Man Who Claims To Have CEO Ted Rollins' iPhone Describes Scheme Designed to Deceive Stockholders

Theresea Kilgore

Officials at Campus Crest Communities spent way more than expected on an office renovation at their Charlotte headquarters and intentionally spread the costs over multiple projects to deceive stockholders about excess spending.

Evidence of that can be found on CEO Ted Rollins' iPhone, according to an unknown caller to Legal Schnauzer. The man claimed the iPhone came into his possession when Campus Crest gave away office equipment to individuals working on the renovation.

"Our company had around $400,000 in charges that [Campus Crest] didn't plan on spending, so . . . they divided the $400,000 up among other projects across the country. [That way] the stockholders wouldn't realize what they were actually spending on the office renovation." (See video at the end of this post.) 

The iPhone includes contact info for a number of celebrities, including musician Rosanne Cash, basketball great Julius Erving, and pro wrestler Hulk Hogan. Just for fun, the caller said, he called the number for Rosanne Cash to see what would happen. When she answered the phone and identified herself as "Rosanne," the guy got flustered and said he must have the wrong number. "I called Julius Erving, too," the man said.

As for less famous people, photos of Birmingham resident Theresea Kilgore show up throughout the iPhone's contents, the man said. Kilgore has been a curious character in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case. We described Kilgore's role in attending a settlement conference and encouraging Sherry Carroll Rollins to accept several outrageously low-ball figures. That was in a post titled "Here Is More Evidence That CEO Ted Rollins Lied Under Oath To Reduce His Child-Support Payments." 

Why would Theresea Kilgore show up in photos, apparently taken at locations around the country, on Ted Rollins' cell phone? We have no idea. "She's in a lot of pictures," the caller said. "She went on a lot of vacations with them."

The man again expressed alarm about images on the phone that he considered to be child pornography. "If I turn this phone over to authorities, [Ted Rollins] will be arrested immediately."

I expressed doubt about that because, based on descriptions of the images, I'm wasn't sure they amounted to child pornography. 

The man admits that one reason he called me is that he had a contentious relationship with a Campus Crest employee and ultimately felt he had been treated badly on the renovation project.

What was the outcome of all this? Our story will be winding down with the next post in our series.


(To be continued)



Previously in the series:


How Did An iPhone Belong To CEO Ted Rollins Come To Play Central Role In Curious Con Game? (July 9, 2013)

A Glimpse at Information on Ted Rollins' Cell Phone Raises Questions About Alabama Divorce Case (July 11, 2013)

AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Claims She's The Target Of A Vindictive Prosecution Directed By Scott Vowell

Dorothea Batiste

Suspended Jefferson County Judge Dorothea Batiste complained to the Alabama Attorney General's office last October that Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell was harassing her and pressuring her to change orders in divorce cases.

Vowell became aware of Batiste's visit to the AG's office in Montgomery, and his resulting anger helped spur a campaign of complaints against Batiste to the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC), according to court documents filed yesterday. 

Attorney Julian McPhillips urges the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to drop the charges against Batiste, claiming she is the victim of a vindictive prosecution that kicked into high gear when Vowell learned of her AG complaint. (See motion, including summary of Batiste's complaint to AG, at the end of this post.)

A subpoena to Jesse Seroyer, of the Alabama Attorney General's office, produced an "Investigative Report Form" on Batiste's complaint regarding Vowell. McPhillips obtained a copy of the report yesterday and promptly filed a motion asking the Court of the Judiciary to drop the case against his client.

Batiste filed an EEOC complaint, alleging sexual harassment against Vowell, on April 26, 2013. That came just one week after the AJIC formally brought charges against Batiste, and it suggested Batiste might have filed the harassment claims only after learning of the AJIC charges.

The Attorney General's report, however, shows that Batiste first complained about Vowell some seven months before she learned of the AJIC charges. In an affidavit filed with her EEOC complaint, Batiste states that she did not learn Vowell was leading a campaign against her with the AJIC until spring 2013. 

Based on the AG's report, it appears Batiste made official complaints about Vowell long before she knew he had launched a campaign against her with the AJIC.

"This is dynamite in the sense that . . . it confirms and corroborates her complaints," McPhillips. "This shows that, back in October, she didn't know what to do. . . . She didn't know how to handle it, so she came down and made a complaint, and three different people heard it. . . . "

What about the specifics of Batiste complaint from last October? Here is part of the AG's report:

Judge Batiste related that the presiding judge in the 10th circuit, the Hon. J. Scott Vowell, had countermanded her judicial authority as a domestic relations judge on several occasions and had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her on several occasions. 

How ugly did Vowell's behavior become? Again, from the report:

Judge Vowell continued to badger Judge Batiste about her cases and requested frequent personal meetings. Judge Vowell began a routine in which he would call on Fridays to Judge Batiste's office and demand a personal meeting. Judge Batiste advised that during these meetings Judge Vowell was "touchy-feely and always whispering in her ear." This type of behavior began a few months after Judge Batiste took office. She recalled that the first time Judge Vowell acted inappropriately, he placed his hands around her hips when they were alone and told her, "Ain't you a good looking thing. . . . "

Judge Batiste said this type of sexually harassing behavior occurred on [such] a frequent basis that she began to be afraid of being left alone with Judge Vowell. . . . 

In regards to the sexual harassment, Judge Batiste advised that she had only told members of her immediate family about Judge Vowell's inappropriate advances. Judge Batiste advised that she was embarrassed to tell people about the sexual-harassment issues due to the fact that "it's not supposed to happen to me. I'm a judge."

A recent federal case in the Northern District of Alabama, styled U.S. v. Brown, 862 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2012), addresses both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. McPhillips argues that both issues are present in the JIC case against Batiste. From the Brown ruling:  

Brown has alleged both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. Vindictive prosecution is distinguishable from selective prosecution in that vindictive prosecution arises when the severity of the charges against a defendant is increased after the defendant exercises a constitutional right after criminal charges have begun, while selective prosecution occurs when a person is prosecuted based on an immutable personal characteristic, such as race or religion, or in response to some constitutionally-protected act that a person has done prior to the criminal charge being brought against him.

In the motion filed yesterday, McPhillips argues that his client suffered because she exercised her constitutional right to file a complaint with the Alabama Attorney General's office--and that goes to the vindictive nature of Scott Vowell's claims against her. From the McPhillips motion:

Judge Batiste requests that this court consider Judge Batiste's third affirmative defense of sexual harassment and retaliation to be amplified to include vindictive prosecution by Scott Vowell, who has used the AJIC and his close friends on the AJIC to punish Judge Batiste for her sexual harassment allegations to the Alabama Attorney General's office.

Dorothea Batiste Vindictive Prosecution by Roger Shuler

AG Luther Strange Has A Messy Extramarital Affair With Ex Campaign Aide Jessica Medeiros Garrison

Luther Strange and
Jessica Medeiros Garrison

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has engaged in a lengthy extramarital affair with his former campaign manager, sources tell Legal Schnauzer. In fact, the affair appears to be ongoing.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison divorced Tuscaloosa city councilman Lee Garrison in October 2009, roughly one year before Strange won his race for attorney general. Their son, Michael Lee Garrison, was born on March 27, 2007. The Garrisons became entangled in a protracted court battle over custody, and Luther Strange's name plays a prominent role in that case.

Strange has been married to his wife, Melissa, for more than 30 years, and they have two sons. In a 2010 campaign video, Melissa Strange talks at length about her husband's integrity and his determination to "do what's right." (See video at the end of this post.)

The Stranges for years owned a home at 3210 Briarcliff Road in Mountain Brook, but sources say Luther Strange has purchased a house in The Waters development in the Pike Road community, near Montgomery.

Revelations about an extramarital affair call into question any moral authority Luther Strange might claim as the state's chief law-enforcement officer. One of the grounds he has cited for aggressive actions against the VictoryLand casino in Macon County is his claim that the facility and owner Milton McGregor have "a sordid past."

Now it appears that Strange's past, and present, are a bit sordid. Neither Luther Strange nor Jessica Medeiros Garrison responded to interview requests for this story.

Sexual fidelity is not the only issue at the heart of the Luther Strange/Jessica Garrison story. It also involves curious financial transactions, which have benefited Ms. Garrison and raised questions about the AG's judgment. That is particularly relevant in light of the ethics and campaign-finance charges Strange has brought against former Democratic state senator Lowell Barron.

Who is Jessica Medeiros Garrison? She is a University of Alabama graduate who worked on Strange's failed 2006 campaign for lieutenant governor. She was his campaign manager in 2010, even though she had no previous experience in such a high-level position. Like Strange, Garrison has voiced powerful opposition to gambling in Alabama.

Garrison was a partner at the Tuscaloosa law firm of Phelps Jenkins Gibson & Fowler, which has powerful ties to University of Alabama trustee Paul Bryant Jr., before accepting a position as chief counsel for Luther Strange in January 2011.

Complications from her custody case led Garrison to decline that position and move to Birmingham, where she serves in an "of counsel" role with the firm Balch & Bingham. She lives at 119 Main Street in Mountain Brook, not far from the former Luther Strange residence.

Garrison's rise in Republican political circles might have grown from her ties to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and former Attorney General William H. Pryor, currently a federal judge on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This is from a 2011 Tuscaloosa News article titled "Local Attorney To Join AG's Staff: Jessica Garrison To Be Chief Counsel For Luther Strange":

Garrison previously served in the attorney general’s office under Sessions and Pryor. She was director of Public Relations and Legislative Affairs for Pryor and was an intern and assistant director of Public Relations and Legislative Affairs for Sessions.

“It’s a true honor to return to the attorney general’s staff under the leadership of Luther Strange at a historical time for our state government,” she said. “Defending our state’s rights, protecting families and restoring honesty and integrity to the office are among our top priorities."

Garrison earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Alabama, where she was president of the Student Government Association, and a juris doctorate from the UA School of Law. She clerked for then-Tuscaloosa County Circuit Judge Scott Coogler, who is now a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Alabama, and in 1998 joined Phelps, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, where she had been a partner since 2008.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison says that she and Luther Strange wanted to restore "honesty and integrity" to the office of attorney general. In a series of future posts, we will examine how such high-minded words square with reality.

Speaking of honesty and integrity, those words show up in the Luther Strange campaign video below.


(To be continued) 

Federal Judge Henry Wingate Doesn't Make An Effort To Apply The Law Correctly In Paul Minor Civil Case

U.S. Judge Henry Wingate

Paul Minor, one of the most successful plaintiffs' lawyers in Mississippi history, has been released from prison on his Bush-era conviction for "crimes" that do not exist under actual law. Minor's legal problems, however, are far from over. With U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate still in charge of his fate, things could go from bad to worse for Paul Minor.

How could Wingate, a black Republican who apparently qualifies as Mississippi's version of Clarence Thomas, still be in charge of Minor's fate? After all, Wingate presided over multiple criminal trials in the Minor matter; how could he possibly serve as an impartial arbiter in a related civil matter?

The answer is, "He can't, but he's doing it anyway--in what's left of our so-called U.S. justice system."

As part of the fallout from the criminal case, insurance giant USF&G sued Minor and his one-time client, Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi. The basic claim is that Minor and the bank benefited from actions that were found to be unlawful. The civil case was filed in 2003, but it was put on hold pending the criminal matter. When Minor was released from prison earlier this year, the civil case kicked into high gear.

A reasonable citizen might ask, "How could the same judge hear both cases? He's heard the evidence, he's issued orders on various matters . . . how could he possibly be an impartial arbiter in the civil matter when he's already ruled on pretty much the same issues in the criminal matter?"

Under the law, such a citizen is asking all of the right questions. Per 28 U.S. Code 455, a federal judge must disqualify himself in "any proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." That means Wingate was required by law to step down from the Minor civil case, without being asked. But so far, the judge has resisted all of Minor's efforts to get him off the case.

Even if Wingate had handled the criminal case in an impeccable manner, he should not be hearing the related civil matter. But Wingate's recalcitrance becomes especially troubling when you consider that he butchered the criminal case in almost every way imaginable.

Here are just two of many posts we've written about the botch job Wingate committed on U.S. v. Minor, et al:


Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge (January 28, 2008)


Judge In Paul Minor Case Continues His Evil Ways (June 14, 2011)


We are not alone in our critique of Wingate's actions. Columbia University law professor Scott Horton called some of Wingate's rulings in the criminal case "breathtaking" and "unconscionable" in a 2007 article for Harper's.

USF&G's lawyers, from the Jackson, Mississippi, firm of McCraney, Montagnet, Quin & Noble, almost surely know they have no legal basis for the civil claim. They apparently have the judge in their hip pocket, however, so the case is proceeding apace.

Consider just some of the facts and law connected to the criminal case:

* USF&G claims that it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme involving Minor and former Mississippi Chancery Judge Wes Teel in the underlying Peoples Bank case. But USF&G voluntarily settled the case, and Teel did not even issue a final ruling in the matter. He did favor Peoples Bank at summary judgment on the issue of liability, but that finding was in line with prevailing Mississippi law at the time. Where is fraud in a case that USF&G voluntarily settled?

* At the heart of USF&G's civil complaint is the contention that it was the victim of a bribery scheme involving Minor and Teel. But the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned all of the bribery-related convictions in 2009. The remaining convictions essentially rested on an honest-services fraud charge.

* In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Skilling v. U.S., 28 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), honest-services convictions can stand only in cases where bribes or kickbacks are involved. As already shown, the bribery convictions in the Minor criminal case were overturned. And kickbacks were not even alleged.

That leaves us asking this question about the USF&G civil case: Where's the beef? The case rests on . . . well, almost nothing. But the firm is seeking $12.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages anyway.

Minor probably has grounds to seek Rule 11 sanctions against USF&G lawyers for bringing a nonmeritorious case for the purposes of harassment. He also probably has grounds for an abuse of process claim against USF&G and its attorneys.

With Henry Wingate on the case, what are the chances that a Ronald Reagan appointee would hold an insurance company and its lawyers accountable for bringing a baseless civil complaint?

The chances are slim, but the public should pay close attention to Henry Wingate's actions in USF&G v. Minor. It's a classic study of a federal judge who is so arrogant that he doesn't even try to hide his favoritism toward a corporate litigant. And the corporation seems happy to benefit from the law being bent like a pretzel.

Luther Strange's Statements On Voting Rights Act Offer A Glimpse Into His "Sordid" Lack Of Values

Luther Strange

Of all the public statements about the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act (VRA), perhaps the most ironic belongs to Alabama Attorney General  Luther Strange.

That's because Strange praised the high court's decision to gut VRA at the same time he was being sued under VRA.

It's hard to imagine a more flagrant display of hypocrisy from a public official. But given what we are learning about Strange's personal life, perhaps we should not be surprised at anything he might say or do.

This is the same Luther Strange who argued back in January that the VictoryLand casino should not be granted a liquor license because the facility and its owner, Milton McGregor, have "a sordid past." 

Based on our roughly three-month investigation of Strange's personal affairs, we can safely say that Strange knows a thing or two about sordid activities. We will be providing details in a multi-part series of posts that begins tomorrow.

The public already has plenty of evidence about Strange's tendency to make deceptive public statements that are hypocritical and, at times, downright dishonest. Consider his words on the Supreme Court's ruling on the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder. This is from an NPR report titled "In Alabama, Voting Decision Seen As A Sign of Progress, Setback":

The 5-4 decision declared unconstitutional a section of the law that established a formula to identify state and local governments that were required to get approval from the federal government before they made changes to their voting laws. The Supreme Court said Congress can change that part of the law — Section 4 — to reflect "current conditions" if it wants to continue to enforce it.

Luther Strange, Alabama's Republican attorney general, calls the ruling historic.

"What I'm most pleased about [is] it's a recognition of the tremendous amount of progress that we've made in Alabama over the last 50 years," he says.

Strange did not stop there. From NPR:

Strange says there's no doubt that federal oversight was needed in the 1960s. But times have changed.

"To treat Alabama the way all the other states are treated is a huge victory — symbolically, I think, and practically," he says.

"Big Luther" apparently neglected to mention one tiny detail: At the time he spoke those words, he was the defendant in a federal lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.

In a case styled Johnny Ford, et al v. Luther Strange, et al, the mayor of Tuskegee and other residents of Macon County allege that Strange and Governor Robert Bentley violated the Voting Rights Act by usurping the authority of the county sheriff when Strange's office raided and closed the VictoryLand casino in February. 

Plaintiffs' lawyer Donald LaRoche, of Brockton, Massachusetts, alleges that racism and thuggish Republican Party politics drove the VictoryLand raid, which heaped "economic devastation" upon residents of majority-black Macon County. From the complaint:

Beginning in 2003, white political leaders of the Alabama and National Republican Party . . . , including but not limited to Governor Bob Riley, initiated plans to elect white Republicans to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government in the State of Alabama, allegedly referred to as "Operation 2010."

In order to raise funds to accomplish their goal, Alabama Republican leaders and elected officials entered into a scheme with the Mississippi Choctaw Indians Casino Operators . . . and later the Alabama Poarch Band of Creek Indian Casino Operators. . . .

This scheme included eliminating competition to Indian Gaming from non-Indian Gaming, including "VictoryLand" located in Macon County, Alabama. Eliminating VictoryLand served the dual goals of both by providing Indian Gaming a monopoly in Alabama and shutting off potential non-Indian Gaming . . . contributions that Republican political leaders feared could be used to thwart their political plans.

Strange, of course, is a card-carrying member of the Bob Riley machine, via mutual ties to the Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant. Machine members consistently have claimed they oppose gambling, in all forms, on a moral basis. We already have shown that one machine member, the former governor's son Rob Riley, has feet of clay when it comes to issues of private morals.

We are about to show the same thing regarding Luther Strange.


(To be continued)

RealtySouth Agent Amber Darnell Says Clear Law Will Not Stop The Sale Of Bonnie Cahalane's House

Amber Darnel

An Alabama real-estate agent says she plans to sell a house belonging to a Chilton County woman who was unlawfully incarcerated for five months last year.

Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds ordered Bonnie Cahalane jailed as part of the fallout from a divorce case styled Wyatt v. Wyatt, and then orchestrated an agreement for the sale of Ms. Cahalane's house while she was under threat of being returned to jail if she did not comply.

Court documents show that Amber Darnell, of RealtySouth, is listed as the agent for the Cahalane property. I called Ms. Darnell recently and informed her that both Ms. Cahalane's incarceration and the resulting sales agreement were contrary to black-letter Alabama law.

Ms. Darnell's response, in so many words, was that she is just doing what she's told, and the sale will proceed. (See video at the end of this post.)

"I've been told not to discuss anything with you because of this court order," Darnell said. "So I have no response on anything."

Darnell said she wasn't aware of Cahalane's incarceration, and it had nothing to do with her. "That's confidential information . . . all I'm trying to do is sell the house."

I reminded Darnell that it is actually is public information, from court records, and asked for the name of her superior at RealtySouth. She said it is Patty Bingham, and I stated that the company is unlawfully selling a house, one that essentially is being stolen from its owner.

Does that concern Amber Darnell or anyone else at RealtySouth? I couldn't tell that it does. Darnell claimed that Cahalane had agreed to the sales arrangement, but I said that came when she was wearing prison clothes and under the duress of being unlawfully returned to jail. A contract under such circumstances, by law, is void--but that didn't seem to bother Amber Darnell.

"I'm doing what the court has asked me to do," she said.

I noted that Ms. Cahalane likely will have grounds for a civil-rights complaint in the future, and that could expose RealtySouth to substantial liability.

Ms. Darnell's response? "All I can do is do what they've told me to do."


(To be continued)

Town That Was Shaken By Jerry Sandusky Scandal Welcomes Ted Rollins And His Past As Child Abuser

Ted Rollins (right) with Copper Beech
founder Jack McWhirter at
Penn State 

You might think that residents of State College, Pennsylvania, would be hyper vigilant about anyone with a history as a child abuser entering their environs. After all, State College was the site of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, with the former Penn State assistant football coach at the heart of perhaps the most notorious child sexual abuse case in modern U.S. history.

So why are State College and the massive university in its midst throwing out the welcome mat for Ted Rollins, the CEO who has a documented history of being a child abuser? Rollins and his Charlotte-based company, Campus Crest Communities, are set to open The Grove at State College, which is one of about 40 such student-housing complexes the company has built around the country.

On top of that, Campus Crest announced earlier this year the purchase of Copper Beech Townhome Communities, which has been a major player in the student-housing sector for 20 years. Copper Beech just happens to be based in State College, PA, and its founders, John and Jeannette McWhirter, are among Penn State's largest donors in recent years.

It's likely that many residents of State College would not recognize the name Ted Rollins. And they almost certainly know little or nothing about his background. But the man--and his ugly history as a child abuser--now have a major presence in the town where Jerry Sandusky conducted his dirty work. We know him here in Alabama, of course, from his central role in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which stands as the most grotesque example of judicial corruption we have encountered in the civil arena.

Ted Rollins' ties to State College, PA, came to mind when Penn State announced last Friday that it has reached tentative agreements to pay out millions of dollars to victims in the Sandusky case. From a report at espn.com:

Penn State could soon be paying out millions of dollars to victims of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky after disclosing Friday it had tentative agreements with some of the young men who say he sexually abused them.

The school does not plan to comment on specifics until the deals are made final, which could happen in the coming weeks. University president Rodney Erickson called getting approval for settlement offers "another important step toward the resolution of claims from Sandusky's victims."

Penn State is working "toward the resolution" of the horrific Sandusky scandal, but at the same time, it is welcoming a student-housing company that is led by a man who is a proven child abuser. Last week's announcement about settlements in the Sandusky case came one month before The Grove at State College is to open in August for the start of the 2013-14 academic year. And it came roughly four months after Campus Crest announced its acquisition of Copper Beech.

Do residents of State College, and officials at Penn State, recognize the irony in this flurry of activity? It's possible that they simply are ignorant about Ted Rollins' background, but it is hardly a secret. We've written about it extensively here at Legal Schnauzer, and our reports have been picked up at a number of national Web sites.

Here are just a few of the posts we've written about Ted Rollins' record as a child abuser:


Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Once Beat His Stepson To A Bloody Pulp (April 17, 2012)


Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Has A Conviction For Assault In His Background (May 2, 2012)


How Was Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Convicted Of "Simple Assault" In North Carolina? (May 10, 2012)


For the record, the Ted Rollins story does not end with the mere physical abuse of his stepson. He also was investigated for child sexual abuse, based on a report from an anonymous citizen. Here are some of our posts on that subject:


Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins Was Investigated For The Sexual Abuse Of His Stepson (September 12, 2012)


Towels Soiled With Feces Point To Child Sexual Abuse Involving CEO Ted Rollins (September 13, 2012)


The bottom line? A state investigation in North Carolina led to no action against Ted Rollins. No steps were taken to protect his apparent victim. 

Residents of State College, PA, and supporters of Penn State should be familiar with that kind of story. Jerry Sandusky first was investigated for inappropriate conduct with a child in 1998, but nothing came of it. More than 13 years passed, with an untold number of additional victims, before Sandusky finally was held accountable.

Some of the evidence against Ted Rollins can be viewed in black and white, as in the following court documents from Franklin County, North Carolina. Perhaps Penn State officials should become familiar with them.


(To be continued)

Ted Rollins Arrested for Assault by Roger Shuler

Ted Rollins Convicted of Assault by Roger Shuler

Records Show That Black AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Received Harsher Treatment Than White Colleague

Dorothea Batiste

Perhaps the most important term in a discrimination action is "comparator." Often used in employment cases, comparator refers to someone who is "similarly situated" but is outside the complainant's protected class (based on race, gender, age, etc.) If it is shown that the comparator was treated more favorably than the complainant, it might prove a case for discrimination.

In the pending disciplinary action against Alabama Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste, it probably would be hard to find a more perfect comparator than Suzanne Childers, who perhaps is best known for toting a gun to court. Both women sat as judges in the Domestic Relations Division of Jefferson County. Both did not hesitate to use contempt powers in cases where it appeared parties were ignoring court orders.

The record presents one glaring difference between the two women--Batiste is black, and Childers is white. Here is another difference: Batiste is facing possible sanctions from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) for allegedly making excessive use of her contempt powers; Childers never faced such an inquiry, even though records show her use of contempt power dwarfed that of Batiste.

Does that suggest the AJIC is going after Batiste because of the color of her skin? Put more bluntly, does it mean the AJIC is a racist organization?

A review of documents in the Batiste case could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.

Julian McPhillips, the Montgomery-based attorney who represents Batiste, puts the discrimination question front and center in a Motion for Summary Judgment that calls for the charges against Batiste to be dropped. (See summary judgment motion at the end of this post.)

Central to Batiste's defense is her contention that AJIC rules preclude investigation of a judge for alleged erroneous rulings, absent evidence of bad faith. And Batiste claims that the AJIC does not even make firm allegations of bad faith, much less present any evidence of it. From the summary judgment motion:

Even though the AJIC only sparsely hints at bad faith, in the alternative, the fact is that the AJIC cannot point to one shred of evidence that Judge Batiste did engage in bad faith. As such, the AJIC does not meet the requirement of its own rules, which state:

"It (AJIC) does not review either final judgments or allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith."

As has been amply argued in the preceding pages of this motion and brief, there is a total absence of bad faith on the part of Judge Batiste, and as a result Judge Batiste is due to receive summary judgment in her favor on this issue.

As aforestated, all the complaints against her revolve around her allegedly misguided or misinformed use of the contempt power in a court proceeding. The AJIC Rules do not allow the AJIC or the Court of the Judiciary to review either "allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith." But that is what the AJIC has done. Hence, Judge Batiste is entitled to summary judgment.

McPhillips makes a powerful case. He argues  that, even if Batiste mistakenly used her contempt powers, that does not mean she did so in bad faith--and the AJIC has neither alleged nor shown that she acted in bad faith. Based on the commission's own rules, it is not allowed to investigate Batiste's actions, much less impose discipline upon her.

Suzanne Childers

The argument becomes even more powerful when McPhillips turns his attention to five contempt orders issued by Batiste's white colleague, Suzanne Childers.  (See copies of the contempt orders in exhibits at the end of this post.) Here is a summary of what they show:

Finally, reflecting on a standard for measuring Judge Batiste's good faith, when compared to other judges, are five copies of orders from a white female judge, Suzanne Childers, all in 2011-2012 (the same time period Batiste is being questioned about), wherein Judge Childers confined parties, respectively, for 325 days, 520 days, 310 days, 355 days, and 255 days. By contrast, the most Judge Batiste ever ordered someone confined was for 12 days, and usually no more than 2-3 days. (See Exhibits H, I, J, K and L.)

Those numbers are staggering, so let's put them in perspective. Childers confined one party for more than one year, three others for almost one year each, and another for almost nine months.

But Dorothea Batiste is the one on trial for excessive use of contempt power?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, recently overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act by more or less stating that we no longer have reason to worry much about mistreatment of racial minorities in Alabama.

You never would know it from studying the case of Dorothea Batiste.

Dorothea Batiste Summary Judgment by Roger Shuler

Dorothea Batiste Childers Exhibits by Roger Shuler

A Glimpse At Information On Ted Rollins' Cell Phone Raises Questions About Alabama Divorce Case

The overarching question in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case might best be summed up this way: How does a woman who married into one of the wealthiest families in the United States wind up with a divorce judgment that is so viciously one sided that she and her daughters have to go on food stamps?

You apparently don't have to know any of the parties or the issues involved to have that question come to mind. I discovered that from my recent conversations with a man who claimed to have come into possession of Ted Rollins' iPhone during a renovation project at Campus Crest Communities' headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

I've never been able to determine the man's identity--or if his story is 100 percent true. But from checking Ted Rollins' phone, and conducting Google searches that led to my posts about the divorce case, the man said he could tell Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins experienced an unusually cruel outcome in court. In fact, the man said, her phone number on the iPhone is listed as "Sherry 'Use Caution, Ex Wife' Rollins."

After I discussed Campus Crest's substantial support from Wall Street--which was in the neighborhood of $400 million and now exceeds $700 million--the man had an understandable response. "Here's my question," he said. "Why is the [ex] wife doing so badly, why has she been neglected? And what about the kids?" (See video below, starting at about the 3:30 mark.)

The only response I could come up with at the moment? "I guess he's just incredibly ruthless."

I went on to explain, however, that Ted and Sherry Rollins got married without a prenuptial agreement--something that apparently had never been done in the modern history of the Rollins family--and that meant Ted Rollins stood to lose major sums in an equitable distribution of marital assets. That, I told the man, probably is the best answer to your question.

We went on to discuss the ugliness in Ted Rollins' background--his conviction for assault on his stepson (then 16 years old), plus an investigation based on a citizen complaint about possible child sexual abuse of the same stepson. 

Why would someone with such ugly events in his background proceed to orchestrate a monstrous courtroom cheat job on his ex wife? Why not reach a reasonable divorce settlement that would help ensure such events stayed under wraps, especially if you someday plan to launch a public company on Wall Street?

Such arrogance must be beyond the grasp of everyday folks because neither I nor my anonymous caller could come up with ready answers to those questions.


(To be continued)


Previously in the series:

How Did An iPhone Belong To CEO Ted Rollins Come To Play Central Role In Curious Con Game? (July 9, 2013)

How Did An iPhone Belonging To CEO Ted Rollins Come To Play Central Role In a Curious Con Game?

Our coverage of the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case has taken a number of twists and turns, but the most bizarre twist might have come a few weeks back when a man contacted me and claimed to be in possession of Ted Rollins' iPhone.

What happened next apparently was an attempted scam on me, Ted Rollins, or perhaps both of us--and I suspect it might have constituted a federal crime. For sure, it was one of the strangest episodes since this blog started in June 2007--and that's saying something. 

This tale even includes allegations about child pornography and child abuse, although I never received evidence that such images actually exist. (See video at the end of this post.)

It all started with an anonymous comment to a post I had written about the Rollins divorce, which involves Birmingham resident Sherry Carroll Rollins and her ex husband Ted Rollins, who now is CEO of Campus Crest Communities and a member of the mega wealthy family behind Orkin Pest Control, Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment, and other profitable enterprises. The post in question was not new; it had been up for some time, so I was surprised to see a comment for it.

The commenter stated that he had information about Ted Rollins that might be of interest to me, so I suggested that he contact me by phone or my personal e-mail account. The man  called me--with the name and number showing up as "unknown"--and told me the following story, which comes from notes I've kept on the episode:

The caller said he worked for a company that was involved in the renovation of Campus Crest's offices in Charlotte, NC. As part of the project, he said, Campus Crest discarded numerous electronic devices--phones, cameras, laptops, etc.--and told crew members that they were welcome to take any objects from a pretty large pile. The caller said he took an iPhone and one other item--a camera, I think it was. 

When the man got home, he discovered that the iPhone included lots of information--contacts, e-mails, texts, photos, music, etc.--from its previous owner. After going through the material, the man discovered that the phone had belonged to Campus Crest's CEO. "I guess Mr. Rollins gave the phone to someone in IT, and they forgot to clear out everything and mistakenly put it in with the stuff to be thrown away," the caller told me. 

The man said he Googled Ted Rollins' name, discovered my blog, and decided that either Sherry Rollins or I might be interested in the phone. The caller also said that he had found at least two nude photos on the phone of a young person he believed to be an under-aged member of the extended Rollins family. The man said he was concerned this might constitute child pornography and raise various criminal issues. He also said the phone included images of a boy who had a black eye and apparently had somehow been roughed up.

What happened next? We will explore that in a series of upcoming posts. But for now, these questions are foremost in my mind: Who was this guy, and what in the heck was he up to?

I don't have solid answers for either question. But I did tape record our conversations, so we know what his voice sounds like, and you can check it out at the video below.

Note: I've edited the audio to delete a name that was associated with the alleged images of a nude child. 


(To be continued)