Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Lowell Barron says Jessica Medeiros Garrison, in fact, had an affair with Luther Strange, and the sensitive subject restricts the attorney general in his job

Lowell Barron
(From politico.com)
Republican operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange had an extramarital affair, as we reported in fall 2013, according to a recent interview with the former president of the Alabama Senate. The affair is such common knowledge that Lowell Barron referred to it as "infamous"--and Barron said the topic is so sensitive that it restricts the way Strange does his job.

The statements shine new light on Garrison's lawsuit against Legal Schnauzer, alleging our reporting on her affair with Strange was false and defamatory. It also raises questions about a $3.5-million default judgment Garrison received primarily because my wife, Carol, and I had to leave Alabama when we lost our home of 25 years in a foreclosure that almost certainly was wrongful. We have shown that the judgment is void, as a matter of law, and it was based almost entirely on a mountain of fraud and perjury.

Public records show there was no trial in the Garrison matter, much less a jury trial as required by decades of First Amendment law. That means Garrison did not come close to meeting her burden of proof--and, by law, my reporting was neither false nor defamatory.

Barron, a Democrat from Fyffe, served in the Alabama Legislature for 28 years. His comments came in a recent interview with Marcus Echols at BlogTalk Radio on "Bringing Voices to Power."  Strange brought an indictment against Barron in April 2013 on charges of campaign finance law violations, but the AG's office filed a motion to dismiss all charges in August 2014, and the court granted it.

Echols asked Barron about the current sex scandal involving Gov. Robert Bentley and former advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason, which includes revelations that Mason and her husband, Jon, have made roughly $1 million since Bentley took office in 2011. Barron was quick to compare it to the Strange/Garrison relationship:

[Mason] got $500,000 in his campaign . . .That's the same thing Luther Strange did; he paid his mistress, Ms. Garrison, $450,000 to $460,000 during his campaign. They were fussing at me paying my assistant a $50,000 bonus when my campaign was over . . . these people have done much worse . . . With the evidence out on Bentley now, it's pretty obvious what has been going on behind closed doors with him and the young lady they say is really the governor. . . . It's just sad.

Barron said he's seen evidence firsthand that the Garrison affair affects the way Strange does his job. During the trial in DeKalb County, Barron's lawyers filed a subpoena, seeking to have Strange testify about his relationship with Garrison and payments he had made to her. The judge in the case did not immediately rule on Barron's efforts to have Strange testify, and the issue still was on the table when the AG's office asked to have the case dismissed.

Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange
(From marieclaire.com)
In the Echols interview, Barron suggested any investigation of Gov. Bentley will have to come from the U.S. Department of Justice because Luther Strange will be unable to do it at the state level, In fact, Barron said he is surprised the AG's office pursued an investigation of House Speaker Mike Hubbard, which produced a 23-count indictment on alleged ethics-law violations:

Luther Strange is so compromised that he cannot go after the governor. What happened in my case . . . my attorney asked the judge to allow us to get Luther Strange to testify in my case. The judge left that open and didn't rule on it. Once the judge didn't rule on whether we could put Luther Strange on the stand, my case went away.
Luther Strange cannot stand to be deposed or be put on the stand because his shenanigans with Ms. Garrison would come out in the open. This whole bunch is compromised. You can't have clean government when you are dirty. Nothing is going to happen [in the Bentley case] with the attorney general's office. I'm shocked they've done anything about the speaker.

What does Barron expect to happen in the Bentley matter? He sees the governor in a tight spot:

I do not think Bentley will resign. After that disastrous divorce settlement, he's given away all his assets. He doesn't have another job. . . . He's getting older, and I'm not sure he could practice medicine anymore. What's he going to do to make a living? . . . He's ruined his history. I think [Ms. Mason] and her husband will milk this cow for all that's there; it's money for them.  . . . Bentley is an old man getting his jollies off, but he got elected on Republican family values."

Barron traces many of Alabama's current problems to the public's tendency to vote based on perceived religious values:

Running for political office based on who is the most religious. . . . Ted Cruz is another example; it just came out that he's had five or six affairs. These are corrupt people hiding behind God. We are electing scummy, crummy people. The people who voted for Bentley and Luther Strange need to look in the mirror and say, "I'm responsible for this foolishness, and I'm going to be better informed voter in next election.

"There is nothing Christian about any of our current leadership. The speaker is indicted on 23 felony counts. Luther Strange carried on an infamous relationship with Jessica Garrison, and he's still in office. It goes on and on.


Anonymous said...

Sounds like Lutha and Jessica are willing to throw charges around against others, but they run for the hills when it looks like they might have to testify under oath.

Anonymous said...

Not sure Lowell Barron should be the final word on this subject. He probably has a serious mad-on against Luther, due to the aborted prosecution in DeKalb County. Nevertheless, I suspect Lowell's words are a whole lot closer to the truth than anything that will come out of Luther's mouth.

legalschnauzer said...

I should note that Strange and Garrison, according to court records, did testify (I assume under oath) at a default-judgment hearing in my case. But no opposing party or attorney was present because I was not noticed, so it was not an adversarial proceeding, and they never engaged in discovery of any sort.

I short, they are willing to take the stand if they know they will be questioned only by their own attorney--and they know they won't have to turn over any documents.

Anonymous said...


The Capitol has apparently turned into a den of robbers by a bunch of fornicating prevaricators.

It's time to throw the money changers out.

Anonymous said...

Don't know how any sane religious person could connect religion to politicians. They've sold their very souls the minute they take the first dime and engage in bad or improper activities or decisions. It's also humorous to watch them wail for forgiveness and call on the name of the Lord–– when they finally get caught.

Anonymous said...

Have you notice how the underlying theory in all these cases, the federal judge, the governor, the state attorney general, all evolve around the penis. Now I know everyone got a big kick about my Emergency Penis Measurement Order, aka the EPM order but if you research the Georgia case, Government Vs LongRod you will come to understand how is some case the EPM order can be the very "tool" needed to resolve any issues that might "come up". In the governor case the EPM order can answer the question did the penis come up or not and also if it did "come", were did it go? Do we have a blue dress like in the Clinton case? Thousands of question are now unanswered here in Bamaland and I for one would like to know the truth. I urge you to call your representative today and demand that they take a "hands on" approach to get to the truth. History teaches us that a out of control penis is a danger for all of us. Demand that our government "erect" laws to control these out of control bamaland penises!!!! before its too late.

Dicklass said...

Then Appeal, Mr. Schnauzer. Appeal and stop pretending you won something. You have won nothing. You lose and lose and claim to win. You are Dickless.

Anonymous said...

TO 3:41 He is going to be at the big game as a wild card. No need to appeal.

Anonymous said...

@833. He may prove his reporting on the governor was accurate, but unless Luther Strange goes on trial, he will always have a defamation suit against him. He is too scared to appeal NOT because of the appellate courts in Alabama, but that all the things that he did that led to his conviction will come out. He was not an "innocent victim" that he all wants us to believe.

Anonymous said...

The judges in your cases must be bought and paid for it what Barron says is true. The guile you have to possess to bring a case which what a journalist says is true and deny it in court takes some bravado.

Anonymous said...

341 is too stupid to realize that the discovery is being done for the Schulers by the feds. It is likely the Schuler case depositions of big time operators like the Masons and Bentley and Strange will be taken in the visitor center at a federal prison, where they will be serving their sentences.

The net net of this is that Dicklass himself is funding the initial Schuler discovery process.

As a likely Bentley and Strange voter this must really chap the Dicklass ass.

As Dicklass is likely resident of Alabama this means Dicklass will be paying for the eventual Schuler settlement too.

legalschnauzer said...


This might be surprising to you, but I don't take legal advice from anonymous folks who called themselves "Dickless."

Here's another shocker: This blog is not about what judges (trial or appellate) say the law is; it's about what the law actually is and how judges routinely butcher it.

I haven't said I "won" anything: those are your words. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever written about a court case in terms of who "wins" and who "loses." The truth is that we all are losers in a corrupt court system that is funded with our tax dollars.

Prove to me you know a little something about the appeals process in Alabama, and perhaps I will give your thoughts some value. At this point, your credibility, with me, is zip.

Better yet, let's see if you will put your money where your mouth is. If you want me to appeal so badly, will you agree to fund it? You have my contact info. If you are helping me fight injustice, let me know.

legalschnauzer said...

10:21--I'm not sure it takes much bravado when you know the system is rigged in your favor. It just takes a massive sense of entitlement and zero respect for our constitution.

legalschnauzer said...

A few questions, @6:55--

(1) I will always have a defamation suit against me? What on earth are you talking about? And what does Luther Strange "going on trial" have to do with it?

(2) What "conviction" are you talking about?

(3) How will filing an appeal make "all the things" I did "come out"? Do you have any clue what the appellate process is about? And what "things" are you talking about?

Final question: What grade are you in and did you stay up past your bedtime?

Anonymous said...

LS @ 12:17PM -- LOLOL.... here's a blast from the past that reminds me of @6:55PM


Anonymous said...

Visit - Turquoise Condominium: Orange Beach, Alabama.

Robby Scott Hill said...

You'll be able to get that verdict set aside as soon as Democrats return to power. The Census goes in just 4 years. Many GOPers will be six feet under by the time the 2022 election cycle rolls around with freshly redrawn districts that favor us. I'm already saving up to run for State Senate.

Robby Scott Hill said...

I guess my high school & college civics teachers plus my Con Law professor were all damned liars. I was taught that we had an adversarial system of justice & that contested defamation cases had to be heard in front of a jury. Maybe Bentley shouldn't be the one resigning. Maybe it should be the Chief Justice & the Staff at the State Bar.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you already LOSE to Garrison? Are you really going to revisit this? Face it Roger, you LOST. You didn't even show up. What did you think was going to happen? Now you have a 3.5M judgment hanging over your head...Which you can't pay because you are an insolvent failure living out of an Econolodge. You have absolutely no self awareness. Instead of whining about it on your blog, why not grow a pair and APPEAL the decision. Oh, wait, I know, "...[t]his blog is not about what judges (trial or appellate) say the law is..." Typical victim mentality. You sound like such a loser dragging anyone and everyone through the mud. Why don't you actually write a real legal blog dealing with real legal issues instead of this nonsense. No offense, but it makes you sound like a loon.

Anonymous said...

@12:11 AM -- ROFLMAO -- Roger getting a little too close for comfort, eh? Good luck with your continuing stay on Fantasy Island.

Anonymous said...

Hey, @12:11, what are you afraid of? You urge LS to "grow a pair," but you don't have enough of a pair to even tell us who you are. I suspect you are a p---y, who knows zero about the facts or the law on the Garrison case.

If this isn't a real legal blog, why are you here? If this isn't a real legal blog, why was it ranked among the top 50 law blogs in North America.

You don't have the courage or intelligence to write a decent comment, so you attack someone who has written a blog for almost 10 years, with his real name on every post.

You aren't fit to wear LS's discarded jock strap. If you want to know the real loon in this picture, take a look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

I find it humorous that the people calling people cowards because they don't reveal their names also post as anonymous. Pot meet kettle.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there is anything unusual about it, @10:08. In this instance, one anon commenter was calling the author of this blog a "loon," saying he did not write about "real legal issues," that he "lost" a case he clearly did not lose, etc. This commenter is making all kinds of unflattering judgments about someone else. The reader's natural inclination is to say, "Who the hell is this guy? What makes him an expert on this?"

The other people are challenging that person's credibility, essentially saying what expertise do you possess to make such a judgment? If the first commenter isn't willing to put his ID and credibility on the line, his opinions don't mean much to anybody.

The first commenter, in my view, is a bomb thrower. The other commenters are trying to determine if he is anything more than that. I see no reason for them to ID themselves for that purpose, although they might be glad to ID themselves if the first guy would do it.

For the followup commenters to ID themselves would be giving the first guy more respect than he deserves.

Anonymous said...

@10:55. So you're saying the first bomb thrower cricized LS and they are chicken to not reveal their names, but the guys throwing bombs at the bomb thrower are not chicken for hiding behind an anonymous viel. Either way, someone is criticizing someone else behind a viel of secrecy. Pot meet kettle.

If LS wants absolutely no discourse or alternate viewpoints to what can be very emotional issues, then he should just not post any comments that are contrarian to his viewpoint. Given that he doesn't filter these too much, and the fact that he allows for anonymous postings, then why demand someone expose their identity? The dialogue seems to be something LS enjoys in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

@12:13--I'm not demanding anyone disclose his identity. That's not my job. But if the first commenter wants to be taken seriously. he should ID himself and give us some idea of his qualifications for coming to such conclusions.

That's why I refer to him as a "bomb thrower." I don't think he really wants to be taken seriously. He's just harassing a journalist--one who has suffered more than most for standing up to authority--and it's probably because he's jealous of LS or this blog is in the process of goring some favored ox.

My guess is that the commenter knows LS's credibility is at an all-time high, and that makes him nervous or jealous. The guy throws out the "loon" word because recent events have shown that LS absolutely is not a loon--he's a better journalist than all the al.com clowns put together.

Plus, it bugs me when people don't get simple facts right. I've looked at the Garrison file, and the judgment against LS is void, by law. And it's clear there was no trial, no jury, and no notice given to LS on the default-judgment hearing. So there is no way he "lost." And to say this isn't a real legal blog is just plain stupid.

Anonymous said...

@12:30. Again interesting that you assert with authority that the judgement against Roger was inaccurate, yet you yourself do not identity yourself or credential yourself. What are your qualifications to render that judgement? We don't know...because you've chosen to remain anonymous. Pot meet kettle again.

Enough of this. I have no skin in this game at all. Just observing what seems to be different standards for discourse.

Have a good day!