The Truth About Ted Rollins: The CEO of Campus Crest Communities Got Away With Child Abuse

Ted Rollins

The brutal beating that Ted Rollins inflicted upon his stepson in 1995 should have been treated, under the law, for what it was--a case of child abuse.

Our research shows the case was not handled properly, and numerous individuals failed in their obligation to report the abuse to the North Carolina Division of Social Services. That raises this troubling question: Is our "justice system" willing to look the other way on child abuse when the perpetrator is from a family with substantial money and power?

Ted Rollins now is the CEO of Campus Crest Communities, a company that builds student housing near universities around the country and completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010. Campus Crest did not exist in 1995, but Rollins was head of American Textile Services, which was one of the largest employers in Franklin County, North Carolina, where the beating took place.

That made Rollins a prominent figure in and around Louisburg, North Carolina, where he lived with his second wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins; their infant daughter, Sarah Rollins; and Eric and Zac Parrish, who were Sherry Rollins' sons by her first marriage--and Ted Rollins' stepsons. Zac Parrish was about 15 years old in September 1995 when Ted Rollins beat him so severely that the youngster was rushed to an emergency room via ambulance, his face a bloody mask.

Was there any doubt that Zac Parrish had been abused? Consider Sherry Rollins description of the trip to the hospital with her son. (The full interview can be viewed in a video at the end of this post.)

In the ambulance, my daughter and I were with him. I believe he was given oxygen. He was badly beaten. He had lacerations around his mouth. Ted had repeatedly beaten him around the mouth area. You could see the inside of his lip hanging down.

Anyone who sees a child in such condition is required by North Carolina law to report it as a case of possible abuse. So why was that not done? Why did the child-protection system in the state fail Zac Parrish?

The failure is particularly egregious when you consider that in 1993, North Carolina Social Services had received substantial evidence of a dysfunctional relationship between Ted Rollins and Zac Parrish. (More on that in upcoming posts.) The same child was beaten senseless by the same stepfather two years later, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow with authorities?

Did the fact Ted Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families help him escape serious scrutiny? Does Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the parent company of Orkin Pest Control, have the kind of power and legal resources that can help provide cover for a family member who abuses a child? Randall and Gary Rollins, the chairman and president of Rollins Inc., are both billionaires--and they are Ted Rollins' cousins, with Randall and Ted joining in a business venture called St. James Capital.

Rollins Inc. frequently enlists the services of one of the nation's most powerful law firms, a Chicago-based outfit called Sidley Austin. What kind of status does Sidley Austin wield in the legal realm? It is billed as one of the oldest law firms in the world and the sixth largest corporate firm with a U.S. base. Could that kind of legal clout help get Ted Rollins out of a jam? We will be addressing that question in a future post, but for now, let's consider the law that should have been applied when Zac Parrish was beaten.

Since the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), states have received federal funding to provide child protection and welfare services. CAPTA also sets a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect.

North Carolina has a two-tiered set of laws to deal with possible cases of child abuse. One involves a juvenile system, which is designed to protect children; the other is the criminal system, which is designed to punish abusers. Our research indicates that Ted Rollins should have been subjected to both sets of child-abuse laws. But the record shows he was subjected to neither.

The juvenile process is governed by Chapter 7B of the North Carolina General Statutes, which defines an "abused juvenile" as follows:

7B‑101.  Definitions 

As used in this Subchapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following words have the listed meanings: 

(1) Abused juvenile – Any juvenile less than 18 years of age whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker: 

a. Inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the juvenile a serious physical injury by other than accidental means; 

b. Creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of serious physical injury to the juvenile by other than accidental means; 

c. Uses or allows to be used upon the juvenile cruel or grossly inappropriate procedures or cruel or grossly inappropriate devices to modify behavior;

That is not the full definition, but Zac Parrish met all three of those criteria for an "abused juvenile" under North Carolina law. Based on Sherry Rollins' description of the beating, let's consider the individuals who had overwhelming reason to believe that Zac Parrish was the victim of child abuse:

* At least one sheriff's deputy;

* At least two ambulance personnel;

* Multiple medical professionals in a hospital emergency room.

What were all of those people required by law to do? Section 7B-301 spells it out:

7B‑301. Duty to report abuse, neglect, dependency, or death due to maltreatment. Any person or institution who has cause to suspect that any juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent, as defined by G.S. 7B‑101, or has died as the result of maltreatment, shall report the case of that juvenile to the director of the department of social services in the county where the juvenile resides or is found. The report may be made orally, by telephone, or in writing. . . . 

We've seen no evidence that anyone reported the abuse, as required by law. It appears the system that was designed to protect Zac Parrish from Ted Rollins was bypassed completely. Based on Sherry Rollins' statements about the beating, it appears her husband also should have been subject to North Carolina's criminal child-abuse statute. That is not certain because the law is based on the victim's age, and strangely, the age standard is different from the juvenile-code definition of a child (less than 18 years of age). The applicable law appears to be Section 14-318.4 of the North Carolina General Statutes. It states:

14‑318.4. Child abuse a felony

(a) A parent or any other person providing care to or supervision of a child less than 16 years of age who intentionally inflicts any serious physical injury upon or to the child or who intentionally commits an assault upon the child which results in any serious physical injury to the child is guilty of a Class E felony, except as otherwise provided in subsection (a3) of this section.

Why is a child defined as "less than 18" under the juvenile code and "less than 16" under the criminal code? We have no idea. But our research clearly shows that Ted Rollins intentionally inflicted serious physical injury upon Zac Parrish, which would be a felony. The only question has to do with Zac Parrish's age at the time of the beating--and Sherry Rollins has been uncertain on that point. In our videotaped interview, she states that her son was 14 at the time of the beating. On other occasions she has said he was 15. In either case, Ted Rollins would have been subject to a felony child-abuse charge.

If Zac Parrish had reached his 16th birthday at the time of the beating--and it appears that is the oldest he could have been--the criminal child-abuse statute would not have been in play. Instead, the case would have been covered by a general assault statute.

This much is certain: Zac Parrish was not protected the way he should have been--and Ted Rollins was not scrutinized the way he should have been. And the 1995 beating was not the first time North Carolina officials failed to intervene effectively in the troubled Rollins household.


 

CEO Ted Rollins And A Former Alabama Policeman Prove The Wealthy Can Get Away With Child Abuse

Mitchell Breland

This is not a story that will warm your heart as we wind down from the holidays. But it does show how we tend to mistreat "the least of these"--and that should be a year-round concern for those who claim to take the New Testament seriously.

At center stage for this immorality play is Mitchell Breland, a former Moulton, Alabama, police officer who was indicted just before Christmas on two counts of child abuse. Playing opposite Breland is Ted Rollins, the CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities and a regular subject here because of his leading role in pulling off a monstrous cheat job in an Alabama divorce case styled Rollins v. Rollins.

Public records and published reports show that Ted Rollins committed an act of child abuse that was every bit as monstrous as the acts alleged against Mitchell Breland. Rollins was convicted of misdemeanor assault and paid a small fine, but records indicate he never was investigated for the much more serious offense of child abuse. Breland, meanwhile, faces Class C felony charges that could land him in prison for one to 10 years.

Not only did Ted Rollins receive light treatment from the criminal-justice system, he has gone on to receive solid support from Wall Street. The Vanguard Group, one of America's most prominent investment firms, was a powerful backer in a $380-million IPO that Rollins' company completed in late 2010. Does that mean The Vanguard Group, from its hallowed base in the Philadelphia suburb of Malvern, Pennsylvania, isn't much concerned about child abuse, as long as an abuser can help make money for stockholders? A reasonable person could reach that conclusion.

Why the different outcomes in criminal cases involving Mitchell Breland and Ted Rollins? Well, to be sure, the incidents happened in different states, in different time frames. Rollins was charged in 1995 with beating up his 16-year-old stepson in Franklin County, North Carolina. Breland was arrested last September in Lawrence County, Alabama, on charges that he had beaten two eight-year-old girls.

Here is how a report in the Florence Times Daily describes the charges against Breland:

Authorities said Breland is accused of repeatedly whipping the girls. It was unknown if they were whipped with a belt or some other item. 

Reports indicate one girl was beaten so severely that she had to be taken to the hospital. Medical personnel there contacted DHR.

How does that compare to Ted Rollins' actions? Consider the account of Alabama resident Sherry Rollins, who is Ted Rollins' ex wife and the mother of his victim, Zac Parrish (now 33 years old). She said her son's face was a bloody mask after the beating, and emergency medical personnel administered oxygen in a trip via ambulance to a nearby hospital. That is a sign that blood loss was severe enough that the victim was at danger of going into shock. Ms. Rollins said her son suffered a broken nose and numerous lacerations and abrasions. From one of our reports on the incident:

Was there any doubt that Zac Parrish had been abused? Consider Sherry Rollins description of the trip to the hospital with her son. . . . 

"In the ambulance, my daughter and I were with him. I believe he was given oxygen. He was badly beaten. He had lacerations around his mouth. Ted had repeatedly beaten him around the mouth area. You could see the inside of his lip hanging down."

Ted Rollins' actions at least match those of Mitchell Breland--and probably were far worse. After all, we know that, two years prior to the beating, North Carolina social-services officials investigated Ted Rollins for child sexual abuse of the same stepson--and that was based on a citizen complaint.

So why did Ted Rollins receive barely a wrist slap, while Breland is facing up to 10 years in prison? (Breland, by the way, already has been terminated from his job.)

It's not as if one state has strict laws on child abuse, while the other takes a lax approach. The statutory language is different, but the meanings of the relevant laws in North Carolina and Alabama are pretty much identical. In a post titled "The Truth About Ted Rollins: The CEO of Campus Crest Communities Got Away With Child Abuse," we showed that child abuse is covered under Chapter 7B of the North Carolina General Statutes.

The heart of the law is found at Section 7B-301, which reads in pertinent part:

7B‑301. Duty to report abuse, neglect, dependency, or death due to maltreatment. 

Any person or institution who has cause to suspect that any juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent, as defined by G.S. 7B‑101, or has died as the result of maltreatment, shall report the case of that juvenile to the director of the department of social services in the county where the juvenile resides or is found. The report may be made orally, by telephone, or in writing. . . .

Alabama's Mandatory Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law can be found at Code of Alabama 26-14 (1-13). Alabama's law is wordier than the one in North Carolina, but it's meaning is the same--and the crux of it can be found at Section 26-14-3(a):

Mandatory reporting. 

(a) All hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, doctors, physicians, surgeons, medical examiners, coroners, dentists, osteopaths, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, nurses, school teachers and officials, peace officers, law enforcement officials, pharmacists, social workers, day care workers or employees, mental health professionals, members of the clergy as defined in Rule 505 of the Alabama Rules of Evidence, or any other person called upon to render aid or medical assistance to any child, when the child is known or suspected to be a victim of child abuse or neglect, shall be required to report, or cause a report to be made of the same, orally, either by telephone or direct communication immediately, followed by a written report, to a duly constituted authority.

The bottom line? All of the law-enforcement, health-care, and court personnel who handled the Zac Parrish beating in North Carolina were required to report it as a case of suspected child abuse. Public records indicate that numerous individuals violated their duty to report, and that largely is why Ted Rollins never was held accountable.

Key personnel connected to the case in Moulton also were required by law to report suspected child abuse. Published reports indicate medical personnel contacted the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR), and that prompted the investigation of Breland.

Ted Rollins

What's the critical difference in the two cases? We can think of only one: As a police officer, Mitchell Breland probably earned a modest income that placed him more or less in America's middle class. As a member of one of America's richest families--the folks behind Orkin Pest Control, Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment, and other profitable enterprises--Ted Rollins is safely ensconced in our "1 Percent."

Can money and status help America's elites avoid scrutiny, even in cases where a child has been abused?

The stories of Mitchell Breland and Ted Rollins tell us the answer is yes.

Is there any serious doubt that Ted Rollins committed acts of child abuse? Here is a video of Sherry Rollins' eye-witness account of the beating, followed by court documents that show Ted Rollins' conviction for assault:




Ted Rollins Arrested for Assault

Ted Rollins Sentence for Assault

Wall Street Analyst Paula Poskon Switches Gears To Claim A CEO's Ties To Child Abuse Are No Big Deal

Paula Poskon

A prominent Wall Street analyst recently expressed alarm about reports that the CEO of a company with a $380-million IPO has ties to cases of child abuse. The analyst promised to research the matter and said investors would be "very concerned" about such issues.

The same analyst changed her tune considerably in a followup conversation. Paula Poskon, of Robert W. Baird and Company,  essentially now says that child-abuse issues connected to Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins are no big deal, and investors aren't particularly concerned about them.

Poskon made it clear in my initial interview with her that she was genuinely concerned about reports that Rollins had been convicted for assault on his 16-year-old stepson, and two years earlier, had been the subject of an investigation for child sexual abuse of the same stepson. Upon learning about Rollins' documented ties to child abuse, Poskon audibly gasped and said, "Oh, my God."

Poskon also stated that she intended to look into the matter: "Oh, my God, I was not aware of any of that. . . . It certainly sounds like I need to do a lot more digging."

After sending Poskon copies of public documents and published reports about Rollins' ties to child abuse, and giving her an opportunity to digest the information, I had another conversation with her. This time, her stance was pretty much one of, "This is a personal matter involving Mr. Rollins, and it really doesn't concern us here on Wall Street." (See video at the end of this post.)

Why the dramatic change in tone? Do investors and Wall Street analysts really take such a cavalier approach to matters of child abuse, even in the wake of the headline-grabbing Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State?

We still are trying to sort out the answers to such questions. But the change in Paula Poskon's tone was unmistakable. And she left the distinct impression that she had no intention of conducting serious research on the matter.

This came after she earlier had acknowledged that the child-abuse issue was of particular concern because Campus Crest builds and manages student-housing complexes that are marketed to students near universities. In other words, Ted Rollins' primary market is young people--even though he has a documented history of abusive relationships with young people.

How might we summarize Paula Poskon's new stance on Ted Rollins' ties to child abuse? It's a matter of "he said/she said" and the simple fallout from "messy divorce proceedings"--"and a lot of executives have messy divorces."

Does Poskon now expect us to take her seriously on this, or any other, subject? We're not sure, but here are some nuggets from my followup conversation with her.

If issues related to child abuse don't matter to investors, what does attract their attention?

Let's just make a hypothetical: If one of my storage-company executives was arrested for drunk driving, or hurt somebody in a drunk-driving accident . . . or something like that, of course investors would view that very seriously and probably would look to the board to say, "How are you going to deal with this . . . ?"  

There are situations where executives are held accountable, where investors really care and the way they show they care is by walking with their feet—they sell their investments. But when things start to branch into personal lives, where it can be construed as "he said/she  said" or messy divorce proceedings, . . . to the extent where it's something recent and major--that the person’s ability to continue to execute their obligations as an executive of a public company were called into question--investors would be all over that. . . .  

But my sense is that when it gets into the grayer area of "he said/she said"—a lot of executives have had messy, ugly divorces . . . —investors are much more prone to draw a healthy line and distance.

So drunk driving is to be taken seriously, but child abuse is not? I noted to Poskon that such a stance was quite different from her original statements on the issue. I also noted that, aside from the child-abuse issues, public documents show that Ted Rollins lied under oath on a child-support document. That is recent, it goes to criminal conduct, and it goes to Ted Rollins' integrity--even if he hasn't been prosecuted for it, yet. Poskon hinted that investors care about criminal conduct only if someone is prosecuted for it:

If someone did (prosecute it), my guess is that investors would pay attention to that, but no one has, and we’re not in position to opine on the circumstances; only courts and appropriate authorities can do that. I think the investment community will err on the side of drawing a clear line between corporate and personal lives, where there is lot of ambiguity around the circumstances. . . . People, I think, are sort of, “Well, can’t infer too much from that because we don’t know the circumstances. . . . " 

But in a situation like I outlined, where a CEO demolishes his car for drunk driving, or is arrested for soliciting prostitution--something that is completely over the line of good judgment and moral turpitude and all the things we think about in terms of public-company officials? Would investors care? Of course, they would. But looking back and making a judgment from that vs. how the person is leading a company today . . . is probably a much bigger stretch for investors to make, and they probably would be unlikely to do that.

Now we know that drunk driving and soliciting prostitution are seen as bad, conduct that reflects badly on a executive's character. Child abuse and perjury? Ah,  not so much. Here's more from Poskon on the values of Wall Street:

Let me put it differently: I haven’t gotten any inbound calls. Nobody has called me and said, “Geez, I did a Google search and found all this stuff on this guy named Ted Rollins. What’s up with that . . . ?

I have the sense, with no scientific approach, just anecdotally . . . to the extent that anybody knows about any of this stuff, people apparently aren’t worried about it, or don’t care about it, or have appropriately discounted it in some fashion in their own views around investing in the stock.

Why Does Jerry Sandusky Inspire Fear, While States Embrace Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins?

Ted Rollins

In the wake of the Penn State scandal, state legislatures considered a blizzard of bills that would strengthen requirements for reporting suspected child abuse. By our count, 14 states passed what could be called "Jerry Sandusky laws."

These new measures appear to be a reaction to the Sandusky case, where the former Penn State assistant football coach was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse. The states seem to be saying, "We want to make sure that someone like Jerry Sandusky cannot take advantage of children in our jurisdiction."

So consider the irony that states are welcoming Campus Crest Communities, a Charlotte-based development company that has student-housing projects completed, or in the works, at 36 sites across the country. No one seems concerned that CEO Ted Rollins has an assault conviction on his record, for the brutal 1995 beating of his 16-year-old stepson in Franklin County, North Carolina. The beating, which caused the stepson to be rushed to a hospital emergency room via ambulance, clearly was a case of child abuse, as defined by North Carolina law. But the case went unreported in the press, and Rollins got off with what amounts to a wrist slap in court.

The business community seems to have no problems with the ugliness in Rollins' past. Investors rewarded his company with a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010. And the CEO was a guest on the Fox Business Network's "Closing Bell" on Monday, discussing his plans to make boatloads of cash by renting apartments to college students. (You can view the video at the end of this post.)

In the first few moments of the interview, Rollins states that he started Campus Crest Communities in 2004, so it existed when his Alabama divorce was finalized in 2005. That means the company was a marital asset, under the law, and ex wife Sherry Carroll Rollins was entitled to a portion of the proceeds. But that did not happen, and Ted Rollins received such a favorable result from Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson that his ex wife and two daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins, have been on food stamps here in Birmingham.

Liz Claman, host of "Closing Bell," seemed to have zero interest in Ted Rollins' documented history as a child abuser, deadbeat dad, and courtroom cheat. Here is a question that Claman could have asked: "Mr. Rollins, you just stated that you started a student-housing company in 2004, but a child-support affidavit dated 2005 in your Alabama divorce case states that you made $50,000 a year at that time. How could you start a nationwide company when your only asset, as you swore under oath, was an annual salary of $50,000? You must be either an otherwordly business genius or a perjurer. Which one is it, Mr. Rollins?"

In essence, Ted Rollins confessed to perjury on national television--and it zipped right past Liz Claman, who was busy gushing about Campus Crest's potential to "make money." Perhaps we shouldn't expect the Fox Business Network to ask tough questions of a CEO.

As for the rash of "Jerry Sandusky laws" in 2012, we are left to ponder this troubling question: Why are states embracing a company that is led by a documented child abuser while rushing to pass new laws driven by a headline-grabbing case of child abuse? In fact, some of the states that recently passed "Sandusky laws" also have Campus Crest apartment complexes at public universities--and no one seems to have a problem with it.

How is that for irony? Do we, as a society, only care about child-abuse cases that produce shocking headlines? What about cases that were largely kept under wraps by law enforcement, health-care officials, and the press? Do we care about those victims?

Jerry Sandusky

The stomach-churning details in the Sandusky case clearly had an impact on state legislatures, according to a report in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM). About 105 bills related to the reporting of suspected child abuse were introduced in 30 states and the District of Columbia for 2012 legislative sessions. Reports CSM:

When the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State erupted last year, public anger was not only directed toward Jerry Sandusky . . . but toward the people around him who didn't report their suspicions to police. 

In the months that followed, that anger led many states to re-examine and expand their so-called mandatory reporting laws that require people to report suspected abuse or face civil and criminal penalties. Some state laws apply to professionals like doctors and teachers, while others apply universally to all adults.

The CSM article is based largely on a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). CSM puts the number of states passing "Sandusky laws" at 10, while my count is 14. Either way, let's focus for a moment on the following states: Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and Washington.

Those four states passed "Sandusky laws" in 2012. They also have welcomed Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins, a documented child abuser, into their environs. If that causes you to scratch your head, you certainly have company in me.

In fact, let's consider the full roster of states that have Campus Crest sites and ponder this question: Do these states care about the victims of child abuse or do they simply hope to avoid the kind of publicity that comes with a high-profile case such as the one involving Jerry Sandusky?

The Campus Crest roster seems to vary from source to source, but our best guess at the total number of formally approved sites is 36.

States With Student-Housing Projects by Campus Crest Communities 

Alabama 

Auburn University--Auburn, AL
Jacksonville State University--Jacksonville, AL
Troy University--Troy, AL
University of South Alabama--Mobile, AL 

Arkansas 

Arkansas State University--Jonesboro, AR
University of Central Arkansas--Conway, AR 

Colorado 

Colorado State University--Fort Collins, CO
University of Northern Colorado--Greeley, CO 

Georgia 

University of West Georgia--Carrollton, GA
Georgia College--Milledgeville, GA
Georgia Southern University--Statesboro, GA 

Idaho 

University of Idaho--Moscow, ID 

Indiana 

Ball State University--Muncie, IN
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne--Fort Wayne, IN 

Iowa 

Iowa State University--Ames, IA 

Kansas 

University of Kansas--Lawrence, KS
Wichita State University--Wichita, KS 

Maine 

University of Maine--Orono, ME 

Missouri 

University of Missouri--Columbia, MO 

New Mexico 

New Mexico State University--Las Cruces, NM 

North Carolina 

University of North Carolina Asheville--Asheville, NC 

Oklahoma  

University of Oklahoma--Norman, OK 

Tennessee 

Austin Peay State University--Clarksville, TN
Middle Tennessee State University--Murfreesboro, TN 

Texas 

Angelo State University--San Angelo, TX
Baylor University--Waco, TX
Hardin-Simmons University--Abilene, TX
Midwestern State University--Wichita Falls, TX
Sam Houston State University--Huntsville, TX
Stephen F. Austin University--Nacogdoches, TX
Tarleton State University--Stephenvillle, TX
Texas State University--San Marcos, TX
Texas Tech University--Lubbock, TX
University of North Texas--Denton, TX 

Washington 

Central Washington University--Ellensburg, WA
Eastern Washington University--Cheney, WA

Child Sexual Abusers Tend To Be A Crafty And Elusive Bunch

The public's general reaction to a case of child sexual abuse probably goes something like this: "The adult who did that is evil and should burn in hell."

Such a response is understandable, but abusers tend to be smart--and that can make it extremely difficult to intervene in child sexual abuse cases.

That was the take-home lesson from a conference recently that featured several experts in one Midwestern state. The event took place as the Missouri Task Force on the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse is focusing on solutions to a problem that has made headlines since the Jerry Sandusky case broke at Penn State last November.

All of this resonates with your humble blogger because the conference was in Springfield, Missouri, my hometown. I can't remember ever hearing about a case of child sexual abuse when I was growing up. But now my old neck of the woods apparently has a significant problem with it. From The Springfield News-Leader:

Mark Webb became Marionville police chief after retiring from the Springfield Police Department.

Although Springfield has far more than its fair share of child sex abuse cases, Webb said he was shocked to find the proliferation of child abuse in the more rural area where he now works.

Is child sexual abuse becoming more and more of a problem in the countryside? The Missouri experts have seen evidence indicating the answer is yes:

The more (Webb) thought about it, the more it made sense. Perpetrators were picking small towns and rural regions.

“They go to these areas because they know there’s no law enforcement and what there is is very limited in their ability to investigate,” Webb said.

“Their risk of being apprehended, these guys, they know the risk is minimized. They’re out there with the police they might hang out with at the coffee shop.”

That goes back to what experts have learned about child abusers--they can be crafty and elusive. From the News-Leader:

The truth of the matter is, many adults who prey on children for sexual gratification are smart.

They know where they’ll be trusted. They know who will look the other way.

They know the kids who won’t tell.

Sexual abusers tend to be someone close to the child, often within the family. From the News-Leader and Barbara Brown-Johnson, executive director of the Springfield Child Advocacy Center:

Parents are the vast majority of perpetrators of sexual abuse against children, Brown-Johnson said. That’s because trust is the primary tool of a sexual predator who seeks children, and children are born with a certain amount of faith in their parents.

But it’s also common for others to build bonds with families to prey on the children. The term is called grooming, and often the parents are groomed right along with the kids.

The Sandusky case has brought child sexual abuse to the nation's front pages, and it has become a frequent topic on our blog. We have seen evidence that Sandusky persistently groomed his victims, even while they were on the Penn State campus, and we have followed similar cases from around the country over the past six months or so.

I have many fond memories of growing up in Springfield, Missouri. I can't imagine a better place to have been a kid. But that was in the 1960s and '70s; it doesn't sound as if Springfield is quite so idyllic for many kids now.

That is sobering to learn, but it's encouraging to know that professionals are making a serious effort to root out the evil of child sexual abuse that has taken root in my hometown. Perhaps that will help lead victims, parents, community leaders, and others to speak up when they see signs of a child being victimized--not only in Springfield, but across the country.

Jerry Sandusky and Ted Rollins: Both Coach and CEO Reportedly Brought Child Abuse Into the Home

Jerry Sandusky

The most searing images from the child sexual abuse case of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky involved acts that took place in university locker room facilities.

But a new report states that Sandusky's adopted son was prepared to testify that the coach had sexually abused him in the home. That reminds us of Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities who was convicted in the mid 1990s for assaulting his stepson and investigated on a complaint of child sexual abuse involving the same child.

No substantive actions were taken against Ted Rollins after the child sexual abuse complaint was filed, much as an investigation against Sandusky in the 1990s resulted in no sanctions. But the Rollins story--plus the most recent news about Sandusky--drives home what appears to be a general truth about such cases: The home is by far the most likely place for abuse to happen.

In fact, the threat that Sandusky's adopted son might testify about abuse in the home probably was the defining factor in the most watched criminal case of 2012. Trial transcripts show the threat prompted Jerry Sandusky to not testify in his own defense. From a report at espn.com:

Jerry Sandusky reversed course and decided not to take the witness stand after his adopted son came forward and told prosecutors the former Penn State assistant football coach had abused him, documents show. 

Trial transcripts posted online Friday offer a glimpse into Sandusky's decision to remain silent during his child sex-abuse trial. 

Matt Sandusky, whom the defense had planned to call as a witness, abruptly switched sides late in the trial, approaching prosecutors and offering to testify that he had suffered abuse at the hands of his father, the transcript shows.

Is it possible that Jerry Sandusky would have been acquitted if he had chosen to testify? It's hard to say, but it appears the threat that his son would testify about abuse in the home cinched a conviction:

Prosecutors planned to call Matt as a rebuttal witness if Jerry Sandusky testified in his own defense, the transcript shows. They later backed off, but wouldn't agree to a defense request to refrain from asking Sandusky about his son's claims on cross examination. 

"Mr. Sandusky had always wanted to testify on his own behalf. He always wanted to tell people his side to the allegations in this case," defense lawyer Joe Amendola said during a private conference in judge's chambers. "However, that potential evidence, whether true or not, was so devastating" that Sandusky felt he could not run the risk of testifying and subjecting himself to questions about Matt, he continued.

As for Ted Rollins, we know he was convicted for severely beating his stepson in 1995--and that event took place in the home. We also know that two years earlier, Rollins had been investigated for the possible child sexual abuse of the same child--and that apparently involved events in the home.

Ted Rollins

Why did authorities take no substantive action against Rollins at the time? It's hard to understand, given that we now know a maid found more than 100 towels, soiled with feces and other debris, in a closet at the family home. And this powerful evidence pointing to anal sex was found at about the same time the child sexual abuse allegations surfaced.

Perhaps the most powerful lesson from the Sandusky and Rollins cases is this: In the 1990s, authorities and society in general tended to act cautiously when allegations of abuse were brought against men in powerful positions. But some two decades later, we now seem inclined to take these matters with a heightened sense of alarm.

For all the stomach-churning qualities about testimony showing Jerry Sandusky abused boys in Penn State showers, we also know this: Abuse is much more likely to take place in the home than in a public place--and that's one reason it's often difficult for victims to ever achieve justice.

Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Was Investigated for the Sexual Abuse Of His Stepson

Ted Rollins

A CEO who helped his company complete a $380-million Wall Street IPO less than two years ago was investigated for child sexual abuse in 1993.

The revelations come as former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky is expected to be sentenced next month for his conviction in June on 45 counts of child sexual abuse. The Sandusky case helped place the issue, especially where the victims are boys, on front pages across the country.

We wrote at the time that the Sandusky story represented the tip of a deeply disturbing iceberg in U.S. society, one that largely has been covered up since the Franklin Scandal hit political circles in the late 1980s and early '90s.

Now, we see evidence of child sexual abuse connected to the corporate world.

Ted Rollins, as chief executive of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, develops and markets student housing under The Grove banner at 36 sites around the country. The company promotes its apartment complexes as a source of "fully loaded living" for students who seek more than the spartan quarters offered by college dorms of yesteryear.

The business model revolves around the ability to sell parents on the idea that living at The Grove complexes will promote academic and personal growth for young people. It's grim irony then that North Carolina social-services officials once received a complaint about a possible sexually abusive relationship between Ted Rollins and his stepson.

That sparked an investigation that included three visits to the Rollins home by a representative from the North Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS). The family was referred for counseling sessions at Duke University.

No punitive actions were taken against Ted Rollins, but he was convicted two years later for assaulting his stepson. Under North Carolina law, that incident should have been treated as a case of child abuse. Multiple law-enforcement and health-care responders were required by law to report the assault as a case of suspected child abuse, but public records show they failed to do so.

Rollins was married to Sherry Carroll Rollins at the time, and she had two sons from a previous marriage. The younger of her sons was the subject of the sexual-abuse investigation. Ted and Sherry Rollins would have two daughters of their own before being divorced in 2005. Ms. Rollins and the girls, Sarah and Emma, live in Birmingham; Ted Rollins has remarried and lives in Greenville, South Carolina.

Records from child-abuse investigations are not made public, but two members of the Rollins family confirmed to us that Ted Rollins was investigated for child sexual abuse. A complaint from an unknown citizen, alleging inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, sparked the inquiry.

A source has described to us events that indicate something was seriously amiss with the relationship between Ted Rollins and his stepson, who was in the 12-to-14 age range during the time covered by the investigation.

Were details disclosed to us shared with investigators back in 1993? That is not clear. But if those details were disclosed, and DSS did not take decisive action, the agency was negligent and helped put a child at serious risk.

The information we received is deeply disturbing--every bit as stomach churning as testimony from the Sandusky trial--and it raises questions about Ted Rollins' fitness to be CEO of a major company, especially one whose target audience is young people.

We tried to interview Ted Rollins on this subject, but he did not respond to our questions.


(To be continued)

Playing Politics With Child Sexual Abuse, Part II

Let's examine some of the questions raised by the child sexual abuse case against Amy and Charles Holley in Shelby County, Alabama.

We noted in an earlier post that Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner had recently granted Amy Holley's motion for a new trial. She, along with her husband, had been convicted by a Shelby County jury last fall.

Joiner is the judge who repeatedly made unlawful rulings in my Legal Schnauzer case, favoring an attorney who has practiced for many years in Shelby County and has a long-standing friendship with the judge. The attorney in my case, William E. Swatek, also has an almost 30-year history of unethical actions in the legal profession.

Joiner has proven in my case that he is more than happy to let politics triumph over the law and the facts in a case before him. And that raises questions about his handling of any case that comes before him--even one involving something as dreadful as alleged child abuse.

With all of that in mind, let's ponder some issues raised by the Holley case:

* Child sexual abuse cases must be among the most difficult that come before a court. Here is a Web site that focuses on child sexual abuse cases. Here is an article about media reporting of such cases, noting that child sexual abuse is one of the most under-reported crimes. Obviously victims of child sexual abuse are highly sympathetic. But here's the flipside: Numerous adults have seen their lives turned upside down by allegations of child sexual abuse that proved to be highly questionable or downright false. Here's a Web site for a firm that specializes in assisting adults who have been falsely accused of child sexual abuse.

* Comments left by readers of the Shelby County Reporter reflect the conflicting emotions that come from child sexual abuse cases. Friends, acquaintances, and family members wrote that they knew the Holleys and could not imagine that they had actually committed such crimes. Someone claiming to be a social worker in the case said the jury had made the right decision, and the children had been through "devastating" circumstances. Someone claiming to be a juror said there was not enough evidence to convict on some counts, but evidence was strong on others, and the jury stood by its decision.

* I was not present for the Holley trial, and I have not reviewed the case file. I do know that a jury convicted both Amy Holley and her husband, Charles, on child sexual abuse charges. And I know that a judge, J. Michael Joiner, who has a history of ignoring the law and facts and playing politics with cases before him, has set aside Amy Holley's guilty verdict and ordered a new trial. Charles Holley has asked for a new trial, and a hearing on that motion is set for February 27.

* My interest is not so much in the actions of the Holleys, but the actions of Judge Joiner. I know from firsthand experience that Mike Joiner is a corrupt judge. That he is allowed to serve on the bench at all is a disgrace. But that he is overseeing matters as important as those raised by the Holley case is truly horrifying.

*According to an account from The Birmingham News, the Holleys were foster parents to two children, a brother and sister who were 5 and 4, respectively, at the time. According to a motion by Amy Holley's lawyer, Mickey Johnson, the boy accused only Charles Holley, and the boy did not waver in his story from the first investigative interview through the trial. The girl, according to Johnson, denied anyone had abused her through three investigative interviews. The girl's story changed, and according to Johnson, eventually included a tale of swimming in a river of snakes.

* Recall in our previous post on this subject that even The Birmingham News reporter called Joiner's actions "unusual." An attorney who teaches criminal law said he had never seen a judge make such a decision in his 20 years in practice. Joiner would not comment on his action, and the News gave no indication that he had issued a written explanation, so we don't know his reasoning. But a look at the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure sure makes you wonder what was going through his mind.

* Let's consider just the case against Amy Holley for a moment. According to the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Joiner probably had at least three opportunities to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict Amy Holley. Mickey Johnson, Ms. Holley's attorney, almost certainly made motions for judgment of acquittal at three stages--at the close of the state's evidence, at the close of all evidence, and after the verdict. Evidently Joiner denied motions at all three stages. The court, on its own motion, may grant a judgment of acquittal. Joiner did not do that.

* Amy Holley was convicted of sexual abuse, and Joiner sentenced her in November to five years in prison. Charles Holley was convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

* A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 30 days after sentence is pronounced. Such a motion was filed for Amy Holley, and Judge Joiner granted it. Why did a newspaper reporter call this unusual? Why did a law professor say he had never seen such a ruling in 20 years of practice? Probably because Joiner almost certainly had three times ruled during the case that Ms. Holley was not due a motion of acquittal.

* Why would a judge, who had heard all the evidence and three times denied motions for judgment of acquittal, suddenly decide a few months later that Amy Holley should receive a new trial? Joiner is not talking, so we can only assume that he agreed with long-time Shelby County attorney Mickey Johnson that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. But why did he repeatedly find during the trial itself that the evidence was sufficient to move the case forward, eventually going to a jury?

* Here's a curious thing about Joiner's actions: When he repeatedly denied motions for a judgment of acquittal, a jury was on hand. But when the motion for a new trial was made, the jury had long since done its duty and was nowhere to be found? Did Joiner feel more free, at that point, to do whatever the heck he wanted to do?

* Here is something else curious about this case: The Shelby County Reporter, at least based on a review of its Web site, has written nothing about Joiner's decision to grant Amy Holley a new trial. Recall that numerous readers had responded on the paper's Web site about a story on the Holleys' conviction. Those readers included someone claiming to be a social worker in the case and someone claiming to be a juror. Both of those readers indicated they felt the jury's decision had been correct. Is it possible that the Shelby County Reporter, at the urging of judges who operate across the street from the paper, has intentionally not reported on the new-trial ruling so as to not give a forum for knowledgeable readers to express their displeasure?

* I wonder how jurors in the Holley case feel about Joiner suddenly deciding to override their finding, apparently giving no explanation for his decision. It's safe to assume that those jurors took several days out of their lives in order to fulfill their public duty and hear what had to be a most unpleasant case. I think it's also safe to assume that a jury in "conservative" Shelby County was not chomping at the bit to find a foster mother guilty of child sexual abuse. The jury must have found something in the evidence to be compelling, and yet the very judge who three times had allowed the case to move forward has now overridden their work. Again, I don't have any information regarding Amy Holley's guilt or innocence. But if I had served on that jury, I would wonder what was behind Joiner's "unusual" actions.

* By the way, the Holley case is not the only criminal matter in Shelby County where politics appears to have reared its ugly head. I'm aware of a case of animal cruelty where politics might have trumped the law, resulting in a most curious acquittal. We will look at that case in a future post.

As for the Holley case, we will follow it closely. And we will keep in mind the words of Martin Luther King in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

At Legal Schnauzer, we have a slightly different take on that famous quote: A judge who perpetuates injustice in one case, is a threat to perpetuate injustice in any case. J. Michael Joiner is just that kind of judge.

What Do Jerry Sandusky and CEO Ted Rollins Have In Common?

Ted Rollins

What, indeed, do former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky and Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins have in common?

The answer is easy: They both have documented records as child abusers.

So why are officials in higher education trying to distance themselves from everything and anyone having connections to one child abuser while seemingly jumping into the arms of the other? Why is Sandusky viewed as a "monster" after his conviction for the sexual abuse of boys in and around the Penn State campus? Why is Rollins welcomed with open arms, even though public records show he was convicted for assault in the brutal beating of his 16-year-old stepson in 1995.

Both cases involved varying forms of child abuse. The Rollins beating took place in Franklin County, North Carolina, and under that state's laws, health-care and law-enforcement responders were required to report it as a case of suspected child abuse. They failed to follow the law, just as several key figures in the Sandusky case now are accused of doing.

At the risk of sounding like we are defending Jerry Sandusky--and he did, in fact, engage in monstrous conduct--it's perhaps worth noting that we've seen no reports indicating that any of his victims was in danger of dying. That's not the case with the Rollins beating. According to the words of an eyewitness, the stepson was rushed to a hospital via ambulance and administered oxygen, a sign he was in danger of going into shock because of blood loss--and that can be deadly.

Jerry Sandusky

So why, again, are university officials feeling cozy toward Ted Rollins? The answer is not clear, but academicians clearly have no qualms about welcoming Rollins into their midst--while scurrying for cover at any mention of Jerry Sandusky.

Three more universities recently decided to enter into student-housing projects with Campus Crest Communities. That means 36 schools around the country now have such projects, under The Grove banner, completed or in various stages of development. Those include Auburn University here in Alabama.

The latest universities to join the Campus Crest stable are Colorado State University, Ball State University, and the University of Oklahoma. According to a company press release dated July 20, 2012,  Ted Rollins sounds delighted at the prospect of providing housing for young people--even though he has a record of beating the holy crap out of one young person who was under his care:

"These are the first three projects of this year's development pipeline. They are located an average of approximately 0.2 miles from campus and represent our ninth generation project prototype, which among other things has a higher average bed count than the existing portfolio, our newest high speed internet configurations (100 megabytes or greater) and various other improvements designed to make college living at a Grove property an unparalleled experience," said Ted W. Rollins, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Campus Crest Communities. "As a result of continued improvements in the efficiencies of our vertically integrated platform, we continue to increase our quality offerings to the students at attractive asset costs. Our on campus property at Colorado State is part of our continued approach to pursue on campus opportunities when it makes economic sense, and we are excited to add this one to our portfolio. Our teams are working on finalizing the entitlement process for the remaining 2013/2014 academic year projects, and we anticipate announcing these later this year."

Gosh, this guy isn't at a loss for words, is he? So why has he refused our requests for an interview about issues connected to the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case here in Alabama, which resulted in his ex wife and two daughters winding up on food stamps? When we sent him questions in writing, which he promised to address, why has he never responded?

Actually, I did get one brief response when I asked him specifically, via e-mail, about the abuse of his stepson. Here it is:

I am not in the habit of wasting time on rubbish such as yours.

So Ted Rollins views issues related to child abuse as "rubbish," and responding to questions about child abuse is "wasting time"?

Do university officials have any idea what they are dealing with here? Does the public have any idea about the kind of person who is being welcomed onto taxpayer-funded campuses?

Readers Play A Major Role In Shaping The Stories That Comprise The Best Of Legal Schnauzer In 2012

Murphy Abigail Shuler:
A Watchdog at Work

As I've noted in a number of posts, Murphy Abigail Shuler (1993-2004) is the real-life schnauzer who inspired this blog. You can see her in action, as watchdog over our home, in the photo at right. And in a higher-power sense, her presence will always be with us.

But in many earthly ways, Legal Schnauzer has come to be driven by our readers. In fact, it was a reader who suggested a few days ago that we should do an end-of-the year "best of" list. And we turned that into a reality, with yesterday's post about Numbers 10-6 on our countdown.

As we follow up today with the top five stories on our list, I realize just how appropriate it is that this idea came from a reader. This blog, after all, largely has become a community project.

Four of the five stories in our 10-6 post yesterday were reported with major input from readers. Only our No. 7 story, about the resignation of UAB president Carol Garrison, did not involve a tip, a document, or some other helpful hint from a reader. Since the mystery of Garrison's departure remains unsolved, we still might get reader input that breaks that story.

Of our top five stories, which we announce today, all of them were driven in one way or another by information from readers.  If you are keeping score, nine of our top 10 posts for 2012 had major input from readers.

Does the public matter in an effort to help restore the rule of law to America's courts? It sure as heck does. Our top five posts from 2012 serve as prime examples.

On with the countdown . . .

5. Karl Rove's Bisexual Affair Might Have Sparked His Bizarre Rant on Fox News (June 27)

Summary: A letter from Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson to former White House counsel Robert Bauer reveals that Republican strategist Karl Rove is having a gay affair with Ali Akbar, president of a right-leaning bloggers' association. Simpson's letter comes to light after Rove attacks her and Bauer during an off-the-wall interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News.

Why it Matters: Rove helped George W. Bush get "elected" president twice, and powerful evidence suggests both elections were stolen. Rove clearly was behind the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department under Bush and almost certainly orchestrated a bogus prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Evidence still is building that Rove tried to buy or rig the 2012 presidential election. Karl Rove has made himself a hugely influential figure in national affairs, so how does he conduct his personal affairs? The mainstream press has ignored this story, but it might be our most important national piece of the year. It apparently led to Rove's quickie, "arranged" marriage to Texas political operative Karen Johnson. And it still might help shrink Rove's power base within the GOP.

Number of Comments: 21

A Comment to Remember: "KKKarl Rove is queer too? It figures, we know about Hitler and his inner circle of SS being queer and the rumors about Stalin, Marx, Pol Pot and Obama have been out there for all to see, but KKKarl? It makes all the sense in the world and explains sooo much.

"How fabulous is that!"

4. CEO Ted Rollins' Ex Wife Is Living in Fear Over Reports About Child Sexual Abuse (September 14)

Summary: Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins fears for her safety in the wake of reports that her ex husband, Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins, was investigated in North Carolina for the sexual abuse of her son.

Why it Matters: We repeatedly have called the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which was decided in a Shelby County court that did not have jurisdiction to hear it, the worst courtroom cheat job we've encountered in the civil arena. With the apparent help of the powerful Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant, Ted Rollins managed to abuse the justice system and cheat his ex wife and two daughters. But Rollins' abusive actions actually started long before that. Public records show that he was convicted for assault in the 1995 beating of his stepson. And the investigation for child sexual abuse of the same stepson came two years before that. What kind of person runs a company that has received more than $400 million in support from investors on Wall Street?

Number of Comments: 46

A Comment to Remember: "The wealthy long have held a tendency to abuse children. Max Keiser, the other day, did a fascinating interview with author Leah McGrath Goodman about horrific child abuse on the island of Jersey (between England and France), which is the world's largest tax haven."

3. Siegelman Resentencing Serves as a Grim Reminder That His Prosecution Was Bogus from the Outset (August 3)

Summary: Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is resentenced to more than six years in federal prison after the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal on the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

Why it Matters: Appellate courts have a duty, under the law, to ensure that the law is applied consistently. That's largely why we have appellate courts, and it's a major reason we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and equal protection. But the U.S. Eleventh Circuit of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, failed Don Siegelman. In the process, they failed all of us. This is a case that could not even be heard at trial because the primary charge of bribery was brought well past the statute of limitations. But Siegelman unlawfully sits in prison, and codefendant Richard Scrushy already has served his sentence. If you live in America, and this story does not bother you . . . well, you aren't much of an American.

Number of Comments: 36

A Comment to Remember: "Judge Fuller claims the appeal by Siegelman misrepresented what was a simple case of bribery. Yet, Fuller raked in millions from Doss Aviation's contract with the Bush Administration while he presided over the facts of a case that had already been thrown out by another Federal Judge, U.W. Clemon, in the Northern District of Alabama."


2. Wall Street Analyst Paula Poskon Switches Gears To Claim A CEO's Ties To Child Abuse Are No Big Deal (December 4)

Summary: A prominent Wall Street analysts tries to back track on her earlier comments, voicing concern about how investors might react to news about Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins' connections to child abuse. Now, Paula Poskon changes her tune, saying in so many words that child abuse is no big deal to the investment community. And we caught her on tape, in a telephone interview.

Why it Matters? From JPMorgan Chase's "really bad bet" to LIBOR to HSBC's money-laundering scandal, 2012 was the year for terrible behavior in the world of high finance. What kind of ethics reign on Wall Street? Paula Poskon shows us that, when big money is at stake, Wall Street pretty much has no ethics at all--going so far as to provide cover for a chief executive with a documented history as a child abuser.

Number of Comments: 69

A Comment to Remember: "Wonder if Ms. Poskon has children? Wonder if she has ever been raped or abused? Wonder if she knows anyone who has?"

1. Bonnie Wyatt Is Released This Afternoon From Jail (December 18)

Summary: Clanton resident Bonnie Wyatt is released from the Chilton County Jail after being unlawfully incarcerated for almost five months because of a property-related debt connected to her divorce.

Why it Matters: Does the Web press make a difference? Does our reporting at Legal Schnauzer have an impact? This event strongly suggests that the answer is yes. We do not know for sure, yet, why Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds decided to free Ms. Wyatt. But there is little doubt that our reporting, plus the work of Brad Patterson at examiner.com, played a part. The mainstream press ignored the story, but the Schnauzer and friends grabbed it by the pants leg and wouldn't let go. It seems someone decided the fire was getting a little too close for comfort, so maybe it was a good idea to let Bonnie Wyatt go.

Number of Comments: 53

A Comment to Remember: "Great news LS! If she's stood 5 months in jail (because) of that prick, then she should tell him to shove his gag order! She should stick it to Reynolds the same way he did her. It can be done! Maybe Bonnie will let you be a part of it LS since you no doubt played a big role in her release. Kudos to you, man, and thank you for what you do!!!!"


It's nice, of course, to receive comments like that last one. But readers deserve much of the credit. I would not have known about Bonnie Wyatt's situation, for example, without a tip from a reader. I would not have been able to report it fully without information from readers.

I'm already working on several posts for 2013 that originated with fascinating tips from readers. We encourage you to stay tuned.

A "Culture of Domination" Helps Produce Child Sex-Abuse Scandals

Jerry Sandusky at Penn State

What was the top news story of 2011? My choice would be the growing list of child sex-abuse scandals, which started at Penn State and quickly grew into a story that is national and international in scope.

Why is this my No. 1 story? The death of Osama bin Laden, the earthquake/tsunami in Japan, and Arab-world unrest led the Associated Press' list of top stories. The Penn State story did not even make the AP's top 10, coming in at No. 11.

So why am I going with the child sex-abuse scandals? They are driven by what one columnist has called a "culture of domination." And that culture, I submit, drives many other stories about unrest in societies around the globe. The protests that marked the Arab spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States, for example, are efforts to strike back at the few who try to dominate the many.

Of all the words written about the child sex-abuse scandals of 2011, perhaps the most profound come from Chicago-based journalist Robert Koehler. In a piece titled "Saluting Rapists," Koehler gets to the mindset at the heart of sex-abuse scandals. And I would argue that he describes a mindset that is present in many other forms of dysfunction.

First, Koehler dispenses with terms like "abuse" and "molestation" to describe these cases. He says they are cases of rape--and the perpetrators are rapists:

Sex scandals are a media staple, of course, but in recent weeks we’ve been rocked by a new wave of sex abuse scandals--rape scandals--the dark, disturbing power of which, as always, lies in the likelihood that there are a lot more revelations and accusations still to come, more authority figures’ reputations to be shattered, more honor-steeped traditions to be exposed as hollow.

Koehler focuses heavily on the child sex-abuse cases that have grown from the North American sports machine, encompassing Penn State football, Syracuse University basketball, Canadian hockey, AAU basketball, and even a famed sports journalist. But Koehler does not stop there. He also examines sexual abuse among adults, especially in the military. At the heart of it all, Koehler writes, is a special kind of human ugliness:

When sex is hidden in the shadows--when it’s something you can’t talk about (but you can brag about)--it easily becomes one more tool of domination, wrapped in an unspeakable shame that preserves its secrecy. The crime of rape is the crime of predation, the crime of “I own you.” And it is an institutional failure first--on college campuses, in the U.S. military--as evinced by breaking news stories reporting not merely allegations of sexual molestation over a long period of time, but of their quiet cover-up by those in charge, granting de facto impunity to the victimizers. The pattern is always the same.

By fascinating coincidence, two recent developments highlighting the endemic problem of sexual abuse in the U.S. military are in the news just as the child-molestation scandal in college sports programs and other macho domains has begun to widen.

At both Penn State and The Citadel, the military college in South Carolina, the sex abuse allegations emanate from their summer camp programs for boys, reopening the ghastly concerns first forced upon the public a decade ago by the sex-abuse revelations that shook the Catholic Church. If such institutional paragons of traditional values can’t be trusted, are children safe anywhere?

Koehler asks this disturbing question: What kind of values really are at the core of America's sports programs, its military, its churches?

Maybe it’s time to look at the values themselves--beginning with those of our military culture, which is the model, and indeed the metaphor, for every other form of domination culture: The prime value is winning, achieving dominance over some sort of enemy or “other.” Around this core of dominance, we construct a fortress of honor, righteousness, cleanliness of mind and spirit. We revere the fortress, but in its dark interior, our natural impulses are ungoverned and often manifest themselves in perverse mockery of the values we salute.

I would argue that domination cultures are present, too, in our courts, our law firms, our board rooms, our financial centers, our universities. Each of them presents the image of a fortress, into which the public often cannot see. And the desire to dominate can take many forms, including the sexual. Writes Koehler:

My belief: As long as such values as honesty, empathy and love are subservient to conquest and domination, both inside and outside the military, nothing will change.

I agree that change will be difficult. But exposing the problem is the first step. I suspect that child sex abuse will be a topic of frequent inquiry here at Legal Schnauzer in 2012.

Federal Judge Lowers the Boom In Alabama Case That Involves Child Pornography and Sexual Abuse

Michael Wayne Wooten

A 61-year-old Alabama man received a 30-year prison sentence this week after pleading guilty to child pornography charges. The case reportedly also involved instances of child sexual abuse

Michael Wayne Wooten, of Alabaster, is a former Birmingham police officer and substitute bus driver in Shelby County. Wooten pleaded guilty in January to one count of production of child pornography after authorities said he took explicit photos of students in an abandoned school building.

Guilty pleas often can lead to relatively mild sentences in criminal cases. But U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson had other ideas in this case. Wooten faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum of 30 years--and Johnson went for the max.

Alabaster is the largest city in Shelby County, which is one of the fastest growing counties in the country and long has been known as Alabama's most conservative and supposedly "pro family" jurisdiction. But this marks the second time in recent weeks that an Alabaster resident has been sentenced on charges related to child sexual abuse. Daniel M. Acker Jr., a retired Shelby County school teacher, received a 17-year sentence on May 3 after pleading guilty to state charges that he sexually abused multiple girls.

Why was the Wooten case in federal court and the Acker case in state court? And why the difference in the sentences, given that the Acker case seems to have involved more victims, over a longer period of time?

The answer to the first question seems to lie with the nature of the charges against Wooten. After a victim told her parents about potentially inappropriate conduct, a search of Wooten's residence yielded multiple computers with images of child pornography. Because a computer was involved, that means Wooten used the U.S. wires in furtherance of his crimes, so that almost certainly is the main reason he wound up before a federal judge.

What about the maximum sentence for Wooten, even though he pleaded guilty? For one, he did not just gather and transmit pornographic images; he produced them. For another, he did more than record his victims in inappropriate situations; he engaged in abusive touching, much as Acker did. From the print version of the story in The Birmingham News:

Investigators identified 11 victims, ages 4 to 9, that he had exploited over a period of four years, according to prosecutors. Wooten gained access to some of his victims through friendships with their parents or grandparents. Wooten admitted to direct sexual abuse of two victims, according to a court document.

The Wooten case raises sad questions about what drives some adults to such behavior. Wooten himself seems perplexed by that issue. Again, from The Birmingham News:

Wooten admitted in court Wednesday that he had committed "horrible, horrible" things. "I felt like the lowest scumbag on the earth," he told the judge "No rational man my age is going to be sexually attracted to a child," Wooten said. "I deserve what you are going to give me."

I'm guessing that one other factor might have contributed to the harsh sentence for Wooten. You might call it the "Jerry Sandusky Effect." Since the former Penn State assistant football coach was arrested last November on child sexual abuse charges, the issue has become seared in the nation's collective conscience. The Sandusky case quickly was followed by allegations against former Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine. And there have been other lower-profile cases, including the nauseating tale of a father in Troy, Ohio, (Kenneth Brandt) raping his three adopted sons and using one of them as a  prostitute for two other men.

The Sandusky, Fine, and Brandt cases could all wind up involving federal charges. Sandusky reportedly molested one victim while on a trip to the Outback Bowl in Tampa. That would involve crossing state lines to commit a crime and might invoke federal jurisdiction. The FBI reportedly might pursue federal child sexual exploitation charges in the Brandt case. And agents from the U.S. Secret Service helped search the home of Bernie Fine. Reports slate.com:

What does the Secret Service have to do with a child molestation case? 

It’s part of their portfolio. In 1994, Congress created a task force to help state and local law enforcement officials investigate cases of missing and sexually exploited children, and included two representatives of the Secret Service on the committee. Nine years later, the Amber Alert law officially added child abduction and molestation to the list of crimes the agency is authorized to investigate.

If the Michael Wayne Wooten case in Alabama is an indicator, federal jurisdiction can be bad news for someone charged with sexual crimes involving children. Our guess is that, in the current environment, Judge Johnson did not want to be seen as being remotely lenient in a case involving child sexual abuse--and so Wooten received what amounts to a life sentence.

What message does that send to anyone who might have sexually abused children by using the federal mails or wires, traveling across state lines, or engaging in criminal acts in multiple states? I would say the message is this: You picked a real bad time to be a child molester.