.mp3 here
louisiana state attorney general candidate royal alexander was on the moon griffon radio program this morning. moon is off til thursday, so sitting in for him was his brain and sinister side-kick: ruth ulrich.
ms. ulrich sets mr. alexander up for the sexual harassment lawsuit portion of the interview by playing dumb:
"um i remember before uh you left d.c. actually right before congressman alexander was reelected that there was something that came up there was a lawsuit that uh that was taken to the press by a plaintiffs attorney about ten - twelve days something like that right before the election. would you explain what that was about?"
mr. alexander following ms. ulrich's rather not so subtle lead reiterates that yes the lawsuit was "sprung" on the office ten or twelve days before the election and was brought "by a young lady who had left our office the previous may." mr. alexander further tries to explain it all away while curiously always referring to the lawsuit in the past tense: "one part she alleged was there was an unfair wage claim...another part of the lawsuit was that felt she should have been paid overtime when she worked for us...another part involved the fact that the house bank apparently held on to some of her money longer than she thought that it should have and the fourth part of the claim was actually a sexual harassment claim against me, which is false." then manages to work in a swipe at "vicious" nancy pelosi suggesting that the whole thing was politically motivated. uh huh.mr. alexander goes to to say that an independent investigation was done and found no evidence of wrong doing. of course he doesnt say at who's behest this investigation was done. the oddest part of the interview is that while mr. alexander refers to the lawsuit in the past tense, ms. ulrich totally abdicates her responsibility as a a good (ethical? heh) interviewer by refraining from asking the most obvious question which would be -- so royal whats the status of the lawsuit now? it would seem that if the lawsuit had been dismissed or if mr. alexander had won the lawsuit that he would certainly want to get that information out. by the way we've been looking for the lawsuit on the federal courts pacer system but havent been able to locate it yet. so if you can locate it please email it to us to post.ms. ulrich ends the sexual harassment portion of the interview with the obligatory and rather cheap shot at the plaintiff elizabeth scott's attorney michael hoare by reminding everyone (just like she did in her little kalb video blog comment scam) mr. hoare had been in trouble in the past and "any credibility that he might have had was just killed in the light of all that, in my book anyway." what mr. hoare's past troubles have to do with ms. scott's case we cant figure out. especially, when you view his website and it plainly says that "the firm is devoted exclusively to representing people in the private and federal sector who have serious civil rights and employment discrimination problems, particularly: sexual harassment..." the daily kingfish has lots more information on royal alexander including:
is larry flynt rocking royal alexander's world?royal alexander comment scammers at it againrapides for royal...bleh!====
