A Push for Information About Investors Preceded The Mysterious Death of Lawyer Major Bashinsky

Chip Hazelrig

Attorneys for the Estate of Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr. filed a court document in June 2009 seeking information about other individuals who had joined Mr. Bashinsky in placing their money with W & H Investments of Birmingham.

It's not clear if the estate ever received the information, but it is clear from court documents that W & H did not want to turn over the information. How contentious was this issue in a lawsuit styled Estate of Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr., et al v. W & H Investments, et al?

Well, almost exactly nine months later, Mr. Bashinsky's youngest son, attorney Major Bashinsky, was reported missing. And 12 days after the disappearance was reported in the press, Major Bashinsky's body was found in a golf-course water hazard on Birmingham's Southside.

Is that a coincidence? We don't know. But court records do indicate that partners Fred Wedell ("W") and William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig ("H") were not anxious to have their list of investors scrutinized.

We contacted Chip Hazelrig prior to publication of this post in an effort to interview him about various matters connected to the Bashinsky-estate lawsuit. He declined our interview request.

Why did the parties, given what appears to have been a major sticking point, suddenly reach a settlement that was approved by the court on March 1--for the curious amount of $300,000. Was it a coincidence that Major Bashinsky went missing two days later?

We don't have the answers to those questions. But it's clear that an awful lot of money was involved in the Bashinsky Estate--and that's why the $300,000 settlement figure seems odd.

According to court documents, Sloan Bashinsky invested more than $37 million in oil and gas wells with Wedell and Hazelrig, over about a 20-year period. In a 2004 letter, written roughly one year before his death, Mr. Bashinsky tried to get information about the status of his investments. Over a roughly six-month period following his death, the estate tried to get the same information. When it wasn't forthcoming, the estate filed a lawsuit, seeking an accounting of Mr. Bashinsky's funds, plus any damages that might have been due from breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.

If W & H handled the Bashinsky funds properly, there should have been no damages at all. If the firm mishandled more than $37 million in investments, you would expect the damages to be substantial--way more than $300,000. So why did the parties agree to that figure? It seems the damages should have been zero or in the tens of millions of dollars.

Court records indicate that W & H engaged in sloppy bookkeeping regarding its Bashinsky accounts, and in some cases, the firm claimed records had been shifted to another company. The estate responded by essentially saying, "OK, if you can't show us directly how much was due to Mr. Bashinsky, then show us information about other investors, and we can determine in an indirect manner the proper amount."

Under the circumstances, that seemed to be a reasonable request--and the court must have agreed because it granted the estate's motion to compel.

The motion to compel can be read at the end of this post, followed by the settlement agreement. The Bashinsky funds went into an oil-investment account called the Birmingham Exploration Venture (BEV) Partnerships. The key information can be found on page 2 of the motion to compel, under "B. Documents Regarding Other Investors of W & H."

Here is what the estate had been seeking since its first request for production of documents:

17. All documents showing the names and identities of other investors or persons with an interest in W & H, W & H Promoted Investments, and/or BEV Partnerships and/or other Entity.

And here was the response:

Response: Defendant objects to this request as being irrelevant and immaterial except to say Bashinsky was an investor, participant, and/or joint venturer with W & H in certain of the referenced oil and gas ventures.

Clearly, Wedell and Hazelrig were not anxious to turn over the requested information. Then we have this from the estate:

18. For all individuals or entities named in response to Request for Production No. 17 above, produce all documents relating to: 

* The amount each person or entity invested. 

* The amount of payments and distributions made to each.

Again, Wedell, Hazelrig, and their lawyers wanted nothing to do with this line of inquiry:

Response: With regards to Bashinsky and W & H, to the extent these documents exist, they are made available. The Defendant objects to the production of any documents relating to any other individuals or entities as being irrelevant and immaterial.

Here is how the estate explained the request in its motion to compel:

The purpose of requesting these documents is to provide verification of the correctness of the distributions made to Mr. Bashinsky. W & H apparently does not have complete books and records for the oil and gas projects in which it was involved with Mr. Bashinsky. The well-lease assignments list each investor and their interest by percentage in the profits. For many if not all of the wells at issue, a Bashinsky/W & H project such as BEV IV was only one investor among others who also held an interest in the well's profits. Therefore, if one has documents showing a given investor's distribution income for a particular well, it may be possible to extrapolate Mr. Bashinsky's proportionate share. This is potentially an effective means to verify the correctness of the distributions made by W & H to Mr. Bashinsky in the absence of complete books and records.

A judge apparently found this to be a reasonable approach, because the motion to compel was granted. Did Wedell and Hazelrig turn over the information? It's hard to tell from the court file. We only know for sure that a member of the Bashinsky family wound up floating in a golf course water hazard, the victim of an apparent "suicide"--even though nothing in the medical examiner's report presents solid evidence that Major Bashinsky actually shot himself.

  Bashinsky Lawsuit--Motion to Compel2
Bashinsky Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

The Public Should Not Be Shocked That Boy Scouts Covered Up Cases Of Sexual Abuse For Decades

Attorney Kelly Clark reviews
the Boy Scouts "perversion files"

(Updated at 1:40 p.m., CDT, on 10/19/12)

Yesterday's release of the Boy Scouts' "perversion files" reveals that the organization systematically covered up child sexual abuse for more than 25 years. That probably is the most shocking part of the story for the general public. But it is not a surprise to us.

We have been reporting for months on child abuse involving Ted Rollins, CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities. We have shown that Rollins was convicted for a 1995 assault on his 16-year-old stepson in Franklin County, North Carolina. We have shown that Rollins was investigated in 1993, based on a citizen complaint to North Carolina Social Services, for possible sexual abuse of the same stepson.

In both instances, the serious nature of Rollins' actions was covered up. In recent weeks, we've learned that powerful forces on Wall Street are trying to cover up for Rollins to this day. Campus Crest Communities completed a $380-million IPO in late 2010, and we will show in a series of upcoming posts that investment insiders are turning a blind eye to Rollins' ugly past.

We are talking about a diseased corporate culture, one that values secrecy over the well-being of children. A similar culture clearly infested the Boy Scouts. Reports CBS News:

Again and again, decade after decade, an array of authorities — police chiefs, prosecutors, pastors and local Boy Scout leaders among them — quietly shielded scoutmasters and others accused of molesting children, a newly opened trove of confidential papers shows. 

At the time, those authorities justified their actions as necessary to protect the good name and good works of Scouting, a pillar of 20th century America. But as detailed in 14,500 pages of secret "perversion files" released Thursday by order of the Oregon Supreme Court, their maneuvers allowed sexual predators to go free while victims suffered in silence.

Files released yesterday covered 1959 to 1985, and they show over and over that cover ups took place across the country. How could that happen? CBS News provides insight:

In 1972, a local Scouting executive beseeched national headquarters to drop the case against a suspected abuser because he was undergoing professional treatment and was personally taking steps to solve his problem. "If it don't stink, don't stir it," the local executive wrote. . . . 

But one of the most startling revelations to come from the files is the frequency with which attempts to protect Scouts from molesters collapsed at the local level, at times in collusion with community leaders. 

It happened when a local district attorney declined to prosecute two confessed offenders; when a three-judge panel included two men on the local Scouting executive board; when law enforcement sought to protect the name of Scouting and let an admitted child molester go free.

Such cover-ups are not limited to the world of Scouting. We've seen signs of them in the Ted Rollins story. During the 1993 sexual-abuse investigation, the family was referred to a psychologist at Duke University. Sherry Carroll Rollins stated in a solo session that a maid had been cleaning a closet when she discovered more than 100 towels, soiled with feces and the apparent by-products of anal sex. She also stated that her husband kept curious items--a spatula, bungee cord, and neckties--in a vehicle he used to drive the stepson to school.

Ted Rollins

Did the psychologist report this alarming information to authorities? Nope. He recommended that Ms. Rollins read a book called The Homosexual Matrix, so that she could better understand what likely was going on between her husband and son. Did it occur to the psychologist that maybe he needed to take steps that would put a stop to apparent abuse? We probably will never know.

When Ted Rollins did face criminal charges in 1995, the case was treated as a "simple assault," even though the 16-year-old victim had a broken nose, a torn lip, and enough blood loss that he was treated for possible shock. Our research indicates Rollins should have been charged with "assault inflicting serious injury," which might have resulted in jail time. Instead, he got off with a modest fine.

Under North Carolina law, the assault should have been treated as a case of child abuse. Any number of professionals in law enforcement and health care were required to report the beating to social services for investigation. We've seen no sign in the public record that anyone did that.

The story of the Boy Scouts' "perversion files" is not likely to go away soon, reports The Daily Beast:

Victims’ advocates say the release of the documents could lead to a new spate of criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits from newly emboldened victims. Seattle attorney Tim Kosmoff is among those calling for a congressional probe.

Such a probe, if it happens, should not be limited to Scouting. The Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State has shown us that evidence of child sexual abuse was treated lightly in higher education. We've come across similar treatment in our reporting on CEO Ted Rollins. In fact, we soon will show that a Wall Street official has taken extraordinary steps in an effort to sweep the story out of view.

Update--The Miami Herald has a database to the Boy Scout files. Here is a link to the database:

Boy Scouts database

I conducted a search for the state of Alabama, and here is a link to those results. The released files cover 1959 to 1985:

Alabama and the Boy Scouts perversion files

The Business Press And Boy Scouts Awaken To Stories Of Sexual Deviance In High Places

Boy Scout sexual abuse files
will be released today.

The business press, or at least a portion of it, is addressing sexual misconduct in America's corporations and institutions. And we are talking about the kind of misconduct where powerful adults prey on children.

Meanwhile, the story of child sexual abuse continues to evolve with the release today of documents from the Boy Scouts that identify more than 1,000 leaders and volunteers who were banned from the organization after being accused of inappropriate conduct with boys.

The Web site businessinsider.com recently reported on the case of James M. Henderson, an attorney who was relieved of his duties at Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) after revelations that he had smoked marijuana and engaged in sexually charged online chats with teen-aged boys.

Abby Rogers, of Business Insider, picked up on a story that originated with the progressive Web sites Exposed Politics and The Patriot-Ombudsman. The story gathered steam in the LGBT press (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender), with a report from Metro Weekly confirming that Henderson had been fired.

We have stay tuned to the Henderson story for a couple of reasons: (1) It has an Alabama angle because of Henderson's connections to right-wing lawyer/activist A. Eric Johnston, of Birmingham; Johnston has consistently fought gaming initiatives in our state, even though published reports indicate his organizations have received Mississippi gambling money that was laundered through GOP felon Jack Abramoff; (2) It has connections to the Jerry Sandusky and Ted Rollins stories, which have drawn heavy coverage here.

What kind of adult male seeks sexual contact with boys of various ages? A CNN report on the Boy Scouts story provides insight:

The files will show that the expelled Scout leaders and volunteers--all men--"are sociopathic geniuses," said attorney Kelly Clark of Portland, who has reviewed the 20,000 pages and is among the attorneys releasing the papers Thursday. 

"They fool everybody," he said. "And then they are able to coerce, convince or threaten these kids to stay silent. And you see that play out over and over again in the files."

How does such abuse affect victims? Again, from CNN:

Tim Kosnoff, an attorney in Seattle, said the abuse allegedly inflicted on the men as boys "has a corrosive effect" in which trust, relationship and sexuality issues develop with adulthood. 

One former Boy Scout represented by Kosnoff, Keith Early, joined the group at 12, recruited by an assistant Scoutmaster who was a married firefighter with three children and led Scout meetings in a church in Washington state. 

Early, now 18, was sexually abused by the Scout leader while helping build a Boy Scout camp on his 42-acre ranch, he said in an interview with CNN. The assistant Scoutmaster was convicted of abusing Early and another boy and is now serving a prison sentence of 10 years to life. 

"I felt like I was all alone," Early said. "Just thinking about it makes me angry . . . because how could you do that to somebody? How could you bring yourself to do that to somebody who is so innocent and has done nothing wrong?"

Thanks to the reporting of Bill Schmalfeldt at The Patriot-Ombudsman, we've learned that experts do not necessarily consider such men to be gay. We've also learned that these men fall into different categories, based on the ages of their victims. Let's take a look at three such categories:

* Pedophile--This is an adult who has a primary sexual attraction for prepubescent children (often under age 10).

* Hebephile--This is an adult who has a primary sexual attraction for pubescent children (generally ages 11-14).

* Ephebophile--This is an adult who has a primary sexual attraction for mid to late adolescents (generally ages 15-19).

The general public tends to lump all child sex abusers under the term "pedophile." But psychologists say the issue is more nuanced than that. In fact, stories that have been in our headlines appear to involve men who fall into the latter two categories.

Exact ages of the boys in the James Henderson case are not known, but it appears to be a case of ephebophilia. Perhaps the most high-profile case of ephebophilia in recent years involved former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who resigned his seat after revelations about his sexually charged communications with House pages.

The Sandusky and Rollins stories appear to touch on hebephilia, and that might be the most curious category of all. Many experts seem to agree that the 11-14 age range is an especially vulnerable time for children, especially boys.

Psychology Today provides valuable insight in an article titled "Meet the Hebephiles." In fact, the article states that the Catholic Church has been misguided in its approach to the problem of abusive priests:

Church leaders would also do well to get over the sexologically-naive idea that, because many of the abuse victims have been males in the 11-14 year age range (i.e., they are pubescent boys, and not prepubescent little kids), their priest-abusers can't be pedophiles, and so the priests must be gay men. Various Church leaders have implied that there is no transitional group between men who are into little boys (pedophiles) and men who are into men (gay men). In fact, there is now substantial evidence that men attracted to pubescent (as opposed to prepubescent) children form a recognizable sexual orientation group, termed hebephiles. 

Hebephiles are not sexually typical men who just happen to go for easy-pickin's because they can't get them a real man or woman. Don't get me wrong: there are some otherwise-sexually typical men, primarily attracted to adults, who will sexually abuse pubescent children (including their own children and step-children) because they can't get enough of what they really want. But hebephiles are different. They show offense histories and laboratory arousal patterns indicating that their peak sexual arousal is to pubescent body types. In this way, they are discernible, as a group, from men who show offense histories and laboratory arousal patterns indicating peak sexual arousal patterns to prepubescent children or to adults.

Ray Blanchard, of Canada's Center for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, is a leading researcher in this area. Reports Psychology Today:

Using an extraordinary compilation of data from thousands of men, Blanchard has convincingly shown that hebephiles consist of a sort of "missing link" between pedophiles (those attracted to pre-pubescent children) and teleiophiles (those of us attracted to sexually mature people). Blanchard's data clearly indicate that the sexual orientation of males (at least) isn't just composed of the sex of their partners, it's also composed of the age of their partners.

Laypersons tend to think that sexual attraction is driven mainly by gender and physical appearance. But experts say age can be a deciding factor. And they know that the Catholic Church problem is driven largely by hebephiles, not pedophiles:

A study of offending priests commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice bears out the notion that many of the culprits in collars are in fact hebephiles. The study showed that "the largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14." (The quote is from page 9 of the Executive Summary. The age breakdowns of victims, available on p. 70 of section 4.3, also show that clear clustering in ages 11-14.)

We are grateful that the James M. Henderson story came to our attention. It's an important story in its own right. But it has helped shine considerable light on issues connected to our reporting on Jerry Sandusky and Ted Rollins.

JPMorgan Chase And Its Affiliates Lie About Their Violations Of Federal Debt-Collection Laws

JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates make millions of federal dollars from collecting on student loans, according to a recent report at AlterNet.

Sarah Jaffe reports that Chase, the nation's largest bank, often resorts to abusive practices in its race for student-loan dollars. In the process, Jaffe revealed that one of Chase's affiliates lies about its unlawful tactics.

How do I know? Jaffe referenced this blog and its reporting on my experiences with the debt-collection industry--especially with NCO, a company that is owned by Chase and its private-investment arm, One Equity Partners. Jaffe reported that collectors representing NCO and Chase told my wife that they would sell our home, and NCO denied using such unlawful threats.

That response presents a slight problem: It isn't true. I've got proof that debt collectors representing NCO and Chase threatened to sell our house "on the courthouse steps." That means someone at those companies is lying.

How did Jaffe address the issue? She referenced a 2009 article by Jason Fagone at Philadelphia Magazine, reporting on NCO's abusive tactics against the wife of a soldier who was stationed in Iraq. From Jaffe's article:

Fagone noted that he found reports of deception, of allegations that NCO collectors lied, berated family members, disclosed private information, threatened to garnish wages. One blogger who sued NCO wrote that the collector told his wife that they'd sell her home. NCO denied using these illegal tactics.

That "one blogger" is me, and Jaffe provided a link to one of my posts, titled ABC News Exposes Debt Collectors and Their Ugly Tactics. In that post, I reported on a debt collector's threat to sell our house.  And that statement came from a collector with the Birmingham law firm Ingram and Associates, which was representing NCO, which is owned by JPMorgan Chase. From my post:

Ingram reps repeatedly told us that they were going to sell our house, the whole thing, "on the courthouse steps." Never mind that they can't do that under the law, especially for an alleged debt, in a relatively small amount, that was only in my name--while my wife and I jointly own our house. In fact, an Ingram rep told Mrs. Schnauzer that they were going to sell her house, moments after admitting that the alleged debt did not involve her. Why use of the term "on the courthouse steps"? That makes it a form of public humiliation for the alleged debtor. Again, we suspect this kind of threat is extraordinarily effective in getting targets to cough up money they might not even owe. It also is grossly unlawful.

Thanks to Sarah Jaffe's article, we know that NCO denies using such tactics. But I have proof that they do. I tape recorded conversations with a collector named Tracy Mize and her supervisor, Jann Blalock. Mize had issued the threat regarding our house to my wife, and I raised the issue with Blalock. That conversation is captured in a transcript. (See document at the end of this post.) Here is a key exchange:

Roger Shuler: [Voice Overlap] said our house is going to be auctioned off on the courthouse steps, do you think that’s not [Voice Overlap]. 

Jann Blalock: We didn’t say the house. We said the deed to your house and that’s what happened with any judgment, Mr. Shuler.

Does Ms. Blalock enjoy cracking jokes while she violates the FDCPA? Apparently the answer is yes. No rational person thinks a collector is going to physically take a house and sell it on the courthouse steps. A deed, by definition, is a document that states who legally owns a home. And Ms. Blalock flatly admits that her subordinate threatened to take our deed and have it sold to someone else--and she admits her firm regularly makes that threat with other alleged debtors.

You can read that exchange on page two of the transcript below. It proves that Chase and its affiliates unlawfully threaten to sell houses--and the companies then turn around and lie about it.


Ingram NCO Transcript3

Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Takes Vindictiveness To All New Levels

Sarah and Emma Rollins, on one of
their father's private jets, with
music star Rosanne Cash

If you have followed our coverage of the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, you might think that Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins could not go any lower. But you would be wrong.

We have shown that Rollins caused his ex wife and two daughters to be horrifically cheated in a divorce case that could not lawfully be heard here in Alabama; that's because Sherry Carroll Rollins had initiated a divorce action in South Carolina, where the family lived, and it had been litigated there for three years. Ted Rollins and his billionaire cousin, R. Randall Rollins of Atlanta, almost certainly committed perjury in order to minimize Ted's child-support payments. And we know that Ted Rollins was convicted for assaulting his stepson in 1995, and that came on the heels of a North Carolina social-services investigation of possible sexual abuse involving the same stepson.

That all emits a nasty odor, but we learned this morning that Ted Rollins can go lower still. I received an e-mail from Sherry Rollins, stating that her vehicle was on the verge of collapse and needed about $1,000 worth of repairs. The vehicle was provided to her after the divorce case, and documents show it belongs to Bradley Arant, Ted Rollins' corporate law firm in Birmingham.

Why is Sherry Rollins driving a vehicle owned by Bradley Arant, and why hasn't someone at the law firm ensured that it remains in operating condition? I've not been able to obtain an answer to that question. But Sherry Rollins says her ex husband has been notified about the needed repairs and has refused to pay for them. That means oldest daughter, Sarah Rollins, who was home on fall break from University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, has been unable to return to school. That means youngest daughter, Emma Rollins, must walk to school and cancel music lessons.

Sherry Rollins goes on to state that the water and electricity are due to be shut off soon at her home in Birmingham because the bills have not been paid. Again, Ted Rollins has ignored pleas for help.

Is this retaliation against Sherry and Sarah Rollins because they have spoken out on this blog about Ted Rollins' abusive actions in the past? It sure looks that way.

It's not that Ted Rollins can't afford to help his ex wife and two daughters. He is CEO of a company that completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010. A South Carolina judge established during the divorce case that Ted Rollins belongs to one of the nation's wealthiest families and routinely travels in private jet craft. I'm aware of vacation/business trips he has taken to Jamaica; Monaco; France; Lake Tahoe, Nevada; and Sundance, Utah, in the past year or so.

Sherry Rollins, of course, would not need her ex husband's help if she had received lawful treatment in the divorce case. She receives $500 a month in alimony, $815 a month in child support (total, for two children) and got pretty much nothing in terms of marital assets that should have been equitably divided in court.

Here is a portion of Sherry Rollins' e-mail that I received this morning:

We are now without a car and I can never go get Sarah again at school. . . . 

I presume that this is the end. The water gets cut off on October 22 and the bill has not been paid for two months. The electricity is scheduled for cut off also. 

I guess this is the end for Emma and me. I don't know what to do. . . . 

I will take a cab tomorrow and try to get the car back and drive it home and try to find someone to fix the brakes cheaper and put on a power steering belt and I will go and sell an old ring I have for the gold in it. I don't know if they will give the car back to me or not. He may tell them to keep it. . . . 

There is more to come. I will lose Emma and be homeless next. They have never refused to keep a car on the road before.

Is this the standard thuggish behavior of America's "1 Percent"? Is this the sort of disdain for regular folks that Mitt Romney unknowingly revealed at his "47 Percent fundraiser" in Boca Raton, Florida. Is this the sort of treatment all of us can expect if the power of ruling elites goes unchecked?

I sent an e-mail to Ted Rollins this morning and gave him an opportunity to explain himself. I copied the e-mail to Dawn Sharff, one of his lawyers at Bradley Arant. I also copied representatives from two of the underwriters on Campus Crest's IPO--Paula Poskon, of Robert W. Baird and Associates, and Vick Seth, of Raymond James. I invited all of these individuals to respond to questions about Ted Rollins' abusive actions toward his ex wife and two children. None of them has responded.

Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Ted Rollins and his associates:

Ted: 

I understand that the car you and Bradley Arant have provided for your ex wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins, has broken down and needs major repairs--and that you refuse to pay for them. 

I further understand that this means your oldest daughter, Sarah Rollins, cannot return to school at the University of the South and your youngest daughter, Emma Rollins, now has to walk to school here in Birmingham.

Finally, I understand that utilities are about to be shut off at the home where Ms. Rollins and your children reside--and you have given no indication that you intend to do anything about it. 

A few questions for you, given that you are CEO of a publicly traded company that provides housing for other people's children: 

* If you treat your own children and their mother in such an abusive fashion, why should anyone entrust their child to a facility that is built and managed by your company, Campus Crest Communities? 

* Do you intend to see that your children and their mother are homeless, with no transportation? Is this the outcome you were seeking when you filed an unlawful lawsuit for divorce in Shelby County, Alabama? 

* Is this the kind of "leadership" and "vision" that investors and underwriters in Campus Crest Communities can expect? Is this what consumers can expect from your company? 

* You have affiliated yourself with taxpayer-funded universities around the country. Is this a reflection of how you intend to interact with students and administrators at campuses where your company operates? Is this an indicator of how you plan to uphold your obligations to top officials at institutions that have allowed Campus Crest into their communities? Are you reliable and trustworthy or are you vindictive and petty? 

* Since the vehicle in question belongs to Bradley Arant, your corporate law firm, why have they not ensured that it is kept in a condition to operate? 

I intend to write a post on this subject in about one hour. I also welcome comment from key underwriters of your company. If any of you care to respond to these questions, please do so by 9:30 a.m. CDT. 

Thank you,

Roger Shuler

Technology Quickly Exposes Mitt Romney As A Liar And A Bully In Presidential Debate

We long have extolled the virtues of technology in establishing truth and outing liars. It has been a recurring theme in our reporting on my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). And it might have decided last night's presidential debate.

My employment matter, of course, is minute in comparison to the weighty topics that President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney debated in Hempstead, New York. But I have come to appreciate the importance of a recording that can clear up muddy waters. I have a feeling that President Obama shares that appreciation this morning.

In this little corner of the world, an audiotape proves that I was fired because of my reporting about the political prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman. That tape shows that UAB officials were lying when they claimed I was fired because of insubordination and declining performance. (See video at the end of this post.)

Mitt Romney experienced such an unmasking in last night's presidential debate. It might have been the single most dramatic moment of the campaign and perhaps re-established Obama as the favorite when voters go to the polls on November 6.

Romney stepped into trouble when the debate turned to the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya. The attacks killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, and Romney claimed that it took Obama two weeks to label them an act of terror. Obama challenged the GOP nominee to "look at the transcripts," and moderator Candy Crowley quickly established that the president had referred to the attacks as acts of terror the very next day.

Romney clearly thought he had found a soft spot with the president and intended to bully him on it. But Obama--with the help of Crowley and technology--turned the tables.

At the debate's conclusion, major networks provided video of Obama's September 12 statement from the White House Rose Garden. And transcripts from that day showed that Romney was lying during the debate. Here is the key segment of Obama's statement, as reported by Business Insider, just moments after last night's debate had ended:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Thanks to technology, and a clear record, we know without a doubt that Mitt Romney will resort to falsehoods in an effort to gain an upper hand in the election. Why does that issue hit so close to home for me? The following video, which unmasks my former employer as a liar and a bully, tells the story:

Chace Swatek's Mother Denies That Huffing Played a Role In Her Son's Death

Chace Swatek

Chace Swatek's mother said in a telephone conversation with Legal Schnauzer that the family knows what caused the Alabama lawyer's death. She also said her son had been seriously ill from back surgery in the weeks leading up to his death.

Those statements from Lana Daniel Swatek contradict those from Pelham Police Cpt. Larry Palmer, who told us that family members had no idea what caused Chace Swatek's death, and they told investigators that Mr. Swatek had no known health problems.

I contacted Lana Swatek a few weeks back to give her an opportunity to respond to reports that evidence at the scene pointed to inhalant abuse, commonly known as "huffing," as the likely cause of Chace Swatek's death. Mrs. Swatek denied that huffing was a factor.

From a conversation between Lana Daniel Swatek (LDS) and me (LS):

LDS: I know how my son died; it was not inhalant abuse. 

LS: OK, can you share what it was? As you know, his body was found in a public place . . . 

LDS: My son died right behind his own home; he walked that route with his dogs all the time. I don't know who you are, and I don't know why you are calling me, but I am about to call my husband. What is your name? 

LS: It's Roger Shuler, I'm a journalist . . . I write at a blog and a number of national Web sites. 

LDS: Are you the horrible, despicable man who is trying to destroy my family? Is that who you are? 

LS: I'm just calling to give you an opportunity to comment on an article that I'm preparing to write, based on a source's report. 

LDS: You know what, you had better be very, very careful . . . be very careful. 

LS: Well, that's why I'm calling you. I am being careful 

LDS: Yeah, you'd better be careful.

More from the conversation:

LS: You do know then what caused your son's death? 

LDS: I'm his mother, of course I do--and it's none of your business. It certainly doesn't involve anything to do with whatever you're saying. My son was sick with a broken back, sir. He had a severely broken back, and he was very, very ill with it. He had a hard, hard time. 

LS: He died from the repercussions of a broken back? 

LDS: Yes, that's exactly how Chace died, but it's really none of your business. And you have no idea of the torment . . . the torment . . . I can tell that you are the most evil man that I've ever heard of in my life. 

LS: Well, I'm giving you an opportunity to comment for an article. If you want to comment, you can. If not . . . I know this is an unpleasant topic. 

LDS: I've already made my comment, and I'm going to call my husband. You be very, very careful . . .  

LS: The Pelham Police Department told me that the family had no idea how he died. 

LDS: That is not true at all . . . I've just warned you, you write one more thing . . . don't you write anything about my family ever again . . . ever again.

Here is a video based on my conversation with Lana Daniel Swatek:

Mitt Romney Campaign Rakes In Chunks of Cash From Wealthy Family That Harbors a Child Abuser

Ann Romney and Christine O'Donnell

Even his harshest critics seem to acknowledge that Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon and a strong family  man. So it's curious that the Romney presidential campaign would accept major financial support from a family that has spent years providing cover for a child abuser.

We are talking about the Rollins family, which long has supported GOP causes from its primary bases in Georgia and Delaware. The Atlanta prong of the Rollins clan, led by R. Randall and Gary Rollins, has made billions off Orkin Pest Control and its umbrella company, Rollins Inc. The Delaware branch is led by Michele Rollins, who heads Rollins Jamaica Ltd and its famed Rose Hall Development in Montego Bay.

This comes after a report Sunday in The Washington Post that the Romney campaign has powerful ties to the Marriott family, of hotel-chain fame. In fact, the ties are bound so tightly that campaign staffers pretty much are required to stay in Marriott facilities when on the road. And get this: The Marriotts also are tight with the Rollinses. Like the Romneys, the Marriotts don't seem to mind the ugliness in the Rollins family tree--as long as big bucks keep flowing.

Said ugliness is not a secret; it's a matter of public record if the Rollinses' wealthy friends care to look. And it comes from one of the most public figures in the Rollins clan, a man who makes substantial sums from a publicly traded company that builds student housing at taxpayer-funded universities around the country.

Ted Rollins, the CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, has one foot planted in each of the family branches. As we have reported here in a series of posts about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case in Shelby County, Alabama, Ted Rollins has a documented record as a child abuser. He was convicted for the brutal 1995 assault of his 16-year-old stepson in Franklin County, North Carolina. The beating was so severe that it left the child with a broken nose, multiple lacerations, and substantial blood loss that required treatment to prevent shock.

By definition, under North Carolina law, such an attack by an adult on a child under his care is child abuse. And the assault came roughly two years after North Carolina social-services personnel investigated Ted Rollins for possible sexual abuse of the same stepson, based on a complaint from an unknown citizen. Records from such investigations generally are kept under wraps, so the full results of the Rollins probe are unknown. But we know that a family maid was cleaning a closet and discovered roughly 100 towels, soiled with feces and other debris from apparent anal sex. We also know that Ted Rollins was known to keep curious items--a spatula, a bungee cord, neckties--in the vehicle that he used to drive his stepson to and from school.

Mitt Romney seems to be the rare Republican who does more than just talk about "family values," so you might think he would distance himself from the Rollins crowd. But you would be wrong. Remember that Marc J. Leder, the host of Romney's famed "47 Percent" fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida, is known for hosting "debauched parties" that include "nude frolics" and swimming pools.

Despite his wholesome image, Romney has developed a habit of cozying up to sleaze--if campaign funds can be extracted. That's what happened with the Rollins family.

Back in July, Michele Rollins hosted a fundraiser at her Greenville, Delaware, home that featured Ann Romney as guest of honor. Also on hand was Tea Party darling Christine O'Donnell, and the hostess was jazzed about the whole affair. From a report at delawareonline.com:

Michele Rollins, who hosted Mrs. Romney for a $1,000 per couple reception at her Greenville home, said her house was “so packed” with people coming and going. 

“It was wonderful. Ann Romney was wonderful,” said Rollins, a prominent Republican here who failed in a 2010 Congressional primary. “We had a lot of people. I don’t know the number. It was very successful. There was just a lot of excitement around.” 

Rollins said fewer people attended a later $10,000 per couple dinner in Greenville, also attended by Ann Romney, but said attendance was still “substantial.”

Attendance was down at the $10,000 per couple affair? Are Republicans having to watch their wallets in the Great Bush Recession? Golly, times are hard.

How is Michele Rollins tied to the Marriotts? Well, it started with her late husband, John W. Rollins Sr., who launched the family's enterprises in Jamaica. He developed an alliance with the Marriott chain, and Rose Hall now includes the Ritz-Carlton Golf and Spa Resort. Marriott now owns Ritz-Carlton, although relations with the Rollins family might be strained over a lawsuit based on allegations of mismanagement at the Jamaica facility. One report says the dispute involves roughly $145 million.

Where does Ted Rollins fit into the picture? He is one of John W. Rollins Sr.'s 10 children (by three wives), the last four with Michele Rollins. That means Michele Rollins is Ted Rollins' stepmother.

It's interesting that Michele Rollins happily gushed to the press about her fundraiser with Ann Romney. Ms. Rollins was decidedly less forthcoming about court documents showing she played an active role in ensuring that her Alabama grandchildren, Sarah and Emma Rollins of Birmingham, were cheated so badly in their mother's divorce from Ted Rollins that they wound up on food stamps.

We've sent multiple e-mails to Michele Rollins, seeking her responses to questions about these events in Alabama. She has yet to respond.

Does Mitt Romney look favorably on the Rollins version of "family values"? If so, voters should be deeply concerned.

Is Don Siegelman In Prison Partly Because of Missteps and Conflicts With His Defense Team?

Doug Jones

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has been back in federal prison for more than a  month now, and that should be appalling to citizens who care about justice. After all, court documents show that Siegelman was convicted of a "crime" that does not exist under the law, and the prosecution brought its case almost a full year after the statute of limitations had expired on the key charge of bribery.

We have written several hundred posts about the Siegelman case and shown without a doubt that the case was driven largely by corrupt prosecutors, a conflicted and perhaps chemically clouded judge, and a compromised jury. But we also should ask this difficult question: Was Siegelman well served by his own lawyers? Did they make mistakes that contributed to his wrongful imprisonment? Did some of them have questionable motives?

Siegelman employed a revolving cast of lawyers, one that changed through the various stages of the case--from pre-trial, to trial, to circuit-court review, to U.S. Supreme Court appeal. It's hard to keep track of the lawyers without a scorecard, and one can only wonder how much Siegelman, his family, and his followers spent on the defense--and he still wound in prison, even though the facts and relevant law show that could not happen.

I know from first-hand experience that it can be extremely difficult to deal with a corrupt trial-court judge--and equally hard to deal with an appellate panel that refuses to follow its own legal precedent. But when a team of lawyers is paid big money--probably well into the seven figures--someone should figure out a way to keep an innocent man out of prison.

That raises questions about the performance of Team Siegelman. As a journalist who has followed the case closely since its inception, my impression is that some members of the defense team performed honorably. Others, however, merit serious scrutiny.

No. 1 on that list is G. Douglas Jones, a former U.S. attorney in the Clinton administration who now works at the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter.

Veteran Birmingham lawyer David Cromwell Johnson was Siegelman's original defense counsel, but he died unexpectedly in January 2003. That's when Siegelman turned to Doug Jones, who was then with the firm of Whatley Drake and Kallas. Did it prove to be a good decision? Multiple sources tell me the answer is no. In fact, several say they believe Siegelman never would have come close to being convicted  if David Cromwell Johnson had lived.

Jones testified in October 2007 before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on possible political prosecutions in the Bush administration. A transcript of his testimony provides insight on the actions he took, and the curious connections he carried, during the Siegelman case. (See document at the end of this post.) On the surface, Jones said many of the right things about the unlawful motives behind the prosecution. But upon closer inspection of the transcript, plus other written statements from Jones, a reasonable observer might ask, "What side was this guy on?"

Let's examine Doug Jones' actions in light of three key issues:

* Tolling the Statute of Limitations--Jones met with prosecutors in early July 2004, and they made it clear that their focus was on HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, his contribution to Siegelman's education-lottery campaign, and Scrushy's subsequent appointment to a hospital regulatory board--on which he had served under three previous governors. (See page 10 and 11 of transcript.) The government had a clear problem at this point: Scrushy's appointment had come in late July 1999, and that meant the five-year statute of limitations was about to run out. Prosecutors asked if Siegelman would sign a tolling agreement, extending the statute of limitations for 30 days. Jones, in an act of naivete, incompetence or intentional subterfuge, went along with the idea.

This would be like Auburn football coach Gene Chizik approaching Alabama's Nick Saban before the start of the 2012 Iron Bowl and saying, "You know, Nick, our star quarterback is sick as a dog today, puking his guts out. Would you mind putting off the big game for 30 days, so our stud player can mend and be at his best when we play you guys?" (Never mind that Auburn doesn't have a star quarterback; this is a theoretical exercise.) Can you imagine Nick Saban agreeing to that? Uh, neither can I.

Prosecutors essentially said to Doug Jones: "We admit we don't have a case against your client. If we had to bring the case today, we couldn't nail him with a parking ticket. How about you give us an extra 30 days beyond the legal limit, and that will give us a fair chance to send your guy to the Big House for the rest of his natural life."

Doug Jones, in so many words, said, "Sure, no sweat."

Don Siegelman was paying this guy to represent his best interests?

* Showing Love for Bill Pryor--Democrats don't agree on much, but they almost universally agree that Bill Pryor is a bad guy--and an even worse public servant.

Pryor was the Alabama attorney general who started an investigation of Siegelman almost before the new governor's fanny had hit his chair in 1999. President George W. Bush named Pryor to a seat on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, making a recess appointment because Pryor was such a controversial choice among Senate Democrats.

Here is what Scott Horton, of Harper's, had to say about Pryor:

William Pryor, a ferociously partisan figure and one of the most controversial judicial nominees in recent memory, previously served as Alabama’s attorney general. He used his position to initiate a criminal investigation of Siegelman within weeks of Siegelman’s inauguration as governor. Throughout the history of the Siegelman investigation and prosecution, Pryor figures right at the center of it, concocting new theories, discarding old ones, and ultimately, after concluding that there was an insufficient basis under Alabama law to act, lobbying the Justice Department to bring a case. Throughout this period, Pryor consulted with and involved senior Alabama GOP figures in the matter. Pryor is also a friend and confidant of Karl Rove, whom he hired to manage his election campaign, and who played a key role in his ascendancy to the federal bench.

An assessment of a legal figure cannot be much more scathing than that. But guess what? Doug Jones likes Bill Pryor; he believed it when Pryor told him the Siegelman case had nothing to do with politics. (See page 4 of transcript.)

Jones even calls Pryor a "trusted colleague and friend." Are Scott Horton and Doug Jones talking about the same guy?

* Showing Love for Rob Riley--This might be Jones' most curious connection of all. Homewood attorney Rob Riley is the son of former GOP Governor Bob Riley, who probably stands as Don Siegelman's No. 1 political enemy. Bob Riley became governor in 2002 only when votes for the incumbent, Siegelman, mysteriously disappeared overnight in heavily conservative Baldwin County.

So how could Jones, as Siegelman's one-time defense counsel, become buds with Rob Riley? Well, they found a way to make lots of money together--and they were willing to overlook glaring conflicts of interest in order to grab for serious cash. This all stems from a massive federal lawsuit against individuals and entities connected to HealthSouth Corporation. The case generated more than $50 million in attorney fees, and as co-liaison counsel, Jones and Riley stood to make hefty sums.

Jones seems to be highly sensitive to his alliance with Rob Riley--and the boat loads of cash they raked in together. How sensitive is he? On March 31, 2009, I wrote a piece titled "Does Rob Riley Engage in Fraud While He 'Fights' Fraud?" noting that Riley faced charges of Medicare fraud in a federal whistleblower lawsuit at the same time he was helping to sue others for health-care fraud.

Taking issue with my post, Jones blasted me that evening on a well-known progressive listserv that is based in Huntsville, Alabama. I reported on Jones' response in a May 14, 2009, post titled "Striking a Nerve With a Key Figure in the Siegelman Case," going so far as to run Jones' listserv comment word for word.

Jones claimed I had jumped to "absurd conclusions," based on "political motivations," but he failed to point to anything that was plainly inaccurate in my reporting. That would have been hard to do, of course, because my post was based almost entirely on published reports and court records.

I've tried, on two occasions, to ask Jones about the issues noted above--and other matters. Both times, he has refused to answer my questions. He made a vague reference to "things you've written about me." But at the time of Jones' listserv attack, I had not written much of anything about him.

I had written about Rob Riley's apparent conflicts from his association with both the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case and the HealthSouth civil case, borrowing heavily on the reporting of Huffington Post's Sam Stein.

Evidence strongly suggests that Jones had no reason to be displeased with anything I had written about him, but was peeved about my reporting on Rob Riley and the legal fees from the HealthSouth lawsuit.

Don Siegelman supporters, and he still has a lot of them in this state, might ponder this thought: "The Legal Schnauzer blog has been one of the foremost sources of news and analysis about the former governor's case. Heck, the blog's author even was cheated out of his job at UAB because of his bold stance in support of Governor Siegelman and the rule of law--and against politically driven prosecutions in the Bush years.

"Why would Doug Jones, as former defense counsel for Siegelman, refuse to take questions from Legal Schnauzer, of all people?"

In a series of upcoming posts, we will take a closer look at that question. We also will present powerful evidence of where Doug Jones' loyalty rested--and it wasn't with Don Siegelman.

(To be continued)

Doug Jones Testimony

This Must Be How Joe Paterno Felt When Confronted With a Report On Child Sexual Abuse

Joe Paterno

Until the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke last November, Penn State football coach Joe Paterno was one of the most revered figures in sports. Then we learned that Paterno had been told about events indicating Sandusky had sexually abused at least one boy in a Penn State locker room--and the iconic coach failed to "do enough" to report the matter to authorities.

Paterno soon saw his charmed life fall apart. He was fired, he was diagnosed with lung cancer, and he died about three months later, with his reputation in tatters. The university to which he had donated millions of dollars even removed a statue of him outside the football stadium.

It all happened because Joe Paterno didn't know what to do with information that apparently confounded him; he simply could not grasp that one of his long-time assistant coaches had been spotted abusing a boy in a university shower. But Paterno surely did grasp that revealing such information could be explosive--and it would damage the lives of people he had known and trusted for years.

That probably is why Joe Paterno took a passive approach. And his failure to act decisively and aggressively, when faced with information about a stomach-churning crime, is why many Americans have vilified a once beloved figure throughout much of 2012.

I now have a slight taste for how Joe Paterno must have felt. That's because I've received extensive information about apparent child sexual abuse as part of my coverage of the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case. Two sources within the family have confirmed that a North Carolina social-services investigation in the 1990s centered on a citizen complaint about a possible abusive relationship between Ted Rollins and his stepson. One source has provided details--the discovery, for example, of soiled towels that were the apparent byproduct of anal sex--that suggest something was terribly wrong in the Rollins household.

The issue particularly resonates because Ted Rollins now is CEO of Campus Crest Communities, a Charlotte-based company that completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010 and has student-housing projects either completed or in development at 36 universities across the country. Like Jerry Sandusky, Rollins works in a field that revolves around young people--and yet, powerful evidence indicates Ted Rollins has treated young people in an abusive fashion.

Like Joe Paterno, I'm feeling queasy about the whole matter. That's partly because people I respect have asked me not to report on the subject, out of concern for damage it might cause to the family--especially the alleged victim who now is a young adult.

One of the people who has asked me to look away is Sarah Rollins, Ted Rollins' oldest daughter and the alleged victim's half sister. A 2012 graduate of Mountain Brook High School and now a freshman at University of the South, Sarah Rollins is concerned that reporting on such a sensitive matter would cause an irreparable schism in her family. (See posts here and here.)

We conclude today our series of posts about my conversation with Sarah Rollins. (See videos at the end of this post.) I have moved forward with reporting on the child sexual abuse investigation, but I have not taken that step lightly.

My actions, to a great extent, have been driven by lessons from the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State--especially Joe Paterno's role in it. The vast majority of Americans seem to have reached the conclusion that Paterno should have resisted his urge to look the other way--that he should have directly reported the information about Sandusky, consequences be damned.

Regular readers probably will not be surprised to learn that I'm not a big believer in going along with the crowd. A book called The Wisdom of Crowds spent weeks on best-seller lists in 2004-05, but I believe America's crowds often get things horribly wrong. How else can you explain George W. Bush spending eight years in the White House?

In this case, however, I think the crowds have it right. Victims of child sexual abuse are defenseless, and if adults continue to be squeamish and silent on the issue, the number of victims only will grow. Joe Paterno should have realized that. He should have done more.

As much as I appreciate Sarah Rollins' concerns--and I admire her for contacting me out of concern for her brother--I decided that I was not going to repeat Joe Paterno's mistake. I was going to report this story in a straightforward fashion.

The reporting process is ongoing, but technically speaking, my responsibility doesn't end there. Like Joe Paterno, I am obligated to report what I know to the proper authorities. That's not just my sense of right and wrong speaking; it's the law.

Many Americans probably have never heard of something called "misprision of a felony." (That first word, by the way, is pronounced mis-PRI-zhen; or at least, I think that's right.) It's covered under 18 U.S. Code 4, which states:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I certainly have information about the possible commission of a felony, and North Carolina has no statute of limitations on child sexual abuse, so that would not bar an investigation or prosecution. The law states that it covers knowledge of the actual commission of a felony. Does the information I have go beyond the possible to the "actual commission" of a felony? Does the term "cognizable by a court of the United States" mean the law applies only to federal issues? If the information I possessed involved acts that took place in more than one state, would that make them federal issues?

I don't have the answers to those questions. But I am informed by the experiences of Joe Paterno at Penn State. And it tells me that citizens are expected to act aggressively with information about the possible abuse of children.

You can check out the last two parts of my conversation with Sarah Rollins below.