Leaderboard 728 X 90

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison claims under oath that Legal Schnauzer's reporting on her affair with Luther Strange cost her at least $10 million


Jessica Medeiros Garrison
Alabama Republican operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison claims my reporting about her extramarital affair with Attorney General Luther Strange cost her about $10 million, according to a transcript of testimony in her defamation case against Legal Schnauzer and me.

In fact, Garrison tosses around copious amounts of curious numbers, all suggesting she has a high opinion of her value as a political consultant/campaign manager. What has she actually accomplished? Well, she got a Republican appointed to statewide office in Alabama. But how hard is that? I probably could scoop up a dead armadillo off the highway and get him elected attorney general if he had an "R" by his name -- unless he had been caught fondling Rebekah Caldwell Mason's boobs.

Heck, Garrison doesn't even have a particularly impressive won-loss record. She helped Strange win in 2010, but she also was on board when he lost the lieutenant governor's race to Jim Folsom in 2006. So she's 1-1 in getting a Republican elected in Alabama? Whoa, let's print out some money for that girl -- she's special!

Keep in mind that this is the same woman who told fashion magazine Marie Claire that she offered to forgo a $3.5-million default judgment if I would pay $1 and remove the offending posts -- even though none of them have been proven false or defamatory, as a matter of law, because there was no trial in the case, much less a jury trial as required under decades of First Amendment law.

Let's take a closer look at some of the eye-raising numbers Garrison pulls seemingly out of thin air. (The transcript is embedded at the end of this post.)

Meet Jessica Garrison, the $10-million gal

Garrison suggests that she has been close to being hired by a high-profile business or organization. Does she name the outfit or provide any other details? Nope. But we have this, from page 68, when lawyer Bill Baxley asks her to quantify her damages:

There are more things I want to do in life and I feel like -- I mean, I have some pretty big goals for myself and I feel like -- like there's one opportunity that I would like to try to pursue now and I can't really seem to get their attention and I can't -- if you look me up, if I were -- this would be a high-profile thing. I wouldn't hire me because even if it's not true, I'm tainted. I've got this thing over my head that she could -- well, maybe there's a little truth to it, maybe. So I just can't help but think that this particular opportunity that I would like -- they were going to meet with me and they haven't. They haven't called and I just can't -- you know, if I were them, I would do all my due diligence and look me up and it's not pretty.

Garrison barely can speak a coherent sentence in this court snippet, but she's supposed to be worth millions? Garrison then proceeds, on pages 69-70, to explain how valuable she would be to this unknown outfit. Asking the questions this time is Judge Don Blankenship, otherwise known as "The Court":

THE COURT: Ms. Garrison, let me ask you a question and let's just go back for a second to what your counsel just asked you about, the amount of money you've had to expend coming to court, traveling and the like to prosecute this lawsuit. Also taking into account the mental anguish that you've gone through and what you think you'll go through, how much of a dollar value would you put on that?

THE WITNESS: I would put a lot.

THE COURT: What's a lot?

THE WITNESS: I would put $10 million.

THE COURT: What do you think you base that on?

THE WITNESS: I think that I could ultimately be in a position where I would be compensated a million dollars a year and I think I've got at least a good ten years of whatever -- that new opportunity I hope eventually I get to. I think I've got at least ten years of work under my belt still to go.

So, we have a mythical organization that is itching to pay Jessica Garrison $10 million over 10 years, but she gives us no details about it -- what does it do, where is it located, who are its leaders, how is she to handle the job, given the restrictions regarding location from her child-custody case?

That's a lot to swallow for now. But we will return shortly with another episode of Jessica Garrison's Wide World of Cash.


(To be continued)





28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I just spewed coffee across the table.

Anonymous said...

Figured you would run something on siegleman (sp?) getting out of jail. You should interview him...after all the work you've done defending him on here.

Anonymous said...

"she offered to forgo a $3.5-million default judgment if I would pay $1 and remove the offending posts -- even though none of them have been proven false or defamatory, as a matter of law, because there was no trial in the case, much less a jury trial as required under decades of First Amendment law."

That was a sweet deal - a generous offer to settle when she'd gotten a judgment against you. It's not a given that you would prevail in the future, or have the judgement tossed out. You were already behind the 8-ball.

You have the "advantage" of being judgement proof, but you could have disposed of this issue a long time ago. The world does not need your accusations to keep spinning; even if it were true, its a small beans matter on which the fate of the free world does not hang. You have issues in your OWN life you should be tending to.

If she's good or bad at her job is for other people to decide - the ones who spend money on her. If you are admitting the purpose of your posts was to cost her work, you aren't helping yourself.

legalschnauzer said...

Well, I probably will run something shortly. I'm not in Alabama at the moment, so I'm not sure yet if I can add much on the release that hasn't already been reported. Plus, as you might have read, my wife has been unlawfully arrested, had to make bond, appear in court, etc. So the personal plate has been full, and I haven't had a chance to even think much about the Siegelman release, which I think only became known a day or two ago. Don't know if he will be allowed to give interviews yet, but I look forward to speaking with him down the road. Certainly glad he is out. That he ever was in remains a travesty.

Anonymous said...

Seems a few shingles have blown off Garrison's roof.

Anonymous said...

What a twit/bunch of BS! I've had many potential employers never respond to me! And like, if they, oh, could, would have called me, ugh, I could explain, why I could not drive the forklift, I mean Lear Jet...

DM
Phenix City

Anonymous said...

Too bad you couldn't/wouldn't show up to defend yourself.

You're pathetic. Get a lawyer and defend your wife. Don't martyr her just to make a point.

Anonymous said...

I've long thought the Strange/Garrison affair happened, just as you reported it. But after reading this transcript, I have no doubt whatsoever. I think both of them are lying through their teeth. And she comes across as an absolute goofball.

Anonymous said...

$10 Million?

Good Golly Miss Molly!

Anonymous said...

I heard that Luther Strange also had an affair with his campaign manager for 2014. Can't remember the girl's name, but if you check court records, I think you will find she and her husband divorced in that time period.

Anonymous said...

I think this transcript is going to do major damage to any credibility or respect Garrison might have had in political circles. She thinks your reporting caused her problems? How about her own inarticulate ramblings? At numerous points in the transcript she sounds, as you noted, incoherent. And she's a frickin' lawyer. I can understand a regular Joe being nervous and confused on the stand. But this chick is a lawyer, and she sounds like a school girl who can't make an understandable point. Bottom line: She's just not very intelligent, especially when she's lying her ass off.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:59 --

But . . . but . . . Bill Baxley grilled her relentlessly before taking the case and advised her not to file the lawsuit against Legal Schnauzer, right? Bill Baxley said it, so it must be true.

Seriously, I love your comment, and think it is well stated and makes numerous insightful points. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:29 --

Do you enjoy being dense? It's a matter of public record -- check the docket I've published here -- that I received no notice of the default application or hearing. And there is no question, under Alabama law, that Garrison has that duty to provide notice. Second, the record shows I did show up to defense myself every time I was noticed of a hearing, which happened 2-3 times. I even showed up from jail twice.

Translation: You know zip about the case, and you are dumb as a rock. Congrats on that; you should go far.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:14 -- You make it a habit to cave in to extortion artists? That's what Garrison is, and that's what her $1 offer represented -- legalized extortion. Can you show me anywhere, under the law, where Garrison proved my reporting was false and defamatory? Give it a shot, and I will look forward to hearing your answer.

If you are the type of weak-ass person who essentially admits to fault when it isn't there . . . well, you can run your life the way you want to. I'm not that type of person. My story was accurate, I know it was accurate, and I'm not caving to a con artist like Jessica Garrison, who isn't even very smart.

Sounds like you don't need to be giving anyone advice on how to run their life.

Anonymous said...

Bill Baxley is a washed-up old turd. I don't believe a single word he has said about the Garrison case -- or anything else, for that matter.

Baxley probably had some use in this world at one time. But too much Jack Daniels has pickled his brain.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I know this seems important to you but nobody cares about this story. Personally I don't get the weird focus on Garrison. It seem more like a personal vendetta on your behalf. Its Strange who is running for senate after all. Why not focus on him instead?

The evidence suggests that even if Strange had an affair people don't care and will vote for him.

Maybe a focus on issues that effect real people like the economy might be more worthwhile?

legalschnauzer said...

@5:50 -- Honestly your comment is nonsense. If no one cares about this story, why are you reading it? Why do my blog stats show a whole lot of people are reading it and are deeply interested in it?

Here's a better question: Why don't you start your own blog and write about subjects that interest you? No one will miss you here.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about nonsense, there is no evidence this has hurt Strange at all (the actual public figure here) as he seems all set to go to the Senate. The main casualties of the story are yourself and Garrison due to your weird focus on her not Strange.

Reporting of affairs has a salacious interest for some people but I guess even in the most conservative of states it doesn't really matter to the voters if Strange's trajectory is anything to go by, they care about things that effect their lives. I'm just not sure why an intelligent man like yourself doesn't see that. Your writing on other things like the Seigelman case I actually find interesting and respect which is why I drop into the blog occasionally, but this constant hectoring of people who aren't even politicians about their private lives I just don't get. It loses you credibility when you write about more important things I'm sorry to say.

Anonymous said...

There is no need to be rude, I was just making an observation. This story is old. Any damage to Strange has already been done and it seems like he has shrugged it off and is on the up and up. I'm a Democrat so I have no love for him. As for Garrison, sure it seems like her life had been badly effected by your blog. Some might think she deserves it, personally I don't because it always seems to be the mistress (in this case alleged mistress) who gets burned the most and gets targeted with the most vitriol. Its Strange who was in the position of power and responsibility, if anyone should have been hit hard it was him. But it hasn't and he is fine. I can't see how this story will harm him at all from now on. People will vote for him based on issues they care about, which in most cases is not this.

legalschnauzer said...

Your understanding of journalism is off target. I've been in the field for 35-plus years, and I don't know of any reporter who does a story because it will or will not "hurt" someone. They write it because it's of public interest, it's insightful, it's unusual, it's funny -- all kinds of reasons.

As for Garrison, you might have missed my post on the subject, but she bought a Mountain Brook house for $800,000 plus, roughly twice the value of her previous home. That suggests my reporting actually has helped her.

One reason I've focused on Garrison is that she filed a bogus lawsuit against me. As an attorney and a political figure, Garrison should be unmasked when she conducts herself in such an unethical manner. She took an oath to uphold the law, not make a mockery of it.

I disagree with your contention that people vote on things because they effect their lives. In Alabama, and many other states (not all in South), people often vote on fears and biases -- fears based on race, class, etc. BTW, Garrison has been in politics up to ears for many years. Just because she hasn't held public office does not mean she's not a political figure.

Luther Strange became AG because he's white, moneyed, knows moneyed peole, and has an "R" by his name. Without those traits, he couldn't win an election to save his life. He became U.S. Sen. because he cut a corrupt deal with Luv Guv Bentley.

Anonymous said...

Great well examine Strange's suitability for high office then, that is a topical matter of interest relevant to everyone in the state. A quick scan of the internet I can find virtually nothing about his policy positions which is remarkable given is imminent departure to the senate. Lets expose him on that, that would be a real public service for sure.

I never doubted the continued importance of this story to you personally, its clearly affected your life in a big way. I just doubted the importance of Garrison to the political discourse in 2017. Its your blog and you should write about what you want, I just think you'd be having more impact focussed elsewhere.

Henry Bridgenorth said...

Roger, you should understand that a lot of people come to your blog for the train-wreck, not for your "journalism".

We read your writing to see what sort of outrageous stuff you are publishing, and revel in your self-destruction. We love to post comments manipulating you with false praise or trying to get you in a tizzy with mind-bending attacks. It's very easy on both accounts.

I promise you, Southern politics is not interesting to us. What we like to see is a mentally-ill, sex-obsessed paranoid tilt at windmills. It makes us feel better about ourselves. That is how low you set the bar.

A little reality check: your reporting on Garrison has only harmed you, Roger, and your wife. It didn't do anything to Strange, obviously, and Garrison has her article that pretty much makes you look like the crazy asshole you are. When you slander people, no one bothers to sue you, because no one takes you seriously now. You're a joke.

Another reality check: you're obviously obsessed with Garrison. What journalist would admit to "focusing" on someone because they "filed a bogus lawsuit against me"? A lawsuit that, according to the record, resulted in a clear judgement against you. Not very objective, you pursuing a vendetta against someone who stood up to you.

Anyway, please keep it up. It's why I come here everyday. I'm a big "fan" of you and your blog, and I love talking to my friends about it. We're all waiting for you to say the wrong thing to a Trumpist, or shove a cop when they come to arrest you, or refuse to leave the hotel room when the FBI tries to seize your Chromebook... something that results in severe injury or death.

We love the story so far, and can't wait to see the crazy ending.

Anonymous said...

One thing for sure: Senator Luther Strange might be at least as good a Senator as the infamous family values champion David Vitter!

legalschnauzer said...

Henry:

You crack me up. Please send another goofball comment like this when you get a chance. What a hoot!

Henry Bridgenorth said...

I'm glad I could make you laugh! It's a great pleasure to bring joy to someone who brings joy to so many others. Bravo, sir! Keep on, keeping on!

Anonymous said...

f you are the type of weak-ass person who essentially admits to fault when it isn't there . . . well, you can run your life the way you want to. I'm not that type of person. My story was accurate, I know it was accurate, and I'm not caving to a con artist like Jessica Garrison, who isn't even very smart.

WOuld you describe the way your life has spiraled down as the result of smart choices?

It's not extortion to settle a case you've won for a dollar and other considerations; I don't recall but I don't think you were required even to admit fault - just to remove the offending posts which resulted in the verdict in her favor. It doesn't actually matter if your posts were correct (and you only believe them correct, you never provided any substance beyond innuendo to support your allegations.) You also went after her kid, insinuating crazyily, without any evidence, that he was some kind of love-child. You started yammering things about her family and questioning her childs parentage - and you had nothing to back up your allegations except suspicion.

Just bad form, and stupid too. I advanced no political viewpoint - its a cheap, no thought slur. Which apparently, is your idea of journalism.

So yes, there are many steps - and other cases- along the way where you should have backed down and settled or compromised.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:19, a few responses:

* Tell me one "choice" I've made that wasn't very smart. Give us several, if you are so inclined.

* Garrison's filing a defamation lawsuit over reporting that was true is "legalized extortion," as I said above. There was no "verdict" in her favor. There was no trial. As a matter of law, my reporting was found to be not false and not defamatory. Look it up. I never insinuated anything about the parentage of her child; Garrison perjured herself on the stand about that. Look it up; I've posted the documents here.

* You seem to know zilch about the law. The burden of proof was on Garrison to prove the posts were false, and she never came close.

* A "cheap, no-thought slur"? Try checking out your language. You insulted me, then you expect respect in return. Sorry, that's not how it works. Shove it up your ass, you ignorant slut.

e.a.f. said...

don't know if she is narscist or delusional or just a money grubbing political operative. not being a professional mental health care provider.............

You can tell though she's a Republican. values herself at $10M and then we have Melania Trump suing because she lost $150M in "once in a life time opportunities". What is about these women? Money grubbing does spring to mind again.

Both have seen better days and with dwindling "assests" in the physical department perhaps they are simply trying to take care of themselves, not having the necessary skills to go out and get a real J O B.