Thursday, December 6, 2012

Alabama Lawyer G. John Durward Violated Ethics Rules At Most Every Turn In Rollins Divorce Case

G. John Durward

An Alabama attorney committed multiple violations of ethics and procedural rules when he filed a divorce complaint on behalf of Ted Rollins in Shelby County Circuit Court.

G. John Durward Jr., from the Birmingham firm Durward and Cromer, filed the complaint against Sherry Carroll Rollins, even though she already had filed for divorce in Greenville, South Carolina. Sherry and Ted Rollins lived in Greenville with their daughters, Sarah and Emma, at the time Ms. Rollins initiated divorce proceedings, citing infidelity as one of the grounds. South Carolina indisputably was the proper venue, and the ongoing case had been litigated there for three years at the time Durward filed a complaint in Alabama. (See document at the end of this post.)

Durward's actions violated multiple provisions of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct (ARPC), which theoretically govern the actions of lawyers in our state. Durward also violated at least one provision of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP).

Why has Durward never been held accountable for flagrant misconduct? It's probably because he represented a moneyed client who has ties to one of Alabama's most powerful law firms. It also probably helped that Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson went along with the charade, issuing a judgment that was so one sided in Ted Rollins' favor that his ex wife and two daughters wound up on food stamps.

All sorts of procedural and case law states that Durward could not lawfully file a divorce action on Ted Rollins' behalf in Alabama. A case styled Wesson v. Wesson, 628 So. 2d 953 (Ala. Civ. App., 1993) perhaps says it best:

Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.

This is the kind of fundamental material that is taught in Law School 101. If John Durward is unaware of this concept, he has no business having a law license. So why did he file a bogus divorce complaint in Alabama, a state that had no authority under the law to hear the case?

Perhaps we can answer that question with another question: Does money talk in Alabama courts? The answer appears to be yes, and G. John Durward Jr. surely knew it. Ted Rollins is CEO of Campus Crest Communities, and he belongs to one of America's wealthiest families--the folks behind Orkin Pest Control, Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment, and RPC Inc. (formerly Rollins Energy Services). Ted Rollins corporate law firm is Birmingham-based Bradley Arant.

Is that why John Durward felt free to take unlawful actions on his client's behalf? That's how it looks from here.

Durward trampled at least two provisions of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Let's take a closer look:

ARPC Rule 3.1--Meritorious Claims and Contentions

The rule states in part: "In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take action on behalf of the lawyer's client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another."

Were Sherry Rollins and her daughters "maliciously injured" by the unlawful outcome of Rollins v. Rollins in Shelby County, Alabama? Ms. Rollins' on-camera statements to us clearly indicate the answer is yes.

The comment section to Rule 3.1 makes this succinct statement: "The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure."

Did Ted Rollins have a cause, under the law, in Alabama? No, he did not. Did John Durward abuse legal procedure by bringing such a groundless complaint? Yes, he did.

ARPC Rule 3.3--Candor Toward the Tribunal

The rule states in part: "A lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client."

Let's check out the complaint that Durward filed on Ted Rollins' behalf. (See document below.) Nowhere does it state that the two parties already are engaged in a divorce proceeding, initiated by Ms. Rollins, in South Carolina. Is that a material fact? Given that the South Carolina case precludes action in Alabama, it's hard to imagine a more material fact. Did Durward's failure to disclose this material fact assist a fraudulent act by the client? Ted Rollins was facing a bench warrant for his failure to pay child support for almost three years in South Carolina, and filing of the Alabama case helped him escape possible arrest. That tells us that Durward did assist his client in committing an unlawful and fraudulent act.

ARCP Rule 11--Signing of Pleadings, Motions, Or Other Papers

This rule is a building block of courtroom procedure in all jurisdictions, at all levels. It's equivalent is present in all states and in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The concept is simple: A lawyer is required to sign every motion or paper he files, and his signature "constitutes a certificate . . .  that the attorney has read the pleading, motion, or other paper" and "that to the best of the attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support it." The rule goes on to state that if a paper is signed "with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule," it may be stricken as "sham and false," and the action may proceed as if the paper had never been served.

Consider some of the statements in the complaint that John Durward filed on Ted Rollins' behalf. In the interest of clarity, we will substitute the names of the parties where the complaint uses the terms "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." (For the record, Ted Rollins was the plaintiff in the Alabama case, with Sherry Rollins as defendant; the reverse was true in the original complaint that was filed in South Carolina.)

4. (Ted Rollins) states that he is a fit and proper person to have the care, custody and control of said minor children. . . .  
6. (Ted Rollins) states that (Sherry Rollins) is financially able to pay (Ted Rollins) support and maintenance for the minor children of the parties herein. 
7. (Ted Rollins) states that (Sherry Rollins) is financially able to pay (Ted Rollins) alimony herein. 
8. (Ted Rollins) states that (Sherry Rollins) is financially able to pay (Ted Rollins') attorney a reasonable amount for his representation of (Ted Rollins) in this cause.

Perhaps John Durward was using the complaint to test material for his future career as a stand-up comedian. If so, he produced some real knee-slappers.

Ted Rollins is the "fit and proper person" to have care and custody of two minor children? Ted Rollins illustrated this by failing to pay court-ordered child support for almost three years in South Carolina. Hah!

Sherry Rollins is to pay child support to Ted Rollins, the man who had a bench warrant for his arrest because he failed to pay court-ordered child support for three years? Snort!

Sherry Rollins is to pay alimony to Ted Rollins, even though she was a stay-at-home mother during most of the marriage and he was president/CEO of at least two corporations and owned multiple private jet craft? Guffaw!

Sherry Rollins is to pay Ted Rollins' attorney fees? Snort, snort--milk coming from nose!

John Durward had to know there were no grounds to support Ted Rollins complaint, given the case could not lawfully be heard in Alabama. Under Rule 11, the complaint should have been dismissed as "sham and false."

Do you want to read more of John Durward's comedic efforts? Check out the complaint he filed in Rollins v. Rollins. And ask yourself: How on earth is this guy a "member in good standing" of the Alabama State Bar?

  Rollins Ted's Complaint


Anonymous said...

There is no mystery as to why the corrupt lawyers do exactly as they are told and indeed, expected to violate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution ~

"... 'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower, Published: 04 December, 2012, 18:01, Edited: 05 December, 2012, 19:13

.. The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

.. Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

.. This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.


Anonymous said...

LS: Did John Durward turn the Child Support 41 form which stated that Ted Rollins made $50,000 per year working for a mortgage loan business in Franklin Tennessee into the Judge's hands? Isn't that a blight on his law career? After all, submitting false and misleading information to a Judge should have some punishment attached for an attorney who would stoop so low.

I also heard through the grapevine that John Durward and his father Gerry Durward are members of a certain hunting camp where these cases are decided over a few beers and some heavy shots of scotch on the weekends....any info on that?

Anonymous said...

Hate to ask this question LS but is John Durward really an attorney? He looks mentally challenged in this photo or special ed at least.

Anonymous said...

LS: who were the other lawyers involved in this kangaroo court case? Just so we, your loyal readers on this blog will NEVER think about hiring one of them.
Would be interesting to know how many of the crooked lawyers in this town had their hands extended for some of the Rollins funding. Thanks for your reply.

Anonymous said...

I looked up the Judge in the Rollins case, Al Crowson, it showed he took an early retirement in 2005 (after the Rollins divorce case)?

Then I looked up the judicial system in Shelby County and it shows him back on the bench for the last year.
Would that have anything to do with keeping Mrs. Rollins from coming back to court there and exposing the whole plot of the Rollins divorce in 2005?

Just wondering. Love your reporting on this story on an ongoing basis. This is the best reporting on an undercover group of criminals I have ever read. You should write a book on this.

Anonymous said...

Have you found any document from SC stating they relinquished jurisdiction in the case before Rollins filed in AL?

James Greek said...

This guy should have his own court show. You know TV judges are funny as hell.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:16--

John Durward was Ted Rollins' lawyer when the fraudulent CS-41 document was filed, so yes that should be a major blight on his career. Whether the Alabama State Bar, or anyone else holds him accountable, he's going to be unmasked here at LS. And yes, the Durward name comes up on at least one of Joe Blackburn's federal lawsuits as being involved in the famed hunting club. More coming on that.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:18--

Oh yes, he definitely is a real attorney. And his firm, Durward & Cromer, is well known in Alabama divorce circles.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:20--

Durward was the primary lawyer for Ted Rollins, and I believe at least one lawyer from Virginia entered an appearance for Mr. Rollins.

Ms. Rollins had a bunch of lawyers, mainly MaryLee Abele and Conrad Fowler. Mavanee Bear, I believe, was one of her lawyers for a spell. I will have to check the record on the others. I believe Steve Arnold was in there, maybe Steve Wright--both big hunting club guys

Spasmoda said...

LS, we've heard a lot about Ted Rollins, but it's interesting to learn about his lawyer in this divorce con game. Would be interesting to know about Mr. Durward's various connections in the legal field.

legalschnauzer said...

Some other attorneys come to mind for Ms. Rollins. In Alabama, there was Jack Shores and Sam Holmes. In South Carolina, there was Jim McLaren and Robert Clark.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:24--

Not sure why Crowson returned to bench, but your theory makes sense to me. And yes, I could write a book about this, probably several volumes.

Anonymous said...

I figured Ted Rollins had a lawyer from Bradley Arant. Surprised to hear about this Durward fellow.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:25--

No, there is no document in the file that South Carolina relinquished jurisdiction. In fact, multiple documents state that jurisdiction is firmly established there, and it could not be moved. Crowson simply stole it.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 11:09--I don't believe Bradley Arant has a divorce-law practice. They probably farmed this out to John Durward. I feel certain Bradley Arant was the man operating behind the curtain the entire time, sort of like the Wizard of Oz.

Anonymous said...

Are both the SC and AL cases still open?

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 11:16--

It's hard to answer your question. Technically, there never was an Alabama case under the law. And technically, the South Carolina case never was resolved, so I figure it probably is still open. Ms. Rollins probably ought to check into that. There is no question she could file to have her alimony/child support enhanced, based on Ted Rollins status as CEO of company with a $380-million IPO. And that's public information. He can't lie under oath about that.

I don't see how the South Carolina case could be closed. It's like the case went on a seven-year vacation in a foreign land, but Ms. Rollins should be able to restart it, pronto, and seek a significant upgrade in family support.

Maybe I need to check with South Carolina court officials to see about the status of that case.

Anonymous said...

It appears Durward is on an international family law board. Most know international law has no legal basis in our system. So rhetorically I ask, why? Explains a lot!

Anonymous said...

LS, I've had some personal experiences with Bradley Arant, and I have found their lawyers to be contemptible scum. Love your coverage on them, and I have no doubt they played a leading role in fixing the Rollins case.

My understanding is that quite a few BABC lawyers are so arrogant they think they can carry on affairs with impunity. Some spouses find out and initiate divorce proceedings. I hear that certain Birmingham divorce lawyers are on board to represent the BABC slime and ensure that the wronged spouse gets limited damages. I bet John Durward is one of those "on call" lawyers.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 11:54--

Your comment is extremely interesting, and I've heard some similar reports--although it sounds like you have more inside information than I do.

Representing sleazy Bradley Arant lawyers in divorce cases probably could be quite lucrative. And I do know this: When the hunting club lawyers needed protection, it was Bradley Arant that represented them. It's a back scratching thing, and what you are hearing makes sense.

legalschnauzer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
legalschnauzer said...

Forgot to raise this question in previous post. Is it possible Bradley Arant refers a lot of divorce cases to guys like Durward? I bet a lot of Bradley Arant's corporate clients, like Ted Rollins, wind up in ugly divorces. Perhaps they hire a guy like Durward to limit the damage?

Anonymous said...

Criminals seek the same 'energy' so to speak, thus it is not a shock nor an awe to find since before the 1950s this 'behavior' from our so called legal professionals, was and is a standard.

Until the internet we were in a black out news media, it is an iron curtain still happening unfortunately, a censorship ..

... UNTIL the Legal Schnauzer working class Americans got thrown into the fire from the skillet.

Americans, could not ~ have NOT had, an intuitive vibe about how vile evil the corruption has been and continues to be.

The current administration has no intention of being transparent.

Obama is Barry Sotero, known to be literally a 'player' in the scene of international politics for years and years. Neither he nor Michelle can practice law, Michelle is barred and Barry was never a real 'lawyer.'

Americans must demand truth, justice and of course the promise of a life protected by liberty in the modern-civilized era, as though we are intelligent enough to choose intelligently when the information and education are the highest level of 'thinking stuff.'

legalschnauzer said...

Michelle Obama is barred from practicing law? Do mean as in disbarred?

She and "Barry" have an interesting tie to one of our Legal Schnauzer stories. They met at the big Chicago law firm Sidley Austin. I think she was a staff attorney, and he was doing a clerkship or something.

Anyway, Sidley Austin represents Orkin Pest Conrol in lawsuits all over the country. Orkin is owned by Rollins Inc., and Ted Rollins is part of that family.

Small world.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever wondered who supplies/ makes the chemicals that are sprayed through our streets to kill mosquitos and what is in those chemicals?

legalschnauzer said...

I don't know. Could they spray some of it on select lawyers and judges?

Anonymous said...

Regarding Bradley Arant law firm; I heard that some of the lawyers at B/A even have their wives killed by some very strange causes...biochemical warfare against their spouses and when they die it looks like natural causes.I know it sounds horrible but I swear this is what I heard.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 1:53--

Certainly would be interesting to know more details on that. I wouldn't discount anything regarding the legal/corporate cabal.

Let's keep in mind all the strange deaths in Alabama in recent years--Major Bashinsky, Ralph Stacy, Bob Caviness, Bubba Major, Zoa White . . . and I know I'm forgetting some.

It's not much of a stretch to think a few wives who were causing problems might reach unfortunate ends.

Anonymous said...

John Durward's father, Gerard Durward, has been at he helm of the organized crime in domestic relations for years. As if that were not bad enough, John's wife, Anne Lamkin Durward, is part of the Tyson family. One of her family members is John M. Tyson, Mobile County District Attorney and head of Bob Riley's Gambling Task Force. Another is the late John C. Tyson, former Alabama Assistant Attorney General, Appellate Court judge, and Supreme Court judge.

legalschnauzer said...

That's very interesting about Durward's ties to the Tyson family. Thanks for sharing.

We know that Durward and Riley are tied to Bradley Arant, and that might help explain why John Tyson was such a whore for the Riley gambling crusade.

Is that Tyson family connected to the Tysons who are related to the Paul "Bear" Bryant family? My memory is that there are a number of Tysons in the Bryant family tree.

Anonymous said...

This is starting to sound more and more like Ted Rollins enlisted the help of Alabama elites to gang up on his ex wife. How many palms got greased in all of this?

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer, you of all people should know that lawyers don't take Rule 11 and the various ethics rules seriously, especially the ones about "meritorious claims."

If only meritorious claims could be brought, our courthouses would be empty, and lawyers would have to find real work.

Anonymous said...

Years ago, a commuter plane crashed in western Birmingham, killing all of the passengers but one, Mabry Rogers, an attorney with Bradley Arant. He lived due to the heroic act of Tot Mills, who pulled Rogers from the wreckage. Tot left the scene when the paramedics arrived. Rogers did not know who saved his life. A couple of years later, I told Rogers who had saved his life. He never even bothered to get Tot's phone number. Is this typical of the the caliber of folks at Bradley Arant?

legalschnauzer said...

I remember that plane crash well. It happened not far from where Mrs. Schnauzer grew up, in Ensley.

Anonymous said...

John C. Tyson was married to bear Bryant's daughter, Mae. I think she died shortly after her dad. John C Tyson died a month or so ago.

Anonymous said...

did you read the record on appeal? I did today. I would suggest you start there. Apparently, one of Sherry Rollins attorney's subsequently waived the motion to dismiss and withdrew the request for hearing, choosing instead to proceed in alabama.

Crowson actually wrote the Carolina judge and confirmed that carolina wanted him to proceed with the case. further, petitions were filed in both courts over a period of time.

If her lawyer is telling the truth, it looks like sherry waived the jurisdictional issue, which she is allowed to do. probably why the case was affirmed no opinion.

whether she got screwed on support, a seperate issue, is certainly important, but its not fair to crowson to say that he stole the case. for ought it appears, he was carefull not to tread on the carolina judge.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 4:03--

I believe you might want to read the record on appeal again. I've seen nothing in the record where Sherry Rollins' attorneys waived the motion to dismiss and chose to proceed in Alabama. Can you produce that document?

The record I've seen shows multiple attorneys for Ms. Rollins filing motions to dismiss and correctly citing Wesson v. Wesson to show that the case could not be heard in Alabama. I've seen no waiver, and I see nothing to indicate they had a choice in the matter. The case could not lawfully be heard in Alabama. Again, can you produce the waiver document?

Yes, Crowson wrote the Carolina judge, but I've seen nothing in the record that shows the Carolina judge agreed to cough up the case. First of all, he couldn't do that under the law. Can you produce such a document from the Carolina judge?

I don't know what you mean "petitions were filed in both courts over a period of time." I'm well aware of that, and it means nothing. Here is what matters: Ms. Rollins' complaint was filed in SC, and the case was litigated there for three years and was ongoing. Ted Rollins filed a complaint in AL, three years after the fact. He could have filed 10,000 complaints in AL, and it doesn't matter under the law. They can't be heard here--and if you are remotely serious about the law, you know that.

Don't know what you mean by "if her lawyer is telling the truth." The work of Ms. Rollins' lawyer is on file, and she, correctly, moved for the Alabama case to be dismissed. Can you produce a document that shows otherwise?

Your notion that her family support is a separate issue is nonsensical. How can it be separate when it was determined in Alabama, and the case could not be heard in Alabama? The issues are one and the same.

Crowson did steal the case, and there was nothing for him to discuss with the Carolina judge. Crowson is a crook and should be in federal prison for what he did in this case.

Is that "fair" enough for you?

If you can produce documents to show what you claim, I would be happy to check them out. But I suspect you are trying to blow smoke up someone's fanny. And you came to the wrong place for that.

jeffrey spruill said...

Anon@December 6, 2012 8:39 AM

Believe me I KNOW the government can use information against anyone to set them up.

And you know it too Mr. FBI Director:

You know how "FBI National Security Letters" were used for nefarious purposes:

To send in Erik Prince's hit men July16,2009:

Anonymous said...

Wow...1,000 points for Schnauzer...0 points for wannabe law professor aka anonymous.....

Absolutely priceless reply. Sounds like Anonymous got his panties in a wad over this latest post, wonder why hmmmmm.....

Anonymous said...

LS, anon 4:03 may be telling you that records have been cooked. I'd check it. Happening all the time in the Land of Dixie or maybe he's full of it.

legalschnauzer said...

I suspect Anon has a "horse in the race" and thought he could pull one over on me. If he produces documents to prove his point, fine, I'll be happy to look. But I've read the record on appeal closely, and I will be surprised if Anon can produce such docs.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 5:37--

At this point, I would say he's full of it. Who cooked records in this case and on whose behalf?

If your theory is correct, Mr. @4:03 is saying that records were cooked to benefit Sherry Rollins. If that's so, why did she get screwed so badly in the case? Why did she and her daughters wind up on food stamps?

I'm sure it would be news to Ms. Rollins that records were cooked in order to help her out. It would be news to me, given the amount of research I've done on the record in Rollins v. Rollins.

Records usually aren't cooked to help the person who got the short end of the stick in a court case. That would be Ms. Rollins in this instance. I don't see how records could be cooked on her behalf.

Anonymous said...

You are misunderstanding what 4:03 said. He said that appeal doc say she waived her motion to have a hearing on issue of jurisdiction and aggred to remain in AL.

Anonymous said...

I hear a few senators got kicked off the budget committee today. For going agaiinst the majority. Any truth?

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 6:19--

No, I understand exactly what he's saying. And I'm saying he's wrong. I've read the appellate record, and I can find nowhere that it says that. I invited @4:03 to produce such documents, and we will see if he does that. But I've read the file, and I don't believe those documents exist.

Anonymous said...

Why can't we all just get along? I'll tell you why. Lawyers like Durward and judges like Crowson.

Anonymous said...

Durward is a douchebag. Always has been!

Anonymous said...

Look at volume 1 of the ROA around page 54, I do. It have it in front of me. Her second or third lawyer withdrew the mtd and informed the court that the prior hearing on the mtd was withdrawn. I have no horse in the race, I don't give a tinkers damn about these folks.
I'd just like u to get the facts somewhere near right.

Anonymous said...

I mean I do not have it in front of me.

Anonymous said...

You don't give a "tinkers damn"? Yep that's what it looks like.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 7:50--

I'm afraid your reading of the record is in error. One of Ms. Rollins' lawyers stated in a letter to Crowson that he was not going to pursue the motion to dismiss. But there never was a motion to withdraw the motion, and that lawyer then withdrew.

Furthermore, Ms. Rollins' next lawyer clearly moved once again for a motion to dismiss, citing jurisdictional issues and the Wesson case. Crowson acknowledges in his letter to the Carolina judge that a motion to dismiss was on the table in Alabama.

So in Crowson's own words, a valid motion to dismiss was on the table, and he simply stole the case. That's what a real reading of the actual, full record shows.

I have gotten the facts right, now and throughout my reporting on this case.

If you don't give a tinker's damn about this case, why are you going to the trouble to review the appellate record? More importantly, why are you intentionally trying to misstate what the record shows?

Anonymous said...

have you researched waiver? It's fairly important in the law of jurisdiction. Now can you waive subject matter jurisdiction in divorce cases? It was waived by sherry Rollins through her attorney's. I really don't know if you can waive subject matter jurisdiction. I suspect not but it is an issue in this case. Did you read the record? Did you see where her attorneys withdrew the challenge to jurisdiction? Can it then be re-raised? I doubt it, but maybe.

There is no need to be defensive towards me.
I just enjoy your insane ramblings. I have been beaten time and again by many lawyers many times both T trial and on appeal. I always attributed it to people not being as art as me, but thanks to u I know its a conspiracy involving bush, fuller, Vance, vowelll, crowson, Reynolds, rove, kallon, the entire 11th circuit, and every other judge that has ever ruled against you. Not to mention like 10 other lawyers who screwed you. Fight the good fight!!

legalschnauzer said...

I'm not defensive toward you. I'm just telling you that you are wrong, and I'm pointing out how the record shows you are wrong.

I happen to believe you are being dishonest when you claim not to have an agenda or special interest regarding this case. But that's not being defensive either. I just don't believe a disinterested person would go to the trouble to look up the appellate record, as you claim you have, and then proceed to write multiple deceptive, ill-informed blog comments about it.

Also, I find it interesting that you now have resorted to insults. In my experience, that's a sign a person knows he has no argument to make.

I will repeat what I've already said: I have done more than read the record. I've studied it extensively, and here is what it shows:

(1) Sherry Rollins lawyers did not waive subject-matter jurisdiction.

(2) Her lawyers did not withdraw the challenge to jurisdiction.

(3) Crowson's own letter to the South Carolina judge admits that a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction was on the table as of Jan. 2005. He makes this admission as he is in the process of violating the law by stealing the case from a court where jurisdiction had been established for more than three years.

Even you don't deny that, under the actual law, Alabama did not, and could not, have jurisdiction. Given that, and the fact Crowson's own words, show jurisdiction was challenged, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion. You appear to know what the real law is, and Crowson butchered it; you seem to get pleasure from arguing over a technicality that was not present in this case. Surely you can make better use of your time.

Why don't you contact Sherry Rollins and asked her if she authorized any of her attorneys to waive jurisdiction or withdraw a challenge to jurisdiction?

I've got her contact information and would be glad to provide it. I'm sure she would be delighted to talk with you.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Comments from Anonymous on Dec. 7 a.m.:

You do have the appeal in front of you or you don't, you seem confused. Other lawyers are not as "art" as you or as smart as you? I think we know that there is something wrong with you because your writing skills seem to match up with a 5th grade education or you are intoxicated. And you don't give a tinkers damn? I say you do, otherwise why would you be reading an appeal of some random person's case? Why don't you just print your NAME or throw your juris doctorate in the ring and go confront some judges and lawyers in the parade of injustice in Shelby County? Sitting back reading a blog and then trying to defend something or someone with your ineptitude while attacking the writer of the blog? Is that the best you've got? Did you take one course in law or two?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Durward started drunk posting comments late last night, LS. LOL!

Anonymous said...

These documents are a matter of public record, perhaps posting them add clarity to the matter.

legalschnauzer said...

I have posted some of them and will be posting more. I know exactly what the record shows, and @4:03 is wrong. If he has reviewed the record in a serious fashion, he knows he's wrong.

I've probably published a half dozen documents from the Rollins file already. More will be coming.

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer misrepresented the facts...

legalschnauzer said...

That's their specialty.

Anonymous said...

I noticed the "sour grapes/disgruntled litigant" tired mantra of the legal cabal thrown out with an added twist of being "insane". Typical marginalize and discredit tactics used over and over again. RS you are truly making these cockroaches uncomfortable. Keep up the good work. Maybe this scrutiny will help to start the cleaning up of the Alabama good ole boy judicial system.

jeffrey spruill said...

Tell me about it Mr. Schnauzer.

Look at this misrepresentation of facts:

David Bouchard, 61, a Chesapeake attorney who lives in Suffolk, said he has a long list of issues he wants to tackle, most related to helping the poor and underprivileged.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers and judges did their thing and turned the tables making the wife of Watkins out to be a crazy liar instead of trying to uncover the truth and protect children. She's looking pretty credible about now. "Police announced last week they had arrested Watkins on a felony count of forcible sodomy."

Anonymous said...

Copy and pasted portions of the comments from the locals. Roger, did you say the Rollins lived in Charlottesville when they became engaged? Where was the property Ted bought his lawyer? Could it have been Keswick? Or at nearby? I have a feeling many of these same readers will be interested in your posts and won't surprise me if some of the Rollins players involved will be known by many of these readers. I have a feeling many might take more of an interest than the investor lady. Investor lady might even get some calls from some of these readers.
So many of the comments sound familiar.. "didn't look the part of a pedophile"...

"...he always came across as having a privileged attitude and to consider himself above the rules. If he did commit the crime for which he is charged, I do hope the rules will apply to him this time."

And check out this comment.This poster needs a link to direct him to LS's reporting on Ted Rollins. What a joke. Blame the wife for not doing enough to expose her husband's crimes against children. HA, yeah, sure, easy peasy! "I DO judge them all... if I was FACTUALLY aware of a grown man sleeping naked with young boys with 180 hits of viagra I would have made damn sure that the word got out even if I posted it anonomusly online or on posters on telephone poles in the middle of the night. I don't know if she was strong enough mentally to carry out the task but I cannot believe that she had no one in her life that would help her bring this man down. I think with even the people posting here about how believable her allegations are that had they heard these rumors or aellgations that they would have stepped forward to at least draw some attention to the circumstance."

Appears many DID try.. told to shhhhhhhh
"I understand feeling the need to judge. This is a very aggravating case. How could she and others who knew about the abuse just give up? The truth is no one ever did give up. Although many of us ( She is well supported by family and friends who also believed that many boys could be in danger) were aware of the possibility of being sued for slander... we all did what we could do. Friends in Social Services, Region Ten, and both Charlottesville and Albemarle police departments were repeatedly contacted. All of us were assured that NOTHING would be done in terms of an investigation of Watkins until a child came forward. I personally contacted someone every few months... I was told by many to quit talking about it. I never did. You were not there Mr. Marshall, you have no idea how much was done to protect the boys in question. If only SOMEONE had listened before now."

"Why is their ire for the actual perpetrator misdirected to these other people.
This smearing of the accuser is exactly what occurs again and again in cases like these. The hook is well aware of other cases very similar to this one.
The fear of being sued, the fact that your name gets dragged through the mud, the fact that judges are trained to not believe these allegations (as is so well exemplified by AngryOldMan) and issue gag orders to protect the reputation of the perpetrator, these are all real things."

"It's a sad, sad story every time, and every time the pattern is the same. Every time, the people other than the perpetrator receive the ire and ill will of those that want to diminish the severity of this crime."

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 7:33--

Thanks for sharing your insights and the link to the story about Watkins case. Haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but it looks very interesting.

Yes, Ted and Sherry Rollins lived for a while in Charlottesville before getting married. He had an investment firm there. His lawyer friend in VA is Frank Bredimus, who is based in Leesburg--and the farm in question, I believe, is in Hamilton, VA.

Definitely want to learn more about Watkins case. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Anonymous said...

Can she not go before somebody in SC and get this overturned?

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:34:

Technically, the answer should be yes. The law is firmly on Ms. Rollins' side. But in reality, the law means very little in our corrupt courts. A woman who is close to the Rollins family oversees family courts in South Carolina, or at least she did. It appears she played a major role in letting this case unlawfully be shipped to Alabama. I haven't written much about this angle, but I will. Need to do some more research.

The woman's name is Aphrodite Konduros, and she now is on the South Carolina Court of Appeals. She's a key figure in the Rollins story. Her husband, Sam Konduros, has been a business partner with Ted Rollins, working in something called the Upstate Alliance and making a bunch of money. Here is a bio for Aphrodite Konduros:

Anonymous said...

This standard operating procedure for too many lawyers and judges, unfortunately.

Anonymous said...

I have an idea. All Sherry has to do is contact Bill Marshall and make him FACTUALLY aware of your case. Problem solved!!
From The Hook comments:
"Bill Marshall December 5th, 2012 | 3:45pm
I DO judge them all... if I was FACTUALLY aware of a grown man sleeping naked with young boys with 180 hits of viagra I would have made damn sure that the word got out even if I posted it anonomusly online or on posters on telephone poles in the middle of the night. I don't know if she was strong enough mentally to carry out the task but I cannot believe that she had no one in her life that would help her bring this man down. I think with even the people posting here about how believable her allegations are that had they heard these rumors or aellgations that they would have stepped forward to at least draw some attention to the circumstance.

We should not have to learn about these situations from an adult who comes forward 6 years later....

alabama criminal defense lawyer said...

John must be aware of the fact that there were not any strong grounds to support Ted Rollins complaint, the case filed could not lawfully be heard in Alabama.

Anonymous said...

Dear sir,
During a court proceeding that was for custody modification for my 10 year old son, durwood and Cromer were allowed to interview my son alone with Cromer in a room, without a gal present or anyone else. Without my permission i am sole custodial parent and my son had been exposed to sexually explicit material among other things. Is that legal?

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 1:29 a.m.--

Not sure if that is legal or not. I do know that procedures tend to be pretty loose in family-court settings. You are wise to question the ethics of Durward/Cromer, given their actions in the Rollins case.

Would be interested to know more info about your case. Feel free to contact me at my personal e-mail:

Lets Get Honest said...

(smile....). Maybe you can tell things by looking, but also by looking them up. (see link, "footloose in tuscaloosa" and how by law, Alabama apparently ca. 1983 decided that (not including high-profile adolescent batterers like Mr. Rollins here) that it can stop child abuse BEFORE it happens through legislation (Martin-Aldridge Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Act, "ACANP"). Of course taxpayers shouldn't expect this to be free of charge, hence, the Children's Trust Fund, Family Resource Centers, Visitation Centers, etc.

I also looked a while back** at the state's financial statements (CAFRs) and noticed that about 80% of the State HHS-style (DHR) funding seems to be coming from the federal level. (**translation, don't quote me on that: here's 2011's p. 10 showing there's a nice Judicial and Legislative Branch, but when it comes to CHILDREN's AFFAIRS and HUMAN RESOURCES -- that's under Executive (gov't) control. So there's more than just Ted Rollins likely involved in trying to get a divorce case into the state (illegally). There's cash in them thar' hills -- $2/federal to every $1 local for enforcing child support (translation: Protecting kids from Abuse through family reunification and compromise of CS arrears, etc. )

Putting what's already known (at least by some) about TANF (welfare reform), i.e., that it's no longer just about helping poor people (that was just to get it rolling good, including especially the child support enforcement sector, about $4 billion a year) -- it's about making sure men like Mr. Rollins (in the fullest sense of the word)-- at ALL levels of income -- are not deprived of contact with their children by "gold-digging" or bitter mothers making up stories about what their exes are doing to their kids, as I see Legal Schnauzer has taken some time to report.

I know that's a lot to unload onto a comment -- however, I've got attorneys in my family line too, and I keep wondering whether they're smarter, or dumber, than they are sounding when attempting to sound authoritative.

And if even Sherry Rollins can't stay off food stamps, while I hate it, I feel a little less bad about having been forced back on them (twice, actually) after going through the ringer and leaving an abusive marriage, with good faith efforts to handle my own affairs.

What I'm saying is that, many of us are on a large pool table here, but not all of us are holding the cues which knock the balls around, and besides this, there are more in play than it seems at first glance in ANY divorce and child support case. One of the biggest clues (not good to be without a cue, or a clue in these matters) that some federal (as well as private) clout may be involved is improper switch of jurisdictions.

I'm not from Alabama, just ended up reading about some things trying to figure out why it's almost impossible to stay off assistance after someone reports some sort of criminal activity by an ex and tries to separate from it. Ever tried to hold down work inbetween routine court hearings and threats to take one's children away backed by some serious clout?

I know several mothers (though am not one) trying to leave men with some serious corporate wealth. Basically, they have to drop everything and fight. When you see systems that can't drive straight, or obey the rules of the road, I figure time to look at what kind of gas is in the tank; i.e., what's driving the system. Well, just FYI, government has been privatized through nonprofits contracting with the courts, with judges and attorneys on the nonprofits; great way to declare things don't exist which do, or at least make those resources harder to find.

Ms. Rollins is at least lucky there's a legal schauzer in the neighborhood.