HOME

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

More Dirty Tricks by the Washington BAR Association


This Editorial Page Will Describe Our Experiences with One
Leigh Ann Tift, "Attorney" for Dart International. This page includes our opinions.

You Can Put Lipstick on a Sow and Call it Monique
But a Pig is Still a Pig

This document is part of an accounting which demonstrates how the
American legal and judicial systems really operate. To start at
the beginning, go here.


 

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

 

You will consider this a formal complaint against Leigh Ann Tift, last known employer:

Law Firm of Littler, Mendelson
999 Third Ave. Suite 3900
Seattle, WA. 98104
(206) 623-3300 

 

 

This document 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 T&L Leasing.

 

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 existed.

 

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 the firm:

 

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.

 

Attorneys wonder 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.

 2-7-03

 

UPDATE 2-14-03:

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 filing here.

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                      Delivery receipt: 0302 1790 xxxx
 
2101 4th Ave   Fl 4
 Seattle,WA  98121

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 trial-level proceeding:

:


RULE 3.5
          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;
or
    (c) Engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.


[Effective September 1, 1985.]


 RULE 3.4
           FAIRNESS TO 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 another
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 tribunal
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists;
    (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 evidence,
or assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a
witness; or

    (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 her
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 case. 

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 defendant).

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
2-14-03

 

UPDATE 2-21-03:
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".

 

 

UPDATE 5-24-03:
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.

UPDATE 6-19-03:
Lawyer's Defense league
(aka The Washington BAR Association)
2101 Fourth Ave. #400
Seattle, Wa. 98121

Attached please find yours to us, unopened and herewith returned.

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 case online


6-19-03

 

UPDATE, 6-28-03:
Even after receiving the above letter, the BAR felt compelled to write us YET AGAIN. Response below:

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

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:

- I 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 differently,
I'd be amazed.

Even your own kind can’t stand you.
Now, cease and desist.
Further contact will be considered harassment.

As always, this letter is posted online

         
            6-28-03

 

CONCLUSION:

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.


6-28-03

 

 

UPDATE:

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.

More Dirty Tricks by the Washington BAR Association