Shane Rogers-Mauro, a classmate of Bill Pryor's at Northeast Louisiana U, says the future judge outed him in college -- pointing to a Kavanaugh-like tendency to abuse others and act in devious ways

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Your donations help Legal Schnauzer keep digging on stories that show bad actors like Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Pryor are not suited for the federal bench

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Party for gay men in Montgomery produced volumes of information about Alabama right-wing politicos, but writer Mike Rogers kept the stories underground

Mike Rogers

A writer once known for breaking stories about gay Republican politicians attended a party in Montgomery about six years ago to obtain information about conservative Alabama politicians. Most of the attendees were gay men from the Capital City, and they shared a wealth of stories with Mike Rogers, who used to publish BlogActive.com (which has been inactive for several years) and now serves as managing director and vice chairman at Raw Story Media. The men's stories never were published, and that causes an Alabama political insider -- who also attended the party -- to wonder if the information was used for ulterior political purposes that had nothing to do with journalism.

I've wondered the same thing, especially since Rogers initiated a peculiar email exchange with me in fall 2013, after I had reported about U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor and his ties to 1990s gay pornography at badpuppy.com. In short, Rogers tried to convince me the person in the photos was not Pryor, but Rogers never provided any evidence to support that claim, and he did a miserable job of answering questions I posed to him. That experience caused me to question Rogers' motives, and whistle blower/oppo researcher/retired attorney Jill Simpson apparently has similar concerns.

Simpson posted her thoughts on the matter at Facebook yesterday in the wake of our report about Shane Rogers-Mauro, a Florida man who says Bill Pryor sexually harassed him (and others) while they were classmates at Northeast Louisiana University (now University of Louisiana Monroe.) Simpson said many of the stories she heard at the Montgomery party were of closeted Alabama politicians who had sexually harassed gay men or left them feeling used. Some of the names heard prominently at the party were Bill Pryor, Jeff Sessions, and Robert Aderholt. Here are some of Jill Simpson's thoughts after reading our post about Pryor sexually harassing Shane Rogers-Mauro:

It appears #MeToo goes both ways, and well, that is a good thing as many males are sexually harassed by predators, just as are women. Several years back, I was invited to a party for Mike Rogers, who was known as the Raw Story writer who specialized in Republican gay- politician stories. That night at the party I met about a dozen young men who were there to talk with Rogers about top Alabama Republican politicians who had sexually harassed them or broken their hearts. Their stories involved Pryor, Sessions, and Aderholt, and they were quite shocking. Quite a few had an element of sexual harassment to them. I had heard from one of the hosts this was going to lead to a series of stories, so I attended having no idea until I got there what the stories would be about.

Why did Mike Rogers never publish the men's stories? Simpson isn't sure about that:

When the stories did not happen I asked why . . .  and was told the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was going to use it in another way. To me, that sounded a whole lot like blackmail. I have often wondered if that is why Sessions turned on Trump so easily. I heard quite a few stories the night Mike Rogers came to town from the men at the party. The Log Cabin Republicans I met that night, who had been harassed and/or rejected, had some pretty amazing stories to tell of sexual exploits and hairy-bear clubs in D.C. with Alabama 's top Republicans.

Simpson discovered that Montgomery has a vibrant gay community, and its members are in on some of the state's biggest political secrets:

When I came forward in the Siegelman case, I started hearing from all these gay men in Montgomery, who were kind of like the court that surrounded these politicians. The gay men picked out their clothes, helped them lose weight, fixed food for their fancy political parties, cut their hair, ran their campaigns and did a whole lot of other things to service these men. I had never noticed this layer of folks before in a campaign, but I soon learned there is a group of gay men that like to take care of our male politicians in the Republican Party -- and meet their every need in Montgomery. They know all the politicians' secrets, and they share them at dinner parties to reporters -- and among their friends; I saw how they shared the night Mr. Rogers came to town. 

I learned at one of their dinner parties how Judge [Mark] Fuller beat his wife, as the gay men knew a hair dresser who told the story. At another party, I learned how Fuller was having an affair, as they heard it from a court clerk they helped dress. They are the most resourceful group for reporters in the state, as that bunch knows every bit of news going on.

College classmate says Bill Pryor, of Alabama, sexually harassed him, so Brett Kavanaugh is not the only accused sexual predator on the federal bench

Bill Pryor, as a percussionist at
 Northeast Louisiana University (NLU)

A college classmate of Alabama federal judge Bill Pryor says Pryor sexually harassed him while they were at Northeast Louisiana University (NLU) in the early 1980s. Pryor joins Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, as sitting federal judges who face allegations of sexual misconduct dating back at least to college. The major difference: Kavanaugh's accusers are women, and Pryor's are men.

That is in keeping with our reports about Pryor posing nude for photos that wound up at badpuppy.com in 1997. Pryor grew up in Mobile, Alabama, and the nude photos were taken while he was a student at NLU, which now is called the University of Louisiana Monroe (ULM). Pryor serves on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, but his duty station is the Hugo Black Courthouse in downtown Birmingham and he lives in suburban Vestavia Hills.

The accusations against Pryor, in the wake of the Kavanaugh inferno, means two judges from Trump's list of possible SCOTUS picks stand accused of being sexual predators.

Shane Rogers-Mauro, a flight attendant who now lives in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, area, says Pryor was well known as gay among NLU students, especially those in band and a group that worked in the same office on work-study assignments. Rogers-Mauro says the "Bill Pryor" in the Bad Puppy photos definitely is the individual with whom he attended college -- and now serves on the federal bench. As a right-wing appointee, Pryor has gone on to make a number of virulently anti-LGBT public statements. Says Rogers-Mauro:

I was in college with Bill and knew him very well. We were in band together at Northeast Louisiana University. I also had “work study” for about three semesters with him, so we worked in the same small office for many, many weeks as part of our band scholarship.

The stories are all true. The Bad Puppy pictures are him. He was pretty flamboyant, and actually hit on me quite a bit, but I brushed him off as irritating. He was College Republicans president, and I was president of the Young Democrats of NLU. 

In today’s world, [Pryor's actions] would certainly qualify as sexual harassment. In the early and mid 1980’s, we were all pretty closeted, and he was known to be gay. We used to argue for hours about Ronald Reagan’s 1984 win and other things, and I’m sure we are polar opposites today. He’s never tried to contact me nor have I spoken to him since college days.

What form did Pryor's harassment take? Rogers-Mauro provides details:

There was a lot of touching, in a way that absolutely would be considered inappropriate today. Back then, nothing was inappropriate; you just sucked it up and moved on. Bill was very manipulative. He always wanted to go have dinner and discuss certain types of politics, like he was going to change your way of thinking.

He toyed with closeted gay folks. Back then, it was a demon, and he was into outing certain people. That's a nasty thing, and it would mess with people's lives. But Bill didn't give it a second thought. I think it was part of his illness.

Pryor tended to incessantly ask for dates and not take no for an answer. Says Rogers-Mauro:

Bill was jealous of a relationship I was having. It was my first real romance, actually. Bill thought he had a chance with me. He was always wanting to go out and do things, and I wasn't interested. Harry Connick Jr. was another who was very aggressive. we were in all-state band together. I've had the experience with guys who turned out to be celebrities chasing me.

Bill hung around with a known small group of gay guys from band. Everybody tended to be friendly in band. I was going off in a different direction, with a new relationship. Bill  was antagonistic, and his group was real gossipy -- like little chickens, hens.

Rogers-Mauro has been active for years in Democratic Party politics.  He has served on the Broward County Democratic Party executive committee and is co-chair of Indivisible South Florida.

Shane Rogers-Mauro, as a trumpeter in the NLU band

Pryor and Rogers-Mauro became acquaintances mostly in the last two or three semesters of college. Rogers-Mauro says the Bad Puppy photos probably were taken a year or two before he knew Pryor -- but he definitely recognizes the guy in the photos:

The Bad Puppy pictures of him are a younger version of Bill than I knew -- by a few years. When you know someone from that period, you know for SURE when you see a picture of him. One thing that stands out: He has a somewhat caved-in right cheek. He had bad acne in his early years, and there are numerous acne scars that you can see in all the pictures. He had those creepy crossed eyes that kept many of us on edge when we were around him.

In recent years, Rogers-Mauro has heard from other NLU grads who say Pryor also harassed them in college:

By today's standards, what Bill did was sexual harassment, absolutely. And I'm not the only one. I talked to several people after the Trump Supreme Court list came out -- and Bill was on it -- and they were like, "Oh, my gosh, what's going on? I'm shocked he even has a family. It must be all for show."

We sought comment from Pryor for this post, but he has not responded to inquiries.


(To be continued)

Clarence Thomas' SCOTUS seat might be getting hot, with #MeToo on his tail, plus evidence he helps create culture of corruption in Southeast federal courts

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Claims She's The Target Of A Vindictive Prosecution Directed By Scott Vowell

Dorothea Batiste

Suspended Jefferson County Judge Dorothea Batiste complained to the Alabama Attorney General's office last October that Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell was harassing her and pressuring her to change orders in divorce cases.

Vowell became aware of Batiste's visit to the AG's office in Montgomery, and his resulting anger helped spur a campaign of complaints against Batiste to the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC), according to court documents filed yesterday. 

Attorney Julian McPhillips urges the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to drop the charges against Batiste, claiming she is the victim of a vindictive prosecution that kicked into high gear when Vowell learned of her AG complaint. (See motion, including summary of Batiste's complaint to AG, at the end of this post.)

A subpoena to Jesse Seroyer, of the Alabama Attorney General's office, produced an "Investigative Report Form" on Batiste's complaint regarding Vowell. McPhillips obtained a copy of the report yesterday and promptly filed a motion asking the Court of the Judiciary to drop the case against his client.

Batiste filed an EEOC complaint, alleging sexual harassment against Vowell, on April 26, 2013. That came just one week after the AJIC formally brought charges against Batiste, and it suggested Batiste might have filed the harassment claims only after learning of the AJIC charges.

The Attorney General's report, however, shows that Batiste first complained about Vowell some seven months before she learned of the AJIC charges. In an affidavit filed with her EEOC complaint, Batiste states that she did not learn Vowell was leading a campaign against her with the AJIC until spring 2013. 

Based on the AG's report, it appears Batiste made official complaints about Vowell long before she knew he had launched a campaign against her with the AJIC.

"This is dynamite in the sense that . . . it confirms and corroborates her complaints," McPhillips. "This shows that, back in October, she didn't know what to do. . . . She didn't know how to handle it, so she came down and made a complaint, and three different people heard it. . . . "

What about the specifics of Batiste complaint from last October? Here is part of the AG's report:

Judge Batiste related that the presiding judge in the 10th circuit, the Hon. J. Scott Vowell, had countermanded her judicial authority as a domestic relations judge on several occasions and had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her on several occasions. 

How ugly did Vowell's behavior become? Again, from the report:

Judge Vowell continued to badger Judge Batiste about her cases and requested frequent personal meetings. Judge Vowell began a routine in which he would call on Fridays to Judge Batiste's office and demand a personal meeting. Judge Batiste advised that during these meetings Judge Vowell was "touchy-feely and always whispering in her ear." This type of behavior began a few months after Judge Batiste took office. She recalled that the first time Judge Vowell acted inappropriately, he placed his hands around her hips when they were alone and told her, "Ain't you a good looking thing. . . . "

Judge Batiste said this type of sexually harassing behavior occurred on [such] a frequent basis that she began to be afraid of being left alone with Judge Vowell. . . . 

In regards to the sexual harassment, Judge Batiste advised that she had only told members of her immediate family about Judge Vowell's inappropriate advances. Judge Batiste advised that she was embarrassed to tell people about the sexual-harassment issues due to the fact that "it's not supposed to happen to me. I'm a judge."

A recent federal case in the Northern District of Alabama, styled U.S. v. Brown, 862 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2012), addresses both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. McPhillips argues that both issues are present in the JIC case against Batiste. From the Brown ruling:  

Brown has alleged both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. Vindictive prosecution is distinguishable from selective prosecution in that vindictive prosecution arises when the severity of the charges against a defendant is increased after the defendant exercises a constitutional right after criminal charges have begun, while selective prosecution occurs when a person is prosecuted based on an immutable personal characteristic, such as race or religion, or in response to some constitutionally-protected act that a person has done prior to the criminal charge being brought against him.

In the motion filed yesterday, McPhillips argues that his client suffered because she exercised her constitutional right to file a complaint with the Alabama Attorney General's office--and that goes to the vindictive nature of Scott Vowell's claims against her. From the McPhillips motion:

Judge Batiste requests that this court consider Judge Batiste's third affirmative defense of sexual harassment and retaliation to be amplified to include vindictive prosecution by Scott Vowell, who has used the AJIC and his close friends on the AJIC to punish Judge Batiste for her sexual harassment allegations to the Alabama Attorney General's office.

Dorothea Batiste Vindictive Prosecution by Roger Shuler

Judge Dorothea Batiste Alleges In EEOC Complaint That Scott Vowell Unlawfully Changed Her Rulings

Dorothea Batiste

A retired Jefferson County presiding judge, who is white and male, routinely changed rulings of a black, female circuit judge, according to a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste, who is under suspension from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC), makes the allegations against J. Scott Vowell, who served on the bench from 1995 until his retirement at the end of 2012. Batiste alleges that Vowell orchestrated JIC complaints against her in retaliation for rejecting his sexual advances, which started about three months after she took office in January 2011.

The JIC complaint against Batiste is based mainly on her alleged abuse of contempt powers in domestic-relations cases. But Batiste alleges in her EEOC complaint that Vowell took no action against a white female judge who made ample use of her contempt powers in the domestic-relations division. (The full EEOC complaint, with exhibits, can be viewed at the end of this post.)

In essence, Batiste alleges that Vowell unlawfully served in her cases as an appellate judge, a role that goes far beyond the duties of a presiding judge under Alabama law. If proven, Vowell's actions could make him the target of lawsuits for acting outside his jurisdiction. They might constitute criminal contempt of court and could even rise to the level of criminal acts under state and federal law.

How brazen was Vowell? Batiste spells it out on page 2 of her EEOC complaint:

Even back in 2011, but continuing on into 2012, Judge Vowell would make a point of upsetting me by finding cases where I had issued rulings and, without telling me in advance he was doing so, then would enter documentary paperwork to change my rulings. In addition, Judge Vowell took cases away from me, without my permission or knowledge, to favor certain litigants, some of whom were his friends. This included certain lawyers. When I found out about this, I was quite upset and told him he should not be doing this--that it was not right, nor ethical, and it had to stop. In reply, Judge Vowell said, "I don't care what you have to say."

The material in bold strongly suggests that Vowell was not just discriminating against Batiste--he also was acting to favor certain litigants and lawyers with whom he was friendly. If proven, this represents a gross obstruction of the justice process and indicates that Vowell probably has knowingly been involved in the hunting-club corruption that has infested Jefferson County divorce courts for years.

Multiple federal lawsuits have been filed over hunting-club issues, with Samford University law professor Joseph Blackburn playing a leading role for plaintiffs, but the cases have been dismissed on dubious grounds so far. In one federal case, Blackburn represented himself as a plaintiff, claiming his divorce from U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn was tainted with corruption. In another, Blackburn served as an attorney for a number of Jefferson County residents who alleged they were victims of a rigged divorce-court system.

We have written extensively about the hunting-club issue, noting the apparent efforts of federal judges to dismiss the cases and deny discovery, contrary to law. Here are three key posts we've written on the subject:

Courts Try to Sweep Hunting-Club Corruption Under the Rug in Alabama (May 8, 2012)

Here Is More Evidence That Federal Judges Are Trying to Hide Hunting-Club Corruption in Alabama (Aug. 13, 2012)

Why Were No Opinions Issued On Appeals of Alabama Hunting-Club Lawsuits? (Sept. 4, 2012)

The public record shows that, at the very least, Scott Vowell allowed hunting-club corruption to fester on his watch as presiding judge. But Batiste's allegations, if proven, indicate Vowell actively took part in the corruption.

Scott Vowell

Alabama law states that the primary role of a presiding judge is to supervise judges and court personnel to "see that they attend strictly to the prompt, diligent discharge of their duties." (See Code of Alabama 12-17-24.) Circuit courts serve an appellate function over matters that originate in district or municipal courts. (See Code of Alabama 12-11-30.) But the domestic-relations cases before Batiste originated in circuit court, so Vowell had no authority to act on those matters. Appellate authority rests solely with the Alabama Supreme Court, plus the courts of civil and criminal appeals. (See Code of Alabama 12-2-7.)

Batiste's EEOC complaint indicates Vowell undermined her authority at almost every turn:

What especially upset me, starting at the end of the summer of 2011 and continuing into 2012, was that Judge Vowell (as he himself later has admitted in a letter) started meeting with lawyers representing litigants in my courtroom. [See Judge Vowell's letter admitting to it. Exhibit 1.] However, it also later became obvious that Judge Vowell was stirring up lawyers unhappy with their client's rulings in my courtroom. Of course, in a divorce case, one side is always unhappy, and frequently both sides. Both sides are usually quite unhappy even before they get to the courtroom.

As for use of contempt powers, Batiste says Vowell seemed unconcerned when such powers were used by a white judge. Batiste points to Circuit Judge Suzanne Childers, who became known for carrying a gun on the bench:

There is another example of disparate treatment given by Judge Vowell to a white female judge, namely [Suzanne] Childers, of the Jefferson County Circuit, Domestic Relations Division. She sentenced litigant Keith Muhammad to 325 days . . . for non-payment of child support, and he actually served it from October 6, 2011, to January 5, 2012. In fact, this judge issued such orders on a routine basis (sometimes putting 2 to 3 people in jail in different cases on the same day). Scott Vowell never complained about Ms. Childers to the AJIC. Instead, when she asked for extra help, Scott Vowell gave it to her. [See Exhibit 7].

Batiste Discrimination Charge by Roger Shuler

Batiste Alleges Discrimination, Sexual Harassment Against Former Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell

Dorothea Batiste

The former chief judicial officer of Jefferson County faces allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment connected to the suspension last month of a black, female judge.

J. Scott Vowell retired in January as presiding judge. But Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste says that, before leaving office, Vowell launched a harassment campaign against her that included unwanted sexual advances. Batiste also alleges in a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Vowell referred to her as "the colored Republican."

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) suspended Batiste with pay amid allegations that she had abused her contempt powers. Batiste says in an affidavit supporting her EEOC complaint that Vowell led the campaign against her in retaliation for spurning his sexual advances.

Batiste was elected in November 2010 to a judgeship in the domestic-relations division, and she quickly experienced peculiar behavior from the presiding judge. From the Batiste affidavit:

By April 2011, Judge Vowell had become very flirtatious toward me. Although there are 38 judges total in the Jefferson County Circuit Court system, Scott Vowell started making it a practice to come see me at least once a week in my office. When he came in, the door would close behind him. 

At first, Judge Vowell engaged in small talk, such as, "How are you doing, etc.," and sometimes would give me a hug. One day however in April 2011, Judge Vowell came up to me. placed his body directly in front of me, and then put his arms down by my waist, with his fingers just above my buttocks area, and with his mouth near my ear, whispered, "Boy, you're a hot little thing, and you're looking good in that dress today." However, I brushed him off and stood there in shock. Judge Vowell left the room, without saying anything more."

Batiste discovered that, throughout 2012 and well into 2013, Vowell encouraged attorneys and litigants to file JIC complaints against her.:

Word had circulated in the divorce case industry around Jefferson County that, if one was unhappy with my ruling, all he or she had to do was go see Judge Vowell, and he would help the unhappy litigant file a complaint against me.

Scott Vowell

This behavior grew in part, Batiste says, from racial and political animus. She is black, and Vowell is white; she is a Republican, and he is a Democrat. From the affidavit:

In May or June 2012, it got back to me that Scott Vowell was derisively referring to me as "the colored Republican." Several people told me this when they called to express their support. They were quoting Judge Vowell.

Batiste soon found herself the target of numerous JIC complaints. Vowell, Batiste says, has long-standing ties to the JIC and the Alabama Court of the Judiciary:

It became painfully obvious to me that this burst of complaints . . . were so encouraged or inspired by Judge Vowell that it clearly reflected his efforts to retaliate against me for not caving in to his demands and sexual overtures months earlier. Scott Vowell is a very clever and intelligent man, and thus attempted to cleverly disguise his retaliation by making it look like the complaint really came from another attorney or litigant. While I do not object to my judicial conduct being scrutinized by the [JIC] or the general public, I greatly object . . . to how much Judge Vowell did to stimulate these complaints, especially for what I believe was unlawful retaliation, based on my rejecting his sexual advances.

Batiste Discrimination Charge by Roger Shuler

Settlement Agreement In Sexual-Harassment Case Points To Dishonesty In The Riley Administration

Melissa George Bowman

The settlement agreement in a sexual-harassment case under the administration of former Alabama Governor Bob Riley contains nonsensical language that strongly hints the governor's office resolved the matter in a dishonest fashion.

Melissa C. George filed the complaint against Riley communications director David Azbell, and it was settled for $53,000 in December 2003, according to a report last week from Bill Britt of Alabama Political Reporter. Britt's investigative piece included a copy of the settlement agreement and related documents, which can be viewed at the end of this post. (Melissa George since has married, and now is Melissa Bowman George; she serves as public relations manager for the Alabama Hospital Association.)

The settlement agreement itself is brief--less than three full pages--and it contains curious language that does not seem to add up. Here are key provisions in the agreement:

* George made a complaint of "harassment and discrimination" against a state employee, Azbell;

* George decided that "the best course of action to secure her professional future" was to leave her state job;

* The Riley administration agreed to "facilitate George's transition to the private sector" by providing a letter of reference from Chief of Staff Toby Roth, placing a copy of the letter in George's state-employee file, providing a re-dated version of the letter to any prospective employer, providing "only favorable and positive references" to any future inquiries regarding George's past employment, and ensuring that George was classified as eligible for re-employment with the state.

* George was allowed to maintain her state retirement account in the same fashion as all other employees who leave state service voluntarily and in good standing.

* George acknowledged that Riley and Roth "did not participate in, and deny any awareness of, the conduct giving rise to" the settlement agreement.

* George retained the services of Bobby Segall, an attorney with the Montgomery firm Copeland Franco Screws & Gill.

What is nonsensical about the settlement agreement? Let's consider what the Riley administration apparently would have us believe:

* Language in the agreement consistently indicates that George was an excellent employee. She was to exit in good standing, with only favorable and positive references, and she was eligible for re-employment with the state. And yet, it was George's idea to leave her position in order to "secure her professional future"?

* Higher ups in the Riley administration were unaware of Azbell's boorish behavior toward George, according to the agreement. And yet, the problem had become severe enough that George hired an attorney?

As a former state employee myself, with almost 20 years of service at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), I know this agreement almost has to include a heavy dose of horse feces, probably inserted at the insistence of the Riley administration.

State employees generally do not bring down mega salaries, but their jobs come with solid benefits that one does not lightly give up. We see no reason to doubt that Melissa George was an outstanding state employee; after all, she started in the press office under Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and was in the process of staying on under Riley. But we see plenty of reason to doubt that it was Ms. George's idea to leave her state position. Why would a state employee--who was good at her job--decide that "the best course of action to secure her professional future" was to quit? Answer: she wouldn't. That idea almost certainly came from the Riley administration. The implication in the settlement agreement is that someone was going to make Melissa George's work life a living hell if she stayed--and her professional future was going to be jeopardized by unjustified negative references. In other words, Bob Riley and Toby Roth bullied Melissa George into quitting a job that she probably enjoyed until David Azbell came along.

Here is another oddity: Riley and Roth could have helped George transition to another state job; any number of departments probably would have been happy to have her. But they wanted to make sure she was forced into the "private sector." Why?

As for the notion that neither Riley nor Roth knew about Ms. George's problems with Azbell . . . I find that highly unlikely. I was the victim of harassment and discrimination from my UAB supervisor, Pam Powell, so I know what the complaint process is like in a state job. I verbally complained to Powell's superior, Dale Turnbough, and filed a formal, written grievance with human resources. I made numerous efforts to resolve the situation internally, as suggested by our employee handbook, long before lawyers entered the picture. I feel certain that Melissa George took a similar course of action, especially since her employee handbook probably read a lot like mine did.

It's certainly possible that Bob Riley, as governor, was not aware of Azbell's behavior toward George. But it's hard to believe that Melissa George went straight to an outside attorney without first trying to resolve the matter internally. And that means Toby Roth, as Azbell's superior, probably knew about the situation--and, like higher ups at UAB in my case, failed to correct it.

We are left with a portrait of an administration that did not take workplace harassment and discrimination seriously. David Azbell's treatment of Melissa George was bad enough. But Bob Riley and Toby Roth made sure she was victimized a second time.

Melissa George Settlement Agreement by Roger Shuler

Victim of Sexual Harassment Under Gov. Bob Riley Was Forced To Leave Her Job In Settlement Deal

Melissa George Bowman

The State of Alabama paid $53,000 to settle a sexual-harassment complaint against a prominent aide to former Republican Governor Bob Riley. The victim wound up having to leave her job as part of a settlement agreement.

Melissa C. George, who worked in Riley's proclamations office, filed the complaint against communications director David Azbell, according to a report yesterday from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter (APR). Ms. George since has married, and now is Melissa George Bowman.

The story presents a number of parallels to my own experience of being unlawfully terminated from my job as an editor at the University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB) in the midst of the Riley era.

The parallels emerge primarily from this fact that Bill Britt uncovered: Under a settlement agreement, Bowman was forced to leave her job, while Azbell quietly resigned. Azbell, however, has re-emerged as a communications consultant for Alabama Speaker Mike Hubbard, bringing down a state salary of $8,000 per month. Azbell also is a partner in the Birmingham political-consulting firm Swatek Azbell Howe &  Ross.

It looks like the victimizer came out better than the victim in this deal. Unfortunately, I've learned a thing or two about such office cheat jobs.

Melissa George Bowman now serves as public relations manager for the Alabama Hospital Association (AHA). This is from a 2012 AHA press release:

Prior to joining the Alabama Hospital Association, Melissa George Bowman was marketing director for Eastdale Mall. She was public relations director for the American Red Cross of Central Alabama and worked in the Alabama governor’s press office under two governors. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Alabama.

How this for irony? The words in bold indicate Bowman started her job in the governor's press office under Don Siegelman--and she was sexually harassed out of her job under Bob Riley.

Britt writes that rumors about Azbell and a sexual-harassment complaint have been floating around Montgomery for roughly a decade. The story now has moved beyond the rumor stage, with confirmation that a settlement was reached in 2003. Reports Britt:

The Alabama Political Reporter has obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement in which the Riley administration offered a $53,000 pay-off to staffer Melissa C. George, an employee in Riley's proclamations office, to drop the threat of civil lawsuit, quit her state job and quietly go away. The Settlement Agreement, dated Dec. 17, 2003, was signed by Riley, Azbell and Riley's chief of staff, Toby Roth. It described Azbell as having "harassed" and "discriminated" against George. The document also states the neither Riley nor Roth were aware of Azbell's boorish behavior.

According to the settlement agreement, the State of Alabama paid $53,000 to George--with the stipulation that she leave her state job, but as part of the agreement Toby Roth was to write her a letter of recommendation on his official letterhead.

Based on my knowledge of employment law--and I have more experience with the subject than I ever wanted to have--it sounds like Melissa George Bowman settled for a low-ball figure, probably because she was under heavy pressure from seasoned politicians. That she was forced to leave her job says a lot about the way the Riley administration treated women in the workplace. In essence, Melissa Bowman was victimized twice--once by David Azbell and once by Bob Riley and Toby Roth.

No one involved with the case seems anxious to discuss it. Writes Britt:

Melissa George was contacted for this report but would only say she was not suppose to talk about it. However, there can be no valid confidentiality agreement when state dollars are used in such matters.

Telephone messages seeking comment were left for Azbell. He did not return the calls. George apparently provided the Riley administration with a lengthy written complaint documenting Azbell's alleged harassment. No records beyond the Settlement Agreement were found by the state archives. Roth refused to answer questions presented by the Alabama Political Reporter concerning the case. “It was the policy of the Riley administration to not comment on past employees,” he said.

Note the disingenuous tone of Roth's comment. Melissa George Bowman was not an employee of the Riley administration; she was an employee of the State of Alabama, and her settlement was paid with taxpayer dollars. Roth, Riley, and Azbell have obligations to answer questions about this matter. Riley himself should ensure that any related documents--internal memos, e-mails, etc.--are released to the public.

David Azbell

Had Melissa George Bowman filed a sexual-harassment lawsuit in federal court, she could have sued a number of people in their individual capacities--and any funds she received would have come from their personal pockets. It was Bob Riley's decision to hire Azbell, and it was Azbell's behavior that caused the problem. Why didn't the two of them pay from their personal accounts, rather than from taxpayer funds?

Feel free to hold your breath and turn blue while waiting for Bob Riley to reply to that question. Meanwhile, keep in mind that these are the Republicans who constantly assure us that they will be careful with our tax dollars.

The most vexing question is this: Why was Melissa George Bowman, having been harassed and victimized in the workplace, forced to leave her job? We don't know how long Bowman had worked for the state at the time of the settlement agreement. But even if she had just started, she would now have 10 years under her belt--and be vested in the state retirement system--if she had kept her job and chosen to stay with the state. Bowman likely gave up more than she received by agreeing to a deal with the Riley crowd. On the other hand, she probably is relieved to be away from that crowd.

I can identify with Bowman's plight, and I think I know why she was forced to leave her job. Regular readers know that I was cheated out of my job at UAB in May 2008--and I have tape-recorded evidence that proves I was targeted because of my reporting on this blog about the prosecution of Don Siegelman, Bob Riley's chief political rival.

Not only that, I was reporting truthfully on court-related corruption in Shelby County involving Pelham lawyer William E. Swatek. If that name sounds familiar, it's because his son, Dax Swatek, is a partner with David Azbell in the consulting firm referenced above. The Swateks are certified members of the Riley mafia, and my reporting was stepping on some delicate toes.

What probably sealed my fate at UAB was a post on March 13, 2008, about Rob Riley (Bob's lawyer son) and his apparent conflict of interest in connection with a federal lawsuit that grew out of the accounting scandal at Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corporation.

I did not break the story--that honor went to Sam Stein, of Huffington Post--but my reporting on it almost certainly was not welcome news to the Riley crowd. Here is the gist of that 2008 post:

We know that current Governor Bob Riley saw his path to re-election in 2006 become much more clear with Siegelman out of the way.

Now, thanks to the reporting of Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, we know the Riley family benefited in other ways. Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, son of the Republican governor, made a nice chunk of change from a civil matter that ran parallel to the Siegelman criminal case.

On January 13, 2005, Rob Riley suddenly was added as local counsel on a massive lawsuit against HealthSouth and its former CEO, Richard Scrushy. Riley represented the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new player at the time in the HealthSouth litigation.

At the same time the civil case was unfolding, Scrushy was co-defendant in the Siegelman criminal case. And that, Stein reports, is how Rob Riley stood to gain financially.

Less than two months after those words were written, I was out of a job at a state institution. And Rob Riley, indeed, gained financially. As co-liaison counsel--with Doug Jones, of Birmingham's Haskell Slaughter firm--Riley took home a nice chunk of some $50 million in attorney fees awarded in the HealthSouth case.

Let's summarize: In spring 2008, I was writing in a supportive way about Bob Riley's chief political rival; I was reporting inconvenient truths about Riley-family crony Bill Swatek; and I probably was seen as a threat to Rob Riley's revenue stream.

Is it any wonder that UAB went to extraordinarily underhanded lengths to cheat me out of my job? Is it any wonder that I'm convinced someone connected to the Riley family made that happen?

That brings us back to Melissa George Bowman. Anyone with a sense of balance and fairness would have seen her as a victim, and they would have insisted that she not be penalized for reporting harassment. But the Riley crowd almost certainly includes any number of sociopaths--and such individuals lack any sense of balance or fairness.

Bowman's willingness to speak up about David Azbell made her a threat in Bob Riley's eyes. It meant she could not be trusted to keep her mouth shut about "family secrets." That meant she was a state employee who had to go--much the way I would later have to go at UAB.

Bill Britt's reporting on the Melissa George Bowman case speaks volumes about the Riley family's utter lack of ethics. It also says a lot about the paranoia that must be rampant among Riley insiders.

Blow Jobs, Breast Fondling, and Forcible Office Sex Are Among Topics In Suit Against Boutique Law Firm

Juan Monteverde and Alexandra Marchuk

Perhaps the nation's juiciest legal story at the moment is unfolding at the boutique New York law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi.

That's where a former associate named Alexandra Marchuk has filed a sexual-harassment suit against the firm and partner Juan Monteverde. Among many salacious details in the complaint is Marchuk's claim that Monteverde forcibly had sex with her after an office holiday party.

A Southern angle is present in this story--Marchuk is a graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School--and the case has drawn widespread coverage in the legal press, with reports from The New York Times, Thomson Reuters, and ABA Journal.

Perhaps most interesting is the role of the Web press. A plucky Web site called Above the Law (ATL) broke the story with its "Lawsuit of the Day" report on March 13. The site has stayed on top of the story ever since, including a report about a Faruqi & Faruqi counterclaim--plus a report yesterday about Marchuk's amended complaint, in which she increases her demand for damages from $7 million to $13 million. Marchuk now performs legal work on the foreclosure docket for an insurance firm in Omaha, Nebraska.

David Lat, a Yale Law School graduate, launched Above the Law after finding an audience with his first legal blog, Underneath Their Robes, which focused on coverage of federal judges that you aren't likely to find in a daily newspaper. ATL has a gossipy, snarky, insider tone that readers apparently find irresistible. According to one report, ATL racks up about 900,000 unique visitors a month, a figure that probably makes it the most widely read legal blog on the Web.

For Lat and his ATL colleagues, the Alexandra Marchuk lawsuit is the juicy story that keeps on giving. Consider this from Lat's initial report, including language directly from item No. 12 in Marchuk's complaint:

In 2010, Marchuk worked as a summer associate at Faruqi & Faruqi (“F&F”). When they worked together, “Mr. Monteverde was very friendly and flirtatious with Ms. Marchuk and from time to time made inappropriate, sexually charged comments in Ms. Marchuk’s presence.” How inappropriate?

12. Mr. Monteverde drank heavily at [a post-happy-hour] dinner and, seeing that Ms. Marchuk had drunk only a half glass of wine, urged her to drink more, which she did not do. Mr. Monteverde further commented that Ms. Marchuk was an “expensive date” and that she was “lucky” that he was married because he otherwise would expect a “blow job” for the expensive meal that he had purchased for her.

David Lat

Things get even racier when Lat turns his attention to item No. 18:

According to Marchuk’s allegations, Juan Monteverde started sexually harassing her pretty much after she walked through the door at the Faruqi firm. When she joined the firm on September 6, 2011, “she was surprised to learn from Mr. Monteverde that he had arranged for her to work exclusively for him.” He asked her to attend a hearing in Delaware on September 8. After the hearing, they went out for drinks:

18. After several more drinks at Lex Bar, Mr. Monteverde aggressively grabbed and kissed Ms. Marchuk and attempted to fondle her breasts. Ms. Marchuk physically rebuffed Mr. Monteverde’s advances. Mr. Monteverde then asked Ms. Marchuk to go back to F&F’s offices with him to have sex. Ms. Marchuk rejected the offer and went home. She had no romantic interest in Mr. Monteverde and was greatly troubled that her sole supervising attorney was making wildly inappropriate sexual advances to her on only her third day of full time employment at F&F.

The most disturbing allegations involve the F&F holiday party on December 15, 2011. At that event, Marchuk claims, Monteverde said he probably could not recommend her for a year-end bonus--a disturbing prospect for a new law-school grad with sizable student loans to pay off. Lat reports what allegedly happened next, borrowing from items 64 and 65 in the complaint:

Marchuk then claims that, in her vulnerable state, Monteverde took advantage of her in a most terrible way:

64. By this time, most or all of the other F&F attorneys had left the bar and Mr. Monteverde started suggesting that Ms. Marchuk accompany him to F&F’s office, which was only a short walk away. Under the influence of alcohol, and desperate to repair what Mr. Monteverde said was her tattered standing at F&F, Ms. Marchuk acceded to Mr. Monteverde’s pleas and walked back to F&F’s offices with him.

65. After entering his office, Mr. Monteverde pushed Ms. Marchuk to the floor and quickly, forcefully, and painfully had sex with her. Suffering discomfort and not wanting to continue having sex with him, Ms. Marchuk implored Mr. Monteverde to stop, but he disregarded her pleas and continued having sex with her. After he finished, Ms. Marchuk had left a large bloodstain on Mr. Monteverde’s carpet. Seeing that Ms. Marchuk was emotionally and physically traumatized by his aggressive conduct, Mr. Monteverde immediately directed her not to tell anyone what he had done. He then quickly escorted Ms. Marchuk from F&F’s office and down to the street, obviously concerned that they might be discovered by other F&F employees. Mr. Monteverde advised Ms. Marchuk to forget what had just happened. Ms. Marchuk walked to the nearest train station and took the subway home alone.

The complaint does not use the term "rape," but that appears to be what Marchuk is describing.

Where is this story headed? That's hard to say, but Lat makes it clear in his piece yesterday that he hopes it's headed for open court:

Who’s telling the truth here? Only time — and discovery — will tell. Based on developments to date, we’re hopeful that the parties, instead of quietly settling the matter, will both wind up on the carpet.