CEO Ted Rollins Lied Under Oath To Greatly Reduce His Child-Support Payments

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, lied under oath in a child-support document he filed in his Alabama divorce case.

Sherry Carroll Rollins, Ted's ex wife and a Birmingham resident, makes the allegations in the third installment of a videotaped interview with Legal Schnauzer. (See the interview at the end of this post.)

Ted Rollins signed a CS-41 form stating that his only income was $4,166.67 a month, from employment at Reynolds Mortgage and Investment Co. of Brentwood, Tennessee. A CS-41 is an Alabama child-support document, an affidavit that is signed under penalty of perjury. The form was perhaps the single most important document filed in Rollins v. Rollins, a case that Ted Rollins initiated in Shelby County, Alabama, after Sherry Rollins' initial divorce complaint had been litigated for three years in South Carolina (where the couple had lived).

In a post titled "CEO With Deep Pockets Has Children on Food Stamps in Alabama," we published both a blank CS-41 form, plus a copy of the one Ted Rollins filed in Shelby County Circuit Court.

Based on Ted Rollins' sworn statement, his total income was $50,000.04 a year, and his child-support payments (for two daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins) were based on that. The figure, however, seems to be greatly at odds with facts found by a South Carolina judge, as we described in a previous post:

How did Ted Rollins, who regularly flies around the country on private jets, manage to get a support judgment that might be expected for a janitor, a school teacher, or a journalist? We are continuing to investigate that question. But one answer appears to rest with a CS-41 form, an Alabama child-support document that is signed under penalty of perjury. . . .

The CS-41 is dated April 27, 2005, and published reports show that Campus Crest Communities already had started at that point, with Rollins as CEO. The South Carolina court found that Rollins was president of St. James Capital LLC, an investment firm he founded with his cousin--R. Randall Rollins, chairman of Rollins Inc. in Atlanta. The South Carolina judge found that the Rollins family is "extremely wealthy."

Sherry Rollins says both the amount and the source of Ted Rollins' income are false. From her interview with Legal Schnauzer:

The form said he made $50,000 a year and worked for Reynolds Mortgage company in Brentwood Tennessee, for a guy named Ken Reynolds--and that Reynolds Mortgage was withholding the support funds for the girls, and the state of Alabama would send it to me. The (child-support) check was late by two months . . . early in the first year (after the divorce) in Alabama. I called Reynolds Mortgage Company and got Ken Reynolds on the phone and asked why my girls' child support was late. I said I was Sherry Rollins, and I (had been) married to Ted Rollins. He said, "I know Ted Rollins," and he stated that Ted had never worked for him. . . . He had sold Ted some land in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on which he built some apartments. That's when I learned that Ted had a company called Campus Crest. . . . Out of that conversation, I learned (Ted) had never worked for (Mr. Reynolds), and Ted had this company. Ted built one of his first complexes (at Middle Tennessee State in Murfreesboro).

It appears that Sherry Rollins caught her former husband red-handed in a lie--and it's not just a garden-variety lie. Ted Rollins' actions in his divorce case appear to constitute perjury and perhaps fraud on the court.

Is this a serious matter? Here is how the Code of Alabama defines perjury:

Section 13A-10-101 - Perjury in the first degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of perjury in the first degree when in any official proceeding he swears falsely and his false statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.

(b) Perjury in the first degree is a Class C felony.

Did Ted Rollins commit a felony in the course of the divorce case he initiated in Alabama? We sent Mr. Rollins written questions via e-mail, seeking comment about allegations of fraud in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case in Alabama. He has failed to respond to our messages.

Here is the Sherry Rollins' interview about the CS-41 form upon which Ted Rollins' child support was based:

Has the Sexual Abuse of Boys Reached a Crisis Stage?

(Includes update at the end, filed at 1:05 p.m., CST, on 3/5/12)

This is a presidential election year, so the biggest story of 2012 is likely to play out in early November. But the most important story of the year might be playing out right now--and it involves the ongoing revelations about the sexual abuse of boys, allegedly by men who were in positions of trust.

The issue first hit the national radar last November, when criminal charges were brought against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. That quickly was followed by allegations against former Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine.

Perhaps the most disturbing story yet came last week out of Troy, Ohio--and it had nothing to do with coaches or sports. It involves a "family unit" that apparently was horrifyingly dysfunctional. An adoptive father has been charged with raping his three sons and using one of them as a prostitute for two other men.
The three men are in jail on rape charges, and the father's name originally was withheld to protect the children's identity. The father, however, now has been identified as Kenneth H. Brandt.

The Dayton Daily News reports that bond has been set at $1 million for one of the three men. The newspaper also reports that the FBI intends to pursue federal child sexual-exploitation charges against the men:

Brandt is charged with raping his three adopted sons, ages 9, 10 and 12, and prostituting one of the sons to adult males. He also has a 9-year-old adopted daughter.

All four children were from Texas and one adoption was not yet finalized.

In addition to criminal charges, authorities are also examining Brandt’s history as a foster parent. 

“It has also been brought to our attention from past experiences with Kenneth that he has been bringing children from Texas to Troy as supposed foster children,” Troy Detective Chris Tilley wrote in the search warrant affidavit. Brandt was arrested Friday.

How stomach-churning is this story? Consider this report from The Troy Daily News:

A 10-year-old boy shook when asked about being prostituted to two other men by an adoptive father who regularly had sex with him, according to police, who said the boy was fearful of talking because he didn't want to be taken from his home or separated from his new siblings.

The adoptive father, Kenneth Brandt, 39, of Troy, has been charged with raping three boys in his care and compelling prostitution by hiring the 10-year-old out for sex. He and two other men remained in jail Thursday on rape charges.

Federal and local law enforcement officials said they're widening the investigation into child sexual exploitation allegations against the father, who worked out of his home as an insurance claims adjuster.

Troy police said they impounded the father's truck and seized four laptops from the home and a video camera and two wooden paddles from the master bedroom.

How did law-enforcement officials break the case?

An undercover detective in Franklin County, part of a state task force, talked online with the adoptive father, who said he would arrange sex with a 10-year-old boy, Troy police said. He had been led to the adoptive father by another man who had posted a Craigslist ad wanting "taboo" sex, police said.

The adoptive father was going to meet the undercover detective at a McDonald's in a nearby city, but police moved in two days before the scheduled meeting, according to records. They confronted the man with text messages and online communications about arranging sex with the boy, police said in a case report filed in court.

News reports about the sexual abuse of boys have tended to focus on coaches and scout leaders. Sports Illustrated produced an expose in 1999 about child molesters in youth sports. But the Troy, Ohio, story goes right into the home, the place where children are supposed to be most safe.

Kenneth H. Brandt

Stories about alleged child sex abusers tend to focus on alleged predators from the middle or upper middle classes. We suspect the focus will shift at some point to predators among America's elites. After all, the Troy story raises the issue of prostitution, and who has the most money to spend on unsavory activities?

We already have seen signs of elites connected to one of America's ugliest subjects. Stories broke in the late 1980s about the Franklin Scandal, which had connections to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses. That story had ties to powerful corporate and political figures in the conservative realm, and it eventually faded from view. But the scandal at Penn State also might "out" some significant elites. According to one report, Sandusky helped line up boys for sexual activity with wealthy university donors.

What on earth drives some men, many of whom are married and self identify as heterosexual, to seek illicit adventures with boys? We don't have an answer to that question, but we don't look for this story to go away anytime soon.

Update at 1:05 p.m. on 3/5/12

I had barely pushed the publish button on this post when I discovered that a new story is breaking about the sexual abuse of boys. This is another one from the world of sports, with at least eight men claiming they were sexually abused by a former clubhouse manager for the Boston Red Sox baseball team. The men claim they were molested while serving as bat boys for both the Red Sox and the Baltimore Orioles.

Donald J. Fitzpatrick, the clubhouse manager, now is deceased, and the alleged abuse apparently took place in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Case of a Grandmother and a Hit Man Produces Strange Journalism in Alabama

Barbara Patterson

An Alabama grandmother was convicted last week of conspiracy to murder her ex son-in-law over a child-custody case.

Prosecutors alleged that Barbara Patterson, 64, hired a hit man to help turn her former son-in-law into "fish bait." The hit man turned out to be an undercover agent for the Alabama Bureau of Investigation. A federal jury took less than an hour to find Patterson guilty, and that makes it sound like an open-and-shut case.

But certain aspects of the story cause us alarm. For one, it grew out of a divorce/custody case involving Patterson's daughter, Kimberly Dawn McGuffie. We have reported extensively on corruption in Alabama's domestic-relations courts, so Patterson might have had legitimate reasons for feeling that justice was not being served in her daughter's divorce case. That's not to suggest that hiring a hit man is the right way to address such a problem. But I understand the sentiment, and the public should not be surprised when some people turn to desperate measures when faced with deep-seated courtroom corruption.

After all, the McGuffie divorce/custody case was heard in Shelby County Circuit Court, the same venue where the Rollins v. Rollins divorce fiasco took place--and where Mrs. Schnauzer and I were cheated repeatedly in a property-related case involving a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity.

I know how Shelby County courts really operate, and I know the enormous rage and frustration that comes from being on the wrong side of a court battle that is fixed.

Here is another oddity about the grandmother/hit man story, and it gives me considerable pause: Kent Faulk, a reporter for The Birmingham News, resorted to some peculiar journalism in his article about Barbara Patterson's conviction. The part of his story in question is not available in the online version at al.com, to which we link in the first paragraph above. But it was in the printed version, and here are how the last two paragraphs of the story read. It refers to a witness called by defense attorney Mari Morrison:

A lawyer, called to the witness stand by Morrison, also testified Wednesday that Patterson had come to his office with her daughter in July 2009 and hired him to try and win custody of the two children. He said he was paid $4,500 over a two-month period. A court hearing had been set in that case before Patterson and McGuffie were charged.

Morrison had argued that her client was trying to get custody of the children the legal way.

Notice something missing in those two paragraphs? Kent Faulk does not identify the lawyer in question; the man testified in open court, but we are not told his name. Why on earth is that? A reporter for a junior-high newspaper would know to include the lawyer's name, but a veteran reporter for The Birmingham News can't figure it out? If Faulk somehow slipped up, no one on the newspaper's copy desk could catch it and make sure the name was added? Is everyone at The Birmingham News on an industrial-strength dosage of Ambien.

I sent Faulk an e-mail on Thursday, asking why the name was omitted. If it was an honest mistake, I asked, will the newspaper publish a correction or clarification?

You probably will not be surprised to learn that Kent Faulk did not respond to my e-mail, and the paper did not publish a correction.

That tells me the omission was intentional, which means our local conservative news rag is trying to protect somebody, for some reason. Why might that be? Here are a few possibilities:

A. The lawyer was embarrassed that he charged $4,500 for two months of work, which probably amounted to attending one hearing, and had enough clout to keep his name out of the newspaper;

B. The lawyer is a member of the "hunting club" that allegedly conspires with local judges to fix divorce cases. We've written about multiple federal lawsuits that have been filed over the hunting-club issue, and we will be writing much more. But I can reveal this much now about my research: The pro-business, pro-Bob Riley law firm of Bradley Arant was heavily involved in defending hunting-club lawyers and judges. And we know that The Birmingham News shares the strong pro-business, pro-Riley stance of the Bradley Arant firm. Did someone with an interest in protecting the hunting-club gravy train persuade the newspaper to help shield a certain attorney?

C. All of the above.

Here is a final area of concern about the Barbara Patterson case: The case was handled by U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon, and we have first-hand evidence that Kallon is flagrantly corrupt or incompetent (or both). Kallon practiced at Bradley Arant before being named to the federal bench. (Kallon, by the way, is an Obama appointee; that is just one more reason to be disgusted with the president's many failures on justice issues.)

The jury that convicted Barbara Patterson apparently had little doubt about her guilt. But I see a lot of reasons to doubt whether justice was served.

Racist Montana Judge Hardly Is the Only Rogue on the Federal Bench

Richard Cebull

A federal judge in Montana made national headlines this week when he confessed to having sent an e-mail that included a racist joke about President Barack Obama.

Many Americans probably found the actions of U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull appalling. But as someone who has been before federal judges on several occasions, I was not at all surprised. In fact, I'm not sure racism would even make a top-five list of disturbing characteristics I've witnessed from federal judges.

That's not to minimize the notion of a racist sitting on the federal bench. In fact, I have a pending employment-discrimination case before William M. Acker Jr., a federal judge in the Northern District of Alabama. The judge is an 84-year-old Reagan appointee, and multiple sources have told me Acker attended the Dixiecrat convention at Birmingham's Municipal Auditorium (now Boutwell Auditorium) in 1948. That's the convention where a splinter group from the Democratic Party nominated Strom Thurmond for president on a pro-segregation platform. Does that lead me to believe that Acker was a racist then, and he's probably a racist now? It certainly does.

If my hunch is correct, Acker is not alone on the federal bench. Cebull, a 2001 George W. Bush nominee, has proven that. Reports The Great Falls Tribune:

The subject line of the email, which Cebull sent from his official courthouse email address on Feb. 20 at 3:42 p.m., reads: "A MOM'S MEMORY."

The forwarded text reads as follow:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'" the email joke reads. "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

Hmmm . . . a federal judge hints that the president's mother had sex with a dog--and the judge thinks that's funny? But the joke itself is not even the most disturbing part of the e-mail. Notice the smugness that drips from these words about the joke: "Hope it touches your heart like it did mine."

This is someone who takes pleasure from making fun of others, from mocking others, from showing flagrant disrespect for the president of the United States, our commander in chief. This e-mail is the work of a twisted mind.

Most any American who was caught sending such a piece of trash from his work computer would be summarily fired. As someone who was fired at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because of false allegations that I was using my work computer to write a progressive blog, I'm more than a little sensitive to issues such as this. And by the way, it's not just my opinion that I wasn't using my computer to write my blog. UAB's own IT employee, who was asked to monitor my computer usage for one month, admitted I never typed the first keystroke on my blog. (The real reason I was fired? Audiotaped evidence shows it was because of my reporting, on my own time and with my own resources, about the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.) UAB's own grievance committee found that I should not have been fired--in fact, my hearing showed there were no grounds for discipline of any kind--but the university's HR director and president chose to uphold the termination anyway.

Would I like to see Cebull get the boot for gross misuse of federal property? I sure as hell would, and calls for the judge's resignation already are coming from some quarters. Unfortunately, federal judges have lifetime appointments and are pretty much untouchable. Cebull has admitted the e-mail was racist, but will he have the decency to step down on his own? I'm not holding my breath.

Federal judges operate in what amounts to a hermetically sealed bubble, and it's rare for Americans to catch a glimpse of how they really think and act. Here in the Deep South, we got such a glimpse in late 2010 when U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp was caught in Atlanta buying drugs while packing heat and cavorting with a stripper. God only knows how much mayhem Camp got away with on the bench, but he was forced to step down and surrender his law license for his "extra-judicial activities."

Judge William M. Acker Jr. (right)
with Stanford professor Jack Rakove

What about the list of the worst characteristics I've seen in federal judges? Well, it would have to include arrogance, dishonesty, greed, incompetence, and ignorance. (Racism encompasses many of these characteristics, so it would deserve a prominent spot on my list; Cebull notwithstanding, most federal judges probably are smart enough to mask their racism, so it's hard to tell just how prevalent racist sentiment is on the bench. Also, I'm white, so I might not pick up on it as quickly as would a party with dark skin.)

No. 1 on my list of ugly judicial traits probably would be disrespect--for litigants, the public, the constitution, the judicial office, and (most of all) the law itself. I recently wrote about two Alabama federal judges--Acker and Abdul Kallon--who have exhibited flagrant disrespect for the law in cases I have before them. I will be providing specifics in a series of upcoming posts.

But here is a general idea of what I'm talking about: In a hearing before Acker, the judge, in so many words, admitted that he was going to cheat me--and he, in fact, did just that. The judge also made public statements strongly hinting that he had discussed my case with someone connected to the opposing party (UAB).

This all takes some explaining, and I will provide the explanation in upcoming posts. But readers can be assured that this is not just a product of my overactive imagination. I have a transcript of a hearing that proves what I'm talking about. Mrs. Schnauzer was on hand for the hearing and swore out an affidavit about Acker's statements. I included her affidavit in a complaint to the judicial council for the U.S. Eleventh Circuit.

The take-home lesson? Federal judges get away with all sorts of misconduct, even crimes, and the public is blissfully unaware of it.

We can thank Richard Cebull for accidentally shining light on the ugliness that resides in certain judicial hearts and minds. We especially can thank the person on the judge's e-mail list who apparently developed a conscience and decided to expose him.

Let's close with a legal tip: It's almost impossible to successfully sue any judge (federal or state) for an act that comes within his judicial duties. Judges can commit all sorts of fraud--and injure parties in heinous ways--and get away with it. That's because the doctrine of judicial immunity protects them for their judicial acts, no matter how unjust or unlawful they might be.

But I will let Schnauzer readers in on a secret, one the legal cartel does not want you to know: Sending racist e-mails is not part of Judge Cebull's judicial duties; even he would not seriously argue that it is. Our Montana judge, therefore, is vulnerable to a federal lawsuit.

Who could bring the lawsuit? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that any federal taxpayer could do it? What would be the claims? I feel certain the ACLU, or a similar organization, could come up with something involving the misuse of federal property.

This is a rare opportunity for the public to hold a federal judge accountable. We should not let it slip through our fingers.

Cause of Death In the Chace Swatek Case Remains Undetermined

Chace Swatek

Alabama lawyer Chace Swatek died of undetermined causes, and a law-enforcement official says cause of death probably will not be known for six months or more.

Captain Larry Palmer, of the Pelham Police Department, said an official cause of death would not be known until toxicology tests are completed. He said there were no marks on the body or evidence in the area to suggest that foul play was involved. That means testing in the Swatek case will take a relatively low priority at a time when Alabama forensic scientists are stressed by heavy caseloads and tight budgets.

"I've seen cases like this take six months to a year," Palmer said.

Palmer did clarify one item about the Swatek case. According to news reports, Swatek's body was found at a construction site near the Shelby County Services Building in Pelham. Palmer said the body actually was discovered in a vacant lot.

"A water line is being laid in the area, and pipes are placed at several spots beside the road," Palmer said. "But it really is not a construction site, and Mr. Swatek's body was found in what amounts to a vacant lot.

"It appeared he was walking beside the road when he came upon a stack of pipes. It looked like he chose to walk behind the pipes, rather than in front of them, and his body was found behind the pipes."

Upon initial inspection, Palmer said, it looked like the 35-year-old Swatek might have died from a heart attack. But he said the official cause of death currently is undetermined. It also is unknown why Swatek was walking beside the road.

UAB's Carol Garrison: Portrait of a Corrupt Univesity President, Part II

John Shumaker

We reported in April 2009 that officials at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) tried to fudge their numbers on a gender-related salary study, making it look like UAB was paying female faculty members better than it really was.

This has become just one entry in a growing list of problems on the Southside campus. But perhaps the public should not be surprised by the turmoil at Birmingham's largest employer. After all, UAB President Carol Garrison showed questionable ethics almost from the moment she took office. And there has been an alarming level of deceit at UAB under Garrison's leadership.

Garrison was named president of UAB on July 23, 2002, coming from the University of Louisville, where she had been provost since 1997.

On July 2, 2003, less than one year after she had been on the job in Birmingham, Garrison became entangled in a scandal surrounding University of Tennessee President John Shumaker. The two had worked together at Louisville, and Tennessee lawmakers began asking questions about Shumaker's use of the UT plane to make frequent trips to Birmingham.

Roughly a year earlier, before Shumaker's first official day of work at UT, Louisville officials had confirmed that he was in the process of getting a divorce from his wife, Lucy Shumaker. Throughout the job search, Lucy Shumaker had been at her husband's side, making it look like UT was getting an attractive, cohesive team. Reality turned out to be different from what the Shumakers projected.

One reason for that, apparently, was Carol Garrison.

The UT president at first claimed his trips to Birmingham were not to see Garrison, but his story soon changed. Here's how the Associated Press reported it in a story dated July 9, 2003:

Shumaker has been transported by the UT plane nine times to Birmingham, and he has been aboard it a dozen times as it took off from that city. On March 9, the plane picked up Shumaker and University of Alabama at Birmingham President Carol Garrison. It took them to Little Rock, Ark., for the Southeastern Conference championship women's basketball game, then returned them to Birmingham.

"The plane would have picked me up whether she was on or not," Shumaker said.

What was the nature of the Shumaker-Garrison relationship. The AP reported:

Shumaker described their relationship as "unassailable, perfectly proper and appropriate."

"Carol and I are very good personal friends," Shumaker said. "There is nothing to apologize for. We have never tried to conceal the fact that we were together on some occasions."

That explanation apparently didn't fly with officials in Tennessee. Two days later, in a story dated July 11, 2003, the Chattanooga Free-Press reported that Shumaker was being ordered to pay for personal flights:

The president of the University of Tennessee has been asked to reimburse the state for any personal flights aboard state aircraft. Gov. Phil Bredesen said Wednesday that UT President John W. Shumaker "needs to put to bed" questions raised about his use of state planes.

The governor asked Dr. Shumaker to examine his flights, and "if some are questionable, then you get paid a lot of money, write a check for it." The criteria to be used in making the evaluation is whether the trips were for state or university business, he said. UT officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Five days later, in a story dated July 16, 2003, Associated Press reported that Shumaker would pay back a substantial sum of money for his questionable air travel:

Facing questions about his use of the University of Tennessee plane and other resources, UT President John Shumaker said Wednesday he will reimburse the university $24,600 for 25 questionable flights, eliminate use of his corporate credit card and file more frequent expense reports.

Earlier this month, Shumaker asked the state comptroller to review use of UT's airplane because of state lawmaker concerns following an analysis of flight records during the last 22 months.

The most questionable flights were ones to Louisville, where Shumaker was the former president of the University of Louisville, and Birmingham, Ala., where former Louisville colleague Carol Garrison is president of the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

The day before this report hit the press, the vice chairman of the UT Board of Trustees ordered an audit of Shumaker's expenditures. And the governor made it clear, in a July 19, 2003, interview with the Chattanooga Free-Press, that he was not pleased with the UT president's cavalier use of state funds:

Gov. Phil Bredesen said on Friday that UT President John W. Shumaker's use of the university's airplane would not get a "Good Housekeeping seal of approval."

Gov. Bredesen said University of Tennessee officials should idle the plane and refocus on education priorities.

"I think it would probably be good for them to park that baby for a while and get the focus back on what they need to be doing," Gov. Bredesen said.

Shumaker might have parked "that baby" for a while. But his troubles were far from over. The University of Louisville, where Shumaker and Garrison had worked together, announced that it also was conducting an audit, focusing on Shumaker's spending while he was there.

Meanwhile, Shumaker resorted to telling a UT alumni group that he was the victim of tabloid journalism. He even tried to laugh off reports about his frequent trips to Birmingham to visit Garrison:

Shumaker joked Friday to alumni that "it was as though Birmingham was the center of sin in the Southeast." His former Louisville colleague Carol Garrison is president of the University of Alabama-Birmingham and accompanied him on the UT plane to an Arkansas basketball tournament.

Tennessee officials, however, must not have been in a joking mood because the heat under John Shumaker's chair was about to get even hotter. And Carol Garrison, again, would be right in the middle of it.


(To be continued)




Previously in the series:


Carol Garrison and John Shumaker, Part I

Roller Derby Queen Prevails In Legal Battle Over a Romance Gone Sour

Stacey Blitsch

I never expected to have much in common with a roller derby queen. But by golly, it has happened. And that's because lawyers have tried to muzzle both Stacey Blitsch and Legal Schnauzer--without much success, so far.

Regular readers know that North Carolina lawyer Chad Essick has threatened me three times with legal action because of my reporting about Ted Rollins, CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities. What has been my great sin? Reporting accurately and thoroughly about Rollins' actions connected to a peculiar divorce action he brought against Sherry Carroll Rollins, his ex wife who now lives in Alabama with the couple's two daughters. Since Ted Rollins has no facts or law to support a claim against me, he has resorted to threats from a lawyer who apparently has too much time on his hands.

Blitsch has faced similar efforts to silence her voice on the Web, although under very different circumstances from mine. Blitsch's antagonist, like mine, has only succeeded in bringing heightened attention to his own questionable actions.

Who is Stacey Blitsch? She's a real-life roller derby queen, based in California. As you can tell from the photo above, she cuts quite an impressive swath.

How did Blitsch get crossways with a lawyer? First, she got dumped by her boyfriend, a New York lawyer named Matthew Couloute Jr. Then she discovered that Couloute had also dumped another woman, Amanda Ryncarz. The two women decided to go on the Web site LiarsCheatersRUs.com and air their grievances about the lawyerly Lothario.

Couloute was not amused. He responded by filing a federal lawsuit for tortious interference with business relations. He amended the complaint to add a claim for defamation. But U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, of New York, booted the lawsuit last week, stating that Couloute did not have grounds to support either claim.

Gloria Allred, flanked by Amanda
Ryncarz and Stacy Blitsch

How did Blitsch and Ryncarz manage to fight off their former legal lover? Well, it probably helped that their case attracted the attention of Gloria Allred, the high-profile discrimination lawyer from Los Angeles. Allred's star power might have helped her clients prevail in court.

It's also possible that Blitsch and Ryncarz prevailed because Couloute had a crappy case. And it appears that he is exactly what Blitsch and Ryncarz say he is--a world-class cad, with a big-time sense of entitlement.

To be sure, the women lambasted Couloute on LiarsCheatersRUs.com. Legal analyst Jonathan Turley has a nice, tongue-in-cheek take on the contretemps:

We have previously discussed the problems of lawyers with being attacked by ex-girlfriends for their alleged bad relationships. The latest such story involves attorney Matthew Couloute Jr. who sued a former roller derby queen Stacey Blitsch and another ex for their posts about him at liarscheatersrus.com. The site still has a place for Couloute comments. Now, federal Judge Harold Baer has tossed out the defamation lawsuit as improperly based on protected opinion. In this case, the opinion that Couloute is a collossal loser. [Just for the record, I want to note that I have not dated Couloute and that I am merely repeating the opinion of those who have dated Couloute].

Couloute was called a cheating “scum” who, according to Amanda Ryncarz, dumped her over the phone five days before marrying another woman. Blitsch has a son with Couloute.

In a nine-page opinion, Judge Baer easily dispensed with Couloute's claim for tortious interference. Wrote the judge:

Under New York law, to establish a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) business relations with a third party; (2) the defendant’s interference with those business relations; (3) the defendant acted with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or used dishonest, unfair or improper means; and (4) injury to the business relationship.” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 114 (2d Cir. 2010).

For Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim to survive, Plaintiff must allege that Defendants “directly interfered with the [identified] business relationship by directing some activities towards the third party and convinc[ing] the third party not to enter into a business relationship with the plaintiff.” Zdenek Marek v. Old Navy (Apparel), Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 275, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) . . . Plaintiff fails to point to any client, current or prospective, about which Defendants had knowledge and to whom their comments were directed. . . . Plaintiff would have the Court infer from the Defendants’comments (accusing Plaintiff of being a “liar” and a “cheater”) and the fact that Defendants “must have known that Plaintiff had current clients” that Defendants specifically targeted those clients. . . . Plaintiff provides no cases to support the idea that potentially harmful statements posted on a website such as this one, coupled with the knowledge that the statements might be read by third parties, is sufficient to show that one or more relationships were intentionally interfered with by Defendants.

Why did Couloute not bring the defamation claim in his initial complaint? Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, and we suspect that the lawyer knew discovery would show that the women's claims were true. Aside from that, Judge Baer had no problems dispensing with Couloute's defamation claim, as well:

The key question here is whether, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the comments contain assertions of fact or opinion. The New York Court of Appeals distilled the following three factors which courts are instructed to consider in determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion:

(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal [to] readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact.

Did Couloute meet his burden? Judge Baer ruled that he did not:

With the possible exception of the statement that Plaintiff “rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing”--a statement clearly capable of being proven true or false--the comments, even if viewed in isolation, are opinion. Defendants state that Plaintiff "lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life," and that, because Plaintiff is an attorney, "he's great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye." Comments such as these are clearly hyperbolic. And when viewed within the larger context of the website on which they were posted, there can be no doubt that a reasonable reader would understand the comments to be opinion. As Defendants note, liarscheatersrus.com is "specifically intended to provide a forum for people to air their grievances about dishonest romantic partners. . . . " The average reader would know that the comments are "emotionally charged rhetoric" and the "opinions of disappointed lovers."

The case of the roller derby queen scorned does raise at least one serious issue. I'm all for free speech in general, but the notion of folks taking to the Web to bash someone because of a romance gone sour is, well . . . a little disarming. I'm working on 21-plus years of marriage and don't plan to re-enter the dating scene anytime soon, but I could see where the Liars/Cheaters Web site might ensnare folks who aren't liars or cheaters at all. Maybe they just declined an invitation for a date, and the other party decided to "make them pay."

Judge Baer seemed to acknowledge that such Web sites are ripe sources of potential abuse:

Of course the Internet makes it more likely that a greater number of people will read comments such as these, and thereby amplify the impact they may have on a person, but this does not change the underlying nature of the comments themselves. See Sandals Resorts Intern., Ltd v. Google, Inc., 925 N.Y.S.2d 407, 415-16 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (noting the Internet "encourage[es] a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style," and that "readers give less credence to allegedly defamatory remarks published on the Internet than to similar remarks made in other contexts."

In spite of my reservations about LiarsCheatersRUs.com, I'm pleased that the roller derby queen and her friend prevailed. It would be nice, also, if this case helped convince Ted Rollins' lawyer to find something constructive to do with his time.

To celebrate one victory for justice, let's enjoy a live performance of Jim Croce's "Roller Derby Queen."

The Death of Alabama Lawyer Chace Swatek Hits Close to Home in Disturbing Ways

Chace Swatek and is sister,
actress Barret Swatek

Chace William Swatek had a low-profile law practice in Alabama, but my recent post about his mysterious death drew heavy traffic and a boat load of comments, many of them with harsh words for your humble blogger.

Chace's older brother, Dax Swatek, is a well-known Republican thug/operative, with documented ties to the Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff wings of the party, and I suspect that drove some of the traffic to my post. The Swatek family seems to have little in the way of morals or ethics, but they have connections to Birmingham's sizable conservative, evangelical Christian community--and I suspect that was another driver. After all, Chace's memorial service was at Briarwood Presbyterian Church, a suburban megachurch that has ties to our Legal Schnauzer story through a curious deal engineered by a real-estate agent named Phyllis Tinsley.

At least one reader, however, was drawn to the Chace Swatek post for a very different set of reasons. Peter B. Collins is a prominent progressive radio talk-show host who is based in San Francisco and known for producing "news and commentary from the Left Coast." I've been a guest on Peter B's show probably eight to 10 times, usually to discuss issues connected to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. In fact, Peter B said he knows me mostly as "the guy who blogs about Siegelman."

It was not until he read the post about Chace Swatek that Peter B understood the tale of personal legal woe that caused me to start Legal Schnauzer in the first place. He did not know that my interest in the justice system grew from a bogus lawsuit that William E. Swatek (Chace's father) filed against me on behalf of a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity. "My first interaction with you was when you were fired from the University of Alabama, where you worked for almost 20 years, because of your private work on the blog and your coverage of the Siegelman case," Peter B said. He added that he found it "astounding" to learn that my personal story started because of the Swatek family and their ties to  Republican royalty.

My appearances on Peter B's show usually have been to discuss issues of national significance. But he had me on last week to talk about the Chace Swatek post and the personal story that drove me to start a blog about justice issues.

You can check it out at The Peter B. Collins show Web site, with a piece titled "Roger Shuler’s Personal 12-year Battle Against Injustice and Sleaze in Alabama." As I recount our story, Mrs. Schnauzer and I were trying to follow Bill Clinton's advice to "work hard and play by the rules" when one day our world got turned upside down by a lawsuit from hell. "I got caught up in this like stepping in cow poop out in the field," I said. "I wasn't looking one day, and the next thing I knew I had mess all over my shoe and wondered, 'How did that happen?'

"It really started from us trying to protect our property rights. We had a difficult neighbor who wouldn't stay off our yard, and one thing led to another . . . "

The link above includes an audio preview of our discussion, and the full interview is available via subscription. Here are highlights from Peter B's examination of the Chace Swatek story and its ties
to courtroom buffoonery that launched a legal blog:

* On the fact that my wife and I were the victims of a low-level crime (criminal trespass), and our efforts to have that prosecuted led Mike McGarity, with Bill Swatek's help, to sue me for a little-known tort called malicious prosecution. I pointed out that McGarity was found not guilty on the criminal-trespass charge, even though a transcript of the trial shows that he confessed to committing the crime:

Because he was acquitted, (McGarity) turned around and sued me for a tort called malicious prosecution and that's what started our whole nightmare. People don't know this, but you can be the victim of a crime, and if you bring charges and the person is acquitted, they can sue you for malicious prosecution. . . . It most often is used when people are charged with shoplifting, at say a department store, and they get acquitted and then sue the department store. It's called a disfavored tort and should almost never be brought, but this guy got Bill Swatek as his lawyer, and (Swatek) has a 30-year history of sleazy activity with the Alabama State Bar, and that's how we got caught in this never-ending mess. And it can happen to any American. If you stepped outside and got mugged and decided to press charges and the guy got off, he could turn around and sue you. It's pretty scary stuff. . . . We were the victims of a low-level crime and made the mistake of taking it to court. The guy wouldn't stay off our property, and one of our concerns was that if someone got hurt on our property, we would get sued. These people were on our yard constantly . . . adults and kids. They basically turned our yard into a park.

* On the special treatment that Bill Swatek receives in Shelby County court, which led to the McGarity acquittal, a lawsuit against me, and ultimately a judgment for roughly $1,500 for a tort called conversion (the malicious prosecution claimed ultimately was dismissed), which is essentially a civil form of theft. Swatek brought a conversion claim against me because I cleaned up trash that had been thrown onto my yard, and no one had claimed it. I'm not making this up; I have a legal judgment against me because I cleaned up junk out of my yard and put it in a bag in my garage:

One of the things I don't know for sure is how does (Bill Swatek) get that kind of power? And he's not the only Shelby County lawyer who gets treated favorably that way. I will be writing more about what I call a hunting club case. There are hunting clubs in Alabama, where judges and lawyers get together to fix cases, and I think something like that might be going on in Shelby County. There definitely are several federal lawsuits that have been filed related to that kind of activity related to divorce cases. . . . What we are talking about here is organized crime, where certain people get favored in court, and it appears lawyers do favors for judges through hunting clubs. . . . I read in a federal lawsuit that (certain lawyers) will take judges to South America on fishing trips or up to Canada to fish for salmon or trout or whatever they have up there. Then they come home, (and the lawyers get favorable judgments) and they don't have to meet deadlines, they don't have to file documents.

* On Dax Swatek's connections, and their possible influence on my personal story:

Dax Swatek is the key figure. . . .  He has ties to what I call the two prongs of the Republican crime family. You've got the Karl Rove prong of the family, and Dax Swatek's mentor is Bill Canary. People who have followed the Siegelman case know that Bill Canary is very close to Karl Rove. In 2006, Dax Swatek was Bob Riley's campaign manager. . . . Bob Riley has very clear, documented ties to Jack Abramoff and to Michael Scanlon. You have one prong to the left that goes straight to Karl Rove and another prong to the right that goes straight to Jack Abramoff--and Dax Swatek is right in the middle of both of them. . . . And he's the older brother of Chace Swatek, the one who turned up dead.

* On criticism I took for the Chace Swatek post. Peter B noted that he has a rule of waiting until someone is buried before telling the truth about them:

I didn't really have much to criticize the deceased (about). He had kind of a low-profile law practice, doing stuff like his father did--divorce and criminal defense. . . . It was an occasion to provide a lot of background on what this family is really like, and how it hits home personally to me. A lot of the comments bash me, and others stood up for me. I'm not into sugarcoating things on my blog--never have been, never will be. I just told the truth, and it's all supported by public documents about the father. I had one brief phone conversation with Chace Swatek, when he called me out of the blue . . . and I guess I will never know why he called me. Maybe I should have followed your idea of waiting until he was buried. I jumped the gun by 24 hours. I really was not critical of (Chace). It was more his father and his brother and this ugly network they are involved in.

* On the comments to the Chace Swatek post:

I hope your listeners will read the comments because it's quite an expose into the right-wing mind. A lot of these people don't give a crap what has happened to me and Carol, they just don't like that I wrote about the Swateks. Several of them quoted Bible verses to me. I had a number say, "Would you please take this down . . . this is just awful to have this at a time of grief for the family.' I said, "Heck no, I'm not taking it down--it's part of my life and part of the public record. . . .

I'll pat myself on the back, I let all of those comments through, and I didn't have to. I moderate comments, and I could have kicked them all out if I had wanted to. I engaged quite a few of the people in back and forth. I challenged several of them--the ones who said you just need to get over it and move on--and said, "Why don't you confront the Swatek family? Maybe not now during a time of grief, but why don't you ask, 'What have you done to these people?' and see how they react." Of course, I don't think they will really do that. It's a real eye opener into the Southern, Republican, conservative mind.

* On the damages we have incurred--including the loss of our jobs--and the notion from some commenters that we should "turn the other cheek" toward the Swatek family:

We are fighting (our employment cases) in court on our own . . . and we're surviving on our savings. . . . We don't have children, and we've made efforts to be fairly frugal--although we were not planning to use (our savings) for things like this. It's tough; I call it financial terrorism, and I think that's what they were trying to do to Don Siegelman. More than putting him in prison, I think they wanted to ruin him financially so he could never run for office again. And that's what they've tried to do to me.

We've spent $25,000 to $30,000 directly to multiple lawyers. And a lot of your listeners probably have no idea about the expenses of filing a case, filing an appeal (when you are representing yourself, as we are now). We should be stockholders in OfficeMax because we have to go there to get this stuff bound. And (those expenses) don't even count my salary for four years and my wife's salary for over two years. The people who criticize me on the comments and say "just let bygones be bygones," well . . . we're not sure, but it's probably in the neighborhood of $500,000 to $1 million that these people have cost us--when you total up salaries, benefits, legal expenses, and everything.

Turning the cheek sounds easy in Bible study class. I'm willing turn the cheek, but justice has to be achieved at some point.

In tallying up our damages, I didn't even note that Bill Swatek has unlawfully held partial ownership in our house for almost four years. Given that our house probably would go on the market for about $200,000, that gives you an idea of those damages. And the figures I tossed out didn't account for emotional pain and suffering, which has been horrific.

Here is perhaps the No. 1 theme that jumped out in the comments from Swatek supporters, many of whom seem to self identify as devout Christians: My wife and I--and others who have been victimized by Bill Swatek over the years--are non-entities. We are sub-human, not deserving of concern or respect, because we do not fit into their conservative tribe. We are to twist ourselves into all sorts of pretzel-like forms in an effort to practice Biblical principles of "forgiveness" and "letting go." But the Swateks are not to be held accountable or challenged in any way. The Biblical notions of restitution and justice are completely foreign to these commenters--unless, of course, they become victims someday.

I long have suspected that many conservatives have severely warped notions about Christianity and the Bible. The comments on the Chace Swatek post pretty much confirm that.

Is Bob Riley Finally About to Come Under Scrutiny?

Bob Riley

Former Alabama Governor Bob Riley is under investigation by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, according to a new report from The Montgomery Independent.

The news comes as defendants in the federal bingo trial have stated they will not call any witnesses, meaning closing arguments are expected tomorrow and Riley will not be called in the case. That comes as no surprise to those of us who have watched Riley give new meaning to the term "Teflon governor."

But Ellen Brooks, who has been Montgomery County DA since 1993, might try to put a few scratches in Riley's protective coating. We have only one question for Ms. Brooks: What took you so long?

On the premise that late is better than never, let's take a look at the The Montgomery Independent's report:

The Montgomery Independent has learned from multiple credible sources that the District Attorney's office in the 15th Judicial Circuit (Montgomery County) has been investigating certain activities of former Gov. Bob Riley that occurred during his two terms as governor and includes lobbying for firms which received lucrative state contracts under his tenure.

The District Attorney in Montgomery is given specific authority under state law to investigate activities of state government and state officers throughout Alabama.

What might be of particular interest about the Riley era?

The former governor, with much fanfare, began a career as a lobbyist, soon after he left office, hiring on wealthy business clients, some which he awarded state contracts and business during his two terms as governor.

Riley's client list included Gulf Coast Asphalt Co., which has offices in Houston and Mobile, and Brett Real Estate Robinson Development Co. in Saraland. His other clients included Austal USA, EADS North American, and VT Systems Inc. -- Austal USA builds Navy ships in Mobile; EADS North American is based in Arlington and would have built a refueling tanker in Mobile if it had won the federal contract, and VT Systems is the parent of a company that operates an aircraft maintenance facility in Mobile.

How far could the Brooks inquiry go? Well, Team Riley already is showing signs of being under pressure:

Then there are dozens of other firms who have profited under Riley's administration, including the phantom company called "Paragon Source" which received a $13 million no-bid contract from Riley's Administration for work product the state never used. Questions remain about where this firm went and how much did it really walk off with from the State.

In another turn connected to the Riley lobbying gig, it has been reported on the street that the former governor has, in the past few days, turned his lobbying clients over to a family member. The Independent has learned that some of the complaints were made by the State Democratic Party.

Democrats might have filed complaints about Riley, but our guess is that "Teflon Bob" will get off the hook unless Republican insiders step forward. Will Ellen Brooks seek testimony from former Riley aide Bill Johnson and former GOP official Bradley Unruh?

Ellen Brooks

Johnson, for example, was at the heart of our post titled "Alabama First Family Believes in Self-Enrichment," focusing on hundreds of thousands of state dollars that Riley funneled to the Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant, where his son-in-law is employed.

Unruh was a key figure in our post titled "Viewing Mike Hubbard's Actions Through the Prism of the Don Siegelman Case," where he called for an audit of the Alabama Republican Party that would focus on expenditures involving Riley's daughter, Minda Riley Campbell.

The Montgomery Independent's report raises many questions:

* Why did Ellen Brooks sit silently for eight years of the Riley administration while the governor and his cronies repeatedly engaged in questionable activities? Why did she wait until now to rise from her slumber?

* Where is George Beck, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Any possible crimes involving Bob Riley surely involve federal jurisdiction. The USA's office in Montgomery has not been shy about going after former governors. (You can ask Don Siegelman about that.) So where is George Beck in this equation?

* Where is Luther Strange, attorney general of Alabama? His office has been bringing a dubious case against accused honeymoon murderer Gabe Watson, so has "Big Luther" been too busy to look toward Bob Riley. Oh wait, Big Luther came from Bradley Arant, the big firm that seems to be the legal enabler for corrupt "pro business types" such as Bob Riley and Ted Rollins. That means Big Luther has been firmly embedded in Bob Riley's colon, so no scrutiny is likely to come from the AG's office.

We aren't holding our breath that Bob Riley ever will be held accountable for anything. But The Montgomery Independent has done some important reporting on corruption in Karl Rove's Alabama, and we take their work seriously. The public should take it seriously, too.

If Ellen Brooks digs like a terrier, perhaps like a schnauzer, she is likely to find some profoundly disturbing stuff. How disturbing? The following interview with Brad Unruh gives an idea:

Prosecutor in Gabe Watson Case Has a History of Connections to Colossal Screwups

Gabe Watson

Birmingham was the site of international legal intrigue late last week as Gabe Watson was acquitted of murder in the honeymoon drowning death of his wife, Tina Thomas Watson, on a 2003 diving excursion off the coast of Australia.

The trial received global media attention, but the outcome should not have been a surprise; the notion of prosecuting Watson on a capital murder charge in Alabama for events that took place in Australia--he served 18 months in prison there after pleading guilty to manslaughter in 2009--was dubious from the outset. But the surprise came from Jefferson County District Judge Tommy Nail, who granted a motion for acquittal before the case went to a jury.

Such motions are routinely filed but hardly ever granted in criminal cases. That Nail granted this one speaks volumes about the weakness of the prosecution's case. And that is fitting, given that Don Valeska handled the case for the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Valeska has a long history of overreaching in some instances and blowing slam-dunk cases in others. One of his blown slam dunks has had a profound impact here in the Schnauzer household.

Valeska was the prosecutor in a 1981 perjury case against Pelham, Alabama, lawyer William E. Swatek. As regular readers know, Bill Swatek is the person most responsible for the 12 years of legal misery that Mrs. Schnauzer and I have endured. Our headaches might never have come if Valeska had won a conviction against Swatek 31 years ago. But the prosecution managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in that case, allowing Swatek to return to the "legal profession" and earn regular suspensions and reprimands for violations of ethical standards.

To be fair to Valeska, a conviction would not necessarily have meant the end of Swatek's legal career. A conviction on a felony charge would automatically have caused Swatek to be disbarred. But contrary to common belief, a disbarment is not permanent. Under the rules of the Alabama State Bar, Swatek might have been allowed to return to practice within five years.

A conviction, however, probably would have led to one of two outcomes: (1) Swatek would have had to find another way to make a living for at least five years and might never have returned to the law; or (2) Swatek might actually have learned a hard lesson and become an ethical lawyer upon his return.

Neither of those outcomes came to pass. Because of the acquittal, Swatek received only a 60-day suspension of his law license. And based on our own experiences, we know the "slap on the wrist" did not cause Swatek to change his ways.

How did Valeska manage to blow the perjury case against Bill Swatek in 1981? The answer to that question is unclear. But court documents and published reports show that the evidence against Swatek was overwhelming. Following is an excellent summary of the issues at hand, from a September 1981 article by Jane Aldridge in the Birmingham Post-Herald. The headline: "Hard Legal Battle Ensues Around Lawyer." (You can check out the full article at the end of this post.)

Don Valeska, an assistant attorney general, said three attorneys who had been invited by Swatek to use his private office for conferences with their client in a civil suit, discovered their conversations were being taped.

Valeska contended they took the tape, confronted Swatek with it, but that he declined to comment on it at that time. Later during investigations by the Birmingham and Alabama State Bar Associations, he denied knowing the conversations were being taped. His client, John Bailey, said he did the taping.

Valeska declared the tape itself, which he said contains statements by Swatek at the end, proves that he knew about it.

Valeska was right about that. I've checked Swatek's disciplinary file at the Alabama State Bar--it's about a foot thick, by the way--and it includes a transcript of a conversation between Swatek and Bailey that was caught on the tape. Following is a portion of that transcript: (You can check out the full transcript at the end of this post.)

William E. Swatek and Johnny Bailey on cassette tape taken by Paul G. Smith from Swatek's office on May 30, 1979:

Swatek: "Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . five . . . "

Bailey: ". . . 'cause that's the one probably to use, or do you want to use that one?"

Swatek: "I'd rather use this one, 'cause you can't hear it at all, and I can stick it down under the desk and . . . "

What do we learn from this snippet:

* Bill Swatek voice tested the tape recorder--"Testing . . . one . . . two . . . three . . . "

* Bill Swatek determined which tape recorder to use after Bailey asked him about it;

* Bill Swatek determined where to place the tape recorder.

And yet, as we showed above, Swatek testified under oath before multiple bar associations that he knew nothing about the tape recording, that his client did it on his own.

The indisputable truth? Bill Swatek lied under oath during an official bar proceeding. That is perjury, and Swatek was guilty.

So how did a Jefferson County jury decide to acquit? God only knows what went on behind the scenes to cause that outcome. But under the facts and law, Bill Swatek (an "officer of the court") committed perjury and should have been disbarred.

Tina Thomas Watson

Are we being too hard on Don Valeska about the outcomes of the Swatek case and the Gabe Watson case? Perhaps. In the Swatek matter, I see nothing in the record that indicates Valeska made any blunders that led to the acquittal. I can think of only one explanation for the outcome: Somebody in the system--judge, jury, bailiff, custodian--was tainted somehow. In the Watson matter, it was not Valeska's decision to bring the case in Alabama. That decision came from former Attorney General Troy King, and his successor, Luther Strange,  allowed the prosecution to proceed.

Was Valeska acting as a "good solider" by moving forward with the clod-headed decisions of his superiors at the Alabama Attorney General's Office? The answer probably is yes.

Here, perhaps, is the take-home lesson from all of this: We can study the arc of Don Valeska's 30-year career as a prosecutor and see much of what is wrong with our "justice system." And these problems hardly are limited to Alabama. (See prosecution of Simpson, O.J.)

In 1981, Don Valeska failed to get a conviction in a case where a single sheet of paper shows the defendant was guilty beyond all doubt, not just reasonable doubt. In 2012, Don Valeska failed to get a conviction in a case that was so weak it never should have been brought--and probably was only brought because statewide officeholders wanted to score political points with the public.

Over a 31-year span, Valeska's career is bookended by two prosecutions that featured monumental screwups. That tells us that our justice system has been a sewer for a long time--and the stench is only getting stronger.

Here is a Birmingham Post-Herald article, from September 1981, about the Swatek perjury case:


Swatek Perjury Article


Here is a transcript of tape-recorded evidence in the Swatek perjury case:


Swatek Perjury Transcript