tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post4810074214410959980..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Alabama Lawyer G. John Durward Violated Ethics Rules At Most Every Turn In Rollins Divorce Caselegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-76031445339348520742013-03-26T18:31:39.341-05:002013-03-26T18:31:39.341-05:00(smile....). Maybe you can tell things by lookin...(smile....). Maybe you can tell things by looking, but also by looking them up. (see link, "footloose in tuscaloosa" and how by law, Alabama apparently ca. 1983 decided that (not including high-profile adolescent batterers like Mr. Rollins here) that it can stop child abuse BEFORE it happens through legislation (Martin-Aldridge Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Act, "ACANP"). Of course taxpayers shouldn't expect this to be free of charge, hence, the Children's Trust Fund, Family Resource Centers, Visitation Centers, etc. <br /><br />I also looked a while back** at the state's financial statements (CAFRs) and noticed that about 80% of the State HHS-style (DHR) funding seems to be coming from the federal level. (**translation, don't quote me on that: here's 2011's http://comptroller.alabama.gov/pdfs/CAFR/CAFR.Ala.2011.pdf). p. 10 showing there's a nice Judicial and Legislative Branch, but when it comes to CHILDREN's AFFAIRS and HUMAN RESOURCES -- that's under Executive (gov't) control. So there's more than just Ted Rollins likely involved in trying to get a divorce case into the state (illegally). There's cash in them thar' hills -- $2/federal to every $1 local for enforcing child support (translation: Protecting kids from Abuse through family reunification and compromise of CS arrears, etc. )<br /><br /><br />Putting what's already known (at least by some) about TANF (welfare reform), i.e., that it's no longer just about helping poor people (that was just to get it rolling good, including especially the child support enforcement sector, about $4 billion a year) -- it's about making sure men like Mr. Rollins (in the fullest sense of the word)-- at ALL levels of income -- are not deprived of contact with their children by "gold-digging" or bitter mothers making up stories about what their exes are doing to their kids, as I see Legal Schnauzer has taken some time to report.<br /><br />I know that's a lot to unload onto a comment -- however, I've got attorneys in my family line too, and I keep wondering whether they're smarter, or dumber, than they are sounding when attempting to sound authoritative. <br /><br />And if even Sherry Rollins can't stay off food stamps, while I hate it, I feel a little less bad about having been forced back on them (twice, actually) after going through the ringer and leaving an abusive marriage, with good faith efforts to handle my own affairs. <br /><br />What I'm saying is that, many of us are on a large pool table here, but not all of us are holding the cues which knock the balls around, and besides this, there are more in play than it seems at first glance in ANY divorce and child support case. One of the biggest clues (not good to be without a cue, or a clue in these matters) that some federal (as well as private) clout may be involved is improper switch of jurisdictions.<br /><br />I'm not from Alabama, just ended up reading about some things trying to figure out why it's almost impossible to stay off assistance after someone reports some sort of criminal activity by an ex and tries to separate from it. Ever tried to hold down work inbetween routine court hearings and threats to take one's children away backed by some serious clout?<br /><br />I know several mothers (though am not one) trying to leave men with some serious corporate wealth. Basically, they have to drop everything and fight. When you see systems that can't drive straight, or obey the rules of the road, I figure time to look at what kind of gas is in the tank; i.e., what's driving the system. Well, just FYI, government has been privatized through nonprofits contracting with the courts, with judges and attorneys on the nonprofits; great way to declare things don't exist which do, or at least make those resources harder to find.<br /><br />Ms. Rollins is at least lucky there's a legal schauzer in the neighborhood.<br /><br />Lets Get Honesthttp://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/is-ocse-footloose-in-tuscaloosa-a-k-a-when-nonprofits-exist-just-to-attract-healthy-marriagefatherhoodchild-support-grants/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-41925519349522216552013-03-19T11:56:35.933-05:002013-03-19T11:56:35.933-05:00Anon at 1:29 a.m.--
Not sure if that is legal or ...Anon at 1:29 a.m.--<br /><br />Not sure if that is legal or not. I do know that procedures tend to be pretty loose in family-court settings. You are wise to question the ethics of Durward/Cromer, given their actions in the Rollins case. <br /><br />Would be interested to know more info about your case. Feel free to contact me at my personal e-mail: rshuler3156@gmail.comlegalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42932363260637986942013-03-19T01:29:05.263-05:002013-03-19T01:29:05.263-05:00Dear sir,
During a court proceeding that was for c...Dear sir,<br />During a court proceeding that was for custody modification for my 10 year old son, durwood and Cromer were allowed to interview my son alone with Cromer in a room, without a gal present or anyone else. Without my permission i am sole custodial parent and my son had been exposed to sexually explicit material among other things. Is that legal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-7059062255164323982012-12-29T06:52:31.275-06:002012-12-29T06:52:31.275-06:00John must be aware of the fact that there were no...John must be aware of the fact that there were not any strong grounds to support Ted Rollins complaint, the case filed could not lawfully be heard in Alabama.alabama criminal defense lawyerhttp://goarticles.com/article/Tips-on-Finding-the-Best-Bankruptcy-Lawyers-in-Birmingham/7249014/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-58129239846182612812012-12-09T08:00:22.892-06:002012-12-09T08:00:22.892-06:00I have an idea. All Sherry has to do is contact Bi...I have an idea. All Sherry has to do is contact Bill Marshall and make him FACTUALLY aware of your case. Problem solved!! <br />From The Hook comments:<br />"Bill Marshall December 5th, 2012 | 3:45pm<br />I DO judge them all... if I was FACTUALLY aware of a grown man sleeping naked with young boys with 180 hits of viagra I would have made damn sure that the word got out even if I posted it anonomusly online or on posters on telephone poles in the middle of the night. I don't know if she was strong enough mentally to carry out the task but I cannot believe that she had no one in her life that would help her bring this man down. I think with even the people posting here about how believable her allegations are that had they heard these rumors or aellgations that they would have stepped forward to at least draw some attention to the circumstance.<br /><br />We should not have to learn about these situations from an adult who comes forward 6 years later....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-45921235418014396212012-12-08T22:33:15.355-06:002012-12-08T22:33:15.355-06:00This standard operating procedure for too many law...This standard operating procedure for too many lawyers and judges, unfortunately. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-69147370655211541282012-12-08T21:40:33.388-06:002012-12-08T21:40:33.388-06:00Anon at 9:34:
Technically, the answer should be y...Anon at 9:34:<br /><br />Technically, the answer should be yes. The law is firmly on Ms. Rollins' side. But in reality, the law means very little in our corrupt courts. A woman who is close to the Rollins family oversees family courts in South Carolina, or at least she did. It appears she played a major role in letting this case unlawfully be shipped to Alabama. I haven't written much about this angle, but I will. Need to do some more research.<br /><br />The woman's name is Aphrodite Konduros, and she now is on the South Carolina Court of Appeals. She's a key figure in the Rollins story. Her husband, Sam Konduros, has been a business partner with Ted Rollins, working in something called the Upstate Alliance and making a bunch of money. Here is a bio for Aphrodite Konduros:<br /><br /><br />http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Aphrodite_Konduroslegalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-75704270704633892982012-12-08T21:34:06.498-06:002012-12-08T21:34:06.498-06:00Can she not go before somebody in SC and get this ...Can she not go before somebody in SC and get this overturned? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-26513806526652639942012-12-08T21:26:51.550-06:002012-12-08T21:26:51.550-06:00Anon at 7:33--
Thanks for sharing your insights a...Anon at 7:33--<br /><br />Thanks for sharing your insights and the link to the story about Watkins case. Haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but it looks very interesting.<br /><br />Yes, Ted and Sherry Rollins lived for a while in Charlottesville before getting married. He had an investment firm there. His lawyer friend in VA is Frank Bredimus, who is based in Leesburg--and the farm in question, I believe, is in Hamilton, VA.<br /><br />Definitely want to learn more about Watkins case. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-84756671400228344632012-12-08T19:33:26.033-06:002012-12-08T19:33:26.033-06:00Copy and pasted portions of the comments from the ...<br />Copy and pasted portions of the comments from the locals. Roger, did you say the Rollins lived in Charlottesville when they became engaged? Where was the property Ted bought his lawyer? Could it have been Keswick? Or at nearby? I have a feeling many of these same readers will be interested in your posts and won't surprise me if some of the Rollins players involved will be known by many of these readers. I have a feeling many might take more of an interest than the investor lady. Investor lady might even get some calls from some of these readers.<br />So many of the comments sound familiar.. "didn't look the part of a pedophile"...<br /><br />"...he always came across as having a privileged attitude and to consider himself above the rules. If he did commit the crime for which he is charged, I do hope the rules will apply to him this time."<br /><br />And check out this comment.This poster needs a link to direct him to LS's reporting on Ted Rollins. What a joke. Blame the wife for not doing enough to expose her husband's crimes against children. HA, yeah, sure, easy peasy! "I DO judge them all... if I was FACTUALLY aware of a grown man sleeping naked with young boys with 180 hits of viagra I would have made damn sure that the word got out even if I posted it anonomusly online or on posters on telephone poles in the middle of the night. I don't know if she was strong enough mentally to carry out the task but I cannot believe that she had no one in her life that would help her bring this man down. I think with even the people posting here about how believable her allegations are that had they heard these rumors or aellgations that they would have stepped forward to at least draw some attention to the circumstance."<br /><br />Appears many DID try.. told to shhhhhhhh<br />"I understand feeling the need to judge. This is a very aggravating case. How could she and others who knew about the abuse just give up? The truth is no one ever did give up. Although many of us ( She is well supported by family and friends who also believed that many boys could be in danger) were aware of the possibility of being sued for slander... we all did what we could do. Friends in Social Services, Region Ten, and both Charlottesville and Albemarle police departments were repeatedly contacted. All of us were assured that NOTHING would be done in terms of an investigation of Watkins until a child came forward. I personally contacted someone every few months... I was told by many to quit talking about it. I never did. You were not there Mr. Marshall, you have no idea how much was done to protect the boys in question. If only SOMEONE had listened before now."<br /><br />"Why is their ire for the actual perpetrator misdirected to these other people.<br />This smearing of the accuser is exactly what occurs again and again in cases like these. The hook is well aware of other cases very similar to this one.<br />The fear of being sued, the fact that your name gets dragged through the mud, the fact that judges are trained to not believe these allegations (as is so well exemplified by AngryOldMan) and issue gag orders to protect the reputation of the perpetrator, these are all real things."<br /><br />"It's a sad, sad story every time, and every time the pattern is the same. Every time, the people other than the perpetrator receive the ire and ill will of those that want to diminish the severity of this crime."<br />http://www.readthehook.com/108852/nuclear-allegations-ex-asserts-sordid-past-scoutmasterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-52363295331552950362012-12-08T07:58:23.939-06:002012-12-08T07:58:23.939-06:00Lawyers and judges did their thing and turned the ...Lawyers and judges did their thing and turned the tables making the wife of Watkins out to be a crazy liar instead of trying to uncover the truth and protect children. She's looking pretty credible about now. "Police announced last week they had arrested Watkins on a felony count of forcible sodomy." http://www.readthehook.com/108852/nuclear-allegations-ex-asserts-sordid-past-scoutmasterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-38215454183071098082012-12-07T10:41:50.451-06:002012-12-07T10:41:50.451-06:00Tell me about it Mr. Schnauzer.
Look at this misr...Tell me about it Mr. Schnauzer.<br /><br />Look at this misrepresentation of facts:<br /><br />David Bouchard, 61, a Chesapeake attorney who lives in Suffolk, said he has a long list of issues he wants to tackle, most related to helping the poor and underprivileged.<br /><br />http://hamptonroads.com/node/277711jeffrey spruillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-78632013038362616412012-12-07T10:40:30.418-06:002012-12-07T10:40:30.418-06:00I noticed the "sour grapes/disgruntled litiga...I noticed the "sour grapes/disgruntled litigant" tired mantra of the legal cabal thrown out with an added twist of being "insane". Typical marginalize and discredit tactics used over and over again. RS you are truly making these cockroaches uncomfortable. Keep up the good work. Maybe this scrutiny will help to start the cleaning up of the Alabama good ole boy judicial system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-48564723771325376902012-12-07T10:32:24.157-06:002012-12-07T10:32:24.157-06:00That's their specialty.That's their specialty.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-71259417086948007602012-12-07T10:24:36.116-06:002012-12-07T10:24:36.116-06:00It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer misrepr...It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer misrepresented the facts...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-20743476707266687052012-12-07T10:22:42.104-06:002012-12-07T10:22:42.104-06:00I have posted some of them and will be posting mor...I have posted some of them and will be posting more. I know exactly what the record shows, and @4:03 is wrong. If he has reviewed the record in a serious fashion, he knows he's wrong.<br /><br />I've probably published a half dozen documents from the Rollins file already. More will be coming.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-10506828466447987242012-12-07T10:19:06.854-06:002012-12-07T10:19:06.854-06:00These documents are a matter of public record, per...These documents are a matter of public record, perhaps posting them add clarity to the matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-57881334453215121382012-12-07T07:04:24.885-06:002012-12-07T07:04:24.885-06:00Looks like Durward started drunk posting comments ...Looks like Durward started drunk posting comments late last night, LS. LOL!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-73914937706088270502012-12-07T06:13:04.808-06:002012-12-07T06:13:04.808-06:00Regarding Comments from Anonymous on Dec. 7 a.m.:
...Regarding Comments from Anonymous on Dec. 7 a.m.:<br /><br />You do have the appeal in front of you or you don't, you seem confused. Other lawyers are not as "art" as you or as smart as you? I think we know that there is something wrong with you because your writing skills seem to match up with a 5th grade education or you are intoxicated. And you don't give a tinkers damn? I say you do, otherwise why would you be reading an appeal of some random person's case? Why don't you just print your NAME or throw your juris doctorate in the ring and go confront some judges and lawyers in the parade of injustice in Shelby County? Sitting back reading a blog and then trying to defend something or someone with your ineptitude while attacking the writer of the blog? Is that the best you've got? Did you take one course in law or two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-41677646435696358492012-12-07T00:36:16.479-06:002012-12-07T00:36:16.479-06:00I'm not defensive toward you. I'm just tel...I'm not defensive toward you. I'm just telling you that you are wrong, and I'm pointing out how the record shows you are wrong.<br /><br />I happen to believe you are being dishonest when you claim not to have an agenda or special interest regarding this case. But that's not being defensive either. I just don't believe a disinterested person would go to the trouble to look up the appellate record, as you claim you have, and then proceed to write multiple deceptive, ill-informed blog comments about it.<br /><br />Also, I find it interesting that you now have resorted to insults. In my experience, that's a sign a person knows he has no argument to make.<br /><br />I will repeat what I've already said: I have done more than read the record. I've studied it extensively, and here is what it shows:<br /><br />(1) Sherry Rollins lawyers did not waive subject-matter jurisdiction.<br /><br />(2) Her lawyers did not withdraw the challenge to jurisdiction.<br /><br />(3) Crowson's own letter to the South Carolina judge admits that a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction was on the table as of Jan. 2005. He makes this admission as he is in the process of violating the law by stealing the case from a court where jurisdiction had been established for more than three years.<br /><br />Even you don't deny that, under the actual law, Alabama did not, and could not, have jurisdiction. Given that, and the fact Crowson's own words, show jurisdiction was challenged, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion. You appear to know what the real law is, and Crowson butchered it; you seem to get pleasure from arguing over a technicality that was not present in this case. Surely you can make better use of your time.<br /><br />Why don't you contact Sherry Rollins and asked her if she authorized any of her attorneys to waive jurisdiction or withdraw a challenge to jurisdiction?<br /><br />I've got her contact information and would be glad to provide it. I'm sure she would be delighted to talk with you.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42977323788784680552012-12-07T00:07:21.158-06:002012-12-07T00:07:21.158-06:00have you researched waiver? It's fairly impor...have you researched waiver? It's fairly important in the law of jurisdiction. Now can you waive subject matter jurisdiction in divorce cases? It was waived by sherry Rollins through her attorney's. I really don't know if you can waive subject matter jurisdiction. I suspect not but it is an issue in this case. Did you read the record? Did you see where her attorneys withdrew the challenge to jurisdiction? Can it then be re-raised? I doubt it, but maybe.<br /><br />There is no need to be defensive towards me. <br />I just enjoy your insane ramblings. I have been beaten time and again by many lawyers many times both T trial and on appeal. I always attributed it to people not being as art as me, but thanks to u I know its a conspiracy involving bush, fuller, Vance, vowelll, crowson, Reynolds, rove, kallon, the entire 11th circuit, and every other judge that has ever ruled against you. Not to mention like 10 other lawyers who screwed you. Fight the good fight!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-35309989527607249602012-12-06T20:41:48.079-06:002012-12-06T20:41:48.079-06:00Anon at 7:50--
I'm afraid your reading of the...Anon at 7:50--<br /><br />I'm afraid your reading of the record is in error. One of Ms. Rollins' lawyers stated in a letter to Crowson that he was not going to pursue the motion to dismiss. But there never was a motion to withdraw the motion, and that lawyer then withdrew.<br /><br />Furthermore, Ms. Rollins' next lawyer clearly moved once again for a motion to dismiss, citing jurisdictional issues and the Wesson case. Crowson acknowledges in his letter to the Carolina judge that a motion to dismiss was on the table in Alabama.<br /><br />So in Crowson's own words, a valid motion to dismiss was on the table, and he simply stole the case. That's what a real reading of the actual, full record shows.<br /><br />I have gotten the facts right, now and throughout my reporting on this case.<br /><br />If you don't give a tinker's damn about this case, why are you going to the trouble to review the appellate record? More importantly, why are you intentionally trying to misstate what the record shows?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29204733990172814272012-12-06T20:41:19.604-06:002012-12-06T20:41:19.604-06:00You don't give a "tinkers damn"? Ye...You don't give a "tinkers damn"? Yep that's what it looks like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-40281687272847999702012-12-06T19:51:26.554-06:002012-12-06T19:51:26.554-06:00I mean I do not have it in front of me.I mean I do not have it in front of me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-5683802167200493912012-12-06T19:50:54.505-06:002012-12-06T19:50:54.505-06:00Look at volume 1 of the ROA around page 54, I do. ...Look at volume 1 of the ROA around page 54, I do. It have it in front of me. Her second or third lawyer withdrew the mtd and informed the court that the prior hearing on the mtd was withdrawn. I have no horse in the race, I don't give a tinkers damn about these folks.<br />I'd just like u to get the facts somewhere near right.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com