Alabama Is Not the Only State Where Obama Has Helped Persecute Members of His Own Party

George Holding

As a resident of Alabama, I've been operating under the assumption that ours is the only state where the Obama Justice Department has shown utter ineptitude on the appointment of U.S. attorneys. But I was wrong about that.

Leura Canary, the abominable George W. Bush appointee who ramrodded the Don Siegelman prosecution in the Middle District of Alabama, stayed on for more than two years of Obama's term. That allowed her to be at the controls for a federal bingo case that targeted mostly Democrats and produced zero convictions.

I figured the White House let the Canary debacle continue because the president knows he never is going to win a deep red state, and therefore does not care what happens in Alabama. But it turns out that Obama let a similar situation fester in North Carolina, a state that he won in 2008.

And just as in Alabama, it appears that Obama's weakness has allowed a Bushie to launch a politically motivated prosecution--under a Democratic administration. With "friends" like Obama, citizens who take justice seriously do not need enemies.

The target in North Carolina is former presidential candidate John Edwards. And the embedded Bushie was George Holding, who stayed on as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina until July 8 of this year. Holding announced his resignation roughly one week after an indictment was issued against Edwards. How convenient.

At the heart of the case against Edwards are payments made to his mistress, Rielle Hunter, in an effort to keep the affair secret. Edwards' behavior was disgusting, but was it criminal?

Legal experts say the Edwards case is built on a shaky foundation of weak evidence and untested legal theories. The kind of transaction in question rarely, if ever, has been defined as a political contribution--and that is the legal crux upon which the case rests?

The Edwards case appears to be skimpy on its face, and for some reason, that does not sit well with the former senator's defense team. It claims the Obama DOJ lacked the backbone to stop a bogus prosecution--and that's a familiar story for those of us who live in Alabama. Josh Gerstein, of Politico, explains:

President Barack Obama's appointees at the Justice Department lacked the political courage to stop a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor from indicting former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) on campaign finance-related charges even though the prosecution's theory is completely unprecedented, Edwards's lawyers said in a court filing Tuesday.

Edwards's defense team argued in a motion filed last month that the U.S. Attorney who oversaw the investigation, George Holding, was politically hostile to Edwards. A former aide to Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Holding announced his resignation a week after obtaining Edwards's indictment in June on charges that he effectively accepted nearly $1 million in illegal campaign contributions by allowing two wealthy supporters to pay expenses incurred by Edwards's mistress and a daughter the couple conceived.

Holding also worked for Judge Terrence Boyle, whose appeals court nomination Edwards blocked in 2001.

Powerful evidence suggests that Holding was hostile toward Edwards. We also know that Holding had political ambitions. He now is running, as a Republican, for a Congressional seat from North Carolina's 13th District. Here is how one news outlet reported Holding's entrance into the race:

A former federal prosecutor whose office put a series of high-profile North Carolina Democrats in prison wants to replace one in Congress.

George E.B. Holding said Wednesday he will run for the Republican nomination for the 13th District seat now held by U.S. Rep. Brad Miller. . . .

The 43-year-old Republican stayed in his post three years into the Obama administration to avoid disrupting investigations into former presidential candidate John Edwards and former North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley.

Holding's office brought public corruption cases that resulted in convictions against former state House Speaker Jim Black, former state Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps and former Rep. Frank Ballance.

It doesn't appear that Holding went after any corrupt Republicans. Hmmm . . . conducting political prosecutions against Democrats pays off in North Carolina? Same thing seems to happen in my state, where Leura Canary is set to accept a cushy legal position with the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA).

The criminal case against John Edwards appears to be preposterously weak. So why is it moving forward? Gerstein explains:

The defense motion goes on to argue that Holding stood to benefit politically whether the Obama folks killed the case or let it go forward. If they killed it, he could have claimed they were protecting a fellow Democrat. If it went forward, he would be viewed as wounding a Democrat of national prominence.

"Under the circumstances, it is understandable that the Obama Administration would stay out of this fight," the defense lawyers said.

While we are on the subject of politics, let's consider these questions: How ironic is it that our nation's first black president has shown consistent disdain for the words of the 14th Amendment, the fundamental building block for equal treatment under the law in America? Why would Obama expect Democrats to support him when he has allowed members of his own party to be brutalized in political prosecutions? Assuming that progressives take the 14th Amendment seriously--that they care about issues such as due process and equal protection--why would they show up at the polls for a president who repeatedly has dumped on the U.S. Constitution?

This is one progressive who will not be voting for Obama in 2012. I already had made up my mind on that subject, and the George Holding story only reinforces those feelings.

Notorious Siegelman Prosecutor Has Lined Up a New Job Connected to Massive Amounts of Cash

Leura Canary

People who have a stake in the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA)--and that includes just about everyone who lives in our state, plus quite a few who live beyond its borders--should be concerned about reports that Leura Canary is set to take a new job.

Canary, perhaps the most corrupt prosecutor in the history of U.S. Justice Department, will join RSA's legal staff in January. Canary, best known for her role in the political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, stepped down as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in June. She was appointed by President George W. Bush, and inexplicably, served for more than two years in the Barack Obama administration.

Why should RSA stakeholders be alarmed about this news? For one, it comes as Republicans in the Alabama Legislature are pushing bills that would allow them to control boards that govern RSA and its $25 billion nest egg. (Yes, that's billion, with a "b.") For another, RSA chief David Bronner long has been viewed as probably the sharpest  financial and political mind in Alabama. Our state ranks near the bottom on many surveys regarding quality-of-life issues--education, health, child welfare, you name it--but RSA is considered one of the strongest, best managed retirement systems in the country.

David Bronner is one smart dude, so why would he be so stupid as to hire Leura Canary? Methinks something foul is going on in Montgomery, Alabama.

As we reported earlier this week, Leura Canary's marriage to Bill Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama, is on the rocks. If that should lead to a messy divorce, would David Bronner want RSA's reputation caught in the middle of it? Also, Leura Canary reportedly is under federal investigation for her handling of the Siegelman case and other matters. Again, does David Bronner want his name soiled by association with Leura Canary? Finally, a pending federal lawsuit seeks more than 1,000 documents related to Canary's recusal in the Siegelman case. If released, those documents are likely to show that Canary remained involved with the case after having announced her recusal.

David Bronner wants to take the chance of being sullied by all of this? Does David Bronner really want to hire a lawyer with enough baggage to sink the USS Missouri? Does RSA need potentially massive headaches?

On top of that, Bronner has been outspoken about his views that the Siegelman/Richard Scrushy prosecution was bogus. In a 2007 editorial from the RSA Advisor, Bronner made it clear how he feels about key figures in the case, including Siegelman, prosecutor Steve Feaga, and judge Mark Fuller. Here is Bronner's primary point:

Siegelman was no different than any other Gov I have worked with or against! When Feaga worked with the state, he allowed former Gov Guy Hunt to remain out of prison, even though he was convicted of putting dollars in his pocket. In comparison, Siegelman put nothing in his pocket from contributions to the lottery campaign. I do not know of any Governor who did not have third parties pay for TV, radio and newspaper ads on constitutional issue brought before the voters.

Here is the full Bronner statement from 2007:

I am not a buddy of former Gov Don Siegelman's staff, who did their best to harm the RSA and me. . . . I am convinced that if Scrushy had been convicted in the Birmingham trial (2002), the case involving the ex-Gov would never have seen the light of day.

In regards to the others involved with this trial, I have the utmost respect for U.S. Prosecutor Steve Feaga (I have not met the other prosecutors), as my son is a prosecutor for the Dist Atty of NYC. On the other hand, I do not like U.S. Dist Judge Fuller nor does he like me. The RSA had to go through the entire state court system to prevent Fuller's buddy from ripping off the RSA. Shortly thereafter, Judge Fuller tried to sandbag the RSA by preventing our claim (by doing nothing) against the ultimate crook--Enron! Fortunately RSA prevailed. . .

Siegelman was no different than any other Gov I have worked with or against! When Feaga worked with the state, he allowed former Gov Guy Hunt to remain out of prison, even though he was convicted of putting dollars in his pocket. In comparison, Siegelman put nothing in his pocket from contributions to the lottery campaign. I do not know of any Governor who did not have third parties pay for TV, radio and newspaper ads on constitutional issues brought before the voters.

When comparing Alabama to other parts of America, Gov Siegelman was given 88 months (7 yrs, 4 months), while U.S.Congressman Bob Ney from Ohio received 30 months for bribery, Super Washington, D.C., crook, Jack Abramoff, only received six years. Politics is a serious full-contact sport in Alabama, yet I hope the highly respected 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will quickly restore reasonableness to Alabama.

The bottom line? David Bronner clearly hoped an appellate court would overturn Leura Canary's handiwork. This indicates that Bronner has little, if any, respect for Canary's abilities as a lawyer. So why does David Bronner now want to hire her?

Remembering the Schnauzer Who Inspired A Blog

Murphy as a puppy

Folks who follow Legal Schnauzer pretty closely might have noticed in recent days that we have a new header. You might say that the header is our "mission statement," a brief summary of what this blog is about.

We recently passed the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, which many churches around the country celebrate with a "Blessing of the Animals" on or near October 4. Francis of Assisi was the patron saint of animals and the environment--and he is one of the most beloved religious figures in history.

It seemed appropriate that the idea to change our blog's header would come in early October. I've never been real pleased with the header we've used since the blog's inception in June 2007. Here is how it read:

Legal Schnauzer

One couple's encounter with corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent prosecutors in Alabama. . . and how you can avoid being cheated by the vermin who make a mockery of our justice system.

That certainly is accurate. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have encountered "corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent prosecutors" and they most definitely are "vermin" who "make a mockery of our justice system."

But there is nothing very hopeful about that header--nothing that indicates maybe we can do something about these problems and the people who cause them. Plus, it sort of makes me sound like a crank. (The fact that I am a crank is beside the point; I don't want to sound like one.)

Perhaps worst of all, the header provides no hint about why the blog is called what it's called. And I am convinced that the distinctive title is a major reason this blog has resonated with more people than I ever dreamed possible.

In fact, an individual who has been the subject of quite a few posts here recently told me, "You know, people ask me all the time about Legal Schnauzer. And I think that title is one reason. It seems to connect with people."

Needless to say, those words warmed my heart. That's because this blog never has been about the anger, frustration, and fear we've experienced at the hands of our broken justice system--although those certainly are key elements to the story. At the risk of becoming overly ethereal, Legal Schnauzer has been, for the missus and me, like a divine calling.

Murphy as a big girl

It really is inspired by Murphy Abigail Shuler, the miniature schnauzer who was a guiding light in our lives from the day we adopted her in March 1993 until her death on January 14, 2004. She was with us, literally, through the first four years of our trip through legal hell. She is with us, spiritually, today.

Our journey with Murphy started on a blustery day when we drove to a breeder's home in what might be called the "backwoods of the Black Belt," about 15 miles south of Selma, Alabama. That journey continues now, even though we no longer can rub on Murphy's "brick house" of a bod, or play hide and seek with her, or feel her sleeping between us at night.

Legal Schnauzer, in essence, says "a little dog shall lead them." And that's why I think our new header is a major improvement on the old one. Here it is:

The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.

That's short and sweet--and it says exactly what I want it to say. Too bad it took more than four years for me to think of it.

We've written extensively about Murphy, and what she meant to us. Here are just a few of those posts:

Why Legal Schnauzer?

More on Murphy

A Hole In Our Hearts

Lessons From Our Pets

Once I figured out how to convert photo prints into digital images, readers could see pictures of "The Original Legal Schnauzer."

But there is something about Murphy I've never shared with readers--she was a television star. On October 5, 1997, Mrs. Schnauzer and I took Murphy to the Blessing of the Animals at All Saints' Episcopal Church in Homewood, Alabama.

Here is the blessing that the priest gave to Murphy, and the other animals, that day:

Bless O Lord, Murphy, that she may be a faithful companion and a blessing to those who love her.

Murphy lived those words to the fullest, and they still bring tears to my eyes.

After the service that day, we hung around to talk with several people, and rub a lot of furry heads. We were one of the last to leave, and as we were about to get in the car to head home, a crew from a local television station showed up.

The priest asked if we would help recreate Murphy's blessing for the TV cameras. We were happy to do that, of course, and so our girl was featured on the evening news. We've converted our videotape of the program to a digital format, so Murphy now can live on through YouTube.

You can check out the news report below. Murphy is the schnauzer being held by her mom at the beginning and end of the clip. Enjoy.

Ted Rollins: The Poster Boy for Greed on Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement

In October 2010, CEO Ted Rollins helped Campus Crest Communities complete a Wall Street IPO of more than $350 million.

In October 2011, we reported that Ted Rollins' ex wife and his two teen-aged daughters are on food stamps in Alabama.

That provides all the information you need to know about the kind of people who are favored in America's high-stakes financial sector. It also puts a new face on the protests against Wall Street that are sweeping the nation.

Ted Rollins teaches us an important lesson: Corporate fat cats not only will screw around with the general public, causing untold harm to our economy on a macro scale; they also are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling" on a micro scale, in some cases cheating their own children.

Here is another lesson to remember: Behind most crooked CEOs is a crooked lawyer--or in some cases, a whole army of crooked lawyers. Everyday Americans should not be angry with just corporate titans; they also should direct heavy-duty anger toward lawyers, who too often serve as nothing more than grossly overpaid enablers.

Author Naomi Klein has called the Occupy Wall Street movement "the most important thing in the world now." Writes Klein:

Today everyone can see that the system is deeply unjust and careening out of control. Unfettered greed has trashed the global economy. And it is trashing the natural world as well. We are overfishing our oceans, polluting our water with fracking and deepwater drilling, turning to the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, like the Alberta tar sands. And the atmosphere cannot absorb the amount of carbon we are putting into it, creating dangerous warming. The new normal is serial disasters: economic and ecological.

I would take Klein's sentiments one step further: Too many CEOs simply do not care about our Constitution, the rule of law, and fundamental matters of right and wrong; too many CEOs do not care about their fellow humans. In the case of Ted Rollins, that appears to include his own flesh and blood.

How far was Ted Rollins willing to go in order to avoid paying a reasonable amount of alimony to his ex wife (Sherry Carroll Rollins) and child support for their two daughters? Here's how we spelled it out in a previous post:

Sherry Rollins had sued for divorce in Greenville, South Carolina, where the family had lived, and adultery was one of the primary grounds she cited. A South Carolina judge had issued a temporary order that called for Ted Rollins to pay $3,355 a month in child support, $5,000 a month in alimony, and continue paying the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital home.

When the mortgage went unpaid, Sherry Rollins and her children were forced from their home. Mrs. Rollins fled to Alabama, where her two sons from a previous marriage were living. Contrary to black-letter law, Ted Rollins was allowed to sue Sherry Rollins in Alabama and wound up with a reduction of roughly $2,500 in his monthly child support and $4,500 in his monthly alimony.

What a deal! No wonder this guy's rich.

How did Ted Rollins pull off this little scam? He didn't do it on his own. He has close ties to the powerful, "pro business" Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant. Prominent matrimonial lawyer G. John Durward, of the firm Durward & Cromer, filed the case in Alabama. Someone persuaded Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson to unlawfully take a case where jurisdiction already had been established in another state.

Ted Rollins

See what we mean about enablers?

Ted Rollins doesn't seem to appreciate our reporting on the Rollins v. Rollins case. In fact, he recently threatened me with a lawsuit for reporting accurately on his activities, based on public documents and/or multiple published reports. That reminds me of a key theme from Paul Krugman, of The New York Times, in a piece titled "Panic of the Plutocrats." Writes Krugman:

Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. . . . They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees--basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny--and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage.

Ted Rollins has tried that stunt with me, but it's not going to work. We have much more to come about one of America's corporate titans and how he conducts his affairs--both inside and outside the boardroom. Those who have followed our reporting know that Rollins v. Rollins is an ugly story. It's about to get much uglier in the near future.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, so far, has been protesting against a faceless foe. But corporate titans who chip away at our democracy do, indeed, have faces. One of them belongs to Ted Rollins.

Leura and Bill Canary: The Marriage of a GOP Power Couple Is on the Rocks

Leura Canary

The marriage of Leura and Bill Canary, a Republican power couple with connections to several scandals of the Bush/Rove era, is on shaky ground. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the Canarys might be headed for an acrimonious divorce. If that happens, it could have implications for several justice-related stories from the past decade or so.

Leura Canary was the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama until she announced her retirement on May 27, serving throughout the Bush administration and for more than two years of Barack Obama's term. She was at the helm for the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, perhaps the most notorious politically driven case in American history.

Bill Canary is president of the Business Council of Alabama and has long-term ties to GOP guru Karl Rove and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue. Jill Simpson, an Alabama lawyer and whistleblower, stated under oath before Congress that she participated in a conference call in which Bill Canary outlined a plan to prosecute Siegelman, with the apparent knowledge of Rove and the Bush White House.

Both Canarys have strong ties to former Alabama Governor Bob Riley, who "defeated" Siegelman in a 2002 election that almost certainly was determined by vote fraud, with votes for Siegelman mysteriously disappearing overnight in Baldwin County.

Bill Canary

A thirst for power in conservative circles seems to have fed the Canary marriage. But now it is on the rocks, sources tell Legal Schnauzer. Could the Canarys wind up like two snakes, coiled and hissing at each other? That's what we are hearing. Could the question become: Who will strike first? If it does, consider some of the dirt they probably have on each other:

* Leura probably knows about Bill's role in planning certain political prosecutions;

* Bill probably knows about Leura's role in executing certain political prosecutions;

* Leura probably knows about Bill's efforts, along with Rove and Donohue, to essentially buy state supreme courts in the Deep South;

* Bill probably knows about the massive GOP corruption to which Leura turned a blind eye;

* Leura probably knows how former BCA executive Ralph Stacy really died--and why.

If the Canarys go down the divorce path, our guess is that heavily monied interests will try to keep the dirt from slinging too far and too fast, making sure it stays out of the public domain.

But if that containment effort fails, and the Canary marriage continues to crumble, it could become a story of national significance.

CEO With Deep Pockets Has Children on Food Stamps in Alabama

Ted Rollins

The CEO of a student-housing development company has an ex wife and two daughters who are on food stamps in Alabama.

Ted Rollins, the head of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, helped his company complete a $380-million IPO late last year. And a South Carolina divorce-court judge found that Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families and has the use of multiple private aircraft. But Rollins managed to get the divorce case unlawfully moved to Alabama, and the resulting judgment means that his ex wife and two daughters  qualify for food stamps.

Sherry Carroll Rollins said she and the girls now are on food stamps--and have been for some time. That's because Alabama Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson ordered Ted Rollins to pay only $500 in alimony and $815 in child support--a monthly total of $1,315. Our research indicates that is a shockingly low level of support for a man of Rollins' means, a CEO whose family owns Orkin Pest Control and other highly profitable enterprises.

As a comparison, we recently reported that football star Terrell Owens pays $5,000 a month in support of one child. In other words, Ted Rollins pays less than one-fifth what Terrell Owens pays--for twice as many children. Owens is a rich fellow, by most standards, but it's doubtful his net worth even approaches that of Ted Rollins.

Did Ted Rollins get a sweet deal in Alabama? You be the judge. Is this a sensitive topic for the CEO? Well, he threatened to sue me last week because of my reporting on Rollins v. Rollins.

How did Ted Rollins, who regularly flies around the country on private jets, manage to get a support judgment that might be expected for a janitor, a school teacher, or a journalist? We are continuing to investigate that question. But one answer appears to rest with a CS-41 form, an Alabama child-support document that is signed under penalty of perjury. (See the front and back of the Alabama CS-41 form below, followed by Ted Rollins' CS-41.)

Ted Rollins stated under oath that his income was $4,166.67 a month, from employment at Reynolds Mortgage and Investment Co. of Brentwood, Tennessee. That comes to $50,000.04 per year--and Rollins listed that as his only income.

The CS-41 is dated April 27, 2005, and published reports show that Campus Crest Communities already had started at that point, with Rollins as CEO. The South Carolina court found that Rollins was president of St. James Capital LLC, an investment firm he founded with his cousin--R. Randall Rollins, chairman of Rollins Inc. in Atlanta. The South Carolina judge found that the Rollins family is "extremely wealthy."

Crescent Center

When Rollins v. Rollins was moved to Alabama, Ted Rollins suddenly no longer was involved with St. James Capital. You read that correctly: When his divorce case commenced in South Carolina, where jurisdiction clearly rested, Ted Rollins was president of St. James Capital. When the case unlawfully shifted to Alabama, he suddenly had no ties to St. James Capital. How intriguing! How convenient!

What happened to Ted Rollins' interest in that company, plus his interest in Campus Crest and other ventures? They seemingly vanished when Rollins v. Rollins took center stage in Shelby County, Alabama.

And that's not all. Ted Rollins was a major player behind the Crescent Center, a development in Greenville, South Carolina, that offers 750,000 square feet of manufacturing, distribution, and office space. Rollins derived no income from that sizable project?

Based on his CS-41 form, Ted Rollins appears to be a regular working stiff, a guy making a relatively paltry sum of 50 grand a year. But the CS-41 goes beyond "salary," requiring a declaration regarding many forms of income--the kind that wealthy people, such as Ted Rollins, often have. The instructions are found on the back side of the CS-41, under the title "Examples Of Income That Must Be Declared In Your Gross Monthly Income." It's pretty hard to miss. Here is what must be declared:

EXAMPLES OF INCOME THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN YOUR GROSS MONTHLY INCOME  

1. Employment Income--shall include, but not be limited to, salary, wages, bonuses, commissions, severance pay, worker’s compensation, pension income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and Social Security benefits.

2. Self–Employment Income--shall include, but not be limited to, income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, or joint ownership of a partnership or closely held corporation. “Gross income” means gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce this income.

3. Other Employment-Related Income--shall include, but not be limited to, the average monthly value of any expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received in the course of employment that are significant and reduce personal living expenses, such as a furnished automobile, a clothing allowance, and a housing allowance.

4. Other Non-Employment Related Income--shall include, but not be limited to, dividends, interest, annuities, capital gains, gifts, prizes, and pre-existing periodic alimony.

Ted Rollins is from an "extremely wealthy" family, but he had none of these sources of income, only $50,000 from a mortgage company in Tennessee? Does this "strain credulity"?

The bottom line is this: Public documents show that someone administered a colossal cheat job to Sherry Carroll Rollins and her daughters. Because of that, the Rollins household in Alabama now qualifies for government assistance, funded by taxpayers.

The story of corruption connected to Rollins v. Rollins goes beyond one family, two states, two courtrooms and a series of judges. Someone wanted to make sure that Ted Rollins did not have to pay a reasonable sum for the support of his ex wife and children. Someone wanted to make sure that Sherry Carroll Rollins did not receive a share of the "marital assets," to which she was entitled under the law.

As a result, taxpayers are making up a tiny portion of the difference, in the form of food stamps. This helps ensure that Sherry Rollins and her daughters can make it through the month with something to eat. Does this situation trouble Ted Rollins? We've sent him questions in writing, but he has not responded--other than to threaten me with a lawsuit.

Moral of the story? Corruption in Shelby County, Alabama, is not just my problem or Sherry Rollins' problem. It's everyone's problem.


Alabama CS-41 Form (Front and Back)


Rollins CS-41 Form

Universities Are All Too Happy to Accept Cash From Shady Sources

Donna Shalala and Nevin Shapiro (center)

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment in the evolving University of Miami athletics scandal came with the release of a  photograph that featured UM President Donna Shalala accepting a $50,000 check from booster Nevin Shapiro.

Unfortunately for UM, Shapiro turned out to be the architect of a $930-million Ponzi scheme and now resides in federal prison. Perhaps worse than that, Shalala was wearing a goofy grin as she accepted Shapiro's check.

What do we learn from this photo? University administrators love to get their greedy hands on cash--from almost any source. As long as the check clears, folks in the "ivory tower" aren't likely to ask too many questions. And that raises this question: How much dirty money circulates on America's college campuses? The answer probably is "quite a bit."

We have one piece of good news for Shalala: She's hardly alone in academia; quite a few of her colleagues are more than happy to grab easy money from questionable sources. Let's consider just two examples that we are aware of here in Alabama.

In 2002, the University of Alabama--that's the mother ship, in Tuscaloosa--rolled out a press release to announce that Paul Bryant Jr. had given $10 million to help launch the Crimson Tradition Fund. Bryant, the son of legendary UA football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, was named chairman of the campaign, which was designed to raise $100 million for Crimson Tide athletics. Bryant also was a member of the university's board of trustees, a position he still holds.

With Bryant's cash in the hopper, UA was able to attract other big gifts, like this one from the president of a Texas-based natural-gas outfit. Not only did Bryant pony up some serious dough, he became one of the campaign's chief arm twisters and its public voice:

Bryant, who chairs the Crimson Tradition Fund, made his gift at this time to offer leadership to the 27 members of the Crimson Tradition Fund Executive Committee who are also preparing their own gifts and beginning their soliciting of key supporters of the drive.

“This campaign will allow our fans, friends and alumni to support the Crimson Tide in a meaningful way,” said Bryant. “Our goal is to raise $50 million in commitments from the private sector.”

The other $50 million of the $100 million total will come from a public bond issue offered for the construction of the north end zone of Bryant-Denny Stadium. Bond monies would be repaid through ticket sales revenue.

Did anyone in Tuscaloosa ask this obvious question: "How did Paul Bryant Jr. come to have so much cash lying around?" Mal Moore, the long-time UA athletics director and a major Bryant crony, was not about to do that. If Moore had an inquiring mind, he might have discovered that one of Bryant's companies, Alabama Reassurance, had been implicated in a $15-million insurance fraud scheme that helped draw a 15-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania man named Allen W. Stewart. The Stewart conviction came in 1997--and public documents show that Bryant's company was in the middle of the sleaze. And yet, just five years later, Bryant was launching the Crimson Tradition campaign.

Paul Bryant Jr. (right) and Mal Moore

Did anyone in the UA hierarchy bother to inquire about the source of Bryant's funds? Is it possible that the powerhouse Crimson Tide football program, currently ranked No. 2 in the country, is fueled partly by the proceeds from insurance fraud? The answers appear to be no and yes.

Tuscaloosa is not the only campus in the UA system to grab cash from a curious source. Consider the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and businessman William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig. With his ties to real estate, oil and gas exploration, gaming, and other enterprises, Hazelrig was able to give UAB $5 million toward construction of the Hazelrig-Salter Radiation Oncology Facility. It's believed to be the largest individual gift in the university's history.

Did anyone at UAB look into Hazelrig's background before accepting his check. President Carol Garrison, who has her own history of shaky ethics, had no interest in asking questions. We, however, did some sniffing on the "Chipster"--and here is what we found:

* He has strong ties to the gambling industry and has been a key investor in Paragon Gaming, which currently is planning to build a major resort in Canada. Former Alabama Governor Bob Riley returned a $10,000 donation when he learned of Hazelrig's ties to gaming. (Hazelrig appears to be a staunch Republican, with documented ties to the Riley clan.)

* He has a hideous driving record. Court records show that Hazelrig has about 20 convictions for traffic-related offenses. These include a DUI and a speeding ticket for driving more than 100 miles per hour.

Chip Hazelrig and Carol Garrison (both far right)

* He has curious connections to the mysterious death of Alabama lawyer Major Bashinsky, which has been ruled a suicide even though there is zero scientific evidence to support that finding. One of Hazelrig's companies, W&H Investments, was embroiled in a lawsuit with the Estate of Sloan Bashinsky in the months leading up to Major's death. The elder Bashinsky had invested some $37 million with W&H, and his son's disappearance coincides with a lawsuit the estate filed in order to receive an accounting of those investments. Here is how we described it in an earlier post:

Court records indicate the Bashinsky estate never received much of the information it was seeking, but the lawsuit officially was settled on March 1, 2010. Two days later, Major Bashinsky was reported missing. His body was found floating in a Birmingham golf-course pond on March 15, and nine days later, authorities ruled it a suicide.

We might never know for sure how Major Bashinsky died. But we do know this much: An estate was seeking an accounting of Chip Hazelrig's investment records, and a member of the family wound up dead under horrifying circumstances. Since then, another member of the Bashinsky family, first cousin Charles "Bubba" Major, has died from a reported suicide. Bubba Major had publicly expressed doubts that Major Bashinsky actually killed  himself--and now Bubba Major himself is gone.

That disturbing chain of events, whether they are related or not, started with a lawsuit against Chip Hazelrig's company, the source (we assume) of quite a bit of the cash he donated to UAB.

Does that trouble anyone at UAB? We've seen no sign that it does. Chip Hazelrig's check must have cleared, and that's all the university cares about.

Did Federal Judge in Alabama Immigration-Law Case Benefit from Organized Crime?

Sharon Blackburn

A federal judge who last week upheld most of Alabama's immigration law benefited from organized crime in the state's domestic-relations courts, according to a lawsuit filed four years ago.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn held that key provisions in the Alabama immigration law are constitutional, making it the strictest such measure in the nation. But a 2007 federal lawsuit alleges that Blackburn was the beneficiary of unconstitutional actions by certain judges and lawyers in an Alabama divorce court. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that a hunting club in central Alabama was the focal point of an organized crime ring that fixed divorce cases in order to benefit Blackburn and other favored parties--and their lawyers.

A specially appointed federal judge from Georgia dismissed the lawsuit on technical grounds in March 2008. But U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield found that a key argument in the lawsuit "obviously was not frivolous." And for the purposes of his ruling, Edenfield states, the court was required to find many of the alleged facts as true.

The lawsuit does not claim that Judge Blackburn was involved in the organized-crime ring or that she knew she was to benefit from its activities. But it does raise at least two thorny questions:

* What did Judge Blackburn know and when did she know it?

* Was Blackburn's ruling on Alabama's immigration law tainted by her own possible connections to organized crime?

This much seems clear: Now that the hunting club lawsuit has been resolved, Judge Blackburn is aware of serious allegations against the legal community in her home state. Under the ethics rules of the bar, Blackburn is required to report such misconduct to the proper tribunal for investigation. Has she fulfilled her ethical duty or has she remained silent in order to protect the lawyers and judges who helped her obtain a favorable divorce ruling?

Based on the silence of the mainstream media on the issue, it appears that Judge Blackburn chose the latter course.

Joseph W. Blackburn, Judge Blackburn's ex husband, filed the hunting-club lawsuit on January 25, 2007, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and other wrongs. Joe Blackburn hardly is your standard-issue litigant. He is a certified public accountant and professor of taxation at Cumberland School of Law on the campus of Samford University in Birmingham. His teaching and research interests include corporate taxation, basic federal income tax, estate and gift taxation, business planning, accounting for lawyers, and international tax.

Joe Blackburn clearly is not a frivolous guy. He also does not appear to take kindly to being getting hammered in a divorce case, which is exactly what appears to have happened. Did U.S. Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, when the divorce case commenced, know what was going to happen to her soon-to-be ex husband?

If your tax dollars help fund federal courts--and they almost certainly do, regardless of where you live--that question should be worth pondering.

Joseph Blackburn

We have written before about the hunting-club problem in Alabama courts. It actually involves two federal lawsuits. In the first, Blackburn was a plaintiff, representing himself against certain judge/lawyer defendants. In the second, Blackburn served as an attorney, representing others who claim to have been the victims of corruption in Alabama divorce courts.

For now, we will focus on the first lawsuit, but we soon will be writing extensively about the second. It speaks volumes about the ugly culture in Alabama's legal community--and at Cumberland School of Law, where Joe Blackburn has been threatened with loss of his job for bringing the hunting-club allegations to light.

Who were the key players in the RICO enterprise? Joe Blackburn names them in the first lawsuit as former Alabama state-court judge John C. Calhoun and "known attorney defendants" Charles Gorham, George Richard Fernambucq, and L. Stephen Wright.

Fernambucq, of the Birmingham firm Boyd Fernambucq & Dunn, represented Joe Blackburn in the divorce case. Wright, of the Birmingham firm Najjar Denaburg, represented Sharon Blackburn. Calhoun presided over the case. And Gorham, of the Birmingham firm Gorham & Cason, is identified as a key organizer of the hunting club.

Blackburn's lawsuit raises perhaps the dirtiest secret in the legal profession--one that I have personally witnessed over and over. Blackburn alleges that his own lawyer, Fernambucq, worked against him--at the behest of the judge and opposing counsel. This might be shocking stuff to regular citizens, but it's not to me. After 10-plus years of battling legal corruption, Schnauzer Rule No. 1 is this: "Your worst enemy in any legal case could very well be your own lawyer, especially if a corrupt judge is involved." A lawyer's duty to a rogue judge will take precedence over his duty to you every time.

How did the hunting club work against Joe Blackburn? He states in his complaint:

Fernambucq and Wright then failed to disclose to (Blackburn) that they and Calhoun were all part of the RICO conspiracy. . . . This persisted despite plaintiff's urging them to seek Calhoun's recusal since his wife was a federal judge in the Alabama Northern District (which encompassed the Blackburn domestic relations court forum).

How did the hunting club operate behind the scenes to fix divorce cases in Jefferson County, Alabama? From Edenfield's ruling:

So, Blackburn maintains, corrupt judges threw cases and inflated attorney-fee awards to fellow enterprise members, and those who benefited provided substantial assistance and provided cover for such conduct. . . . In other words, judges were "paid" by having Hunting Club lawyers absorb the judges' Hunting Club membership costs--the judges were allowed to hunt gratis as "honorary members." And the benefiting attorneys would then stream some of their ill-gotten (attorney fee awards inflated by the judge) gains back to the judge in the form of campaign contributions to ensure his re-election.

How did this work against Joe Blackburn and other non-favored litigants in divorce court? Writes Edenfield:

The public therefore suffered and continues to suffer from this scheme, Blackburn concludes. To get justice before the "RICO judges," then, one must now hire a "Hunting Club lawyer," and opponents will be subjected to tainted rulings and inflated attorney-fee awards. On top of that, all of the defendants additionally conspired to keep this entire scheme secret.

This all hit home for Joe Blackburn in a bottom-line sort of way--an injury that a tax-law professor was sure to notice. He was awarded joint custody of the couple's minor children and various items of marital property, but he was ordered to pay gross alimony of $285,000 and his wife's attorney fees in the amount of $22,500. Joe Blackburn alleged that he lost $750,000 due to Judge Calhoun's "refusal to consider and divide spouse's accrued deferred federal compensation benefits."

How badly have Joe Blackburn and other non-favored parties been damaged by corruption in Alabama divorce courts? Is the hunting club, reportedly located in Lowndes County, still acting as an organized-crime ring? Is U.S. Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn fully aware of unsavory activities in rural Alabama--and choosing to remain quiet about them? If so, does she have any business ruling on Alabama's immigration law--or any other matter that might come before the federal bench?

In short, is Sharon Blackburn fit to serve as a federal judge?

We will be addressing these questions in future posts. But for now, the public should consider two curious storylines in Joe Blackburn's lawsuit:

* The case was dismissed purely on technical grounds--judicial immunity, statute of limitations, and res judicata. Because of that, Joe Blackburn never was allowed to conduct the discovery that was needed to prove his case. The judge who dismissed the case plainly states that Blackburn's claims are "not fantastical" and notes that Blackburn was given no opportunity to conduct discovery in the case.

* The specially appointed judge seems to go to extraordinary lengths to protect his colleague, Sharon Lovelace Blackburn. The 31-page ruling makes multiple references to the fact that Joe Blackburn was married to a federal judge. But it never mentions her name.

Sharon Blackburn now is known around the country because of her ruling on Alabama's immigration law. Perhaps the public should take note of her connections to a notorious Alabama hunting club--one that smells an awful lot like an organized-crime ring.

Here's a Nominee for "Stupidest Thing Ever Said by a Democrat"

We recently identified Alabamian Jere Beasley as a peculiar political animal--a DWDVD (Democrat Who Doesn't Vote for Democrats).

Beasley, the former lieutenant governor of Alabama and probably the best-known trial lawyer in the state, obviously is not a stupid guy. But that did not keep him from recently making perhaps the most stupid political utterance I've ever heard.

It comes from the May issue of The Jere Beasley Report, the monthly newsletter of the Montgomery-based Beasley Allen law firm. Beasley, the firm's founding partner, is discussing the Obama administration's appointment of George Beck as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. In the process, Beasley offers his opinion on Beck's predecessor, Bush appointee Leura Canary.

Here is what Beasley said about a woman who orchestrated the political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, a woman who might rank as the most corrupt federal prosecutor in U.S. history:

I may be the only “Democrat” in Alabama who believes that Leura has done a good job, but the truth is, she really has.

What do we know about Leura Canary? Based on the sworn testimony of multiple individuals, her prosecution team:

* Blatantly coached key Siegelman-case witness Nick Bailey;

* Repeatedly threatened and bullied Bailey into providing the desired testimony;

* Failed to turn over key materials to the defense.

We also know that Canary remained involved in the case after she claimed to have recused herself.

Does this sound like someone who did "a good job"? Has Jere Beasley been smoking some powerful weed?

Isn't it interesting that Beasley calls himself a "Democrat." Do the quotation marks mean he really is not a Democrat? That seems to be the case, especially given that Beasley's firm has made it a habit to work on legal cases with Rob Riley, son of former GOP Governor Bob Riley.

Beasley gives the appearance of being a deeply religious fellow. His monthly newsletters are filled with quotations from The Bible and stories with Christian themes. We are wondering if Beasley has developed a bit of a God complex. He constantly refers in his newsletter to someone who is "a good lawyer" or someone who has "done a good job" on a particular case. He almost never offers any evidence to support these conclusions; he merely makes statements, as if they are coming from Mount Sinai. The message seems to be: If Jere Beasley says something, it must be so--and no one should question it.

It's possible that Beasley has been breathing the rarefied air of the Beasley Allen firm so long that he thinks everyday Alabamians can't figure out his con game--that they will believe Leura Canary did a "good job" as U.S. attorney, just because Jere Beasley said it.

With elder statesmen like Jere Beasley, the Alabama Democratic Party probably is going nowhere fast.

Here is a link to the May issue of The Jere Beasley Report. The piece about George Beck and Leura Canary is on page 3:

The Jere Beasley Report, May 2011

CEO Threatens A Lawsuit Against Legal Schnauzer

Ted Rollins

The CEO of a student-housing development company is threatening to take legal action against me.

Ted Rollins, the head of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, stated in an e-mail dated September 23 that "to the extent false or misleading information is published" about him or his company that he would pursue "all legal means available."

By "legal means," to remedy "false or misleading information," I assume Rollins is referring to a possible defamation lawsuit against me. There is only one problem with Mr. Rollins' threat--I haven't written anything false or misleading about him or his company. Everything I've written is supported by public documents and/or multiple press reports.

Ten minutes after I received Rollins' statement, sent via a spokesperson named Jason Chudoba, I received a letter from a lawyer named Chad W. Essick, of the Raleigh, North Carolina, law firm of Poyner Spruill. The letter was attached to an e-mail and informed me that Mr. Essick represents Ted Rollins and would be monitoring my future posts. It stated that Mr. Rollins might be "forced to protect his reputation and that of his company." (See the full letter at the end of this post.)

Why are Ted Rollins and his lawyer sending threatening missives to Legal Schnauzer? For one, we've written extensively about Mr. Rollins and his ties to Alabama, especially an alarming divorce case he filed in Shelby County against Sherry Carroll Rollins, his former wife and now a Birmingham resident. That lawsuit, styled Rollins v. Rollins, was handled in a blatantly unlawful manner--especially considering that Mrs. Rollins already had filed a divorce action against Mr. Rollins in Greenville, South Carolina, where the couple lived at the time. With jurisdiction already established in one state, it could not lawfully be moved to another. But it was, and Ted Rollins wound up with a hugely favorable result. He pays only $815 a month in child support for the couple's two daughters, plus $500 a month in alimony--a paltry sum for a man who belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families, with a company that completed a $380-million IPO last year. Ted Rollins and his lawyer friends at the Birmingham firm of Bradley Arant probably are not happy that I am reporting on the Rollins v. Rollins case.

Second, I've written about a number of unsavory issues connected to Campus Crest Communities, which is planning a $26.3-million development at Auburn University here in Alabama. Several current or former employees have filed lawsuits, claiming the company practices race and sex discrimination. We also have reported on a recent balcony collapse at a new Campus Crest development near the University of North Texas, which sent three young men to the hospital.

I suspect that Mr. Rollins and his lawyer, Mr. Essick, are most concerned about my coverage of personal matters connected to the divorce case. Rollins' threats are ironic because I spoke with him via telephone on July 11 and requested an interview. He informed me that he doesn't give interviews to "bloggers," apparently even ones with 30-plus years of professional journalism experience. If I sent him questions in writing, Rollins stated, he would be "more than happy" to answer them.

Turns out that wasn't exactly true. I did send Rollins written questions, the first set dealing with his child-support payments that were roughly two weeks late for the month of September. He did not respond to those questions, but Sherry Rollins informed me that the child support soon was paid.

The second set of questions concerned actions by Ted Rollins and Michele Rollins in Jamaica and Colorado, where the family has business interests. Michele Rollins is the widow of John W. Rollins, Ted's late father, and she is a prominent figure in Republican Party politics. Michele Rollins is close to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she ran for a Congressional seat from Delaware in 2010.

Something in my second set of questions apparently alarmed Ted Rollins. Instead of answering them in a "more than happy" fashion, he threatened me with legal action. Here is his full response:

All claims and accusations listed in your e-mails dated 20 September 2011 and 14 September 2011 are absolutely false and completely unfounded. Any and all issues between me and my ex-wife have long been settled in court. I have always provided for my children and maintain an excellent relationship with them. I would encourage you to make sure all statements you make about me or my company are true and can be supported by facts. To the extent false or misleading information is published about me or my company, I will be compelled to protect the reputation of myself and my company through all legal means available.

I responded to Rollins and his lawyer via e-mail on September 26. I noted that the lawsuit business can cut both ways:

Mr. Essick:

I am in receipt of your letter, via e-mail, dated Sept. 23, 2011. Please be advised that every article I have written about Ted Rollins and Campus Crest Communities has been thoroughly researched and is supported by public documents and/or multiple press reports. The same will hold true for every article I write about Ted Rollins and Campus Crest Communities in the future.

Your letter alleges that my articles include false or misleading information, but it provides nothing to support that charge. That's because there is nothing to support that charge. You also allude to "allegations" in my e-mails that Mr. Rollins claims are false. In fact, my e-mail contains questions, sent at Mr. Rollins request, not allegations. The questions are based on reports from multiple witnesses who were present in Jamaica at the time, and I have written documents upon which I based these questions.

One of the questions in my e-mail is based on a public document from a South Carolina court, citing information that Mr. Rollins himself provided. In essence, Mr. Rollins now is claiming that information he provided in a court of law is false. What does that say about Mr. Rollins' credibility?

I am a professional reporter and editor, with a degree in journalism and more than 30 years of experience in the field. I also am well acquainted with communications law.

Please be advised that if anyone files a groundless lawsuit against me, I will immediately respond with a countersuit for abuse of process and any other applicable torts against the party and his attorney. I also will seek sanctions and costs against the attorney under Rule 11.

Rest assured that I will protect my rights as a journalist and a citizen. I'm hopeful that the actions noted above will not be necessary.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you actually research my articles, and the public documents and press reports upon which they are based, before firing off a threatening letter that is not supported by fact or law.

Sincerely,

Roger Shuler

Want some more irony? Ted Rollins is riled up, and I haven't even started writing in detail about the most serious issues connected to his divorce case. If he's ticked off now, his mood is not likely to improve in the coming weeks.

Below is the letter from Chad W. Essick:


Ted Rollins--Lawsuit Threat