 |
| Zac Parrish |
Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities, has threatened to cut off all support to his ex wife and two daughters in Alabama over his anger about video interviews we published this week on Legal Schnauzer.
Sherry Carroll Rollins, who lives in Birmingham with her daughters Sarah and Emma, said yesterday that Ted Rollins told her through an intermediary that he would discontinue court-ordered child support and alimony if she continued to publicly discuss the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.
The intermediary, Ms. Rollins stated, was Zac Parrish, her 32-year-old son from a previous marriage. Zac Parrish, who was Ted Rollins' stepson during the 14-year Rollins marriage, is the managing member of Parrish Building Company in Birmingham. Parrish relayed Ted Rollins' threat regarding family support in a telephone conversation shortly before noon yesterday, Ms. Rollins stated. She promptly called me.
According to Ms. Rollins, Parrish also stated that he was going to enlist the assistance of an unknown person to "take care of Legal Schnauzer." Since I am the person who writes Legal Schnauzer, that seems to be a reference to me. A reasonable person could interpret that as a threat of physical harm.
What generated such vitriol? According to Ms. Rollins, her ex husband was incensed over two posts from this week that featured a videotaped interview with her. It is one of several interviews I taped with Ms. Rollins, discussing issues that mostly are a matter of public record--and in some cases--already have been reported here. The posts in question were titled Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Is the "Ultimate Deadbeat Dad" and Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Caused His Own Children To Be Thrown On the Streets.
I didn't expect Ted Rollins to find those posts enjoyable reading. But they are indisputably true, and I didn't expect him to resort to behavior that certainly is thuggish, maybe criminal. A review of Alabama law indicates that Ted Rollins and Zac Parrish might have engaged in attempted extortion, a misdemeanor. If Sherry Rollins were to cave in to their threat, it could constitute second-degree extortion, a felony under Code of Alabama 13A-8-15(c).
Ms. Rollins stated that Zac Parrish conveyed Ted Rollins' threat via telephone, which might constitute a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 875.
Parrish did not respond to a voice message seeking comment, which was left with him yesterday evening.
This is not the first time Ted Rollins has issued threats, via Zac Parrish, about cutting off family support. Sherry Rollins has told me of such threats on probably a half dozen occasions. I'm writing about it now because I sensed, in our conversation yesterday, that she is genuinely fearful this time of being without food or shelter. Given the way she's been treated by local judges, I can understand her fear. Access to large sums of cash seems to make Ted Rollins untouchable in court--that and his ties to the powerful Bradley Arant law firm.
This also is not the first time Zac Parrish has acted in a threatening manner toward me. In an e-mail dated September 20, 2011, Parrish wrote:
I am not as forgiving, legally, as my mother or stepfather. So tread lightly in your blogs, comments, opinions.
This is from someone who never has been mentioned in this blog--until now.
In an e-mail dated September 28, 2011, Parrish apparently perceived some threat, even though I never had written about him:
Tread lightly, threats come with very serious legal consequences. Especially when those threatened have the endless legal resources to defend themselves and their family.
How does Zac Parrish have "endless legal resources"? Is Parrish Building Company doing that well in the Great Bush Recession? Do the "endless legal resources" come from Ted Rollins, who belongs to one of the wealthiest families in the nation? Why would Zac Parrish convey threats to his own mother, on Ted Rollins' behalf? Is Ted Rollins bankrolling Parrish Building Company, at least in part? Why would Ted Rollins have such a tight relationship with his former stepson, while flagrantly cheating his own biological daughters on child support?
Those are questions for another day. For now, we should note that I've heard no complaint from Ted Rollins or Zac Parrish that my reporting is inaccurate. It's based totally on public records and a first-person account from Sherry Rollins, so they have to know that it is on target.
Perhaps the most alarming communication I've received from Zac Parrish came in an e-mail dated October 3, 2011. Here it is:
A very dear friend of mine lives on weatherford drive. Please be on the lookout for a new site coming soon, "www.mountschnauzer.com". I will be sure to forward you a link. I assume you appreciate a counterintuitive approach to all views of life. I'll send you a welcome link! See you soon.
Why is this alarming? Weatherford Drive is one street over from Logan Drive, the street where Mrs. Schnauzer and I live. Some properties on Weatherford Drive abut our backyard. It doesn't take an investigative genius to figure this out. I'm listed in the phone book, and a simple Google Maps search shows that Weatherford Drive is right behind our house.
In my mind, Zac Parrish told me this for one reason: In essence, he's saying, "I know where you live, and you should be 'on the lookout' in case someone decides to damage your property." We've taken that threat to heart; we very rarely leave our house unattended for any length of time, and we've taken protective measures that an intruder could find most unwelcome.
What is Zac Parrish telling me with his reference to mountschnauzer.com, which to my knowledge has never taken flight as an actual Web site? I can think of only one perverse image. Schnauzer appears to be an obvious reference to me and my Web site. Why "mount"? It appears to be a reference to "doggy style" sex, from behind. In human form, it could be a reference to anal sex and a threat to "screw" with me.
Any way you look at it, this is disturbing stuff. And I'm not the only one who is alarmed. I know that Sherry Rollins is concerned enough about something that she recently purchased a gun and had new locks installed on all of her doors.
I haven't written about Zac Parrish until today, but I've been concerned about him for months. He is Ted Rollins' former stepson, but for some reason, he comes across as Mr. Rollins' self-appointed henchman. Every communication I've received from Zac Parrish has been in apparent response to a critical post about Ted Rollins--all of which have been based on public records, published reports, or both.
Why has Zac Parrish repeatedly inserted himself into a story that, on the surface, doesn't involve him? Why has Zac Parrish repeatedly taken up for his ex stepfather over his own mother and sisters? Has Zac Parrish ever voiced concern about the monstrous courtroom cheat job that has left Sherry, Sarah, and Emma Rollins on food stamps? Not that I've heard; in fact, he doesn't seem concerned about that at all.
As for state extortion law, it is well summarized by an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in a case styled Preskitt v. Lyons (2003):
13A-8-15, Ala.Code 1975, in combination with § 13A-8-1(13)k., defines extortion in the second degree (as follows). . . . It is extortion by means of a threat to, among other things,
“[d]o any other act which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm substantially another person with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.”
§ 13A-8-1(13)k., Ala.Code 1975.
In everyday language, that says it's a real bad idea to threaten someone's financial condition--such as withholding court-ordered alimony and child support--unless they bend to your wishes.
I've been in journalism for 30 years, so I know what it's like to have someone unhappy with a story because it hits too close to home. But to threaten to cut off court-ordered support to your ex wife and daughters because of a video interview that no one seems to dispute is accurate? That not only is morally repugnant and ethically reprehensible . . . it might be against any number of state and federal laws.
It also makes you wonder what Ted Rollins (and perhaps Zac Parrish) is trying to hide.
Well this makes 3 that you have gotten to close to the family.. Would you go ahead and schedule about a years post so when you go MIA we can continue to read????
ReplyDeletex
Anon:
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty funny. I appreciate your take on things.
It's OK if you're a republican.
ReplyDeleteSchnauzer - You sure could use Dick Cheney's "Undisclosed Location" & his cadre of Secret Service Agents who got into the bar room brawl in San Diego so you can keep on posting about all these "evil doers" as George W. Bush would call them if not for the fact that they contribute large sums of cash to the GOP cause :)
ReplyDeleteAlways remember this Roger - Once they sue you or decide to testify against you in any state court, you can counterclaim & their tax returns become fair game in the discovery process.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rob. That is good information. Sherry Rollins herself has resorted to extortionary tactics this morning. Will be reporting on that soon.
ReplyDeleteAlso looks like I need to pay a visit to the FBI.
I have an idea. Stealing a concept from a troubled actor who has been in and out of drug rehab for years and years. At the time of the podcast interview Andy Dick was making the claim that he is now drug free. He went on to state he gets voluntarily drug tested twice a week to prove that he is clean and I assume therefore casting directors should consider hiring him. After Andy's statement about being drug tested the others present got into an extended conversation on methods used to pass drug testing when one isn't clean. After many methods had been put forth Andy comes out with, "I have an idea, don't drink or use drugs." The room fell silent. There are always ways of using underhanded methods. Ultimate Deadbeat Dad, you have stooped to using a son against his mother. UDD, google your name. Wow, ugly isn't it. Everyone sees you for who you are now. You have been exposed. Your behavior has been shameful. Here's my idea. Stop.
ReplyDeleteWell Teddy boy! The truth hurts doesn't it!
ReplyDeleteMy guess is mountschnauzer.com is simply a fishing expedition. Maybe from his experience and observation of his friends he is betting schnauzer surely has something of a sexual nature schnauzer wouldn't want exposed. He of course has nothing. His assumption is there must be something you wouldn't want exposed so he is bluffing that he knows your sexual secrets. Just a guess, but my bet is he thinks everyone has them. Pitiful and desperate attempt at playing on an unknown fear he hopes you have. Hahaha
ReplyDeleteYou need to spread these stories to larger media outlets, in order to make your media presence large enough that making yourself and/or your family "MIA" becomes a dangerous proposition for Rollins and Co.
ReplyDeleteSend this stuff to as many national news outlets as you can, so Rollins has to put on his best PR face and not do anything that could land him in jail or his tax records open to public scrutiny.
Legal Schnauzer, My first thought when I read "mountschnauzer" is that animals (deer, duck, geese, etc.) are mounted - think taxidermy. Maybe it's a threat to your current pets, if you do have pets.
ReplyDeleteSherry Rollins is now threatening you? Keep your eyes open, be careful.
As for Parrish, it sounds as though he's sold his soul to the highest bidder. Money over family, that's cold. Cold to the bone.
Starshine:
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point about "mountschnauzer." I'm told Zac Parrish and his older brother, Eric Parrish, both belong to at least one hunting club, I think near Tuscaloosa. They apparently consider the killing of animals for no good reason to be nice, clean sport. Zac Parrish has been known to carry a rather snazzy Italian-made pistol in his vehicle, even with his infant son riding with him. Someone would have to break into our house to get at our pets; they don't go outdoors unattended. I hadn't thought about the taxidermy component of mountschnauzer.com, but you might be right.
There was an implied threat of information which would appear on the website that would be counter intuitive-one definition being intelligence collected about enemy espionage. Still leaning in the direction of mount implying sexual nature.
ReplyDeleteA reader at Open Salon, where I cross posted this piece, had the following comment, which I found very interesting:
ReplyDeleteOldest and grossest play in the book. Usually the method of the direct threat is accompanied by some good old fashioned blackmail: "Sir, he's got something on us." "Well, get something on him then, damnit!" You must be into clean living, otherwise they would not be so frustrated and so desperate. Good luck.
Think about what he is implying his dear friends on Weatherford Drive with the view into your house have contributed to his fictional website. Degenerates might enjoy spying on clean living.
ReplyDeleteSupport?! HA! You were supposed to pay for the house that your ex-wifey and your two daughters lived Teddy boy! and you had them forced out!
ReplyDelete