Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, February 6, 2017

Jessica Garrison's $3.5-million default is based on sworn testimony from her and Luther Strange, but docket shows a damages hearing never took place


Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange
(From marieclaire.com)
A $3.5-million award for Alabama GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison against yours truly and the Legal Schnauzer blog, according to court documents, is based on sworn testimony from Garrison and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange at a default-judgment damages hearing, for which I did not receive notice.

We recently received a copy of the docket in Garrison's defamation case as part of the proceedings in our ongoing federal lawsuit over the wrongful foreclosure on our home of 25 years in Birmingham -- we call that "The House Case," along with a second pending federal case we call "The Jail Case," related to my unlawful five-month incarceration in Shelby County and related issues.

Guess what the docket shows in the Garrison defamation case? It shows that the testimony from her and Strange never took place. Yep, the docket makes no mention of a damages hearing, upon which Jefferson County Circuit Judge Don Blankenship based his multimillion-dollar award, and it makes no mention of testimony from Garrison or Strange at all -- that I can find. In other words, according to the docket, Garrison's hefty award is based on . . . well, absolutely nothing.

To be clear, this doesn't even include the fact that Garrison's judgment is void because I did not receive three days' notice of her default application and hearing, as required by Alabama law. I know, for a fact, that I never received such notice, and the docket indicates Garrison never even sent it. As a nullity, Garrison's judgment violates principles of due process and can be attacked and declared void at any time. You can rest assured that it will be attacked as such quite soon. (The docket and transcript from the Strange/Garrison testimony is embedded at the end of this post.)

Yes, you can view the Strange/Garrison transcript at the end of this point, but we are left with this glaring question: Is the transcript real? Did such a hearing take place?

Strange and Garrison claim that my reporting on their extramarital affair is false and defamatory. But it never has been found false and defamatory by a jury, as required by decades of First Amendment law, because there was no trial (jury or otherwise) in the Garrison case.

I'm hardly alone in reporting, or speaking out publicly, about the Strange/Garrison affair. Former Alabama Senate President Lowell Barron spoke about it last year on a Web-radio broadcast and said the subject is so sensitive that it affects the way Strange can do his job. Is Jessica Garrison going to sue Lowell Barron? Doesn't look like it. Is that because she knows Barron's statements are true? A reasonable person certainly could answer yes.

As for the transcript of the damages hearing, it is dated March 19, 2015. When you check that date in the docket, you find . . . nothing. According to the docket, nothing took place in the action on that date. In fact, I can't find a reference to a damages hearing, or testimony from Strange and Garrison, anywhere.

Lowell Barron
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I think it's pretty well understood among "The Great Unwashed" that court dockets are important documents. They are supposed to provide an accurate record of everything that takes place in a court case.

The records below seem to show two versions of what could have happened: (1) No damages hearing took place, and Strange and Garrison did not testify, meaning there are no grounds for the judgment against me; (2) Someone made a mistake, suggesting the Jefferson County Courthouse staff can't keep track of their own cases. I've had a $3.5-million judgment hanging over my head, issued by a court that apparently is infected with gross incompetence.

How can such a judgment stand? My answer is, "It can't, especially when it's void anyway."

That's one of numerous questions that the docket and Strange/Garrison transcript raise. We will be addressing others in upcoming posts.


(To be continued)








28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dude, the 2/20/15 order sets the default hearing for 3/19/15. It's on the docket. This piece of your conspiracy does not fit.

legalschnauzer said...

Dude, the 2/20/15 order does not set a damages hearing for 3/19/15, and nothing appears as happening on 3/19/15 The 2/20/15 order mentions to a DJ (default judgment) hearing, but not a damages hearing, and other documents indicate those are two different things.

Sloppy record keeping? Maybe. Something else? Maybe. Either way, it certainly does not inspire much confidence in JeffCo courts.

Anonymous said...

That Garrison/Strange testimony makes for some mighty interesting reading.

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting Garrison and Strange did not actually testify?

legalschnauzer said...

No, I'm saying that's what the docket suggests.

Anonymous said...

Now that you have posted about this issue it shouldn't take long for THTBIA to get-r-dun and make the court docket match their facts.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:53 -- I'm dying to know what THTBIA stands for. You've stumped the band with that one.

Anonymous said...

The
Powers
That
Be
In
Alabama

Anonymous said...

Just realized there was a typo at 1:53. Should have been:

Now that you have posted about this issue it shouldn't take long for TPTBIA to get-r-dun and make the court docket match their facts.

Anonymous said...

The sworn testimony from Garrison is simply not credible to any objective reading.

legalschnauzer said...

Thank you, @3:04. Now, I get it.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:13 --

You probably won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you 100 percent. But would you care to elaborate, shine light on how you reached that conclusion? Are there certain statements from her that seem especially sketchy? I concluded some time ago that Garrison can lie about most anything, in any situation. But I'm very interested in the thoughts of a third party, such as yourself, who seems to also see her as "not credible." Also curious what you think about Strange's testimony. BTW, I have several more posts coming on the Strange/Garrison testimony. Pretty fascinating stuff, if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

I'm not @4:13, but I've been in ROFLMAO mode ever since I read where Jessica considers herself worth a $1 million a year

legalschnauzer said...

I found that amusing, too, @5:15. Jessica has a mighty high opinion of herself.

Anonymous said...

>>>ever since I read where Jessica considers herself worth a $1 million a year<<<

Dammit! Is that in this filing?!

I like to skip straight to the whacky as shit or straight outta the Onion stuff- so point me in the right direction!

Also please point me to any document or filing where Big Lutha expresses an opinion as to the worth of JMG if you know of any such.

Anonymous said...

Garrison and Strange sure do go to great lengths to deny the affair we all know they had.

legalschnauzer said...

The JMG $1 million a year stuff is near the end of her testimony. And Lutha calls her "one of the best in the business." Exactly what "business" is he referring to? That remains unclear.

e.a.f. said...

perhaps some one is hoping you'll win a lottery and they can collect then. It certainly is weird. Perhaps they didn't think you'd look into the document.

considers herself work a million a year? gee what is she doing working in a back water like Alabama. You'd think she'd be in New York or Europe making more money. what a laugh.

this is just too weird for words.

Anonymous said...

Will comment more later but at first blush the comments Strange makes concerning why he paid Garrison at such an exorbitant rate (claiming she was "the best in the business" at political campaigns etc.) are unconvincing and actually contradicted by Garrison in her testimony (she states that the sum of her campaign experience was some fundraising for Bill Pryor). And Garrison's testimony about how she got the RAGA job is laughable (she said they sought HER out and Luther didn't solicit the job for her . . .sssuuuuurrrree they did). And when she says that they had no problem with her living in Birmingham (while she SUPPOSEDLY ran a DC power player) and PAYING FOR HER AIRLINE COMMUTE every week? Just beyond belief. To any judge with a brain.

And don't get me started about the fantastic tale she tells about her house purchase . . .

legalschnauzer said...

@7:53 --

Thanks for sharing your insights. That is a fantastic tale about the house purchase. I've read it several times, and still not sure I understand what she is trying to get at. Please do feel free to comment more later.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it ironic that Big Lutha would bring perjury charges against incoming Jeff Co. DA Todd Henderson while ignoring clear evidence that his girlfriend perjured herself on the stand?

Anonymous said...


https://www.scribd.com/document/332827852/Garrison-strange-testimony-in-default-hearing


15 Q. Did he begin writing various comments

16 and stuff about you in the Schnauzer?

17 A. Yes. It was brought to my attention

18 that he was writing about me in his blog, yes.

19 Q. And just a general question then I'll

20 get into specifics. Was what he wrote true?

21 A. There was nothing that he wrote about

22 me in his blog that was true. No truth to it.


Nothing?


Anonymous said...

Good grief you are delusional. It appears you are questioning whether the hearing actually took place, and essentially, the court reporter made the testimony up?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:48 --

Can you find in the docket where it says a damages hearing took place, or that Jessica Garrison and Luther Strange testified? Please let me know if you find it.

I never even hinted that the court reporter made anything up. I'm simply stating a fact: the docket gives no indication that such a hearing took place.

Either the docket is royally screwed up or the hearing, in fact, did not take place. One or the other is possible, but I can think of no other explanation. You might double check on the word "delusional" because it appears you have no idea what it means.

Anonymous said...

There is also a strange (heh heh) discussion by Ms. Garrison about Luther paying her after his 2006 failed run for Lite Gov. This is important in that they felt the need to address this issue, and the amount of time she spends discussing it is most interesting (this large lump sum payment of $17,500 was made 5 months before Ms. Garrison's son was born, sparking a lot of the gossip about her and Luther that ensued).

Ms. Garrison essentially says that the reason she got this lump sum, one-time-only large payment for work done over a long period of time (rather than several small payments as "work" was performed) is so - and I am not making this up - so Luther "could get up (advertising) on TV." That, of course, is nonsensical.

What she does NOT address - again, of course - is why Luther wrote the large check NOT to her personally (as in made out to HER)but instead to an LLC she had not even incorporated yet, and which appears to have been formed hurriedly just so she could get this large, one-time-only payment. Made out to the LLC. Not HER.

There's one thing certain here: Luther didn't want her name anywhere on his FCPA report getting that big payment.

Why would that be?

legalschnauzer said...

@12:53 --

Thanks for your comment. It shines important light on the Strange/Garrison statements under oath.

Do you have any educated guesses about why Luther did not want Garrison's name anywhere on his FCPA report getting that big payment? Another question: Where is Mrs. Strange in all of this? Do you think she was clueless about what was going on or was Luther afraid she might bust out into a full-blown D-I-V-O-R-C-E? My understanding is that she is set up with a condo in Homewood while Luther rubs shoulders in Pike Road.

Putting up a new post on Strange/Garrison testimony here in a moment.

Anonymous said...

Luther didn't want a large payment to Ms. Garrison - in her name- from him anywhere on this report. That's obvious. Five months later she had a baby.

I don't think you have to be Inspector Poirot here to figure out a possible motive.

legalschnauzer said...

1:40 --

I don't think so either, @1:40. Good point. Here is URL to new post about JMG lying under oath re: my reporting on Luther and parentage of her son:

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2017/02/transcript-from-jessica-medeiros.html

I reported the child was Lee Garrison's son, based on my interview with Mr. Garrison. But I still wonder if he was totally forthcoming with me.