A Wall Street analyst threatened to lie about comments she made to Legal Schnauzer regarding the criminal history of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins.
Paula Poskon serves as an analyst for Robert W. Baird and Company, one of the underwriters for Campus Crest Communities' $380-million Wall Street IPO. When I told Poskon in an interview that Ted Rollins's background included a conviction for assault on his 16-year-old stepson and a social services investigation for possible child sexual abuse, she audibly gasped and said, "Oh, my God, I wasn't aware of any of that." After stating that she would conduct research on the matter, Poskon stated that investors would find such matters "very concerning," especially because Campus Crest's target market, as a developer of student housing near college campuses, is young people.
In a follow up conversation, Poskon was adamant that I should not use her comments and even threatened to lie about what she had said in a tape-recorded phone conversation. (See first video at the end of this post.) Here is part of our exchange:
PP: But I’m not in position to comment on what you know. . . . To quote me specifically about Mr. Rollins or Campus Crest, in the context of his personal life . . . I don’t know. I can’t comment on something I don’t know about.
RS: You did comment, though, on how investors might see this. We talked about the fact it involved young people, and that’s relevant. It was on the record, and I’m going to use it.
PP: I think that’s very unfortunate. If I get calls on it, I will dispute that.
What does it say about "Wall Street values" when a prominent analyst, one who is quoted in major newspapers and appears on cable news programs, threatens to lie about comments she made on the record?
Poskon proceeded to claim I had not properly identified myself when arranging the interview--even though I gave her my name, my location, my background as a journalist who writes at a blog and several national Web sites, and identified the general subject matter. My response to that was simple:
RS: I said right up front that I’m a journalist, a reporter. It’s a story I’m reporting on, and your insights are important.
In so many words, Poskon was saying that she never would have agreed to the interview if she had known it was with a real journalist who might ask something other than softball questions.
It soon became clear that the "research" Poskon had promised to conduct involved calling Ted Rollins or someone close to him and allowing them to intimidate her. That's because she labeled my reporting as "personal," which is a charge I've heard before from Rollins associates--even though I have no idea what it's supposed to mean, and apparently, Paula Poskon doesn't know either.
Was Dan Rather's reporting on the Nixon administration "personal"? Heck, I don't know, but it changed history. Was Sara Ganim's reporting "personal" when she broke the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State? Again, I have no idea, but she exposed one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse in our nation's history.
You can hear the conclusion to my conversation with Paula Poskon in the second video below. But for now, let's consider this question: Is my reporting on Ted Rollins personal? It might be, in the context that the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which launched my inquiry, took place in Shelby County--in the same jurisdiction where I live, in the same court where I've experienced the kind of judicial corruption that has been heaped on Sherry Carroll Rollins and her two daughters.
When Sherry Rollins contacted me about possible wrongdoing in her Shelby County divorce case, it resonated with me. I had been in that courthouse, and I know how some litigants can be railroaded there. I didn't write about Rollins v. Rollins until I had conducted extensive research to confirm Ms. Rollins' story. If that makes my reporting "personal," then I would say journalism needs more personal reporting like it.
Here is part of my exchange on this topic with Paula Poskon:
PP: From what you’ve said and the postings you sent, your writings sound extremely personal, not objective at all. I don’t know why that might be; I'm not making value judgments about what happened to you in the past. From my perspective, a total stranger . . . , your writing does not appear to be objective, it's very personal. . . . Once I saw that, it made me very concerned for your motives about wanting to quote me. That's why I respectfully ask you not to quote me with respect to Campus Crest or Ted Rollins.
RS: I respect the request, but it’s going to be denied. I’m going to move forward with my reporting. . . . I can tell you there is nothing personal about my reporting on Ted Rollins. I've never met the man . . .
PP: It appears to me that you have very strong opinions about this person, that I think you were calling for some substantiation, and I can’t provide it.
RS: I don’t need substantiation. I wanted to know how people in the investment world view this sort of thing, and that’s what we discussed . . .
PP: In hypothetical terms. The way I characterized it was in hypothetical terms.
RS: Well, I don’t know if it was hypothetical or not. I asked you specifically about Ted Rollins, and you said it was a concern that this involved young people.
I have seen enough of personal attacks that distract from the issues to take this seriously in most cases; however in some cases if it has the potential to impact public life or if it indicates a pattern of behavior that will also impact public life it is a different story. I'm no fan of Clinton anymore but the which hunt against him was being carried out by people with an agenda to distract from more important issues.
In this case4 it clearly seems more serious; first of all it isn't between consenting adults. Second of all it indicates a pattern of intimidation and authoritarianism. As for your being "not objective at all" it reminds me of Zinn who never claimed to be neutral. Instead he tried to address the points of views that were routinely ignored. the views of the elites are considered neutral those that disagree with them are often "not objective at all."
What I remember being taught about getting opposing views was different from this.
For someone such as Paula to keep running her mouth instead of cutting the conversation shorter, says a lot about her level of intelligence and also about wall street as a whole. I think she likes to hear herself talk. Moronic and shameful! Good reporting!
Here's "personal & objective!"
The synchronized Oct.22,2004 Rehnquist/Doumar cover up of crimes:
Published: October 22, 2004
Source: TIM MCGLONE
NORFOLK - Judge Robert G. Doumar had just finished a putt on the 10th green at the Tartan Golf Course earlier this month when a cart pulled up, and off stepped a man in a dark suit carrying a briefcase attached by a chain to his wrist.
In a line out of a Hollywood spy thriller, the man said something like: "Judge, I have some papers for you. They are classified and for your eyes only."
Doumar left the course to inspect the papers in private. It was the evidence he had long waited to see in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American and Saudi Arabian citizen who had been captured in Afghanistan and was being held in a Navy brig without charge.
The papers included Hamdi's statements to military authorities explaining why he was in Afghanistan alongside Taliban soldiers. For the first time since the case had landed on his desk in May 2002, Doumar was able to see Hamdi's words for himself.
Doumar never spoke publicly about the case while it remained open. Once Hamdi had been freed, however, the judge agreed to discuss the issues surrounding his capture and detention.
"This is unquestionably the most important case I've ever had," Doumar said from his chambers this week. "This case involved the rights of every individual in the United States."
Doumar said that on Oct. 8 , the day of his golf outing, the Justice Department met his 2 p.m. deadline to deliver the documents, and he took some delight in forcing the government to find him on the course.
After reading the papers, Doumar phoned the government and ordered that Hamdi be brought to his courtroom in four days. He was ready to rule on the legality of Hamdi's detention.
Instead, three days later, Hamdi was back home in Saudi Arabia, hugging his family.
A table in Doumar's fourth-floor chambers at the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse on Granby Street holds the entire Hamdi case file, stacked high.
On one of those piles sits a book, written by Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, titled "All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime." The book, published three years before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, makes clear that Rehnquist supports some sort of judicial oversight of individuals detained, without charge, during times of war.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was checking into Bethesda.
Legal Schnauzer: Looks like Paula was given the 411 on this and probably is trying to keep her job. Or Ted Rollins could have "reached out to her" in that philanthropic way he has and offered to enhance her life in some way. After all, he has reached out to several girls in his employ and they have all prospered in the end with houses, phones, computers, cars, and yes, even monetary settlements in exchange for their silence. Paula is just another brick in the Ted Rollins wall of Influence.
Too late Paula. LOL. I assume she is a mother (no knowledge just an assumption). How can anyone but especially a parent turn a blind eye to probable child molestation? People like Paula are part of the problem which hides rather than exposes child molesters. She would fit right in with the Vatican conclave.
Gotta love the "values of Wall Street."
"Here is what I told you in a rare moment of candor, but if you print it from an on-the-record interview, I will deny that I said it."
Thanks for some profound insights. I need to learn more about the works of Zinn.
Mr. Schnauzer, didn't you write somewhere that Paula Poskon went to the Wharton School of Business at U of Penn, which is considered one of the finest business schools in the country. Do they not have an ethics course in the Wharton School? If they do, did Paula Poskon skip class?
You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train...documentary about the life of Howard Zinn.
Yes, Ms. Poskon is a Wharton School grad. Here is URL to her LinkedIn page. Makes you wonder what they teach at Wharton:
You are right on target with this. Paula Poskon is an elitist, and anyone who disagrees with her must be downgraded as "not objective at all."
LS, does Ms. Poskon have a degree in journalism or communications that enables her to critique the objectivity of your reporting?
Who knows more about journalism here, you or her?
I have a B.J. from the University of Missouri School of Journalism (1978). To my knowledge, Ms. Poskon's training is in business.
Love the videos you included with this. To have Paula Poskon's face there, and hear her voice at the same time . . . well, the word "smug" keeps coming to mind.
Like you, I appreciate Zachery's insights. One interesting note: It really wasn't a matter of disagreeing with me. Ms. Poskon and I agreed on what she said; I had it on tape. She just didn't want me to use it. In pondering this, I think she determined "I wasn't objective at all" not because we disagreed but because I wouldn't let her bully me.
Elites expect for their bullying tactics to work; they usually do. They don't quite know how to handle it when bullying fails.
You do have to wonder what Ted Rollins promised Ms. Poskon to "make this problem go away." She clearly talked to him between the time of your interview and the followup conversation.
Here is URL to info about Wharton School. I thought it was just a grad school of business, but it also has undergrad program. Not sure which one Ms. Poskon was in.
This has a rather Sanduskyesque feel to it. Poskon is looking like Paterno and the others who turned a blind eye. That should be a crime. From the looks of her photo, her hind end is probably rather wide. Not an attractive woman, especially when she opens her mouth.
Excellent comparison to the Sandusky case. Poskon is playing the role of Paterno, and her boss is playing the role of Penn State president Graham Spanier. And Ted Rollins is playing he role of Jerry Sandusky.
I almost sounds like Paula is trying to minimize the crimes and alleged crimes because they took place "20 years ago". That shouldn't make a difference. Weren't most of the witnesses in the Sandusky trial adults? I don't believe in various states that there is a statute of limitations on child molestation/ rape so why with the propounding evidence to Rollins' character would she make herself look like such a jackass after she already spoke to the contrary? I'd be willing to wager she is not a mother nor a wife. Only room for one thing in this miserable woman's life $$$$$
I've played both videos and listened to the full conversations, and guess what is missing. At no time does Paula Poskon say she thinks the LS reporting on Ted Rollins is inaccurate. At no time does she express any doubt that Ted Rollins is a child molester.
This woman knows one of her big CEOs is a child molester--she doesn't doubt it--and that doesn't bother her. Her reaction is to help cover it up!
Elites have no idea how stupid they sound when they get caught in their lies.
Anon at 11:20--
Yes, many of Sandusky's victims now are adults. And in the Rollins case, North Carolina has no statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. Ted Rollins will always face the possibility of prosecution if his victim (victims?) decides to speak out. That's why his primary known victim has been so well compensated. So in terms of criminal law, you are correct: The fact it happened 20 years ago makes no difference on allegations of child sexual abuse.
Poskon IS a moron! What's more annoying to listen to is her trying over and over to make you feel like a moron. The more she opens her mouth in trying to argue with you she looks more and more stupid! And these are the people running wall street? Damn! We are f-ed!
The more I think about it, Poskon seems as though she was a victim of abuse in her lifetime. No kids, husband, makes excuses for a pedofile ........
I should note that I don't know anything about Paula Poskon's personal situation, whether she is married, has kids, etc. She does reference that a lot of Wall Street types have been through ugly divorces, so she seems to know something of that subject. Not sure if she was referring to her own life or that of someone she knows.
I love the part where Poskon says the Wall Street Journal lets her approve/edit her comments. If that's the case the WSJ isn't much of a newspaper; it's just a bunch of shills for big money.
"A lot of wall street types have had ugly divorces" is like saying "a lot of women have been raped" so then we don't have to single anyone out for this crime? Paula may be a "Whorton" grad with BS in bullshit....but even she should know that because there is a large number of rapes or bad divorces doesn't make the crime go away. I think you should tell her to call the ex Mrs. Rollins for an up close and personal interview on the subject.
Great idea. And I would love to sit in on a conversation between Paula Poskon and Sherry Rollins.
I hope this post has the maximum exposure! Have you cross posted it?
I've sent it several places and will cross post at others.
Wonder if Venable reads it? Any way to make sure he does?
Ted Rollins probably flew into NY, took her to an expensive dinner and a club afterwards and then who knows what came next. He probably made her an offer she couldn't refuse. Her demeanor has completely changed since the first interview...noticeably so.
Anon at 2:28--
It could be mailed to Mr. Venable. His address is probably at the Robert W. Baird & Co. Web site. His e-mail address might be available on the Web.
Anon at 2:34--
You are right about the change in demeanor. I thought she handled the actual interview quite well, honest and professional. Even said she was going to research the matter and said investors would be very concerned.
In the followup, she becomes a glorified con woman, trying to pull one scam after another to bully into not using an on-the-record interview.
Any sense of professionalism and ethics goes right out the window.
I would imagine that Paula is expendable. I can't understand why she has this job in the first place. Maybe someone's wife approved he hiring because the risk factor for Poskon to attract a man is zilch! There is probably a long legged hot blonde who has a brain out there who would love this job.
Its personal???? Is this woman ethically challenged. If we were to follow her thinking it would be personal to talk about racism, murder, bank robbery, anything.
Personal attacks are one thing. Reporting objectively on one person's habits, ethics, actions, etc. is news. People have the right to know if a person is involved in a company which deals with young people has a record of child abuse. Like, duh, don't Americans have those websites which list any one who has a criminal record and sexual predator status. So Rollins should get a pass because he is rich and companies are listed on the stock exchange. Hell people have had their lives made a misery because they pissed in an alley. This woman wants to give a guy a pass because he assaulted a kid? Time to find the ethics classes for wall streeters. O.K. if they had been in ethics class they wouldn't be on Wall St.
Many good points. Before this conversation with Ms. Poskon, I sent her (at her request) copies of several posts I had written that included public documents proving Ted Rollins assaulted and abused a child. That's why she never doubts the truth of my reporting, but stoops to calling it "personal, not objective at all." I'm not sure how much more objective you can get than to publish a public document that supports my story. This is all about trying to protect a man, not only because he has money, but he comes from a family with mammoth amounts of money. No telling how much Rollins cash is churning through various investment outfits on Wall Street and beyond. Vanguard Group, in Philly, is the No. 1 mutual-fund company in the country, and they have huge holdings in Rollins companies. Money makes child abuse seem not so important in the eyes of these people
Paula Poskon might not have kids of her own, but she surely has nieces, nephews, godchildren, etc. At the very least, she must have valued friends who have children. Would she want any of those kids, especially the boys, to spend time with Ted Rollins?
LS, is the "personal" claim a veiled allegation that you have an improper relationship with Sherry Rollins, that the two of you have had an affair and cooked up this scheme to attack Ted Rollins? That's what it sounds like to me.
Anon at 6:10--
That's exactly what it is, in my mind--and I think I've written that previously, either in a post or a comment. But that's how I know Ms. Poskon talked to Ted Rollins between my interview with her and this conversation I report on today. When Sherry Rollins' daughters have visitation with their dad, they've reported back to their mom that Ted and his current wife, Holly, spend considerable time conjecturing about how Legal Schnauzer must be having an affair with Sherry. That's not remotely true, of course, but that's how these people think. The evidence tends to show that Ted and Holly had an affair that broke up his marriage to Sherry R--although the marriage had lots of other problems, including child abuse--so I guess that's why they assume others engage in that sort of behavior. But yes, Paula Poskon picked up that theme directly from Ted Rollins. That a graduate of the Wharton School was stupid enough to fall for that trick is . . . well, it doesn't make her look so good.
The word is circulating that the Campus Crest board of directors is forcing Rollins to resign as CEO in the coming weeks. Student housing industry insiders are discussing the implications.
Anon at 8:32--
Any ideas as to the reasons Ted Rollins would be forced out as CEO?
Post a Comment