The following document has been sent to the Washington State BAR associate
as part of a complaint against
part-time pro tem Judge John Lawson, operating out of Aukeen Court, in Kent,
As we know, the BAR is made up
of attorneys. As we know, attorneys stick together like lovesick sardines in
one of the most tightly compressed and shameless "good ol' boy" networks on the planet.
That being the case, we expect
no useful or productive benefit to society to emerge as a result of
this complaint. This complaint is made mostly in the interests of
disclosure---to disclose to the public just how silly,
unprofessional and dangerous our judges have become, and to demonstrate to
the public that there is almost no legal recourse when judges act
irrationally, irresponsibly, and illegally.
If the reader wants to have the
best "feel" for what it was like to be in John Lawson's courtroom on
3-23-01, I suggest you read through my polygraphs and written testimony to
the court first (accessible from the home page). By
doing so, the reader will be able to more closely appreciate my viewpoint on
the proceedings, knowing the truths and facts of the case as I did, and then
watching Lawson twist and wring those facts until they were no longer
recognizable. John Lawson didn't judge this case; he prosecuted it.
This is a public record---anyone
is entitled to the tapes. We will be posting the tapes on this site in time,
so as to further demonstrate the foul, backward, counter-productive demeanor
of John Lawson in the courtroom. Several attorneys, after hearing the tape,
have told me they, personally, would have punched Lawson in the face, and
they are astounded that I was able to refrain from doing so.
The portions of the document
which are underlined and italicized, are my
editorial interjections to the transcript---what I might have WANTED to say at the hearing,
and what, perhaps, I should have said.
And now, if you want to see
something REALLY scary, read on:
NO. 01-2-12968-6 SEA, 01-2-12966-0 SEA
[Dart employee], Appellant/Defendant, vs. DELANN
[Dart employee], Appellant/Defendant, vs. MARK
COURT: Are we ready to proceed?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: We are, your Honor.
COURT: OK. Judge Basin did order all cases be consolidated.
I think we can hear the case of Mark McFarland and Dee Lamb v. [employee] at the same time.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: OK. Thank you, your Honor.
COURT: Let me ask the petitioner. Have you seen the numerous
papers filed by
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: They have seen it, yes.
THE COURT: I think he wants to
file more papers. I told him he’s already filed voluminous papers. If he
wants to file more, he may. Do you have copies for the other side?
[employee]: No, I’m sorry, I don’t.
THE COURT: How big are they? I don’t want to . . .
[employee]: This is what you already have (holding up a sheaf
of papers). Just a few more pages.
THE COURT: What do you mean by a few?
[employee]: Actually this has to do with cases that were
dismissed (holding up other papers).
THE COURT: If it has to do with them, you don’t . . .
[employee]: I won’t file those.
THE COURT: OK.
In the above exchange, I
was seeking to file a second copy of my written testimony that had already
been delivered to the court. I was beginning to wonder if the court had
actually read or considered my written testimony.
[employee]: I’m going to
forego this at this time. The only thing I’ll ask is that if the Court has
any reason to doubt anything that I have submitted, I would like to ask for
a continuance until I can bring in three witnesses.
THE COURT: I think we ought to go ahead with it,
don’t see any usable purpose in extending the Order, the temporary order and
having a continuance.
Okay, Delann Lamb?
In the above exchange, I
was trying to again reserve the right to ask for a continuation if the court
had any doubts as to my credibility. I had previously (several days prior)
made it known to the judge that I could bring any number of witnesses to
refute the testimony of Lamb and Mcfarland, but that three of those
witnesses had expressed great fear of losing their jobs had they been forced
to testify against their bosses. Therefore, I wanted to avoid subpoenaing
them if at all possible. I had offered to make arrangements so that the
witnesses could be interviewed by the judge in secret. This was clearly
spelled out to “Judge” Lawson in a written document. I was merely bringing
it up for the record, as the hearing began. I was taken aback by the fact
that he had made no objection to the request days prior, but now, on the
record, was refusing to allow it.
DELANN LAMB: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you want to raise your right hand and be sworn
in? Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the laws of the
State of Washington your testimony in this case be the truth?
DELANN LAMB: Yes I do.
THE COURT: Do you want to state your name and, unless it’s
confidential, your resident address?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: We request, your Honor, that she give her
THE COURT: That’s fine. That’s why I prefaced it the way I
DELANN LAMB: Thank you. My name is Delann Lamb and my business
address is 7724 South 259th Street, Kent, Washington.
THE COURT: What business is that?
DELANN LAMB: Dart International and T&L Leasing.
THE COURT: And are the same as
contained in your petition of Order to Ban Harassment true and correct?
DELANN LAMB: Yes they are.
The above is Lamb's first
instance of perjury.
THE COURT: OK.
, do you want to raise your right hand
and be sworn in? Do you declare under penalties of perjury according to the
laws of the State of Washington your testimony in this case will be the
[employee]: I do.
THE COURT: Do you want to, unless it’s to be confidential,
indicate your name and your resident address?
[employee]: My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
THE COURT: What’s that, apartment number 1202?
[employee]: Yes it is.
THE COURT: And the zip on that is 98121?
THE COURT: OK, you’re on. You want to indicate or show cause
why the Court should not make the permanent Order on behalf of Delann Lamb?
[employee]: My position is that in order for the Court to order
something to be stopped, it first has to incur. The court must have a
reasonable belief that it might occur. In this case no harassment has ever
occurred, directly or indirectly. I haven’t even thought of harassing
anybody. That’s essentially my case. No harassment has occurred nor will
any harassment ever occur. I have posted my beliefs and opinions on the
Internet and as far as I’m concerned, that’s it. The case is over. I’m
sorry that these people want to take it further.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions (inaudible)?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: With respect to these pictures
isn’t it true that you have in fact placed Ms. Lamb’s face on other bodies?
[employee]: Oh sure. Lots of times.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And you have in fact placed her face in
[employee]: Depends on what you want to call pornographic.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your Honor, if I might, I do not want this
to become part of the record, but I would like to show it to the Court for
THE COURT: I don’t have any problem with that.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: These are
examples of some of the pictures that  created. You’ll note that in
some of them, he’s pasted Ms. Lamb’s face on other people’s bodies. In the
most liberal definition of pornography, you see, these are not innocuous.
It’s your position, isn’t it , that you can use these however you
[employee]: Yes and no. I was
given permission to use these. These are pictures that were created over a
period of three years.
At this point I hadn’t yet
caught on. All of the pictures I was allowed to view had been made by me, at
the request of Lamb or Mcfarland, or, in a few cases with no direct request,
but with much appreciation, spoken, demonstrated and implied after the fact.
See polygraphs #1 and #2. At this point I didn’t grasp that Tift (counsel
for plaintiffs) was trying to intimate to the court that the pictures had
been used by me in some illicit manner.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Let me ask you a question. Are you saying
she gave you specific permission to create these pictures?
[employee]: She not only did that, she posted these prominently
on the walls of the office and I can supply probably in the neighborhood of
100 witnesses to testify to that during a three-year period.
, did you in fact say you had an
AK and knew how to use it?
[employee]: I think something
to that effect was said in a joke fax that was sent to (inaudible).
Tift is referring to a joke
fax that was written by me, one of many dozens, or even hundreds, and
delivered to the office on weekends. The fax in question (attached) was
written on 8-3-00, (some SEVEN MONTHS before the filing of these complaints,
and FOUR MONTHS before Lamb expressed her great disappointment, in writing,
at my quitting her employ) and so warmly received by Lamb and Mcfarland that
they congratulated me on it as one of the best I'd written. Mcfarland told
me at that time, repeatedly, that he also had a flair for writing (he was
aware that my literary work could be found in any library), and he kept me
in the office for the following 20 minutes or so to show me a letter he had
written to an ex wife in California, chastising her for asking for
additional child support. The letter was rank, insulting, crude, and
virtually without punctuation. Still, this was Mcfarland’s way of showing me
that he, also, was a writer of some repute. I complimented him on his
literary flair, and made as hasty an exit as circumstances would allow.
Curious, now, that Mcfarland’s questionable attorney would bring it up as
though the fax was somehow, mysteriously, seven months after the fact, to be
considered an instance of harassment. Mcfarland had gleefully shown the fax
to numerous employees in the context of a joke. Those employees could easily
have been brought in to refute Mcfarland’s tall tale that he felt threatened
by the fax in any way. Mcfarland had even stated in court documents that he
had considered the fax a joke. Yet here we were, with Tift trying to
convince the court that, after all, the fax was a serious threat.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Isn’t it
true that you now represent to the Court that you do not own an AK despite
your written representation to the contrary?
Of course I never HAD
represented seriously to anyone that I had owned an AK rifle or anything
that looked like one, and Tift knew this, of course. See polygraphs #1 and
[employee]: That is correct. I never owned an AK.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: So were you lying?
[employee]: No. I was making
a joke as I just indicated. And I challenge anyone to interpret it as
anything but a joke. There’s no possible way. It so happens that making
jokes is my side business. I have a number of samples if the court would
like to see them. . .
I had brought with me to
court a number of products that my company created, in order to
demonstrate to the court that my side-business was, indeed, the making of
jokes---similar to the joke faxes I had given to the company over three
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: “I think
that violence in the workplace does have its place.” Isn’t that a direct
quote from some of your correspondence?
This was, indeed, a line
from the fax (see attached). It worked as a joke only because I was so
absurdly non-violent. The fact that I was so non-violent had been commented
on by Mcfarland and Lamb numerous times. That’s why a joke about me being
[employee]: Why don’t you read
the entire fax so that we have it in context.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: “I really do have a collection of assault
rifles and I think that violence in the workplace does have its place.”
Isn’t that a direct quote from your correspondence, ?
[employee]: Excuse me, is that the entire text?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: I read the entire sentence.
[employee]: You read the entire sentence as you did before.
You’re taking it out of context.
Tift is clearly trying to
make it look as though the fax was not a joke, and was never considered a
joke. She’s very careful to be sure she takes only those few sentences from
the fax that sound bad out of context, and she vehemently refuses to read
any of the surrounding text, for fear the judge might catch on. It’s a
common ruse used by sleazy attorneys---and it often works.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Isn’t it
true that you accused Ms. Lamb of illegal drug use?
[employee]: I state that it is my opinion that she is very
heavily involved in drug use.
In point of fact, I had
made no such allegation in my original website, which is what the
complainants are objecting to. I had simply stated the fact that I had found
Lamb with a drug pipe (actually, it was a crack pipe, not a pot pipe). Only
in my statement to Tift before the hearing did I state that it was my
opinion that Lamb was a druggie. In the first place, I was and am entitled
to that opinion. In the second place, I had pulled my punch considerably by
not mentioning other instances of illegal drug use by Lamb. All of this is
moot in any case, as no such allegation had been made at that time.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: When did
you last see her use drugs?
[employee]: I found a pot pipe---
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: (interrupting) No, no. When did you last
see her use drugs?
At this juncture I was STILL
trying to refrain from bringing the drug issue out in the open. But finally
[employee]: I have seen her do
things that indicated to me that she was probably using drugs. I have not
seen her do drugs. It is my opinion . . .
I was referring to
instances of seeing Lamb stand in the window of the office, sucking on a
small, brass pipe, holding the thin smoke in her lungs, then coughing it
out. I was referring to an instance of witnessing Lamb and Mcfarland in
Mcfarland’s green van, passing a small pipe back and forth and giggling. Was
this drug use? I didn’t test the substance. Would I stake my life on the
notion that this was illegal drug use? Of course. Without reservation.
Still, whether or not this WAS illegal drug use remained “my opinion”, and
that’s all I ever represented it to be. Tift, apparently, thought that I did
not have a right to that opinion, even though she felt very good about
expressing her own stupid and rancid opinions later on in the hearing.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: (interrupting) Have you ever seen her with
[employee]: I have seen her with a pot pipe.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Have you seen her with drugs?
[employee]: The residue in this pot pipe, if it’s drugs . . .
Did you test the residue?
[employee]: No I did not.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Are you an expert in the analysis of
residue in so-called pot plants?
[employee]: I have about two years experience with the Federal
Government in narcotics enforcement.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: For whom?
[employee]: For Metropolitan Enforcement Group.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Metropolitan Enforcement Group of what?
[employee]: It was a Federal Agency. Look it up.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would submit that . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting)
Anything else, ? I always allow on these cases the petitioner to
have the last word because they have the burden of proof. So any other
statements or do you wish to ask any other questions from the petitioner?
At this point I was
becoming a little nervous. The judge had been delivered a 28 page document
which was clearly marked as my entire testimony and rebuttal to the
allegations against me. I was deathly ill that day and had been for a week
prior. I submitted my testimony in writing because I wanted a clear record
of it, because I was sick, not thinking clearly, and it hurt to speak. The
cases that Lamb and Mcfarland were trying to make were so obviously without
merit that I figured any competent judge could have seen through them in the
first five minutes. I thought it curious, then, that Lawson appeared to be
trying to wrap the hearing up without even referring to any of my written
rebuttals. It was as if he hadn’t even bothered to read my testimony…but
certainly he was more competent than THAT---
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your
Honor, it is clear that  has made remarks that in a modern workplace
are alarming and threatening. He has used Ms.. . . Let me ask you . . .
Let me inquire of my client. Ms. Lamb, did you ever give 
permission to create these pornographic pictures?
What remarks was Tift
referring to? Exactly, what remarks had I made and when had I made them, and
to whom? Lamb's complaint which alleged “threatening and alarming” remarks
had, I thought, been utterly and conclusively refuted by her own written
words to me, stating that she wished I hadn’t quit, wanted to stay my
friend, and had the utmost respect for me as a friend and a co-worker. This
letter from Lamb to me had been submitted to the court with the appropriate
explanation. Lamb wrote it AFTER she claimed I had made threatening and
abusive remarks to her. It was clear-cut, I thought. She had lied. She had
perjured herself. It was not one person's word against another in this
particular instance---her lie was exposed right there in her letter to me,
in her own words. So why was Tift now so casually assuming that she had
convinced the court that these threatening and alarming remarks had been
made? Why wasn’t the judge picking up on this? Why didn't he say, “Uh, Ms.
Tift, just a minute--- Your client says that  made a bunch of
threatening and alarming remarks to her, yet after this supposedly occurred,
she writes this mushy letter saying how much she respected him. How do you
resolve this, Ms. Tift? But the judge never realized what had just been put
past him. He simply bought that I had threatened Lamb in some way. Lamb’s
second instance of perjury lies in her response, below:
DELANN LAMB: No.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Have you given him permission to post your
altered picture on the Web at all?
DELANN LAMB: No.
Lamb’s third instance of
perjury lies in her response, above. And Delann Lamb's fourth instance of
perjury lies in the exchange below, easily verified by innumerable
witnesses, and by drug screening:
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Ms. Lamb,
do you use illegal drugs.
DELANN LAMB: No.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Nothing
further, your Honor. I just think that it’s very clear that he makes these
bald assertions of criminal misconduct without the slightest basis of fact.
And then as justifications as well, it’s my opinion. He creates these
pictures which are not innocuous and are in fact very harmful. He makes
directly threatening. . .
--Bald assertions without
the slightest basis in fact? Lamb didn’t even DENY that she had been seen
smoking a small, brass pipe. What does she contend she was doing, blowing
bubbles for Christ's sake? "He creates these pictures which are in fact very
harmful"? If they were harmful, then Lamb shouldn't have asked for them! And
in at least ONE of the many instances in which I asked Lamb to be sure and
let me know if any of the depictions ever bothered her, she should have said
YES! (see polygraphs #1 and #2). "He makes directly threatening…" What? I
made directly threatening remarks? When? What were they? Let's see them!
Let's hear them! At least they could be quoted, couldn't they?
THE COURT: The pictures
express a little bit more than an opinion in the Court’s view. I say, the
pictures express a little bit more than an opinion in the Court’s view.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Yeah, that seems the case.
It was beginning to dawn on
my antihistamine-logged brain that Tift was trying to intimate to the court
that inappropriate pictures of Lamb had been posted on the Internet. This
perplexed me, because Lamb had never alleged this. Surely the judge would
soon begin to question Lamb about these things. That was his job, right? To
get at the truth? He was probably just biding his time, waiting for Tift to
get all of her crap out in the open, then Lawson would begin chipping away
at it and the truth would emerge.
THE COURT: Sir (speaking to
Delann Lamb), you indicated your business address 7724 South 259th?
And that’s the business address of Dart International T&L Leasing . . .
Sir? It was very clearly
spoken. Was this judge off in some fogworld somewhere? Now he doesn't know a
sir from a ma'am?
DELANN LAMB: (inaudible)
THE COURT: Do I understand
that  is no longer an employee?
DELANN LAMB: That is correct.
And why was I not an
employee any longer? I had quit about six weeks earlier, due to the
frustrations brought about by the incompetence and dishonesty of my bosses,
probably brought about by their damned drug use. But I was immediately and
passionately asked to reconsider. So I stayed on awhile longer. But quit
again in mid December for the very same reasons. I've no doubt Tift wished
mightily that I'd been fired. That would have made her case seem so much
more juicy. Disgruntled ex-employee, and all of that.
THE COURT: I asked that for a question. We often get these
requests where people are next door neighbors, where people in apartment
complex or otherwise, where people work in the same workplace, where people
go to school in the same school and obviously there are going to be some
areas of some chance encounters and we have to tailor our Orders if that be
the case. But if there’s, you’re not involved in those kind of situations,
then there’s no need to try and tailor it. Alright, let me indicate where
the Court’s coming from on this. I’m satisfied in this case that the
petitioner has proven by the fair preponderance of the evidence that there
has been a course of conduct. I’m also satisfied that it has been unwanted
conduct. It has been communicated several times by the petitioner to the
respondent that she doesn’t want to have anything further to do with him and
yet he persists by various means to attempt to maintain that contact, or has
in the past, and maybe that’s all over. If it’s all over, that’s great.
Sometimes sometimes (sic) it takes a club sometimes to convince people that
their area of human relations with another one is at (tape cut off).
(beginning of side two of tape - missing text) to resist and let they go
their own way.
What I often find in the
case of lovers falling out of love or split up or whatever where they just
can’t accept that. I guess there was a movie on that one time. But they
can’t accept it and so they continue to want to see the other party even
though the other party doesn’t want anything further to do with them.
Again, the Court also finds based on the testimony and evidence in the file
that the submitted . . ., on behalf of the petitioner, that this has caused
the petitioner to experience extreme, not just substantial, but extreme
emotional distress for her own safety and her own well-being. So the
court’s going to issue an Order. I’m going to ask the petitioner how long
you feel the Order should be in effect. I’m thinking of five years. Things
start to cool off after awhile and, of course, you can always within 30 days
of the expiration petition the Court to renew it..
Where was Lawson getting
this crap about “ex-lovers”? I had done a delicate dance for three years to
avoid this woman's advances (see polygraph #1 and #2!), and yet now, Lawson
was trying to skew the case such that this was a lover's issue of some kind?
This was a First Amendment issue through and through. I had posted my
reasons for quitting my job on the Internet, and that made Lamb and
Mcfarland look bad. They were trying this sleazy route of tricking the court
into shutting down that site. Nothing more or less mysterious than that.
That Lawson was now apparently thinking of this with a romantic angle
ignited the notion that he didn’t have a damned clue about the case, what it
was about, or why we were all there in front of him.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Ms. Lamb appreciates the Court’s
consideration and (inaudible).
THE COURT: Would five years be
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Yes, sir.
This is a curious remedy
offered (not acquiesced to, but OFFERED) by Lawson. He only had the
authority, under the circumstances, to issue an order for one year. Yet
little things like laws and rules don’t seem to bother this man.
THE COURT: I want to read some
portions of the Order. The respondent is restrained from making any
attempts to keep the petitioner under any surveillance. The respondent is
also restrained from coming near or making any attempts to contact and from
having any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, by phone, mail
or any other means, and I emphasize any other means, directly or indirectly
with the petitioner. I have indicated in the area of no contact that any
depiction or reference to petitioner in any form will be considered unlawful
contact under this Order. She doesn’t want to have anything more to do with
you and it’s done.
Lamb and Mcfarland were
inwardly rolling on the floor about this time. I’ve no doubt they couldn’t
BELIEVE how easy it was to trick this man Lawson. And what was this line
about keeping the petitioners under surveillance? No one had made even a
passing remark about that being a danger. No one had accused me of even
THINKING about doing such a thing. It was included in the requests of
Mcfarland and Lamb so as to keep me from videotaping them smoking dope as
they drove around during working hours in Mark’s green van. The thought
hadn't even crossed my mind at that point. But they had certainly thought to
cover that contingency. My God they’re smart.
[employee]: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Just a minute. Let me finish and then I’ll listen.
The respondent is also restrained from entering or being within 500 feet of
the petitioner’s residence or her place of employment which is presently at
Dart International. And I’ve given the address. I’ve also indicated that
contact may be had through legal counsel. I think that’s always appropriate
anyway, but I like to put it in there. OK, .
[employee]: Is the Court aware
of the document that I had delivered to both of these people?
THE COURT: Yes, I’ve read through it.
At this point my numbed and
assaulted brain was finally realizing that Lawson HAD NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO
READ MY TESTIMONY. The document he was referring to, which he HAD read, was
my hastily pecked out letter to Tift upon my receiving her notice of
complaint to try and shut down my website. I could prove that Lawson had
been delivered a copy of my written testimony (enclosed). So why hadn’t he
read it? Was it incompetence? Mcfarland had told me that he had a contact, a
“connection” in the Kent police department who could fix tickets for him.
Mcfarland had told me this guy was “way up there in the department”, and
that he (Mcfarland) often “played golf with those guys”. Mcfarland had even
offered to have a ticket of mine fixed. So just how far did Mcfarland's
influence go? Kent, Washington is nearly world renowned for its
corruption---there's even a TV show that focuses on it. But was the place so
rancid that Mcfarland was capable of buying a judge? Lawson clearly wasn’t
the brightest bulb in the string, but was he also blatantly crooked? I
didn’t know, but it was becoming clear that no matter what evidence or
testimony was presented to refute Lamb's or Mcfarland's bogus complaints,
Lawson wouldn’t hear it.The document I was referring to at this particular
time was a no-contact order I had served on Lamb a week or so after I quit.
She had been crank-calling my home and hanging up. I served her with the
no-contact demand, and so she immediately called me again, and apologized
for the hang-up calls, then continued to call me for weeks or months after
that. I filed a police report later in the year. Yet even though this
document had been delivered to Lawson, he seemed not to know anything about
it. I asked him flat-out if he had a copy. He’d have to reply, right? And if
he didn’t have a copy, I supply him yet another. And then what would he have
to say about Lamb's allegation that it was ME who was bothering HER--
[employee]: That it advised them that it was I who wished no
more contact? Do you have a copy?
THE COURT: Then you should have no objection to the Order. Let
me, let me, uh, also indicate. When this first came down the pike, a number
of us felt, a number of judges felt that we could, if both parties didn’t
want to have anything further to do with the other party, we’d just go ahead
and make the Order mutual.
THE COURT: It cuts both ways. We’ve been told now by the
appellate courts that we can’t do that. That if the other party wishes a no
contact order and if they can show a basis for a no contact order or order
to ban harassment, then they are entitled on their own petition to get one.
[employee]: What contact does the Court maintain that I have or
tried to have with either of these people? And does the Court also have a
copy . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting,
nearly yelling) In paragraph 5 of the Statement of Declaration it indicates
“[employee] asked me out on a date in early December of the year 2000. I refused
This is Delann Lamb’s fifth
instance of perjury. No such invitation was
ever extended to this Godd*mned skank
of a woman, nor would it ever be (see polygraphs). If any one thing had
caused me to continue with this crusade, it is this one evil allegation by
Delann Lamb. See polygraphs #1 and #2.
THE COURT: You asked me to indicate what the Court found. “A
few days later, he accused me of having an affair with Mark McFarland. This
allegation is completely untrue. He admitted to me that he was jealous of
my friendship with Mark McFarland. Throughout his employment,
took pictures of employees at the company.” Now that doesn’t directly
relate to her, but “at one point he started creating pictures of me, my head
attached to people engaged in pornographic acts. I asked him to stop. I
don’t believe  did stop. I did, however, keep some of the pictures
as an example of ’s behavior.” I think refusing your advances and
asking you to stop indicates she doesn’t want any further contact with you.
“I asked him to stop.” This
is Lamb’s sixth instance of direct perjury. She asked me for specific
pictures. She asked me to email them to her. I refused. She asked again, and
again. She told me she liked them, that she had no problem with them, that
they were fun. Not only did she NOT tell me she wanted no contact with me,
she angrily told co-workers that she was mad at me because I wouldn’t come
to visit her after I quit! There are witnesses to this for God’s sake! I
tried feebly to communicate the insanity of these allegations, but I was
beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland, a strange place where there was
no such thing as truth or logic or comprehension. I frankly and honestly
began to wonder if Lawson was insane. As for Lamb's assertion that I had
accused her of an affair with Mcfarland, I made no such accusation. Did I
believe it was the case? Yes. But I had made no such accusation because I
did not feel it had any legitimate place in a website which sought simply to
voice an employee's reason for quitting his job. In point of fact it (an
affair) was considered common knowledge around the area. In point of fact,
Lamb's cellular phone accidentally auto-dialed the office one day. The
conversation between her and Mcfarland, and associated sounds, were quite
clear. I later related to Lamb that she might want to secure her phone from
that kind of thing in the future. She and Mcfarland offered in their defense
only that the conversation and sounds were “taken out of context”. Who cares
if they were or they weren’t having an affair? The gripe of the employees
(including me) and drivers was that Lamb and Mcfarland were unreachable for
well over half the working day, almost every day of the week. That had the
effect of making drivers sit in semi-trucks all over western Washington,
waiting on some decision that could only be made by a dispatcher (Lamb or
Mcfarland). No one cared if they were boinking donkeys---if only they'd
answer their phones! Again, why was this issue even relevant in this
proceeding? Why was Lawson prattling on about it? How was this to be
construed as harassment? Why did Lawson automatically and without
reservation blindly accept every single allegation made by Lamb and
Mcfarland, yet dismiss out-of-hand every single rebuttal made by me? Thank
God modern society has polygraph technology, or Lamb and Mcfarland would
STILL be coming at me with harassing nonsense and lies.
[employee]: There were no advances.
THE COURT: Pardon?
[employee]: I’m sorry. There
were no advances. Is Ms. Lamb willing to take a polygraph test because I
THE COURT: That’s not necessary.
HUH? A polygraph may not be
ADMISSIBLE, but it was sure as hell NECESARRY! But what Lawson is really
saying here is that he doesn’t WANT anything to be admitted into the case
which would prove my side. If he had meant that a polygraph wasn't
admissible, he'd have said that. But he didn’t. He said it wasn’t NECESARRY,
as in, everything I had said was a lie, and everything Lamb and Mcfarland
had said was truth, and there was no need of some pesky polygraph that would
show that assumption to be false. Why? How had he arrived at this
determination? Why did he so vehemently protect his position? Finally
“getting it”, that a polygraph wasn’t going to make it into the courtroom
(something which would have saved the court a huge amount of time, and would
have saved Dart Trucking close to $20,000 in legal fees), I finally decided
to try my luck with plain old DOCUMENTATION. Perhaps that was still
admissible in a court of law. Lawson had already been given a copy of Lamb’s
letter to me, written some time AFTER I quit, and written AFTER I supposedly
threatened her, stating that she wanted to be my friend, she had the
greatest respect for me, etc., etc. ad nauseam—I tried to see if the judge
would react to that letter. How would he explain it? I plunged ahead:
[employee]: I have an e-mail from Ms. Lamb right here dated
about five days after I quit expressing that she would like to remain my
friend and she valued my friendship (inaudible). Does the Court have a copy
THE COURT: I don’t think that cuts any difference. She asked
you to stop.
[employee]: I didn’t do anything that needed to be stopped.
She knows full well (inaudible).
THE COURT: I’m satisfied it’s unwanted contact. As I tell
everybody, if you’re aggrieved by the Court’s decision, you have the right
of appeal with the King County Superior Court.
[employee]: I will do that.
THE COURT: On the appeal, the Court will take a look and see if
the Court had substantial evidence to support its findings by the fair
preponderance of the evidence.
THE COURT: Pardon?
[employee]: We will bring with us three witnesses from Dart.
THE COURT: OK. I just would
indicate something to you, . Uh, I really don’t know what you hope
to accomplish because you’ve indicated you don’t want to have any other
contact with her. So . . .
Lawson doesn’t know what I
would hope to gain by appealing the decision? Let’s see, I hoped to gain my
basic, constitutional right to free speech, and my right to travel freely
about the area! What did he THINK I hoped to gain? Was the man really this
obtuse? Naw, he couldn’t be. He was a judge. He had an education. He was
picked as the cream of society, to defend the truth and bring justice to
all---or was this guy just some sleazy attorney himself, with no more common
sense than God gave a crowbar, masquerading as a sentient being? How many
bogus decisions had he made on this bench? How many outrages had he
perpetrated? How could any system allow a man this far removed from reality
to hold such a position? I remember a documentary about a clannish bunch of
folks in southern Pakistan. They’re primitive. A clansman was accused of
murdering some guy. He was caught and taken to trial. The trial consisted of
him walking a thirty foot stretch of hot coals, barefooted. His feet were
then bandaged and he was sequestered for 24 hours. Then his feet were
unwrapped. If they were unharmed, then it was the will of Allah that the
truth be known, and he would be judged innocent. If his feet were blistered,
however, it would be a sign that he had done the deed. Of course his feet
were blistered all to rat shit, and he was executed. That’s how I was coming
to see Judge John Lawson’s courtroom. Real Planet of the Apes stuff.
THE COURT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. If this hearing
hasn’t done anything else, it’s demonstrated as a matter of record that she
doesn’t want to have any contact with you, so . . .
[employee]: That’s fine, I’ve wanted no contact with her.
THE COURT: Wait a minute, wait
a minute. If you appeal this to the Superior Court, and they decide, they
agree with you and they order the petition be dismissed or sent back for
rehearing or whatever, you still have been put on public notice that she
wants no contact and if there is any contact from this date forward in any
form, you’ll be in violation.
Lawson is saying, for the
record, that if the order is reversed on appeal, I would STILL be in
violation if I got within 500 feet of Lamb or Mcfarland. So now Lawson is
more powerful than even a higher court.
[employee]: There has been no contact.
THE COURT: OK. If there’s not
going to be any contact, then what’s the problem?
Lawson STILL thinks this is
about contact between Lamb and myself. I hadn’t contacted her AT ALL, not
even ONCE except to tell her to stop crank-calling my house and to ask for a
damned written reference so that I could counter her defamation when I was
seeking new employment! Even then I hadn’t WANTED to contact her, but every
time I sent my reference request in, Lamb said it had been destroyed by
spilled coffee or ruined in the fax machine or lost---- who was perpetuating
the contact! I couldn’t care less about the contact issues. All I wanted was
my First Amendment right to say true things and to voice an opinion, and to
be able to travel about the area without worrying over whether or not I was
accidentally coming within 500 feet of either of these idiots, Lamb or
Mcfarland. Lawson made an ass of himself voicing his own opinions in the
court that day, as did Tift. Yet they were both conspiring to strip me of
any right to voice MY opinion! Ever read “Animal Farm”? I think it’s a movie
[employee]: The problem is
these people are seeking to restrict my freedom as punishment for me posting
facts and images on the Internet. That’s the case.
That was the case in its
entirety. Neither Lamb or Mcfarland had had any problem with me AT ALL until
I posted my exit interview on the internet. They were simply making up lies
in order to attempt to build a case substantial enough to get the site shut
down, and get their dirty laundry out of public view. Even then, it was only
Tift who was convincing them that they could get the site shut down. In
reality, as demonstrated upon appeal, they had NO CASE in the first place!
But Tift sure did make some dough stringing them along. As far as I’m
concerned, Dart Trucking ought to sue Tift’s firm for incompetent and
dishonest representation. Tift's work on the case was a D-.
THE COURT: You mentioned these
[employee]: These people, these two people right here.
Who the hell does Lawson
THINK we’re talking about? He had consolidated the two cases. They were one
and the same case now. Lamb and Mcfarland. Same case. Same hearing. Same
people What planet is Lawson circling now?.
THE COURT: We’re talking about Delann Lamb at this time. She’s
seeking to have no more contact with you. She doesn’t want any contact with
[employee]: I don’t want any contact with her.
THE COURT: Alright. So? It’s being accomplished, so what have
you got to kick about?
[employee]: I can prove that Ms. Lamb contacted me at least two
times after she was served with a notice to stop contacting me.
THE COURT: What does that prove?
[employee]: It proves that she was the instigator of the fraud.
THE COURT: Let me tell you something. We issue ancillary no
contact orders. We issue no contact orders under the State Domestic
Violence Law all the time. Occasionally, the victim, person being protected
in those orders, will contact the other party and say, “Well, why don’t we
try to work things out?” So the other party comes to meet with them and as
long as everything goes fine, no problem. But if anything gets out of hand
as far as the victim’s concerned, then they blow the whistle. The police
come up and pick up the other party, the person who’s ordered to have no
contact, find (tape cut off). If somebody doesn’t want to have any contact,
particularly if a Court has issued an Order (tape cut off). I’ve issued an
Order in this case. This hearing’s done. Thank you. We’ll proceed with
the last case.
[employee]: At this time I’m
going to ask for a continuance until I can bring three employees of Dart.
At this point I had
concluded that Lawson was wacko, no question or doubt about it. He didn’t
seem to have a grasp of what the case was about. He wouldn’t allow
witnesses. He didn’t seem to know who was whom in the courtroom. He was
acting and speaking illogically. I decided there was little I could do but
try to get issues recorded for the appeal process. Lawson was a write-off.
THE COURT: Motion to continue is denied. Mark my filing. Want
to raise your right hand and be sworn in? Do you declare under penalties of
perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in
this case be the truth?
MARK McFARLAND: I do.
THE COURT: Just have a seat. You want to state your name and,
unless it’s confidential, your resident address?
MARK McFARLAND: Yes. Mark McFarland, business address is 7724
South two hundred---.
THE COURT: That’s the business address?
MARK McFARLAND: Yes sir, yes your Honor.
THE COURT: Are the statements
contained in your petition of Order to Ban Harassment true and correct?
MARK McFARLAND: Yes, your Honor.
This is Mcfarland’s first
instance of spoken perjury (he had already perjured himself many times in
THE COURT: OK.
? Do you declare under penalties of
perjury according to the laws of the State of Washington your testimony in
this case be the truth?
[employee]: I do.
THE COURT: Again, do you want to state your name and your
resident address for the record please?
[employee]: [employee], XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
THE COURT: With respect to the petitioner Mark McFarland, do
you want to indicate, give reason or show cause why you feel this temporary
order should not be made permanent for a period of one year or more?
[employee]: Once again, I
refer the Court to state that something should not be done again unless it
had first occurred. In order for the Court to state that something should
not occur, understanding of some reasonable suspicion that it might occur .
THE COURT: I have sworn testimony.
[employee]: So do I.
THE COURT: OK, but I’m a trier of fact.
This is an
interesting exchange, in that Lawson tries to bolster his position by
stating that he has “sworn testimony” (notice how he has transformed from
the judge to the prosecution, not seeking truth, but simply supporting the
case for the complainants). I retort that I have sworn testimony too. That
puts us on even footing for whatever obscure point Lawson is going to try to
make. He doesn’t LIKE being on even footing, so he makes the next stupid
comment “OK, but I’m a trier of FACT.” Apparently HIS sworn testimony,
whatever it is, is fact, while mine, whatever it is (he hasn’t even asked at
this point), is not fact---it is something less than HIS sworn testimony.
[employee]: Once again, . . .
THE COURT: Just like a judge
or a jury, a trier of fact is required to determine the credibility of the
evidence presented to it. If I determine that Mr. McFarland’s evidence is
credible and if I also determine the evidence supports the petition of anti-
harassment, then he satisfied the burden of proof by the fair preponderance
of the evidence.
--Odd—the hearing for
Mcfarland has just begun. No verbal testimony has been entered. Yet Lawson
feels compelled to announce that he’s going to side with Mcfarland. No one
has argued anything yet---Lawson simply announces he is siding with
Mcfarland. I haven’t even begun to refute Mcfarland’s story! Yet Lawson has
[employee]: Mr. McFarland
can’t possibly have any proof because no harassment occurred, nor would it
occur. Once again, I’m going to ask for a continuance to bring in two
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: May I inquire, your Honor?
THE COURT: Surely.
Tift wants to move past
this issue of witnesses. I do think she was dumb enough to believe most of
what Lamb and Mcfarland fed her, but still, she might have had doubts, and,
after all, the TRUTH was certainly nothing she wanted to see come out unless
it benefited her. She’d been sitting there for half an hour, wondering just
what my witnesses would have testified to. It bugged her. She didn’t want
any witnesses. Change the subject.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Thank
you. , is it true that you demanded that Mr. McFarland give you a
letter of reference after you ceased employment with Dart---with T&L
[employee]: I asked him a number of times for (inaudible).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: You demanded a letter of reference from
him and you told him to think carefully before blowing you off again because
it was not in his best interest to do so.
[employee]: I don’t believe it is in his best interest.
I began requesting a
written reference when numerous people began contacting me and relating
extremely defamatory comments that Lamb and Mcfarland were making about me.
I wanted their position in writing. It was a simple request, they could have
said anything they wanted, just so it was in writing and could not be
changed later. They resisted writing a reference for several reasons, among
them: (1) They knew that anything they put in writing could not be changed
later. (2) They knew that if they lied in writing, I would sue them for it.
(3) They knew that, in order to be truthful, there was not one single
derogatory thing they could say about me. (4) They didn’t WANT to say
anything nice about me, because they were angry that I had quit, that I
couldn’t be replaced, that my route had gone to hell untended, that all the
duties I had tended to were now SCREWED UP, and they were going to “teach me
a lesson” for quitting. Lamb had admitted to me on several occasions that
she had done that to other employees, and that she was good at it (see
polygraphs). I told Mcfarland and Lamb that it was not in their best
interests to continue to blow off my requests for a written reference
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT. And it is not in their best interests on this very day,
two years later, to continue to do so. To continue to blow off this request
will continue to subject them to lawsuits and other penalties---not to
mention the damage to their conscience. Mcfarland, I’m convinced, doesn’t
have one. Lamb might have a small, cold, broken one, but after witnessing
her little charade in court where she whined that I had asked her out on a
date and she’d had to “refuse my advances”, well, perhaps I misspoke--.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Isn’t it
true that Mr. McFarland’s face is also pasted into these pictures which were
earlier shown to Judge Lawson? True or false?
[employee]: Yes, lots of them.
Mcfarland had a table in
his office which was dedicated solely and exclusively to my pictures of him.
Nothing else was allowed on the table. It was in place there for as long as
two years. Mcfarland invited dozens, if not hundreds of people into that
room to view the pictures he displayed so proudly. Is the man so utterly
Godd*mned stupid as to think those witnesses can not be located and
subpoenaed? Mcfarland also kept a private collection of the more risqué
pictures I made for him. He only brought a handful to court---in reality I
had made many dozens for him over three years. Mcfarland had offered on a
number of occasions to pay me to make pictures. He had imposed upon me to
make pictures of his teenage daughter. Mcfarland proudly called certain
drivers into his office and pulled out the risqué pictures I had made of
him, and he laughed with the other drivers and said things like, “aren’t
these great?” Lamb and Mcfarland also imposed upon me to create gag products for corporate people in California.These drivers and
others could have been subpoenaed and brought into Lawson’s courtroom. These
were friends of Mcfarland, not friends of mine. For the most part, they are
honest, hard-working souls who, I must believe, would never lie to protect
Mcfarland, even though he thinks they might. The office secretary, Sarah,
was well familiar with Mcfarland’s collection of pictures. She told me she’d
testify for me. She apparently told Tift she wouldn’t. Yet Sarah’s father is
a Graham, Washington patrolman, and I have a hunch he would have cautioned
his daughter about the folly of committing perjury. Mcfarland told me many
times that if I ever got rich off his pictures on the internet, he wanted
50%. I paid no heed to the comments, because I had no reason or desire to
post Mcfarland’s composite pictures on the internet, even though he’d made
it clear, repeatedly, that it was okay to do so. So we have all this talk
about pictures which were supposedly used over a three year period to harass
and terrorize Mark Mcfarland, one of the most crude and sexually obnoxious
men I have ever had the misfortune to know, and Lawson virtually leaps at
the opportunity to make these pictures an issue. They were never, ever
unwanted (see polygraphs), they were asked for, they were proudly displayed,
yet Lawson decided they were objects of harassment and he vehemently refused
all efforts to allow anyone or anything into his courtroom which could
effectively refute that notion. Lawson bluntly severed any thread which led
toward solving the mystery of why Mcfarland hadn’t bloody-well FIRED me if I
had been making harassing pictures of him for THREE AGONIZING YEARS. No one
would EVER explain that!.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Do you,
were you under the impression that Mr. McFarland gave you permission to post
his face in these pornographic pictures?
[employee]: I’m sorry. Post
For just a minute there, I
was starting to think that Tift was going to try and make the court believe
that I had posted these pictures of Mcfarland on the Internet. She obviously
didn’t want to be cornered in such a way that she had to admit for the
record that she had no evidence of them ever being posted on the Internet,
so she changed the direction of her allegation.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: To make
these composite photography.
[employee]: As I’ve stated before, I’m not sure the Court has a
copy of it. Mr. McFarland had a desk in his office that was dedicated to
nothing but my pictures and there were perhaps 60 pictures in his office.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Let me ask you again . . .
[employee]: Which he probably showed to every single person who
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Let me ask you again
. Do you
believe that you had Mr. McFarland’s permission to put his head on these
What is it this woman
doesn’t understand about what’s being said to her?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Do you
continue to post Mr. McFarland’s face on your Internet site?
[employee]: I have removed every trace of these people I can
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Beginning when?
[employee]: Probably….when I was first served with notice—
Here’s where it begins to
turn tricky. When I was first served notice of these complaints, I read
Mcfarland and Lamb’s outrageous intimations that I had posted pornographic
pictures of them on the Internet. I knew I hadn't. Still, I thought I’d
better go through every single file that WAS posted on there, just to make
sure that one didn’t slip through somehow, before I began spouting off about
them being liars and such. My site is a graphics site, and it’s huge, at
least it was at the time. It was a formidable task to view every single
image. But, of course, I found none of Lamb or Mcfarland in anything but a
straightforward portrait, about 1 x 2 inches, that had never been composited
(the very same appear on the home page of this site). What I did find were
two or three images of Mcfarland, and two or three images of Lamb. They had
been used as insets, about 1 by 2 inches in size. They were used to
illustrate where the customer’s picture would go when they ordered a
particular gag product. Lamb’s and Mcfarland’s portraits were the same
ones that appear on the home page of this website, but they were branded
over with big, block letters which read, “Your Photo Here”. They were
converted to grayscale, and they were grainy as heck, just like they are on
the home page. With the text pasted over them you would have been
hard-pressed to identify the people in the images. But, again, all that’s
moot, because the images were taken with Lamb’s and Mcfarland’s full
knowledge (just look at their poses), I am the copyright holder of the
images, and I had been given permission to use them in any way I wished. As
it happens I hadn’t “wished” to use them at all. They had simply,
inadvertently been left on some product samples when they got posted.
Neither Lamb’s or Mcfarland’s names were ever used. When I was notified of
their skunky complaints, I also wanted to be sure that no likenesses of ANY
persons of this low caliber were representing my business. I removed the
three or five images, even though I did not have to. These are the images I
was referring to when Tift was questioning me about “images posted on the
Internet”. I assumed that’s what she was talking about, because I had
written to the woman and told her what I had found on the site, and that
they had been removed. Of course Lamb and Mcfarland knew this to be the
case---they both knew full well that I had never posted any images of them
that were in any way not “G” rated. If they had found such images, don’t you
think they’d be able to supply the court with URLs? Of course they didn’t
find any such images, and they admitted for the record that they “didn’t
have that information” when asked WHERE the images had been posted.. Tift
knew perfectly well that no "pornographic" pictures of anyone had been
posted by me on any site. She also knew that three or five simple portraits
HAD been posted. So she used the old bait and switch routine to make it look
like I was admitting to posting PORNOGRAPHIC PICTURES, when in reality I had
only posted simple portraits, and she knew it. But Lawson was just too slow
to stay on the track here, and he thought I was admitting to posting
pornographic images. Even Halpert, the appeals judge, after this trick by
Tift was explicitly pointed out to her by my attorney, STILL ruled that I
had posted pornographic pictures on the Internet! Thank Jesus Christ that we
have the polygraph!
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: So
approximately two weeks ago you did that. And up until then, you were using
Mr. McFarland’s face on your Internet site. Posting his face for example as
a person who is caught and charged as a child pornographer or pedophile.
Isn’t that true?
“as a person who is caught and charged as a pedophile”?
What the hell was this? I had never, EVER created such an item, not even for
fun, as I find pedophiles no joking matter, and I had no idea what Tift was
talking about. If Lamb or Mcfarland had made this claim to the court, they’d
be guilty of yet another count of perjury. But they didn’t make the claim.
Tift did. Now, if Lamb or Mcfarland told Tift that I had made any such
thing, then they lied to her, and Tift was dumb enough to believe them
without asking for any sort of proof of any kind. If Lamb or Mcfarland did
NOT tell Tift this tall tale, then Tift made it up on her own and is guilty
of defamation and perhaps perjury. Perhaps someday we’ll get to the bottom
of this one too. I wouldn’t put perjury past Tift for a New York second.
[employee]: Not even true. This is a G rated site (inaudible).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your
revenge on the (inaudible) site never accused, never put Mr. McFarland’s
picture in an area where he was accused of criminal misconduct?
[employee]: My revenge on the boss site?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Yeah.
My “Revenge on the Boss”
site? Was Tift going to simply begin making things up out of thin air now?
Revenge on the Boss site? I’d never HEARD of such a thing. If such a site
ever existed, why didn’t Tift have the Internet address of it? The URL? Why
hadn’t someone printed it out? Why was there no sample of it in court? Was
Tift simply lying? This was beneath even Tift, and getting lower than her is
tough. Tift is, in my view, the very EPITOME of the mean-boned attorney. The
BAR Association has recently announced that it is going to begin cracking
down on attorneys who are simply mean---mean just for the sake of meanness,
for some perverted thrill it gives them to hold their knowledge of the
system over others, and to use it like a mean little girl uses a magnifying
glass to torture a bug on a hot day. Meanness for no other reason than that
it feels good to them, turns their screw somehow, and makes them feel big.
That, I believe, describes Leigh Ann Tift. Unfortunately, there are those in
the world who don’t cower to such tactics, but who come back ten times as
hard. Tift did her clients a huge, colossal disservice by using meanness and
dishonesty as a tactic against me.
[employee]: Show me a picture
or a URL where this was--
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: I don’t actually have a copy of that.
[employee]: I see.
WHY don’t you have a copy
of that, Tift? Because you bloody well MADE IT UP.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Do you feel that you are, up until two
weeks ago, were free to post Mr. McFarland’s pictures on your Internet site?
[employee]: Mr. McFarland made references many times over the
years that if I ever make money off of posting his pictures on the Internet,
he wanted 50%.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And if Mr. McFarland disputes that, you’d
just call him a liar.
[employee]: Will Mr. McFarland take a polygraph?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: The polygraph is not an issue here. The
question is, Mr. McFarland thinks that you’d call him a liar.
[employee]: Yes I would.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Because you think you had unqualified
permission to put his head on any body that you chose.
[employee]: Yes I did.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And that seems reasonable to you.
[employee]: Based on these people, yes it was, absolutely.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Mr. McFarland, I mean
, isn’t it
true that you made reference to having an AK and knowing how to use it?
[employee]: We’ve been through this.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Isn’t it true that you directed that
communication to Mr. McFarland?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Actually I would appreciate it if you
would just answer the question.
[employee]: I’ll answer it in the context it requires to answer
it. That reference was made in a joking fax, one of many hundreds over a
period of three years, all of which were very warmly welcomed by McFarland
and his people and faxed around to his friends, yes.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And in
fact, in your communications with the Court you now say you do not have an
AK but you are going to get such a contrivance as when you call it, you’d
get the Uzi because the AK is an inferior machine.
In my letter to Tift, immediately after being notified of
the complaints, I made this statement to Tift to demonstrate that an AK
rifle was about the last kind of rifle I’d own, if, in fact, I was
predisposed to owning that kind of crap. Of course Tift attempted to use
even that. Tift tried to make it look as though someone who DID aspire to
own an UZI would be some sort of bad person. In truth, the UZI was the
military issue of the Israeli army for many years. It is a perfectly legal
device to own in the United States, and a person would be breaking no law by
owning one. Or five. Yet Tift is trying to use this to demonstrate to the
court that even if I DID want to own an UZI, my credibility should somehow
be penalized for it. This is the tactic of an attorney who has no case, who
knows she has a soft-minded judge, and who cares NOT ONE WHIT about the
remotest semblance of truth or fact. She simply enjoys her mastery of
[employee]: If I was a person who was interested in assault
weapons of any kind, that might be a choice. But I’m not a person who has
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Did you say this in a letter that if you
were to get such a contrivance, you’d get the Uzi because the AK seems to be
a somewhat inferior machine?
[employee]: From what I see in the movies, yes.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Nothing further, your Honor. I would like
to inquire of my client.
THE COURT: You’ll have that opportunity.
else? Anything else you want to testify about?
[employee]: Once again, I’m going to ask for a continuance
until I can bring witnesses from Dart to clarify these matters. These are
three people who have indicated to me that if they testify in this matter,
they fear for their jobs. However, they have indicated that they will
testify if they need to. I’d like to bring them.
THE COURT: What will their
testimony be? It sounds to me like . . .
[employee]: The posting of these pictures in public spaces
I was attempting to reply
to the judge by saying that the witnesses would testify regarding
Mcfarland’s displaying of the images and his boasting about them to his
drivers---this, I would argue, would demonstrate to the court that Mcfarland
could not POSSIBLY have felt threatened, harassed or intimidated by the
pictures in question, because all of these people had seen him display them
proudly, conspicuously, and over a period of nearly three years. The judge
asked what their testimony would be, and I was attempting to reply. I
thought it odd that Lawson kept asking about my witnesses, who they were,
what they would testify to, because this had been very clearly spelled out
to him in painstaking detail over 28 pages of written testimony. Why did he
keep saying he’d read it, yet he didn’t seem to know anything that was
contained therein? BECAUSE HE HADN'T READ IT!
THE COURT: Let me warn you
Warn me about WHAT? I was
simply trying to answer his question! Where the hell was this man going NOW?
THE COURT: Let me warn you
about that. In my opinion, some of those pictures could be considered to be
defamation of character which is actionable and will subject you to a civil
suit. Now it becomes actionable when you publish the pictures and the
publishing means you show them to more than one person. If these people
come in and say that they’ve seen these pictures that you prepared, that you
put together as composite pornographic pictures, then you’d be guilty of
defamation of character.
Once again I found myself
questioning Lawson’s sanity. What courtroom was he in? He didn’t seem to be
following the flow of logic. He seemed INCAPABLE of following the flow of
logic. Or was this his dumb-act, meant to so exasperate me that I couldn’t
maintain a logical defense? What in THE HELL was he talking about? I decided
to give up on answering his original question, and to concentrate on
defusing this defamation tack he was veering off on. But it was becoming
very hard to follow the man.
[employee]: In order for these
pictures to be actionable, they have to be not liked by the recipient. Every
witness that I can bring in . . .
THE COURT: That’s not true.
At this point I began to wonder if someone had slipped Lawson some LSD. Lawson could not POSSIBLY be this
far removed from reality, could he? If I make a picture for someone, and
they love it, and they thank me, and they offer to pay me for it, and they
ask me to make more, and they show all of their friends, and they tell their
friends that they love the pictures, and they post the picture on their wall
for three years, and ten or fifty or a hundred people are willing to testify
that they’ve seen all this---Lawson is telling me that I could be sued for
defamation for making the picture? The man needs psychiatric help, and he
needs it now. He not only does not belong on the bench, he does not belong
out in public, driving cars, crossing streets. This was outrageous. It was
NUTS. And I kept right on talking.
testify the recipients liked them so much, they pinned them on the walls in
public view hundreds of times over three years. Now they’re saying they
never liked a single one of them. There’s a huge amount of traffic in the
office over a period of years. The number of witnesses are unlimited.
They’re proud of them. They handed them out. They faxed them to their
THE COURT: Are these people
that you want to call in to testify of the same vein as you are, the same
beliefs regarding sexuality?
This was yet another stupid
question by Lawson. How could I make that determination? One of the
witnesses was Mcfarland’s best friend. But Lawson stuck his hairy
hindquarters out their in the atmosphere and rammed right on ahead:
[employee]: I can’t
answer that. I don’t know what their beliefs are.
THE COURT: Cause I think this
kind of conduct is sick.
Then, Mr. Lawson, Lamb and
Mcfarland are sick, and you ought a be chastising them as well. Moreover, I
think that dishonesty, bias and incompetence on the bench of a far sicker
offense than making funny pictures which everyone enjoys.
[employee]: If these people
also feel that this conduct is sick, why did they so proudly post these
pictures publicly for nearly three years? Why did they do that?
THE COURT: I’ll allow you to answer that question Mr.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Mr. McFarland, did you post the pictures?
MARK McFARLAND: Not these pictures here, no.
[employee]: I don’t believe there is a single picture here that
was not posted in the office.
Curious that at this point
Lawson gives up on the issue of whether or not Mcfarland posted the pictures
on his walls. I thought there was just the slightest chance that we might
get to the truth of at least one issue here. The witnesses could have done
it. The judge could have done it, had he pressed Mcfarland just a little---
But maybe Lawson sensed he was getting close to the actual crux of an issue,
and wanted to move right along to something else before any truth could get
accidentally coughed up like a hairball. "Let’s see", Lawson must have been
thinking, "maybe Tift has EVEN MORE pictures she could introduce, and that
would make [employee] look even worse! How about that, Tift?" But alas, I was
wrong. Tift had no more pictures, poor, poor Leigh Ann. Yet now Lawson
wanted to know if “I” had any more. Had any MORE!? I never had any to begin
with! Tift wouldn’t even allow me to see all of hers! So what the hell was
Lawson referring to THIS TIME?
THE COURT: Do you have
any other pictures to present?
[employee]: Sir, who are you addressing?
THE COURT: You,
[employee]: I have no pictures at all.
THE COURT: Huh?
[employee]: I have no pictures at all.
THE COURT: OK. So how can I
determine what pictures you’re talking about?
Has Lawson had a stroke
while I was blinking? What pictures are we talking about? The same pictures
we’ve been talking about all day! The pictures Tift paraded around in front
of you---the pictures she has been referring to for an hour---the pictures
that are lying RIGHT HERE ON THE TABLE for God’s sake!
[employee]: I’m talking about these pictures here (holding up
the sheet of pictures from counsel for the plaintiffs side of the table).
THE COURT: You may have pictures from Good Housekeeping.
I don’t know. I don’t know what kind of pictures they are unless I see
them. I’ve seen these pictures.
I’m trying to cut the
senile bastard a break here. I reply politely, calmly. It’s like helping
your Alzheimer’s Grandmother find her way out of the bathroom for the 25th
time in eight minutes. It’ll do no good to yell, no good to accuse. You have
to be gentle and know that even this shall pass. I don’t want to call Lawson
incompetent to his face. I’m already going to lose both cases, but I don’t
also want to go to jail. Well, on second thought---
[employee]: The pictures in question are here.
THE COURT: Those?
THE COURT: Alright. Ask Mr.
McFarland, those pictures there, do you approve with those being posted
But the issue on the table
was not whether or not Mcfarland “approved” of “these pictures” being posted
around. It didn’t matter what he said. What mattered was that ten or thirty
or a hundred witnesses could testify that they had seen these very same
images in Mcfarland’s office for three freaking years! It was, however, lost
MARK McFARLAND: No I do not,
your Honor. Those pictures were never posted in my office. Never. Never.
I would not allow those pictures to be posted.
Yet another instance of
perjury by Mark Mcfarland, and everyone who’s ever been in his office knows
[employee]: I would say
that almost every picture in here was posted in his office I’m willing to
bring witnesses to testify.
THE COURT: Alright. So you
bring the witnesses in. I choose not to believe the witness. I choose to
believe Mr. McFarland. Where are we?
Well, here it is, right out
on the table. Lawson is informing me upfront, before knowing who the
witnesses are, before knowing how they’d hold up on the stand, before
knowing what they’d testify to---Lawson is demonstrating that he may well
simply decide not to believe them. He's warning me that this will almost
certainly be the case. To believe ten or thirty or a hundred witnesses would
mean that Lawson had been WRONG about these cases, and God knows we’re not
going THERE--- Biased son of a bitch. I’m reminded of a case in which I was
driving a semi in California. The Kenworth was equipped with a brand-new
computer controlled Cat engine. The Cat had two methods of auto-controlling
the speed of the truck. One was with the regular cruise control. That could
be set and reset and disarmed at any time by the driver. The second mode was
the engine computer, which could control a great many aspects of the truck’s
performance, among them its top speed (even its top speed in any gear). This
was my personal company truck. I’d enjoyed a PERFECT driving record for ten
full years. I didn’t want to get a ticket. Not for anything. I went to great
lengths not to get a ticket. I was proud of my record, and enjoyed company
perks because of it. I took my truck to the Cat dealer and had them set the
maximum speed of the truck to 61 mph. They do this with a laptop computer
which plugs into the engine. The engine computer cannot be set, or reset, or
disabled without the security code---which only the dealer has. This was a
slow speed to be limited to, but it was a speed which ASSURED that I’d never
get a speeding ticket. But one day I did get a ticket. For 71 mph in a 55
zone. I was shocked and appalled. The trooper had estimated my speed---no
radar or timing marks. I informed him that his estimate was wrong, and could
be easily beaten in court. I explained to him about the engine computer. I
called the Cat dealer right then and there, using my cell phone, alongside
the highway, and asked the Cat tech if he’d be willing to testify regarding
the speed control. He’d be delighted. I informed the trooper of this. The
trooper shrugged, smiled, and wrote the citation for 71 mph. I took it to
court. That cost me $600. In the end, the judge ruled that he would not
allow the Cat tech to testify in court on my behalf. Why? I never heard a
reason. My attorney fought valiantly---but she lost, and I was fined another
$200 and lost my perfect driving record and my perks. Judges are beginning
to scare me as no violent gang-banger can..
[employee]: So you would choose to believe Mr. McFarland--
THE COURT: (interrupting) Well so far, I have no reason, I have
no reason whatsoever to doubt the credibility of his testimony. None. I
have a lots of reasons to doubt on the same rules that we use for measuring
credibility a lot of reasons to doubt the credibility of your statements.
[employee]: For what reason. I asked of the Court many times
to take a polygraph.
THE COURT: Your conduct, your actions,
THE COURT: Your demeanor.
[employee]: Specifically. What conduct?
THE COURT: Posting things on the Web site, on the e-mail,
taking pictures like that, superimposing somebody else’s pictures on a
[employee]: What pictures have I posted on the Internet?
These? Are they saying these were posted on the Internet?
THE COURT: They were saying
that pictures of the other witness were posted.
Neither my attorney or I
can find ANY reference in the record in which any of the plaintiffs or their
attorney made this allegation regarding anything pornographic. They tried to
INFER that it happened, but they knew it hadn’t, and so they never actually
came out and said that it had. But their merest inference was obviously
enough! Even though I was never outright accused of it, Lawson FOUND that I
had posted pornographic pictures on the Internet! I don't know how he
figured ever to demonstrate where they were located on the Internet, but,
heck, details, details, Lawson has no time for details. I wasn’t
accused, I didn’t do it, there was no evidence submitted, yet Lawson decided
that it had been done. I have never been accused of killing the Lindberg
baby either---perhaps because I was not alive when it happened. But I
wonder…..would Judge John Lawson find me guilty of that, as well, if someone
suggested that it might have occurred? The man is not fit to sit in
judgement of ANYONE, and I submit that he is ruining lives with unspeakably
dangerous decisions even as I write. The man, in my view, Judge John Lawson,
is a clear and imminent danger to society as long as he is allowed to sit on
any bench. At this point in the hearing I KNOW that Lawson has not read my
defense testimony. I KNOW he never will. But since I have brought a second
copy, I want it included in the record that I have submitted it YET AGAIN to
the court. At this point I am nearly speechless:
[employee]: I, perhaps, I’m
not sure the Court has all the documentation here. I did, when I received
this order I did go through the Internet site which is the G rated site. I
did find, I believe, two of McFarland and three of Lamb. They were about 1
inch and 2 inch insets that were barely, if at all, recognizable, showed
nothing but their head not posted on the Internet. Are they saying there’s
some other pictures posted? If so, where? At what address? When? Let’s
see copies of them.
Incredibly, Lawson simply
ignores this demand to get at the FACT of this issue. He SIMPLY WILL NOT BE
BOTHERED WITH IT. He doesn’t WANT to get at the truth. He doesn’t WANT to
know if anyone can supply the urls of where these pictures might have been
(in his own mind) posted on the net. He doesn’t WANT to know if anyone has
copies of pictures that were posted on the net. Lawson doesn’t want anything
introduced which could even marginally change his mind about the case. He
wants no truck with reality. Lawson simply moves on to something he thinks
he can make more headway with. When backed into a corner, Lawson drops the
picture issue like a hot potato, and tries for something else.
THE COURT: You don’t consider
this to be a threat, ? On your letter of, your statement of January
7 of the year 2001. “I haven’t yet submitted my exit interview. How you
handle this will dictate how I complete the form and what I post on the
Web. Please think carefully before blowing me off again.
Believe me, it’s not in your best interest to do so.” You don’t consider
that to be a threat?
This statement, made by
some other person in some other situation, had already been ruled on by a
higher court, and had been found to be “not a true threat under the law”.
It’s “okay” to tell someone, “Hey, you better not bust into my car!” That’s
not a threat, because no penalty was demonstrated for failure to comply.
Similarly, it’s perfectly OKAY to make the statement: 'Believe me, it’s not
in your best interests to do so.” I did make this statement to Mcfarland
after the third message from Lamb stating that the fax machine had destroyed
my request for a written reference. I was fully prepared to go to court to
force Dart to supply a written reference. I was also planning to post every
single problem I had with this company on the Internet, as a warning to
others. If Mcfarland caused me even more troubles, such that I had to take
him to court, then that would certainly be a dictating factor in what I
posted on the Internet. I would post that I had to take the company to court
to extract a simple reference. And I would post how much Mcfarland tried to
thwart that effort. And I was thinking seriously of taking up a sandwich
board and positioning myself in front of the Dart gate and handing out
fliers which detailed some of my experiences with the company (for instance
the fact that I had been shorted on my paycheck often, and in ever single
case the error had been in Dart’s favor). I felt, and still feel today that
these are things any prospective Dart employee should know about, and I was,
and am, and will continue to be perfectly within my legal right to expose
these things, and to say to Mcfarland or anyone else that “it is not in your
best interests to continue to actively work to screw me over simply because
I had the audacity to quit your employ! But even though Lawson MUST HAVE
KNOWN this was NOT a true threat under the law and had been ruled on as
such, he simply didn't care. Or was he too lazy to go look it up? Or was he
so utterly incompetent that he didn't KNOW how to look it up, or even that
[employee]: Not even remotely. No I do not.
THE COURT: What do you mean, “it’s not in your best interest to
[employee]: Because my saturation level of the drug use and
dishonesty in this company had reached a point where I felt compelled to
make my opinions known on the Internet.
THE COURT: Even at the risk of being sued for defamation?
[employee]: It’s all stuff I can prove. I pulled my punches
considerably . . .
THE COURT: So you don’t it
consider a threat.
THE COURT: I do. The Court does.
Had Lawson known the law,
or had he taken the time to look up those things he did not know, Dart might
have been saved fifteen thousand dollars or more, I might have been saved
two years of extreme anger, and the courts might have saved a bunch of time
that would have been far better spent prosecuting a rapist. But Lawson
didn’t know, and he didn’t care, and he simply wanted to nail me for
standing up to him when he was so clearly, so blatantly, so obviously wrong.
Arrogance is, I think, that man’s worst enemy.
[employee]: I see.
THE COURT: Not necessarily to do physical harm, but to do
harm. And you’ve already admitted that you were going to start posting
things on the Net, not for any useful purpose but to do harm against the
person. To annoy them, to bother them.
[employee]: This was posted in order to save other employees
THE COURT: I don’t believe that for a minute.
[employee]: I see.
THE COURT: I believe that you wanted to post those things to do
harm, to annoy, to bother Mr. McFarland. You weren’t interested in . . .
THE COURT: Your interest in saving the world doesn’t impress
[employee]: I see.
[employee]: Would the
Court object if I posted the polygraph records on the Internet?
THE COURT: Polygraph of whom?
THE COURT: A polygraph of whom?
[employee]: I’m sorry. I still can’t hear you.
THE COURT: A polygraph of whom?
[employee]: Of myself and Mr. McFarland, if he would take one.
I’ve offered many times to pay for it. (Long pause)
Lawson simply will
not answer this question. Part of him knows he's made a horrible mistake in
the case---at least if there's anything left of his mind he knows it, so he
won't even reply to this request which will help me counter some pretty
aggressive defamation in the community by Lamb and Mcfarland. Lawson simply
won't answer. If he refuses, he has to explain why. If he agrees, he knows
that will help me with my case. So he remains mute. Curiously, a few minutes
later, he DOES reply when I ask him if I may post this transcript on the
net. He thinks that will be detrimental to me, so he has no problem with
that. He hears the question clearly and replies promptly.
[employee]: I’m going to ask that the rest of these documents be entered
into the record because I’m not sure that the Court has them all.
THE COURT: Give them to the Clerk.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your Honor, may I just review them
THE COURT: Sure. (long pause) Let me see the other papers if
you’re done. (long pause) What did you mean by this statement I’ve spent
the time looking for? “I am going to let the no contact order stand.”
When I was first served
with the complaints, I just glanced at them. I thought they were merely a
request for no further contact with Mcfarland or Lamb. That was no problem;
it was about time to take them to court for the reference anyway, and that
didn’t require that I have any personal contact with them. I thought it was
chickenshit in the extreme to go to such lengths to try and get out of
giving me a simple reference, but then these are chickenshit people, with
not a morsel of honor to their names. I dropped a quick note to Tift stating
that I would not contest the complaints. There was no reason to. But later
that same day I decided to read the entire document. I was apoplectic to
discover that Lamb and Mcfarland had lied about me, over and over and over,
and that it was not REALLY a no contact order they were seeking, but an
order to shut down my website. THAT rankled, and at that moment it became a
crusade. Our right to expose wrongness and evil is all we have left. We’re
not allowed to fight it. You can see what a joke the courts have become. All
we can do anymore is DESCRIBE injustice. And that’s my personal line in the
sand. I’ll fight for it. I’ll die for it. Tens of thousands of good men
before me have done so. Who am I to shirk the same responsibility? I find it
curious that we no longer fight the Commies to preserve our Constitution.
Now we must fight our elected officials. Except, of course for Lawson---he
was merely appointed, and I can’t help but wonder what manner of human being
is responsible for THAT.
[employee]: That was my original intention.
THE COURT: “Because it doesn’t affect my life in any way
whatsoever. I probably don’t have reason to go to Kent more than once a
year and even then, any stores I might visit are not within a mile of the
Dart office. As far as for not going near Lamb’s or McFarland’s residence
since I don’t know where they are, I can’t guarantee not to actually get
within 1,000 feet of them. I said once, I wish to purge my life of these
two together. How else can you deal with those you perceive to be scum.
Unfortunately, these two do not seem willing to allow me to move forward and
forget them. So be it. It’s off to court we go.”
[employee]: What part of that does the Court not understand?
THE COURT: “I’m going to let the no contact order stand.”
[employee]: As I have stated,
that was my original opinion and I changed it due to the principle of the
matter. I think if you’ll continue to read, you’ll find a statement that
said something to the effect that there really is such a thing in the world
as principle and right and wrong. Perhaps the Court doesn’t agree with
Actually, it was becoming
very clear that the court didn’t agree with that.
THE COURT: Have you turned any of your information over to law
enforcement regarding . . .
[employee]: Yes I have.
THE COURT: Have they brought
any, have they filed any complaints against Dart or anyone else for drug
[employee]: I have no idea. They just received it I think
yesterday or the day before. I would expect that investigation to go at
least a year.
This was another
interesting exchange. I’d had trouble with the Kent police before, and with
the Aukeen court staff, which is the courthouse Lawson uses to perform his
witchcraft. I’d documented what I felt to be corruption in the court staff,
and corruption in the Kent police department. This was years before the
Mcfarland mess, and I had maintained a website exposing some of this stuff,
for about a year. Suffice it to say I was hated for that by the Aukeen court
AND the Kent police. Oh well. And on top of that, we have the fact that
Mcfarland boasted about having “connections” in the Kent PD who would
willingly fix tickets for him and his friends, among other things. Now, in
the above passage (highlighted in yellow), right in the second to the last
yellow line, where it says, “They just received it, I think.....yesterday or
the day before”--- I was trying to remember which day I had delivered my
knowledge of the drugs in the Dart office to the Kent police. Was it one day
ago, or---and right then someone on Mcfarland’s side of the table whispered
to someone else over there, “Two days.” And sure enough, it had been exactly
two days since my documentation had been received by the Kent police
department. Someone in the Kent PD, and I only sent the document to one
person via registered mail, had informed Mcfarland about my complaint within
hours of his receiving it. So much for investigating Mark Mcfarland and Dart
International Trucking for drug use and the transporting thereof. Good
freaking grief. This little tidbit was dutifully passed to the Bureau in
THE COURT: So how long has
this drug use being going on?
[employee]: I believe we could document it back at least six
I was referring to
Mcfarland’s failed drug screens, which had been mentioned in my written
testimony, but I remembered too late that Lawson hadn’t even read it and
wouldn’t know what I was talking about.
THE COURT: And so you’ve sat on it all these six years. In
other words . . .
[employee]: I was only
I was merely trying to
clarify for his befuddled honor that while I could document the abuse going
back at least six years, I was only employed by T&L Leasing for three years,
and that probably only those three years would be relevant in this case.
Still, the problem had existed, in my view, for at least six years---but as
usual Lawson was not interested in clarification or accuracy, he simply
bludgeoned ahead with one of the most asinine Godd*mned statements a judge
has ever made. Perhaps he hoped it would discourage me from pursuing my
allegations about Mcfarland’s drug use:
THE COURT: (interrupting) Just a minute. You keep
interrupting. In other words, you’ve been aiding and abetting this.
[employee]: Aiding and abetting? (sigh).
THE COURT: In other words, if you have knowledge of criminal
activity and don’t go to the police, aren’t you in a sense helping that
[employee]: Perhaps I was. I wished not to be involved in it.
THE COURT: It seems to be your duty to do just the opposite.
[employee]: When you get
pushed to a point, your priorities change, yes . . . The truth of this
matter is not an elusive thing. I think it can be gotten to if the Court so
desires. If the Court desires not to get to the truth of it, it can simply
render a decision now.
THE COURT: That’s the purpose of a hearing, sir. That’s what
we’re doing. You’ve said one thing. They’ve said something else.
This is another loo-loo out
of left field for Lawson. I’m telling him that there’s no point in taking
any more of the court’s time; it’s clear he’s reached a decision, however
uninformed and illogical, and so why doesn’t he just go ahead and render
that decision so we can move the matter along to a higher court and
(hopefully) encounter a higher life form. But Lawson comes back with this
nonsense about “That’s what we’re doing here.” Well, okay then, I think we
all know what we’re doing here. Make your decision and let’s go home! The
man is nothing short of belligerent. He's been told to make his decision,
but he'd rather whine and argue.
[employee]: That’s correct. That’s why I’m willing to bring
witnesses. Even though it will ruin their jobs, I will do it (inaudible).
THE COURT: When did you, you
wrote this yesterday? This document?
[employee]: The three-pager, yes. It’s in response to . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting) “Re the matter of Delann Lamb and
Mark McFarland. I’m informed these new parties have joined in a harassment
action against me. I know neither of these people.”
Lawson off on yet another
tangent that has nothing to do with anything. Mcfarland’s and Lamb’s bosses,
two prizes named Paul Martin and Colleen Butler, had jumped on the bandwagon
the day before, also filing anti-harassment complaints against me. Perhaps
they felt that by increasing the numbers, they could scare me into not
showing up for the hearing. The fact that I had never heard of them probably
had something to do with the fact that their stupid and frivolous complaints
were thrown out of court. But in any case, those are the two people I was
referring to in whatever documnent Lawson was perusing. I was referring to
Martin and Butler, with REGARD to the Lamb and Mcfarland case. What's
confusing about this? He wasn’t looking for anything that might legitimately
prove my case. He was merely browsing for material to try and make me look
stupid. He was angry now, often nearly yelling, making less and less sense,
and he simply wanted to belittle me. In so trying, he just made himself look
all the more foolish and unprofessional. Read this gem of an exchange:
talking about two corporate people.
THE COURT: Pardon?
[employee]: We’re talking about the two corporate people.
THE COURT: No. “Re the matter of Delann Lamb and Mark
[employee]: Regarding . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting) “I’m informed these two new parties
have joined in harassment . . . I know neither of these people.”
[employee]: That’s the two new parties that have joined. I
know neither of them.
THE COURT: OK. S. Paul Martin?
[employee]: I believe that’s his name.
THE COURT: You’ve never heard of him?
[employee]: Never heard the name.
THE COURT: That really doesn’t have much to do with the matter
of Mr. McFarland, does it?
[employee]: I think parts of that may.
THE COURT: I’ve already taken care of
those faces. I don’t think this really helps one way or the other. I don’t
think it helps you at all.
It’s Lawson who has brought
up this topic of Martin and Butler. I have no idea where he’s going with it,
or why he’s trying to re-hash it, since their cases were thrown out and
we’re now working on Mcfarland and Lamb. But Lawson, ever obnoxious, presses
[employee]: It may or it may
not, I’m just asking that it be part of the record…
(I had submitted the
document to him nearly two hours before—I had no idea why he’d gone back to
it, but I wanted to be sure it remained as part of the record, just in case
there was anything in it that we’d need on appeal. Perhaps Lawson was trying
to get me to retract it from the record? I haven’t a clue. I just wanted to
go home and get started on the appeal).
THE COURT: (interrupting) Sure, but it doesn’t seem to me to
have any relevancy in materiality.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: There is
one thing, your Honor, that I would like to draw your attention to. That
initial group of papers. As you can see at the back,  dummies up
gag products. These are the kind
of things he thinks he has the right to continue to do.
Tift refers to an article
that Lamb had specifically asked me to write (she was mad at her boyfriend
again for sleeping around, she’d said). I created the article and presented
it to Lamb. She said it was her favorite. She posted it on the wall above
her desk along with many others. I objected, saying it wasn’t appropriate
for an office environment. Lamb persisted. It hung there for months before I
finally took it down myself, saying, again, that it wasn’t suitable for an
office environment. Yet Tift tried to make it look like I had created this
article against Lambs wishes as part of my on-going harassment campaign
against Lamb (see polygraphs for clarification on this issue). Knowing this
(refer to the polygraphs if you like), go back and re-read Tift's comments
in yellow above. That will help the reader understand the mentality we were
dealing with in Leigh Ann Tift, counsel (?) for the plaintiffs.
[employee]: This is an article that was also posted very
prolifically by Ms. Lamb the moment she was doing it. She also faxed it to
all of her friends. If she didn’t object to any of these pictures then, why
is she objecting now?
THE COURT: These articles, I don’t see where they have any
bearing on anything.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: They don’t, your Honor. It’s just . . .
THE COURT: What do they
have bearing on? Do you know?
At this point I would not have been surprised to hear Lawson ask, "Where do
I live? Do you know?"
[employee]: These people are trying to claim that my joke fax
from clear back in August is now somehow perceived as not a joke. I’m
demonstrating to the court that it is my business to make jokes and they
were the recipients of several hundred of these jokes. If they didn’t
object to my fax in August, why would they object to it now? If they
thought that any part of my fax was real or serious, they should have fired
me on the spot. And yet, I have e-mails that you have there from Delann. .
THE COURT: Yeah, but these articles don’t say anything about .
[employee]: They are an example of the type of work I do.
That’s what they’re there for. That’s their purpose. You’ve asked me their
purpose and I’ve told you their purpose.
THE COURT: I think they’re
stupid. (judge physically throwing several documents off the bench without
Lawson had actually picked
up a handful of documents that I submitted, including Lamb’s letter to me
which stated she had the utmost respect for me, etc., etc., and literally
threw them off the bench with that idiotic, pubescent, stupid comment. I
reiterate: The man needs psychological help. He does NOT belong on the
bench, making important decisions over the lives of others. He is not suited
to this job, and I wonder if he is suited for any job beyond minimum wage.
If Lawson were jerked off the bench at this moment and thrown to the wolves
in the real world, I would not be satisfied. I would not be satisfied
BECAUSE A MAN LIKE THIS HAD SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS AND HAD BEEN ALLOWED
TO JUDGE EVEN ONE SINGLE CASE. THAT scares me.
[employee]: That’s fine.
That’s certainly your opinion and I’m glad that you’re allowed to express
How curious it is that the
court is only minutes away from taking away MY right to voice an opinion.
THE COURT: They don’t
demonstrate anything. Well, I guess as you stated yourself, with respect to
these two pictures, that they have no bearing on this case.
[employee]: They may or may not. They were included---
THE COURT: (interrupting) That’s what you say. You’re using
them. I’m not using them, but you say, then you say this has no bearing on
[employee]: They may or may not depending on what questions the
Court asks me.
THE COURT: Why did you submit them?
[employee]: I submitted them so that you’d have the
documentation in front of you in case you desire to ask me certain
THE COURT: What bearing do these have on the case?
[employee]: Mr. McFarland made the statement at least a couple
of times that he couldn’t understand how I could be so stupid as to make
references to Dart International when I actually worked for TNL. I’m showing
the court why confusion exists as to who we work for. We were issued
t-shirts that said Dart International. We drove trucks that said Dart
International. Therefore, there is a bit of confusion as to who we worked
THE COURT: Some people in the Renton area work for Boeing but
there is no Boeing. There’s a Boeing airplane company, corporation, but
there is no Boeing as such. Bill Boeing died many years ago.
[employee]: What merit does that have on this?
THE COURT: Well, I was just demonstrating that Dart
International as I understand does business as TNL.
[employee]: That’s fine. I already explained to the Court why
THE COURT: I don’t know you as somebody that’s in the know how
you would be confused.
[employee]: I’m sorry. Say again?
THE COURT: I don’t know how you as being somebody in the know
would be confused.
[employee]: Maybe because we were issued t-shirts that said
THE COURT: But you knew that Dart, who Dart was. You knew who
[employee]: I didn’t understand what the relationship was and I
still don’t understand what the relationship is.
THE COURT: I’ve only heard this case a very short time. I
understand the relationship.
[employee]: Well, I’m glad you do.
THE COURT: So what’s wrong with you?
What, exactly, is the point
of this tirade? I’ve already told the man to make his decision. We’re simply
wasting time with this. I could care less what decision he makes at this
point. I know I’ll have to have it overturned on appeal. I’ve already
mentally gone into “appeal mode”. Just make the decision and stop subjecting
us to your psychosis---that was my thought at this point.
[employee]: I must be stupid. (pause) Can the Court indicate
to me why it refuses to allow witnesses to be brought?
THE COURT: Because I think
that their cumulative testimony, I think this is the date for the hearing
and I think if you wanted to have those people here, you should have had
them here today.
[employee]: I tried very hard to protect their jobs.
THE COURT: OK. How about if I grant you your continuance but
order that you pay terms of $1,500 to the petitioner.
[employee]: I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you.
THE COURT: Suppose I grant your request for a continuance and
order that you reimburse for costs that you pay the petitioners $1,500 each.
“I” hadn’t even been
prepared for a statement this idiotic from this man. These people earned
about a hundred dollars a day. To demand that I pay $1500 per day, per
petitioner, demonstrated once and for all that Lawson would do ANYTHING to
keep my witnesses out of court. I think that he had been considering what an
ass he’d been about not allowing the witnesses, and he knew I was going to
appeal it, and he knew that his stubborn, steadfast refusal to allow
witnesses would be judged against him in an appeal, so he decided to try and
throw this outrageous offer out as a bone to satisfy the appeals court (see,
I really DID give [employee] every possible opportunity to prove his case).
Lamb and Mcfarland worked two blocks from the courthouse. They spent most of
every day driving around smoking dope or in some motel anyway---it certainly
wouldn’t be a hardship on them to come back to court for an hour in two
weeks. A reasonable payment would have been $150 per day. They would have
STILL made money on that deal.
[employee]: So you would be penalizing me because I wish to get
at the truth.
THE COURT: No no no, I’m penalizing you because you’re not
ready to go today on the day of the hearing and you’re asking them to come
back a second time at cost and expense to them and that’s not fair to them.
We try to be fair . . .
[employee]: All I’m asking the Court is that I tried to save
these people’s jobs. They know full well they could be fired and/or
ostracized if they testify against these people. They have communicated
that to me.
THE COURT: Do you want a
continuance at $1,500? I think that’s fair occurrence because we spent
almost the entire afternoon on this case.
(Both cases, Lamb and
Mcfarland, took 82 minutes, most of which was spent silently watching Lawson
scribble notes. Go back and read this testimony sans my commentary. How long
did it take you? About 25 minutes. So why is Lawson trying to make it look
as though the court has so graciously given me “an entire afternoon”? Answer
that for yourself.
[employee]: I can’t afford it. I believe the Court knows that
and I believe the Court has imposed that simply to keep me from bringing
THE COURT: You want to be fair, don’t you?
[employee]: I want to tell the truth.
THE COURT: What would be fair to the petitioners who took their
time and their expense to be here in court? Isn’t that fair that they be
[employee]: How did the Court
come up with the amount of $1,500? These people make $28,000 a year.
At this point Paul Martin
piped up from the very last row in the courtroom, where he had been
presumably sulking for having lost his case against me, “Well, ‘I’ make more
than $28,000 a year!” he yelled! Of course neither Martin or Butler were
entitled to any reimbursement from me---their cases had been heard, and
thrown out. But it seems Martin was so pissed off at having lost so flatly,
so completely, that he had been sitting back there stewing all this time,
and he just HAD to say something obnoxious and inappropriate. Lawson ignored
him. Tift snickered.
THE COURT: I could easily ask them to justify $1,500. I think
they could do it in a minute.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: I could indeed submit a cost bill.
[employee]: Let’s try a
different tack here. Does the Court object to any of these people posting
their testimony on the Internet and if so, for what reason?
(Refering to my
witnesses)---I was considering giving up on any form of “justice”, and
giving up on the posting of my “opinions” regarding Lamb, Mcfarland, T&L
Leasing, or Dart International Trucking, National Transportation,
whatever--and instead posting nothing but polygraph results of myself and
the witnesses. How could the court object to the posting of polygraph
results? How could it POSSIBLY? Tift was acting very smug and condescending
by now. She had Lawson wrapped around her fat little finger. She was in
control. They were buds. They were pards. They were fighting the common
enemy together (me). They were on a roll---safety in numbers, Damn the
torpedoes, full speed ahead...
THE COURT: Several reasons.
[employee]: So the court will
deny these people their right to free speech--
THE COURT: No no no, I didn’t say that. If they want to
exercise their rights of free speech and make statements that are not
defamatory on the Internet, they can do so anytime they want.
[employee]: So in other words, they are free to make statements
if they are true.
THE COURT: Of course.
[employee]: And can be proven so.
THE COURT: Of course.
[employee]: And I am free to make statements that are true and
can be proven.
THE COURT: Of course.
[employee]: OK. Thank you.
THE COURT: I don’t have any problem with that. It’s not
evidence in Court though.
[employee]: I will continue to make truthful statements on the
This is another curious
exchange. Lawson is telling me, for the record, that he is allowing me or
anyone to make any statements they want on the Internet, as long as they’re
not defamatory. In the first place, Lawson’s court was not asked to decide
whether any statements made were defamatory; in the second place, his court
does not have the authority to make that determination. That’s an issue
reserved for a civil court, after a suit has been filed alleging defamation.
It’s highly curious, though, that Lawson goes to great lengths to tell me
that I can make non-defamatory statements on the Internet, yet he had
already issued a court order in Lamb’s case, and was about to do so in
Mcfarland’s case, which pointedly, explicitly and specifically restrained me
from making ANY statement, on the Net or at any other time or place, to
anyone, in any context, that was either defamatory or perfectly truthful.
This man (Lawson) obviously doesn’t have a clue what the law is, he doesn’t
care, he has no clue what the cases are about, he has no clue as to what his
role is in these matters, and, again, he doesn’t care. He is simply babbling
nonsense, taking up time, making a fool of himself, which I suspect he has
been doing for many years.
THE COURT: I’ll tell you why it isn’t evidence in Court.
Because any evidence has to be subject to . . .
[employee]: I’m not saying that the testimony, the Internet
testimony of these witnesses (inaudible). That’s not a question.
THE COURT: What has this got to do with your additional
[employee]: I’m just trying to find out what lengths this Court
is willing to go to to suppress these people.
THE COURT: I haven’t done anything to suppress. . . You know,
you were given notice of today’s hearing. If you wanted to have witnesses,
you could have brought them here today.
[employee]: I stated to the Court by registered mail that if
the Court had any reason not to believe anything that I’ve alleged, it
should let me know immediately so I could bring the witnesses in.
should know in any legal action, there’s always a chance that the testimony
of any person will not be regarded as the truth.
I thought we were talking
about whether or not my witnesses and I could post statements on the
Internet, or about Lawson's refusal to allow the witnesses, yet Lawson has
veered off on another tangent about how witnesses may not be believed.
Again, Lawson seems to drift from one topic to another without any logic in
between. It was nearly impossible to follow him.
[employee]: That’s fine, but you seem to be indicating that
while you’ve been hearing these people’s testimony . . .
THE COURT: No, no, no. I’m
asking you, why didn’t you have the people here today?
[employee]: I stated that several times. Because they fear for
THE COURT: OK, OK. But now you’re willing to jeopardize their
[employee]: Apparently we have no other recourse in getting at
the truth than to bring these people in.
THE COURT: That can’t be given the reason for your continuance.
[employee]: Sorry, say again?
THE COURT: Therefore, that can’t be given a reason for your
continuance. You’re contradicting yourself. I didn’t bring these witnesses
because I wanted to protect their jobs. Now you say, now I’m going to be
willing to bring them in as witnesses even though it jeopardizes their jobs.
Of course the above had
been explained to Lawson previously, as well. I had resisted bringing in the
witnesses because they KNEW they’d be fired by Lamb or Mcfarland if they
testified against them. Mcfarland had recently made this comment regarding
Tim Conner, Mcfarland’s friend and employee, “You know, if Tim wasn’t my
best friend, I’d fire him today.” These witnesses all knew that it was
dangerous to their jobs to go against Lamb or Mcfarland. They didn’t want to
do it unless there was no other choice. I respected that, and promised I’d
try to keep them out of it. I frankly didn’t think they’d be needed. The
case was SO bogus, SO transparent, and SO EASILY defused by any even
marginally competent judge. Still, I had tried to reserve the right to bring
in the witnesses if the court was disinclined to believe my testimony. Well,
not only did the court not believe my testimony, IT NEVER BOTHERED TO READ
IT. So I was attempting to invoke the right to bring witnesses after all, as
a last resort, even though it would harm them to do so. Lawson, however,
simply didn’t want them in his courtroom. Lawson wanted NOTHING introduced
into the proceeding that could support my story. Lawson, it was increasingly
clear, would do ANYTHING to avoid looking as though he was making a mistake.
I have absolutely NO DOUBT this is exactly how innocent people end up on
Death Row. This is precisely how it happens. Were Lawson in a position to be
deciding on Capital Crimes cases, I’ve absolutely no doubt he would have
already killed innocent people. In my mind, that makes him as dangerous as a
psycho on the sidewalk with a gun..
[employee]: That’s what they stated to me, sir. They stated
they did not want to come in here and testify because they feared for their
jobs, but they stated that if it was required to get to the truth, they
would do so. That’s not my statement, it’s their statement. It’s obvious
that the Court has made up its mind here, and I would suggest that the court
go ahead and issue its determination now.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your
Honor,  has indicated that he may very well appeal this and so for
purposes of making a record, I would like to represent to the Court as an
attorney that I have spoken with Sara and there is actually no possibility
that she would testify as ’s suggesting. I’m offering that for
purpose of the record in case it does (inaudible).
Another curious statement
from the infamous Tift. It’s not Sarah’s CHOICE to testify or not testify if
she’s subpoenaed! That’s what subpoenas are for! Sarah WOULD testify if
called. Whether or not she would perjure herself was the issue at hand, not
whether she would testify. Sarah had committed to me that she would tell the
truth on the stand. Apparently she had told Tift something else. The moment
of truth would have been when she actually spoke under oath. There’s little
doubt she’ll be called in civil trials against these people. We’ll see if
she’s willing to commit perjury at that time. I personally don’t think she
will, but then this case in and of itself is proof that I am far too eager
to see the good in people.
[employee]: She has indicated to me as late as a week ago that
she would, so (inaudible).
THE COURT: The Court continues
the present order in effect for two weeks. We’ll set another hearing in two
weeks.  will be given the opportunity to bring in witnesses. The
hearing must be held before me so it may be longer than two weeks because
I’m not here every day. We’ll have the Clerk’s office find out when my next
availability might be and we’ll reschedule the hearing for that day.
This was great news, even
coming out of left field and without warning as it did! The little
ball-bearing inside Lawson’s brain which completes the circuits of his
faulty neural net must have inadvertently rolled to the logical side of his
head for a moment. I could bring in witnesses! Fine! Now some ass would be
kicked! How would Lawson refute the testimony of all those people? Was he
wacko enough to call every one of them a liar? Perhaps he was! But that
would make the appeal that much easier.
[employee]: That’s fine.
THE COURT: Then you bring in your witnesses.
[employee]: I shall do so.
THE COURT: The Court will also
indicate for the record that the Court will consider based on the
presentation whether or not terms will be imposed against the respondent for
the delay and unnecessary bringing in of the . . .
Well, dang. The respite
from mental illness was brief. That little ball bearing had obviously rolled
back to the insane side of Lawson’s cranial cavity. You could almost hear
the echoing 'clang' in there. Now he was back to imposing fines. I began to
wonder if the man might, at any moment, start foaming at the mouth and
vibrate right off the bench onto the floor in a glob of purple protoplasm.
My God he was one f*cking wacko. Didn’t Lawson realize how this was going to
look in the transcripts and in the appeal? Didn’t he realize how bizarre his
performance was? Didn’t he realize that even counsel for the plaintiffs was
probably blown away by his irrational shenanigans!
[employee]: I did not agree to that! If it is the Court’s
intention to penalize me financially . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting) Now wait a minute . . .
[employee]: For bringing in the witnesses, then I would ask
that the Court make a decision now.
THE COURT: On terms?
[employee]: No. On this case, because I cannot afford . . .
THE COURT: Well you make up
your mind. If you want a continuance to get these witnesses, go ahead.
Make up my mind? Make up MY
MIND? It was about this time the security guard took up a position next to
me in the courtroom. I was soothed by his presence. Lawson was clearly nuts.
[employee]: I’ll be happy to bring these witnesses in if the
Court is not going to penalize me financially for doing it. (inaudible)
THE COURT: So it’s alright if I financially penalize the
[employee]: I don’t care.
petitioners had brought this mess onto themselves by lying and conspiring
and conniving. They harassed me with hang-up calls. They had defamed me to
the point where I could not find the lowliest of jobs in a driver’s market.
They had dragged me into court with the admitted intent of stripping me of
my most basic constitution rights, simply because THEY didn’t want THEIR
scurrilous, amoral and illegal actions known. I figured they deserved
whatever they got. They were going to be sued in civil court for defamation
and conspiracy to defraud, regardless of how this hearing turned out. I
couldn't care less if that had to drive two blocks to show up in court again
in a few days time. They should have thought of that possibility before they
decided to lie and make up stories about me.
THE COURT: No, of course you
don’t. You’re not interested in fairness.
[employee]: I beg your pardon.
THE COURT: You’re not interested in fairness. You’re not
interested in justice.
At this moment, I felt
Lawson deserved to lose some teeth. This was beyond outrageous. “I” am not
interested in justice. F*ck this imbecile and the horse he rode in on. This
was so far beyond outrageous that I cannot find adjectives in my thesaurus
to describe it. This man was clearly over the line with this remark. Who
wasn't interested in fairness? WHO, for Christ's sake, wasn't interested in
justice? The stupid son of a bitch---
[employee]: That’s why I have offered, how many times, 30 or 40
times, to take a polygraph. I have offered to pay for this man’s polygraph
(indicating Mcfarland). . .
THE COURT: Let’s assume you
did that. Polygraphs are not admissible in court. You also offered to ask
the questions yourself. That’s not allowed in a polygraph test.
Lawson was positively gleeful to be telling me how I wasn't allowed to
introduce polygraphs. Tift nearly wet herself she was so pleased. But if
Lawson HAD been interested in fairness, in truth, in the difference between
truth and lie, right and wrong, morality and immorality, fact and fiction,
he would have gone down this road reluctantly, apologetically. He might say
something like, "I wish the court COULD consider polygraphs; it would make
our jobs easier, but I'm sorry, we can't." But he didn't. He was poking the
fact down my throat like it was a long, dry stick, and enjoying every minute
of it. A polygraph test was the LAST thing he and Tift wanted introduced in
this case, and Lawson was pleased to be able to deny it.
[employee]: The last part . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting) You also indicate in your statement
that you would ask the questions yourself of Mr. McFarland.
What? I had been speaking with
polygraph examiners since the day I was notified of this hearing. I knew
exactly, in the most technical sense, what was required, and how the
questions would be posed. You write up your questions and the examiner puts
them into a form he can use on the test. Was Lawson REALLY so stupid as to
think I didn’t know this, or was he purposely trying to make me LOOK stupid
for the record. This guy was a menace.
[employee]: I’ll pose a number of questions. He’s free to ask
his own questions, certainly.
THE COURT: That’s not the way a polygraph . . .
THE COURT: That not the way a polygraph is administered. The
technician asks the questions.
[employee]: In my speaking with them the last couple of weeks
they have told me we are free to submit the questions to them.
THE COURT: That’s right.
[employee]: Then will turn them into polygraph-ese as they call
THE COURT: That’s right.
[employee]: But they will be the same questions that we submit.
THE COURT: Then once you do that and have the results of that,
what do you do with that?
[employee]: Hopefully the court would . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting) No, the Court’s not allowed under the
law to consider that as evidence.
[employee]: Then we’ll post them on the Internet.
THE COURT: What does that do for this hearing? Nothing.
[employee]: Apparently not.
THE COURT: Pardon?
[employee]: Apparently nothing.
THE COURT: I can’t order someone to submit to a polygraph.
[employee]: So we’re left with . . .
THE COURT: I can’t consider
the results of a polygraph.
[employee]: How did we establish that?
I had been told by someone
who would know that there ARE circumstances in which the court can, if it so
desires, consider polygraphs.
THE COURT: That’s outside the realm of the Court.
[employee]: (inaudible) if that’s just the way it is then we’ll
move on to something else or . . . As far as I’m concerned, I believe you
demonstrated the Court, and the transcripts will show it, that you do not
have a genuine interest in getting at the truth and I don’t believe that if
I brought three witnesses in, the Court indicated that it may not believe
their testimonies anyway . . .
THE COURT: (interrupting)
 . . .
[employee]: You said you would
believe the testimony of one person against the testimony of four other
people without even hearing the testimony, so as far as I’m concerned, the
truth cannot be gotten to in this courtroom. I’m going to ask you to make a
determination on this case now so that we can move along to another Court.
, your comments are entirely unworthy of you
or anyone else. This Court has exhibited considerable patience…
I think my assessment was
dead on the money.
[employee]: OK, that’s fine, then make a decision.
THE COURT: …and normally these
hearings take about 15, 20 minutes. We’ve extended this hearing 3 hours.
We’ve given you every latitude. I’ve read through every bit that you
Again, the entire TWO
HEARINGS took 82 minutes. Why was the man lying?
[employee]: Except you won’t let me bring in witnesses.
THE COURT: Alright, I bring in some witnesses, at the very
best, their testimony would be cumulative of your testimony if it supported
it. So it’s repetitious testimony. You would expect them to testify as to
the same things that you’ve told.
[employee]: I would expect them to testify that they have
reason to believe that no harassment has ever taken place and no harassment
. . .
THE COURT: That’s a legal conclusion and that’s not their . . .
[employee]: Is that not what this case is about?
THE COURT: It is, but that’s a legal conclusion and they can’t
make that legal conclusion because harassment consists of a series of . . .
[employee]: I’m not asking them to make a legal conclusion.
I’m asking them to offer their testimony so that the Court can make that
decision . . .
THE COURT: That’s not what you said just a minute ago.
[employee]: I see.
THE COURT: I’ll offer you a continuance. I’ll do that.
[employee]: I don’t believe, based on your attitude in this
courtroom, I don’t believe that testimony of these people has a snowball’s
chance in heck. I don’t see any point in bringing them in before you. If it
were going to be before another judge, yes.
judge has already ruled that there was substantial reason to believe that a
temporary ban on harassment should be issued. He also made a finding that a
temporary order should be issued as an emergency order.
Of course the judge who
issued the initial, temporary order to shut down the website did so without
ANY input from me, and without asking for input. He made the ruling before I
was even aware of it. I’d love to hear a transcript of the crap Lamb and
Mcfarland fed that judge when they knew there was no one present to even
refute their stories. I've no doubt we'd uncover another snake's nest of
perjuries.These orders are issued like aspirin in a hospital. The issuing
judge doesn’t KNOW what the other side is, and he doesn’t care. He relies on
the professionalism and sense of the trial judge to sort it all out. Lawson,
here, is trying to make it look as though the issues have been put through
two separate trials, and that the judge before him has decided against me.
Now, Lawson KNOWS this is not the case. He is simply trying to get
statements onto the record which support his ignoramous decision. And it
worked! In the appeal, while Judge Halpert ultimately ruled in my favor, she
actually quoted nonsense like this from Lawson, in order to sort of
demonstrate why she might not have to rule in my favor. She even quoted
Lawson’s factually incorrect statement to the effect that the hearings had
taken three hours, when they took 82 minutes, most of which was silence
while Lawson contemplated his navel! So maybe Lawson is smarter than we
think---he knew he could introduce nonsensical, factually inaccurate
statements, and that, once admitted into record, they lived on as a sort of
unremovable monolith. Do these people spend their entire LIVES dreaming of
ways to convolute truths and to act sneakily? I believe they do. But I
submit that their dubious talents could be more productively utilized.
Burger King has openings. Naw, that's an insult to a corporation whose
burgers I enjoy..
[employee]: He has ruled that based on the statements of these
two people without any supporting statements. I’m offering to bring the
Court statements to the fact that their position is nonsense. The Court
seems to be trying very hard not to want them. That’s fine.
THE COURT: I’m not trying hard
not to allow them. I didn’t deny anyone the opportunity to testify today.
Where are your witnesses? We’ve gone over this a number of times. Now you
say, I’ll bring them next time. And then if they don’t show up next time,
well, I’ll bring them next time, Judge.
The issue of whether or not
any subpoenaed witnesses would “show up” is not in question. It has nothing
to do with anything. Lawson simply stuck that in so as to make it look as
though any witnesses I might call would “probably” be so unreliable, and
therefore un-credible, as to not even show up in court. Of course he has no
reason to believe this, because he has no idea who the witnesses are. He
WOULD know who the witnesses are, and how important their testimony would
be, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY CONSIDERED MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY. He keeps saying he
read it. But he did not. If he had, all of these questions would have been
answered for him and he would not be asking them.
[employee]: They weren’t asked to show up this time.
THE COURT: No, you’re the one
that asks. We don’t ask them. If they’re going to be your witnesses, you
had the responsibility of subpoenaing them.
Huh? Of COURSE I’m the one
who asks them. Where in the name of Satan is this man going NOW?
[employee]: I was asked several times by the witnesses not to
bring them in unless it was absolutely necessary.
THE COURT: I heard that.
[employee]: Then why are you asking me the same question?
THE COURT: I’m not. I’m not asking the same question.
[employee]: OK. You have indicated that we’re taking too much
of the Court’s time. Let’s render a decision so we can all go home.
THE COURT: Alright. Did the counsel have any other questions
you wanted to ask of your witness?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Just for
clarification I might indicate to both parties that the Court did not
consider in any way the allegations regarding any weapons for the primary
reason that part of that’s based on hearsay and part of that is based on
that there was no direct threat of use of weapons as far as this petitioner
Another curious statement
by Lawson. I was prepared for him to make a statement to the effect that he
knew for a FACT I had been running around threatening people with AK rifles,
as Lamb and Mcfarland suggested, even though I had never owned one, never
touched one, never been close to one (see polygraphs). Instead, Lawson
spouts forth with this tiny fleck of logic and truth. How odd. Perhaps he
did this to try and balance out some of his other irrationalities which he
must have known were piling up against him. Still, even though Lawson threw
the issue of guns and the fax out of the case, the appeals judge, a woman
about half as wacko as Lawson, put it back in, and found, as a matter of
FACT, that the mention of an AK rifle seven months before anyone objected to
it, was the “first instance of criminal harassment”. Halpert's (the appeals
judge's) part in this matter is being covered in another document posted on
this site, also as a complaint to the Washington BAR Association.
[employee]: Will the Court
kindly also mark for the record exactly what harassment it feels did occur.
THE COURT: We have a record which consists of a tape recording.
Yes, there IS a recording
of the session. But if the session contains no specific instances of
harassment, what good is it? I was trying to get Lawson to state exactly
when, where, to whom and in what manner I had harassed anyone. I knew he
couldn’t do that, because no harassment had occurred. Lawson knew he was
unable to state any specific incident as well. So he brushed past the
question yet again. How many times in this hearing had I asked someone,
anyone, to state one specific thing that I had done except ask for a written
reference, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do after quitting a job?
Many times. Not once was I answered. Did I make a threat to Delann Lamb at
1:35 p.m. on January 19th in the K-Mart in kent? Did I call
Mcfarland at 5:45 on March 3rd and tell him I was going to kick
his ass? WHEN did anything occur? Where did it occur? How can you find
someone guilty of something when you won’t say when, or how, or where, or
even IF it occurred? For a few moments there, I wondered if the entire world
had gone insane, and if I should bolt from the courtroom to save myself. I
was reminded of an old Chevy Chase movie about a wacko judge with a nose
that looked like a penis. Chevy was caught speeding through town, and was
sentenced to death. Lawson is that judge..
[employee]: Does the Court
have any objection to that transcript being posted on the Internet as a
Lawson allowed this because
he felt it would make me look bad. He couldn't be prompted to reply when
asked if I could post polygraphs on the net, yet now his hearing has
suddenly cleared up and he's eager to comply…
THE COURT: No.
[employee]: Thank you.
THE COURT: The Court will make findings in this case. The
Court finds from the testimony of both parties by fair preponderance of the
evidence that there has been a knowing and willful course of conduct
directed by Mr. [employee] towards the petitioner Mr. McFarland which
seriously annoys, alarms or harasses or is detrimental to Mr. McFarland,
which conduct served no legitimate or lawful purpose. This course of
conduct did cause Mr. McFarland to suffer substantial emotional distress.
I’m satisfied that he had indicated that he wanted nothing further to do
with  but despite that,  continued to attempt to contact
[employee]: When did these contacts occur?
THE COURT: These contacts occurred at various times as
indicated in the testimony from a period of time from December 21 of the
year 2000 up to the time this petition was filed.
[employee]: No contacts have occurred, not by a third party,
not by telepathy. Therefore, Mr. McFarland may be proved guilty of perjury.
THE COURT: The Court also
finds that the respondent has made direct threats which could be certainly
interpreted by Mr. McFarland as constituting threats to do his person, his
business or his property substantial harm.
This is a new one---
“direct threats”? What threats? Be specific, Lawson! What, when, where, how
and to whom? For God’s sake, this man is insane! What’s he doing on this
[employee]: Once again, we will seek a charge of perjury.
THE COURT: The Court also
finds that  had accused Mr. McFarland of threat, misfeasance, an
illicit affair with an employee of the office, all of which were untrue, and
which  intended by that Web page to annoy, bother or harass Mr.
I have accused Mcfarland of
“threat”? Huh? What? What am I missing here? Lawson has suffered a stroke
during this proceeding. I’m sure of it now. He couldn’t possibly be this
irrational and confused all the time. He’d be locked up, right? And let’s
see now---it is not the job of this court to decide whether or not my
statements about these people were defamatory. Yet Lawson has DECIDED (1)
that Mcfarland is NOT guilty of malfeasance (how does Lawson know this?),
and (2) that I did, in fact, accuse Lamb and Mcfarland of having an affair.
In fact, I did not. I described the circumstances of their suspect
relationship, all of which was absolutely factual. It’s up to the reader to
decide for or agin', on that issue. Yet Lawson finds as fact that I made
this allegation. So where is it? When was it made? And not only that, Lawson
finds that Lamb and Mcfarland did NOT have an affair! Well, maybe they did,
and maybe they didn’t, but Lawson doesn’t know either way, and he has no WAY
to know either way. This is not an issue Lawson CAN decide, yet he has done
so! Lawson may also CONCLUDE FOR FACT that the sun revolves around the
Earth. But that don’t make it so (contrary to what Lawson probably
believes). Lawson also concludes, as fact, that my INTENT in posting the web
site was to harass and annoy Mcfarland and Lamb. This, too, is a conclusion
Lawson cannot make. It’s clear he hasn’t even read the website, but has only
skimmed parts of it offered as tasty morsels by the illustrious Leigh Ann
Tift. As it turns out, my website was PERFECTLY LEGAL and was also
protected, wholly and completely, by the First Amendment---you know, that
obscure little line appended to the Constitution which so many decent human
being have DIED protecting. But Lawson doesn’t care about any of this crap,
and, to him, it is, indeed crap. It’s an obstacle to his mission---which is
to stomp down a man who has shown the gall and audacity to stand up to him
with logic, reason, and a quiet insistence that at least SOME semblance of
law and logic be followed. That’s intolerable to Lawson, however, and he’s
piling nonsense on nonsense, in a valiant struggle to bury the issues where
the sun will never shine again. And he nearly, nearly succeeded. I submit
that past successes in this despicable pursuit have made him bold. And
[employee]: The Court is presuming to somehow magically know my
THE COURT: It doesn’t require
intent, . It is whether or not the course of conduct has those
effects as viewed by a reasonable person.
What does he mean “it
doesn’t require intent”? That wasn’t my question. My question was, “is the
court deciding what my intent was”? I asked the question because Lawson was
writing in his record that he knew what my intent was in posting my website.
In point of FACT, the man had not a whit of a clue what my intent was, and
likely never will, but even if he thought he did, it’s not a conclusion that
any human being can make, stated as a fact, about any other.
THE COURT: I think that this whole matter could have been
handled in a much more mature, reasonable fashion.
[employee]: And so do I.
THE COURT: That’ll be the Order. Thank you.
After the hearing on 3-23-01
(see home page for background info) was presided over
and decided upon by Lawson, I immediately went to work on the appeal. That
the appeal would succeed was not a "gray area". It was a certainty. I
believe Lawson knew this as well, and simply "hoped" that his decision
wouldn't be appealed due to monetary constraints on my part. At any rate, I
approached a number of attorneys trying to select one to handle the appeal.
I spoke to perhaps 15 or 18 in all, over a course of months. In each
interview I described what had occurred in Lawson's courtroom (I didn't have
this transcript at that time). Roughly a dozen of these attorneys had dealt
with Lawson personally in the past, and were painfully familiar with his antics.
Now, it's uncommon in the first
place for any attorney to bad-mouth any judge. Apparently it's part of a
delicate and seemingly counter-productive code of respect among persons
working in the judicial field. I say it's counter-productive because I
believe an idiot should be called an idiot, a rapist a rapist, a pedophile a
pedophile, a fool a fool. That helps us understand who we're dealing with.
In the old days, when the population was relatively stable, and people
didn't relocate all the time, folks in any given village were able to get a
pretty fair idea of what to expect from others in the village. After all,
they'd known each other since birth in most cases. Thieves were pretty well
known in the community as thieves; drinkers were known as drinkers;
wife-beaters were known as wife-beaters; honest men were known as honest
men, etc.. But in the modern world, the entire population is being
reshuffled like a deck of cards, almost on a monthly basis. No one knows
anyone, or what they're capable of, unless others give you the low-down.
When people refuse to say anything derogatory about another, even though
it's true, it makes it hard for the uninitiated to know how to interact with
someone. After all, you may not know that a man has raped seven women if no
one clues you in. You have to be much more cautious in your dealings with
those around you, because you have no background on them. That's why I think
it's counterproductive for attorneys to tend to sweep the incompetence and
dishonesty of judges under the rug. Rather, I would say: Let it out where it
can breathe and let the chips fall where they may. An honest man is an
honest man; a skunk is still a skunk.
In the case of all those
attorneys I spoke with while planning my appeal of Lawson's bizarre
decision(s), a curious thing happened. This is a statement of fact: Every
single attorney with whom I spoke, who also had interacted with Judge John
Lawson personally, described him not only as incompetent or dishonest or
stupid or foolish or biased or----, all of which would have been a
horrendous and nearly unprecedented breach of professional etiquette in and
of itself, but every single one went far beyond
those paltry put-downs, and described Lawson as mentally impaired.
And these opinions were extended to me absolutely unsolicited. That is a
fact. Every single attorney used the word "mentally" to describe
their opinion of Lawson's shortcomings. They didn't say he was "tough", or
"hard", or "strict", or "flakey" or "not the brightest bulb in the string",
or "difficult to deal with" or "professionally incompetent" or "dishonest".
They said he was mentally impaired, which is exactly,
precisely, the conclusion I had come to myself after watching his bizarre
thread of logic unravel in his courtroom on 3-23-01. I believe Judge John
Lawson is mentally impaired, wholly unfit for any
type of employment where his decisions have consequences one micron more
weighty than the flavor of your soft drink. I mean that literally, and I
shall explain how I, and so many others, arrived at this conclusion.
When I pushed these attorneys to
explain to me how such an obvious dimwit as Lawson could garner---and hold onto--- a
position on the bench, even if it was only a part-time, pro tem position,
most said it was "political".
So the public in need of
accurate, responsible, unbiased, intelligent judicial services must founder
at the mercy of a madman (my opinion) because he either has some obscure
political connection which allows him to practice witchcraft on the bench,
or because the man was born into or married into some lucky happenstance,
politically. Well that's just ducky. Next time you're drowning in a river
and are keen for some professionalism and competence from your rescuer,
remember that our system may not have installed the person best
qualified for the job---you may be entrusting your life to some
incompetent nut-case whose third cousin thrice removed had a friend who knew
the governor's maid who slipped between the sheets one night and convinced
the governor to have his aide hire this guy for the rescue squad. And
because of that you drown in that river. And that's bullshit. (Note: No one
is even beginning to suggest this was the case with Lawson---it's merely an
example of how things "can" happen).
Okay, on to the BAR complaint:
This space was to contain the
formal BAR complaint re Judge John Lawson. The complaint had actually taken
on some weight over the past few days, as we discovered that when the above
hearing was over, John Lawson and his court clerk had a little bull session
about the case, with the tapes still running merrily along. Lawson
demonstrated his extreme and unreasoning bias in this case---in fact, we may
well go back to court with this little clip to overturn those small parts of
Lawson's order which remained in effect through the appeal. Lawson's
comments to his clerk, and those of his clerk regarding this case, were
about as defamatory and irresponsible as one could get. This may well have
been the straw that broke the camel's back---this few minutes of tape
between Lawson and his clerk, with other people apparently standing there as
well, may very well have given us enough to bump Lawson right straight off
There's good news and bad news
in this concluding editorial regarding Judge John Lawson. One piece of news
is that the complaint to the BAR regarding Lawson won't be made. Another
piece of news is that the reason no complaint will be forthcoming, is that
Lawson is dead. I'll let the reader figure out for himself which is the good
news, and which is the bad. Lawson apparently had a heart attack while
leaving his chambers on 12-27-01. We were informed of it on 4-25-02. Here's
an excerpt from the Seattle Times obit:
By Jack Broom
Seattle Times staff reporter
Even at 73, Judge John Lawson loved his work too much to retire completely.
So it seemed in character that when he died, he was on his way out of a
courthouse. Mr. Lawson's professionalism and his regard for people were
signatures of his work on the bench, Sollitto said. "He was very good at it,
always very fair. If someone was in front of him for a first offense, he
would bend over backward to give the guy a second chance." "He always wanted
to work with people and help them," said his daughter, Pamela Essex of
Do we feel that the judicial system has
been improved now that Lawson (by whatever mechanism) is no longer a part of
it? No. The same good 'l boy network that allowed this man on the bench, and
allowed him to stay on the bench, is still in place and operating fine. We
need to examine WHY a man of the caliber represented in the transcripts
above was ever allowed to sit on one single case, and why he was not removed
when his behavior became documented. His decisions on 3-23-01 have,
ultimately, caused the petitioners far more grief and
financial outlay than they would ever have been subject to had Lawson gotten
to the truth of this case right then and there in his courtroom on 3-23, and
had put a stop to the nonsense at that point. But he did not. The
petitioners are right back where they started, nearly $20,000 poorer after
having tried unsuccessfully to fight an appeal, and now even more of their
dishonest, sleazy, illegal and amoral behavior has been exposed and reported. This
is what America's judicial system, with Lawson at the helm, and Leigh Ann
Tift as First Mate, did for them.