Formatted for Convenient Printing

HOME

 

A Discussion and Editorial on the Morality of
Judge Helen L. Halpert and judges like her.

 

 

Copyright (c) 2002 All Rights Reserved

 

    
"Judge" Helen L. Halpert

 

 

Preface:

 

For readers entering this site through this page, an explanation is appropriate:

 

In December of 2000 I became disgusted with the dishonesty, incompetence and drug use of my two immediate supervisors, Mark Mcfarland and Delann Lamb, at T&L Leasing (Dart International Trucking) in Kent, Washington. I had quit previously, but had been begged to reconsider, which I did. But in December I'd had enough. I gave a week notice, and quit. My bosses were documentably angry when I quit, and voiced their anger publicly. They also crank-called me. These are facts, not merely opinions or suspicions.

 

I remained polite, but gently began asking them for a written reference, since I had put in three years of extremely good and reliable work. They played games with me over the next months, saying they had lost my request for a reference, or the fax machine had destroyed it, or coffee had been spilled on it, etc. etc. ad nauseam. Finally, now disgusted, I wrote them a pointed letter in which I said, "It would not be in your best interests to blow me off again [with regard to a written reference]." I was willing to go to court to get a reference, and I was considering picketing their company gate with a sandwich board; therefore, it would not be in their best interests to continue to play childish games. Of course they were free to write any reference they wished---I simply needed something in writing, because I was curiously unable to find a new job after each prospective employer talked to Lamb or Mcfarland. If they wrote a poor one, of course they would be sued. Lamb and Mcfarland knew this, therefore they were unwilling to write a poor reference. But they were also unwilling to write a good reference, or even a neutral reference, because they were angry that I had quit. (Many months after going to court I discovered an internal T&L Leasing office document which I was never intended to see, listing my rehire prospect as "Excellent".)

 

 

I also posted my "exit interview" (a short document listing my reasons for quitting) on the Internet. That stirred up the little hornet's nest, as I knew it would. And instead of supplying a simple, one-paragraph reference, as logic and decency demanded, they filed two anti-harassment suits against me, seeking to have my exit interview removed from the Internet. Two days before they were due to come to court, their bosses, Paul Martin and Colleen Butler, filed two more. Never mind that I'd never met or heard of these two bosses.

 

When it came to court, the suits from the two corporate bosses were thrown out as being ridiculous and unfounded. But against all odds (the fact that I was dumb enough to go to court without an attorney helped), Lamb and Mcfarland were granted two identical orders which removed my exit interview from the internet. Of course I appealed, and the case came before the illustrious Helen L. Halpert, featured on this page.

 

Halpert ruled in my favor regarding every major issue of the case. I won. But Halpert also left a few shreds of the original orders intact, even though they had absolutely no basis in law, or in fact. The logic she used to justify that portion of her decision is nothing short of madness. The factual errors she made are numerous and glaring. She even made up events which neither side had ever alleged! In short, Helen L. Halpert's decision was NUTS, in every sense of the word.

 

I might have been compelled to simply take my win, and move forward, not worrying about the remaining parts of the decision which didn't really concern me in any material way. However, there really is such a thing in the world as principle, as right, and wrong, and truth, and honor, and Halpert's ruling was so INCREDIBLY insane that I took exception to it and have aired it on this site.

 

The rest of this site contains many documents, including several of my polygraphs. Perhaps the most distressing of all Halpert's official comments was when she said, in writing, in the public record, that it was her finding of FACT that I had posted pornographic pictures of Lamb and Mcfarland on the Internet, and that this was an instance of criminal harassment. The problem with this statement is that while Lamb and Mcfarland lied dozens of times on the stand in an il-fated attempt to shut this website down, they never once even TRIED to accuse me of posting pornographic pictures of them on the Internet! They never even suggested it MIGHT have happened! The FACT is that no such thing ever happened, nor would it ever, and everyone knows that full well, including Lamb and Mcfarland. The whole idea is beyond ludicrous. But for some unknown reason, Halpert said that this had occurred. She didn't say where such pictures had been posted, or when, or what they were, or who had made the accusation she was choosing to believe. She couldn't supply the URLs of such images, because of course no such images had ever been posted anywhere. But Helen L. Halpert, in what we might presume was some Halcyon-induced state of psychosis, imagined that this thing had occurred (either that or she flat-ass lied, which I tend to believe is more probably the case), so she made it part of her ruling. And a growing number of people want to know WHY.

 

When I saw it, (among dozens of other similar statements by Halpert), I was livid. I was nearly apoplectic. I was disgusted, and afraid. It was like "Planet of the Apes." My attorney immediately served Halpert with a document which pointed out just a few of these bizarre, factual errors. But Halpert never once responded. Halpert made these errors; then, when she was shown that they were, indeed, FACTUALLY incorrect (the proofs are right there in the public record), she did not possess the honor or simple human decency to correct them. And that's unforgivable. And that's why this site spends so much time focusing on Helen L. Halpert, "judge". Halpert is the Appeals Court judge. Halpert is the person who's entrusted with the grave responsibility of catching the mistakes of the lower courts. Yet Halpert is the one making the mistakes. Not only is she making the mistakes, but in her supreme and disgusting arrogance she's refusing to correct them when they're demonstrated to her! And of course we discover now that judges have so cleverly insulated themselves from the consequences of their errors that they are immune from being sued. Once again the academic escapes reality. What a wonderful state of affairs.

 

I don't believe this woman could hold a job at Burger King (and I mean that quite literally). Yet she is, day in and day out, making life-changing decisions over other human beings in our community.

 

Gimme a break.

 

 

Editorial:

 

We've always known that good must fight evil.

What is good?

Good is that which builds. Sometimes good must first destroy in order to build.

What is evil?

Evil is that which destroys for no reason.

 

Good is many things. Evil is nothing.

 

America has always endeavored to fight evil. Sometimes America has been its own enemy.

America has fought tyrants and evil dictators. America has fought those who would take our freedom and force us to their own wills. Usually these enemies are outside our borders. Increasingly, we are finding them embedded in the very backbone of the country. We call them judges.

 

I submit that Osama bin Laden and all like-minded followers retire. They need not have attacked us to beat us. They need not attack us in the future to beat us. They need only sit back, relax, and watch America's embarrassingly inept judicial system tear the country apart from the inside out. We understand why we must fight terrorists. We do not understand why we must just as tenaciously fight our own judicial employees who would, if left alone, do us as much harm as Al Qaeda.

 

I lived next door to a judge once. I remember one time he had made an appointment with an auto service center to have the oil in his car changed. He went out to drive the six blocks to the garage, but decided to check his oil level before making the journey. The crankcase was one quart low. He returned to the house, called a cab, and used it to go to the store and buy a quart of oil. He returned in the cab, put that oil into his engine, then drove the six blocks to the auto shop where they promptly drained the oil back out and put new oil in. The judge did this because he had no experience with the real world. He existed solely in an academic ether of theories and postulations, where the consequences of cause and effect are so distant and obscure as to be nearly meaningless. The man did not own one molecule of horse sense. In the real world, we call this "stupidity".

 

I used to own an offshore rescue company. I rescued ships in trouble. Often a vessel might catch fire or capsize, and be abandon by her crew. My company might then negotiate with her owners, and make a contractual arrangement to either attempt to rescue the vessel, or, in many cases, to buy it outright on the speculation that we could find it and rescue it. The business was.......quite profitable. One time we purchased a vessel that had capsized and been abandon. We were certain we could find it, so we bought it, and, sure enough, several days later we did locate it, high and dry on the beach near an upscale housing development. As we came in toward the beach aboard one of our tugs, we noticed that the vessel, while not surprisingly damaged, had been stripped bare of every light fixture, every cleat; her anchors were gone, her windows were gone, the doors had been pried from her compartments, the galley was stripped of even the sink. What remained was a wooden hull and the part of her engine that no band of thieves could carry. We located the local sheriff and went door to door with him through the community. We retrieved a piece here, a bobble there, but these were just accessories. We wanted the meat and potatoes back. We finally found 75% of the missing bootie in the backyard of the local judge. Buried. We asked for its return, which was sheepishly and grudgingly granted. The judge never faced us, but he instructed his son to explain that the loot had been buried "to preserve it" for us. In the real world, we call this "dishonesty". This judge was, documentably, a common thief.

 

I used to drive truck. At the time I had a perfect driving record---no citations in ten years. I was proud of it, and wanted to keep my record clean. So I drove my brand new Caterpillar-powered semi to the Caterpillar dealer and instructed the service manager to set the computer-controlled engine so that the truck could never exceed 61 mph under any conditions. This was done by interfacing a computer with the truck's engine computer, and making the adjustments. The setting could not be changed by any mechanical means. It could only be changed by the dealer, using a special computer interface, with the correct password. Even my employer, the owner of the truck, a large California trucking company, did not have the password with which to access this feature of the truck's computer. The vehicle's cruise control could still be manipulated on-the-fly by the driver. But only up to a maximum speed of 61 mph. There was simply no way to go faster. I went on my merry way, secure in the knowledge that I needn't worry too much about my speed. A few months later I was pulled over by a trooper. I knew I was going 61 mph, as I'd had the throttle pegged and was watching the speedometer. I got out of the truck in a good mood, and told the trooper he had me fair and square. I surely had been speeding in the 55 mph zone, and I was prepared to take responsibility for the ticket. He looked at me and announced that 71 in a 55 was more than a minor mistake. I stared back at him aghast. I didn't argue the issue much on the spot. Troopers lie. Truckers accept it. I figured I would simply beat the offense down to the actual speed in court. I was actually a little elated at finally, finally finding myself in a position where I could prove that a trooper was lying. I called the dealership after signing for the citation, and they assured me they would be most happy to testify on my behalf. The truck was physically incapable of exceeding 61 mph. Period. I hired an attorney and she fought the ticket. $900 later I was informed that the judge had ruled against me and found me guilty. I was doubly aghast, and demanded to know how this could happen, when the case was so cut-and-dried, so easily proven. My attorney explained that the judge had simply refused to allow my proof into court. I wanted to know how it was that a man was not allowed to state his case. She said it could be fought and overturned---but at the cost of another $900. I paid the $281 fine and let the matter go. In the real world, behavior such as this judge displayed is called "arrogant and corrupt".

 

 

I sued a couple many years ago for fees associated with the salvage of their sunken vessel. The judge decided he didn't like the people I was suing, and awarded me many times the amount I had asked for. I declined the award, and made the judge re-write the ruling to grant me only that which I sought, and which was legally and morally mine. He did this grudgingly. This judge was totally, utterly, 100% wrong. Yet he took it upon himself to punish people whose manner he personally found objectionable. In the real world, we call this "despicable". The judge should have been knocked off the bench for that---figuratively and literally. Yet he retired from that bench many years later. How much damage had he done to the trust of his citizenry?

 

I have a couple dozen such stories. Everyone I know has a dozen of their own. The papers are full of hundreds and thousands more. Hundreds of thousands more are buried in archived court records, never to be known. No one but a lawyer would argue that we (the public) would probably be just about as well off flipping a coin as to take any matter to court. My Father used to say, "Judges aren't required to make good decisions; judges are only required to make decisions." The plain and simple fact is that judges in America aren't doing their jobs. Is it a matter of laziness? Partly. Is it the "Animal Farm Syndrome"? Partly. It's also due to the fact that positions of power and authority tend to attract personality types which are exactly unsuited to positions of power and authority. Police departments know this well---that's why patrol applicants are psychologically screened. It so happens that judges enjoy far more power than cops, yet precisely no screening is required of them. All judges need do to secure their jobs is to schmooze, and socialize successfully with that snippety 1% of society which pulls the strings. In many cases, they don't even have to work to get elected---they are appointed. They then get to "try out" for the job for the next three or four years, ruining lives and futures and fortunes as they practice, and selling the trust of the people for their wages. It's barely short of madness.

 

All that stuff sets the judicial system up for failure. But it's even worse. What's really at the root of the problem?

 

Engineering firms across the country are having one heck of a time finding and hiring engineers who can design a decent product. When one of their engineers designs a product that doesn't work, or warrants a mass recall, or injures or kills some kids, let's say, it's bad for the company. Manufacturers hear about these things, and are reluctant to buy any more stuff designed by that firm, because they share in the liability. Manufacturers are also loathe to buy the plans to shoddily designed items because it costs a lot of money to put something out on the market, and if it doesn't work, fortunes will be lost. So a few years ago, desperate engineering firms began brainstorming methods of finding engineers who could do the job, and design things that worked. They needed to improve the quality of their engineers so they wouldn't go broke. It was a simple concept.

 

In an effort to figure out why the stuff their existing engineers was turning out didn't work, they started looking at the personal backgrounds of those engineers whose thought processes seemed a little weak. They compared what they found with the backgrounds of engineers whose thought processes were conducive to making items which did work. They found one amazing difference in the two types of engineers. The group that designed junk, by and large had a purely academic background. They may have studied at the best Universities, had the most colorful degrees, were the president of the most things, sat on the most prestigious boards and joined the coolest clubs. But they couldn't make a toothpick that worked. It was because they had no real sense of cause and effect. Everything they'd ever learned, and hence, everything they did, was theoretical. If they made a boo-boo in the design of a piece of equipment, a lawn mower, let's say, well, they wouldn't even know about it for a year or two, or more, down the road. In fact, they may never be aware of it. Someone else would make a better lawnmower, and it would enjoy better sales, and the first company might go out of business and never know why. Perhaps it was the fault of the sales department, the unemployed workers from factory "a" would opine. The faulty-minded engineer, then, was free to stumble along in a perpetual state of ignorant bliss, all the while thinking he was doing a pretty good job.

 

Engineering firms figured all this out. And they began to seek a type of employee who did understand cause and effect. And after awhile they knew where to look.

 

Many engineering firms today screen their engineer applicants in a different way from the old days. They're interested in their academic qualifications, of course. But they also want to know if the person can work with their hands... Because THAT, and that almost exclusively, teaches the joys and pains of cause and effect.

 

People learn best when there's an immediate and appropriate reward or penalty to their actions. In horses, for example, if one misbehaves, you have about two or three seconds to effect a meaningful discipline, whether it be a harsh word or a swat on the rump. Once the window has closed, you'll do more harm than good. And people aren't a hell of a lot smarter than a horse.

 

The mechanic who forgets to tighten the oil plug on his car is offered a timely lesson in cause and effect. The pilot who can't fly, dies. The carpenter who smacks his thumb with a hammer learns a lesson, and he learns it well, and is extremely unlikely to repeat the mistake. The academic who makes a mistake doesn't learn the same lesson. There may be a consequence, but not often enough, and by the time it finally rolls around, it's diluted, and has lost its sting, and can usually be overcome by some other method of effort. There is not sufficient consequence to the academic's mistakes to foster the learning of real-life lessons. The man with the smashed thumb gets no such leniency or second chance. He has learned to act differently. The academic, most often, has not.

 

Major engineering firms are now asking applicants weird things like, "Do you do the maintenance on your personal vehicle?" or "Have you ever built a house?" or do you even own a toolset? They ask because they've done the research, and they know that people who are in some way grounded to physical reality will by habit, and design, do a better job.

 

Judges tend not to be of this caliber, because they are almost exclusively academic beings. The judicial system has tried to set itself up as an autopilot for society---no thought required. The problem is that when the autopilot doesn't work, and thinking is required, judges aren't up to the task, and they do it badly.

 

Consider the case of Judge Helen L. Halpert, an appointed Seattle judge who ruled on the appeal of the Mark Mcfarland and Delann Lamb case. Halpert is an academic. Halpert made up facts which had not even been suggested by either side. She stated events had occurred which had not, and were not even alleged to have occurred. She over-ruled a higher court. She failed to even read the transcript of the case she was ruling on. She stated that one side had offered "virtually no defense" when that side had hotly contested virtually every single allegation, in writing, and submitted it formally to her twice. The list goes on and on and on and on, ad nauseam. She did all these things because she has no direct experience with the simple laws of cause and effect. She did these things because it was utterly unknown to her that any mistake she made could have consequences to her, or to the people she lied about or made errors concerning. The concept of "consequence" is not in her vocabulary. When her factual errors were made known to her via proper channels, she continued to ignore them. --Because she knew there would be no consequence to anything she did. She's been taught that her entire life! She KNOWS it to be true! And guess what? She's right! She's right almost all of the time. --Except, of course, for those few humiliating and embarrassing times when she isn't, and this is just such a time.

 

I submit that Helen L. Halpert and all judges like her, are bad engineers.. They can't make things work correctly, and even when they're shown the mechanics of why their design failed, their lack of honor and decency prevents them from correcting the flaw. The mistakes Halpert made were factual, not open to interpretation or opinion. They're black and white, part of the record. Yet even though we can prove she was notified of them, she simply doesn't care enough to correct them. And that's unconscionable.

 

Do we want to hire bad engineers? No. Do we want to use products designed by bad engineers? Of course not. The engineering firms of the world can't afford them, and neither can this country. A virtually non-functioning judicial system is straining the country to such an extent that the terrorists might as well stay home. Their job is done. They can watch the unfolding anarchy on CNN. With judges like Helen L. Halpert, who needs bin Laden.

 

But is it really as bleak as all that? I mean, isn't there something to be done?

 

There ARE some good judges. I've known one, and I've heard of others. But they don't constitute ten percent of the judges in the country. How they can continue to meet insanity and ego and vanity and incompetence and dishonor and sneakiness and underhandedness and stupidity and laziness on a staggering scale with quiet, persistent logic and truth, day in and day out throughout a lifelong career, is beyond me. But some do it, and God bless them.

 

But consider that most capable people are driven nearly to apoplectic seizures by incapable people, and one can understand why the judicial system is run by people who couldn't hold a dishwashing job at Burger King. Capable people, for the most part, simply can't stand to be around 'em. Capable people either stay away from the judicial system by instinct, or, having had a nasty whiff of a very bitter broth, get out of it quickly. The rare exceptions are those hearty souls who believe they can protect a few of the innocents from the ravings of the insane. Even those professionals burn out early, and Fly Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The judicial environment acts as a centrifuge, a sieve, straining out and holding a particular kind of individual, while making sure another kind passes through the media. We like to think the sieve is straining out the good ones. That's what I used to think---until I began to interact with the judicial system enough to understand that it is sifting the litter box and keeping the turds.

 

But is there anything we can do?
We can vote.
For turd "A', or turd "B".
And that's a waste of time.

 

 

We can appeal to regulatory agencies and commissions---peruse this site and you'll see that that way lies madness. The regulators are of the same worthless stock as the offenders. Put the fox in the henhouse to guard the chickens from the wolf.

 

We can "go public", tell it like it is, demand outrage and action from the unwashed masses. To what end? The masses are already outraged. No one else knows what to do about the problem. Everyone already knows it exists.

 

We can set up judge-watch clubs---but again, the behavior of these judges is already being reported. So what? They seem incapable of experiencing humiliation, no matter how odious their misguided deeds, so embarrassment no longer seems a motivating force.

 

We can appeal. And appeal. And appeal again until we're bankrupt. But Halpert is the appeals court judge.

 

We can appeal to their basic and universal scale of right and wrong, but I honestly do not believe they have one. They know technicalities and theories and book-knowledge. They don't know---were never taught---that to lie is simply wrong, that if we all lied the world and society and civilization and progress would simply collapse. They only know that it's wrong to get caught. But even that remnant of honorable thought is fading fast, because even when they're caught, there is no consequence, and no incentive not to do the same damned thing again.. Look at the convicted child molester who was elected to another term on the bench. Look at the convicted drug dealer, also re-elected. Look at all the judges who are overturned again and again and again on appeal, yet they keep on making the same mistakes, collecting their pay, ruining lives and futures and bank accounts, and flushing the trust of the people down the freaking toilet. And there's nothing we can do.

 

My God, they've quietly arranged the system so we can't even sue them!

 

It's been argued that if we were to fire all the judges, and randomly select and educate, say, every fifth or eighth person off the street until all the positions were filled with those people, our judicial system would continue on exactly as efficiently and as competently as it does right now. Some say that's bunk---the system would run better. But is that true? Do judges represent a fair cross-sampling of society's morality? Of course not. Most judges sought their positions because they also seek power---and anyone who seeks power over another is automatically suspect. It's said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the problem is more insidious than that, because the formula also works by degrees. A judge tends to be corrupt in direct proportion to the amount of power he or she has garnered--a little power, a little corruption; more power, more corruption. Take a person basically incompetent at the mechanical business of life and corrupt them with power, and you have a real problem on your hands. Now corrupt their overseers, and arrange the system such that they're all virtually untouchable, and you have anarchy masquerading as order, pettiness posing as justice, and fraud cloaked as integrity on a National scale. It rots the fabric of loyalty and patriotism. It's a cancer that stunts the very evolution of society and morality. Bin Ladens of the world, rejoice.

 

It's a fair statement that real-life judges like Helen L. Halpert, James Doerty, and John Lawson make outrageous TV fools like "Judge Wapner" and "Judge Judy" seem almost competent by comparison. And that's terrifying. If these judges are so far-removed from reality that they are incapable of rendering fair, impartial, informed and intelligent decisions, they should at least forego their emotional shortcomings on the bench and simply defer to the structure of the law. But they won't even do that. They won't even do it when it's demonstrated to them that they are breaking the law! They won't make intelligent decisions, they won't follow the law, they won't correct their mistakes----BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

When we consider the outrageous, embarrassing behavior of judges like James Doerty, C. G. Jung’s associate, Jolande Jacobi, probably got it right when she wrote: “For the type of man who is intellectually developed but has remained affectively and emotionally a boy is a widespread phenomenon which is characteristic of our epoch, and which perhaps is connected with the emancipation of women in the twentieth century. . . . [that could have] unwittingly prevented the development of the masculine ego to full responsibility. The man who remains fixated on the level of [a] pubescent, not infrequently has homosexual leanings, and remains a puer aeternus, an infantile adult, for the rest of his life. Alarming indeed, since often, if he holds an official position, he holds the fate of the world in his hands."    **

I used to dream of leaving the country. I'd be in good company with gentle, honorable, ultra-competent souls like Charles Lindberg, who once announced to the judicial system over the handling of his infant son's kidnapping and murder, "You people are crazy." And he left. But while there are countries better run than America, they're still prone to the same shortcomings of the human animal. Why move ten thousand miles only to find oneself at the mercy of yet another crooked, stupid judge? Maybe there are fewer crooked, stupid judges in Sweden, but one is enough to ruin your life---or even take it, e.g. all the poor slobs on Death Row or serving thirty years who've been proved innocent by DNA---the 100th celebrated his release just a few months ago. His gripe is bigger than mine.

If this piece has no real meaning for you, it's because you've not yet been to court, or you've not been there enough. Give it time.

 

It seems to come down to one inexorable point, the problem and the solution in a nutshell:

 

If human nature is the problem, retreat from human nature.

 

I get along just fine with "me". And, thank God, there are still little pockets of the world where the animals rule with pure logic and common sense. And I trust them implicitly.....to be exactly what they are.

 

The difference between the animals of the wilderness, and the animals of the judicial jungle, is that in the bush, I can defend myself from things that would do me harm. From the illogical, mean-spirited, biased, bigoted, arrogant, corrupt and stupid being that sits on a bench, I do not believe there is any defense at all.

 

10-4-02

 

HOME

 

 

 

** Jolande Jacobi (Trans. R. F. C. Hull), The Way of Individuation (Hodder and Stoughton), 1965. p28. [Contracabal]