Her errors are not gray areas, open to interpretation; they are errors in fact, as surely as it is incorrect to state that the sun revolves around the Earth. Certain facts are indisputable. The record says one thing; Halpert says another.

 

Halpert's ruling in the appeal was so outrageous, so misinformed, so shockingly incorrect as to prompt me to formally file the attached disagreement to Halpert's court. She was allowed over 90 days to respond to it. She apparently could not be bothered to respond. Even when shown the irrefutable facts of her errors, the woman could not find within herself the logic, the decency, or the honor to either correct, or explain, her mistakes.

 

Following is an OCR copy of Halpert's findings in the case. I'm going to go through the text and insert my commentary, pointing out the factual errors Halpert made. The BAR will consider these the points of my complaint against Helen L. Halpert:

 

(Editorial insertions italicized and underlined; Original record retained as plain text)

 

On March 23, 2001, The Honorable John Lawson, Judge of the King County Superior [court] entered two virtually identical orders pursuant to RCW 10,14. The petitioners were Delann Lamb and Mark McFarland, former co-workers of the respondent. [employee] has filed this appeal challenging the entry of the orders on several grounds. In essence, respondent has asserted four challenges:

 

(1) that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that the respondent engaged in conduct that supports issuance of an anti-harassment order,

 

(2) that the order, as written, is overbroad,

 

(3) that RCW 10.14 is facially unconstitutional and finally,

 

(4) that the trial court's demeanor and conduct throughout the hearing was so improper as to deprive him of a fair opportunity to be heard.

 

 

Statutory Scheme

 

"Unlawful harassment" is a: knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. . .

 

RCW 10.14.020(1). "Course of conduct" is a: pattern of conduct composed of a serious of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. "Course of conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally­protected activity is not included with the meaning of course of conduct.

 

RCW 10.14.020(2). If the trial court determines that the petitioner has established "by a preponderance of the evidence" that unlawful harassment exists, a "civil anti-harassment protection order shall issue prohibiting such unlawful harassment." RCVS` 10.14.080(3)(Emphasis added).

 

Analysis
 

The Record Contains Substantial Evidence to Support the Trial Court's Determination that Respondent Committed Unlawful Harassment.

 

Although the hearing below was somewhat heated, there are relatively few disagreements about the underlying facts.

 

This is Halpert's first major blooper. She states that there were relatively few disagreements about the underlying facts. My entire case was formally submitted to Lawson's court in writing on two occasions; once before the hearing on 3-23, and again during the hearing on 3-23. It consisted of roughly 28 pages of testimony which vehemently denied virtually every single allegation made by petitioners. Unfortunately, Lawson did not bother to read my side of the case. He simply didn't read it. We felt that the fact that the original trial court elected not to read the entire testimony of one side, illustrated just how biased and unprofessional Lawson was. The unread testimony was then submitted to Halpert's court, also at least twice, and perhaps three times, so as to be absolutely sure that my side of the story was considered at least once during the course of the circus. Halpert did not read it either. If she had, she could not make the statement she made above. So we have now endured two courts which have rendered rulings without considering, or even reading one entire side of the case. This is not justice or even an ugly cousin of it. This is an episode of Prime-Time Primates.

 

The following appear to be undisputed: the respondent sent a fax to the petitioners in which he threatened to use his "AK", stating that "I think violence in the workplace does have its place." At the time the fax was received, the petitioners believed it was a joke.

 

(1) The fax in question (enclosed) was written on 8-4-2000, or approximately five months before I quit. It was one of many dozens of such faxes (this is not disputed). It was warmly received by petitioners at the time (this is not disputed), it was faxed around the country to friends and co-workers of petitioners BY the petitioners for weeks as an example of the kinds of jokes we ALL traded in the office (this is not disputed); petitioners have stated for the record that they thought it was a joke. Approx. three months after I wrote the fax, petitioners begged me to reconsider my decision to quit working for them (not disputed), thus demonstrating that they had no problem with the fax at that time (this is not disputed); approximately four months after writing the fax I was quite roundly chastised by petitioners because I was maneuvering to reduce my personal contact with them (this is not disputed); five months after writing the fax, when I finally quit for good in December of 2000, petitioners wrote to me saying I would be missed, that I could have had a different route of I so desired, that they always considered me a friend and a co-worker, etc (this is not disputed); eight months after writing the fax petitioners had not complained about the fax at all, to me, or to anyone else, until my web site appeared and they filed to have it shut down. This fax was not considered threatening or harassing by petitioners at any time, nor is it to this day.

 

(2) Lawson, in the original hearing of 3-23, allowed that the material in the fax of 8-4 was not threatening and would not be considered by his court in the ruling. Yet Halpert ruled that the fax was not, after all, a joke, and was, in fact, the "first instance of harassment". I submit that this train of logic is so flawed as to require psychological evaluation. Bluntly, I'm saying it's nuts.

 

Respondent left his position at T & L Leasing/Dart Trucking on December 21, 2000.

 

Again, Halpert is incorrect; I resigned my position on 12-15 and my last day was 12-18, and these dates are highly relevant to petitioners' claims.

 

After he left his employment, the respondent established a web page in which he outlined his grievances against the petitioners and against T & L Leasing/Dart Trucking. In the web site, he asserted that petitioner Lamb used illegal drugs.

 

Halpert is utterly and factually incorrect again: the web site which petitioners objected to (the only one in existence at the time except my commercial site which made no reference to petitioners in any form) most assuredly did NOT accuse Lamb or Mcfarland or anyone else of illegal drug use. It simply related the FACT that I had found illegal drug paraphernalia in Lamb's work area, and again in Mcfarland's desk drawer. I am allowed to state facts.

 

 At the hearing, he admitted that he had no proof of this allegation.

 

In the first place, again, there was no allegation, but additionally, I stated in court on 3-23 when asked about whether or not I had proof of illegal drug use, that I had witnessed activities which led me to believe that illegal drug use was occurring (if you witness someone inhale smoke from a small brass pipe, hold their breath, then cough it out and giggle, it's a fair assumption the substance is an illegal drug. It was my QUALIFIED opinion, having a background in narcotics enforcement, that illegal drugs were being used---but it's a moot point because the site did not make the accusation anyway). Tift, attorney for petitioners, managed to interrupt me before I could complete the sentence, but enough of it exists in the record to verify what I've said. In the second place, I do not believe it was the function of Halpert's court to determine whether or not any allegations of drug use by petitioners was truthful or not. If they had been made and were untruthful, petitioners were free to sue me for defamation---something they have not done, and will not do. In the third place, why is Halpert even bringing this up in her finding? She granted that my website was protected speech anyway.

 

 The web site also contained composite pictures of both petitioners.

 

Again, Halpert is utterly and totally incorrect. (1) The REALITY of the matter, as if anyone in this case was actually concerned with reality, is that no nude, semi nude, pornographic, OR EVEN DISTORTED images of either Lamb or Mcfarland were ever posted. Of course at this late date we have numerous polygraphs to illustrate the truth of that (enclosed), but at the time, neither Halpert of Lawson had access to those. The reason I include this point as an objection to Halpert's ruling is that---and brace yourself for this one--- NO ONE EVEN ACCUSED ME of posting nude, semi-nude, or pornographic pictures of petitioners. The closest they came to it was when, for the record, Lamb stated that she had "reason to believe" that I had posted "distorted" (not pornographic) pictures of her "on some website". Lamb didn't even allege that I had done that---she only tried to infer to the court that it "might" have happened, somewhere, somehow, she wasn't sure, she just had "reason to believe", etc. etc.  Neither Lamb or Mcfarland actually made the allegation, because they KNEW it had never happened, and they had no evidence to suggest it had. Even during the hearing on 3-23 I began to glean the notion that their attorney, Tift, was trying to trick Lawson into thinking that certain pictures had been posted on the Internet, so I asked her, point blank, and it's clear and loud in the record: "Are you saying these pictures were posted on the Internet?" Tift refused to reply in any way. I later asked her to show the court any Internet URLs of where such pictures had been posted, and she replied that she had no such information. If Halpert knows something we don't---and my attorney and I have scoured the records looking for any assertion by petitioners that they accused me of posting pornographic pictures of them, so we could add it to the already comprehensive perjury complaint that was submitted to the King County Prosecutor's office---then Halpert should tell us where in the record that allegation is. We can't find it. So the petitioners have not alleged that I posted pornographic pictures of them, their attorney refuses to answer when I ask her if that's what she is alleging, and she says she has no URLs of any pictures that were posted. Yet Halpert bulldozes right along without a clue, and makes this terrifying statement that the posting of pornographic pictures did in FACT occur. Inasmuch as there was no proof of such an event, and, worse, NO ALLEGATION OF IT, I find this statement by Halpert to be nothing short of defamatory. Halpert has no reason to believe that any such thing occurred---no one has told her it has, and no one has supplied her with any shred of documentation to support the fantasy that it had, yet Halpert concludes that it had. That ruling is not only mad, it's BARKING-mad. What if I entered a statement into the public record which made this statement: "I have found it to be FACT that Helen Halpert maintains a sexual relationship with her dog." Helen Halpert would be mad as hell, and rightfully so, and that statement would be eminently actionable, and so it should be. I have no reason to think she has sex with her dog; no one has alleged that she has or ever would; no one has supplied me the slightest, smallest shred of documentation to even support the OPINION that Helen Halpert has sex with her dog or any other dog. It's a ridiculous and defamatory thing to say. It is EXACTLY as ridiculous and defamatory as Helen Halpert's statement that she has found it to be FACT that I posted pornographic pictures of petitioners on the Internet. Helen Halpert hasn't had sex with any dog, and I haven't posted pornographic pictures of the petitioners on the Internet, nor have I caused it to be done, nor have I heard of it being done, nor have I considered ever doing it! Yet Halpert states it was done! And I simply will not roll over for it! It's irresponsible on Halpert's part, and I don't think there's a CEO in America who would challenge the assertion that if an employee of theirs showed incompetence to this degree, they'd be fired on the spot. Someone whose logic is this flawed could not possibly make a living in the real world.

 

 Although some of these were simply silly (for example, replacing petitioner Lambs' head with that of an animal),

 

Reality check, Halpert: There are NO images in the record of Lamb or Mcfarland's head on an animal.

 

most of them were images depictions of unclothed persons in provocative positions upon which the heads of the petitioners had been superimposed. This was done skillfully, so that it appeared that the petitioners had, themselves, posed for these pictures.'

 

Respondents DID pose for the pictures. They posed in such a way as to match their head angles to fit the body angles of the subjects in various images. They did this willingly over a three year period. But let's examine this a little further before dismissing this particular issue: On 4-24-02, which was 13 months after the original hearing, I was, for the first time, allowed to see all of the images that Lamb and Mcfarland were alleging that I had somehow harassed them with---not posted on the Internet---just harassed them with in some unknown and undescribed manner. I had tried to take a look at the sheet of pictures during the original hearing on 3-23-01, but as I did so, Lawson started talking, and I set the sheet down to listen to him. Before I knew it, Tift had snatched it up and I never saw it again until 4-24-02. Tift refused to respond to my repeated formal requests for copies of the images. What positively unhinged me when I finally did see the sheet on 4-24, was the fact that while petitioners submitted this sheet of 15 images which I had supposedly used to harass them, only six depicted the petitioners in any way. THE REST WERE OF OTHER PEOPLE THEY DID NOT KNOW, HAD NEVER MET, AND WHO WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH DART OR T&L IN ANY WAY!! NO WONDER THEIR ATTORNEY DIDN'T WANT ME TO SEE THEM! And I find this beyond ludicrous. Lawson was tricked by it, and so was Halpert; they were tricked so effortlessly that I worry about them finding their ways home at night---well, at least I worry about Halpert, because Lawson is dead.. I submit that petitioners have made one hell of a fool out of the Halpert. Of course she helped herself along.

 

Finally, the respondent sent petitioner McFarland a letter requesting a letter of recommendation, which ended "Please, think carefully before blowing me off again. Believe me, it is not in your best interest to do so.

 

This phrase, "It is not in your best interests to do so," has already been ruled on by a higher court. It has been ruled to be "not a true threat", because, of course, it is no such thing. This ruling was brought to Halpert's attention in our brief to her. Yet she has utterly ignored the ruling of the higher court, and has, in effect, overruled it! --Something she does not have the authority to do! When I made the statement, my thought was that if Mcfarland and Lamb continued to treat me as they had, I would be compelled to voice my opinions of their company via sandwich board in front of their truck yard. That was a wholly legal and acceptable option to me, which has now been denied me. I also envisioned a civil suit against the company. So, the statement that "it would not be in [their] best interests to blow me off again" was a thoroughly legal and allowable statement. Halpert does not have the authority to overrule a higher court and state that the phrase in question was a form of harassment. It was not an actionable statement a year ago, and it is not today. In fact, I'll make the statement again in another form: If I continue to have trouble with Lamb and Mcfarland, I will seek formal complaints against them; I will add to the existing complaint of perjury; I will hasten my efforts to get them into civil court, and I will post whatever problems I have with them on the Internet. Therefore, it would not be in their best interests to continue to lie about me to lie to the court, to crank call me, to conspire to keep me from finding another job---all things they've done and perhaps continue to do. It would not be in their best interests to do any or all of these things. Yet Halpert would have us believe that it is illegal to say the things I've just said. If that were the case, not a single person in this country could say these things to any other human being: It would not be in your best interests to steal from me; it would not be in your best interests to defame me; it would not be in your best interests to burn my house down. But that is NOT the case, and Halpert knew it because we supplied her with the ruling. It would not be in my own best interests to drive 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. It would not be in Halpert's best interests to make defamatory statements from the bench which are not supported by fact or even opinion. It would not be in a toddler's best interests to hit a grouchy dog with a stick. That Halpert would attempt to have us believe that such a statement constitutes illegal harassment, is unconscionable and arrogant in the extreme. My God, Halpert---what CAN we say!

 

"Even if the AK fax had originally been taken as a joke, subsequent actions of the respondent caused the petitioners to re-think their original response to the fax. Thus, the fax was the first instance of harassing behavior.

 

This is an outrageously illogical passage by Halpert. The fax does not meet ANY of the criteria to qualify it as a harassing or threatening document. Yet Halpert seems to be simply searching for a way to justify the ruling she has already decided to make. I find the statement "subsequent actions of the respondent caused the petitioners to re-think their original response to the fax" objectionable beyond description. Through the original hearing I asked Tift, petitioners, Lawson, all of them to please state for the record exactly, precisely, specifically what actions they were alleging were harassing. When did these actions occur? What were they? Where did they occur? In most cases my inquiry was met with silence. Read the 3-23 hearing transcript! There's a lot of shadowy inferences about pictures and harassment---well, let's get specific here! What did I do, exactly? Halpert says the fax was the first instance of "harassing behavior". Besides the fax, what behavior is she referring to? Specifically? Exactly? Lawson wouldn't answer the question, and neither will Halpert, because THERE WAS NO HARASSMENT. Why is it that Halpert grants total credibility to virtually every statement that petitioners make---in fact she even finds me guilty of things that petitioners don't even allege---yet Halpert dismisses out of hand everything I say in my defense. Again, I refer the BAR to my polygraphs (enclosed), and to my offer to pay for petitioners polygraphs (enclosed) which they refused. !None of this is admissible in the changing of Halpert's ruling. But Halpert has taken on the job of FINDING TRUTH. She represents herself as an expert at it. She controls the fate of people's LIVES and FUTURES with her decisions. I want the BAR---and her constituency--- to be aware of how utterly and embarrassingly she fails.

 

Certainly, the photographs on the web page were intended to harass and annoy the petitioners.

 

I agree that if pornographic pictures of petitioners had ever been posted on any website by me, then it would have constituted harassment, and I would be guilty of it, and I'd stand up and take my medicine as I have done my entire life. But, as we all know now, no such pictures were ever posted, nor would they ever be, and even the suggestion of it is outrageous. As it turned out, the trial court (post appeal) restored my right to post "distorted" images of petitioners on the website (or wherever). But what would be the point of that? The posting of such pictures would only DETRACT from the credibility of my cause. And they would offer absolutely nothing in the way of getting at the truth in this case. My intent was NEVER to harass these people----that's why my original website pulled its punch by such a huge margin. I simply wanted other drivers to be aware of this company (Dart/T&L), and to make up their own minds as to whether or not they wanted to work for a company that operates as this one does. Yet Halpert, like Lawson before her, has decided that she, and she alone, has magically divined what was inside my mind and heart when I posted the website, and that what was in there was evil. Had my purposes been nefarious, I would have posted everything I knew about Lamb and Mcfarland, which STILL has not been posted! Halpert simply does not know what she's talking about, nor will she take the time to FIND OUT. That makes her, in my view, wholly unsuited as a judge.

 

 There is no need to determine whether the photographs depicted on the web page were obscene or pornographic, and hence, without any constitutional protection. Here, the depictions were of persons who did not consent to be displayed in this manner.

 

Petitioners had displayed THEMSELVES in this manner for three YEARS on the office walls. There are so many witnesses to it that I never DREAMED petitioners would try to pull a stunt like that. It is SO EASILY disproved, simply by bringing in ten or fifty or a hundred witnesses who've seen the pictures on their walls over three years. Of course Lawson would have no part of witnesses. Petitioners often joked to me that if I ever got rich off their pictures on the Internet, they wanted 50%. Of course their pictures weren't ON the Internet, but they brought this up often enough to make me think they WANTED them on the Internet. I had no place to put them on the Internet---my commercial site was "G" rated at the time, and there was no market for such images anyway. Halpert states that the pictures in question were expertly done. I could thank her for her naiveté. In truth, the pictures that were brought to court were made while I was still learning the craft of compositing, three years before the original hearing, and were of embarrassingly poor quality, which I would not have been proud to post even if I had a reason to post them! Curiously, of the few images that actually do portray Lamb or Mcfarland, none of them show any sexual positioning of any kind, and would not even BEGIN to qualify as "pornographic".

 

 The act of displaying the petitioners in this manner was tortious and unlawful.

 

Once again Halpert is rendering punishment for an event which never occurred, and was never ALLEGED to have occurred, and I find her judgment outrageous and defamatory. The fact that these acts are not even ALLEGED quite possibly makes Halpert's statements actionable.

 

There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the respondent engaged in unlawful harassment.

 

Once again, and how many times must I ask this question, WHAT EVIDENCE? Neither my attorney or I can find one scrap of it, yet Halpert says it's "substantial". Well, WHERE THE BLOODY HELL IS IT?

 

The Orders as Written Are Overbroad

 

[Quotes of cases removed from this section as irrelevant to this complaint]

 

Upon remand, the trial court is to craft a narrowly-drawn order that more appropriately balances the respondent's right to free speech and expression and the petitioners' right to be free from the publication of harassing and tortious photographs.

 

[text removed as irrelevant]

 

 

 

The Respondent Was Not Denied Due Process of Law

 

As discussed above, the factual basis for entry of the orders was virtually undisputed.

 

Again, Halpert simply could not be bothered to read my testimony. Had she done so, she could not have made the above statement saying that the factual portions of the case were virtually undisputed. In fact, they were hotly disputed through 28 pages of testimony.  Let's see now---if a judge refuses to read your written testimony, if a judge throws a tantrum and tosses your evidence off the bench without looking at it, if a judge tries to charge you an outrageous fee in order to keep your witnesses out of the courtroom, these are all things which constitute a fair hearing, according to Halpert. My God, pity the poor people who will come before her in the years ahead.

 

The only real issue was respondent's argument that the petitioners had, in the past, found the photographs amusing and had displayed them for other co-workers.

 

This is where the Lindberg analogy comes in. The pictures that petitioners brought to court, and many dozens, if not hundreds more, were made over a period of three years. Now, wouldn't the average person of average intelligence be capable of reasoning that if an employee had been making unwanted and harassing pictures of his bosses for three long years, THEY WOULD HAVE FIRED HIS ASS!? But not only did Lamb and Mcfarland not fire this employee who so mercilessly harassed and threatened them, they begged him to reconsider when he quit, then they told him (in writing which was submitted to Halpert) how much he'd be missed when he quit again, then they threatened to fire any employee who had had anything to do with his quitting, then they marked in his termination file that his rehire possibilities were "excellent". Lamb's letter to me, regarding these facts, was literally, physically thrown off the bench by Lawson. It was again submitted to Halpert with an explanation of what Lawson had done with it. Yet Halpert STILL rules that petitioners had been harassed with these pictures! Not only that, she rules that Lawson's hearing was fair! I submit that one could snatch just about any individual right off the street, with no legal training whatsoever, and they would do a better job at following the law, at using logic and reason and intelligence to distill the truth from any case, and would do more good for society than Helen L. Halpert, duly appointed judge.

 

The petitioners disputed this. The respondent sought a continuance to bring in witnesses to bolster his position. The trial court indicated that the hearing would be continued only if the respondent agreed to imposition of terms.

 

How curious it is that Halpert doesn't mention what those terms were. Petitioners were two office employees, earning about $28,000 per year (at least above the table). They worked almost exactly a quarter mile from the courthouse. They had OODLES of free time during the day to shop (or whatever). I had informed Lawson numerous times, and had explained it in painstaking detail in my written testimony, that my witnesses could all but guarantee they'd be fired if they testified against Lamb and Mcfarland. I was trying to spare their jobs. Lawson used the fact that I had not brought them on 3-23, to keep me from bringing them at any other time, regardless of what the situation was. The truth? Lawson didn't want anyone in that courtroom who could bolster my side of the case. Lawson first said I could bring my witnesses, but that he would charge me $1500 per day, per person, for all those who had to return to court. Obviously this was meant to make SURE no witnesses would be forthcoming. When I vehemently objected to this ploy, Lawson reversed himself, and said I could bring witnesses for free. I agreed and thanked him. Then he immediately reversed himself again, saying that I could bring witnesses, but that he would "decide" how much to charge me for bringing them AFTER I BROUGHT THEM. And Halpert says this is a fair hearing! This is, I submit, bullshit. Halpert had access to this transcript. How very curious I find it that while she knew what a mess Lawson had made of the witness issue, she only stated in her ruling that I had decided not to bring witnesses if there was to be an imposition of terms. Fair terms would have been fine---$1500 per day per person was nuts, and no reasonable human being on the planet would dispute that. Except Halpert, who proclaimed that Lawson's hearing was perfectly fair. 

 

There is no question but that the hearing below was heated. Certainly, the trial court's disparaging comment concerning respondent's potential witnesses was uncalled for.

 

Enclosed is a transcript of Lawson's hearing. Halpert refers to one short comment made by Lawson as being "uncalled for". Yet as ANYONE can see, that one comment was just about the least of Lawson's transgressions that day. The man was a madman. He was in need of psychological help. He was illogical. He couldn't follow the conversation. He once didn't know if he was speaking to a male or female. He made points that had nothing to do with the issues at hand. He as much as stated that he would not believe the testimony of any witnesses I might bring in, without knowing who the witnesses were, or what they could testify to. He didn't understand what the case was about. He obviously had NO skills for getting at the truth of ANYTHING, nor did he seem particularly committed to even try. Yet Halpert seems to think that one little comment of Lawson's was the only thing in the session that warranted chastisement, and that everything else that transpired was fair and reasonable and unbiased. Is Lawson's hearing the way Halpert thinks hearings are SUPPOSED to go, devoid of manners, wholly lacking in logic or reason, replete with rudeness and stupidity? If so, she's mad as a hatter. And she's dangerous.

 

However, when taken as a whole, the hearing was conducted in a manner consistent with due process. During the three hour hearing, the respondent was given ample opportunity to prevent relevant testimony.

 

And YET AGAIN Halpert has no idea what the FACTS are. The hearing wasn't three hours. BOTH hearings took only 82 minutes combined. Why does Halpert say the hearing took three hours? Because she's trying to justify her preconceived conclusion. She needs to be able to demonstrate that I was given every opportunity under the sun to prove my case. In fact, most of the 82 minutes was spent in silence, while we all waited for Lawson to contemplate his navel, or whatever the hell he was doing up there on the bench, or in his chambers. At the time, I assumed he was going over my testimony, and would soon pounce on the petitioners. Little did I suspect that he hadn't even read it, nor would he ever read it----just like Halpert.

 

The trial judge tried hard to clarify the procedure to be followed and to explain why a mutual order could not be entered.

 

Huh? What does Lawson's discussion of the impossibility of a mutual order have to do with whether or not his decision should be overturned? I hadn't even asked for one, and it had nothing to do with whether or not the fact-finding portion of the hearing was fair. Why is this in Halpert's ruling?

 

Certainly, a decision to continue a hearing or trial is vested in the discretion of the trial court. The respondent was afforded due process in the conduct of the hearing.

 

If this is due process, the country is lost.

 

Conclusion

 

The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to strike that portion of the order that prohibits the respondent from engaging in "any depiction or reference to the petitioner in any form" and to substitute a more narrowly-crafted order consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

 

Dated this 10 day of December, 2001.Helen L. Halpert, Judge

 

The matter was indeed remanded to the trial level, whereupon, on 4-25-02, we were informed that Lawson was dead and had been replaced by another judge. Here is the new order as drafted on that date, and entered into the record:

 

"Respondent is restrained from Internet dissemination of tortious photographs--specifically--those which have the head of petitioner on nude bodies."

 

That's it.

 

Lastly, I find it terrifying that Halpert would show up in court in the fall of 2001, ready and willing to make her ruling on whether or not Lawson's hearing had been fair and unbiased, admitting for the record that she had not bothered to read the transcript of the hearing. As it happened, Halpert's ruling was delayed on that day, and in the interim we managed to convince her to actually read the material she was supposed to rule on. But the fact that she was ready to rule on material she hadn't reviewed, smacks, to me, as a non-attorney, as madness.

 

[End of portion which contains court records]

 

Conclusion:

 

Regardless of this win, this anti-harassment order still remains on my record. Even though it is not a criminal matter, it makes it look as though I MIGHT have something wrong when I did not. Had any judge based any decision on that irritating and inconvenient thing most of us call FACT or REALITY, I might have found a way to choke down their decisions. For instance, had Lawson or Halpert ruled that since I asked on three occasions (a total of 11 requests to various addresses on three occasions) for a written reference when I quit my job, I was guilty of harassment, then at least I'd have something I could sink my teeth into. I could argue that it was not harassment, that I had every right to ask for a reference, and to repeat the request every time petitioners told me that my request had been ruined by the fax machine, or eaten by their dog, or wiped out by spilled coffee---at least there'd be some substance to argue against. But in this case, the judges both found me "guilty" of things I wasn't even accused of doing! I'm VERY tempted to have a friend call the local police and tell them that they have "reason to believe" I might have killed the Lindberg baby. I really want to know if I'd be convicted of it. What's that you say? I wasn't ALIVE when the Lindberg baby was killed? Details, details.....ah, those pesky details....

 

In Washington state, it is required that if someone wants a restraining order to stop another from contacting them, they must demonstrate to the court that they had asked the offender to stop, and the offender has not stopped. Mcfarland said in his complaint that he had asked me to not contact him. This is a lie (see polygraphs), and it has been included in a perjury complaint against Mark Mcfarland to the King County Prosecutor's office. But Lamb never even alleged that she had made such a request. She did not make such a request, ever, at any time, in any way, and she didn't assert that she had. Therefore, she was not entitled to a restraining order. Yet she was granted one by Lawson. This point was made known to Halpert in the appeal brief. Halpert simply ignored the law and upheld a portion of the original order. Just how arrogant is this woman, Halpert? I submit that, from my perspective, she has virtually no regard for the law whatsoever. I see this woman as a mob mentality unto herself---an individual who operates on whim and fancy and emotion, and damn the law if it gets in her way.

 

Halpert was made aware of several of the above problems with her ruling. She elected to blow it all off, as though the issues would dry up and go away somehow, as though by sticking her head in the sand, people would just forget about the things she had done. What the Halperts of the world don't seem to understand is that the wronged party often sees this attitude as a further wrong. In ignoring the unlawfulness of her ruling, Halpert has done the petitioners an even greater disservice. I will NOT tolerate this on my record. I ran out of money for appeals---the only route left is to prove my allegations of perjury against the petitioners. Once that's done, I'll have the ammunition with which to come back to court and demonstrate that the original hearing by Lawson was tainted. That will also give me a good leg-up on civil suits against the companies. These petitioners lied in virtually every single statement they made. They laughed at how incredibly easy it was to utterly and totally trick two courts. They've made a fool of Halpert, yet she seems incapable of seeing it. I want to hear what Halpert has to say for herself. I think if we can get this into the local media---and God knows, I'm patient---the entire community will want to know what Halpert has to say for herself. As DNA evidence is freeing more and more wrongly convicted individuals (the 100th was celebrated a few days before this writing), the media is going to begin to demand explanations for outrageously stupid judiciary rulings. This topic will become hotter and hotter over the next decade. Judges like Helen Halpert are going to be held accountable by the voting public and by the media for their actions. It's time they learned to stand up on their own two cloven hooves and either begin making legal and informed decisions, or take responsibility for their screw-ups. It's a dark stain on a person's character when they steadfastly refuse to do either, as Halpert has done in this case.

 

Ironically, on 4-24-02, we discovered that after the original hearing, way back on 3-23-01, Lawson mistakenly left the court recorder going after he finished for the day. He sat there, presumably on the bench, indulging in a conversation with his clerk and perhaps one other person, which showed a bias on his part in this case which was frankly shocking. We had planned to go after the man like junk-yard dogs. Unfortunately, he died. But Halpert's still with us, and I want to know how she justifies her outrageously erroneous ruling in this case. Since she will not respond to us out of any sense of duty or honor or fairness, we will move this to the BAR. When the BAR refuses to correctly process it, we'll move it up to the next rung, and the next, until Halpert is either voted out of office, or she comes up with one hell of a good story to account for her behavior in this case.

 

If judges expect us, the lowly public, to adhere to written laws---and they do---, then by God isn't it time they started adhering to those same laws when they judge us?

 


 

5-7-02

 

 

 

UPDATE 6-15-02
As predicted, the Washington BAR Association dropped the ball in a rather spectacular way. On 6-15-02 we received back from the BAR, in response to the above complaint, a photocopied form. It reads, in part:

 

"We are returning your inquiry to you for the following reason:"

 

Below that line is a boilerplate paragraph with a check mark next to it. That paragraph reads:

 

"We are prohibited from providing legal advice or legal representation to the public."

 

The form is signed by one Felice P. Congalton, Managing Disciplinary Counsel, and dated 6-10-02.

 

Of course the above complaint concerning Helen Halpert, King County Superior Court Judge, does not ASK for legal advice from the BAR. It is merely a complaint, submitted to the BAR for processing. Why not say, instead, "The Washington BAR refuses to consider your complaint because the moon is full and the frogs are croaking"? That would make exactly as much sense. 

 

 

On 6-15-02 the above complaint was re-routed to

 

The Commission on Judicial Conduct

P.O. Box 1817

Olympia, Washington

98507

 

We can't wait to see the comedic response we'll receive from that office. We predict it will be something like this:

 

Dear [employee],

Our staff has reviewed your allegations thoroughly, and we have concluded that we can find no wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of Judge Helen Halpert. We have, therefore, closed this case.

Have a wonderful day,

Sincerely,

The Commission on Judicial Conduct

 

 

UPDATE 8-13-02:

Here's the response we did receive from this office:

 

(The image of the letter is pending; it is nearly word for word what we predicted above)

 

 

 

 

And here's our reply back to them:

 

TO:

The Commission on Judicial Conduct

P.O. Box 1817

Olympia, Washington

98507

 

We want to be sure we understand clearly what you are stating in your letter to us of 8-06-02. To recap:

 

In the aforementioned appeal, Superior court Judge Helen Halpert made up facts that were not true and stated them as truths. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Judge Halpert stated that I had posted pornographic pictures of two persons on the Internet. No one had made such an allegation. No one had produced any evidence to even remotely suggest that any such thing had been done. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Judge Halpert overruled a higher court. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Judge Helen Halpert committed one or several acts of blatant defamation. Defamation is the stating of falsehoods about a person which may damage that person's reputation or credibility, representing those statements as fact, even though the person has no reason whatsoever to believe that the statements might be true. That Helen Halpert did this is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Judge Helen Halpert ignored the law in numerous instances, even when the illegality of what she was doing was brought to her attention in writing using proper channels. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Judge Helen L. Halpert stated in her ruling that the allegations of the complainants had been virtually uncontested by me. Yet I had vehemently contested every single statement they made, and had promised to aggressively pursue perjury charges against Lamb and Mcfarland for as many as twenty of their perjurious statements to the court in the original hearing (that is being done at this time). My statement refuting Lamb's and Mcfarland's out-and-out and documentable lies was formally submitted to the original trial-level judge twice (he threw part of it off the bench without reading it),  and TWO MORE TIMES TO HALPERT prior to and during the appeals hearing. It's all in the record. The document was painstakingly precise, and was some 27 or 28 pages in length. Yet Halpert wrote in her ruling that I had not contested the petitioners' allegations at all! Was Halpert lying? Or was this merely an example of incompetence on a staggering scale. Now this is bad enough---but the capper is that when my attorney and I realized Halpert had not read my defense statement, even though she had been asked, in writing, to do so, we AGAIN wrote to Halpert and informed her of her error. This was done through proper legal channels. Yet Halpert REFUSED TO RESPOND IN ANY WAY AT ANY TIME! And she has refused to correct her FACTUAL error. I submit that this is the absolute epitome of arrogance, laziness and dishonor. That these events occurred is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

Helen Halpert presided over this appeals case in which she was asked to decide whether or not the original trial-level hearing had been fair and unbiased. Halpert showed up for the session and stated FOR THE RECORD that she had not bothered to even READ THE TRANSCRIPT of the case she was asked to rule on!  ---yet she was ready to proceed and make her ruling! And this apparently violates no known policy regulating the behavior of judges in Washington state.

 

Helen Halpert ruled that a previous trial, in which a pro tem judge literally, physically threw relevant evidence off the bench without looking at it, was a perfectly fair and non-biased proceeding. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

These matters, and more, were brought to Halpert's attention, post hearing, in writing, via proper channels. Judge Halpert's remedy to her many factual errors in the case was to ignore the problem utterly. An even marginally honorable person would have stood up and accepted responsibility for the errors, and sought to correct them. Halpert did none of these things. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The Commission's reply is that this activity did not violate any policy.

 

We submit that the Commission should be disbanded at once as it serves no useful purpose. These are not points or events which were cases of he-said, she-said; these were not cases where a judge was required to listen to both sides of a story and rule on whom she thought was truthful; these are instances of plain, black-and-white FACTS that were misrepresented by a judge whose job it is to look at facts. And still the Commission finds no fault with Helen L. Halpert.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, a listing of all the policies your office uses as guidelines in ascertaining proper or improper conduct by a judge.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, the name and address of the office or agency which oversees yours---in other words, the office to which a complaint about YOUR office may be delivered.

 

Had this Commission seen fit to stand up on its own collective cloven hooves and actually DO ITS JOB, we might have considered that Halpert had been disciplined, that she may, possibly, take that discipline to heart and make some effort to rethink her mode of operation. Unfortunately that wasn't done, and Halpert has no incentive now to alter her course whatsoever. She must feel vindicated, and invited, even, to continue to render judgments which are---to save some words---BARKING MAD.

 

We feel that Judge Helen Halpert is a clear and present danger to logical society. To be a little more descriptive, we feel she is a pimple on the butt of logical society. We feel that, to act as she has done, is reprehensible. But to lift not one finger to correct the FACTUAL ERRORS of her rulings is beyond reprehensible---it is terrifying to the citizenry who is at the mercy of this madness. This woman has got to go.

 

You've left us no choice but to consider it nothing short of a crusade to bring this judge's behavior to light. And to make sure the voters know exactly what they're getting if they choose to vote for this woman again. It is said that every country has the government it deserves. Well, I'm part of this country, and I deserve better.

 

It's also said that "Hell is the Impossibility of Reason".

We submit that Helen Halpert's courtroom is Hell for anyone seeking reason----forget about honor. We are disgusted by the illogic she brings to the bench. And we're afraid, because of it. If this woman has made decisions like this in this one case---how much more damage has she done and will she continue to do that no one is yet aware of?

 

What if this woman were to be asked to preside over a murder case. It so happens the accused is innocent, and he puts up one hell of a defense. At the end of the trial Halpert finds him guilty---not because there was no merit to his defense. But because, she writes in her ruling, "the defendant offered no defense at all." And then she refuses to own up to the mistake when confronted with it. Is this the kind of judge we want on our Washington benches? Is this what we pay for? Are there no more honorable or competent people to choose from? Should we be more afraid of Judge Helen Halpert, and others like her, than we are of some druggie gang-banger on the street with a gun? I'll take my chances with the gang-banger!

 

In amazement and disgust,

 

 

8-14-02

 

 

UPDATE:

The Commission finally replied with a short document marked, "Confidential", so we are as yet unable to present it here. But here's the operative sentence contained in it: None of the acts of Helen Halpert violate any of our policies. Case closed.

 

 

The following has been sent back to the BAR association:

 

 

Washington State Bar Assn  
2101 4th Ave   Fl 4
Seattle,WA
98121

We want to be sure we understand clearly what you are stating in your letter (form) to us of 6-15-02. If you cannot recall what you said in that response, you may peruse the document at this url.

 

 To refresh your memories herein, you were presented with a complaint against Judge Helen. L. Halpert for gross incompetence, dishonesty, and behavior unbecoming anyone in her position. You were supplied many documents as proof. It was explained to you that we were 0not voicing our “opinions”---we were providing you with documents which demonstrated the facts of the complaint. You were supplied an extremely detailed account of our complaint. You were to investigate the complaint, and, if warranted, discipline Halpert. Your reply to the entire complaint was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Having dealt with you in the past, we knew, we knew your response would be at the least “ineffective”. We could not have predicted, however, that it would be quite as stupid as it was.

 

We are submitting our complaint to you again, re-written so that, perhaps, your people will have an easier time reading it.. Do we expect you to do yours jobs this time? Of course not. We expect you to dazzle us with yet another instance of insanity. Do we “hope” you’ll do your jobs? Of course. But we are not so naïve. We are mostly working to document exactly what occurs when judges act irresponsibly and illegally, and a citizen tries to do the right thing to correct the behavior. We expect to be able to demonstrate in a very public way that there is no recourse against out-of-control judges. So far you’ve assisted us beautifully. We expect you to continue.

 

To recap:

 

In the aforementioned appeal, Superior court Judge Helen Halpert made up facts that were not true and stated them as truths. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Halpert stated that I had posted pornographic pictures of two persons on the Internet. No one had made such an allegation. No one had produced any evidence to even remotely suggest that any such thing had been done. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Halpert overruled a higher court. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen Halpert committed one or several acts of blatant defamation. Defamation is the stating of falsehoods about a person which may damage that person's reputation or credibility, representing those statements as fact, even though the person has no reason whatsoever to believe that the statements might be true. That Helen Halpert did this is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen Halpert ignored the law in numerous instances, even when the illegality of what she was doing was brought to her attention in writing using proper channels. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen L. Halpert stated in her ruling that the allegations of the complainants had been virtually uncontested by me. Yet I had vehemently contested every single statement they made, and had promised to aggressively pursue perjury charges against Lamb and Mcfarland for as many as twenty of their perjurious statements to the court in the original hearing (that is being done at this time). My statement refuting Lamb's and Mcfarland's out-and-out and documentable lies was formally submitted to the original trial-level judge twice (he threw part of it off the bench without reading it),  and TWO MORE TIMES TO HALPERT prior to and during the appeals hearing. It's all in the record. The document was painstakingly precise, and was some 27 or 28 pages in length. Yet Halpert wrote in her ruling that I had not contested the petitioners' allegations at all! Was Halpert lying? Or was this merely an example of incompetence on a staggering scale. Now this is bad enough---but the capper is that when my attorney and I realized Halpert had not read my defense statement, even though she had been asked, in writing, to do so, we AGAIN wrote to Halpert and informed her of her error. This was done through proper legal channels. Yet Halpert REFUSED TO RESPOND IN ANY WAY AT ANY TIME! And she has refused to correct her FACTUAL error. I submit that this is the absolute epitome of arrogance, laziness and dishonor. That these events occurred is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Helen Halpert presided over this appeals case in which she was asked to decide whether or not the original trial-level hearing had been fair and unbiased. Halpert showed up for the session and stated FOR THE RECORD that she had not bothered to even READ THE TRANSCRIPT of the case she was asked to rule on!  ---yet she was ready to proceed and make her ruling! And this apparently violates no known policy regulating the behavior of judges in Washington state. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Helen Halpert ruled that a previous trial, in which a pro tem judge literally, physically threw relevant evidence off the bench without looking at it, was a perfectly fair and non-biased proceeding. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

These matters, and more, were brought to Halpert's attention, post hearing, in writing, via proper channels. Judge Halpert's remedy to her many factual errors in the case was to ignore the problem utterly. An even marginally honorable person would have stood up and accepted responsibility for the errors, and sought to correct them. Halpert did none of these things. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

We submit that the BAR should be disbanded at once as it serves no useful purpose. These are not points or events which were cases of he-said, she-said; these were not cases where a judge was required to listen to both sides of a story and rule on whom she thought was truthful; these are instances of plain, black-and-white FACTS that were misrepresented by a judge whose job it is to look at facts. And still the BAR finds no fault with Helen L. Halpert.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, a listing of all the policies your office uses as guidelines in ascertaining proper or improper conduct by a judge.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, the name and address of the office or agency which oversees yours---in other words, the office to which a complaint about YOUR office may be delivered.

 

Had the BAR seen fit to stand up on its own collective cloven hooves and actually DO ITS JOB, we might have considered that Halpert had been disciplined, that she may, possibly, take that discipline to heart and make some effort to rethink her mode of operation. Unfortunately that wasn't done, and Halpert has no incentive now to alter her course whatsoever. She must feel vindicated, and invited, even, to continue to render judgments which are---to save some words---BARKING MAD.

 

We feel that Judge Helen Halpert is a clear and present danger to logical society. To be a little more descriptive, we feel she is a pimple on the butt of logical society. We feel that, to act as she has done, is reprehensible. But to lift not one finger to correct the FACTUAL ERRORS of her rulings is beyond reprehensible---it is terrifying to a citizenry at the mercy of this madness. This woman has got to go.

 

You've left us no choice but to consider it nothing short of a crusade to bring this judge's behavior to light. And to make sure the voters know exactly what they're getting if they choose to vote for this woman again. It is said that every country has the government it deserves. Well, I'm part of this country, and I deserve better.

 

It's also said that "Hell is the Impossibility of Reason".

We submit that Helen Halpert's courtroom is Hell for anyone seeking reason----forget about honor. We are disgusted by the illogic she brings to the bench. And we're afraid, because of it. If this woman has made decisions like this in this one case---how much more damage has she done and will she continue to do that no one is yet aware of?

 

What if this woman were to be asked to preside over a murder case. It so happens the accused is innocent, and he puts up one hell of a defense. At the end of the trial Halpert finds him guilty---not because there was no merit to his defense. But because, she writes in her ruling, "the defendant offered no defense at all." And then she refuses to own up to the mistake when confronted with it. Is this the kind of judge we want on our Washington benches? Is this what we pay for? Are there no more honorable or competent people to choose from? Should we be more afraid of Judge Helen Halpert, and others like her, than we are of some druggie gang-banger on the street with a gun? I'll take my chances with the gang-banger!

 

It would not be in the best interests of the BAR to reply as stupidly as it did to the original complaint.

 

In amazement and disgust,

 

 

9-23-02

 

 

UPDATE 1-20-03:
As of 1-20-03, four months after the fact, the Washington State BAR Association has refused to reply to the above complaint in any way or manner whatsoever. The BAR is now in violation of Public Disclosure law and is subject to a minimum fine of $5 per day for each day I have been without the requested information, plus attorneys fees required to extract said information. We now have no choice but to conclude that the Washington State BAR Association condones, or at least maneuvers to ignore, dishonesty and incompetence on the bench, no matter how blatant, damaging or flagrant. Bad enough would be the assertion that the BAR performs no legitimate function whatever. Worse is the knowledge that the BAR, in this instance and in countless others like it, actually detracts from the credibility of the legal system, in that it creates in the citizenry a false sense of security, a facade of oversight, while in reality the BAR seems to be little more than a runner of interference, buffering legitimate complaints of dishonesty and dishonor within that system, and protecting wrongdoers from any consequence of their dishonesty or incompetence. We note that the BAR does seem to act on occasion, but almost exclusively only in cases where an attorney has actually stolen money or property from a client or adversary, and in which the matter is easily proven in court, and seems likely headed that direction. In almost all other cases of complaint, the BAR does not act at all. We conclude that the BAR is worse than worthless; it is a contributing party to the problem of an ineffectual, incompetent, dishonest, backwoods judicial system in America.

 

UPDATE 1-20-03:
Helen Halpert has now had roughly one year in which to respond to the factual errors she made in this case. The record proves that she has been made aware of the problems ad nauseam. We ask ourselves WHY she made so many mistakes in this case. There are only a couple of possibilities: (1) Helen Halpert is incompetent and should not be entrusted with the administration of a Quarter Pounder with cheese, let alone the lives and futures of human beings. Or (2) Helen Halpert lied. If Halpert were to have us believe that she is honest and honorable, she would correct her "accidental" errors. She has not. We must conclude, then, that Halpert is dishonest. After all, these are not "differences of opinion". Halpert ruled, for instance, that one of the factors she considered in making her decision was the "fact" that I offered "virtually no defense" at the trial level, while the record shows clearly that I entered some 29 pages of virulent, heartfelt, factual, detailed defense, none of which she bothered to read. Any honorable individual would have bent over backwards to correct such "accidental" errors. Halpert has conspicuously ignored them. We believe she lied in her original ruling of the case; we believe that by refusing to correct her lies, she perpetuates the lies and would, in fact, lie in the future to defend her erroneous ruling. We conclude that Helen. L. Halpert is a liar. Since liars have no place in the American judicial system, we ask that Helen L. Halpert be removed from the bench and directed to more suitable employment. Washington residents deserve a far higher level of competency and honor than Helen Halpert is able to provide.

 

We find it significant to discover that Halpert was appointed by current Washington Governor Gary Locke.

 

Well what a surprise.

 

1-20-03

 

 

UPDATE 1-20-03:

 

Washington State Bar Assn  
2101 4th Ave   Fl 4
Seattle,WA
98121                                Registered receipt: 7000 1670 0012 1005 xxxx

The following letter was delivered to you way back in September of 2002. You will note that it invokes the Public Disclosure Law, seeking information regarding how your office performs its duties, and just what those duties are. In typical form, you refused to reply. At all. In any way. Ever. Surprise.

 

This letter is being re-sent via registered mail. From the date you sign for it, you will have ten working days to provide the requested information. Failing your timely attention to this matter, we will seek a legal remedy to the problem. You may be held liable for a fee representing each day you fail to follow the mandates of the Public Disclosure Laws. You may be held liable for attorney's fees.

 

Original letter as follows:

 

We want to be sure we understand clearly what you are stating in your letter (form) to us of 6-15-02. If you cannot recall what you said in that response, you may peruse the document at this url.

 

 To refresh your memories herein, you were presented with a complaint against Judge Helen. L. Halpert for gross incompetence, dishonesty, and behavior unbecoming anyone in her position. You were supplied many documents as proof. It was explained to you that we were 0not voicing our “opinions”---we were providing you with documents which demonstrated the facts of the complaint. You were supplied an extremely detailed account of our complaint. You were to investigate the complaint, and, if warranted, discipline Halpert. Your reply to the entire complaint was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Having dealt with you in the past, we knew, we knew your response would be at the least “ineffective”. We could not have predicted, however, that it would be quite as stupid as it was.

 

We are submitting our complaint to you again, re-written so that, perhaps, your people will have an easier time reading it.. Do we expect you to do yours jobs this time? Of course not. We expect you to dazzle us with yet another instance of insanity. Do we “hope” you’ll do your jobs? Of course. But we are not so naïve. We are mostly working to document exactly what occurs when judges act irresponsibly and illegally, and a citizen tries to do the right thing to correct the behavior. We expect to be able to demonstrate in a very public way that there is no recourse against out-of-control judges. So far you’ve assisted us beautifully. We expect you to continue.

 

To recap:

 

In the aforementioned appeal, Superior court Judge Helen Halpert made up facts that were not true and stated them as truths. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Halpert stated that I had posted pornographic pictures of two persons on the Internet. No one had made such an allegation. No one had produced any evidence to even remotely suggest that any such thing had been done. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Halpert overruled a higher court. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen Halpert committed one or several acts of blatant defamation. Defamation is the stating of falsehoods about a person which may damage that person's reputation or credibility, representing those statements as fact, even though the person has no reason whatsoever to believe that the statements might be true. That Helen Halpert did this is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen Halpert ignored the law in numerous instances, even when the illegality of what she was doing was brought to her attention in writing using proper channels. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Judge Helen L. Halpert stated in her ruling that the allegations of the complainants had been virtually uncontested by me. Yet I had vehemently contested every single statement they made, and had promised to aggressively pursue perjury charges against Lamb and Mcfarland for as many as twenty of their perjurious statements to the court in the original hearing (that is being done at this time). My statement refuting Lamb's and Mcfarland's out-and-out and documentable lies was formally submitted to the original trial-level judge twice (he threw part of it off the bench without reading it),  and TWO MORE TIMES TO HALPERT prior to and during the appeals hearing. It's all in the record. The document was painstakingly precise, and was some 27 or 28 pages in length. Yet Halpert wrote in her ruling that I had not contested the petitioners' allegations at all! Was Halpert lying? Or was this merely an example of incompetence on a staggering scale. Now this is bad enough---but the capper is that when my attorney and I realized Halpert had not read my defense statement, even though she had been asked, in writing, to do so, we AGAIN wrote to Halpert and informed her of her error. This was done through proper legal channels. Yet Halpert REFUSED TO RESPOND IN ANY WAY AT ANY TIME! And she has refused to correct her FACTUAL error. I submit that this is the absolute epitome of arrogance, laziness and dishonor. That these events occurred is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Helen Halpert presided over this appeals case in which she was asked to decide whether or not the original trial-level hearing had been fair and unbiased. Halpert showed up for the session and stated FOR THE RECORD that she had not bothered to even READ THE TRANSCRIPT of the case she was asked to rule on!  ---yet she was ready to proceed and make her ruling! And this apparently violates no known policy regulating the behavior of judges in Washington state. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

Helen Halpert ruled that a previous trial, in which a pro tem judge literally, physically threw relevant evidence off the bench without looking at it, was a perfectly fair and non-biased proceeding. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

These matters, and more, were brought to Halpert's attention, post hearing, in writing, via proper channels. Judge Halpert's remedy to her many factual errors in the case was to ignore the problem utterly. An even marginally honorable person would have stood up and accepted responsibility for the errors, and sought to correct them. Halpert did none of these things. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of record, which was supplied to you. It is a fact. The BAR’s reply was: “We do not provide legal advice.”

 

 

 

We submit that the BAR should be disbanded at once as it serves no useful purpose. These are not points or events which were cases of he-said, she-said; these were not cases where a judge was required to listen to both sides of a story and rule on whom she thought was truthful; these are instances of plain, black-and-white FACTS that were misrepresented by a judge whose job it is to look at facts. And still the BAR finds no fault with Helen L. Halpert.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, a listing of all the policies your office uses as guidelines in ascertaining proper or improper conduct by a judge.

 

We are demanding, at this time, and if the Public Disclosure act needs to be invoked consider it invoked, the name and address of the office or agency which oversees yours---in other words, the office to which a complaint about YOUR office may be delivered.

 

Had the BAR seen fit to stand up on its own collective cloven hooves and actually DO ITS JOB, we might have considered that Halpert had been disciplined, that she may, possibly, take that discipline to heart and make some effort to rethink her mode of operation. Unfortunately that wasn't done, and Halpert has no incentive now to alter her course whatsoever. She must feel vindicated, and invited, even, to continue to render judgments which are---to save some words---BARKING MAD.

 

We feel that Judge Helen Halpert is a clear and present danger to logical society. To be a little more descriptive, we feel she is a pimple on the butt of logical society. We feel that, to act as she has done, is reprehensible. But to lift not one finger to correct the FACTUAL ERRORS of her rulings is beyond reprehensible---it is terrifying to a citizenry at the mercy of this madness. This woman has got to go.

 

You've left us no choice but to consider it nothing short of a crusade to bring this judge's behavior to light. And to make sure the voters know exactly what they're getting if they choose to vote for this woman again. It is said that every country has the government it deserves. Well, I'm part of this country, and I deserve better.

 

It's also said that "Hell is the Impossibility of Reason".

We submit that Helen Halpert's courtroom is Hell for anyone seeking reason----forget about honor. We are disgusted by the illogic she brings to the bench. And we're afraid, because of it. If this woman has made decisions like this in this one case---how much more damage has she done and will she continue to do that no one is yet aware of?

 

What if this woman were to be asked to preside over a murder case. It so happens the accused is innocent, and he puts up one hell of a defense. At the end of the trial Halpert finds him guilty---not because there was no merit to his defense. But because, she writes in her ruling, "the defendant offered no defense at all." And then she refuses to own up to the mistake when confronted with it. Is this the kind of judge we want on our Washington benches? Is this what we pay for? Are there no more honorable or competent people to choose from? Should we be more afraid of Judge Helen Halpert, and others like her, than we are of some druggie gang-banger on the street with a gun? I'll take my chances with the gang-banger!

 

It would not be in the best interests of the BAR to reply as stupidly as it did to the original complaint.

 

In amazement and disgust,

 

 

Second Mailing
1-20-03


 

UPDATE: As of 2-14-03, the BAR has refused to respond in any way. Like to read more about the Washington BAR Association and how it looks out for the best interests of clients in the state? Go here.

 

HOME