File this under Julie Roehm: avenger. The PR food fight between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and its former marketing communications chief just got more interesting. I don't know why she picked late Friday afternoon on a get-away-weekend to launch her latest missive but according to the Wall Street Journal, Julie Roehm is alleging that WMT executives violated its ethics policy by accepting discounts on yachts, diamonds and personal gifts from vendors.

To put this into perspective, here's a recap of the rounds so far:

1. Wal-Mart fires Roehm alleging she accepted gifts from an advertising agency that was later chosen to handle WMT's ad account (12/06).
2. Roehm countersues WMT for breach of contract (12/06).
3. In a countersuit, WMT releases salacious details about an alleged affair Roehm had with a subordinate -- Sean Womack -- accusing her of misusing WMT travel funds on business trips with him. The suit cites one e-mail purportedly sent to Womack by Roehm as saying: "I think about us together all of the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me." (3/07).

And today's round goes to Roehm, who alleges that WMT CEO H. Lee Scott, received "preferential prices" on yachts and "a large pink diamond for his wife" through his relationship with Irwin Jacobs. One of Jacobs's companies, Jacobs Trading, has the exclusive right to buy unsold WMT merchandise.

Ever since I first started learning about Julie Roehm and her work, and subsequent abrupt dismissal, as advertising executive for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT), I saw a major disconnect. As I wrote at the time of her firing, Roehm "was fast cars, sex and rock-and-roll to Wal-Mart's Buicks, family values and Barry Manilow." Whether or not the allegations -- Roehm's calling them a "smear campaign" today -- of an improper relationship with marketing VP Sean Womack, and acceptance of special favors from potential clients -- were true, well, really. This is advertising, not government contracting (where, if you're going to be frank about it, this sort of thing goes on all the time, too). It's not like Roehm and Womack could sleep together and somehow sink Wal-Mart's considerable ship.

None of the things of which she's been accused would worry me, were I the management team above her. If she was telling a client he had a good chance of being awarded the contract, when he really didn't? That would be a concern, but she's not accused of that. She's basically accused of having a good time, and not even on the company dime.

Seriously. There are many sordid and terrible things going on in corporate America. Nothing Julie Roehm did, or is accused of doing, even comes close to terrible -- and is only sordid if you live a truly puritanical lifestyle. In her statement, Roehm said "Senior executives at Wal-Mart seemed to feel that maybe change wasn't such a good idea. Perhaps some did not like following or taking the advice of a woman."

Another one for the obviousness files. Wal-Mart should never have hired Julie in the first place -- not because she's not a good, even brilliant, marketing executive. Because they were never prepared to take her advice. Because they aren't her kind of people. If you're not prepared for change, don't pretend like you might. It will only hurt you, and the people who see more clearly than you.