Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Daily Caller "journalist" Chuck Ross, who broke story of Jessica Garrison's $3.5-million judgment, is outed for the racist and misogynistic writings in his past



Chuck Ross
The Daily Caller (DC) "journalist" who broke the story of Jessica Medeiros Garrison's $3.5-million default judgment against me has a history of publishing racist and misogynistic blog posts before joining the DC staff, which once was led (in part) by current Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Chuck Ross broke the story of the Garrison judgment on April 4, 2015, in a post titled "Blogger Who Accused Alabama AG Of Carrying On An Affair Slapped With $3.5 Million Defamation Judgment." Ross broke the story before I even knew about the judgment -- a sign that somebody fed it to the DC -- and it's possible Ross' "inside source" on the story was . . . Jessica Garrison -- who with her professional ties to Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions, former U.S. Sen. Luther Strange, and U.S. Circuit Judge William H. "Bill" Pryor -- has the right-wing bona fides to have written for The Daily Caller herself.

Of course, Garrison once served as head of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). That was before The New York Times unmasked RAGA as a shakedown outfit. Not long after that story broke, Garrison quietly left her positions at RAGA and RLDF. She held an "of counsel" position at Birmingham's Balch Bingham law firm, until that firm and Luther Strange became engulfed in the evolving Birmingham Superfund scandal. Once riding high in right-wing circles, Garrison doesn't seem to do much of anything now but work as a "consultant." How does Jessica afford that $835,000 house in Mountain Brook? When Luther Strange's ties to the Superfund scandal hit the press, Garrison's social-media profile went dark for several weeks.

Has Chuck Ross followed up with a Daily Caller post about all the dirt swirling around Jessica Garrison -- and Luther Strange? Has he informed readers that Garrison's default judgment, as a matter of law, is void and can be attacked as such at any time? Did he reveal that Garrison works for the DC? Of course not, and I didn't figure he would -- given the DC isn't known for making attempts at remotely balanced or complete journalism. After reading Ross' story on Garrison's $3.5-million judgment, the first words out of my mouth were, "This is the most inaccurate, one-sided, sophomoric piece of 'garbage journalism' I've ever read."

Ross' article on the Garrison judgment is such a sham that it takes me a while to describe all of its shortcomings. It also requires time to list some of the seedy right-wing blogging characters with whom Ross, the DC (and Garrison?) are affiliated. We'll do that in a bit, but first, let's examine recent reporting by Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple, who reveals that Ross' "training" for his Daily Caller position included producing racist and misogynistic scribblings at a nasty blog called Gucci Little Piggy. From the Wemple piece:

Back in 2010, some blogger wanted to vent about something. “Small towns like the one I’m from in Texas have a fat girl problem. The scent of cheap perfume, sweat, grease … forms a troposphere-like force field surrounding the town that I call ‘that fat girl smell,'” wrote the blogger. At the end of another post, this same fellow concluded, “When given equal opportunity women don’t have the tools to perform as well in business as men.”

That’s certainly not the most hateful stuff on the Internet, if only because there’s a lot of competition in this dubious category. What makes it noteworthy, however, is that it’s part of the oeuvre that preceded the blogger’s hiring at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, starting in 2014.

Also: The blogger, Chuck Ross, is now renouncing those words and many others. “A lot of the stuff I wrote on my blog and in comments sections on other websites were hare-brained responses to stupid arguments taking place within the tiny community of bloggers I knew at the time,” notes the 36-year-old Ross in a written statement to the Erik Wemple Blog. “I wrote a lot of stuff that I didn’t believe, but I’d write about it for the sake of argument, and sometimes to be provocative or to piss off other bloggers. 
“I’ve matured immeasurably since then, and I regret that I put these ill-formed thoughts out into the public domain.”

Sounds like Ross is trying to save what's left of his tattered reputation. Was the work that led to his spot on The Daily Caller staff really just a matter of "ill-formed thoughts"? You can decide, with assistance from Erik Wemple:

The Daily Caller launched in 2010 under the editorial leadership of Tucker Carlson, who showed little compunction about posting content that objectifies women. Race, too, has been a problematic coverage area.

Such proclivities may explain why the Daily Caller first took a liking to Ross, who once wrote on politics, culture, society and other topics for a blog named “Gucci Little Piggy,” an apparent reference to a lyric from the rock band Radiohead. From this platform, Ross came up with some theories. Like this one, in a 2010 post:

Erik Wemple
 "Black people walk slow – everywhere. This is especially puzzling since they tend to run so fast. Blacks meander through cross walks in traffic. They jaywalk in front of oncoming vehicles. They do the “Dougie” on two-way streets. Don’t get stuck behind them in a crowded mall or in line somewhere; they’ll walk slow just to go against the grain or force you (white person) to swerve around them. Inevitably, they’ll make fun of you for being a goofy, neurotic white person."

Ross has tried to sweep the ugliness in his past under the proverbial rug. But Wemple has not let him get away with it:

Those racist thoughts no longer appear on Gucci Little Piggy. The link to the post — titled “Black Passive-Aggression” — no longer works. That’s because Ross eliminated that post from his site, which he shut down in 2014, less than a year after his hiring at the Daily Caller. Many of his posts, accordingly, survive only as block-quoted references on other sites, as well as on archived pages. “I shut it down completely,” Ross tells this blog. The remaining digital trail shows that in January 2010, for instance, he springboarded off of an essay by a social psychologist regarding genetics and behavioral differences among groups:

The question becomes, if each one of these groups is acting in accordance with their “nature”, how do we go about doling out justice or incorporating every group into the social fold? I touched on the question previously. As an example, if blacks have higher levels of testosterone and are more predisposed towards violent and aggressive behavior, “intertribal” competition, and work-aversion – antisocial behavior in today’s Western world – is it fair to “punish” them using white Western legal and social proscriptions? In these cases, legal codes and social norms that worked well for white Westerners may not work so well for blacks of African descent or people of other ethnicities and races who have had much less time to co-evolve within “our” society’s proscriptions.

Another archived post from “Gucci Little Piggy” went a bit further:

Let’s use blacks – especially African Americans – as an example. Blacks’ higher testosterone levels lead to increased aggression which in today’s confined society inevitably leads to increased violence and crime. In fact, African-Americans’ ancestors – slaves – were bred for high testosterone levels. A properly implemented penal code would account for the difference in nature to curb the problem. Laws and punishments that seek to reprimand outlying behavior on the “normal” (white) distribution of lawfulness may not fit the distribution of lawfulness for blacks. 
Obviously, the U.S.’s penal code has led to blow back on the black community. A never-ending cycle of criminality and incarceration of blacks is one of the reasons for their low socio-economic status, low education levels, and higher crime. While individuals are responsible for their actions on the micro level, systematic incongruency will lead to higher incarceration rates on the aggregate. It’s nice to think that an individual will behave in accordance with the law, but its a pipe dream that a whole group will act against their nature to live by the letter of the law.

This all suggests The Daily Caller article about Jessica Medeiros Garrison' $3.5.-million default judgment was written by a raging racist. That's ironic because the judgment was issued by Judge Don Blankenship, a black man who apparently has no problem sucking up to the white conservative elites who have turned Alabama into a legal and political sewer.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange
How bad is Chuck Ross' article on the Garrison judgment? And who are the sleazy band of right-wing bloggers with whom he and the DC are affiliated? We will examine those questions in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hating blacks and hating women probably are requirements to be a "journalist" at a lot of these right-wing digital rags.

Anonymous said...

Gee, can't imagine Tucker Carlson would tolerate a racist on the DC staff. What a shocker.

Anonymous said...

Why is Garrison's judgment void? The judge apparently doesn't consider it void.

legalschnauzer said...

It's void because I was not noticed either on her default application or on the hearing. That's a matter of public record, right on the docket. In fact, the docket shows notice was not even sent, much less received.

That means it's a nullity, which can be attacked as void at any time. It's explained here:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/under-alabama-law-jessica-garrisons-35.html

legalschnauzer said...

Forgot to mention that Garrison and Bill Baxley, with law degrees, should understand this simple legal principle -- but lawyers are good at playing dumb, when it's to their benefit. The same goes for judges, and crookedness (maybe with a few under-the-table payments) are the likely explanation for Blankenship's actions.

That Blankenship has jumped in bed with what I call the "white devils" in Birmingham's legal community is a disgrace to all those who worked and suffered for civil rights in this country:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2016/08/circuit-judge-don-blankenship-who.html

Anonymous said...

That "fat girl" bit is not the work of a hare-brained mind. That's the work of a sick, twisted mind. Bastard.

Anonymous said...

I, too, wonder how Jessica pays for that $800,000 house in Mountain Brook. With her mentors Sessions and Strange up to their necks in scandal, that must make her pretty toxic as a political consultant.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Jessica nailed down that $1-million a year gig she was hoping for.

Anonymous said...

Not for nothing, but are their any other articles that call the judgement void - with all respect you are a little bias in the matter, no?

legalschnauzer said...

@10:57 --

You probably don't realize the humor in your question. You can't hardly find a mainstream journalist to cover a court case at all anymore, much less to check on the actual law surrounding one judge's ruling. That's partly why corrupt judges and lawyers get away with so much s--t. The press has almost totally given up its watchdog role on courts.

On the positive side, it's partly why I have such a strong readership and have been ranked among top 50 law blogs in North America. You get news and analysis here you can't get anywhere else. Hardly anyone else does this kind of journalism.

The guy from Daily Caller wrote about the judgment, and I think al.com did, too, but those reporters likely were fed something by Garrison or her buds and did no research to understand the judgment is void. They probably don't even know what a void judgment means.

I can only recommend that yo do your own research, and I can spoon feed it to you. Here are two Alabama cases regarding judgments (default judgments) being void when the opposing party isn't noticed on default application and hearing. It's just common sense that the other side has to know what you're doing. It would be like suing somebody but not serving them with the complaint. That gets you zero, too. Garrison and Baxley know it's void -- if you ever could get an honest answer out of either -- because they intentionally didn't notice me. She knows her bullcrap judgment is a nullity, worth nothing. If she doesn't know it, she needs to demand a refund for her law degree.

The cases are Cornelius v. Browning: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-supreme-court/1587277.html; and

Abernathy v. Green Tree Servicing: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1532898.html

Those tell you the law. Then, you only need to check if I was noticed or not. If you have access to AlaCout, you can look up the case docket and plainly see that notice was not sent, much less received.

I had scanned and run the docket here several times, but I believe it was lost in the swift-boating of my Scrbd account, so you'll have to find that on your own. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 10:57 --

If you don't trust LS's reporting, why are you here? I've checked the docket at AlaCourt, and it's clear Mr. Schnauzer never was noticed. I also know the law on failure to notice the opposing party in a default judgment. Ms. Garrison and Mr. Baxley know it, too. The judgment is void, and that is a fact.

Anonymous said...

@10:57, Here's a suggestion. If you don't trust Mr. Schnauzer's reporting, why don't you contact Jessica Garrison and ask why her divorce file is sealed. Tell her, "Hey, Jess, you keep saying reports about your affair with Luther Strange are false, but if that's the case, why is your divorce file sealed? Will you ask the court to unseal it, so the public can see what it contains?"

See how she answers that. You can find her contact info at the Alabama State Bar Web site.

Anonymous said...

Some people might be wondering, why would Garrison and Baxley seek a default judgment that they know is void? Answer is simple: It's a publicity stunt, with Blankenship probably paid a little under the table to give it a shocking dollar amount. And it worked! Daily Caller fell for it, and so did al.com.

Voters of Jefferson County should remember this garbage when Blankenship comes up for re-election. He's nothing but Bill Baxley's bitch, and he needs to be replaced.

legalschnauzer said...

Blankenship will be up for re-election in 2018. My guess is that he will run with no Republican opposition, which might have been part of the pay-off for this Garrison scam. Hopefully, a Democrat will run and beat his ass in the primaries. The city should not tolerate a "progressive" judge who sells out to the Riley Machine. Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

It's clear from the Lowell Barron case that Lutha and Jessica can't handle testifying under oath. When it looked like a judge might force Lutha to testify in Barron case, Lutha dropped the case. Lutha and Jessica probably arranged for Schnauzer's house to be stolen, so he would have to move out of town and make sure he would not cross examine them under oath.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:20 --

Good points. I'm sure they also were terrified of having to provide discovery -- emails, texts, financial docs, etc. Also, they likely feared I would call Mrs. Strange and/or Mr. Garrison to testify under oath. I bet that would have been fun. Such discovery and testimony still is possible -- in fact, it's likely, under the law.

legalschnauzer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Black people walk slow – everywhere. This is especially puzzling since they tend to run so fast. Blacks meander through cross walks in traffic. They jaywalk in front of oncoming vehicles. They do the “Dougie” on two-way streets. Don’t get stuck behind them in a crowded mall or in line somewhere; they’ll walk slow just to go against the grain or force you (white person) to swerve around them. Inevitably, they’ll make fun of you for being a goofy, neurotic white person."

This happens to me all the time when I am driving or in the mall. Don't see what is wrong with this statement...

legalschnauzer said...

One thing that might be wrong with it is that it singles out a group of people, based on race, for an unflattering portrayal that also applies to those of other races.

Have you ever gotten behind a group of fat-ass, ugly white people in a mall, as they stuff french fries in their faces while they waddle from the Spencer Gift's to the Chess King?

I have, and it isn't fun. (BTW, I'm dating myself with that Chess King reference.)

e.a.f. said...

Having read the article, I am simply astonished that this type of attitude is still being put into print and then published. the writer then went on to another job at a newspaper? Not being familiar with what constitutes a "hate crime" in the U.S.A., I couldn't really say the writings are a hate crime, but in my opinion this type of writings do constitute and promote hate. No wonder the U.S.A. has such social problems, if this is how one group of people view another group and then actually put it into print. OMG. It makes the election of Trump so much understandable.