Leaderboard 728 X 90

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Transcript from Jessica Medeiros Garrison defamation lawsuit shows she lied under oath about my reporting regarding Luther Strange and the parentage of her son


Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange
A transcript of a hearing in Jessica Medeiros Garrison's defamation lawsuit against me shows she lied under oath, falsely stating that I reported Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange was the father of her son.

Garrison has made similar comments in the press, for an article in the fashion magazine Marie Claire and related stories at al.com and Yellowhammer News. But this is the first time we've been able to show that she, an attorney, lied under oath in a court of law.

The transcript recently came into our possession due to proceedings in one of two federal lawsuits we have filed related to my unlawful incarceration ("The Jail Case") and the wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years in Birmingham ("The House Case"). A defendant in "The House Case" filed a transcript of testimony from Garrison and Strange in her defamation suit, which resulted in a $3.5-million default judgment in her favor -- even though I never received notice of her default application or hearing, meaning the judgment is void and can be attacked as such at any time.

In his testimony, Strange did not mention the parentage of Garrison's child. But Garrison mentioned it and claimed I had reported Strange was the biological father of her son. A review of all relevant posts here at Legal Schnauzer shows I never made any such claim. In fact, I interviewed Garrison's ex husband, Tuscaloosa City School Board president Lee Garrison, and quoted him saying the child is his. (The transcript, dated March 19, 2015, is embedded at the the end of this post.)

On pages 56-57 of the transcript is this exchange between Garrison and her attorney, Bill Baxley:

Q. Did [Shuler] write -- did he make innuendos about you being paid when you were giving birth to your son?

A. Yeah, that -- there was a blog post at some point where I remember walking away thinking he is trying to make people believe that the birth of my son -- that the payment, that lump sum lieutenant governor's campaign payment that I told [Strange] to hold and just pay when all the bills -- he tried to make it sound like that was some type of payment tied to the birth of my son.

Q. Did he make innuendos about who the father of your child was?

A. Right, right, as if that were Luther's son and that was some type of -- I don't know how you phrase it, but something to do with -

Q. Was that true?

A. No, no, no, not true at all.

There you have it: With Bill Baxley's help, Jessica Garrison  perjured herself regarding my reporting on her relationship with Luther Strange and the birth of her son. Why does that matter? An order from Judge Don Blankenship in the defamation case suggests almost all of Garrison's $3.5-million award was based on alleged posts about Luther Strange being the biological father of her son. Except there are no such posts at Legal Schnauzer.

The post Garrison had in mind probably was this one, dated May 29, 2013 and titled "Strange's 2006 Payments To Former Campaign Aide Coincided With Pregnancy And Birth Of Her Son." From the post:

Luther Strange paid almost $19,000 to a former campaign aide after he lost the 2006 lieutenant governor's race in Alabama. The payments appear to mirror those that Strange, as attorney general, now claims constitute a crime by former state senator Lowell Barron and his former campaign aide.

Strange's payments to Jessica Medeiros Garrison coincide with her pregnancy and the birth of her child in early 2007. . . .

The indictment against Barron indicates the attorney general's office built its case against Lowell Barron on three theories related to Alabama's campaign-finance and ethics law: (1) Barron made the payments to Rhonda Jill Johnson after a losing campaign in 2010; (2) Barron, therefore, could not claim the payments were reasonably related to performance of his official duties; (3) The payments were personal in nature.

Public records show the attorney general himself made payments to Jessica Medeiros Garrison after a losing campaign in 2006. That means the payments could not have been "reasonably related to performing the duties of the office held," and therefore must have been personal in nature.

Let's review: The post says Strange's payments to Garrison, after a losing campaign, coincided with her pregnancy and the birth of her child in early 2007. All of that is true, and Garrison does not deny it in her defamation-case testimony. I note that Strange's payments after a losing campaign suggest the payments were "personal in nature" -- and that is a legal phrase taken directly from the Lowell Barron indictment, prepared by Strange and his staff.

Nowhere does the post state, or even suggest, that Strange is the biological father of Garrison's child.

Here is how the post in question ends:

Were the 2006 payments to Jessica Medeiros Garrison and her company personal in nature? Well, she was pregnant at the time the payments were made -- and she gave birth to Michael Lee Garrison on March 27, 2007.

Again, the legal question is this: Were the Strange payments to Garrison personal in nature? That's the very issue Strange's office raised against Lowell Barron, and that's why my post is written the way it is.

This is, after all, a blog about legal issues -- and that's what this post is about. It says nothing about, directly or indirectly, the parentage of her son. But Jessica Garrison later would lie under oath and claim that it did.

The Strange-Garrison transcript includes a lot of interesting information, and we will address that in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)





21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good timing on this, LS. With Lutha twisting himself into a pretzel to become Bentley's pick for U.S. Senate, we need more info on this story because it speaks volumes about Lutha's character.

Anonymous said...

I would say it speaks volumes about Luther's LACK of character.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that JMG claims the Strange campaign was reimbursing her for her health insurance premiums. PAGE 41 LINE 6.

Anonymous said...

Luther Strange is a public figure. When he makes a large payment - after an election is over - into an LLC that did not even exist yet, formed by a person he is undeniably very close to personally, 5 months before she has a baby and who on the heels of that gets a divorce . . .that's a news story. Maybe an unsavory one and one full of a lot of innuendo but still a news story. And not slander when it is reported.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:41 -- Interesting point about the health-insurance premiums. What do you think that means?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be a shame if the surfacing of this transcript re-ignited the Garrison scandal and caused Lutha's chance for a U.S. Sen. seat to blow up in his face?

Anonymous said...

If Luther is going after Todd Henderson for "perjury," doesn't he have to go after JMG for the same offense?

Anonymous said...

LS, what if you cost Bill Pryor a SCOTUS seat and Luther Strange a U.S. Senate seat?

Anonymous said...

I can't help but notice there is no cross-examination in this transcript. Garrison and Strange address questions from a friendly lawyer, Bill Baxley, but not from an unfriendly lawyer or even an unfriendly pro se litigant (yourself). Perhaps this is why a foreclosure was planned on your house and you were forced out of state?

legalschnauzer said...

@3:39 --

You are very observant, and yes, that's exactly what happened. That's what our pending federal lawsuit, the one we call "The House Case," is all about.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that Lee Garrison has announced he will not seek re-election to Tuscaloosa school board. Wonder what's up with that. Maybe he's trying to distance himself from something?

Anonymous said...

Jack Williams is bailing out of Alabama Leg. Hmmm . . .

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/02/state_rep_jack_williams_of_ves.html#incart_river_home

Anonymous said...

Why mention the birthdate of Garrisons child at all in the payment post if you didn't want to make inferences about its parentage? You clearly intended to imply exactly what Garrison said you did in court, and a pretty low down thing it was to do as well.

Or do you have another reason why you mentioned her child that you care to share with us?

legalschnauzer said...

@5:10 --

First, I never gave the child's birth date; I said he was born in early 2007, which is true, but it's not a birth date. Second, the payment post is all about Luther Strange engaging in the same conduct that he alleged was a crime when Lowell Barron allegedly did it -- and that involves use of campaign funds for "personal" reasons. That language, or language similar to it, is taken right from Strange's indictment of Lowell Barron.

And yet, Strange gave Garrison a major chunk of money that coincided with the birth of her child. She doesn't dispute that, and it certainly appears to be of a "personal nature." That doesn't mean Strange is the biological father of the child, and I never reported that he is. There could be any number of "personal reasons" he gave her the money. But it came after a losing campaign, as was the case in the Barron matter, so it seems hard to see it as work-related.

Finally, Jessica Garrison didn't sue me for making "inferences" or "implications"; those are not torts, and they are not civil wrongs. She sued me for allegedly publishing information that was false and defamatory. But it wasn't, and even you seem to admit that it wasn't.

In fact, you seem to be admitting Garrison had no case against me, on those grounds.

If you consider my reporting "low down," what would you call Luther Strange's attempted prosecution of Lowell Barron?

Anonymous said...

I think @3:39 makes a profound point. It's one thing to get on the stand and answer softball questions from Bill Baxley. It's a different thing entirely to face cross-examination.

I'm guessing Lutha and Jess like catching fish in a barrel.

legalschnauzer said...

You are on target, @6:14, and keep this in mind: In a real case, one that wasn't fixed, Luther and Jessica would have gone through discovery -- interrogatories, depositions, production of documents (e-mails, texts, financial records, etc.) -- and they would have been questioned about that.

If this had been a real case, I'm guessing Luther and Jessica would not have taken the stand in a million years -- and they would not have gone through discovery. In fact, I don't think JMG files it if she didn't know in advance it was fixed.

These people are real brave when they know they aren't going to face a challenge. Their bravery tends to dwindle away when they know they will be seriously challenged.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible Luther Strange sicced the Shelby County sheriff thugs on you?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:22 --

It's possible for sure, maybe even likely. Keep in mind I was arrested one day after publishing a post about Jessica Garrison's curious house deal. A commenter either today or yesterday called her explanation of the house deal (in the transcript) "fantastic." Here is URL to post I wrote on Oct. 22, 2013. I was arrested on Oct. 23, 2013.

https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-did-jessica-m-garrison-pay-modest.html

Here is URL of post I wrote on the morning of Oct. 23, about Garrison's ties to Bill Pryor. I was arrested about 6 o'clock that evening:

https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/10/jessica-medeiros-garrisons-connections.html

You ask, "Is it possible Luther Strange ordered my unlawful arrest and incarceration?" I would invite you to read those two posts and see what you think.

Then ask yourself, "Is this man fit for any public office, much less U.S. Senate?"

Anonymous said...

Dat lease.

Dat lease on dat house.

Dat lease on dat house dat po po single mother had.

Dat lease on dat house dat po po single mother had what they would maybe let her out of dat lease if maybe this happen, and maybe let her buy dat house if maybe that happen?!

Any trader knows that thems options most usual cost extra money!

Whether or not dat po po woman remembers dat real estate agent or not. (How anyone forgets dat? Not them name- but iffn they evens had one?! Thems agents usually be charging a person real money for to hep you make dat deal! Once they be involved I think they usually be gettin paid for your deal! But hey- do you never knows how it really is fo sho!)

Some people might be all be thank there lucky stars if they be gettin a lease like dat po po woman had on such a very nice house in a very fashionable neighborhood when the banks be fixin to be foreclosin on dat house and dat house mebbe be sold on the courthouse steps and could be that po po woman be out on tha curb and errythang! That da kind of stuff people be seein on Youtube or Worldstar fo sho!

Might be all too complicated for some po blogger man to be understanding but hey wait- don't look now but then here come another lucky thang* when they be all in court about dis!

They be puttin all tha facts an tha part about dat house deal out there for dat judge and tha witness be all upset and they be wondering how it be goin...so then tha witness have to ask tha judge if it make sense?!

And then dat judge maybe say dat he was a real estate lawyer!?!

Dat record apparently show tha judge maybe say somethin like "It makes perfect sense to me."?!

Praise Jeebus and all for those thangs! Both small thangs and large thangs!!

Dat sound I hear might be the sound of that railroad train ready to be leavin?

Roger you got a look see at dat lease yet?

*Could it be that another lucky thang was the blogger man wasn't there in court?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:47 --

I'm scratching my head and laughing at the same time, after reading your comment. You deserve props for writing the most peculiar comment in Legal Schnauzer history.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or even what subject you are talking about. I can't tell if you are "wit" me or "agin" me. But you made me laugh, so thank you.

If you care to clarify yourself, please do because I am one confused "blogger man."

e.a.f. said...

sounds like Garrison went the same truth telling school Trump and some of his people belong to. If it works for them, oh, in this case both parties might be getting e.g. of how to do this.

sort of reminds me of that Kelly Ann Connelly. why do all those republicans have so much trouble with facts? conventional truth?

a man gives a woman a not insignificant sum of money after she has a child. I don't know about the U.S.A., living here in Canada, but that is usually something along the lines of child support or shut up and go away money or at least make sure my kid gets what it needs money. of course he could just be a very generous person making a "baby gift" to a long time friend. Ya, now, don't we all do that? No, O.K. well perhaps Garrison was just trying to look after the poor fatherless tyke. Who knows?