2101 4th Ave Fl 4
You will consider
this a formal complaint against Leigh Ann Tift, last known employer:
Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson
999 Third Ave.
contains facts, opinions, conjecture and suspicions:
In February of
2001, Ms. Tift represented two of my former employers, namely Delann
Lamb and Mark Mcfarland, employees of Dart International Trucking and/or
I quit my employ
under the two above-named persons because I was tired of illegal drug
use, incompetence, racism, and dishonesty (to name but a few).
Unbeknownst to me at the time, Lamb and Mcfarland wrote in my
termination documents that prospects for my re-hire, should I ever
decide to apply again, were “excellent”. I gained access to that
document only many months after the fact.
When I quit, Lamb
and Mcfarland were angry, and made that fact widely known. This is a
fact. They crank-called my home telephone repeatedly—this is a fact.
When I would not come to visit them in the office after I quit, they
began to defame me publicly. This is a fact. I made three written
requests to them (a total of eleven copies delivered to all offices and
branches) asking for a written reference. None was ever forthcoming.
I finally grew so
disgusted with the behavior of Lamb and Mcfarland that I posted my exit
interview (my reasons for quitting) on the Internet. It was a very mild
document compared to what I could have or might have (or should have)
written in my exit interview. In response to this act, Lamb and
Mcfarland hired Leigh Ann Tift to represent them in an anti-harassment
order which sought specifically to remove my exit interview from the
Internet. Of course there was no legal basis for granting a court order
which would strip me of my First Amendment rights. There was no legal
basis for granting any type of anti-harassment order. Lamb and Mcfarland
needed more. Much more. But in the realm of truth and reality, no more
The claims to the
court made by Lamb and Mcfarland ventured far over the line of perjury.
They simply made things up. For instance, Lamb and Mcfarland said that I
had been harassing them even BEFORE I quit. They were never required to
explain why they had listed my rehire prospects as “excellent”, nor were
they required to explain why they had written to me after I quit,
expressing sorrow at my quitting. Documentation was supplied to Tift
suggesting, and in some cases proving, that Lamb and Mcfarland were
lying to the court. It is believed that Tift made no effort to stop them
from perjuring themselves. It is believed that Tift even encouraged them
to do so.
The BAR stated
publicly several years ago that it was going to “crack down” on “mean”
attorneys---namely those attorneys who were just mean-boned, nasty,
dishonest, unscrupulous, who routinely used their knowledge of the legal
system to inflict their own personal will on others, regardless of the
rightness or wrongness of their stance. We insist that Leigh Ann Tift is
exactly that type of attorney.
Tift did manage to
get the data removed from the web. That decision was overturned on
appeal. In order to obtain the original decision, however, Tift used
many dirty, underhanded, dishonest stunts. For instance, in attempting
to convince the judge that I was some sort of crazed pornographer whose
website was full of naked pictures of her clients, and should thereby be
shut down, Tift introduced into evidence pictures of OTHER
PEOPLE---people unknown to Tift OR her clients, which she claimed WERE
pictures of her clients. Unfortunately, Tift had ignored all written
requests for copies of the pictures, so I was unable to comment on them
when Tift submitted them to the court. Imagine the audacity of an
attorney who submits pictures of OTHER PEOPLE to try and convince the
court that her clients had been somehow exposed.
Tift intimated to
the court that nude or pornographic pictures of her clients had been
posted on the Internet. In fact, no such pictures had ever been posted
by me, or anyone else (see polygraph),
and Tift could offer not one shred of evidence to suggest that they had.
In fact, she did not even ALLEGE that such a thing had occurred, because
she knew it hadn’t. But Tift tried every trick in the book to
intimate that this had occurred, and the judge (who, incidentally,
died of a heart attack within minutes of being informed of the reversal
of his decision in this case) was so utterly senile and incompetent that
Tift’s intimations were enough to convince him that a thing had
occurred, when in fact it had not. This was Tift’s plan---to win not by
exposing reality or truth, but by crookery and deceit and tricks.
During the initial
trial-level phase Tift uttered snotty little comments to me and about
me, while court was in session (see
polygraph #2, question #65), such as “He’s just disgusting” or
“That’s just disgusting” (referring in part to pictures of unrelated
people who were fully clothed). This kind of treatment, often muttered
under Tift’s breath, was repeated throughout the 82 minute hearing. I
submitted the attached letter to
Tift’s office, hoping they could convince her to maintain at least a
modicum of professional demeanor. Apparently I was expecting too much of
At the appeal
level, my attorney met Tift for the first time in the courtroom. Within,
literally, 20 seconds, Tift’s off-putting, nasty, obnoxious, mean-boned,
belligerent demeanor had so enraged my attorney that I would not have
been surprised to see the matter come to blows. Tift’s behavior was, in
my view, as unprofessional as that of any street bum.
In the final
analysis, Tift came away from this experience richer in the neighborhood
of $20,000 (as reported to me). Her clients came away, obviously,
something like $20,000 poorer. But that’s the least of her clients’
worries: In fact, her clients committed perjury many, many times. We are
working diligently to bring charges. I do not believe any competent or
honest attorney would have allowed his/her clients to so blatantly or
repeatedly perjure themselves. Tift’s clients not only must now suffer
the embarrassment of having my exit interview posted on the Internet,
but Tift’s obnoxious, stupid, frequent assertions that I was lying about
various aspects of the case forced me to convert what I had represented
as my opinions, into hard, cold FACTS, and to represent them publicly as
such. These are facts which put Tift’s clients in a far more
unflattering light. In the final analysis, this complaint should have
been drafted by Tift’s own clients, though I somehow doubt they’re
bright enough to understand what has been done to them. Tift’s constant
assertions to her clients that she could win the case for them were
boldly, baldly, flat-out WRONG, and obviously, clearly so. Tift’s work
on the case was so substandard and uninformed as to be probably
actionable in and of itself. Tift did not beat me, nor did she provide
any positive result for her clients whatever. She cost them thousands,
wasted their time, and left them far worse off than if they’d done
nothing at all.
I have wondered to
some degree what kind of childhood experiences might drive a human being
to the level of meanness and backwardness I saw in Tift. My personal
theory is that, due to her somewhat “unusual” physical appearance, she
may have been victimized as a child by her peers. Still, any individual
may choose---choose to allow such experiences to harden them to
meanness and hatred and evil deeds, or choose to learn from them and
become better, stronger human beings. Or, perhaps she was not victimized
as a child at all. Perhaps she’s just genetically stupid and mean. It’s
her right to be stupid and mean in most areas of her life.
Unfortunately, when one holds a type of power---and legal knowledge is
power---and that individual’s personality is so flawed and hard-bitten
as to tempt them to use that power against innocent people around them,
then that power should be taken from them. But if the amoral inflicting
of power against innocent adversaries is not enough, then the inflicting
of incompetence and meanness against one’s own clients should
clearly be sufficient to warrant censure. I believe Tift wanted to win
this case so badly that she allowed her clients so much latitude
that they hung themselves and will ultimately be convicted of perjury.
This was an extreme and unconscionable offense against her clients, and
against me, who had to expend the time, money and energy to counter
Tift’s misguided and dishonest strategies. I believe Tift had visions of
landing a “big corporate account” from this employer if she could win
this case for them. I believe she sacrificed her clients to that end,
and attempted to sacrifice my reputation for the same purpose. I don’t
believe this woman cared one whit about anything else. Tift never
DREAMED that I would fight to win, and to prove my case so publicly.
Perhaps Tift needs a few more turns around the block.
Tift performed NO
service for her clients. She cost them significant sums, and left their
bones to dry in the sun when she lost their case. Assuming we can gain
perjury convictions against Tift’s clients, Tift should share in the
blame. No one but a complete idiot would not have known her clients were
lying. If Tift is really that stupid, then she should not be allowed to
continue practicing law. No one deserves representation this shoddy and
flea-bitten. I believe that competent and honorable representation would
have saved Lamb and Mcfarland 90% of what they paid out to Tift, would
have saved me $1500, would have saved all of us a huge expenditure of
time, energy and stress, and would have ultimately produced results
satisfactory to all concerned. From Lamb and Mcfarland’s point of view
the following could be said: With friends like Tift, who needs enemies.
If Tift knew all along Lamb and Mcfarland were lying under oath, but did
nothing to stop them, then Tift is too dishonest to be allowed to
continue practicing law. Either way, I cannot see that Tift offers
anything of value to the legal community. In fact she is a detriment
and an embarrassment to it. With an ambassador like Leigh Ann Tift, who
needs lawyer jokes.
I fear that, if
Tift continues treating people as she has in this case, she will sooner
or later confront someone who takes such matters personally, and that
person will do her physical, bodily harm, or will kill her. It could be
seen as the BAR’s responsibility to pull this woman into line before
such a thing can occur.
why they get such a bad rap from the unwashed masses.
I submit that Leigh
Ann Tift is the epitome of the reason.
It is my sincere
hope that the BAR can get this matter under control.
Do I expect the BAR
to make the slightest attempt to do so?
Of course not. The
BAR has shown in the past what it’s made of: hype and fluff.
As predicted (above) the BAR has again
demonstrated that not only will it do nothing to censure attorneys who
breaks the rules (or even the laws), it will even embarrass itself in
order to protect them. The above letter was received by the BAR on
2-11-03 (see below).
The BAR replied on 2-12-03 with the following:
Note that the BAR could not possibly
have taken time to seriously investigate or consider this case given
that they replied in less than 24 hours. This indicates to us clearly
that the Washington BAR Association will not seriously investigate or
consider ANY grievance we bring before it. Please peruse our previous
We have decided to follow the next logical step,
which is an appeal of the BAR ruling above. Will it do any good? Of
course not. What we are desiring to demonstrate are the lengths to which
any agency in this case, and specifically the Washington BAR
Association, will go to, to keep from doing its job. We submit that
these agencies work five times as hard to keep from doing their jobs,
as they would if they simply did their jobs. But then no one is
claiming these folks are intelligent. Our reply to the BAR is below:
Washington State Bar Assn
receipt: 0302 1790 xxxx
2101 4th Ave Fl 4
Per your letter to us (enclosed) of
2-12-03, case #03-00233, we are indeed requesting a formal review of
your decision. Please consider the following:
Below is an excerpt from the
"Washington State Court Rules". A few of the applicable
passages are highlighted in yellow.
FYI, I was (stupidly) PRO SE in the
IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM
OF THE TRIBUNAL
A lawyer shall not:
(a) Seek to influence
a judge, juror, prospective juror or other
official by means prohibited by law;
(b) Communicate ex parte with such a person except as
permitted by law;
(c) Engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
[Effective September 1, 1985.]
OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not:
(a) Unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or
unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having
potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist
person to do any such act;
(b) Falsify evidence,
counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely,
or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
(c) Knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid
(d) In pretrial
procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail
to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper
discovery request by an opposing party;
(e) In trial, allude
to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably
believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible
or assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as
(f) In trial, state a
personal opinion as to the justness of a cause,
the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the
guilt or innocence of an accused, but the lawyer may argue, on his or
analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to
the matters stated herein.
[Effective September 1, 1985.]
These items constitute, in our view, the tip of
the proverbial iceberg with regard to Tift's transgressions in this
3.5: Tift made stupid, inflammatory comments to
the judge which were clearly designed to enrage him. This is in the
record, on tape, and you have received my polygraph test results
attesting to this. Her behavior and statements were clearly designed to
disrupt the proceeding and enrage the judge, (not to mention the
3.4: Tift submitted into evidence pictures of
OTHER PEOPLE, people unknown to either Lamb or Mcrfarland and not
connected to this case in any way, shape or form, in order to
try to persuade the judge that these were pictures or composites of her
clients. This is in the record, easily verified and proven. This is
about as sleazy, underhanded and dishonest as it gets, folks.
Tift did not allow me sufficient time to view the
images she had admitted as evidence (I was never supplied
copies by Tift or her firm; Tift snatched them back from my side of the
table before I was finished viewing them in the courtroom), so that I
was unable to point out in court that they were PICTURES OF OTHER
PEOPLE. Tift ignored every formal subsequent request delivered to her by
registered mail for copies of the images (and all other documents). Tift
even used the same images at the appeals level! This is documented, part
of the record, and is a fact. We didn't discover what she had done until
months after Tift lost the appeal.
Nearly every single allegation or inference Tift
made to the court was false. In some cases we can PROVE that she MUST
HAVE KNOWN they were false. For instance, Tift told the court, and
allowed her clients to tell the court, that I had harassed them before I
quit my job at T&L Leasing. Yet at the time Tift made those assertions,
and allowed her clients to make them, Tift had in her possession a
document on T&L paper which had been completed by Lamb and/or Mcfarland,
which listed my rehire status with the company as "excellent". There is
no way to resolve one thing to the other. Since Lamb and Mcfarland had
no reason to lie when I quit, and since they had every reason to lie
when they came to court, it is obvious to even a dolt that the former
statement, on paper, is truth, while the latter is perjurious. NO ONE
who has been criminally harassed, as Lamb and Mcfarland told the court
they had been, would complete that employee's termination record by
stating that his rehire prospects were excellent! There is no way
Tift could not have known this, yet she continued to attempt to
bamboozle the court. Tift continued to attempt to bamboozle the court,
and in some cases succeeded, even at the appeals level, after Tift had
been formally supplied results of my polygraph tests! Tift knew there
were deep and troubling problems with her clients' testimony, yet she
did nothing to stop them from continuing to perjure themselves. This is
the TIP OF THE ICEBERG with regard to this one type of behavior.
Tift very clearly stated to the court her personal
opinions of the "justness of her cause".
If the BAR is unwilling to act on these things,
what on earth WOULD the BAR act on? This is a rhetorical question! As
stated, the infractions above are but the tip of the iceberg. We include
only these items because we know, we KNOW that you will do nothing to
investigate this case, or investigate it properly, or act, or act
appropriately if such an investigation confirms wrongdoing by this
attorney. We know this beyond all doubt. Therefore, it would be a
further waste of our time, and yours, to elaborate further on these
matters. You have been provided the details; you have been told where
proofs exist and how to use them; you have more than enough to make a
case. Yet you choose not to. Well, what a surprise.
To reiterate, this document serves to demand a
review of your reasons for dismissing this grievance. To reiterate: we
expect the BAR to do NOTHING. This document is submitted
to you, and posted publicly along with all other documents in this
fiasco, in an attempt to demonstrate to the public how cases are handled
in Washington, what lawyers can get away with in Washington, and the
fact that there is NO RECOURSE for the wronged, regardless of proof.
We submit, again, that the Washington State BAR
Association serves no legitimate purpose and is a complete and utter
waste of office space.
We await what will surely be another depressing
yet entertaining reply regarding our request for a review.
We submit, in closing, that by your exceedingly
odd and illogical behavior in this matter, you are confirming in a
rather spectacular way our hunches and allegations about your office, in
a manner far more effective than we could have ever hoped to effect on
our own. Thank you.
In continued amazement
We've received a boilerplate reply from the Washington BAR Assoc., as
shown below. We can't wait to see the contortions they'll go through to
whitewash the issue this time. Our recommendation: Rename the BAR
Association to: "The Attorneys' Defense League".
We have received a reply from the "Lawyer's Defense League" ---Oops,
that is to say the "Washington BAR Association" regarding the amazing
Ms. Tift. Honestly, we haven't opened the letter. We KNOW it will
contain more whitewash, more illogic, more ignorance, more malfeasance,
and we're simply afraid to read it because we're afraid of the action it
will move us to undertake.
Lawyer's Defense league
(aka The Washington BAR Association)
2101 Fourth Ave. #400
Seattle, Wa. 98121
Attached please find yours to us, unopened and
Your office has shown a clear, concerted strategy
from the beginning, to whitewash this case and to protect the attorney
in question. We have simply had a belly-full and will not subject our
sense of simple morality to more of your shenanigans.
The credibility of lawyers in this country is at
an all-time low. It is because lawyers in this country are, in the
majority, dishonest, conniving, amoral, incompetent, petty and often
vicious. They ruin the lives of truthful, honest people because they
can, and because some of them enjoy doing so.
Your office is supposed to protect the public from
as much of this despicable behavior as possible. Yet in our dealings
with you in this case, and in at least one other case in years past, you
have shown a staggeringly purposeful resolve to protect even the
sleaziest attorneys among you. Your credibility is bankrupt.
If we were to read the enclosed letter and
discover that you had, once again, as predicted, pulled some sort of
stunt which again ignored the facts and the record in this case, we
would be moved to action we would rather not consider.
In your handling of this case to date you have
demonstrated to all who care to access this letter through the search
engines of the Internet that the Washington BAR Association is little
more than a shield for unscrupulous attorneys.
What a productive thing to be.
As always you may access the documentation of this
Even after receiving the above letter, the BAR felt compelled to write
us YET AGAIN. Response below:
2101 4th Ave Fl 4
Enclosed please find yours to us
postmarked 6-23-03, unopened.
Be advised once and for all:
We have washed our hands of you.
You are a tasteless joke upon honorable society.
We even asked our attorney if
she would like to have your unopened letter, on the condition that she
never tell us what it said. Here is her reply, cut-and-pasted directly
from her email to us:
really don't want to deal with it. I have NO confidence that the
bar has done anything about the situation. If you find out
I'd be amazed.
Even your own kind can’t stand
Now, cease and desist.
Further contact will be considered harassment.
As always, this letter is posted
The content of the BAR's letter is irrelevant. If
the BAR has chosen to continue to whitewash this complaint, it is in the
BAR's best interests not to have that decision made public. If the BAR
has decided to penalize Tift in some way, it's still irrelevant, because
the BAR has shown to what heretofore unimaginable degrees it will go to
shield and protect Tift and all those "attorneys" who behave as she
does. Any positive action by the BAR will have been grudging in the
extreme, and did not come about through logic, reason or morality, but
through embarrassment, pressure and humiliation---none of which should
be valid motivators to do THE RIGHT THING.
As of 10-11-2003, the Washington State BAR
Association has no record of Leigh Ann Tift, Seattle "attorney", having
been disciplined for her outrageous, sneaky, underhanded, amoral and
almost certainly illegal behavior in any way, shape or form. By this
staggeringly irresponsible incompetence, the Washington BAR sets up
errant attorneys for retribution on a more personal level.
Dirty Tricks by the Washington BAR Association