Copyright (c) 2021

This editorial review website features, contains

and includes my best recollections, hunches,

beliefs, suspicions and opinions, along with

numerous court records, trial transcripts

and certified polygraphs



And this is NOT a page for Delicate Snowflakes.

Never heard a "bad word" in your life?

Then best you go somewhere and grow up;

If you have no experience with or

knowledge of the hard realities of war,

this page will offend your sensibilities too.


Return to



NOTICE of Hack Attack:

In early November, 2021, we were notified that "someone" had begun a concerted effort to try to either get this material removed, or hidden from view.

Actually, Farcebook tried this ten or more years ago as well and within a few months we were able to overcome it; ditto Hewlett Packard, who admitted they spent over $60,000 trying (and failing) to hide the facts of their financial shenanigans regarding our commercial printers.

We have to ask the question and it's not rhetorical:

If asinine, illegal, evil people are so terrified of their asinine, illegal, evil stunts being disseminated to the public, whatever can they do? Anyone?

Hands please?


There we go:

In the third row, second seat, what's your answer?

(Skinny, freckled seven year old girl with glasses and braces stands up beside her desk and trembles slightly). In a faltering, squeaky voice she says,

"Well, maybe, just sayin', people could, uh, you know, stop doing things that are asinine, illegal, and evil...? Maybe?"

(Looks self consciously around and sits back down quickly)(And the class cheers).

But there appear to be some "Entities" and "Legal Minds" mentioned within these pages who are simply too mentally challenged to grasp that concept. So be it. Looks like the games are on again, and now I must excuse myself because I have roughly 1500 more pages of court documents to OCR and annotate and add to this website (see the photo of the actual pile far below on this page).

Maybe these imbeciles actually believe they can get those documents, and the accompanying explanations of where they fit in the puzzle, shadow-banned as well? We can't wait to find out. They'll be busy, busy bees if they try. In any case, we will overcome this as well (Hewlett Packard was bigger than all of these idiots put together, and so was Facebook); there are a hundred methods, and the website will grow exponentially.

We've now taken and are taking steps to put this material on a wide array of servers and domains around the world, some of which will act as "fall-backs" so that if some of the data "mysteriously vanishes", those sources will automatically kick in. Usually it takes a few weeks to a few months to repopulate the WWW indexes and search results. We'll try to get these pages translated into several major languages as well.

Who, oh who, might be so so determined to hide this data that they would begin to bombard Google with legal, semi-legal, or completely illegal obfuscation tactics and BS? Tough question (not really). Maybe it's a RACIST PLOT (too much MSNBC). In any case, the site is back on track for the time being and will be much more robustly protected in the future. Moral? Don't Quit. If you're right, Don't Quit. Don't quit even when you're dead. Ample measures have been taken to keep this data public and alive even if I'm not. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

These people are incapable of learning.

They really, really are.

Even snakes eventually learn to stop biting their own tails.

But reptiles are brainiacs by comparison.

Tired of Google? So were we.

DuckDuckGo, a (much) Better Search Engine


Okay, let's get on with the meat and potatoes.



Dart Entities: Find out what

DART can do for TO you!


















.....But I said COMPETENT.

If employers hire the likes of Leigh Ann Tift or probably any other "attorney" at this zoo of a firm, they'll risk ending up just like Dart, forever branded by this website or websites like it.

I'm not sure if Tift herself committed actual perjury (I believe she did but at this late date I'm not going to go back through the transcripts to pin it down in quotes because as we've seen and as Governor Gary Locke said in writing, perjury is not a crime in Washington state) but at the very least she came as close to it as one can get by cheerfully parroting the insane, untrue claims of her clients (lies) without ever having done the slightest due diligence to see if they were even remotely, vaguely factual. A dilly comes to mind: Mark McFarland told the court that it was "patently untrue" that he ever used illegal drugs (I had listed McFarland's out-of-control drug use and the resultant negative effects his cognitive abilities as one of my reasons for quitting (same for Lamb)). Tift sat there and listened to him and presumably she had gone over his testimony to be presented at some point before court because I had made this allegation to the court previously, and Tift MUST have been aware that she needed a strategy to counter it. Yet McFarland's multitude of failed drug screens from California to Washington were the very specific reasons he was stopped from driving Class-A. I never remotely dreamed he would deny these FACTS so I didn't bring the documents to court (moral: take a DEVIL (e.g. ATTORNEY) to court when you go against DEVILS (e.g. ATTORNEYS) in court), thinking Lawson or ANY semi-awake judge would see through this nonsense in ten minutes flat and throw the four bums out of his courtroom. But did Tift even ask McFarland basic questions about this in any pre-court conference? If yes, and she knew about the failed screenings, then she was complicit to perjury by allowing McFarland to lie. LITTLER-MENDELSON COMMITTING PERJURY? OH SAY IT AIN'T SO! If she never bothered to ask him about it, then she was derelict in her duty by not providing the best possible representation and counsel. If McFarland lied to Tift, did she at least mention to him that lying to the court, also, might be, uh, bad? Could it be that LYING TO THE COURT is just part of Littler-Mendelson's Modus Operandi? Based on what I saw of this law firm's repeated behavior in my case, I swear, these people will gleefully lie, or support lying, when the truth would serve them better. Lying, and/or facilitating, protecting and defending lying, is their culture. In the case-link above, lying cost them some $60,000; in the Dart case, lying or facilitating and protecting lies cost them this website on behalf of their victims -- er, I mean, CLIENTS. CLIENTS (Dart-Entities). Even when my polygraphs began to be delivered and circulated to various partners and principals in this firm (Littler-Mendelson), they kept right on hammering and supporting the same perjurious bullshit spewed forth by Lamb and McFarland, apparently never once calling a pause in the assault to confer with their clients and to ask,

"Gee, uh, wait a second here -- these are legitimate polygraphs by a recognized and esteemed examiner, and they're pretty damning, and this bad, BAD man (me) is offering to pay for YOURS and also pay you each $5000 cash if you pass them -- so, uh, let's think about this for a second. Just for a second, ok? Maybe, just maybe, just sayin' here you know, maybe you want to rethink some of your testimony? Just a little? Maybe clarify just a few little DETAILS?"


Based on the actions of Littler-Mendelson even from that point forward AND TO THIS VERY DAY!, this was never done. My guess is that they STILL thought they would succeed in preemptively blocking this or any website and no one on earth would ever see my polygraphs or know about the heinous stunts they were pulling and attempting to pull. Oh, that pesky First Amendment: The bane of cockroaches everywhere. Their arrogance and stupidity was their undoing, just as it was in the case linked to above and probably countless others they got away with. For now. I have no choice but to conclude this is an organization of liars and those who think nothing of allowing AND ENCOURAGING their clients to lie to the courts -- and maybe even encourage their attorneys themselves to outright lie under oath just to see if it works. Because often times, as in the McFarland case, IT DOES! (at least for a few months). And when you get caught and sanctioned and fined sixty three grand for lying, well, tsk tsk, you'll just find a way to pad the bill back to the victim -- er, I mean CLIENT! CLIENT! Right Littler-Mendelson? Isn't that right? Isn't that indeed a fact, Littler-Mendelson?

Let's explore this whole "perjury" notion a little farther, briefly:

If perjury is as idiot governor Gary Locke promises in writing, and not ever worthy of any law enforcement investigation, and perjury is A-OK in any court during any proceeding (and documentably it is), then I suggest, based on that one fact alone, the United States of America HAS NO JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHATSOEVER beyond eight year olds playing tag in the garden sprinkler and yelling out YOU'RE IT.

Here's a case I personally watched play out in explicit detail and I even reported on it because I was privy to every speck of the data:

A man inadvertently stumbled upon some incredibly damning evidence against a certain Seattle Mayor -- a real piece of work, that Mayor (but most PNW officials are "real pieces of work"). He turned the evidence over to authorities and forgot about it -- but that's when his nightmare began. The item of this case we're disseminating here and now is this: In order to try and stop this man from testifying, two City of Seattle employees (two obnoxious, vocal lesbians, friends of this Mayor), went physically to the Seattle police department and filed two criminal complaints of forcible and somewhat violent rape, naming this man as defendant. Their reports were detailed and explicit and lengthy. SPD accepted those complaints. When they investigated, surely knowing this would be a slam-dunk for the city and SPD could earn Brownie Points for their hard work and protect a stunningly corrupt Mayor (their friend), they discovered, MUCH to their chagrin, that this man (the rapist) had been in Germany months prior to the alleged crime, and for many weeks afterwards. The case was abandon. The man, then, as you might imagine, tried his very level best to bring perjury charges against these two sociological prizes, and charges of filing false police reports and a slew of other crimes. SPD never once replied to him or his attorneys; the Sheriff's office (King County) never once replied to him or his attorneys; no prosecutor's office ever replied to him or his attorneys. The complaint had nowhere to go (which was the intent of law enforcement in the Pacific Northwest), and it died on the vine. The fix was in, and that is literally a fact. Let's say that again, FOR THE RECORD: The fix was literally in. I KNOW that to be a fact.

Can you spell C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L G-A-N-G? law enforcement in the PNW with special regard to the issue of perjury. That's how it works there and will until the population is genetically diluted by intelligent beings from elsewhere in the world (or the Universe) -- in other words, about a thousand years.

Yes, perjury is "somewhat difficult" to prosecute successfully as a crime (look how hard we tried, and we never so much as received a reply from any official or agency in YEARS of formally submitted complaints). That has come about over, really, generations as sleazy, perjury-loving attorneys have whacked away at various laws and penalties regarding perjury until they're so watered-down and diluted that they barely make sense anymore and are nearly worthless. Now they have a national free-for-all. Why would attorneys do this? Because they KNOW, if they have a dishonest client who is probably guilty, they can bring them to court and help and allow them and groom them and facilitate them and mentor them to throw out a whole scattergun array of absolute lies, like Mark S. McFarland's painfully dishonest sworn statement to the court, in session and on the record, that he didn't use illegal drugs (he said it was "patently ridiculous"). Sleazy attorneys know all too well that if a witness or petitioner or defendant just keeps shoveling this bullshit out onto the record, some of it will stick, because who's going to refute it? Who ya gonna call? Ghost Busters? No one knew what the liars were going to say until they said it, and as we've seen in Judge John Lawson's case and most other cases, judges are loathe to continue a hearing so that the good guys can go get the evidence needed to kill the tall tales of the bad guys. Judges like to think they are SUCH good judges of character that they don't really need to rely on that outdated old inconvenience called FACT.

Judges think they're far too clever and worldly and street-wise to be tricked when the exact reverse is usually true. Indeed, in this case (it's in the transcript) as McFarland and Lamb sat there and submitted lie after lie after lie after bold-faced lie to the court, and I told the absolute truth in every instance, the imbecile John Lawson made a statement, on the record, to the effect that he was an "expert" in human psychology or some such foolish thing, and that everything he knew about life and had been taught in law school (!) proved to him that I was a lying liar and Lamb and McFarland were telling the God's own sweet truth when the exact, precise, polar opposite was true in every single instance AND was provable AND was proved right in front of this imbecile! Yet Lawson maintained to the end that I was lying. Imagine how many fatal coronary events my polygraphs would have caused him. That he never got to see them is a dagger in my heart.

Tift must have been astonished at her amazing good luck in drawing this stupid featherless pigeon of a judge. That's one big reason Lawson tried to stop me (and succeeded) from being granted a continuance in order to go fetch McFarland's myriad failed drug screens along with a whole pile of other evidence -- and to also hire an attorney (not bringing one initially was a reflection of my own stupidity), but honestly, this case was SO FUCKING SIMPLE A GODDAMNED PARAKEET COULD HAVE FIGURED IT OUT IN SIX MINUTES FLAT. But Lawson wasn't as smart as a parakeet -- he was barely as smart as a featherless pigeon -- and who in the world would have ever anticipated that. Lawson really, REALLY didn't want me coming back with an attorney and a mountain of evidence that proved that arrogant statement of his to be beyond dead wrong and even incompetent. So he denied any and all continuances and forced this to go to appeal which generated a literal MOUNTAIN of documentation for this website, none of it making Tift look pretty (I still have maybe 1300-1600 pages that I never posted and Tift isn't the hero in any of them). Maybe it's time to add them to this website.

The point is, lawyers KNOW their clients lie and have lied and will lie (usually their entire lying lives) because lying liars lie, forever and always, and they KNOW how unlikely it is that any of them will ever be charged, let alone convicted of perjury, and they count on that. It's not often spoken about openly in lawyers' circles but it's actively a part of their skullduggerous strategy. Gee, with friends like these, decent society doesn't need Freddy Krueger -- it already has him, times about 37,000 clones, just in Washington state (41,000 "attorneys" in Washington presently and they breed like fucking rabbits because SO MANY SMALL PEOPLE crave power over others, like a crack whore craves a hot pipe. Eh Delann?). I believe Leigh Ann Collings Tift knew EXACTLY that Lamb and McFarland were lying through their dentures and saw it all as something that would benefit her career and no consequence beyond that. Lying and perjury would benefit her career. If either McFarland or Lamb got popped for it, oh, well, dern the bad luck -- poor dumb bastards. Tift would have probably told the court she told them repeatedly not to lie (even though she smiled when they did). Think about the social ramifications of a "profession" where that is true. Think about the relative value of a human who would CHOOSE a profession in which that was true. Now think about the relative value, if any, of the human being named Leigh Ann Collings Tift. Is there any at all? No. She's a negative value, a burden upon respectable, honorable civilization. She's an anchor around its neck, making it ever more difficult to keep its head up above the swirling sewage -- until, one day society itself simply succumbs, and there will be specific "entities" to thank.

Here are a couple of comments from ex-employees, verbatim. You can find an unlimited supply by Googling in the right dark corners which is where, I believe, Littler-Mendelson tries to bury them by "top-loading" the search results with frilly nonsense -- it's called "reputation management" and lots of questionable entities are making a living these days by specializing in only that:

Referring to the work culture at Littler-Mendelson:

"Racism. Sexism. Attys' 'favored' staff impose blonde jokes and other comments not fit for a workplace." (Ooh! Ooh! Let's see now, what was it Leigh Ann Collings Tift was trying so valiantly to accuse ME of?)

And more:

"The good attorneys leave due to the fact they get tired of the bizarre work environment."

And more:

"And the firm has been SANCTIONED. Simple Fact." [It appears that sanctions there are not uncommon -- stemming from abysmally shoddy work product, perhaps?].

You can find literally hundreds of these IF you want to know badly enough.

Yes indeed, fired employees LOVE to mouth off, often untruthfully. But often enough, they tell the truth too, and we don't know that these were fired employees at all. "I", for instance, wasn't a fired employee of Dart or anywhere else -- I was begged to stay. For God's sake before you sign ANYTHING with this harem of nitwits, GOOGLE! If you aren't particularly good at Googling, PAY SOMEONE WHO IS. You'll soon glean a truer understanding of what makes this herd of monkeys tick, and why you want to be spending your money somewhere else.

I posit: "The Law", for many, for Littler-Mendelson, for most attorneys in the US -- Hell, for ALMOST ALL attorneys in the US, is simply a playground, a giant, never-ending test-bed to see WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH. The practice of "law" has nothing to do with right or wrong or decency or the betterment of society or the advancement of civilization or fairness or truth, logic, or even common sense. It's about WHAT OUTRAGEOUS BULLSHIT CAN WE PULL TO WIN WIN WIN (even if we get caught later). It's the job of JUDGES to keep these rogue pieces of shit (attorneys) from running completely amok and making a travesty of the entire system. Unfortunately, only about 1 in 500 "judges" is up to even this task. Most, after all, were ATTORNEYS. And guess what: the system IS, now, a complete travesty. You go into this casino called court and you roll the dice and I mean that pretty-much literally. You're honestly far better off to formally arrange to do exactly that with your nemesis; the results will be EXACTLY as logical, and you'll save gargantuan amounts of money and YEARS of your time and countless points off your blood pressure. It might also save your sanity -- maybe your marriage too. Roll the dice. I am not remotely kidding. Roll the dice. Forget the "lawyers" and so-called "judges" and laws as clearly written as a Farcebook TOS, and simply make up a contract between you and your enemy and state what's on the line and roll the dice and winner takes all. You STILL think I'm joking! I am not. You could laugh at all of this if this insane system didn't wield the power to ruin lives, like a million loose cannons set upon the nation with unlimited ammunition and manpower. I swear to God, and I mean this sincerely: I saw more logic in the Khmer Rouge, at least pre-Polpot, but I was long gone by then.

About six lifetimes ago I had occasion to take some miscreants to court. I lost. The judge was absolutely dead wrong. He was black and white wrong. He was as wrong as wrong can get, and factually and documentably so. I concluded, as do all losers, that this judge so blatantly and clearly ruled against me wrongly because he simply didn't like me personally. Everyone thinks that. Unfortunately, sometimes it's true.

Three or four years later I had another occasion to take some different miscreants to court. I drew the same judge. I knew I would lose but I went through the motions anyway.

The judge, who remembered me well and said he had been following my career and accomplishments in the press, said he wasn't entirely clear about an aspect of maritime law that was brought up and upon which the case hinged, so he continued the case for a week while he studied.

Ok. Fair enough. I was happy he was careful but I saw it as a ruse, merely to be able to show he had "tried to be fair", when he ruled against me.

I also went home and studied.

What I discovered was that "I" was dead wrong. The law was EXACTLY against me and it couldn't be more clear. I was owed nearly nothing for the work I had performed underwater. I had brought a frivolous case without knowing it.

The following week we all went back to court. The judge instantly launched into a mini-tirade about how I was the winner and how dare those "miscreants" (standing right there in shock) not pay me, and he named a figure to be paid to me that was far higher than what I had asked for. I let him finish and then stated what "I" had learned over the week, and asked that I only be paid a small amount which was actually just a storage cost which the miscreants would have had to pay anyway, regardless of my work.

I remember the judge throwing his hands in the air and exclaiming, "WELL THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN HELP YOU!"

And he grudgingly wrote the order for the small amount I was asking, shaking his head the entire time.

Now, could it be that, in REALITY, the JUDGE was actually correct in this second matter?

No. He was dead wrong.

How do I KNOW that, sincerely and truly and documentably?

Because my entire career, after that and for twenty years, HINGED on that exact, specific and explicit law -- that exact law -- and once we knew how to use it correctly, we used it on a weekly basis, and on those occasions when we did have to go back to court to extract a judgment against some new miscreant, our top-of-the-line-in-the-world Maritime law firms used it (correctly) again and again and again.

The judge was wrong the first time for whatever reason under the sun.

The same judge was wrong the second time, EVEN WHEN HE TRIED TO HELP ME.

Did he try to help me out of some sense of guilt he'd harbored over screwing me over the FIRST TIME he was wrong? Perhaps. I never knew for sure.

The point is, it doesn't really matter if you draw a bad judge, or a good judge, or a well-meaning judge, smart judge, dumb judge, corrupt judge, petty judge, mentally handicapped judge (Lawson) -- none of it matters. What you must understand is that "the law" in the US is now so unspeakably convoluted and confusing and huge and --- it's like standing in front of a colossal kaleidoscope that's spinning like a top and being told to throw a dart at the image and if the dart hits the "correct" color, you win, and if the dart hits the wrong color, you lose everything, including maybe your freedom and maybe your life.

That's It Folks! That's All Folks! That's all there is!

That's our legal system today.

Sure, you can hire whole gaggles of "attorneys", and so will the other side, and what will that accomplish? One gang stands on one side of that giant kaleidoscope wheel and the opposition stands on the other side and each side jerks that wheel back and forth, back and forth, and the victim (you, even if you're the petitioner as we've seen with Dart) gets barked at again and again: THROW THE DART! THROW THE DART NOW! THROW THE DART! WE CAN'T WAIT ALL DAY AND THIS IS COSTING YOU THOUSANDS PER MINUTE! THROW NOW!

And so you do. You hire and file and shoot your shot--- And the result is just random happenstance. There's nearly no logic to it at all.

There was a case early-on in Afghanistan: Three men were accused of raping a young girl. They all professed innocence and they took it to "court". The administrator of the area law decreed that all three men shall be made to walk through hot coals, and if any of the feet are not burned, then it shall be deemed that Allah knew their innocence and protected that man or those men from suffering burned feet.

They all walked the walk.

All three were executed....because Allah was apparently busy with other things -- IEDs and stuff, you know, busy busy busy.

Who knows if the girl was even raped.

Welcome to America, where "the law" is vastly and immeasurably more complex than in the hills of Afghanistan, but often produces the SAME RESULT.

That is exactly, specifically, explicitly and expressly what it felt like to be in John Lawson's "court" in Aukeen-Kent, 2001, with the bizarre countenance of Leigh Ann Collings Tift acting as prosecutor, and me being prevented from even calling for a continuance to bring in EVIDENCE (and an attorney) which would shine a MILITARY-NIGHT-SUN-STROBE on the insanity that was being manifested therein. It was, utterly, an other-worldly experience. Silly me, I thought any judge would want to get to the bottom of anything that might have actually occurred, and rule based on that. Silly, silly me. In all my encounters with courts in the preceding 30 years I STILL hadn't learned.

Shouldn't I have sued Littler-Mendelson and Dart-Entities for everything they had for this behavior, this "setup", and shouldn't I have won an extreme and gargantuan award? Of course, and I did take the case to two quite prestigious firms, one of which was right there in Tift's own building. That one was painfully aware of both Tift AND Lawson and couldn't imagine having been so unlucky as to have drawn a dumber, shittier pair in such a simple case. Of course it shouldn't come down to "luck" in any case, but it does. ANY attorney representing me in the initial hearing, they said, would have knocked this original problem out of the ballpark in seven minutes flat. After careful consideration, I was told the same thing by both firms regarding a full-on lawsuit against Littler-Mendelson and Dart: Yes, I had a case, and yes I could win, but it would be mired in lies, lies and more lies, both by the defendants, Lamb and McFarland (and Tift also, they felt, because her professional life would be on the line and she'd be desperate), and it would be put through the wringer for years, and in the end, yes I would win something, but the damage to my psyche and soul would far outstrip any monetary award. My own attorneys, they said (speaking of themselves) would far and vastly be the biggest winners. I chose, instead, to post this website. And then I ultimately chose to leave the USA. Since that decision, I've found that almost all of the countries I've lived in -- dozens -- ARE BETTER, and some by wide margins.

"156 individualsĀ have been exonerated from death row--that is, found to be innocent and released - since 1973.
In other words, for every 10 people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., one person has been set free."


How many innocent people WERE executed in the end? A lot. Try to imagine how they felt.

Some of these reversals were of guilty-as-hell people who were set free on technicalities, which is nearly as bad as killing the innocent because virtually ALL offenders REOFFEND.

Are you deathly afraid yet? If not, you're brain-dead.

There's a report floating around, made by an old guy maybe fifty years ago, who claims he met with aliens from space. "I" have never met with aliens from space, nor have I ever seen one, nor have I ever been knowingly "probed", and I prefer not to be, thanks. I probably don't even want to meet them. But this guy says he met them and the story has great value even if it was a post-whiskey-binge fever dream. The guy claims he met with the aliens when they landed their ship, saucer, whatever, near him and came out and just started to chit-chat. At one point in the conversation he asked them, instead of all this endless flitting around here and there, and appearing and disappearing to the extent that we can't even get a clear frikkin' picture of you, why don't just just forget and forgo all this energy-wasting nonsense and come land on the lawn of the White House and say, "HEY! HERE WE ARE! WE'RE HERE!?"

The aliens reportedly responded by saying, why don't YOU just go walk into your nearest asylum for the criminally insane, and announce "HEY! HERE I AM! I'M HERE!?" And see what happens.


It's like a Microsoft Operating System: Even the engineers can seldom answer a straightforward question about an error code. I remember Microsoft being submitted a list of, as I recall, 19 basic error-code questions regarding Windows; senior OS engineers answered how many correctly? As I recall, ONE. And the US legal system is vastly more complex and its "administrators" (judges and lawyers) are vastly less competent and if (when) it all comes crashing down you're not just prevented from playing Frogger until you reinstall, you may well LOSE YOUR LIFE.

In younger years I simply assumed (there's that four-letter word) that if you were ever wrongly accused of a serious crime, all you really need do is go turn yourself in, state your case, and it would be promptly and effectively investigated, and you'd be home for supper -- maybe a little shaken, but content in the knowledge that things mostly worked. Now, I would advise anyone in the same situation to RUN. You can't fight insanity and lies.

Honestly, you're pissing upwind to go to court, and you're only gambling in a casino where the House (the judges and attorneys) are the only real winners in the end, but if you're steadfastly determined to go to court because genetically, you're a glutton for punishment, at least be careful. Do your research. Hire someone else besides Littler Mendelson. Who? I don't honestly know. Look for HONOR and LOGIC in your law firm and attorney(s). Sleaze often DOES come in in First Place, and sleaze often DOES get disqualified after the fact. Honor and logic are nearly impossible to find in the practice of what passes for law these days -- Tift was a shining example of THAT assertion -- but it's still out there in little pockets and corners of any city. Look for it. For God's sake hire Ronald MacDonald if you must; he'll do you better.

And here's a weird interjection regarding Littler-Mental-Some:

On Sept 16, 2021, someone emailed us, anonymously, a link to what appears to be a YouTube video. We watched it. Unfortunately, we had a hard time making heads or tails of it. The narrator is certainly speaking about our very own Leigh Ann Collings Tift and he's clearly extremely pissed off, but for the life of us, we can't figure out exactly what his beef is, except that he seems to have caught Leigh Ann Collings Tift in a blatant lie, actually, documentably, provably falsifying one or more documents. If these were documents submitted to the court as truthful and factual exhibits, then it seems Leigh Ann Collings Tift would be guilty of flat-out perjury (actionable, prosecutable perjury in Amurica? Perish the thought!). We wish this poster would have submitted some context for this, and to have made his case in writing, so that the search engines could pick it up and so that his case was more easily studied. It appears, however, that our very own Leigh Ann Collings Tift of Littler Mendelson P.C. (yes, amazingly she still works there, and what does that say about the firm itself?) was just up to the same types of stunts she attempted to pull on me. This leopard can NOT change its spots. Probably, over the decades, she has been caught again and again and again but those instances never made it to press time. We'd really like to know the full story on this case but there just isn't enough meat and potatoes there to get a clear grasp of it. Maybe we were just low on patience at that time, when we watched it. Maybe it's legitimate; maybe not. We wish the poster would have sought some semi-professional guidance on how to make an effective video so that we could all learn from it in a coherent way. The poster claims, we think, that he filed a Washington BAR Association complaint against Leigh Ann Tift (as we did, and which was utterly ignored). Ok, welcome to the club. Get in line. So where's the complaint? He includes some static document images at the end of the vid -- what are they, exactly? We include this here in hopes that someone, somewhere can glean some value from the video; we didn't. --Except to note that this bag of a woman, Tift, has so supremely pissed off yet another human being with what appear to be lies, lies and mo' lies, that he felt compelled to go to the trouble to post the video. Again, welcome to the victim club and please move to the back of the line. If anyone can reduce this video down to its essential protein, please do and let us know. We're happy to mention it again, with discussion, if we could just figure out what the heck it's about.

Let's be very clear who we're talking about:



Leigh Ann Collings Tift now lives on Bainbridge Island, across the bay from Seattle, Washington, known locally as "Brainless Island" and for very good reason. If you need to go there for some unpleasant reason, you'll usually take a car-ferry, and at the ticket booth you must tell the cashier the destination you want the ticket for. If you simply say "Brainless" you'll get the ticket to Bainbridge Island. That AIN'T a badge of honor for that place. There very well may be a systemic ground-water problem at play there. Lead poisoning? The symptoms fit.


I think the bottom image is very old indeed, perhaps 20-30 years, and for some reason she doesn't seem inclined to update it on any "attorney finder" type service. Why not?


(Public records dump data has moved)


The WWW has brought to light the fact that the world is teeming with "Trolls". What's a Troll? We know them from childhood fables -- traditionally depicted as ugly, nasty little beings of some otherworldly sort who live under bridges and whatnot and who delight in causing trouble and mayhem to others as they innocently pass by. It's what they are and what they do. These leopards can't change their spots and don't want to anyway. Modern day psychiatry describes them this way:

"Trolls are sadists, usually lonely, usually narcissistic, usually spoiled. Trolls delight in causing pain to others. Trolls enjoy causing chaos and misery. Trolls just want to have fun. It makes them feel better, temporarily, about their own failures and plight. The Internet is a playground for Trolls."

And we submit: The Practice of Law is a playground for Trolls as well. They used to be called "Ambulance Chasers", but compared to how attorneys act today, that was a compliment.

The depiction of Trolls in a Grimm's Fairy Tale doesn't fall far from the real-life actions of trolls/attorneys today. Remember, Trolls don't by nature react to trouble or attacks -- they only initiate it, and they are amazed and enraged when victims push back.

There are Internet Trolls -- we all know them well. Make ANY innocent, innocuous, neutral, unbiased comment online (the sky is beautiful today) and you WILL be pounced on by an Internet Troll. Most Facebook "Community Standards Police" are, at their hearts, Internet Trolls. As employees (unpaid interns) of Farcebook or whatever, they can't file through your comments with grubby little fingers and reply to them -- they can do worse. They can shut down your account. And they do. Millions and millions and millions of times per week (research the Facebook "men are ugly" comment and a billion other perfectly legitimate opinions like it).

Trolls love what they do. It's their food and water and sustenance. It makes them grow and keeps them happy by nourishing their insecurities and inborn, innate meanness. It's who they are at their core, in their heart of hearts, and they are delighted to finally have an outlet which is more or less anonymous, where they won't get their fucking teeth bashed out for wrongly advancing on another human being out of pure nastiness and a hard-driven NEED to cause trouble.

And there are real life Trolls, driven by the same mechanisms.

Countless real-life Trolls, who deeply and profoundly crave the power and authority to truly cause trouble and harm, fail the psych evaluations required to get hired on in law enforcement. Sadly, too many who SHOULD HAVE been culled, slip right on through and then go on to commit truly heinous acts and crimes, sometimes for entire careers, before ever being brought down. YouTube is overflowing with examples of those witless turkeys.

Law enforcement jobs have the filter -- the psych eval.

To become a lawyer, or a judge, has no such filter, and it is reality that nasty, dishonest lawyers and judges may, may possess powers that far exceed those of the police. They can't shoot you outright -- they can do far worse. If you can psychologically qualify to become some witless Goddamned Real Estate Agent, or 7-11 cashier, or stripper, or junior high school administrator, you can become a lawyer or a judge and that oughta scare the daylights out of each and every citizen.

Any old Troll-at-Heart at all can become a real-life Lawyer-Judge/Troll. They share that craving for real power -- kind of like gangsters, but with the blessing of an even bigger gang (The Government). And we believe that describes Leigh Ann Collings Tift to a "T".

There are a few people in the world who, when wrongly pushed, push back. Like me. I also apologize profusely when I am RIGHTFULLY pushed.

But there are billions who Troll through life, just looking for someone to push. Like Leigh Ann Tift.

And they are stunned when someone pushes back. They just can't believe it. It seems as though Leigh Ann Tift has at least a few humans pushing back and certainly many, many others who are scared to, or who don't know how. I think this woman leaves a trail of victims and ruined lives wherever she goes and has for 30 years or more and shows no signs of stopping. She is what she is: A Troll.

Do they learn from these experiences in which people push back, and look inward to ask themselves if they were actually justified in doing the initial pushing?

No. They just go look for more and weaker victims and push all the harder. At their very core they are school-yard bullies -- in other words, rancid rotting vomit.

Sometimes, someone really stops them. But mostly they go through life causing little else but abject misery at every single juncture and interaction because it gets them off. And it makes them feel powerful.

Like Leigh Ann Tift.

We'd pay a lot of money for a video of the original meeting between Lamb, McFarland, and Tift. It must have been epic. Here you had The Troll (Tift), who was going to get paid BIG MONEY to do what she loves best -- push people around using her "legal skills". Tift had Lamb and McFarland in a conference room somewhere and Tift HAD to know these two sociological prizes were dumb as fucking boards and that they had no case against ANYONE. No one could be so stupid as to not know that. They (Lamb and McFarland) were merely insulted because a valued employee had had the audacity to quit and then to refuse to visit them. That was the sole impetus at that point in the proceeding. Tift knew this. She had to. She's stupid but she's clever in the ways a reptile is clever and she KNEW there was no case. But never let that stop ya, Leigh Ann! She must have been rubbing her fat grubby meat hooks together fast enough to start a fucking fire, because she KNEW she was being given carte blanche to make up any case she wanted, and her clients (victims, as it turned out), would go along with any of it. Just GET THAT BAD MAN. WE DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE TO LIE. WE DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE TO COMMIT PERJURY DOZENS OF TIMES. WE DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE TO SUBMIT "EVIDENCE" THAT IS FALSE! WE JUST DON'T CARE! JUST GET THAT GUY! HE DOESN'T LIKE US AND THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE! GET 'IM!" And Tift was right there -- I can almost see her snapping to attention and saluting, "YES SIR! I don't care what I have to do because I LOVE to 'get people' and I really, really want your corporate business in the future. In fact, I'll do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to get it! Blow job, anyone? Coffee, tea, or ________."

So we believe she "helped" Lamb and McFarland think up things that didn't happen but MIGHT HAVE in an alternate Universe, and to swear to the court that they did happen, and even when Tift knew they NEVER happened, she kept her fat mouth shut because, after all, who the Hell was she to ruin a good con-job on the court? To con the court is just normal lawyer stuff, right? Of course it is (it really is!). And this court was particularly con-able. Even when Lamb and McFarland submitted a handful of pictures to Tift, who then submitted them to the court, Tift didn't once ask, "Uh, are you SURE these pictures are of you guys because, uh, the bodies don't look even remotely similar?" Did Tift ask that question? No. She didn't want to know the effing answer. She only wanted to win. So Lamb and McFarland lied to the court and submitted images of OTHER PEOPLE, people they never even heard of, and told the gullible Dishonorable John Lawson that they were PICTURES OF THEMSELVES CREATED TO HARASS AND EMBARASS THEM! And in fact, Lawson was so mortally tortured and shocked by these images that he SEALED THEM INTO THE RECORD, never to be viewed by any human being outside that courtroom! Think about that! Think about the unfathomable stupidity of that! Even if these WERE images of Lamb and McFarland, why on God's Green Earth would you have them PERMANENTLY SEALED IN THE RECORD? Seriously, think about a "judge" so abjectly fucking stupid as to do that -- a man that stupid who had cleared all the very, very low hurdles required to become a JUDGE. Oops -- he didn't get there through accomplishments. He was APPOINTED. Kind of like a wink-wink deal. I'll appoint you; you do things for me. Got it?

Here are the images, below (the underlined text is taken from a criminal complaint of perjury to the King County Sheriff back in 2001 or so, who, of course and predictably, never responded):

Lamb and McFarland must have sensed things weren't going in their favor when their company cohorts lost their cases against me in three minutes flat, for they then testified that I had been criminally harassing them for months before I quit. --Actually, both Lamb and McFarland told the judge I had been harassing them for three years. Lamb stood in front of the judge and told him I had been asking her out on dates and that she was tired of "refusing my advances". This was a blatant and clear-cut instance of perjury (see polygraphs). Delann Lamb is a serial liar.

McFarland testified in writing and verbally that he did not use illegal drugs, yet his failed drug screens are available in the files of clinics from California to Washington. I suspect that had I supplied them to the court, the court STILL would not have had McFarland charged with perjury after submitting that sworn testimony.

Lamb and McFarland testified that I had posted pictures of them on the Internet, although they told the court they didn't know where those pictures were located on the Internet (they had never seen them -- they just dreamed that it was true). In FACT, no pictures of anyone at Dart had ever been posted ANYWHERE by me or anyone I knew, but Lamb and McFarland swore under oath (under oath!) this had been done. They just didn't know where they were (!) and Judge Lawson ate that right up like slurpy chocolate pudding and said it was FACT this had been done AS AN INSTANCE OF CRIMINAL HARASSMENT!).

A number of images were submitted to the court, but I was not allowed to see them. I finally received copies of them some two years later (!), and discovered they were pictures of people Lamb and McFarland didn't know and had never met and had never heard of. The pictures below were submitted by Lamb and McFarland to the court AND SEALED INTO SECRECY BY JUDGE JOHN LAWSON BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED THEM TO BE SO HORRENDOUS THAT NO LIVING HUMAN SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO GAZE UPON THEM! Lamb and McFarland said these pictures were examples of my criminal harassment of them over a three year period AND Lawson AGREED! It doesn't GET ANY CRAZIER THAN THIS!

Honestly, when confronted with crap like this, one begins to wonder if he has taken a misstep on some ice, and fallen, and hit his head, and is now in a coma suffering some bizarre Halcyonic Fever Dream for all eternity. It was all truly just that bizarre! The very fabric of reality seemed to be slipping away.

Continued on Page Three (3)




Return to





Prefer a more abbreviated rendition?