LETTER TO BAR ASSOCIATION
Written by Alida Smith, Defense Witness
dated June 19, 2005

RE: PUBLIC DEFENDER THOMAS R. GRETT

I found out that Sharif's competency hearing was on the 12th and they have deemed him incompetent and sentenced him to go to the state hospital called Vernon or Terrell, which are cities in Texas.

This is complaint I gave to the clerk office and to Jim Hamlin, the district clerk over all clerks in Dallas.

I wrote this letter regarding Tom Grett on 6-1 and I physically took it to the courts on 6-10 where both courts stamped a copy of my letter (file dated it).

Thursday, June 19, 2005

Attn:  State Bar of Texas
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Dallas Regional Office
One Lincoln Centre
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1280
Dallas, TX 75240

Re: Public Defender:  Tom Grett

From: Alida Smith
1103 Barrymore Ln
Duncanville, TX 75137

My grievance is about a Dallas Texas Public defender named Tom Grett. 

 This publice defender was assigned the responsibility of representing  Mr. Lakeith Amir-Sharif, in Case No. F02-73127-S for an alleged violation of probation for which he was arrested on February 10, 2005. 

Below is a list of the complaints I have about Tom Grett's "legal representation".

A)  From Feb. 10, 2005 to date, Mr. Grett has failed to maintain adequate communication with Mr. Lakeith.  He knowingly lied to me when I called him about this matter.  I had to make several attempts before I got him on the phone and he did not return any of the messages I left on his voicemail.

B) Tom Grett told me that he had gone to the Dallas jail where Lakeith was, and Lakeith, so Tom Grett said, refused to see him. The Dallas County Texas Sherrif's records office, does not have any record on file of Tom Grett ever making a request to visit Mr. Lakeith.  There are also no records of Mr. Lakeith ever signing a refusal to see Attorney Tom Grett.

C) Between Feb. 10, 2005 to this date Tom Grett neglected to make an attempt to conduct an interview with me and obtain my statement regarding the allegations of the probation violation against Mr. Lakeith.

D) Between Feb. 10,2005 and May 09, 2005,  Mr. Grett neglected to also send an invastigator out to discuss voicemails and recorded conversations.  These were items that I had access to, which were authored by the state witness, [name removed], to be placed into evidence so Mr. Lakeith could be freed.

E) Between Feb. 10, 2005 and the present date, Tom Grett repeatedly violated attorney-client privileged communication by telling the district attorney in the above-referenced case (and in "an unrelated" family court case no. cv 05-00157-v-292) that Mr. Lakeith was having conversations with the state witness, who was claiming she was afraid of Mr. Lakeith and did not want anything to do with him.

F) Tom Grett further violated the attorney-client communcation priviledge by telling Judge Karen Green, and psychiatrist Doctors Pittman and Lisa K. Clayton, of "non-threating"  telephone conversations Mr. Lakeith said he was having with the state witness.

G) From Feb. 10, 2005 to the present date, I have personally made, and known of others who have also made, numerous [3-way] telephone calls for Mr. Lakeith to the state witness.  I have also listened to their conversations which concerned matters about reconciliation, forgiveness, the need for marriage counceling, arduous financial matters she was/is facing plus family issues concerning their children.  These conversations were very real and the result of any delusional or depraved mind as Tom Grett biasly labeled Mr. Lakeith before the court and to anyone else who would listen to his slanderous babbling.

H) Tom Grett has yet to put forth any effort and investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding his own client's case and claims present to this "defense counsel."

I) Instead, from what I have witnessed,  Tom Grett has openly worked with the District Attorney's office to get a quick conviction rather than prepare a defense and then actually defend his client.  When Mr. Lakeith insisted on having a probation hearing, Tom Grett turned even further against his client and began employing sleazy tricks unimaginable of a lawyer. Including, but not limited to, attempting to discredit his own client as delusional and mentally incompetent to stand trial, all the while knowing that Mr. Lakeith was anything but incompetent.

J) Since being appointed to Mr. Lakeith’s case, Tom Grett has put forth more effort on behalf of the state witness' interest than that of his own client, taking her word over his “client's” without him ever conducting any fact finding. That is totally unacceptable legal representation for even an alleged terrorist.

K) Tom Grett neglected to have even the decency and integrity of taking 5-10 minutes of time out to call Mr. Lakeith’s telephone to listen to the fifteen or so voicemail recordings left by the state witness. They would have thereby forever dispelled her fictitious claims of being afraid of Mr. Lakeith and of her ever being the subject of abuse and/or family violence at the hands of Tom Grett’s client.

L) At every court appearance, Tom Grett has sided with the state, and put up no defense for his client. Even after serving 32-45 days, his client was brought to the court to sign off to be released from jail. It has been Mr. Grett, not the D.A. who has called the state witness to get her authorization/consent to release Mr. Lakeith. This is unheard of, especially when Tom Grett is not her lawyer, and particularly when there was a temporary protective order in place.

M) If Tom Grett had done any investigation he would have learned that after the assault his client “did not” commit against the state witness, the state witness turned right around and had me go post Sharif's bail. Then she was waiting for Mr. Lakeith at the front door of the Farmers Branch Jail when he was released for the assault. These are not the actions of a scared woman trying to end a marriage/relationship.

N) I was just today privy to read the affidavit filed by the state witness on Feb. 10, 2005 and I am willing to swear in open court, her testimony is riddled with outright lies and slanderous claims.

This so called legal representation provided by Tom Grett warrents that the Texas Bar ask the lawyer licensed by the Great State of Texas to be shown what not to do when one takes the oath, which mandates to follow, and instruct him that at all times his conduct shall be characterized by honesty, candor, fairness and never by unethical and outright abusive tactics.

Sincerely
Alida Smith
Dated on 06-01-05___