Epic hack of Epik website-hosting firm provides roughly 10 years of data about the rise of right-wing extremism that led to January 6 attack on U.S. Capitol

(Associated Press)

 

The story of perhaps the most important data breach in U.S. history has erupted over roughly the past two weeks. The tale is in its infancy, so it's too early to say in what direction it might head. But it clearly could provide revelations about Alabama's toxic political and legal culture -- mainly because Montgomery-connected extremist Ali (Akbar) Alexander appears to be a central character. Here are at least three questions the breach could help answer:

(1) Who was behind the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by apparent supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump?

(2) Who is behind right-wing corruption in Alabama, and beyond, and what forms does it take?

(3) How did one of our two major political parties turn into a haven for those wracked by disinformation, race-based fears and hatred, and disrespect for the rule of law -- becoming essentially a cult of personality, with few (if any) defining governing principles beyond maintaining power, at all costs?  

What is the gist of the story? Here is an explainer from CNN: 

The hacking collective Anonymous last week claimed to have stolen and leaked reams of data held by Epik, a website hosting firm popular with far-right organizations like the Proud Boys.

The more than 150 gigabytes of data swept up in the breach shine a light on years of online activities from far-right groups, including those who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election. While researchers are still sifting through the data, Epik has historically provided web hosting services to an array of conspiracy theorists, and for conservative media networks like Parler and Gab. 

The breach also undercuts Epik's pledge to customers that it can safeguard their anonymity, no matter what dangerous conspiracy theories they spread online. For that reason, experts told CNN the hack could have repercussions for how far-right groups organize and try to protect themselves online.

"A breach like this will force some of these actors to find security providers outside of North America to possibly step up their security game," Gabriella Coleman, a professor of anthropology at Harvard University, told CNN. Coleman said the data dump "confirmed a lot of the details of the far-right ecosystem."

Emily Crose, a cybersecurity analyst who studies online extremism, said the breach "will be another factor causing paranoia among far-right communities online." Crose said those groups already feel like they're under surveillance, given their violent attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. 

Emma Best, co-founder of Distributed Denial of Secrets, a non-profit that itself has published hacktivist data, said researchers could be poring over the Epik leaks for months for clues into how different people and far-right organizations are linked.

 

The breach was first reported by freelance journalist Steven Monacelli.

How epic was the Epik hack? Reports CNN:

In a statement to CNN on Tuesday night, Epik said the information that Anonymous released included data on 15 million people that was already public.

 

Epik has been a trusted resource for many years and our highest priority will always be security and privacy," the firm said.

A report at The Wasington Post/Seattle Times provides insight on the scope of the hack, calling it "huge":

Extremism researchers and political opponents have treated the leak as a Rosetta Stone to the far right, helping them to decode who has been doing what with whom over several years. Initial revelations have spilled out steadily across Twitter since news of the hack broke last week, often under the hashtag #epikfail, but those studying the material say they will need months and perhaps years to dig through all of it.

“It’s massive. It may be the biggest domain-style leak I’ve seen and, as an extremism researcher, it’s certainly the most interesting,” said Megan Squire, a computer science professor at Elon University who studies right-wing extremism. “It’s an embarrassment of riches — stress on the embarrassment.”

Epik, based in the Seattle suburb of Sammamish, has made its name in the internet world by providing critical web services to sites that have run afoul of other companies’ policies against hate speech, misinformation and advocating violence. Its client list is a roll-call of sites known for permitting extreme posts and that have been rejected by other companies for their failure to moderate what their users post.

Online records show those sites have included 8chan, which was dropped by its providers after hosting the manifesto of a gunman who killed 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019; Gab, which was dropped for hosting the anti-Semitic rants of a gunman who killed 11 in a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018; and Parler, which was dropped by Amazon Web Services due to lax moderation related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Epik also provides services to a network of sites devoted to extremist QAnon conspiracy theories. Epik briefly hosted the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer in 2019 after acquiring a cybersecurity company that had provided it with hosting services, but Epik soon canceled that contract, according to news reports. Epik also stopped supporting 8chan after a short period of time, the company has said.

The hack produced roughly 10 years' worth of data about the far right, according to a report at Business Insider.

Epik oficials have said they take data security seriously, but that claim now appears to have been mostly window dressing. From the WaPo/Seattle Times article: 

Since the hack, Epik’s security protocols have been the target of ridicule among researchers, who’ve marveled at the site’s apparent failure to take basic security precautions such as routine encryption that could have protected data about its customers from becoming public.

The files include years of website purchase records, internal company emails and customer account credentials revealing who administers some of the biggest far-right websites. The data includes client names, home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and passwords left in plain, readable text. The hack even exposed the personal records from Anonymize, a privacy service Epik offered to customers wanting to conceal their identity.

Similar failings by other hacked companies have drawn scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission, which has probed companies such as dating site Ashley Madison for failing to protect their customers’ private data from hackers. FTC investigations have resulted in settlements imposing financial penalties and more rigorous privacy standards.

Where does Ali Alexander, with his Montgomery-based attorney Baron Coleman, fit into this picture? We will have more on that in an upcoming post. 

(To be continued)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama proves to be a popular workplace for current and former employees who have been paying customers of notorious Ashley Madison Web site that promotes extramarital affairs

Here is a question to ponder: Since Ashley Madison (AM) data became public in summer 2015, what Alabama employer holds the distinction of having the most employees appear as paying customers at the extramarital-affairs Web site?

We are not aware of any technique for answering that question in an official, with-certitude fashion. But our research indicates the unofficial "leader in the clubhouse" for that honor is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBSAL). Yes, that is the employment home of Mike McGarity, the notorious, criminally inclined neighbor who set our legal headaches in motion.

McGarity's name does not appear on the Alabama list for AM. But without really trying, we found at least five individuals who were BCBSAL employees at the time of the data breach. Given the painstaking process required to sort through the AM data and determine employers -- the actual number of Ashley Madison customers at BCBSAL probably is two or three times larger than our unofficial count -- that is a big number for any one workplace.

Ironically, several of the Ashley Madison customers have left BCBSAL for other opportunities over the past four years or so. Does that mean those who participate at extramarital-affairs Web sites are more likely than non-users to change employers frequently? That sounds like a good subject for a doctoral dissertation in psychology or management. For now, let's take a brief look at each of the current (or former) BCBSAL employees who appear as paying customers in the AM data:

(1) Wesley J. Hagood -- senior buyer in purchasing department. Lives in north Shelby County, and property records indicate he is married to Erica M. Hagood.

(2) W. Michael Jackman -- manager of IT Project Office. Lives on Harvest Ridge Lane in north Shelby County, and property records indicate he is married to Elizabeth Jackman.

(3) Cleo R. Truss -- was a senior application system analyst. LinkedIn page shows he left BCBSAL in July 2015 to focus full-time on his role as owner of Truss Management Group/ATG Services. Lives on Lake Crest Drive in Hoover, and property records indicate he is married to Jackie W. Truss.

(4) Brent Koch -- was a programmer/analyst. Left position in April 2015 to become senior programmer/analyst at CallidusCloud in Birmingham.

(5) Manan Modi -- was a staff auditor at Cahaba GBA, a wholly owned subsidiary of BCBSAL. Now is an auditor at National Government Services in Indianapolis.

After alleging I had committed extortion, Brandon Guttery (of U of Alabama and Keystone Financial) changes his tone from accusatory to apologetic

Brandon and David Guttery

After Day One of my conversation with University of Alabama senior Brandon Guttery -- focusing on his wealth-manager father (David Guttery, of Keystone Financial Group in Trussville, AL) and his appearance as a paying customer at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site -- I didn't expect our back-and-forth to continue. But it did the next morning -- and the tone immediately turned ugly.

When Day Two of our communications was complete, I did a little research on young Mr. Guttery and discovered he was not quite the innocent college student he claimed to be. For one, he's a senior, not an underclassmen. And he has worked as an intern for his father's company -- possibly for every summer of college. In an August 7 Facebook post, David Guttery had praise for his son's work at Keystone Financial:

As the summer holiday draws to a close, I would like to recognize, and thank my intern ( and son ), Brandon Guttery, for a fantastic job. Wishing all the best for a successful senior year at The University of Alabama!

That raised my hackles a bit and caused me to question Brandon Guttery's claim that he was just interested in learning the "truth." My hackles were raised even further when the younger Guttery's tone changed and suggested he had an ulterior motive all along. Here is his first Day Two email, at 11:38 a.m. on Oct. 10:

Rodger (sic):

You wrote that piece in retaliation of a business deal that did not go your way.

Then tried to smear his name and demand compensation for your silence.

My only regret is believing you had told the whole truth, which now I have learned you did not.

Let this be our final correspondence, and know this: Omission based reporting, geared to fit a desired narrative, is why journalists are not trustworthy anymore.

May your blog be the height of your reach.

Geez, does this kid have multiple personalities? If so, how many does he have? I decided, "If this sprout wants a tussle, he's come to the right place. Bring it on, dude." My response to Brandon G:

Beware of making false accusations against people. They can come back to bite you.

Sounds like you are developing into quite the con artist. Not surprised about that.

And you are an expert on trustworthiness?

BTW, what business deal are you talking about? I have no idea, and I doubt you do either.

In another curious twist, young Mr. Guttery decided -- for the first of several times -- to invoke God's name. To borrow a phrase from Tina Turner . . . "What's God got to do with it?"

I would offer the same advice to you, Rodger (sic).

I only wanted truth, and I have reason to believe you told a partial truth. One that benefits you, and you alone.

May God guide you.

That left me a few openings, so I decided to take them -- especially since it now appeared Brandon Guttery likely had ill intentions when he initiated our conversation:

So, you admit my post is accurate. You claim something is "partial," but you don't say what that is. Again, I'm not aware of a "business deal" I've ever been in that involves your father in any way. Apparently, you aren't aware of such a "deal," either.

If you only wanted the truth, why did you attempt to pull a con job on me? You weren't truthful from the outset of our communication, and I suspected that was the case.

Based on your own words, it appears your father has concocted these false accusations about me and shared them with you -- a third party. That would point to possible defamation. You and your father might want to study up on defamation law. Again, beware.

Hmmm . . . now we were talking in the legal realm, and it soon became clear that Brandon Guttery was out of his depth:

Defemation (sic) pertains to going public with falsified information with intent to cause damage to another, something I had thought you would be aware of given your past judicial involvements.

I host no blog, nor am I going public anywhere. I wanted truthful information, I did not receive what I wanted, so as far as I am concerned this matter is over.

Once again, may God guide you through life.

I started to smell a Trump supporter here. What is it with suburban white people and God anyway? They seem to know little about God and even less about the law -- just like Trump himself. Hell, the kid can't even spell "defamation":

You need to bone up on defamation law. Based on your own words, it appears your father has falsely accused me of a crime called extortion (a felony) and that points to something called "defamation per se." It's serious business. Look it up.

Young Mr. Guttery seemed to sense that the water was getting up under his neck, and he needed to swim to shore:

Roger,

You are correct, this is a very serious point. Which is precisely why I will never make public anything we have spoken of today, be it verbally or in a written format. If I ever did such an act without evidence to corroborate what I said, you would have every right to bring your case before a court of law.

You and I might disagree quite a bit, however I hold no interest in defaming the name of someone else. I have stated what I believe, and it will remain private to the day I draw my final breath.

You assume much about my words. There is a certain saying about them, as I’m sure you are aware.

So I would like to once again propose we leave this matter here. Given none of this information is public, there has been no damage to your reputation or your societal appearance (or “face” if you will).

God bless you, Roger.

There's the infernal God stuff again. Does he want God to "guide" me or to "bless" me. Maybe he wants God to guide me into the path of a blessed 18-wheeler. I was confused about the other-worldly stuff, but I was clear-headed on the law:

Your own words suggest you've discussed these false allegations against me with someone. And your reference to a "business deal" suggests that person is your father -- even though you apparently can't point to any such "business deal." That's not assuming anything; it's right there in your own words.

I'm not saying you've defamed me, but I'm saying your own words indicate someone, likely your father, has made statements to you that falsely accuse me of a crime (extortion), and that points to possible defamation per se. You and your father really need to educate yourselves about defamation law. The issue is whether a false and defamatory statement has been "published" (verbally or in writing) to a third party (you, in this case). Whether it has been "made public" is not part of the law.

As for your proposal to "leave this matter here," you should have thought of that before opening up this hornet's nest. I will deal with it as I see fit, but you and your father should know I take it seriously when someone falsely accuses me of a crime. I also take it seriously when someone contacts me under false pretenses. I responded to your queries with patience and respect, only to learn you were pulling a con game all along.

No matter how many times you say "God bless you," the truth is that you dealt with me dishonestly from the start. You might try looking in the mirror on that one.

With that, Brandon Guttery seemed to realize that it was a good time to get out of Dodge:

Roger...I’m sorry.

I’m just a college kid who thinks he knows more than he does. I know that seems like a cop out...I wish I could rewind the past 24 hours. But I can’t.

When I first emailed you, I was truly curious. My father had never discussed that matter with me. I then got angry after asking my family about it, and didn’t think.

You have every reason to not like me, and every reason to not believe what I’m saying in this writing. And you’re right. I do need a look in the mirror.

From the bottom of my heart...I’m sorry.

You’ll never have to deal with me again.

I give Brandon Guttery credit for saying he was sorry. He owed me an apology, and while a lot of people aren't big enough to do that, he stepped up to the plate and apologized. Does that mean I'm dropping the defamation matter? Not necessarily. I'm going to think about it and conduct some research on the issue. I left young Mr. Guttery with this:

I don't believe you when you say your father has never discussed this with you and falsely accused me of a crime. I take my reputation seriously, and I take legal wrongs against me seriously.

Whether I deal with you -- and your father -- again is up to me.

Brandon Guttery, the son of a Birmingham wealth manager -- David Guttery, of Keystone Financial -- initiates an odd conversation about his father's status as a paying customer at notorious Ashley Madison site

Brandon and David Guttery

The college-aged son of a senior account manager at a Birmingham wealth-management company -- the father has been included in our coverage of paying customers at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site -- recently contacted me, and what seemed to be a benign communication veered into an accusation that I had engaged in criminal activity.

When I pointed out the possible repercussions of the son's false accusation, he ultimately expressed sorrow about what he had said -- but I was left with the impression that I had been the target of defamation, and I'm considering appropriate legal action.

Brandon Guttery is a senior at the University of Alabama and has worked as an intern for his father, David Guttery, at Keystone Financial Group in the Birmingham suburb of Trussville. David Guttery was the subject of a December 2016 post about his activities at Ashley Madison. Before publishing that post, I contacted David Guttery seeking comment, but he never responded -- never denied that he was a married suburban father who participated in the unsavory milieu at Ashley Madison.

Brandon Guttery contacted me on Oct. 9, 2018, for . . . well, I have no idea about the real reason he contacted me. But things started innocently enough before turning a bit ugly. Here's the beginning:

Dear Rodger (sic),

My name is Brandon Guttery, and I am writing you this evening under sad pretenses. I partook in a university fraternal event where I googled my own name, in an effort to see what company recruiters see when they research job applicants. When searching however, I came across an image of my father, David, with the infamous "Ashley Madison" website attached to his name.

On December 20th 2016, you wrote an article on your Legal Schnauzer blog about him, which I assume corresponds to the data breach the website underwent about that time. In reading through your article, I noticed you italicized "Ashley Madison" however there are no hyperlinks to evidence or information regarding David's usage. I write to ask: Do you still have that information available, and if so could you forward it to me?

I apologize [that] our first encounter is under such a circumstance. In writing this email I mean no disrespect or offense, as I only seek the truth.

Here is my initial response:

Brandon: 

Yes, I have the data, and I'm still using it for future articles, so I don't want to forward it -- plus, it's in an extremely large file, and I'm not aware of any way to provide a hyperlink to that. I sought comment from your dad before running the post, but never heard back from him.

At that point, we had been polite and respectful toward each other, but the whole thing gave off a slightly funny smell, so I was braced for the tone to change at some point, if the interaction continued -- and it did. From Brandon Guttery:

Rodger (sic):

I can understand your hesitation of forwarding the information, however I am the last person you need fear of jeopardizing your future articles by doing something with the information.

I am only after the truth. Two years later and I only discover this by accident, so other data subsets included in the file are of no interest to me. But, if that does not dissuade your skepticism of my motives, would you be willing to direct me to the source where you first obtained the document?

Hmmm . . . this young fellow wanted my sources and research materials? He obviously did not have much experience at dealing with the press. And the "trust me" tone of that first paragraph made me less likely to trust him. Still, things moved along OK -- for a while:

Brandon:

It's not a matter of skepticism; I'm just not going to share my research materials with anyone. If you ask any journalist a similar question, I think you will get the same response. I would suggest you discuss this with your father. My invitation for him to contact me is still out there.

That seemed to satiate young Mr. Guttery, and he responded with this:

Rodger:

So be it.

If I know my father, he never will.

Thank you for your time.

My response?

You're welcome.

I thought that was the end of it. But the next morning, it became clear I was wrong about that. And it did not take long for the conversation to veer in a wildly different direction.


(To be continued)

Rob Riley, while his father was governor, apparently solicited bribes from law firms seeking state contracts, according to veteran attorney Tommy Gallion

Tommy Gallion

Rob Riley, while his father Bob Riley was Alabama governor (2003-11), suggested law firms seeking bond work via state contracts would need to funnel work to his Riley Jackson law firm in Homewood, according to a prominent Montgomery attorney who was involved in the process.

Tommy Gallion, of Haskell Slaughter and Gallion, said Rob Riley ran bond-work meetings as if he were governor. "Rob Riley ran meetings about bond work with the state and required that the winning firm send work to him. Haskell Slaughter had been doing that work for years, and it went to Bradley Arant because they agreed to Rob's terms."

Until recently, Bradley Arant was home to Rob Campbell, Rob Riley's brother-in-law and husband of Minda Riley Campbell (despite Rob Campbell's appearance at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site.) Rob Campbell no longer is listed as an attorney at the Bradley Arant Web site, although the Alabama State Bar still lists him as working there. The firm reportedly raked in more than $10 million in taxpayer funds during the final two years of the Bob Riley administration. From Gallion:

At a meeting of our firm's executive committee meeting, when Bob Riley first took over as governor, Rob Riley appeared. He hinted that he could help our firm get considered in a major state upcoming bond issue, and he would like us to consider associating him in non-state related legal business. Our firm rejected his proposal after he left. Gov. Riley had a press release that he was putting out requests for proposals (RFP's) to all qualified law firms. Haskell Slaughter submitted the low bid, but the work went to his son-in-law's firm, Bradley Arant, who had recently hired him after Gov. Riley was elected. Bradley was the high proposal, and our firm was the low proposal; Bradley was selected by Gov. Riley.

Rob Riley's actions, as described by Gallion, appear to come close to being a classic quid pro quo ("something for something" deal) that forms the heart of federal funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666. The five-year statute of limitations clearly has run on Rob Riley's scheme, so why is it news now?

For one, the perjury case against duly elected Jefferson County District Attorney Charles Todd Henderson has Riley Inc.'s grimy fingerprints all over it, especially since Henderson (a Democrat) surprisingly ousted the Rileys' GOP favorite (and incumbent) Brandon Falls. Two, Gv. Kay Ivey has shown that she is willing to recycle members of the Riley Machine, such as general counsel Bryan Taylor, into positions of authority. That suggests the rank corruption of the Riley years could rear its head, with Ivey at the controls.

On top of that, Rob Riley has documented ties to efforts at establishing gaming/business enterprises that would connect Alabama investors and Russian interests. U.S. newspapers currently are filled with headlines about brewing scandals that involve Russian and American political/business figures. One of the biggest stories at the moment centers around Chattanooga property magnate Franklin Haney and his efforts to use a Canadian company (with ties to Russia) to bring a dormant nuclear plant in northeast Alabama back to life.

Rob Riley

A certain Montgomery lawyer had a front-row seat for some of Rob Riley's machinations related to Russia. Consider these words from Tommy Gallion:

My understanding is that Rob and Minda Riley made a substantial amount of money during the eight years their father was governor -- and Rob Riley could not make his house payments when Bob Riley went in.

I can tell you how they funneled the money; I've got all the documents on it. When Bob went to Congress, Rob was up there all the time working deals, and he's connected to big-time gambling interests. I know it first-hand because I invested with him and Robert Sigler. They were best friends . . . and (Sigler) lives in Las Vegas. He came in and did a sales pitch on the Russian lottery to a group of my friends. I actually invested in the pay-by-touch company, which was a helluva company, but to get that I had to get one of the units of this Russian lottery, which I never had any faith in. But (Sigler) raised over $10 million on the Russian lottery, and the money vanished.

They had the money with a bank that had a main office in London, with a branch office in Moscow. Sigler put $10 million in the Russian bank to procure a right to participate in the bid process. The money simply vanished. When everything started falling apart on the lottery, the stockholders -- which were a whole bunch of people in Montgomery -- said, "Where is our money?" Sigler had said, "We've got it protected." I got on the Internet and saw where Rob Riley set up offshore accounts for Sigler.

What happened to the Russian-lottery money and what about those offshore accounts? The answer remains unclear, but Gallion has thoughts on the subject:

I was told that an offshore account was set up in the Canary Islands by someone connected to the missing money. I don't know any more. I was told that Sigler had set one up there for Rob [Riley], but don't know for sure.

Another dubious deal involves Rob Riley's contract to represent the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, headed by Mike Hale. That story begins with Bill Johnson, who was director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) for part of Bob Riley's term. Says Gallion:

A million-dollar federal grant was sent to ADECA for law enforcement in the state. Bob Riley instructed Bill Johnson to send the full $1 million to the sheriff of Jefferson County, Mike Hale. Johnson later found out that to get the money, the sheriff had to put Rob Riley on a large legal retainer. He is still on the retainer.

How did Rob Riley and sister Minda Riley Campbell fare during their father's years as Alabama governor? The answer is "mighty well," according to Tommy Gallion:

I do not know what they made during their father's eight-year term. But I have been told it was substantial.

That is classic Riley-style corruption. With Kay Ivey in the governor's office, it might be returning soon to a theater near you. And with Donald Trump in the White House, the environment might be ripe for more attempted deals involving Alabama and Russia.

Ashley Madison customers revealed: James M. Bookout, top administrator for finance and business affairs at Troy U, appears at notorious Web site

James Bookout

A high-ranking administrator at Troy University appears as a paying customer on the Alabama list at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site, according to publicly available records.

James M. Bookout, senior vice chancellor for finance and business affairs, has been a major figure at Troy for 15 years. What does his office do? This is from the university Web site:

The mission of the Office of Finance and Business Affairs at Troy University (comprising the Troy, Montgomery, Dothan and Phenix City campuses) is to deliver an array of support services to students, faculty and staff that contribute to the enhancement and delivery of the University's academic programs and student programs and activities essential to the educational experience of the University. Through a highly-trained and service-oriented staff, the Office of Finance and Business Affairs is committed to embrace change and focus on responsiveness in support of the University's mission.

Bookout joined Troy's administrative team in 2003, as vice chancellor of financial affairs. Chancellor Jack Hawkins Jr. appointed Bookout to his current position in 2008. From an article at Troy University Magazine:

Mr. Bookout joined Troy University’s administrative team in October 2003 as Vice Chancellor for Financial Affairs. In his new role, Bookout also takes on new business responsibilities including Auxiliary Services, Facilities and Capital Planning, Dining Services and the Athletics Business Office. He will report directly to the Chancellor.

“Jim Bookout is an outstanding leader and I have no doubt he will excel in his new role,” Chancellor Hawkins said. “Troy University prides itself on efficiency and good stewardship. Mr. Bookout understands how to return the maximum service for every dollar we invest. He is the right man at the right time.”

The 2008 magazine article also shined light on Bookout's background:

Bookout, a native of Chipley, FL, is a CPA and holds a bachelor’s degrees in business management from the University of West Florida and accounting from Florida State University, as well as a master’s degree from Boston University. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in higher education administration from the University of Alabama.

Bookout's marital status is not clear. Property records show that he lives at 503 Flavia Circle in Troy's Ridgewood subdivision, and the property has an appraised value of $260,800.

Property records from 2013 show that Alicia G. Bookout sold the Flavia Circle property -- or her share in it -- for $262,770 to  James M. Bookout. It appears they were married and lived at that property before getting a divorce somewhere around 2013. We don't have access to full AlaCourt.com records, but it appears there was a divorce, and Ms. Bookout moved to a property in Destin, Florida, at least for a while. It's not clear if the couple has children, but a Brent Bookout works as an HR manager for Troy University Dining Services.

We sought comment from James M. Bookout for this post, but he has not responded to our queries.


Previously:


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, Calhoun 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)

(55) Chevene Hill, lawyer, Birmingham (2/15/18)

Alabama "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley resigned one year ago yesterday, serving as a reminder of the impact Legal Schnauzer has had on the political landscape

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

Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site is adding 20,000 customers every day, proving that the old adage "a sucker is born every minute" must be true

Ashley Madison, the Canada-based extramarital-affairs Web site that was at the heart of perhaps the most notorious scandal of the digital era, has recovered to the point that it now is adding 20,000 customers per day, according to a report at CBS News.

Most of us have heard the adage "a sucker is born every minute." Based on the latest data about Ashley Madison's customer growth, that must be true.

What do we know about Ashley Madison? It has a history of failing to protect customer data, leading to a 2015 hack by a group calling itself The Impact Team. The company has displayed an utter lack of integrity, admitting it used chatbots to lure would-be cheating males and then threatened to expose them when they complained; in other words, many of the available "women" on the site aren't women at all -- they are fake bots, designed to arouse easily conned men. Finally, the company reached an $11.2 million settlement in a federal lawsuit claiming widespread damages for customers who were exposed in the Ashley Madison hack.

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we have covered the Ashley Madison story more extensively and in more depth, than any other news site -- focusing on customers with high-end financial status, as reported in an article at fusion.net.

You might think a company that coughed up $11.2 million to compensate customers it had damaged would have a hard time finding new customers. But according to a recent report at CBS News, you would be wrong; Ashley Madison, in fact, is reeling in new suckers at an astonishing rate.

Focus of the CBS story was "Infidelity: Why the oldest taboo continues to be broken." For example, we learn this:

It's a subject as old as marriage... and usually more taboo than divorce.

"It is the only commandment repeated twice in the Bible, right? Once for doing it, and once for thinking about it," said psychotherapist Esther Perel, who has been studying infidelity for more than a decade.

"Ninety-three percent of Americans think that infidelity is morally wrong -- more morally wrong than cloning, than suicide, or than domestic violence," Perel said. "It's an interesting location for something that is not criminal, that is totally consensual."

The contradictions of unfaithfulness raise a question: why do so many people cheat?

These days, there's ample chance to examine the issue. In recent weeks, we've seen President Trump deny new reports of a affair with an adult film star and a Playboy model in 2006. Meanwhile, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has acknowledged an affair with his hairdresser, and Nashville Mayor Megan Barry has apologized for sleeping with her bodyguard … which makes her part of a trend.

According to a survey by the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, female philanders (19%) are catching up with their male counterparts (23%) for the first time on record.

The story focused on a woman named Kristie, and that led to . . . Ashley Madison:

Human beings such as Kristie, a mother of two, who asked that we not use her real name or reveal where she lives.

"I can't blame him and I can't blame me -- it's 50-50," she told Dokoupil. "We just didn't like each other. We got to a point where we just didn't like each other anymore."

"I was not looking for love, was not looking to leave my husband, was just looking for companionship."

Like many women, she resolved to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of her kids, until one night a few years ago when she also resolved to stray.

"I was sitting on the bed, and he said something to me very disrespectful, very hurtful," said Kristie. "And I just snapped. I pulled my phone out, and I went, 'Woman looking for men to have affairs with.'"

She ended up on Ashley Madison, a website that helps men and women pursue what's known as "married dating."

Yes, married dating.

The CBS reporters seemed flummoxed by the notion of "married dating." So they went to a supposed expert on the subject:

Who came up with that term? "I think it's been around a long time," said Ruben Buell, the president of Ashley Madison's parent company, Ruby Life. "A lot of this came out of singles dating, where you're on single sites, but 30-plus percent of the people on the site were married. So somebody took a category and created Ashley Madison."

Even after a damaging leak of user names in 2015, Buell says the Ashley Madison site is booming, with 20,000 new members a day.

A reasonable person might expect the doors to Ashley Madison's Toronto headquarters to be shuttered, with cob webs hanging from windows. But hey, the place is thriving -- even though it's proven to be a fraud, conning customers and threatening them when they complain.

If The Impact Team or similar outfit is so inclined, I'm guessing there will be another hack at Ashley Madison within the next couple of years or so. Our reports on the first hack regularly attract comments that disparage our coverage and express sympathy for the customers who were stupid enough to sign up with Ashley Madison. (Note: I've seen extensive evidence that many such comments are from automated bots, so like most things related to AM, they aren't legit either.)

Will the customers still rushing to sign up with AM merit our sympathy when (and if) a future hack hits the headlines?

They won't get any from me.

Birmingham civil-rights lawyer Chevene Hill wants info about his professional background removed from post re: status as a customer at Ashley Madison

Chevene Hill

When we left Birmingham civil-rights attorney Chevene Hill, he was denying having paid for an account at Ashley Madison, threatening me with a cease-and-desist order, and asking me to call him.

I did call him, and Hill said little about his name appearing on the list of paying Ashley Madison customers for Alabama. He did try to rework the draft of an article I sent him, namely by asking me to remove his picture, remove any references that he went to Miles College School of Law, and remove any references that he used to work at NBC 13.

All of that information is on the Web and is easily available to anyone who wants to look for it. I told Hill that his background information was relevant to the story, and I likely was not going to remove it. Hill was not too pleased with that response, and a circuitous conversation ensued, including some language you don't generally hear in church.

Ultimately, Hill promised to send me a comment for my post via email, but I never received one.  Our back-and-forth was one of the more interesting experiences I've had in reporting on 45 to 50 posts about Ashley Madison customers. Here are the highlights:

Chevene Hill (CH): "I know I can't stop you from running it, but there are some things I would like you to take out of it. Any reference to Miles College and any reference to NBC 13, that needs to come out of it.

Roger Shuler (RS): "I've got your request, but journalistically, I can't think of any reason to take those out."

CH: "Journalistically, they have no relevance to anything you're trying to talk about. If you're going to play the journalism card, let's be responsible. Don't start this shady bullshit; you just want to run it for the hell of it. . . . My resume has nothing to do with whatever it is you're trying to report on.

RS: That's your take on things. I don't agree with it.

CH: You tell me how . . .

RS: I'm asking you for a comment. In any news story . . .

CH: No, I'm not going to let you dance around it. I asked you a direct question. How does my background have anything to do with your story?

RS: It gives people an idea of who you are. If I write an article about Donald Trump, his background is important.

CH: I'm not Donald Trump, I'm not the president. My work history and law school has nothing to do with it. What kind of comment do you want? I'll work with you if you work with me.

RS: It can be whatever comment you want to make.

CH: This bullshit isn't journalism. You didn't call me before you ran this.

RS: I haven't run it. I'm calling you pre-publication.

CH: I will work with you and give you some type of statement. It has to be edited. I don't want my picture in it, and I don't want this stuff about law school and NBC 13 in there.

RS: I understand your request, but I don't agree with it. The information is on the Internet and on your LinkedIn page, so it's public information.

CH: If I have to file some kind of invasion of privacy . . . I don't want to spend the money on it. But if I got to, I got to.

RS: I can't give you any advice there.

CH: If you're going to run it, take the NBC 13 out. I wasn't a lawyer back then.

RS: I hear you, but I can't promise that. I think it's relevant to the story.

CH: As I said before, I don't recall being on this goddamned site, so what am I supposed to comment on.

RS: I don't know. You don't have to comment at all.

CH: You're the journalist, quote unquote, ask the question. What am I commenting on, that this is bullshit?

RS: If that's what you want to say . . . . I can't put words in your mouth.

CH: You're really terrible. This is bullshit, first of all. I'm trying to work with you, man. Ask me a question, maybe I can answer it. You're just trying to paint a picture of these lawyers being out there on Ashley Madison. I'm asking you to ask me a legitimate question. You're trying to slander me, for whatever reason, to get hits on your fucking blog. Basically, that's what you're trying to do.

RS: That's your take, it's not accurate. The question is, "Were you on Ashley Mad . . .

CH: Why am I involved in it?

RS: Your name shows up on the list of Ashley Madison . . . that's just fact. If you think somebody put you on there by mistake, maybe you need look into that.

CH: What is your story about?

RS: Did you read the draft I sent you?

CH: I see all my information on here, and what the hell does that have to do with anything. What's the point?

RS: If you feel there's no point, feel free to make that comment.

CH: I'll give you a comment.

RS: You can see what the story says.

CH: I'm going to say this as a professional courtesy: You suck as a journalist, Roger. I'll give you a comment.

RS: I can't put words in your mouth.

CH: Where do I send my comment.

RS: Back to this email.

CH: I'll send it, I sure will. 

RS: Good, thanks.

Did Hill send a written comment via email, as he promised? If he did, I didn't receive it -- and he had my email address. I have to give him credit for an interesting dialogue, although I still have no idea why he's so sensitive about Miles Law School and NBC 13? Furthermore, I can't figure what made him think it's a good idea to try to tell a journalist how to write a story.

For those who might engage in public-relations careers, here are three big no-nos: (1) Never try to tell a journalist how to write a story; (2) Never insult a journalist; (3) Journalists tend to be foul-mouthed creatures, but it's best not to use foul language with them; (4) Don't threaten journalists with cease-and-desist orders and invasion of privacy lawsuits; most journalists have taken courses in communications law, and such threats are not likely to impress them -- or scare them.

In short, Mr. Hill could use some help with his PR game. I have no idea if he is a good, bad, or indifferent lawyer -- but as a professional courtesy, I can say he kind of sucks as his own spokesperson.

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
(From facebook.com)

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)


Previously:


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)

Missouri attorney Craig O'Dear, who appears as paying customer at Ashley Madison, announces exploratory committee for independent run at U.S. Senate seat

Craig O'Dear

A Missouri lawyer, who was a subject of our reporting on the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site, has formed an exploratory committee for a possible independent run at a U.S. Senate seat.

Craig O'Dear is a partner at Bryan Cave LLP and a founding member of the firm's Kansas City, MO, office. We reported on O'Dear's status as a paying customer at Ashley Madison in a series of posts from late 2016 (see here, here, and here). Our posts included extensive comments from O'Dear and from his ex-wife Stephanie O'Dear. At the time of our reports, the O'Dears stated they had reconciled as a couple, although they had not remarried.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO) currently holds the Senate seat that O'Dear has targeted. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is considered a prime contender on the Republican side.

Does Craig O'Dear believe Missourians are ready for an Ashley Madison customer at U.S. senator? We will seek additional comment from him, but so far, his timing seems a little off. O'Dear announced his exploratory committee on Jan. 10, the same day that Gov. Eric Greitens admitted to an extramarital affair that has sparked a criminal investigation, apparently based on allegations of blackmail and assault.

In his written comments for our earlier posts, O'Dear wrote all around various issues connected to Ashley Madison, but he did not deny being one of the firm's paying customers:

Mr. Shuler:

The article you have drafted and now threaten to publish conveys a false and misleading impression of people about whom you have little knowledge.

Stephanie was and is the love of my life. We were married in 1995, and legally divorced in November 2012. Many years prior to the effective date of our divorce, we ceased to be a married couple, and my marital obligations to Stephanie came to an end. I was not unfaithful in the marriage, and Stephanie never alleged in our divorce proceeding that I had been. Your draft article conveys an impression to the contrary. That impression is false.

Further, I have never at any time in my life been romantically involved with any woman who was married. Your draft article conveys a false impression to the contrary on that issue as well by highlighting the marketing tag line for the dating site you reference and implying anyone who might have used it did so for the purpose of engaging in an extramarital affair. The only possible purpose you could have to do this is to publish something you believe will draw traffic to your site, with an intent to embarrass and damage me and Stephanie and our children, both personally and professionally. During this difficult period in my life, whatever social activity I engaged in violated no marital obligations. My focus was being the best father I could be to my children and being the best lawyer I could be practicing law and taking care of my clients. If you took the time to interview anyone who has any personal knowledge of my life, you would know this.

O'Dear proceeded to describe the reconciliation with his ex wife, tossing in a few threats of legal action at me -- even though he could not cite any explicit statements in our posts that were false:

The good news in all of this is that in the Spring of 2014, Stephanie approached me and expressed a desire to re-establish our relationship and reunite our family. Unlike most of the stories of broken marriages, this one has a happy ending. We engaged in a process that achieved our objective, and Stephanie and I are again partners in life, living together with our children, and enjoying the blessing of all that entails. This is yet another point on which your draft article conveys a false and misleading impression, because you know nothing about the people and the family you seek to slander.

Stephanie O'Dear

I am copying Stephanie on this email. I told her of your communication to me. She has seen your draft "article" and she told me she had some comments to convey to you as well. You should refrain from publishing your false and slanderous "article." If you proceed to publish this false and misleading article, an act which is legally actionable, we insist you publish in full in the same article my response and Stephanie's response, which tells the real story of our lives and corrects the many false impressions your article conveys.





O'Dear has launched a campaign Web site, which looks top-notch, so he apparently is serious about this race. He already has drawn attention from Missouri's mainstream media. Bryan Lowry and Lindsay Wise wrote about O'Dear's plans at the Kansas City Star:

A Kansas City lawyer could shake up one of the most competitive Senate races in the country as he seriously considers running as a centrist independent against U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her eventual Republican challenger.

Craig O’Dear, a Kansas City attorney who has the backing of the national Centrist Project and has been quietly contemplating a run for a year, has launched an exploratory campaign committee for a possible independent bid for the Senate. O’Dear said Wednesday that he’ll make his official decision by the end of February.

The Missouri race promises to be one of the most expensive in the country and could determine which party controls the Senate.

Tony Messenger, a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, also reported on O'Dear's political goals:

Craig O’Dear has an interesting sense of timing.

On Monday, television personality Oprah Winfrey dominated the political landscape after her Sunday night speech at the Golden Globes spurred speculation that she would run for president in 2020.

The next day, 85-year-old ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, convicted of criminal contempt of federal court but pardoned by President Donald Trump, announced he was running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Arizona.

O’Dear, a Kansas City lawyer, is not a celebrity. Outside of certain trial lawyer and political donor circles, he’s not a big name.

But on Thursday he will be making a move that could make him one.

The longtime Republican is forming an exploratory committee to consider a run for the U.S. Senate in Missouri — as an independent.

“Our two-party system no longer serves the people,” O’Dear told me in an exclusive interview. “What we’re getting from it is division and gridlock.”

In one of the Senate races that will be most watched nationally, O’Dear, 60, intends to take on Democratic incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, and whoever survives a three-way primary among Republicans, expected to be Attorney General Josh Hawley.

It is a Quixotic challenge, but O’Dear swears he’s not tilting at windmills.

“It’s not the first time somebody has told me I couldn’t do something,” says the partner at Bryan Cave. He expects to make a final decision about jumping into the Senate race by the end of February. And if he runs? “I absolutely believe we will win.”

Speaking of interesting timing -- and centrism -- O'Dear has ties both to Hillary Clinton . . . and Eric Greitens. He might want to be distancing himself from the latter in the near future. Writes Messenger:

In 2016, O’Dear donated to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

At the same time he was hosting a fundraiser at his home for Republican Eric Greitens, who became Missouri’s governor. O’Dear will always be grateful for the advice the former Navy SEAL offered his son, Cullen, now a sophomore at the U.S. Naval Academy. But Greitens’ political drift to the extreme ends of the Republican Party serves as a symptom of what O’Dear believes is wrong with the American political system.

“I’m not asking you to leave your political party,” he says. “But if you will support our movement to re-create a center, it will have the effect of moderating both parties.”