Thursday, February 15, 2018

Ashley Madison customers revealed: Birmingham civil-rights attorney Chevene Hill, a graduate of Miles College School of Law, appears at notorious Web site

Chevene Hill
A civil-rights attorney in Birmingham, AL, appears as a paying customer at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site, according to publicly available records.

Chevene Hill has been a licensed attorney for about 10 years, earning his law degree at Miles College. Before going into the law, Hill worked as a photographer for 14 years at NBC 13 in Birmingham.

What type of cases does Hill handle? He represented the plaintiff in a 2011 case styled Hatcher v. Precoat Metals, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (ND Alabama, 2011). Here are the facts, drawn from a memorandum opinion by a magistrate judge (internal citations omitted):

On or about December 10, 2007, plaintiff and Slitter Supervisor Grady Smith ("Smith") were standing with Allen. Smith asked, "Do anybody know any jokes about cars[?]"  Allen replied that a Ford was known as a "[f]ucking old rebuilt Dodge." Plaintiff and Smith laughed. Smith then asked plaintiff if he knew a joke. Plaintiff said that Ford stood for "[f]ound on the road dead." Plaintiff and Smith laughed again. Then Smith said, "I got one," and said that Pontiac stands for "Poor old nigger think it's a Cadillac." No one laughed at this joke, and the conversation ended. Plaintiff reported the "Pontiac Joke" to group leader Mike Walker, Rob Nemeth ("Nemeth") and Reverend Reginald Mann. A few days after the Pontiac Joke incident, management held an hour and a half meeting to discuss the racial slur. During the meeting, Smith began crying, looked at plaintiff, and apologized for telling the joke; Smith further said that he would never use the racial slur again. Plaintiff did not accept the apology, but never heard another racial slur at defendant's facility. Although plaintiff believed Smith received no disciplinary action as a result of his inappropriate joke, in fact Smith was required to attend sensitivity training in February 2008. Plaintiff was returned to work under Smith's supervision. Plaintiff further states that this Pontiac Joke incident was the worst thing to happen to him at Precoat Metals.

About a year later, Hatcher had a change in job status:

As a result of a business slow down, Precoat Metals, on November 14, 2008, and again on November 21, 2008, reduced its workforce from a three shift operation to a two shift operation that resulted in the layoff of eighteen employees. As a consequence of these lay-offs, several employees in plaintiff's Slitter Group had to be occasionally assigned different weekly duties in order to compensate for the smaller workforce. The two junior employees who previously held the Packer position were laid off, and plaintiff was assigned to fill the position of Packer. Nemeth stated that he assigned plaintiff the Packer responsibilities because his plan was to utilize plaintiff in doing setups and operating when needed and to cross-train plaintiff in learning the computer system. Plaintiff claims that he was made to do this job without assistance, although it had been common practice to have at least two people working in the area. Neither plaintiff nor any other employee received a change in pay or a formal job title change due to this realignment. Plaintiff states that he felt as though this was a demotion, although he concedes that no one ever told him he had been demoted.

Hatcher's situation at work then turned ugly -- and physical:

According to Mr. Hatcher on or about November 20, 2008, after taking a fifteen-minute break. Donald Gordon ("Gordon"), the shift supervisor, approached him and accused him of being away from his work for over an hour. Plaintiff told Gordon that he was on a fifteen-minute break and was returning from the bathroom. Gordon responded by grabbing plaintiff by the arm. Plaintiff told Gordon not to touch him; Gordon responded by grabbing him again. The next day, Tim Zell ("Zell") called a meeting with plaintiff, Gordon, and Anthony Fleischmann ("Fleischmann"). Zell told plaintiff that, "I want this shit with you and Gordon over and done with." When plaintiff tried to explain what happened, Zell told him, "Look at it this way; I can make it where you were laid off." In his deposition, however, plaintiff stated that no one ever told him that complaining about something would cost him his job. Plaintiff claims that he informed James Haas ("Haas"), a plant foreman, about the incident. Haas reportedly told Nemeth what happened, and plaintiff was moved back to the packer position.

Hatcher filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and wound up being laid off in 2009 amidst another work slowdown. Hatcher filed a lawsuit, with the primary claim that he faced retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint.

The magistrate found against Hatcher, dismissing the case at summary judgment because Hatcher failed to produce evidence that pointed to a specific manager who knew about his EEOC complaint and discriminated against him because of it.

As for Chevene Hill, his Facebook page says that he is married, but we can find no public records with details about his wife. We sought comment from Mr. Hill, and the two of us wound up having a back and forth via email.

Here is our email exchange:

Chevene Hill (CH): "Mr. Shuler, I just read your email about your Ashley Madison story. I have no desire to be a part of your story, I have never spent money on an Ashley Madison account, nor do I recall having ever tried to contact or respond to any person that may be on this site. I request that you remove any information about me, my law practice and clients, including images about me from your story.

Roger Shuler (RS): "You're included as a paying customer on the Alabama list at Ashley Madison, so that is the genesis of the story."

CH: "I request not to be a part of your story."

RS: "I'm sorry, but your name is on the list, and that makes you part of the story."

CH: "Look, I don't want to have to file for cease and desist orders. So LEAVE ME OUT OF IT."

RS: "If you want me to use that as your response/comment, I will be glad to do that."

CH: "Call me."

I did call him, and we had a rather unpleasant exchange on the phone, with Mr. Hill using some colorful and "unlawyerly" language. It proved to be one of the most curious episodes in my coverage of Ashley Madison.

(To be continued)


Article with links to 1-40 in Ashley Madison series

(41) David Armistead, director of enterprise sales, TekLinks, Birmingham (10/19/17)

(42) William House, VP and controller, HealthSouth, Birmingham (10/26/17)

(43) Olin B. Barnes III, VP, One Resource Group, Birmingham (11/1/17)

(44) T.J. Bunn Jr., ST Bunn Construction, Tuscaloosa (11/2/17)

(45) Todd Deffenbaugh, VP and controller, Express Oil Change, Birmingham (11/6/17)

(46) Richard D. Crites, lawyer and reserve deputy, Springfield, MO (11/13/17)

(47) Mark C. Trudeau, CEO, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, St. Louis, MO (11/15/17)

(48) Peter Blasi, lawyer, Evans Blasi, St. Louis, MO (11/16/17)

(49) Todd Wiesehan, director of resource management, Christian Co., MO (11/22/17)

(50) Spencer Desai, lawyer, Carmody MacDonald, St. Louis, MO (11/27/17)

(51) Johnny Aycock, assistant to the president, University of West Alabama (12/19/17)

(52) Chris McIntyre, district judge, County County, AL (1/3/18)

(53) William W. Smith, lawyer, Smith and Alspaugh, Birmingham (1/10/18)

(54) Jake Reinbold, lawyer, Turner Reid Law Firm, Springfield, MO (1/11/18)


Anonymous said...

Mr. Hill looks like he played offensive tackle for somebody back in the day.

Anonymous said...

Pretty interesting to see how an employment-discrimination case plays out. Looks to me like the judge (or magistrate) looks for any possible avenue to screw over the plaintiff.

Anonymous said...

@1:52 --

Hell, Mr. Hill looks like he could play right tackle for Nick Saban right now. Maybe nose guard.

The law is such a sucky field, maybe Mr. Hill needs to see if he's got some football eligibility left.

Anonymous said...

Employment plaintiffs have a long hill to climb in federal court. The odds are stacked for the monied, the privileged, the corporates, the defendants.

If you face discrimination in the workplace, there is a good chance you will turn around and face discrimination in court.

Anonymous said...

So, Mr. Hill threatened you with a cease and desist order?

legalschnauzer said...

@4:32 --

That's what he said. But he also said, "Call me." To tell someone "cease and desist" and then say "call me" is a tad contradictory.

Thomas S. Bean said...

Just a thought.

It wouldn't be uncommon for the political surveillance used against you for up their game and try to jam you up by feeding you misinfo or bad info so you look bad.

I don't doubt the story is correct and his name is on the Madison list the future, I think the feds will do anything to score points against you. It's a game to them....and they will hold back exculpatory evidence to take that advantage regardless of what crimes are committed.

This happened to me several times, and...Judges and Prosecutors could care less if they were manipulated by overzealous fed scum who know that "ex parte wiretap applications" are rarely challenged or even subpoenaed since the secret machinations require actual and explicit notice to the target which seems to be discretionary.

I'm thinking chess moves ahead, that the surveillance used against me.

Anonymous said...

I've warned Mr. Hill that you are not only crazy, but likely in the most self-defeating way trying to extort some kind of legal assistance from him.

You are a sad case.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:47 --

So, you contacted Mr. Hill to make false and defamatory statements about me? Thanks for letting me know. I can now depose Mr. Hill, obtain your identity, and sue your ass. False allegations of criminal activity, by the way, are defamation per se. Look that up. You also might want to obtain or enhance an umbrella insurance policy because you are going to need it. Since you've already made the defamatory per se statement, you might have a hard time finding a carrier to cover your stupid ass. Oh well, you could be on the hook personally, which means you could be wiped out financially.

You think I'm a sad case? I'm not the one who went out of his way to contact Mr. Hill to defame someone -- and then was stupid enough to tell me about it.

You might want to start making provisions for being homeless. Was defending Ashley Madison really worth it?

Not the brightest bulb in the world, are we?

legalschnauzer said...

Mr. Bean:

They've had 10 years and 3,570 posts to prove my reporting inaccurate, and they haven't done it yet. Can I fall victim to a con? Sure, anyone can. But their track record, so far, isn't very good.

legalschnauzer said...

Here is more information about defamation per se in Alabama:

Individuals in Alabama can bring defamation per se charges against someone who makes false claims about chastity. This applies to any claims that were spoken, written, or published. Plaintiffs in such situations don’t have to prove monetary loss because false claims of moral turpitude are considered inherently defamatory under Alabama defamation law. Same rules apply for accusations of criminality.

Anonymous said...

That sound you hear is @11:47 going, "GULP"!

Anonymous said...

@11:47 --

Remind me never to take legal advice from you. In fact, remind me to never take any kind of advice from you.

You are just plain stupid on steroids, dude.

Thomas S. Bean said...

Roger, I don't doubt that your reporting is careful and accurate. After all, if they had grounds for litigation, they would have filed suit. Daniel Hopsicker at Mad Cow Morning News, found himself "cluster sued" with nuisance lawsuits to distract and bleed him dry of money.

Ashley Madison: I'm somewhat stunned that married white collar professionals would join The Madison site with some naive belief that "the confidentiality" fire wall would hold up? I suspect these stooges who were exposed, had something more in common then mere licentiousness during marriage: I suspect the hacking and exposure was a White Hat inspired operation as part of a covert war against the power control group. Can't prove it.

It's almost like joining the site (admitting the intent to commit adultery) is part of an expected protocol for advancement in various circles of power. Is there an organized control network that grooms and iniates adepts to the circles of power and priviledge?

Does this control network require "Ashley Madison" registration as a form of leverage to maintain control? I wonder if Masonry (with all it's initiations, secret handshakes, and amazing level of connection to satellite groups) isn't at the heart of "exploiting their secret network" to run counter intelligence type surveillance-control in every boardroom, church, Governmental office, Non profits, NGO's, etc.?

From a counterintelligence point of view, Ashley Madison is the ultimate "honey trap": from your own home, you too can incriminate yourself and set yourself up for blackmail or compromise. Anyone wishing to maintain free will, would avoid it all costs....yet, some of the most manipulative, scheming, suspicous, Survivor, selfish, hidden psychopaths have volunteered info to strangers that could shatter reputations and trip painful divorces and child custody determinations???!!!

What are the broader parameters of Ashley Madison hacking?

Anonymous said...

What is defamatory? You have diagnosed mental problems by your own account, and many who have read your blog or seen your suits have formed the (constitutionally protected) opinion that you are creepy and crazy. Your own family tried to have you declared incompetent.

It's also a constitutionally protected to share an opinion about what your motives might be in featuring him on this page in such a way. Since the information isn't very newsworthy and (in many cases) drags in family members who had nothing to do with AM (you publish pictures of wives, children, and others) and discuss the property they own and the careers they have or the school's they is free to guess what you are about.

You need a lawyer, and here you have one in your state you seem to wish to control with this information? Why? Have you asked him to go after your enemies or give you legal help? Are you angry that people like him won't represent you pro bono? What I think you will probably do based on disclosed reasons is not defamatory. You have earned your reputation, and anyone is within their rights to form and share an opinion of your mental state or what your motives are. Since motives are subjective, good luck establishing that your motives are some kind of provable fact.

Anonymous said...

I personally believe you are nuts based on the things you write, and your documented interactions with law enforcement and the courts. You have admitted being on psychoactive medication, and having ptsd, and reported the you healthcare provider made some notes suggesting he considered you possibly having a. Delusional disorder. I've seen enough from your conspiracy claims and form the opinion that you do not deal with reality the way others do. You are also hostile, belligerent, and talk about shooting and beating up your enemies and that you believe yourself capable of it, even if you'd rather have someone else do it. Ken white said he formed the opinion that you are creepy and crazy from reading your blog, he's not the only one to do so.

I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what advantages are to be gained from avoiding ordered to appear in court or declaring judge,nets void without taking Successful a ton to have them voided. You sink lower and lower, and your wife has borne the brunt of some choices you made. I think you are not mentally well, especially since you make the same errors with the same negative results over and over again.

Why you want to bully and embarrass mr hill over something most would regard as a personal a mystery, but I think very likely you wanted something out of him. I think most of your "requests for comment" have ulterior motive. Unless you believe that Mr Hill has some reason to think less of you than he probably does alread, what is your damage? And why would you think subjective speculation on you motives Isn't protected?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:29 and @6:47 --

Hah! I see you are worried, big time, and you should be. What is defamatory? You clearly don't know. And that's a question you should have asked yourself before hauling off and writing a defamatory comment about me -- and making a false and defamatory statement to Mr. Hill about me. It's a little late to be trying to figure that out, with the horse out of the barn.

I look forward to learning your identity, suing you, and taking a big chuck of your personal wealth, maybe all of it.

BTW, you defamed me again in your second comment, so the damages just keep rising. Bet you can't even figure out how you did it. Keep digging your hole, bub -- as I said you could be staring down the hole of homelessness, especially if you are not properly insured, and I'm betting you aren't.

Anonymous said...

@11:47 --

It's going to be real expensive to get that doo-doo off your shoes. All you had to do is keep your nose out of something that didn't involve you. But you weren't smart enough to do that -- and you then used your smart-aleck tone to brag about what you had done. You are one stupid c-sucker.

Hope you get what you deserve.

Thomas S. Bean said...

I've never felt Roger Schuler or The Legal Schnauzer was in anyway the product of a mental disorder, Delusional Personality-Grandiose Type, or Delusional-Persecutory Type.

I've been through much of what Roger has put up with. Roger has endured an illegal, politicized, well funded, secret persecution tainted with political animus related to his reporting that caused a ripple in the smug GOP control grid. Thus, secret machinations were deployed to extra-judicially punish and terrorize a guy and his wife who have been swindled by lawyers, judges, and every kind of cheap shot vigilante trash that the shameless police state can drudge up.

All the while, Roger and his wife followed the law and did what most TI's (Targeted Individuals) do: find themselves disappointed by the willful failures of the Authority Figures who are supposed to be upholding the social contract.

Only a fellow TI, can or should judge another TI. I find myself holding the opinion that:

--The Legal Schnauzer is a valuable asset to the political landscape and affords readers a much appreciated alternate view of the GOP chicanery and arrogance of power;

--The Legal Schanauzer is protected free speech and serves as one last reminder of "how and what a true, real, authentic, non brain washed, American Patriot" thinks, acts, and reports;

--Soviet Commie Russia always used the dubious mental health laugh curtain to denigrate and explain away dissident voices of reason and compassion: it surprises no one that a Commie style surveillance grid (The GOP) would borrow from their Commie forefathers to cast stones at dissident voices of reason and sunlight.