Lindsey Buckingham Provides a Soundtrack for the Sorry State of Affairs in Postmodern America

We are overdue for a musical interlude, and with both political conventions now completed, this seems like a good time to ponder tunes that reflect our social condition heading into fall 2012.

For that, we turn to Fleetwood Mac's Lindsey Buckingham, who might top our list of favorite musicians over the past 45 years or so--at least among artists who are mere mortals. Don Henley (Eagles), John Fogerty (Credence Clearwater Revival), Burton Cummings (Guess Who), and Robert Lamm (Chicago) would be other strong competitors for the No. 1 spot. (We would have to designate Lennon and McCartney as immortals, deserving of their own private pantheon.)

At the least, Buckingham would be tied for No. 1 on our list, even though he once rarely ventured into political or social territory. That has gradually changed over the past 10 years, both in his solo work and his occasional forays with the still mega-band Fleetwood Mac.

If I had to pick the five most profound issues facing our nation heading into the November elections, the list definitely would include these two:

(1) The expanding income gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else;

(2) The failure of the mainstream press to hold public officials accountable, especially on matters of justice;

I recently realized that two Buckingham tunes, one of recent vintage and one that goes back about a decade, address both of these weighty matters. The first is from his most recent solo release, 2011's Seeds We Sow. "One Take" is a biting, searing commentary on the dangers of greed. To my ears, "One Take" is a complex, multi-layered tune, with several possible storylines going on at once.

First, the chorus hearkens to Buckingham's folk roots by borrowing from Brewer and Shipley's 1971 classic, "One Toke Over the Line." Second, the lyrics could be a meditation on fame, focusing possibly on a bad actor in the world of film or stage. ("I've got a publicist who covers up the avarice.") Finally, Buckingham dispenses with ambiguity and seems to make it clear that this bad actor is from the ugliest side of the corporate world:

I'm just another madman 

Looking for another fall 

And I got to make a killing

Cause a journey of a billion 

Always starts with something small 

I'm just another madman 

I turn it off, I turn it on 

And I won't be denied 

No, I won't be satisfied 

Til the middle class is gone.

The character at the heart of this song is not a nice guy. Sounds like he could host a Mitt Romney fundraiser.

Let's give "One Take" a listen:





Perhaps Buckingham's turn toward social commentary started with "Murrow (Turning Over In His Grave)," from Fleetwood Mac's 2003 release, Say You Will. Behind a blistering musical track, Buckingham mocks a somnolent mainstream press that has come to be owned by corporate interests. Here is a live version of "Murrow," featuring Buckingham's solo band:





"One Take" and "Murrow" definitely fall in the category of quirky, left-of-center songs for which Buckingham has become known. But he still is capable of turning out pop classics that would fit in the Top 40. One example from Seeds We Sow is "When She Comes Down," which features the kind of gorgeous, layered vocals that evoke the Beach Boys of the Pet Sounds era. It has a celestial, otherworldly feel, and one YouTube commenter said, "I want this to be the last song I hear in this earthly body." I can understand that sentiment:


 


Finally, we have a song that combines Buckingham's social sensibilities with an accessible pop track. It's a Fleetwood Mac tune called "What's the World Coming To," from Say You Will. Here is a live version, featuring splendid vocal harmonies with Stevie Nicks. Modern rock music doesn't get much better than this. Enjoy:


 

Did Billionaire Randall Rollins Provide False Documents Under Oath in Alabama Divorce Case?

Randall Rollins

As the billionaire chairman of Atlanta-based Rollins Inc. and Orkin Pest Control, Randall Rollins seems like a guy who takes numbers seriously. But based on his actions in a divorce case here in Shelby County, Alabama, Mr. Rollins must think the rest of us are a bunch of dunderheads when it comes to numbers.

How else to explain what transpired in Rollins v. Rollins, which I have described as the worst courtroom cheat job I've encountered in the civil arena? Here are the numbers, and you can decide if something is fishy:

Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins told Legal Schnauzer she saw documents showing that a real-estate development company called St. James Capital LLC was started with $34 million--$17 million from Randall Rollins and $17 million from John W. Rollins Sr. John Rollins' portion was on behalf of Ted Rollins, his son and Sherry Rollins' husband at the time, with Ted designated as company president. According to Ms. Rollins, the documents showed that when John Rollins died in 2000, his shares went back into the company, and Ted Rollins became half owner.

When Ted and Sherry Rollins were getting divorced, and the case unlawfully was moved from South Carolina to Alabama, Ms. Rollins' lawyers deposed Randall Rollins about St. James Capital. (See Notice of Deposition at the end of this post.)

During the proceedings, Randall Rollins turned over a copy of a document called a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement. It states that Ted Rollins had sold his interest in St. James Capital for roughly $85,000, the total of loans he had received from Randall Rollins. (See document at the end of this post.)

Was this document legitimate? Does it make any sense in light of the following statement that Sherry Rollins made to Legal Schnauzer via e-mail:

I saw the paperwork in Ted's computer, where John Rollins put $17 million in for Ted, and Randall put in $17 million, for a total of $34 million to start the company in 1999. Ted was a Class B shareholder at that time and the two elderly Rollinses were Class A. Ted's dad died in 2000, and his shares in the will went back into the company, making Ted half owner of the company. Ted was not just the president; he owned half of the company. The company, in 2001 when I filed for divorce, owned 28 properties all over the U.S. and Canada, which had been or were being developed.

Let's digest that for a moment: You have a $17 million ownership stake in a company, which owns 28 properties around North America, and you are in business with your billionaire cousin who seems to know a thing or two about making a buck. You are going to sign away your rights to all of that for $85,000?

And that's not all.

During the divorce proceedings, Sherry Rollins hired an expert witness named David Wooldridge, who tried to determine the value of Ted Rollins' stake in St. James Capital.  Mr. Wooldridge is not exactly a small timer; he is a shareholder in the Birmingham law firm of Sirote and Permutt, specializing in tax litigation, family succession, and business planning.

What did Wooldridge discover? Well, it appears Randall and Ted Rollins were not terribly forthcoming with information, and Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson did not make them cough up much. But here is Sherry Rollins' statement about Mr. Wooldridge's testimony at trial:

When David Wooldridge testified at the divorce proceedings for an entire day, after examining anything he could lay his hands on regarding St. James Capital, he testified that Ted had the month before earned $1.4 million from one piece of property St. James owned.

Let's put ourselves in Ted Rollins' shoes: We've got an ownership stake in a company that had netted us, just the month before, $1.4 million--and that's on only one of 28 properties the company owns. We are going to sell our share of the company for $85,000?

I come from a long line of financial incompetents; I have relatives all over northwest Arkansas, and to my knowledge, not one of them thought to buy stock in a little outfit called Wal-Mart, when it started in that region a few decades back. I'm perfectly capable of "turning a million in real estate into $25 in cash," but not even I would be stupid enough to make the deal that Randall and Ted Rollins claim they struck.

After reporting on Ted Rollins' machinations for roughly two years, I'm not surprised by much of anything he might try to pull. Who can forget the famous child-support document where he claimed to make $50,000 a year--even though a court already had found he owned multiple private jet craft, was the president of St. James Capital, and belonged to one of the nation's wealthiest families.

But Randall Rollins? This guy breathes the same rarefied air of folks like Warren Buffet and Ted Turner. He's surrounded by names like that on various rankings of business tycoons.

Randall Rollins wouldn't blow smoke up our fannies, would he? He wouldn't commit perjury, would he?

Here are a couple of documents related to St. James Capital from discovery in Rollins v. Rollins. We have more to come.


R. Rollins Depo

R. Rollins Sell Out

Tape Recordings Nail Debt Collectors In Flagrant Violations of Federal Law

The post you are about to read might be a first in the history of the Internet. It presents tape-recorded proof of mainstream debt collectors violating federal law in an effort to collect a "debt" they could not even prove was owed.

In fact, these collectors could not even prove the alleged debtor held the card in question. How do I know that? I was the alleged debtor--and discovery in a federal lawsuit showed that the collectors could not prove I ever had the American Express card in question, much less that I owed a debt on it.

A corrupt U.S. District Judge named Abdul Kallon repeatedly made unlawful rulings in my lawsuit, allowing collectors to wriggle off the hook. President Barack Obama appointed Kallon to the federal bench from the corporate Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant, at the suggestion of former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis--and that probably explains why Kallon is a toady for debt collectors and the financial sector.

We, however, are prepared to hold collectors accountable in the court of public opinion, with the first in a series of videos that show how bad actors in the debt-collection industry try to pull scams on consumers. (See video at the end of this post.) We don't have to worry about Abdul Kallon's bogus rulings in the wide-open space of the blogosphere.

Is this post really a first for the Web? Well, I'm not certain about that. I am familiar with several online reports that present direct evidence of debt collectors treating consumers in abusive fashion. One example that immediately comes to mind involved a Texas man named Allen Jones, who was barraged with collection calls that were mind-blowingly vile and racist. Jones wound up winning a $1.5 million judgment against Advanced Call Center Technologies (ACT) in federal court.

I suspect ACT comes under the heading of a rogue debt-collector--and there are quite a few of those out there. It should be noted, however, that the company has a fairly classy looking Web site, so maybe it rises a little above the level of "rogue" in the collection world.

Without question, the violations I am about to reveal are more subtle than the ones Allen Jones experienced. And they clearly come from a mainstream collector. The calls are from the Birmingham law firm of Ingram and Associates, which was hired by NCO, which is owned by JPMorgan Chase. And JPMorgan Chase is the largest private corporation in the world.

You can't get much more mainstream in the financial sector than that.

Does that make our tape recordings unique on the Web? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure our evidence is at least unusual. It shows irrefutable proof of a high-end collector--if there is such a thing--stooping to unethical and unlawful tactics in an effort to con me out of money they could not prove I owed. And again, this was on a card they could not prove I had ever possessed.

What's the issue in this first video? Here is the key one: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) states that it is unlawful for a collector to communicate with a third party about a debt, other than to get information about a consumer's location (15 U.S.C. 1692b and 15 U.S.C. 1692c). But Ingram and Associates collector Tracy Mize--working on behalf of NCO and JPMorgan Chase--says right off the bat that she had been talking with my wife about various payment options on the debt.

That presents a slight problem. Even by the collector's own admissions, the alleged card was in my name only. Mrs. Schnauzer was not involved in any way, so she was a third party and they could lawfully only ask her how to locate me. (Her answer on that evening would have been: "He's out in the front yard, mowing the grass.")

Instead, they pried all sorts of personal legal and financial information from a non-party to the alleged debt. At about the 5:20 mark in the video below, Mize talks about all the details from my wife that were now in an account, which had nothing to do with her. You can read the pertinent sections of the FDCPA at the links above and see that Mize's actions were blatantly illegal. And she was working for Ingram and Associates, which was working for NCO, which is owned by JPMorgan Chase. This scam goes right to the top of big finance in the United States.

Welcome to the unseemly real world of debt collectors. The following video shows in stark details just one way they will try to scam consumers. There are many more, and we have more videos on the way.

Wall Street Guru Vick Seth Runs for Cover When Faced With Questions About CEO Ted Rollins

What do Wall Street types think about our reports that Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has been investigated for child sexual abuse of his stepson? What do they make of public documents that show Rollins was convicted for a brutal assault on the same stepson?

Wall Street has heaped more than $400 million of support on Rollins' company since late 2010, so you would think analysts and investors might have concerns about unseemliness in the CEO's background. Under certain circumstances, it can be unlawful for a public company or its underwriters to fail to disclose a CEO's criminal history. These can be extremely serious matters, so it's only natural to ask: What does the investment crowd make of these disclosures?

We are asking that question--and others. But so far, we aren't having much luck at getting answers. When we try to reach a Wall Street type by telephone, making it known that we have questions about Campus Crest Communities, he seems to scurry away from the receiver. When we send questions to a Wall Street  type via e-mail, asking about Campus Crest Communities, his computer keyboard suddenly becomes toxic. ("Must . . . not . . . touch . . . ")

Consider Vivek "Vick" Seth, of Raymond James in Tampa, Florida. He seems to be the No. 1 driving force behind the Campus Crest IPO, which raked in about $380 million. You might think that Mr. Seth would be doing back flips to discuss this wondrous company and its CEO. But you would be wrong.

I called Mr. Seth's office and left a message on his voice mail, asking him to call me. No response. I sent an e-mail, explained the subject matter, and asked him to contact me. No response. I sent a list of questions via e-mail and asked him to provide answers in writing. No response.

I went through the same procedure with Buck Horne, who is listed as the chief Raymond James analyst for Campus Crest. No response.

What was going on? I called Mr. Seth's office again and spoke with a helpful woman named Tiffany. Here, in part, is how our conversation went. (Please see video at the end of this post.)

Tiffany: Vick Seth's office, this is Tiffany. 

Schnauzer: Yes, may I speak with Mr. Seth please? 

Tiffany: Can I tell him who is calling? 

Schnauzer: Yes, my name is Roger Shuler. 

Tiffany: OK, Roger, the company you are calling from? 

Schnauzer: I'm a journalist in Birmingham, Alabama. 

Tiffany: OK, one moment. Can I ask--he's going to ask--what you are calling about? 

Schnauzer: Yes, I was calling about Campus Crest Communities.

I don't know about you, but I had the distinct impression from that exchange that Vick Seth was present and imminently available. In fact, I envisioned him with feet propped on his desk, shooting spitballs into a waste basket with one hand and counting $100 bills with the other.

But after a short pause, Tiffany returned to inform me that Mr. Seth had suddenly become unavailable. I left my number and asked if she could have him call me. She said she would do that.

I'm still waiting for the call.

Based on the images in the video below, Mr. Seth obviously has plenty of time to buy hair gel. But answer questions about a company that has drawn more than $400 million in investor support? Ah . . . not so much.

Actually, I have reached one Wall Street type who was willing to discuss Campus Crest Communities and Ted Rollins. Her name is Paula Poskon, a senior research analyst at Robert W. Baird and Co., one of about six underwriters on the Campus Crest IPO. My interactions with Ms. Poskon were most insightful. In fact, I would say "fascinating" is not too strong a word to describe them.

I actually had a Wall Street analyst speaking candidly, at least for a while, about the intersection of high finance and a profoundly important problem in society. And she obviously wound up regretting it, although I'm not sure why.

Perhaps this is the First Commandment on Wall Street: Thou shalt not speak openly and honestly about a CEO. Maybe Ms. Poskon violated it. As a journalist, I appreciated her candor; I'm guessing her Wall Street colleagues will not be so appreciative.

That story is coming soon here at Legal Schnauzer. You won't want to miss it.

Autopsy in Joe Scarborough Country Leaves Out Key Detail About the Mysterious Death of Lori Klausutis

Joe Scarborough

The autopsy of Lori Klausutis makes no reference to a time of death. That raises new questions about an investigation that started when the 28-year-old woman's body was found in the office of then U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough in summer 2001.

Accidental death was the official finding in the Klausutis case, with a cardiac arrhythmia causing her to fall and hit her head on a desk. But the recent discovery of human remains at a storage unit in Pensacola, Florida, casts doubt on that ruling. That's because the storage unit was rented by Dr. Michael Berkland, the man who conducted the Klausutis autopsy 11 years earlier.

Berkland now faces a felony charge of improper storage of hazardous waste, and the grisly nature of the discovery calls his competence--and perhaps his sanity--into question.

Was the Lori Klausutis autopsy conducted in a professional manner? Was foul play prematurely ruled out? Should the investigation be reopened, perhaps with renewed scrutiny for Scarborough and others who might have had access to his office at the time?

Meanwhile, events surrounding the Klausutis story are taking on characteristics that are disturbingly reminiscent of the Don Siegelman case. More on that in a moment.

Scarborough has become a prominent figure in cable television news, serving as co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe. He also has strong ties to our area, as a graduate of the University of Alabama and confidant of former GOP Governor Bob Riley and his son, Homewood attorney Rob Riley.

Many Morning Joe viewers probably have forgotten, or never knew, that the body of a female aide once was found in Scarborough's Congressional office. Investigators quickly saw that a blow to the head, delivered accidentally or intentionally, was involved in Lori Klausutis' death. So it's hard to figure why the autopsy makes no reference to time of death. (See full autopsy report at the end of this post; the document originally appeared at webofdeception.com)

Why is that a key omission? Consider this from an online document titled "Determining Time of Death (TOD)":

Why is it important to know the time of death? 

•TOD can set the time of murder 

•Eliminate or suggest suspects 

•Confirm or disprove alibis

Why did Berkland not include this critical detail? It's not as if his report does not provide plenty of other details. He tells us that Klausutis was wearing a white thong on the day of her death. (Page 7.) He tells us that she had a "shaved genital region." (Page 8.) But no time of death?

The core of the autopsy report can be found in the comment section, pages 3-7. This probably is the central finding:

There is no doubt that the head injury is as a result of a fall, rather than a blow being delivered to the heading by a moving object. Lori has a classic "contrecoup" injury, or bruise to the brain, meaning that her brain was bruised on the opposite side from where the external force was applied. The left side of Lori's brain was bruised while the external abraded contusion (scratch and bruise) was in the right temple region. The contrecoup contusion results when a freely moving, mobile head strikes an unyielding, firm, fixed object in a fall, as in the floor, or in this case, the desk. This finding is in marked distinction from the "coup" contusion, or that injury which results from a moving object (example--a ball bat) that strikes a stationary head. In the coup injury, there is bruising of the brain on the same side as the external injury. There was no coup contusion in Lori Klausutis.

What would cause a seemingly healthy young woman, an avid runner, to collapse and lose consciousness, unable to break her fall? Berkland rules out some of the common causes of such an event--a pulmonary embolus, a brain hemorrhage, a ruptured aneurysm, drug issues. He concludes:

These facts leave only a cardiac arrhythmia as the reason to go unconscious and subsequently fall and strike the desk in an unprotected fashion. If Lori's heart was normal, it would be problematic to postulate a plausible reason for a cardiac arrhythmia in such a young person. However, her heart was not normal. The heart contained an abnormality (floppy mitral valve) that is known to result in cardiac ectopy and dangerous cardiac arrhythmias.

All of this sounds reasonable. But given recent events, can Michael Berkland's work be trusted? Why on earth was he keeping body parts in a storage unit? And did any of those parts once belong to Lori Klausutis?

While we're at it, let's consider the environment that has developed around the Klausutis story, some of which will sound familiar to those who have followed the Siegelman saga:

* A strange news blackout--Neither the Pensacola News Journal nor the Northwest Florida Daily News, the two major newspapers in the area, has tied Berkland and the human-remains story to the death of Lori Klausutis and her job as an aide to Joe Scarborough. How can it not at least be mentioned in coverage that Berkland is the same guy who essentially closed the books on the Klausuitis investigation. That kind of myopic mainstream news coverage has been present throughout the Siegelman case.

* A reporter disappears, then reappears--Reporter Thyrie Bland broke the human-remains story for the Pensacola newspaper and reported that Berkland had rented the storage unit. Then Bland vanished. Those who called the paper asking to speak to Bland were told he no longer worked there. He left in the midst of covering what might be one of the biggest stories of the year in the region? Apparently, the answer is yes. An online search reveals that Bland has resurfaced at al.com, the online arm of Alabama newspapers in Birmingham, Huntsville, and Mobile. Bland appears to be focusing on Baldwin County, the area where Siegelman votes disappeared in the middle of the night, giving the 2002 gubernatorial election to Republican Bob Riley. Isn't it curious that a reporter who could uncover information leading to Joe Scarborough, winds up working at the heavily pro-Riley al.com?

* An Air Force connection--The obituary for Lori Klausutis reveals that her husband was T. J. Klautsutis of Niceville, Florida. A brief Web search reveals that Dr. Timothy J. Klausutis is a prominent member of the U.S. Air Force. One site indicates he conducts studies on navigation and miniature weapons systems for the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL). What does this mean? We aren't sure,  but it reminds us that the Air Force had a number of curious ties to the Siegelman case. The prosecution team set up a shop, not at the U.S. Attorney's Office, but at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery. Mark Fuller, the trial judge, was a primary owner in Doss Aviation, a Colorado-based company that lived largely off Air Force contracts.

What will happen next in the Michael Berkland story? Our guess is that the northwest Florida press will continue to ignore the obvious ties to the Lori Klausutis case. Berkland probably will plead guilty to some type of reduced charge, and the criminal case will go away quietly. Scarborough will remain as the host of Morning Joe until he decides the time is ripe for a return to politics. By then, the world will likely have forgotten all about Lori  Klausutis.

Meanwhile, northwest Florida and southeast Alabama continue to form perhaps the No. 1 "Corridor of Corruption" in the United States. The area is home to gun running, drug smuggling, shadowy military installations, slippery real-estate moguls, and a justice system that perhaps is best described as "evil." Powerful forces make a lot of money from the dysfunctional mess, and they don't want it to change.

They certainly do not want the death of Lori Klausutis to be revisited. And that means it probably won't be.

  Lori Klausutis Autopsy

CEO Ted Rollins' Ex Wife Is Living in Fear Over Reports About Child Sexual Abuse

The ex wife of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins says she is afraid for her safety because of reports about an investigation into possible child sexual abuse during their marriage.

She also expresses doubts that her son ever would achieve justice if he were to come forward and reveal what Ted Rollins did to him. (See videos at the end of this post.)

Sherry Rollins said she is afraid both of Ted Rollins and her son, who was the alleged victim in the North Carolina investigation but now has publicly come to his former stepfather's defense on several issues. Ms. Rollins has told Legal Schnauzer on multiple occasions that she believes the Rollins family supports her son's residential-construction business, perhaps as a way to keep him silent about the abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of Ted Rollins.

The Rollins family, led by Ted's billionaire cousins Randall and Gary Rollins of Atlanta, is one of the wealthiest families in the United States. They own Rollins Inc. the umbrella company for Orkin Pest Control and other profitable enterprises. Ms. Rollins has presented evidence indicating Randall Rollins committed perjury during the discovery stage of her divorce from Ted Rollins.

Randall and Ted Rollins had formed a real-estate development company called St. James Capital LLC that reportedly was worth in excess of $34 million and appears to have been a precursor to Campus Crest Communities. Public records indicate Randall and Ted Rollins took curious steps to essentially make St. James Capital disappear, ensuring that it would not be equitably divided as a marital asset during the divorce. They also apparently took steps to understate Ted Rollins' wealth in the Alabama divorce case, greatly reducing his child-support payments and causing Sherry Rollins and her daughters, Sarah and Emma, to wind up on food stamps in Birmingham.

Is it possible that Sherry Rollins' fear includes members of the extended Rollins family, who keep billions of dollars flowing through the corporate, financial, legal, and political sectors? The answer to that question probably is yes.

In our first video below, Sherry Rollins and I discuss via telephone several matters related to apparent child sexual abuse during her marriage to Ted Rollins. She clearly is concerned about the repercussions, stating, "I don't know what they're going to do. I'm really afraid of them, and I'm not being a little whiny female--I'm really afraid of them."

Ms. Rollins also references the case of Daniel Acker Jr., a politically connected teacher in Shelby County, Alabama, who was investigated for the sexual abuse of several girls in the early 1990s. No action was taken against Acker at the time, and he continued to teach, until he finally confessed some 20 years later to having molested more than 20 girls.

"There's no justice for a person like Zac if he comes forward and says, 'Yeah, Ted Rollins did this to me; he did it to me once in Alabama. Nobody would care, other than you and me. . . .

"And in North Carolina, it will be the same way because (Ted's) so connected. If (Zac) were to walk up and say, "I was abused for years by this man, (Ted's) going to get by with it."

I do point out in the audio that, in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State, the environment might be changing. Sandusky and Daniel Acker Jr. got away with their crimes for years, but they finally were held accountable in 2012.

In the second video below, our phone discussion provides insight into how the issue of child sexual abuse likely had an impact on the Rollins v. Rollins divorce. Based on extensive research of the issues involved, I state the following: "I think--and I think you probably think this, too, based on what you've told me--that the Zac/Ted abuse issue is at the heart of all of this. It probably was a big reason you all got married, it's a reason your marriage broke up, it probably is the reason you got screwed in court because Ted didn't want to have to pay you and Zac. It's profoundly important."

Towels Soiled With Feces Point to Child Sexual Abuse Involving Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins

A maid found dozens of soiled towels hidden in a closet at about the time North Carolina social-services officials were investigating a report of possible child sexual abuse against Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins.

The maid showed the towels, stained with fecal matter and other debris, to Sherry Carroll Rollins, who was married to Ted Rollins at the time. Ms. Rollins told Legal Schnauzer in an interview that more than 100 soiled towels were stuffed into the closet. She said she relayed the information at the time to a Duke University psychologist, and he said the discovery was a sign that homosexual activity had been taking place in the home. (See videos at the end of this post.)

In fact, the psychologist suggested that Ms. Rollins read a book called The Homosexual Matrix to help her better understand what apparently was going on between her then husband and her son (Ted Rollins' step son).

Ms. Rollins disclosed the discovery of soiled towels to me on multiple occasions during the course of my reporting on the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which I've called the worst courtroom cheat job that I've encountered in the civil arena. She and I most recently discussed the towels, and other signs of child sexual abuse during her marriage to Ted Rollins, during a lunch meeting where my wife was present and taking notes.

The maid had mentioned an ever-growing volume of missing towels to Ms. Rollins several times and became concerned that the family might think she was stealing them. "When she found all the towels in a closet under the stairs, she made sure to show me because she had feared I might think she was stealing them," Ms. Rollins said. "There must have been more than 100 towels that were stained with feces."

The Homosexual Matrix, written in 1975 by former Alfred Kinsey associate C.A. Tripp, is considered one of the most comprehensive early works on gay behavior. The Duke psychologist, Ms. Rollins said, thought the book would help her better "understand the activities of homosexuals and the things they use in their activities."

This story inadvertently has a connection to presidential politics. Former GOP candidate Rick Santorum once angered gays by comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage responded with a contest to "memorialize the scandal." The winning entry held that Santorum's last name means "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

For our current purposes, it appears the Rollins family maid discovered "Santorum" on the towels in a closet. While that use of a politician's last name is designed to draw chuckles, there is nothing funny about its usage here. It is a disturbing sign that something was seriously amiss in the Rollins household--and even more troubling, North Carolina officials didn't do much of anything about it.

In the first video at the end of this post, Ms. Rollins and I discuss via telephone several matters related to the apparent child sexual abuse involving her former husband.

In the second video, she references her records from the psychologist at Duke and discusses the overwhelming anger she feels toward Ted Rollins because of the abuse he has inflicted on her children. "It inflames me every time I pull it up from the depths," she says.

Ms. Rollins states that she has moments where she wants to see her ex husband dead, a stark example of the deep emotion a divorce case can generate--and Rollins is the most abusive divorce case I've ever heard about. It should be noted, however, that this audio was taped several months ago, and Ted Rollins remains very much alive. As the person on the other end of the phone line, I knew Ms. Rollins' statements were made out of frustration and were not meant to be taken literally. I communicated with Sherry Rollins a lot over a two-year period, and I never once have thought she would harm any living being. I consider her to be a person of kind spirit and good intentions, and I put these statements under the category of "letting off steam." I also know that Ms. Rollins has strong reasons to believe her life has been in danger several times during her divorce case--and in its aftermath. That ongoing sense of fear probably drives statements that might sound extreme to someone who doesn't know the context in which they were uttered.

In a moment of levity, Ms. Rollins invokes the name of her dog, Gus, and swears on his life that "everything I've told you is true, it's not a lie. . . . If I sat around and made up stuff like this, I would really be in need of meds. . . .

"The more I tell this . . . and I come home (to realize) I've left some more of it out."

Ted Rollins has been given multiple opportunities to respond to questions about the abusive relationship with his stepson. When I asked him via e-mail about documented reports of his conviction for assault of his stepson, Rollins made a bogus reference to "your stalking and harassment of my children" and added this reply:

I am not in the habit of responding to rubbish such as yours. Please refrain from contacting me or my children.

I sent the following response, specifically asking about the investigation involving possible child sexual abuse. Ted Rollins never responded to my questions:

Ted: 

Are you saying that the reports I've received about the beating of Zac Parrish are inaccurate?

          If so, in what way?

You think the beating of a 15-year-old boy who was under your care is "rubbish" and addressing it is "wasting time"? You think child abuse, in general, is not worthy of your attention? 

I've given you more than a dozen opportunities to respond to issues raised in my blog--and to point out anything that is inaccurate or misleading--and you haven't done it yet. 

Are you not going to address any of the substantive issues raised in the questions I sent? That's certainly your prerogative, but it's my duty as a journalist to make sure you have an opportunity to respond to these issues. If you change your mind about addressing questions, please let me know. 

For the record, your statement regarding "stalking and harassment" of your children is wildly twisted. My only communication with Sarah Rollins was instigated by her--she called me, out of the blue. 

The issue here is your treatment of your children. 

On that front, I've received reports from multiple sources stating that you were investigated for sexual abuse of Zac Parrish while you lived in North Carolina. As you probably are aware, the issue of child sexual abuse has been front-page news across the country in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, plus other similar reports. I've been told a number of details about the situation in your home that led to the North Carolina investigation. I have a lot of questions on that subject and would be glad to send them if you let me know that you are willing to address them. Otherwise, I will refrain from communicating with you and move forward with my reporting. 

One final point: I have contacted you via e-mail at your invitation. You told me in our one phone conversation that you would be "more than happy" to respond to written questions. I want it to be clear that I've treated you exactly in the way that you asked to be treated, and you've had every opportunity to respond to various issues.

Fundraisers at University of North Carolina Resign Amid Reports of Mixing Business With Pleasure

Matt Kupec

Two fundraisers at the University of North Carolina, including the institution's vice chancellor for university advancement, have resigned after an investigation of travel expenses that mixed business with pleasure.

Matt Kupec, who was UNC's chief fundraising officer, resigned on Sunday. Tami Hansbrough, who raised funds in the university's division of student affairs, resigned yesterday. She is the mother of former UNC basketball star Tyler Hansbrough, who now plays for the Indiana Pacers of the National Basketball Association.

The North Carolina story is similar to a scandal involving questionable travel and former university presidents Carol Garrison of UAB and John Shumaker of Tennessee. That story broke roughly 10 years ago and led to Shumaker's resignation in 2003. Garrison kept her job at UAB until she resigned last month under mysterious circumstances.

This might not be the last we hear of questionable ethics involving university fundraisers. We've received multiple reports of unethical activities involving at least one top development executive at an Alabama university, and we are researching that story as the North Carolina story breaks.

Romantic liaisons often seem to be at the heart of these stories. That was the case with Garrison and Shumaker, it appears to be the case with the story we currently are researching, and it was the case at North Carolina.

Tami Hansbrough

Kupec and Hansbrough had a relationship that apparently contributed to his divorce, which was finalized in 2011. Kupec originally tried to hire Hansbrough for a position that reported directly to him, but the university's chancellor nixed that appointment because of nepotism rules. She ultimately was hired for a job that jointly reported to Kupec and UNC's vice chancellor for student affairs.

It all began to unravel about a month ago when The Raleigh News and Observer began to investigate reports that Kupec and Hansbrough had charged the university for personal travel. University officials continue to investigate trips that coincided with basketball games for Hansbrough's son, Ben, who was a star player at Notre Dame.

Should UNC officials, including Chancellor Holden Thorp, have seen this coming? The answer apparently is yes because Hansbrough and Kupec have been connected to a number of messy entanglements for some time. Reports the News and Observer:

Thorp has said he learned from Kupec sometime in the fall of 2009 that Kupec and Hansbrough, a former Miss Missouri, were in a relationship. 

Around that time, records show, both Kupec and Hansbrough were also in the midst of court actions involving allegations of affairs. 

In September 2009, Hansbrough was sued in Mississippi by a woman who alleged that Hansbrough broke up her marriage. 

In October 2009, Kupec separated from his wife with the intent to divorce, records show. His wife alleged “marital misconduct” in court papers, but the documents do not detail further allegations.

With travel audits ongoing, the story of shaky ethics in university fundraising continues to churn in North Carolina. Based on reports we are receiving, it is about to start churning in Alabama, as well.

Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Was Investigated for the Sexual Abuse Of His Stepson

Ted Rollins

A CEO who helped his company complete a $380-million Wall Street IPO less than two years ago was investigated for child sexual abuse in 1993.

The revelations come as former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky is expected to be sentenced next month for his conviction in June on 45 counts of child sexual abuse. The Sandusky case helped place the issue, especially where the victims are boys, on front pages across the country.

We wrote at the time that the Sandusky story represented the tip of a deeply disturbing iceberg in U.S. society, one that largely has been covered up since the Franklin Scandal hit political circles in the late 1980s and early '90s.

Now, we see evidence of child sexual abuse connected to the corporate world.

Ted Rollins, as chief executive of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, develops and markets student housing under The Grove banner at 36 sites around the country. The company promotes its apartment complexes as a source of "fully loaded living" for students who seek more than the spartan quarters offered by college dorms of yesteryear.

The business model revolves around the ability to sell parents on the idea that living at The Grove complexes will promote academic and personal growth for young people. It's grim irony then that North Carolina social-services officials once received a complaint about a possible sexually abusive relationship between Ted Rollins and his stepson.

That sparked an investigation that included three visits to the Rollins home by a representative from the North Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS). The family was referred for counseling sessions at Duke University.

No punitive actions were taken against Ted Rollins, but he was convicted two years later for assaulting his stepson. Under North Carolina law, that incident should have been treated as a case of child abuse. Multiple law-enforcement and health-care responders were required by law to report the assault as a case of suspected child abuse, but public records show they failed to do so.

Rollins was married to Sherry Carroll Rollins at the time, and she had two sons from a previous marriage. The younger of her sons was the subject of the sexual-abuse investigation. Ted and Sherry Rollins would have two daughters of their own before being divorced in 2005. Ms. Rollins and the girls, Sarah and Emma, live in Birmingham; Ted Rollins has remarried and lives in Greenville, South Carolina.

Records from child-abuse investigations are not made public, but two members of the Rollins family confirmed to us that Ted Rollins was investigated for child sexual abuse. A complaint from an unknown citizen, alleging inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, sparked the inquiry.

A source has described to us events that indicate something was seriously amiss with the relationship between Ted Rollins and his stepson, who was in the 12-to-14 age range during the time covered by the investigation.

Were details disclosed to us shared with investigators back in 1993? That is not clear. But if those details were disclosed, and DSS did not take decisive action, the agency was negligent and helped put a child at serious risk.

The information we received is deeply disturbing--every bit as stomach churning as testimony from the Sandusky trial--and it raises questions about Ted Rollins' fitness to be CEO of a major company, especially one whose target audience is young people.

We tried to interview Ted Rollins on this subject, but he did not respond to our questions.


(To be continued)

Did Judge on Siegelman Appellate Panel Act Out of Fear From a Failed Attempt on his Life?

U.S. Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is due to report to federal custody today in Oakdale, Louisiana, providing absolute proof that large chunks of Americans are perfectly willing to accept the idea of political prisoners in our "democracy," circa 2012.

We have written probably several hundred posts about the Siegelman travesty, and you might think that we wouldn't have anything left to say at this point. But you would be wrong, and that's largely because the case was so profoundly screwed up on so many levels that the news just keeps on coming.

In fact, the following question is on our mind today: Was the appeal in the Siegelman case botched in part because one member of the three-judge panel operates out of fear from being the target of a failed assassination attempt more than 20 years ago?

Law-enforcement officials initially believed that U.S. Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson was the target of a gunman when a limousine window shattered in April 1990, with the jurist inside. This came just weeks after Robert S. Vance Sr., Edmondson's colleague on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was killed when he opened a mail bomb at his home in Mountain Brook, Alabama.

Both events came as the Eleventh Circuit was about to hear an appeal in Avirgan v. Hull, a lawsuit alleging operatives connected to the Reagan and Bush I administrations were responsible for a bomb that killed one journalist and injured another in Costa Rica. The lawsuit threatened to blow the lid off the Iran-Contral scandal of the 1980s, and we recently presented powerful evidence that Vance was killed because, as chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit, it was feared he would push to overturn a lower court's dismissal of the Avirgan case.

Was Edmondson targeted for the same reason? Well, all these years later, it's not clear that Edmondson was targeted at all. But this much is certain: Edmondson was on a three-judge panel that unlawfully upheld bribery convictions in the Siegelman case--and that's why the former Alabama governor is set to return to federal custody today, on the curious date of September 11. (For what it's worth, Edmondson and his Siegelman-case colleague, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, also were on a panel that unlawfully upheld a trial-court's dismissal of a lawsuit over my wrongful termination at UAB. Are the two cases intentionally being linked in the Eleventh Circuit? Is this a case of "Let's screw Siegelman and the journalist who has written tons of posts about his case"? It sure looks that way to me.)

We've shown that the Eleventh Circuit panel botched the Siegelman ruling on multiple grounds--failing to overturn convictions in a prosecution that clearly was brought well after the statute of limitations had expired.

How could veteran judges get it wrong on simple procedural matters? Is it because Edmondson knows that his life, in fact, was targeted in 1990--and he wants to keep a lid on any case with possible ties to Iran-Contra? Does this add credence to reports that Siegelman was targeted for a political prosecution partly because he knew about drug and gun smuggling, using Alabama airfields, that was part of Iran-Contra? Does this mean that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, in fact, had ties to the smuggling operations and was elevated to the federal bench by the Bush family specifically to keep Iran-Contra secrets under wraps? Was going after Siegelman a key part of that plan?

To shine light on those questions, it helps to consider the shattered window in Judge Edmondson's limousine, back in spring 1990.

First, it is clear that Edmondson was traveling via limousine, under armed guards from the U.S. Marshals service, because of the Vance assassination. It's established that a second bomb was found, and defused, at the Eleventh Circuit's clerk's office. A third bomb killed a civil-rights attorney.

Authorities had reason for deep concern when a loud pop was heard and a window shattered on a vehicle carrying Judge Edmondson. Press reports quickly went out that an attempt had been made on the judge's life. Nerves were calmed when the FBI issued a statement saying the window broke because of an accident. From a press report at the time:

FBI agents investigating what caused the rear window of a federal judge's car to shatter have nabbed their culprit--a two-way radio antenna attached to the car's trunk--and have declared the case closed. 

When 11th Circuit Court Judge J. Lawrence Edmondson's rear window shattered Wednesday with a loud popping sound, police panicked, thinking the colleague of slain Judge Robert Vance was the victim of an assassination attempt. Federal agents descended on the city, searching for a gunman. Roadblocks were set up, helicopters buzzed the Lawrenceville area and students were locked inside nearby schools for their safety. 

The FBI said Friday the window shattered because a two-way radio antenna on the car repeatedly scratched the glass, weakening it.

Manny Sinkin, an attorney with the Christic Institute that was bringing the Avirgan case, never has bought that explanation. His thoughts can be found in "Murder in the Eleventh Circuit," an article that originally appeared in the Portland Free Press. A reprint by The Lighthouse Report can be found about halfway down the page at this link.

Sinkin recalls hearing about the Edmondson incident while he was traveling with a colleague named Marlene Smith, who was about to begin working for the Christic Institute:

When we heard the story, we pulled over to call Washington. I contacted the office of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez and asked what information they had on the attempted assassination. An aide to the congressman pulled up their wire service and told me that there was a massive manhunt under way and that helicopters were circling an apartment building where they believed the assassin was trapped. 

As we drove across country that day, we continued to listen for more information. There was nothing further. The next morning, National Public Radio broadcast a story saying that the police had concluded that a defect in the glass or a rapid change in temperature had caused the window to shatter and that there had been no assassination attempt. 

Marlene and I just laughed at the speed of the cover up.

Sinkin obviously did not buy the official story. And he provides this explanation:

When I returned to Washington, I looked up the profiles of the two judges. Judge Robert S. Vance was one of the great liberals in modern United States history. He led the Mississippi Freedom Democratic delegation to the 1968 Democratic Convention. That delegation was the first integrated delegation to be sent from Mississippi. The convention unseated the official segregationist delegation and seated the delegation headed by Judge Vance. 

A man of such courage in challenging the status quo might well have been willing to go against the national security tide and reverse Judge King's order (dismissing Avirgan).

Judge J. L. Edmondson is a true conservative. If the government is on one side of a case against an individual, his assumption is that the government has all the resources and, therefore, a heavy burden to do everything exactly right. To the right of Judge Edmondson are ideological conservatives, who would not be the least sympathetic to the Institute's appeal. 

When I reached Washington, I called the Eleventh Circuit to check on the status of the appeal. The clerk asked what case. When I said "Avirgan v. Hull," she said "Oh, Lord!" I asked "Oh, Lord?" She said "Avirgan v. Hull means duck and run for cover." Clearly in the minds of court personnel the death of Judge Vance and the attempt on Judge Edmondson were associated with the Christic appeal.

A three-judge panel ultimately upheld dismissal of the Avirgan case. "I have always believed the court acted under duress," Sinkin said.

Sinkin has returned to his native Texas, where he is executive director of Solar San Antonio. Edmondson  now is on senior status at the Eleventh Circuit, and he just happened to wind up on the three-judge panel for the Siegelman case--and on the panel for my appeal.

Meanwhile, Don Siegelman is set to return to federal prison today--for his conviction on a crime that does not exist under the law, in a prosecution that was barred by the statute of limitations.

Are the Eleventh Circuit, and J.L. Edmondson, still acting under duress? It sure looks that way from here.