We established in a recent post that Zac Parrish can become angry when faced with the subject of his mother's divorce from Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins.
Parrish has reason to be angry about Ted Rollins, his former stepfather. After all, public records show that Rollins severely beat Parrish in 1995 and was convicted for assault in Franklin County, North Carolina. Parrish also has reason to be angry that his mother, Sherry Carroll Rollins, was horribly cheated in her divorce from Ted Rollins, largely because the case was unlawfully moved from South Carolina (where it was litigated for three years) to Alabama.
But Parrish does not seem upset about the injustice that has been heaped on his mother and his half sisters--Birmingham residents Sarah and Emma Rollins. Instead, he launched into a tirade against me for doing what journalists do--reporting on a story of public record, on a divorce case that was intentionally botched via the use of public facilities and resources.
After cursing and hanging up on me in the first segment of our conversation, Parrish did not become any more pleasant in the second segment. He claims that events related to the misuse of taxpayer-funded courts is "none of (my) business." He hints that his original offer to meet me in person was done only for purposes of a physical threat.
This becomes even more peculiar when you consider that Zac Parrish initiated communication with me, not the other way around. I first heard from him in an e-mail dated September 16, 2011. You might say he came across as a smart ass on that occasion. Here is an unedited version of what he wrote:
Your reporting of events seem to be missing any verification of facts and only consist of opinions of people with no professional expertise on the topics you choose to report.
Exactly what is it that you contribute to society?
Your occupation is listed as editor. What is it you are the "editor" of? Do you actually give back in any way to society or simply blog what you interpret to be the truth? Maybe someone needs a more productive hobby? What exactly is your list of accomplishments in life, other than being a burden to others?
A degree in journalism? Wow! I'm shocked you haven't had legal action against you, yet.
In an e-mail dated Sept. 20, 2011, Parrish cited his experience as a building professional and used it to blame the victims for a balcony collapse at a Campus Crest Communities site near the University of North Texas. You will notice that Parrish performs all sorts of verbal gymnastics in an effort to protect Ted Rollins. I wonder why. Here are Parrish's words, again with no editing from me (and no paragraphs from Parrish):
In regards to your "coverage" of campus crest communities' and the balcony incident, a fair reporter would have noted the balcony only had a overall depth of 6". The pictures that are available online show that these are simply for aesthetics. The story, available on CBS' local site, proves that this incident was caused by a group of young college kids acting inappropriately at 3am. The size of the landing area of the balcony is less than the size of the so called victims' shoes. This aesthetic architecture/design has been utilized for centuries. At what point are people held liable for their own actions? I guess there is always someone to blame? If that is the case, where does liability of the local governing agencies (inspections dept) ever kick in. That is never mentioned in your "coverage"! Selective reporting with a political agenda? Seems like it to me, and others. Fair and balanced reporting can never be contested. You should really let the last sentence sink in. Fair and balanced! By the way, yes I have studied, sitting at the Shelby county courthouse in columbiana and sitting through trials and the witness stand for days while taking away time from my work and children. I, and my attorney, are more intimate with the details of that divorce than you can ever wish to be. Your "hours" of study can not compare to my lifetime. I am a licensed professional in the building industry, so I know what I am talking about in regards to the balcony incident. You should attempt to be fair and accurate and present all facts to a story when reporting so that the masses will listen and not so obviously recognize your personal beliefs to be one sided. I am 32 years old with 4 children and challenge you to any debate or social contribution efforts that you have ever given back to society. You appear to me, and the masses, as an opportunist individual that is looking for another handout. The problem with our country today, folks that don't want to contribute to our society, but point out the preconceived notions of others. My above statements are not influenced/approved/endorsed by Camus crest or Ted Rollins, or any of my, zac parrish, companies. You should look up the definition of "journalist".
In a postscript, Parrish took on a slightly threatening tone:
P.S.- I am not as forgiving, legally, as my mother or stepfather. So tread lightly in your blogs, comments, opinions.
Parrish continued with that tone in an e-mail dated September 28, 2011. It came after I had run a photo of Ted Rollins and other Campus Crest executives playing foosball. The photo appeared in a publication touting Campus Crest facilities, so I'm not sure why Parrish took offense. But he did, and here is an unedited version of an e-mail he sent to me:
Foosball, really! What a fool the schnauzer is! Maybe one day we can all be on unemployment and bankrupt. I don't pick on those in that are in need and fall on hard times beyond their control, only those that put themselves there. I hope you enjoy the checks that you are cashing that I work hard to fund. FYI...I was informed that your wife wants to come and find me for voicing my opinion. Tread lightly, threats come with very serious legal consequences. Especially when those threatened have the endless legal resources to defend themselves and their family, e.g. 4 small children and wife. My family and I certainly wouldn't tolerate any further verbal or physical threats. Sometimes things are just as they appear and you can't always trust the ones that you think you can. It is scary how effective your time could be if applied in the proper direction with the support of true evidence and fact. Who knows, you may be able to profit and/or support your family without government assistance if you did so.
Parrish consistently presents himself in a mocking, condescending, arrogant, threatening tone. Notice his reference to having "endless legal resources." Where could that come from, other than the Rollins family? This seems to confirm that the Rollins clan is a prime financial backer of Zac Parrish's building company--even though Mr. Parrish likes to portray himself as a "rugged individualist."
Why would the Rollinses support a former stepson, someone who essentially has no claim to the family mantle? Is this part of a deal that was struck to ensure that Zac Parrish would stay quiet about what Ted Rollins did to him as a child?
Is this a case of a young man who was bullied as a child by his stepfather . . . and now he has become a bully himself?
Keep in mind that Zac Parrish initiated this communication; it wasn't prompted on my end. But when I did request an interview--assuming he would say yes, since he had sought me out to express his opinions via e-mail--Parrish exploded with rage. I've written extensively about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce and called it the worst courtroom cheat job I've ever encountered on the civil side. Court cases are famous for producing lots of paper, and my reporting has tended to focus on the documents that show clear misconduct in the handling of the Rollins case.
The interview request with Zac Parrish, however, gets to the human side of the equation and provides an example of the emotion that probably accompanies many divorce cases.
The public record shows that Zac Parrish was a central figure in the Rollins family drama; that's why I called him. The experience of being Ted Rollins' stepson clearly left scars--and a reservoir of rage.
Child abuse has become a front-page topic in recent months, thanks to the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State. Zac Parrish's story never made headlines, but he clearly was the victim of child abuse--at the hands of Ted Rollins.
I can understand Zac Parrish's desire to keep that chapter in his life under wraps. But the Sandusky case has shined a spotlight on an issue that too often has remained in the shadows. And it has taught us that these issues, when they come to light via the court process, are very much the public's business.
The "Rollinses" are the current "Raiding Party" set-up by and through the "Federal Reserve System" [the Fed's "Nazi?" Syndicate?].
STEPSON'S hubris because he is certain that the "Party" is to protect him.
LS, he has warned you about the Rollkommando that is indeed a Rovian bandito mafioso PARTY too alive and well in the South, as planned, be very-very careful.
Rollkommandos as University Campus "building" structures for "housing" exactly what ???
Scary that stepson looks so much like an attorney I once dated, and he was very much an insane person, too, from his father a NYPD COP ON THE BEAT AND TAKE, too!
Rollkommando IS the "Party" in the US that has raided the US Treasury.
We know all the Rollokommandos by the fact they are gainfully employed and therefore, primarily ALL have taken control of our "Constitutional Republic" by and through the "Fed."
WE THE PEOPLE ALL, have the right to the same digital power that the "Rollinses" have as a tool to toxically shame.
see also, Neil Barofsky's book,
"... Another example of this is Bill Clinton’s $80 million payday after he left office.
On December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis. Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work.
Clinton, who had scandals as significant as Eliot Spitzer, is a beloved figure worth enormous sums of money. In a country opposed to US interests, if the husband of the Secretary of State was taking large sums of money from entities all over the world with vested interests in that country’s foreign policy, the US would be the first country to scream and cry “corruption”.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/the-real-rationale-for-the-romney-campaign-a-consultant-money-grab.html#3DoE3swG0goFyP4e.99
Things like that, I believe are personally touchy for him.
If Zac is such a great "building professional" maybe he can answer this question: Was the balcony that collapsed at the University of North Texas installed in coformity with the plans and specificatons of the architect who designed it?
This is the kind of question a journalist writing about this incident would have asked. No newspaper in texas that I know bothered to ask. The question should have been asked of the building who signed off so the building could be occupied.
That's a good question. Here is another one:
If the balcony was to be decorative, why did it have a fully functioning door that open onto it?
You might notice that Mr. Parrish expresses no concern whatsoever about the well being of the victims. Their injuries were extremely serious, as I reported in the following post:
Would you buy a house from a builder with Mr. Parrish's callous attitude? I sure wouldn't.
Mr. Parrish has been one of the entitled, and he most certainly would never think or agree to this label.
In reading the history of our current [over] "Building" predicament and the Parrish construction passes on what should not be acceptable simple code practices in a true professional standard ..
... of course the predicament of the money that pays the Parrish people, money stolen, from the people who choose to not be predatory inclined.
Obviously extremely desensitized in respect to human living is an "institutionalized" practice.
Zac says he has birthed four children, what a model of the same culture of abuse continuing as it is reported about family dynamics of shame.
Doing right is the best choice
when choosing be very gentle
subtle form unformed spontaneous
Doing might maybe necessary
tho never know but don’t resort
to violence all small stuff matters
Elegant technology gone total
out of control and as usual a few
predictably violent criminals own
Undertakings undertakers selling
peddling secrets manipulating
openly controlling billions of
“Lights” blinking off and out again
on and in we are people awakening
from blackouts in Air Wave fantasies
Legal Schnauzer scares the darkness into the light and this is very uncomfortable for the families connected in the fantasies of totalitarian control.
The Blob, Parrish and the ilk of Rollins, Campus Crest, et al.
How do we deal with these dangerous "people" ...
". . He has burned his bridges . .
They were up against The Blob.
And The Blob won.
The Blob – its really called that – refers to the government entities that regulate the finance industry – like the Banking Committee, Treasury Department, and SEC – and the army of Wall Street representatives and lobbyists that continuously surrounds and permeates them,” Connaughton writes. “The Blob moves together. Its members are in constant contact by e-mail and phone. They dine, drink, and take vacations together. Not surprisingly, they frequently intermarry. No lobbying restrictions yet promulgated can prevent pillow talk between Blob spouses.”
But Connaughton is silent no more.
“I’m willing to burn every bridge,” he writes. “Now that I’ve mutinied and fled to a remote place, I want to set flame to the ship that would take me back there.”
Burning Every Bridge
Payoff in the Pit of the Plutocracy
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER at counterpunch
"Why Did a Simple Interview Request Send CEO Ted Rollins' Former Stepson into a Rage?"
Simple--step daddy pays the bills!
Was that an example of a rhetorical question Mr. Schnauzer?
It is one thing to screw with Ted Rollins. It is another to screw with his family, especially a stepson who is no longer a stepson.
Two, three years ago you had some important things to say.
Now, this ? Chase Swatek and this ?
You have stepped over the line, Mr. Shuler.
Do what you want to a sleazy lawyer, but his dead kid did nothing to you. Neither did Rollins' kid or kids.
Chace Swatek was the focal point of an unattended death that still has not been formally explained. He died in a public place, and his death has been investigated with public resources. That's a news story, and if coverage of it makes you uncomfortable, that's your issue and not mine.
Issues connected to Zac Parrish arose from a divorce case, which was litigated in a public forum, producing public documents, supported by taxpayer dollars. The assault of which I've written is a matter of public record, and I have published those records.
Again, that is a news story. Perhaps you need to spend your time at a Web site that doesn't cause you angst.
To villinise, a villin, hate begets the same,forgive thyn enamies, you should be with don ls,he knew the chance he was taking..
Anon at 1:20--
Are we going to play dueling Bible verses?
I'll try this one:
"An eye for an eye . . . "
i read the step son's tirade. Its funny, it really is. it doesn't make sense, it has no rhrym or reason, it just goes on & on. I think the beating his step father gave him must have affected his brain. it often happens.
I know I've heard all sorts of jokes about the American south & the lack of intelligence amongst some of the population but when I read this blog I know where the jokes came from. It is nice to see have maintained your sanity through all of this & continue reporting on the issues.
Post a Comment