Ted Rollins' Henchman Is Planning to File a Lawsuit Against Legal Schnauzer

Zac Parrish

The former stepson of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins is planning to sue me, apparently in an effort to stop my reporting on the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case. If such a complaint actually is filed, it probably would be a classic example of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Zac Parrish, the managing member of Parrish Building Company in Birmingham, is Sherry Carroll Rollins' son by her first marriage to a man named Allen Parrish, who now is in the local insurance business. Zac Parrish was a stepson during his mother's 14-year marriage to Ted Rollins.

During the roughly 22 months of my reporting on unlawful actions connected to Rollins v. Rollins, I have been told numerous times about threats that Ted Rollins has relayed through Zac Parrish. Those usually have involved threats to cut off utilities and support payments for Sherry Rollins and the couple's daughters, Sarah and Emma, who now live in Birmingham.

I reported last Friday on Zac Parrish's threat to "take care of Legal Schnauzer" and voiced my concern that could mean possible physical harm. That was not just idle speculation on my part. I reported on an e-mail that Zac Parrish had sent me last fall, stating that he knew where I lived and had a "dear friend" who lived very close to me. I've been told that Zac Parrish and his older brother, Eric Parrish, are members of a hunting club near Tuscaloosa and make regular use of firearms.

A source inside the Rollins family tells me that Zac Parrish does not intend to cause me physical harm--gee, that's nice to know--but he does plan to file a lawsuit against me. That raises this question: What possible grounds could Zac Parrish have for suing me? The answer: He has no grounds, and given that I had never mentioned him on this blog prior to his threat, he probably doesn't even have legal standing to bring a case.

That means any suit from Zac Parrish would be only for intimidation purposes, to keep me from reporting on matters of public concern. That's the classic definition of a SLAPP. Here is how The First Amendment Project defines a SLAPP at thefirstamendment.org:

Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.

Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern.

Zac Parrish will be taking several significant risks if he files a SLAPP case against me:

(1) I've been representing myself in court for about eight years now, so I won't need to invest in a lawyer. As noted in bold above, the main concern of most SLAPP victims is that they will have to shell out a bunch of money to defend themselves. I'm not concerned about that. Also, Zac Parrish and his lawyer won't be able to deal with me through an intermediary; they will have to deal with me head on, and it won't be pleasant;

(2) On any lawsuit brought against me, I will be reporting about it here every step of the way--almost in real time--bringing instant attention to various documents. Most lawyers and parties do not welcome such a spotlight on their unsavory activities;

(3) Lawsuits can lead to countersuits, and anyone who files a bogus lawsuit against me will immediately get hit with a countersuit, for abuse of process and any other relevant claims. My countersuit will be aimed not only at Zac Parrish, but at any individuals, corporations, or institutions who are connected to his reasons for suing me;

(4) If an attorney files a bogus lawsuit on Zac Parrish's behalf, he will be subject to a counterclaim for abuse of process. He also will be subject to Rule 11 sanctions and a bar complaint. Rule 11 sanctions also can be imposed on a party, including Zac Parrish. Any lawyer who values his reputation should think twice about representing Zac Parrish in a lawsuit against Legal Schnauzer.

(5) Filing a bogus lawsuit against me will open up Zac Parrish and his business associates to the discovery process. My friend and fellow blogger Robby Scott Hill has a law degree and is one of the sharpest observers on the Alabama legal scene. He stated the following in a comment to my post about Zac Parrish last Friday:

Always remember this Roger--Once they sue you or decide to testify against you in any state court, you can counterclaim (and) their tax returns become fair game in the discovery process.

One thing I've learned about the legal process: If you are going to sue somebody, it's best to do it and not threaten to do it. Zac Parrish's threats strongly hint at an improper motive, and they also suggest that he is driven by a desire to protect Ted Rollins from scrutiny.

Ted Rollins

That suggests Ted Rollins would be behind any lawsuit against me, and that means Mr. Rollins' tax returns and other business records could be on the table.

All of this raises this question: Why is Zac Parrish so protective of his former stepfather? What favors has Ted Rollins done for both Zac and Eric Parrish--and why, considering that he's been "the ultimate deadbeat dad" to his own biological children, both daughters?

Here is something curious: Campus Crest Communities has roughly 30 student-housing developments near college campuses around the country, with quite a few more in the pipeline. Zac Parrish heads up a construction company, and Eric Parrish works for Brasfield Gorrie, a Birmingham-based construction company.

I see a pattern of connections to the building industry. Sources have told me that the Parrish boys have benefited greatly from their connections to the Rollins family, the folks behind Orkin Pest Control and one of the wealthiest clans in the country. Why has the Rollins family gone out of its way to ensure that Zac and Eric Parrish are in good business shape?

A source in the Rollins family tells me that Zac Parrish and Ted Rollins have long had "an unusual relationship." What has that relationship entailed, given that Zac Parrish was 10 to 12 years old when Ted Rollins came into his life? Why is that "unusual relationship" leading to threats against your humble blogger?

We will be examining those questions in the coming days.

Why Did Karl Rove and His GOP Thugs Target Don Siegelman in Alabama?

Don Siegelman

As we set sail on 2012, a year in which political news will be dominated by the build up toward a presidential election, the mind drifts back to events that led us to this peculiar moment in American history. Our first black president is seeking re-election--and should be a shoo-in, even though he has disappointed huge numbers of his progressive base. The Republican Party counters with perhaps the weakest field of candidates any major party ever has put forth.

Why so much disarray and disgust on both sides of the political fence in an election year? I would propose that it's because the nation still has not recovered from eight years of the disastrous George W. Bush administration. Obama has been hamstrung for four years by the economic, financial, and international messes he inherited from Bush. Republicans cannot hammer too hard on the nation's woes without coming awfully close to admitting that one of their own caused them.

Here in Alabama, all of this has me thinking about one of the great political mysteries of the past generation. It's a mystery that began to unfold before Bush ever took office, but it did not gain national attention until Dubya and his acolytes were in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The mystery can be summarized by two questions: (1) Why did Karl Rove and his pro-business GOP thugs target Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman? (2) Why did the Bush administration proceed with what has become the most notorious political prosecution in American history?

Those questions are particularly powerful now because Siegelman last week filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of his 2006 convictions on bribery and obstruction of justice charges. This appears to be Siegelman's last crack at appellate review, and if it is denied, he probably is headed back to federal prison.

I've probably written more words about the Siegelman affair than just about anyone on the planet, so I might as well take a crack at answering those questions.

Those who believe that the Siegelman prosecution was legitimate, that the former governor and codefendant Richard Scrushy really did commit crimes over a contribution to an education-lottery campaign, often say something like this: "Why would Karl Rove and  his associates worry about Don Siegelman? Alabama is a backwater state that nobody cares about, and its governor was not all that important. Why would Rove even care about a relative nobody like Don Siegelman?"

Folks who ask these questions underestimate Alabama's strategic importance. They also underestimate the grotesque greed and lust for power that has come to grip the modern GOP. Most importantly, they ignore the fact that Don Siegelman was a central figure in three financial and political scenarios that spelled potential danger for the Republican Party and the money men who support it. Let's examine these scenarios:

* The Duel Over An Air Force Refueling-Tanker Contract--Journalist/lawyer Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, has reported that the Siegelman prosecution was driven largely by the fierce competition between Boeing and EADS for a $40-billion Air Force refueling-tanker contract. Republicans are known to wear patriotism on their sleeves, so you might expect them to support an American company such as Boeing. But EADS planned to build a manufacturing facility in Mobile, Alabama, and that meant the business forces that control our state strongly supported the European contender. Where does Siegelman fit into this picture? He had helped Boeing expand a plant in Huntsville, Alabama, and locate a new facility in Decatur, Alabama. Siegelman served as governor from 1998 to 2002, and business interests feared he would favor Boeing over EADS during a second term. How to get Siegelman out of the picture? About three months after Siegelman took office, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor launched an investigation that later would be taken over by federal officials. Key events in the investigation seemed to be timed around the 2002 election, which Siegelman lost to challenger Bob Riley, and the 2006 election--when Siegelman had appeared to be the strongest likely challenger to Riley. Who ran Bill Pryor's campaign for the attorney general's office? Why, none other than Karl Rove. Did Pryor's efforts eventually pay off? Bush appointed him to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Did the effort to bring down Siegelman pay off? No, it did not; the tanker contract went to Boeing.

* The Battle Over Fraud and ExxonMobil--As early as 1995, Alabama conservation officials began to suspect that oil companies weren't paying the proper amounts under leases for natural-gas rights. The issue surfaced under Republican Governor Fob James but picked up steam when Siegelman took office in 1999. He hired the Mobile law firm of Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder and Brown to represent the state in lawsuits involving oil companies. The firm must have done a pretty good job because it won a $3.5-billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil. But the punitive damages were overturned by the Republican-packed Alabama Supreme Court. Did Karl Rove and his buddies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want to make sure that Don Siegelman never again went after big oil? I would say the answer is yes.

* The Threat of a Pro-Gun Democrat in the Deep South--Siegelman built a relatively strong progressive record while holding four different statewide offices in Alabama--governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. But he was to the right of most Democrats on the issue of guns. And sources tell Legal Schnauzer this infuriated, and terrified, Republican politicos. Our sources say that Siegelman was not a hard-core supporter of gun rights, but he developed a relatively friendly relationship with the National Rifle Association for his support of guns in hunting and other sporting activities. In fact, NRA icon Charlton Heston signed a letter supporting Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race. Why would this cause considerable consternation among Republicans? Political scientists who studied the 2000 presidential race have noted that the NRA's massive spending that helped place normally Democratic West Virginia in the GOP column was a critical factor in winning the White House for George W. Bush. Had West Virginia remained a Democratic stronghold, the subsequent Florida vote-counting controversy would have mattered little; Al Gore already would have had the electoral vote sewn up. Republicans have made huge political strides from scaring sportsmen with the notion that Democrats are going to take away their guns. But there was Siegelman, in the heart of deep-red Dixie, winning an endorsement from the NRA. If other Southern Democrats had taken similar stances on guns, it could have spelled political calamity for Republicans. Is that the reason they had to take down Siegelman?

Our list of GOP motivations for the Siegelman prosecution is not all inclusive. It does not include, for example, the fact that Siegelman threatened Jack Abramoff and his Mississippi gaming clients by proposing an education lottery in Alabama.

So what is our No. 1 reason that Karl Rove and his thugs targeted Don Siegelman? The gun issue is perhaps the most interesting one because of its potential for national political implications; Democrats probably should ponder whether it's wise to come across as anti-gun in a country that clearly loves its firearms. The Boeing vs. EADS issue is intriguing because of the sheer volume of money involved. But when you consider the timing and the long-standing power of the players involved, I would say Siegelman's battles with the oil industry are the No. 1 reason he was targeted.

Siegelman sicced a Mobile law firm on big oil in 1999, and the Boeing/EADS battle didn't pick up major steam until about 2001. The gun issue and Charlton Heston did not become known until just before the 2002 election.

It's not enough for big oil to screw consumers at the pumps every summer. It also wants to defraud states out of the true value for their mineral rights. Could Alabama have used that $3.5 billion? It sure could have--for better schools, roads and bridges, health care, you name it.

Don Siegelman was fighting for that, and our guess is, that's why big oil decided he had to be stopped.

Has CEO Resorted to Extortion In An Effort to Silence Our Reporting?

Zac Parrish

Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities, has threatened to cut off all support to his ex wife and two daughters in Alabama over his anger about video interviews we published this week on Legal Schnauzer.

Sherry Carroll Rollins, who lives in Birmingham with her daughters Sarah and Emma, said yesterday that Ted Rollins told her through an intermediary that he would discontinue court-ordered child support and alimony if she continued to publicly discuss the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.

The intermediary, Ms. Rollins stated, was Zac Parrish, her 32-year-old son from a previous marriage. Zac Parrish, who was Ted Rollins' stepson during the 14-year Rollins marriage, is the managing member of Parrish Building Company in Birmingham. Parrish relayed Ted Rollins' threat regarding family support in a telephone conversation shortly before noon yesterday, Ms. Rollins stated. She promptly called me.

According to Ms. Rollins, Parrish also stated that he was going to enlist the assistance of an unknown person to "take care of Legal Schnauzer." Since I am the person who writes Legal Schnauzer, that seems to be a reference to me. A reasonable person could interpret that as a threat of physical harm.

What generated such vitriol? According to Ms. Rollins, her ex husband was incensed over two posts from this week that featured a videotaped interview with her. It is one of several interviews I taped with Ms. Rollins, discussing issues that mostly are a matter of public record--and in some cases--already have been reported here. The posts in question were titled Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Is the "Ultimate Deadbeat Dad" and Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Caused His Own Children To Be Thrown On the Streets.

I didn't expect Ted Rollins to find those posts enjoyable reading. But they are indisputably true, and I didn't expect him to resort to behavior that certainly is thuggish, maybe criminal. A review of Alabama law indicates that Ted Rollins and Zac Parrish might have engaged in attempted extortion, a misdemeanor. If Sherry Rollins were to cave in to their threat, it could constitute second-degree extortion, a felony under Code of Alabama 13A-8-15(c).

Ms. Rollins stated that Zac Parrish conveyed Ted Rollins' threat via telephone, which might constitute a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 875.

Parrish did not respond to a voice message seeking comment, which was left with him yesterday evening.

This is not the first time Ted Rollins has issued threats, via Zac Parrish, about cutting off family support. Sherry Rollins has told me of such threats on probably a half dozen occasions. I'm writing about it now because I sensed, in our conversation yesterday, that she is genuinely fearful this time of being without food or shelter. Given the way she's been treated by local judges, I can understand her fear. Access to large sums of cash seems to make Ted Rollins untouchable in court--that and his ties to the powerful Bradley Arant law firm.

This also is not the first time Zac Parrish has acted in a threatening manner toward me. In an e-mail dated September 20, 2011, Parrish wrote:

I am not as forgiving, legally, as my mother or stepfather. So tread lightly in your blogs, comments, opinions.

This is from someone who never has been mentioned in this blog--until now.

In an e-mail dated September 28, 2011, Parrish apparently perceived some threat, even though I never had written about him:

Tread lightly, threats come with very serious legal consequences. Especially when those threatened have the endless legal resources to defend themselves and their family.

How does Zac Parrish have "endless legal resources"? Is Parrish Building Company doing that well in the Great Bush Recession? Do the "endless legal resources" come from Ted Rollins, who belongs to one of the wealthiest families in the nation? Why would Zac Parrish convey threats to his own mother, on Ted Rollins' behalf? Is Ted Rollins bankrolling Parrish Building Company, at least in part? Why would Ted Rollins have such a tight relationship with his former stepson, while flagrantly cheating his own biological daughters on child support?

Those are questions for another day. For now, we should note that I've heard no complaint from Ted Rollins or Zac Parrish that my reporting is inaccurate. It's based totally on public records and a first-person account from Sherry Rollins, so they have to know that it is on target.

Perhaps the most alarming communication I've received from Zac Parrish came in an e-mail dated October 3, 2011. Here it is:

A very dear friend of mine lives on weatherford drive. Please be on the lookout for a new site coming soon, "www.mountschnauzer.com". I will be sure to forward you a link. I assume you appreciate a counterintuitive approach to all views of life. I'll send you a welcome link! See you soon.

Why is this alarming? Weatherford Drive is one street over from Logan Drive, the street where Mrs. Schnauzer and I live. Some properties on Weatherford Drive abut our backyard. It doesn't take an investigative genius to figure this out. I'm listed in the phone book, and a simple Google Maps search shows that Weatherford Drive is right behind our house.

In my mind, Zac Parrish told me this for one reason: In essence, he's saying, "I know where you live, and you should be 'on the lookout' in case someone decides to damage your property." We've taken that threat to heart; we very rarely leave our house unattended for any length of time, and we've taken protective measures that an intruder could find most unwelcome.

What is Zac Parrish telling me with his reference to mountschnauzer.com, which to my knowledge has never taken flight as an actual Web site? I can think of only one perverse image. Schnauzer appears to be an obvious reference to me and my Web site. Why "mount"? It appears to be a reference to "doggy style" sex, from behind. In human form, it could be a reference to anal sex and a threat to "screw" with me.

Any way you look at it, this is disturbing stuff. And I'm not the only one who is alarmed. I know that Sherry Rollins is concerned enough about something that she recently purchased a gun and had new locks installed on all of her doors.

I haven't written about Zac Parrish until today, but I've been concerned about him for months. He is Ted Rollins' former stepson, but for some reason, he comes across as Mr. Rollins' self-appointed henchman. Every communication I've received from Zac Parrish has been in apparent response to a critical post about Ted Rollins--all of which have been based on public records, published reports, or both.

Why has Zac Parrish repeatedly inserted himself into a story that, on the surface, doesn't involve him? Why has Zac Parrish repeatedly taken up for his ex stepfather over his own mother and sisters? Has Zac Parrish ever voiced concern about the monstrous courtroom cheat job that has left Sherry, Sarah, and Emma Rollins on food stamps? Not that I've heard; in fact, he doesn't seem concerned about that at all.

As for state extortion law, it is well summarized by an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in a case styled Preskitt v. Lyons (2003):

13A-8-15, Ala.Code 1975, in combination with § 13A-8-1(13)k., defines extortion in the second degree (as follows). . . . It is extortion by means of a threat to, among other things,

“[d]o any other act which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm substantially another person with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.”
§ 13A-8-1(13)k., Ala.Code 1975.

In everyday language, that says it's a real bad idea to threaten someone's financial condition--such as withholding court-ordered alimony and child support--unless they bend to your wishes.

I've been in journalism for 30 years, so I know what it's like to have someone unhappy with a story because it hits too close to home. But to threaten to cut off court-ordered support to your ex wife and daughters because of a video interview that no one seems to dispute is accurate? That not only is morally repugnant and ethically reprehensible . . . it might be against any number of state and federal laws.

It also makes you wonder what Ted Rollins (and perhaps Zac Parrish) is trying to hide.

Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Caused His Own Children To Be Thrown On the Streets

Ted Rollins

Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities, has the use of private jet craft and belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families--the folks behind Orkin Pest Control and its parent company, Rollins Inc. Those were the findings of a South Carolina judge after Sherry Carroll Rollins filed for divorce from Ted Rollins in Greenville, where they lived.

What happened while the divorce case was pending, after a judge had ordered Ted Rollins to ensure that his wife and two daughters had "undisturbed use" of the marital home? Ted Rollins caused them to be kicked out of the house, booted onto the streets. The children, Sarah and Emma Rollins, were 8 and 4 years old at the time.

Sherry Rollins could think of only one thing to do--she fled with her daughters to Alabama, where her sons from a previous marriage lived. That's what led to Rollins v. Rollins being unlawfully moved to Shelby County, Alabama--and it led to a divorce judgment from Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson that is so favorable to Ted Rollins, and so blatantly contrary to law, that we have called it the worst civil cheat job in our experience.

But this story goes beyond courtroom shenanigans. It also reflects the kind of blatant inhumanity that a member of America's "1 Percent" can inflict on others, even his own children. And Sherry Rollins, in chilling detail, describes Ted Rollins' disregard for others in an extended interview with Legal Schnauzer. (See one segment of the videotaped interview below.)

A South Carolina judge ordered Ted Rollins to maintain the mortgage payment and insurance on the family home so that Sherry Rollins and the girls could have an "undisturbed" place to live. Did Ted Rollins obey that order? Not on your life.

Says Sherry Rollins: "When we were asked to leave the house, I know the house note had not been paid for 15 months. . . . (Ted) did not pay anything after the judge (made his order) . . . . I was forced out onto the streets in 2003 with two children, ages 4 and 8. The sheriff was coming to remove my things."

Here is how we described the process in a previous post. As you can see, the Rollins family has tentacles that stretch far and wide:

Were Sherry Rollins and the children undisturbed in their home? Not exactly. The mortgage was held by First National Bank of Oneida in Scott County, Tennessee. Former U.S. Sen. Howard Baker was a long-time board member of the bank and also was a close ally to John W. Rollins, the business magnate who was Ted Rollins' father. Court-ordered payments on the home apparently were not made, and officials from First National Bank kicked Ms. Rollins and her children out on the streets. They fled to Alabama, where Ms. Rollins had family.

Did Ted Rollins use one of his family's good-old-boy Republican networks to help heap abuse on his wife and children? Does it trouble Ted Rollins that he caused his own children to be kicked out of their home? It's hard to tell. We have sent him questions in writing via e-mail, per his request, and he has refused to respond.

We also have asked about a child-support document Ted Rollins filed in Alabama, claiming he made roughly $50,000 year, from a job with a Tennessee mortgage company. That was the only income Ted Rollins listed on the form, but Sherry Rollins says evidence indicates that her ex husband's income was substantially higher than that. Just consider the Greenville home from which Ms. Rollins and the children were unceremoniously booted:

"We paid $350,000 for the house and did $120,000 of renovations. It was a 4,800-square-foot house, with a guest house . . ., a pool, an acre lot. I had the house appraised . . . , and the agent said I should list it for anywhere from $850,000 to $1.2 million. That was in 2001 or 2002."

How many guys who make $50,000 a year live in a home that could be listed at roughly $1 million, in South Carolina? That is just one of many things that smell funny about Ted Rollins' actions in Rollins v. Rollins. And it raises this question: If Ted Rollins would treat his own children this way, how would he treat college students that are tenants at some 30 Campus Crest Communities around the country?

If I were a parent with a child in one of those complexes, I would be asking myself that question:

What More Could Joe Paterno Have Done In the Jerry Sandusky Scandal?

Joe Paterno

Joe Paterno was laid to rest last week, leaving behind a debate on his failure to "do more" with information he received about alleged child sexual abuse involving former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

The Penn State Board of Trustees fired the 85-year-old Paterno for his failure to "do more" after assistant coach Mike McQueary went to him in 2002 about a scene he had witnessed between a boy and Sandusky in a Penn State shower facility. By all accounts, Paterno encouraged McQueary to report the information to Penn State administrators, including the vice president who oversaw the campus police department. McQueary did just that, but higher ups failed to take substantive action, and that allegedly allowed Sandusky to abuse more boys over a roughly 10-year period.

Two camps seem to have solidified since a grand-jury report was released, providing details about Paterno's actions in the Sandusky case. One camp, consisting mostly of Penn State supporters and hard-core college-football fans, holds that Paterno did all that was legally and morally required of him--and he should not have been fired, with his legacy tarnished. The second camp, which seems to consist of just about everyone else, holds that Paterno should have "done more" with the information McQueary gave him, and thus, his firing was justified.

I've yet to hear or read anyone in Camp No. 2 define what "more" Paterno was supposed to have done. That's because, in our system of justice, he did about all he could do. And the truth is this: The aging coach was treated horribly by the institution he helped turn into a household name.

Paterno surely did not mean for it to turn out like this, but as one of his last acts, he can help teach us about the inconsistencies, misperceptions, and even the dangers that pervade our criminal "justice" system. Many Americans, I suspect, have a simplistic view of the procedure surrounding an alleged crime, and it goes something like this: You witness an unlawful event, you report it to a highly competent (and honest) law-enforcement officer, he refers it to a highly competent (and honest) prosecutor, all of the lawyers and judges involved are highly competent (and honest), the bad guy is convicted and punished, and the victim walks away feeling cleansed by the whole process.

Reality, in many cases, is nothing like that. I know because I have been the victim of a crime (a relatively minor one, thankfully), and I know what happened after I made the mistake of reporting it to authorities. The truth? Our system is filled with incompetence and dishonesty at every turn. Many lawyers and judges are not remotely interested in dispensing justice. Many bad guys get off, and many victims walk away feeling that they have been victimized for a second time.

Joe Paterno probably had little experience with the criminal justice system, so it's unlikely he was acting from any particular insight when he received information about Sandusky. We know, from an interview Paterno gave to Sally Jenkins of The Washington Post, that he felt "inadequate" to handle the situation that McQueary described, and that's why he referred his young assistant to administrators up the line. Here are three truths about the American justice system that, to me, mean Joe Paterno was wise to handle things the way he did:

* Paterno had no legal evidence to provide--Our criminal-justice system is based largely on two kinds of evidence--direct and circumstantial. What Paterno had in the Sandusky case was neither. He did not directly witness the events, and he did not even witness the immediate aftermath, which might have produced circumstantial evidence. All he had was what Mike McQueary told him, and under the law, that probably would come under the heading of hearsay. (Note: Hearsay is a complicated subject, and I won't go into details of that; suffice to say that anything Paterno told authorities probably would have little, if any, probative value.) When you report a crime, based on my experience, a semi-competent officer or prosecutor wants to know what you witnessed. If you say, "Well, my friend told me that he saw such and such happen," the law-enforcement person is likely to ask to talk to your friend. If your friend isn't there, you probably will be told, "The exit is over there; don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out." Yes, Joe Paterno is perhaps the single most famous individual in Pennsylvania. But under the law, criminal matters are not decided based on someone's high profile; they are decided on relevant evidence, and Joe Paterno pretty much had nothing to offer.

* Even if Paterno had tried to take stronger action, Sandusky still might have walked--Our justice system is filled with perils for everyone who tries to seek convictions. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is extremely hard to meet. Someone of substantial means, such as Sandusky, could have afforded a top-notch defense lawyer to battle every step of the way. Given that prosecutors almost certainly would have had to keep Paterno at arm's length--based on his inability to provide relevant evidence--chances are strong that Sandusky would have walked, especially when you consider that abuse cases involving children are notoriously hard to prove. Numerous commentators in the press have stated that Paterno could have saved numerous boys from being abused if he had taken stronger action. That is a long way from being certain.

* Paterno could have put himself at risk by getting involved--Our "justice" system includes a tort called malicious prosecution, which can lead to huge legal headaches for anyone who reports and seeks to prosecute a crime. Malicious prosecution is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer story, and I have written about it several times. A post called "The Road to Legal Perdition" describes my experience with what is supposed to be a disfavored tort--one that almost never should be brought. I've learned, however, that the law and what actually happens in a courtroom can be two entirely different things. Malicious prosecution might be "disfavored," but it can be a powerful weapon in the hands of a vindictive party with a corrupt attorney--and it should cause any American to think twice before seeking redress in court.

Like hearsay, malicious prosecution can get fairly complicated. It's got all kinds of built-in "ifs, ands, and buts," but the bottom line is this: If you file a criminal complaint against someone and they are found not guilty, that person can turn around and sue you. A malicious prosecution complaint alleges that you brought the underlying complaint without any probable cause; in essence, it's saying you made the whole thing up. Malicious prosecution most often is brought against department stores, grocery stores, and the like when someone has been charged with shoplifting and been acquitted. But it can be brought in most any criminal case and even in civil cases. If you bring a lawsuit against someone, and the court finds in their favor, they can sue you for malicious prosecution, at least in theory.

I'm not a lawyer, so my knowledge of malicious-prosecution law is not perfect. (Lawyers rarely deal with these kinds of cases, so most of them don't have perfect knowledge either.) But here is my understanding of what could have happened with the Penn State case:

Let's imagine that Joe Paterno "does more" after talking to Mike McQueary. As a non-witness, Paterno can't lawfully do a whole lot more. But imagine that he goes with McQueary to the campus police, and they then go together to speak to prosecutors. Imagine that Paterno, outraged by the notion of child sexual abuse in a Penn State shower facility, throws his weight around in an effort to get authorities to act--and they, in fact, bring charges against Sandusky.

The case goes to trial, and in a highly publicized, emotional courtroom drama, Sandusky is found not guilty. In the aftermath, Sandusky claims that he has been professionally and financially ruined. He claims that McQueary made the whole thing up, perhaps out of spite, and Paterno should have known better than to believe McQueary.

As the lead witness, McQueary almost certainly would have been vulnerable to a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Would that have happened? Probably not. If it had happened, would Sandusky have prevailed? Almost certainly not. But McQueary would have been forced to spend significant time and expense defending himself. And Paterno, because he has deep pockets, might have been brought in as a co-defendant under some creative legal theory--perhaps conspiracy or respondeat superior (also known as "master-servant). My guess is that Paterno's insurer, or Penn State's, would have paid Sandusky a nice chunk of change to make the lawsuit go away.

Given what I know about the reality of our justice system, am I critical of Joe Paterno for his failure to "do more"? Absolutely not.

If Jerry Sandusky is found to have sexually abused numerous boys between 2002 and 2012, that's an epic tragedy. But Joe Paterno, based on what we know now, was in no position to control it or stop it. In a system that can punish witnesses for coming forward, Paterno was wise not to get too close to a bonfire.

This sounds awful to say, but here is what Mrs. Schnauzer and I have learned from our experience: If either one of us ever witnesses another crime, we probably will let it slide. If anyone tries to involve us indirectly in reporting a crime, there is no way in hell we are getting involved.

Our hope is that this blog might someday help change some of what's wrong with our justice system, including the abusive use of malicious-prosecution lawsuits. But until that day comes, our advice for those who might report crimes is this:

(1) Stay quiet about it; if you or a loved one is the victim, learn to live with the damage;

(2) Report it, but know you are taking a risk--and know that the bad guy might get off, and you will get sued for your trouble;

(3) To borrow a phrase from Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle, consider "Second Amendment remedies." I'm not advocating that victims open fire left and right. But in a country where the justice system is hopelessly corrupt, and guns are readily available, victims have to think about alternative means for achieving justice. I've never been a big fan of guns, but count me as one liberal who is starting to see their value.

If I had it to do over, here is how I probably would have handled the criminal trespassing problem with Mike McGarity, our thuggish neighbor: After I had warned him repeatedly to stay off our property, and he had sassed and threatened me two or three times, I would have bought a gun. When the trespassing was ongoing, I would have gone outside, weapon in hand, and made sure he was aware that I was armed. Would I have pointed it at anyone or threatened anyone with it? Nope, not unless I was threatened first. Ideally, I also would have purchased a video camera and had someone there to film my actions, documenting that I did nothing improper. Could that have led to a shootout between McGarity and me? Perhaps. But more likely, I think it would have come much closer to solving the problem than what we achieved by consulting multiple lawyers and filing a criminal complaint with the sheriff's office.

The bottom line? Mrs. Schnauzer and I have learned a hard lesson on the American frontier: If you want your rights respected, you had better be prepared to protect them yourself. Trying to rely on authorities is likely to blow up in your face.

As for Joe Paterno, he did the right thing--and he should not have been fired or even reprimanded.

Artur Davis Must Be the Sorest Loser In the History of American Politics

Artur Davis

Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis has been conducting a world-class whine fest ever since he got spanked in the 2010 Democratic primary for governor. Davis has bolted to Virginia and supposedly started a law practice, but he can't seem to resist taking shots at his home-state liberals, whom he blames for costing him the governorship. Never mind that Davis repeatedly sided with corporate interests and insulted his own party's progressive base in the weeks leading up to the election.

Artur Davis does not seem capable of accepting accountability for his own failings, so he has to blame someone else. And his blame game has taken on outrageous forms in recent days. How did a man who once seemed to hold considerable promise sink to such depths? Our explanation is simple: Artur Davis is a sorry human being, a man who thinks almost totally about himself and no one else. A valued source, however, says it goes deeper than that. Our source says Davis is a product of the dysfunctional political system in Alabama, a place where it's hard to tell a Republican from a Democrat, especially among white elites.

Specifically, our source says, Davis got involved with Jere Beasley, Alabama's most powerful trial lawyer and head of a firm that made national headlines last year for filing a bogus lawsuit against Taco Bell. Beasley paints himself as a Democrat and has raked in enough cash over the years to become a party kingmaker. But he also is a BFF of Homewood lawyer Rob Riley, who just happens to be the hopelessly corrupt son of our former hopelessly corrupt GOP governor, Bob Riley.

What does all of this mean? We will explain in a moment. But for now, Davis is like a cat who got trapped in a washing machine, going round and round, with dirty laundry everywhere. The machine has stopped and spit him out--wet, dizzy, and more than a little bitter. Now he's desperate to blame somebody, and it's not a pretty sight. Davis seems incapable of pointing fingers in the right direction--at himself and the white elites he decided to bed down with. No, he must concoct all sorts of imaginary enemies among Alabama progressives and tie them to his verbal whipping post.

To make matters worse, our source says, Davis' law practice in Virginia has been mostly a flop. He now is serving a four-month fellowship at the Harvard Institute of Politics. It all has left him with loose moorings--a man without a party, without much of a career, and with a powerful need for attention. That has led Davis to say and write one nutty thing after another.

How bizarre have Davis' public utterings become? First, he opined that Republicans should draft former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as their 2012 presidential candidate. He even wrote a piece for National Review titled "Draft Jeb Bush: A Charismatic and Accomplished Governor Can Save the Republican Party." Why is Davis, ostensibly a Democrat, suggesting ways for the Republican Party to save itself? Why does Davis have a man crush on Jeb Bush? Beats me.

Davis then topped himself by stating that he regretted stepping forward, as a Congressman, to question the Bush-era political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Those remarks came in an interview with the Mobile alternative bi-weekly Lagniappe. The article is titled "A Man Without a Party: Artur Davis' View From Political Exile." It's a wide-ranging, well-written piece by Jeff Poor--and it gets really interesting when Davis discusses his regrets of recent years:

In 2007, Davis was serving on the House Judiciary Committee and had been outspoken about the 2006 conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. He implied that the Bush administration had been playing politics with that conviction. That along with remaining in office during his 2010 gubernatorial run he said were his two main regrets while in politics.

"Well, people ask me a lot do you have any regrets from the last several years in politics, and I tell them number one, I should have resigned from Congress during the governor’s race so that we didn’t give our opponents in the Democratic Party the convenience of using federal issues to beat me up in the governor’s race,” he said. "And running for governor is a full-time job. You can’t run for governor and have a job that takes a significant amount of your time unless you have some apparatus where you can hand your office over to someone. In Congress it is hard to do that because you have to cast votes and you have to travel back and forth.”

"Regret number two is candidly, I wish I had never been as vocal in raising the issues around Don Siegelman’s prosecution in 2007,” he said. "Once I raised the issues around Don Siegelman’s prosecution, two things happened that frankly surprised me that were enormously disappointing.”

What were those two things? Davis says standing up for Siegelman made him appear soft on crime, and by questioning the actions of the Bush Justice Department, Davis called his own integrity into question.

If you are a coherent, rational human being, that paragraph will leave you scratching your head. Davis, in so many words, is saying that he now regrets appearing to have principles--he now regrets suggesting that federal prosecutions should focus only on actual crimes, not the political affiliation of the accused. Artur Davis is saying that he regrets standing up for due process and equal protection under the law--that if a man has to choose between fundamental constitutional rights and his own political career, he should choose the career stuff every time.

Artur Davis probably wonders why some people in his home state view him as the Incredible Shrinking Politician.

How did Artur Davis land in such a pathetic place? Our source says it's partly because of Davis' alliance with Jere Beasley. Davis' hopes for the governorship rested largely with Beasley's money bags. But Davis made the mistake of standing up for Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson at a 2007 Congressional hearing on political prosecutions. Davis appeared determined to get at the truth in the Siegelman case, perhaps shining unflattering light on GOP Governor Bob Riley and his ugly ties to Karl Rove, Michael Scanlon, and Jack Abramoff.

That greatly displeased Jere Beasley, who has made it a practice to partner with Rob Riley on legal cases involving nursing homes, vehicle rollovers, and the like. Our source says that Davis was instructed to can the righteous crap and side with the corporate, Riley-loving, white elites. Davis did as he was told and wound up getting pummeled in the Democratic primary by a 24-point margin.

What to make of Artur Davis? I think his political career is toast, and he pretty much admits as much near the end of the Lagniappe article. Davis also reveals that he is a confused individual, wrestling mightily with  his ability to ascertain the truth, to digest matters of basic right and wrong.

Davis has developed the verbal tic, common among Republicans, of frequently using the terms "frankly" and "candidly." If you are bored or OCD or both, try poring through the Lagniappe article and counting how many times Davis uses those words. (My count is eight; not that I'm OCD or anything.)

Those words are popular among Republicans because they can be used to hide flagrant dishonesty. They give the listener or reader the impression that, "Hey, this guy's really cutting to the chase with me." Discerning citizens, however, know that just the opposite is happening. When Artur Davis constantly prefaces his comments with the terms "frankly" and "candidly," he is signaling that he hasn't been frank or candid previously. He is trying to cover up his dishonesty with buzzwords.

We aren't falling for your tired act, Artur. Some of us fell for it once upon a time--but never again. If we want a candidate who kisses Jere Beasley's doughy butt, in order to protect the corrupt Riley gang, we'll vote Republican.

As for what you have to say . . . we, frankly, don't give a damn.

Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Is the "Ultimate Deadbeat Dad"

Ted Rollins

Ted Rollins, the head of a company that completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010, is the "ultimate deadbeat dad," according to his ex wife.

Ted Rollins is the CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, a company that has built roughly 30 student-housing developments near college campuses across the country. A $26-million project is planned for Auburn University, and Rollins has other ties to Alabama.

His ex wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins, now lives in Birmingham with the couple's teen-aged daughters, Sarah  and Emma. In part one of an extended interview with Legal Schnauzer, Ms. Rollins describes her former husband's repeated failure to pay court-ordered family support during a divorce action that was litigated over four years, in two states--South Carolina and Alabama.

By Ms. Rollins' rough calculations, Ted Rollins owed at least $350,000 and paid less than one-third of that, roughly $104,000. "I would say he's the ultimate deadbeat dad," Ms. Rollins said. "He didn't see his children for more than two years, by choice. He didn't pay anything. We became wards of the state and wards of my family. . . . My father kept us going for over a year, a year and a half."

Ms. Rollins goes on to say Ted Rollins owns a company that owns three private jet craft. And yet his ex wife and two daughters currently are on food stamps. Here is our first in a series of interviews with Sherry Carroll Rollins:

Death of a Bingo Defendant Adds to Political Intrigue in Alabama

Ray Crosby

Having lived as a progressive through the Karl Rove era in Alabama, this reporter is not easily shocked. But when word started spreading early yesterday evening that a defendant had died on the eve of the Alabama bingo retrial . . . well, that was a stunner.

Ray Crosby, a former legislative analyst in the Alabama Legislature, was found dead in his Montgomery home yesterday afternoon. He was one of seven defendants to be retried in the bingo case, which was to kick off again today in Montgomery.

The first word I heard was that Crosby committed suicide, which would make him No. 5 on our list of suspicious "suicides" that have ties to Alabama GOP politics over the past two years. The strange-deaths list grows to six if you include the apparent beating death of former Bob Riley aide Zoa White in her Mobile home. And I'm not even including some apparent heart attacks of folks connected to the bingo case.

What do we know about the Crosby death? Neal Vickers reports at examiner.com:

One of seven defendants set to be tried again in the Alabama bingo corruption case is dead. Former legislative analyst Ray Crosby was found dead in his home late Sunday afternoon.

Authorities have not revealed a cause of death. The denial includes if it could have been from natural causes. Montgomery police simply say they are "conducting a death investigation".

How will Crosby's death affect the bingo trial? That is unclear. Reports Vickers:

Crosby’s death casts an ominous chill on the trial set to start Monday morning that has already had several last minute twists making some speculate the prosecution is possibly in trouble.

When asked tonight if Crosby’s death would affect the status of the trial set to begin Monday, Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney replied "We would decline to comment".

A report out just a few minutes ago states that jury selection in the case has been suspended indefinitely.

Crosby reportedly had suffered significant personal and financial struggles in the wake of the first bingo trial, which ended with no convictions last summer. One of the best summations I've seen about his death comes from Dothan-based rickeystokesnews.com, noting that family members believe Crosby died from a heart attack:

Since the October 4, 2010 arrest and trials, Mr. Cosby, as all defendants, has suffered a lot. This arrest caused Mr. Cosby to lose his job. He has had to come up with thousands of dollars to employ legal representation to clear him. The first trial of two month ended in a hung jury. Then the evidence of the government withholding documents that would have cleared him in the first case. Then coming up with more money for a second time.

Evidence from his bosses and superiors that said they knew and approved what Cosby was doing. Their statements that is was okay. Something the public integrity unit argued against, even when they knew they had statements from his superiors that it was an approved action.

Stokes has harsh words for federal prosecutors:

The government's pattern and practice, cost you all of the money they can until you are financially broke, then convict you when you have no more money to defend yourself. Remember, not one person on the government side has to come up with one dollar. And when they are cut financially, they pull the "public safety" card or the "justice" card out in an effort to get more money.

If we knew all of the things the so called public integrity people in this case have done, including law enforcement agents, the public would be outraged. Remember, the government, which represents the people of the United States, is the one that has asked the court for a gag order so no comments can be made to the public. The people whose freedoms are at stake, they have not asked for the government not to talk. The government wants to hide true facts from the public.

Stokes pins the blame for Ray Crosby's death right where it probably belongs:

This case is the cause of death for Mr. Ray Cosby. And this case has absolutely ZERO to do with justice. It is politics, pure and simple. In the testimony of Senator Scott Beason, when he secretly taped himself, summed what this case was about. If the blacks vote, the republicans will not win. This case was about the republicans taking over the power in Alabama and they would destroy in and everyone who got in their path.

A Reporter Goes Undercover to Expose the Debt-Collection Industry

America consists of two kinds of people--those who have heard from debt collectors and those who probably will hear from debt collectors.

In a nation of easy credit, most Americans are just a few late payments away from entering the murky netherworld of collection companies, outfits with names like NCO, Mann Bracken, LVNV, and Asset Acceptance. Never heard of those? If you have a credit card, you probably will someday.

When collection phone calls start coming--often accompanied by unlawful threats, misrepresentations, and other forms of deceit--most Americans have no idea what they are getting into. I know because I used to be one of those clueless Americans.

I had to educate myself about the sharks that swim in the churning, poorly regulated waters of the debt-collection business. But you won't have to do that if you make author Fred Williams your friend.

Williams, probably the foremost debt-collection journalist in the country, has written a book that is indispensable for consumers who want to be prepared when the collection calls start coming. It's called
Fight Back Against Unfair Debt Collection Practices: Know Your Rights and Protect Yourself From Threats, Lies, and Intimidation (FT Press, 2011).

That's an unwieldy title, and it doesn't do Williams' book justice. The FT in FT Press stands for Financial Times, and the publisher is an imprint of Pearson Prentice Hall. The book apparently was marketed as a specialty book, in the personal finance genre.

Fight Back is about as close as you will find to a "one-stop shop" for information about dealing with debt collectors--and as such, it is a personal-finance book. But it's much more than that. Williams, a former reporter for The Buffalo News, went underground to work for three months at a debt-collection agency in 2008. That experience produced an articled titled "Confessions of a Debt Collector," at Kiplinger.

Fight Back is the book-length account of Williams' time as a debt collector. He now lives in Virginia and comes across as a true reporter, a guy who deals in solid information. He has a no-frills, behind-the-scenes style that conjures up a non-fiction version of John Grisham. You get the sense that this is a writer who has been there, who knows his subject intimately. Fight Back, at its best, reads like a Grisham novel--except that the bad guys are managers in a debt-collection agency, not partners in a law firm.

The law, however, plays a leading role in Fight Back. Specifically, it's a single law, called the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It's supposed to govern the actions of debt collectors and keep them from behaving in an abusive fashion. Williams shows, through 194 crisply written pages, that the FDCPA is pathetically weak and does almost nothing to protect consumers.

That's why consumers have to be prepared to protect themselves. And Fight Back is filled with practical suggestions for doing just that.

How badly is the FDCPA failing? Consider this from Williams:

Debt collectors caused more than 300,000 complaints to the Federal Trade Commission in the past five years, more than any other industry that the agency regulates. The rate of complaints is exploding, having more than tripled since 2003. The number-one complaint is that collectors are demanding money that people do not even owe, even grabbing it from their bank accounts. As the industry casts its net wider and wider--making an estimated one billion contacts with consumers per year--a growing number of people say they are being shaken down by telephone bullies.

My wife and I know what that is like. I've written extensively about our battles with debt collectors and their disregard for federal law and the rights of consumers. We even have tape-recorded evidence of collectors from the Birmingham firm Ingram & Associates repeatedly violating the FDCPA while trying to collect a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. The local firm, headed by a lawyer named Angie Ingram, was hired to collect the debt by a large Pennsylvania outfit called NCO. Multiple parties in our federal lawsuit admitted this, but we have recordings of Ingram representatives repeatedly saying they had been hired by American Express to sue me--that Angie Ingram was American Express' lawyer. This is both a grotesque violation of the FDCPA--which prohibits any false or deceiving statements to alleged debtors--and it also represents fraud under Alabama state law.

Fred Williams

Has our tape-recorded evidence, which is indisputable, been helpful in our lawsuit against Ingram and NCO? Not exactly. Much more is coming soon on our case and the lengths to which federal judges (and lawyers who defend the industry) will go to keep the high-dollar, debt-collection express rolling. But for now, we will focus on the broad picture--and Fred Williams shows clearly that it isn't pretty. About his three months as a collector, Williams writes:

As it turned out, the job tested more than the ability of a legally compliant collector to remain employed. On a day-to-day level, the job also tested my standards for reasonable and humane conduct. Living by the golden rule is not entirely congruent with the task of browbeating strangers who have fallen on hard times--especially ones whose lives have become a tragedy.

What's the environment like at a typical collection outfit?

Call centers are like factories used to be in this Rust Belt area--places where practically anyone can show up and get a job. But these jobs are easier to get than they are to keep. Of the four female trainees present at the start, one fails to return after the midmorning break, marking the first of what will be many abrupt exits from our group.

Williams isn't writing about a problem that affects only those on the fringes of American society; it affects us all:

The average home has three open credit-card accounts. Nearly half of all Americans carry a balance on their cards, with the average household's balance being over $7,000.

That means millions of Americans are just one job loss, health problem, or lawsuit away from a financial upheaval--and the debt-collection calls that come with it.

One of our goals is to help educate consumers about issues that many are likely to face someday. We will return to Fight Back, and Fred Williams, for assistance.

Here is an interview with Williams on CNBC:

Conservatives' Use of Animal Abuse Should Come As No Surprise

An apparent political hit on a family's cat in Arkansas has drawn national attention, and it's one of the most nauseating stories I've read in a long time. I only wish I could say it came as a surprise.

Since starting this blog in June 2007, I've written frequently about wrongdoing among conservative elites in Alabama and beyond. That has made me a fair number of enemies, enough that both my wife and I have been cheated out of our jobs. But the abuse has not stopped there. We learned a long time ago that conservative thugs enjoy using threats--and they don't mind targeting family pets.

The title of this blog hints that animals are held in high regard in our household. Our current pets, the Tonkinese kitty kat combo of Baxter and Chloe, mean the world to us and are treated in a fashion that Will  and Kate would recognize. Our previous pet, a miniature schnauzer named Murphy (1993-2004), meant so much to us that this blog is devoted to her memory.

What form of scum would kill a family cat, scrawl the word "liberal" on the corpse, and leave it for a Democratic politico and his children to find? I probably don't possess the vocabulary to adequately describe such a lowlife, but I'm not surprised that someone who apparently identifies as a conservative would kill an animal in order to make a political threat.

That's because I've received numerous animal-related threats via e-mail or anonymous comments on this blog. Our cats are pretty low key, and the blog title does not refer to them, so they have remained out of the rhetorical fire (so far). But conservative dirt bags have made regular sport of leaving nasty comments about our dog. Here is a sampling from a post titled "Unmasking Right-Wing Sickos?"

To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:

ON OUR DOG MURPHY

* From: Anonymous Date: Jun 30, 2008 8:58 PM

are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?


* From: Anonymous Date: Jun 12, 2008 10:18 PM

you are a fool like your dead dog


* From: Anonymous Date: May 20, 2008 9:25 PM

You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?


* From: Anonymous Date: May 19, 2008 7:27 PM

Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.

The most chilling message, of course, is the first one, where someone actually hints that Murphy might have been murdered. Whoever left that message probably does not live around us or know us very well. That's because Murphy was an indoor dog, except when we took her for daily walks or let her out onto our screened deck. She never was outside without our supervision, so the only way her death could not be natural is if someone broke into our house and poisoned her. Our vet told us that Murphy's symptoms prior to her death did not suggest that she had ingested a harmful substance, so poisoning of any kind almost certainly was not a factor. Plus, we never saw any signs of a break-in.

Sicko No. 1, by saying "you'll never know" about the cause of Murphy's death, was trying to plant doubt in our minds--a weak attempt at psychological torture. But like many conservatives, No. 1 is not terribly bright. We know exactly the environment Murphy lived in, so we have no doubt that her death was from natural causes--and we know what the natural causes were.

In light of recent events, here is the key point: This individual, apparently a conservative, wanted us to think that someone might have killed our dog for political reasons--because I write what could be called a progressive blog.

Am I surprised that someone actually did kill a cat, all because it belonged to a Democratic household? No, I'm not. I've had direct communication with people who share that very mindset.