A North Carolina lawyer who represents Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has reappeared after our post yesterday about Mr. Rollins' status as a deadbeat dad.
We reported that court documents show Ted Rollins owes $200,000 to $350,000 in unallocated family support, which includes child support. We further showed that Rollins has been behind on support payments for more than six years and was under a contempt order from South Carolina for more than 30 months.
It's unclear why the contempt order was lifted because records show that Ted Rollins never has paid the full amount ordered by a judge. Also, a judge ordered Ted Rollins to ensure that his ex wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins, had undisturbed possession of the marital residence in Greenville, South Carolina, while the divorce case was pending. Did Ted Rollins follow that order? No, he did not. The mortgage apparently went unpaid, and Ms. Rollins was kicked out of the house and forced to flee with the couple's two daughters, Sarah and Emma, to Alabama.
How did Ted Rollins get away with that? What kind of person leads Campus Crest Communities as it builds student-housing complexes on college campuses across the country?
The public record provides a troubling answer to that question: Ted Rollins' company completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO last year, and he owns multiple private jet craft, but he is a deadbeat dad.
That cannot be disputed, but Rollins and his attorney dispute it anyway. Chad Essick, of the firm Poyner Spruill, threatened me with legal action, for the second time, yesterday. Mr. Essick apparently enjoys ripping off threatening missives without bothering to check what the public record reveals about his client.
Like many lawyers I've encountered, Mr. Essick seems to have no interest in facts, law, or justice. He's Ted Rollins' highly paid bully, so he threatens anyone who dares to report accurately about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which represents the most grotesque example of judicial/legal corruption I have encountered--and I don't make that statement lightly.
So let's see what Mr. Essick had to say, in an e-mail sent at 9:41 a.m. on December 14, 2011:
It is my understanding that you have been making statements to my client, Ted Rollins, as well as others, that Mr. Rollins is currently a fugitive from justice. I am putting you on notice that this statement is patently false, and to the extent you continue to make such statements, appropriate action will be taken. Furthermore, I’ve also been notified that you have made statements that Mr. Rollins is a “deadbeat dad” and does not meet his obligations to his children. These statements are also false. In my letter dated October 17, 2011, I made you aware that Mr. Rollins makes all of his court ordered child support payments and provides support for his children above and beyond what he is obligated to pay by the Alabama courts. The mere fact that you disagree with the decisions of the Alabama courts in no way makes Mr. Rollins a “deadbeat dad” that fails to meet his obligations to his children. The continued publication of false and misleading information will not be tolerated.
Here is my reply, sent at 10:16 a.m. yesterday:
Your understanding is flawed. Records from South Carolina show that Ted Rollins was a fugitive from justice for more than 30 months. Records further show that Mr. Rollins never paid the full amount he had been ordered to pay by a South Carolina court.
I asked Mr. Rollins about these matters, which I am entitled to do under the law. As for your contention regarding Mr. Rollins currently being a fugitive from justice, that was incorporated in a question I asked him directly, with no publication to a third party.
As for the "deadbeat dad" issue, I published that in a post this morning--and it is true, based on public documents in South Carolina and Alabama, plus my interviews with Sherry Rollins. If you wish to speak with Ms. Rollins and ask her how much she has received of court-ordered payments, feel free to do so. If Mr. Rollins can produce documents proving that he paid his South Carolina obligations, I would be happy to write a post showing that. I asked him about the amount owed prior to publication, and he refused to respond to my questions.
The public record shows that Ted Rollins owed substantial amounts from a court order in South Carolina, and he has never paid it. That is fact, and I will continue to report on relevant matters. I also will give Mr. Rollins every opportunity to respond to my questions on these matters--as I have done throughout my research.
Anyone who files a groundless legal action against me will be countersued for abuse of process and any other applicable torts--and I will seek sanctions and costs.
I sent Ted Rollins a list of written questions via e-mail on Dec. 2 regarding public documents that show he is a deadbeat dad. I asked him to respond by Dec. 6 if he wished to have his answers incorporated in my article. He did not respond, and the article ran yesterday, Dec. 14.
Isn't it interesting that Ted Rollins refuses to be interviewed on these matters--and refuses to answer questions in writing, even after stating that he would be "more than happy" to do so--and then sics his lawyer on a reporter for writing factually about Rollins v. Rollins?
Isn't it also interesting that a lawyer dashes off threatening letters, claiming certain reported items are not true, when public documents show that they are true?
I'm reporting on matters of public record. It's available in the Alabama court records for anyone to see. Why are Ted Rollins and Chad Essick uncomfortable with that? My guess is they do not want the public to know, or understand, that our court system was grossly abused in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.
Chad Essick is following an old maxim of the legal profession: "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither one is on your side, pound on the table."
Mr. Essick is "pounding on the table." That's all he and Ted Rollins can do when confronted with the truth about Rollins v. Rollins.