New Orleans Saints' "Bounty" Scandal Illustrates the Power of E-Mails In Uncovering Misconduct

New Orleans Saints

The National Football League is expected to impose perhaps the most severe punishment in its history after revelations that coaches with the New Orleans Saints offered an incentive program for injuring opposing players. E-mails, it turns out, played a critical role in cracking the case--and that has implications that go way beyond football.

Former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams reportedly administered the program, with "bounties" of up to $1,500 for injuring opponents, especially star quarterbacks such as Brett Favre and Kurt Warner. The rewards could double or triple for a debilitating blow to an opponent during a playoff game. Isn't that charming?

The Saints' behavior reminds me of a Republican electoral strategy. If can't win a football game (election) the fair way, then do it by cheating. Maybe Karl Rove should become the team's next general manager.

The current GM, Mickey Loomis, and Head Coach Sean Payton took full responsibility for the scheme in statements released last week. The league has not announced disciplinary measures, but they are expected to include suspensions, fines, and loss of draft picks. At least one prominent journalist, Gregg Doyel of CBSsports.com, has suggested that crimes might have taken place.

The bounty story so far has been mostly confined to the world of sports. But a USA Today story, titled "Saints to Pay Dearly: NFL Poised to Lower the Boom for Team's Bounty System," reveals information that applies to our justice system at large.

How did NFL security officials discover the bounty program? They did it by sorting through 18,000 documents, mostly e-mails from within the Saints organization. That figure, by the way, is not a typo. The NFL unearthed almost 18,000 e-mails related to a corrupt and unethical plan involving one professional football team. From the USA Today article:

The NFL said its findings were supported by 18,000 documents. The person told USA TODAY that these mostly contained e-mails that include details about payments. NFL investigators were granted access to the team's computer system by Saints owner Tom Benson after he was presented with additional information about the program earlier this year.

Now consider these questions: (A) How many e-mails must exist about various Bush-administration scandals--torture, political prosecutions, the firings of U.S. attorneys . . . the list goes on? (B) How many e-mails must exist that provide details about corruption in our justice system--about the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases, about unlawfully handled divorce cases such as Rollins v. Rollins, about my own court travails?

The number of e-mails under both categories must range well into the millions. The take-home lesson: E-mail might be the greatest corruption-fighting tool ever invented. Now if we can find law-enforcement officials who have the spine to use it.

As the Saints story tells us, corrupt people tend to be brazen, stupid, and lazy about their use of e-mail. Imagine how many digital paper trails are out there, providing a road map of scandals that would dwarf the "bounty" story.

Let me provide an example from my own life: I have a pending federal lawsuit against a number of entities and individuals connected to my unlawful termination after 19 years on the job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The case is being "handled" by U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr., an 84-year-old Reagan appointee who is as corrupt as he is wrinkled.

U.S. Judge William Acker (right)

How corrupt is Acker? I will answer that question with numerous details in upcoming posts. But for now, we will focus on one issue. Acker granted summary judgment for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and other defendants in my case, and that ruling is now on appeal before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta. Acker granted summary judgment, dismissing the case, without giving me (or the defendants, for that matter) an opportunity to conduct discovery.

Now that simply cannot be done under the law. It's a little like a doctor declaring you dead without checking for a pulse.

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes it clear that summary judgment cannot be considered, much less granted, without discovery. After all, discovery is the process by which both sides gather evidence to support their cases. It's fairly important to the litigation process--probably as important as breathing is to living.

It's not as if the law is unclear. In the Eleventh Circuit, the issue has been governed for more than two decades by a case styled Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988). We will discuss Snook in detail shortly, but here is the take-home point from the ruling:

This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery. . . . The party opposing a motion for summary judgment has a right to challenge the affidavits and other factual materials submitted in support of the motion by conducting sufficient discovery so as to enable him to determine whether he can furnish opposing affidavits. . . . Generally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests.

I was not allowed to even make discovery requests, much less obtain responses--and I filed two motions alerting the court to this. That's all I needed to do under Eleventh Circuit precedent cited in Snook:

In this Circuit, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment need not file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to invoke the protection of that Rule. . . . Form is not to be exalted over fair procedures.

Did Judge Acker care about fair procedure in my lawsuit against UAB? Not one iota. His actions tell me that he is mainly interested in protecting the managers and other higher ups in the University of Alabama System who signed off on cheating me out of my job. Perhaps more importantly, Acker probably is interested in protecting various members of the legal tribe who know about my termination and might have played major roles in making it happen.

What, specifically, is Acker concerned about? Here is my guess: The judge knows that all sorts of e-mails exist that would show who screwed me out of my job and why. Acker knows that I would be entitled to copies of these e-mails during a legitimate discovery process, and he also probably knows that the e-mails would lay out a civil conspiracy--and perhaps even criminal activity.

The University of Alabama is perhaps the single most powerful entity in this state, and it has friends in major law firms who don't want the truth to be revealed about who pulled what strings in my firing.

E-mails, of course, are not the only form of discovery to which I am entitled. But Acker's unlawful handling of my case strongly hints that a serious paper trail exists somewhere in cyber space. Those e-mails, alone, probably would be enough to prove my case against UAB and its associates. And that's why a federal judge is playing a not-so-subtle game of cover up.

Certain officials with the New Orleans Saints probably will soon be wishing someone had pulled such a cover up for them.

Death Threats Are the Price You Pay for Environmental Activism

Bill McKibben

The most important story you are likely to read this month--and perhaps for many months to come--is a profile of author and environmental activist Bill McKibben in the current issue of Time magazine.

Why is the article so important? It provides two chunks of information that neatly sum up the challenge we face with global climate change. Part of the challenge, believe or not, involves death threats.

Climate change is, to borrow a phrase from Saddam Hussein, "the mother of all issues." If we don't get that one right, all other issues are not going to matter. And that's because we won't have an earth capable of supporting much in the way of life.

The McKibben article, on the surface, is about his efforts to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move oil-sands crude from Canada to refineries in the United States. But it goes much deeper than that, providing two pieces of jaw-dropping information that give us about all we really need to know about the battle over climate change.

The first comes after reporter Bryan Walsh tells us about McKibben's 2006 efforts to organize a demonstration calling for carbon cuts. Writes Walsh:

Soon after, McKibben learned from NASA climatologist James Hansen about new research indicating that the world needed to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at 350 parts per million (p.p.m.) to avoid dangerous climate change. (We're already at 392 p.p.m. and counting.) Atmospheric carbon concentration hardly makes for catchy protest slogans, but McKibben saw the number 350 as a clarion call, comprehensible to a global audience without translation. His Internet-savvy friends helped him take the idea worldwide. In October 2009, 350.org organized more than 15,000 rallies in 180 countries. It was likely the biggest mass rally in history.

Let the information in bold sink in. We already are well above the level of carbon-dioxide concentration that will bring dangerous climate change. The problem is here--now; it's not something for generations down the road to worry about.

The second key piece of information comes when Walsh describes the response to McKibben's activism:

The success of 350.org changed McKibben's life, making him an activist first and a writer second. He now updates more than 30,000 Twitter followers and travels constantly to give lectures and attend protests. He's still figuring out life as a public figure. He answers all his e-mail, and 350.org only recently hired an assistant to book his travel. And he doesn't always relish it. He asks that TIME not photograph the exterior of the house because of death threats. "People seem to think you're going to take their freedom away," he says.

A man is receiving death threats because he has called attention to the dangers of climate change? People are that warped--and that blind to actual science? They are blind to a problem that already is here and threatens the only earth we have?

The bottom line? We have a defining challenge before us, but our society might be too dysfunctional to even come close to addressing it. Bill McKibben deserves kudos for being brave enough to try. And Bryan Walsh deserves credit for educating us about McKibben's efforts.

For background on the McKibben story, check out Walsh's piece on Time's environmental blog called Ecocentric.

Alabama's Long Bingo Nightmare Is Over, But We Still Need Accountability

Milton McGregor

One of the most embarrassing episodes in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ended yesterday when a federal jury found that all defendants in the Alabama bingo trial were not guilty.

The jury clearly reached the correct verdict--and after two trials and a months-long, anti-bingo crusade led by former Governor Bob Riley--citizens might be tempted to say, "Whew, thank God that's over." But the public should resist such a response, no matter how understandable it might be. That's because officials who were responsible for bringing this bogus case should be held accountable, either through an internal DOJ investigation or a Congressional review. Better yet, we hope the defendants can uncover some uncomfortable truths, and seek significant damages, with one or more massive lawsuits--perhaps through the civil provisions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

If any of this shines unflattering light on the Obama administration, so be it. The president has either adopted many of George W. Bush's wrong-headed notions on justice--or turned a blind eye on his predecessor's corrupt activities--so now it's time for Eric Holder and company to "enjoy" some scrutiny under a white hot light. If it costs Obama the 2012 election . . . well, tough beans. The president has repeatedly proven that he is not deserving of progressives' support anyway.

The Alabama bingo investigation/trial was a disgrace from the outset, and the public deserves answers on why millions of its dollars were wasted on a sideshow designed to help Alabama Republicans. Obama has had almost four years to do the right thing on the justice front--to return us to a nation governed by the rule of law--and he has failed at every turn. He and his "justice department" deserve to be exposed.

Why is this so important? Well, the bingo trial was unconstitutional on its face. In fact, it might be the most blatant example of a political prosecution in the history of our republic--and it happened under a Democratic administration. The thought of a Mitt Romney presidency makes me want to puke, but I don't see how he could be worse than Obama has been on justice issues.

Multiple rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have held that political prosecutions are prohibited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Should we stand for federal prosecutors who ignore key provisions of the U.S. Constitution? Should we support an administration that countenances such unlawful activity? No, we should not--and that's why an investigation is needed.

As a sidebar issue, someone should make sure that former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis no longer has access to computers, microphones, Web accounts, cameras, or any other communication devices. That will save Davis, who long ago reached the status of "utterly irrelevant," from making the kinds of farcical statements he issued in the wake of yesterday's verdicts. Why did Artur Davis even care about the outcome of the bingo trial? I have no idea; on the surface, it didn't appear to involve him at all.

Before we touch on Artur Davis, let's get to the heart of what essentially was an easy case. The government charged that certain pro-bingo forces--the most notable being Montgomery gambling magnate Milton McGregor--bribed state legislators to vote for a bill that would boost electronic bingo. At the heart of the case was legislation that clearly had supporters and opponents--those who were pro-bingo and those who were anti-bingo.

The overarching question at the heart of the bingo trial should have been this: Why did federal investigators target only the pro-bingo side, made up mostly of Democrats? Why did the feds tape phone calls made only by pro-bingo folks, while ignoring the activities of anti-bingo folks?

The answer? The feds were not interested in prosecuting crimes; they were interested in prosecuting certain people. That mindset was at the heart of the unlawful Don Siegelman prosecution, and it is forbidden by our constitution. We examined the issue in a post titled "Don Siegelman and the Evil of a Political Prosecution":

The U.S. Supreme Court has held "selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is, of course, subject to constitutional constraints." U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 144 (1979).

The nation's highest court also has found that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement "based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962).

Clearly, enforcement based on political affiliation falls under the kind of arbitrary classification that is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. . . . 

The nation's highest court has spelled it out for prosecutors, so there is no excuse for their actions in the bingo case:

Federal courts generally have accepted the two-pronged test for selective prosecution set out in U.S. v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207 (1974):

To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a defendant bears a heavy burden of establishing, at least prima facie, (1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution, and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights. These two essential elements are sometimes referred to as ‘intentional and purposeful discrimination.’

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson deserves credit for handling the bingo trial in a fashion that led to a just outcome. But he should have done more, by calling out the government for "intentional and purposeful discrimination." At the outset, Judge Thompson should have said something like this:

This case revolves around a political battle over certain proposed legislation, which had both supporters and detractors. If you were looking to prosecute crimes connected to this legislation, you should have examined the behavior on both sides. In other words, there are individuals who are 'similarly situated' to the defendants you have charged with crimes. That the prosecution has failed to investigate these similarly situated individuals means you have failed the test set out in Oyler and other U.S. Supreme Court cases. I am dismissing this prosecution on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be an expert on criminal procedure in federal courts. But I'm pretty sure Thompson had the authority under the law to make such a finding. Lawyers for the defendants should have filed motions, asking him to make such a finding. What if Thompson had taken this step? Justice would have been served, huge amounts of time and money would have been saved, and prosecutors would have been put on notice that politically motivated cases would not be tolerated in the Middle District of Alabama--and hopefully not anywhere else, either.

As for Artur Davis, perhaps he should join the circus. Get a load of his clownish reaction to yesterday's verdicts:

It’s a huge setback for anyone who wants to root public corruption out of Alabama. Tragically, an Alabama jury was not bothered by evidence that a powerful interest group brazenly tried to buy votes with campaign contributions; that same jury was not bothered by evidence that legislators changed their votes solely because of those contributions; and that same jury was unfazed by the fact that the gambling lobby obviously viewed the legislature as a for sale, for profit institution.

I hope that the fact that this jury got it so wrong will not deter the Attorney General from his aggressiveness in pursuing corruption by current and former officials, and I hope that the new Republican majority understands that its calling now is to pass strict limits on campaign spending and instant disclosure rules so that money is limited and identified in real time.

Lastly, the Democratic Party is now officially the state’s gambling party. Alabamians who want another economic future and real political reform should know that the party offers them no home and they should take their votes and their goals for the state elsewhere.

Artur Davis shows no concern about violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Instead, he displays only a warped sense of political gamesmanship. He takes the outcome of a criminal trial and uses it to bash the Alabama Democrats who soundly rejected him in November 2010. It's hard to get more loathsome than that.

Many citizens, I suspect, are smart enough to know that Artur Davis is a political buffoon; they don't need to take their cues from a bitter has-been. They should direct their anger in the right direction--toward the U.S. Department of Justice. And they should demand, in the wake of the Alabama bingo trial, that heads start to roll.

In the meantime, we hope the bingo defendants seek compensation through the civil justice system. Immunity of various sorts might protect many of those responsible for the prosecution. But we suspect there might be ways around those hurdles. Joe Espy, one of McGregor's attorneys, hinted yesterday that he will look at those options:

Espy said they were going to seriously look at avenues to try to recover some of that money McGregor had to spend in his defense.

He said they would also look at possible legal action against players who participated in the process, but would not specify who he was referring to.

I'm betting that certain individuals connected to the bingo prosecution are taking steps to hide/protect their assets. And that probably includes some prominent Republicans, both in Alabama and beyond. It might also include some pro-Obama, elitist Democrats.

If justice still means anything in our so-called democracy, certain folks will be losing significant assets in the not-too-distant future. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

Woman Is Murdered at Campus Crest Communities Complex in Clarksville, TN

Shardae Wright

A woman was murdered last Friday at The Grove apartment complex in Clarksville, Tennessee. The Grove is the brand name for apartments developed by Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities.

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, has been the subject of frequent posts at Legal Schnauzer for his role in a divorce action that was handled unlawfully here in Shelby County, Alabama. I've called Rollins v. Rollins the most grotesque courtroom cheat job I've encountered in the civil arena.

Ted Rollins has a history of unethical behavior in his personal affairs, so no one should be surprised that bad things keep happening in his business affairs--at the some 30 student-housing complexes he has built around the country. The latest involves a homicide at The Grove near Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. Here is information from a Clarksville Police Department press release:

On March 3rd, 2012, Clarksville Police officers responded to a shots fired call at Building 6, 1523 Nolen Road and found a deceased female in the bathtub with gunshot wounds.

The victim’s name is Shardae Wright (B/F, DOB: 11/9/88) of Clarksville, TN. No further information is available.

Some Web research reveals that 1523 Nolen Road is the address for The Grove in Clarksville. Those are the apartments that Campus Crest Communities (and Ted Rollins) built to provide students with a "fully loaded" living experience. In some cases, unfortunately, that can involve fully loaded guns.

Nicholas Rico Durant, Wright's boyfriend, has been arrested and charged with murder. From Wright's hometown newspaper in Ashley County, Arkansas:

Shardae Wright, 23, a 2007 Hamburg High School graduate and a member of the U. S. Army at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was shot to death shortly after midnight Friday, and her boyfriend is in custody on a charge of criminal homicide.

Wright was living in Clarksville, Tennessee. According to a press release from the Clarksville Police Department, witnesses said that Wright had come to their apartment in Clarksville and her boyfriend, Nicholas Rico Durant, 21, of Clarksville came after her, pointing a gun at her in front of witnesses. When witnesses ran to get help, they heard several gunshots.

The Ashley County Ledger ran a photograph showing multiple bullet holes in Wright's apartment door at The Grove.

The bullet-riddled door of
Shardae Wright's apartment
at The Grove

This is not the first time young people have come to physical harm at a Grove complex. The most widely publicized event came at the University of North Texas, where three young men were severely injured in a balcony collapse. The victims in Denton, Texas, suffered a total of 11 broken bones in the fall.

Should anyone expect Ted Rollins to be concerned about the rising number of people who come to harm on his properties? Given that Mr. Rollins has shown disregard for his own flesh and blood living in Alabama, I would say no.

Sherry Carroll Rollins, Ted's ex wife, lives in Birmingham with the couple's daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins. Ms. Rollins and the girls have qualified for food stamps because of the stunningly favorable divorce judgment that Ted Rollins received from Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson.

You might think that a court would look down on Ted Rollins, given that public records show he is a deadbeat dad for failing to provide family support as ordered by a court in South Carolina, where Sherry Rollins initiated divorce proceedings. But you would be wrong; Mr. Rollins was able to file a divorce action in Alabama and have it unlawfully heard, apparently because he has ties to the powerful Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant.

Bradley Arant acts as the primary corporate law firm for Campus Crest Communities. If Shardae Wright's family files a wrongful-death lawsuit against Ted Rollins' company, you can rest assured that Bradley Arant, or its acolytes, will somehow be involved.

Here is a promotional video for "fully loaded" living at The Grove at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville. No mention of fully loaded guns that leave bullet holes in doors:

The Truth About Ted Rollins: CEO Lied Under Oath To Greatly Reduce His Child-Support Payments

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, lied under oath in a child-support document he filed in his Alabama divorce case.

Sherry Carroll Rollins, Ted's ex wife and a Birmingham resident, makes the allegations in the third installment of a videotaped interview with Legal Schnauzer. (See the interview at the end of this post.)

Ted Rollins signed a CS-41 form stating that his only income was $4,166.67 a month, from employment at Reynolds Mortgage and Investment Co. of Brentwood, Tennessee. A CS-41 is an Alabama child-support document, an affidavit that is signed under penalty of perjury. The form was perhaps the single most important document filed in Rollins v. Rollins, a case that Ted Rollins initiated in Shelby County, Alabama, after Sherry Rollins' initial divorce complaint had been litigated for three years in South Carolina (where the couple had lived).

In a post titled "CEO With Deep Pockets Has Children on Food Stamps in Alabama," we published both a blank CS-41 form, plus a copy of the one Ted Rollins filed in Shelby County Circuit Court.

Based on Ted Rollins' sworn statement, his total income was $50,000.04 a year, and his child-support payments (for two daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins) were based on that. The figure, however, seems to be greatly at odds with facts found by a South Carolina judge, as we described in a previous post:

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

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

Sherry Rollins says both the amount and the source of Ted Rollins' income are false. From her interview with Legal Schnauzer:

The form said he made $50,000 a year and worked for Reynolds Mortgage company in Brentwood Tennessee, for a guy named Ken Reynolds--and that Reynolds Mortgage was withholding the support funds for the girls, and the state of Alabama would send it to me. The (child-support) check was late by two months . . . early in the first year (after the divorce) in Alabama. I called Reynolds Mortgage Company and got Ken Reynolds on the phone and asked why my girls' child support was late. I said I was Sherry Rollins, and I (had been) married to Ted Rollins. He said, "I know Ted Rollins," and he stated that Ted had never worked for him. . . . He had sold Ted some land in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on which he built some apartments. That's when I learned that Ted had a company called Campus Crest. . . . Out of that conversation, I learned (Ted) had never worked for (Mr. Reynolds), and Ted had this company. Ted built one of his first complexes (at Middle Tennessee State in Murfreesboro).

It appears that Sherry Rollins caught her former husband red-handed in a lie--and it's not just a garden-variety lie. Ted Rollins' actions in his divorce case appear to constitute perjury and perhaps fraud on the court.

Is this a serious matter? Here is how the Code of Alabama defines perjury:

Section 13A-10-101 - Perjury in the first degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of perjury in the first degree when in any official proceeding he swears falsely and his false statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.

(b) Perjury in the first degree is a Class C felony.

Did Ted Rollins commit a felony in the course of the divorce case he initiated in Alabama? We sent Mr. Rollins written questions via e-mail, seeking comment about allegations of fraud in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case in Alabama. He has failed to respond to our messages.

Here is the Sherry Rollins' interview about the CS-41 form upon which Ted Rollins' child support was based:

Has the Sexual Abuse of Boys Reached a Crisis Stage?

(Includes update at the end, filed at 1:05 p.m., CST, on 3/5/12)

This is a presidential election year, so the biggest story of 2012 is likely to play out in early November. But the most important story of the year might be playing out right now--and it involves the ongoing revelations about the sexual abuse of boys, allegedly by men who were in positions of trust.

The issue first hit the national radar last November, when criminal charges were brought against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. That quickly was followed by allegations against former Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine.

Perhaps the most disturbing story yet came last week out of Troy, Ohio--and it had nothing to do with coaches or sports. It involves a "family unit" that apparently was horrifyingly dysfunctional. An adoptive father has been charged with raping his three sons and using one of them as a prostitute for two other men.
The three men are in jail on rape charges, and the father's name originally was withheld to protect the children's identity. The father, however, now has been identified as Kenneth H. Brandt.

The Dayton Daily News reports that bond has been set at $1 million for one of the three men. The newspaper also reports that the FBI intends to pursue federal child sexual-exploitation charges against the men:

Brandt is charged with raping his three adopted sons, ages 9, 10 and 12, and prostituting one of the sons to adult males. He also has a 9-year-old adopted daughter.

All four children were from Texas and one adoption was not yet finalized.

In addition to criminal charges, authorities are also examining Brandt’s history as a foster parent. 

“It has also been brought to our attention from past experiences with Kenneth that he has been bringing children from Texas to Troy as supposed foster children,” Troy Detective Chris Tilley wrote in the search warrant affidavit. Brandt was arrested Friday.

How stomach-churning is this story? Consider this report from The Troy Daily News:

A 10-year-old boy shook when asked about being prostituted to two other men by an adoptive father who regularly had sex with him, according to police, who said the boy was fearful of talking because he didn't want to be taken from his home or separated from his new siblings.

The adoptive father, Kenneth Brandt, 39, of Troy, has been charged with raping three boys in his care and compelling prostitution by hiring the 10-year-old out for sex. He and two other men remained in jail Thursday on rape charges.

Federal and local law enforcement officials said they're widening the investigation into child sexual exploitation allegations against the father, who worked out of his home as an insurance claims adjuster.

Troy police said they impounded the father's truck and seized four laptops from the home and a video camera and two wooden paddles from the master bedroom.

How did law-enforcement officials break the case?

An undercover detective in Franklin County, part of a state task force, talked online with the adoptive father, who said he would arrange sex with a 10-year-old boy, Troy police said. He had been led to the adoptive father by another man who had posted a Craigslist ad wanting "taboo" sex, police said.

The adoptive father was going to meet the undercover detective at a McDonald's in a nearby city, but police moved in two days before the scheduled meeting, according to records. They confronted the man with text messages and online communications about arranging sex with the boy, police said in a case report filed in court.

News reports about the sexual abuse of boys have tended to focus on coaches and scout leaders. Sports Illustrated produced an expose in 1999 about child molesters in youth sports. But the Troy, Ohio, story goes right into the home, the place where children are supposed to be most safe.

Kenneth H. Brandt

Stories about alleged child sex abusers tend to focus on alleged predators from the middle or upper middle classes. We suspect the focus will shift at some point to predators among America's elites. After all, the Troy story raises the issue of prostitution, and who has the most money to spend on unsavory activities?

We already have seen signs of elites connected to one of America's ugliest subjects. Stories broke in the late 1980s about the Franklin Scandal, which had connections to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses. That story had ties to powerful corporate and political figures in the conservative realm, and it eventually faded from view. But the scandal at Penn State also might "out" some significant elites. According to one report, Sandusky helped line up boys for sexual activity with wealthy university donors.

What on earth drives some men, many of whom are married and self identify as heterosexual, to seek illicit adventures with boys? We don't have an answer to that question, but we don't look for this story to go away anytime soon.

Update at 1:05 p.m. on 3/5/12

I had barely pushed the publish button on this post when I discovered that a new story is breaking about the sexual abuse of boys. This is another one from the world of sports, with at least eight men claiming they were sexually abused by a former clubhouse manager for the Boston Red Sox baseball team. The men claim they were molested while serving as bat boys for both the Red Sox and the Baltimore Orioles.

Donald J. Fitzpatrick, the clubhouse manager, now is deceased, and the alleged abuse apparently took place in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Case of a Grandmother and a Hit Man Produces Strange Journalism in Alabama

Barbara Patterson

An Alabama grandmother was convicted last week of conspiracy to murder her ex son-in-law over a child-custody case.

Prosecutors alleged that Barbara Patterson, 64, hired a hit man to help turn her former son-in-law into "fish bait." The hit man turned out to be an undercover agent for the Alabama Bureau of Investigation. A federal jury took less than an hour to find Patterson guilty, and that makes it sound like an open-and-shut case.

But certain aspects of the story cause us alarm. For one, it grew out of a divorce/custody case involving Patterson's daughter, Kimberly Dawn McGuffie. We have reported extensively on corruption in Alabama's domestic-relations courts, so Patterson might have had legitimate reasons for feeling that justice was not being served in her daughter's divorce case. That's not to suggest that hiring a hit man is the right way to address such a problem. But I understand the sentiment, and the public should not be surprised when some people turn to desperate measures when faced with deep-seated courtroom corruption.

After all, the McGuffie divorce/custody case was heard in Shelby County Circuit Court, the same venue where the Rollins v. Rollins divorce fiasco took place--and where Mrs. Schnauzer and I were cheated repeatedly in a property-related case involving a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity.

I know how Shelby County courts really operate, and I know the enormous rage and frustration that comes from being on the wrong side of a court battle that is fixed.

Here is another oddity about the grandmother/hit man story, and it gives me considerable pause: Kent Faulk, a reporter for The Birmingham News, resorted to some peculiar journalism in his article about Barbara Patterson's conviction. The part of his story in question is not available in the online version at al.com, to which we link in the first paragraph above. But it was in the printed version, and here are how the last two paragraphs of the story read. It refers to a witness called by defense attorney Mari Morrison:

A lawyer, called to the witness stand by Morrison, also testified Wednesday that Patterson had come to his office with her daughter in July 2009 and hired him to try and win custody of the two children. He said he was paid $4,500 over a two-month period. A court hearing had been set in that case before Patterson and McGuffie were charged.

Morrison had argued that her client was trying to get custody of the children the legal way.

Notice something missing in those two paragraphs? Kent Faulk does not identify the lawyer in question; the man testified in open court, but we are not told his name. Why on earth is that? A reporter for a junior-high newspaper would know to include the lawyer's name, but a veteran reporter for The Birmingham News can't figure it out? If Faulk somehow slipped up, no one on the newspaper's copy desk could catch it and make sure the name was added? Is everyone at The Birmingham News on an industrial-strength dosage of Ambien.

I sent Faulk an e-mail on Thursday, asking why the name was omitted. If it was an honest mistake, I asked, will the newspaper publish a correction or clarification?

You probably will not be surprised to learn that Kent Faulk did not respond to my e-mail, and the paper did not publish a correction.

That tells me the omission was intentional, which means our local conservative news rag is trying to protect somebody, for some reason. Why might that be? Here are a few possibilities:

A. The lawyer was embarrassed that he charged $4,500 for two months of work, which probably amounted to attending one hearing, and had enough clout to keep his name out of the newspaper;

B. The lawyer is a member of the "hunting club" that allegedly conspires with local judges to fix divorce cases. We've written about multiple federal lawsuits that have been filed over the hunting-club issue, and we will be writing much more. But I can reveal this much now about my research: The pro-business, pro-Bob Riley law firm of Bradley Arant was heavily involved in defending hunting-club lawyers and judges. And we know that The Birmingham News shares the strong pro-business, pro-Riley stance of the Bradley Arant firm. Did someone with an interest in protecting the hunting-club gravy train persuade the newspaper to help shield a certain attorney?

C. All of the above.

Here is a final area of concern about the Barbara Patterson case: The case was handled by U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon, and we have first-hand evidence that Kallon is flagrantly corrupt or incompetent (or both). Kallon practiced at Bradley Arant before being named to the federal bench. (Kallon, by the way, is an Obama appointee; that is just one more reason to be disgusted with the president's many failures on justice issues.)

The jury that convicted Barbara Patterson apparently had little doubt about her guilt. But I see a lot of reasons to doubt whether justice was served.

Racist Montana Judge Hardly Is the Only Rogue on the Federal Bench

Richard Cebull

A federal judge in Montana made national headlines this week when he confessed to having sent an e-mail that included a racist joke about President Barack Obama.

Many Americans probably found the actions of U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull appalling. But as someone who has been before federal judges on several occasions, I was not at all surprised. In fact, I'm not sure racism would even make a top-five list of disturbing characteristics I've witnessed from federal judges.

That's not to minimize the notion of a racist sitting on the federal bench. In fact, I have a pending employment-discrimination case before William M. Acker Jr., a federal judge in the Northern District of Alabama. The judge is an 84-year-old Reagan appointee, and multiple sources have told me Acker attended the Dixiecrat convention at Birmingham's Municipal Auditorium (now Boutwell Auditorium) in 1948. That's the convention where a splinter group from the Democratic Party nominated Strom Thurmond for president on a pro-segregation platform. Does that lead me to believe that Acker was a racist then, and he's probably a racist now? It certainly does.

If my hunch is correct, Acker is not alone on the federal bench. Cebull, a 2001 George W. Bush nominee, has proven that. Reports The Great Falls Tribune:

The subject line of the email, which Cebull sent from his official courthouse email address on Feb. 20 at 3:42 p.m., reads: "A MOM'S MEMORY."

The forwarded text reads as follow:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'" the email joke reads. "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

Hmmm . . . a federal judge hints that the president's mother had sex with a dog--and the judge thinks that's funny? But the joke itself is not even the most disturbing part of the e-mail. Notice the smugness that drips from these words about the joke: "Hope it touches your heart like it did mine."

This is someone who takes pleasure from making fun of others, from mocking others, from showing flagrant disrespect for the president of the United States, our commander in chief. This e-mail is the work of a twisted mind.

Most any American who was caught sending such a piece of trash from his work computer would be summarily fired. As someone who was fired at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because of false allegations that I was using my work computer to write a progressive blog, I'm more than a little sensitive to issues such as this. And by the way, it's not just my opinion that I wasn't using my computer to write my blog. UAB's own IT employee, who was asked to monitor my computer usage for one month, admitted I never typed the first keystroke on my blog. (The real reason I was fired? Audiotaped evidence shows it was because of my reporting, on my own time and with my own resources, about the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.) UAB's own grievance committee found that I should not have been fired--in fact, my hearing showed there were no grounds for discipline of any kind--but the university's HR director and president chose to uphold the termination anyway.

Would I like to see Cebull get the boot for gross misuse of federal property? I sure as hell would, and calls for the judge's resignation already are coming from some quarters. Unfortunately, federal judges have lifetime appointments and are pretty much untouchable. Cebull has admitted the e-mail was racist, but will he have the decency to step down on his own? I'm not holding my breath.

Federal judges operate in what amounts to a hermetically sealed bubble, and it's rare for Americans to catch a glimpse of how they really think and act. Here in the Deep South, we got such a glimpse in late 2010 when U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp was caught in Atlanta buying drugs while packing heat and cavorting with a stripper. God only knows how much mayhem Camp got away with on the bench, but he was forced to step down and surrender his law license for his "extra-judicial activities."

Judge William M. Acker Jr. (right)
with Stanford professor Jack Rakove

What about the list of the worst characteristics I've seen in federal judges? Well, it would have to include arrogance, dishonesty, greed, incompetence, and ignorance. (Racism encompasses many of these characteristics, so it would deserve a prominent spot on my list; Cebull notwithstanding, most federal judges probably are smart enough to mask their racism, so it's hard to tell just how prevalent racist sentiment is on the bench. Also, I'm white, so I might not pick up on it as quickly as would a party with dark skin.)

No. 1 on my list of ugly judicial traits probably would be disrespect--for litigants, the public, the constitution, the judicial office, and (most of all) the law itself. I recently wrote about two Alabama federal judges--Acker and Abdul Kallon--who have exhibited flagrant disrespect for the law in cases I have before them. I will be providing specifics in a series of upcoming posts.

But here is a general idea of what I'm talking about: In a hearing before Acker, the judge, in so many words, admitted that he was going to cheat me--and he, in fact, did just that. The judge also made public statements strongly hinting that he had discussed my case with someone connected to the opposing party (UAB).

This all takes some explaining, and I will provide the explanation in upcoming posts. But readers can be assured that this is not just a product of my overactive imagination. I have a transcript of a hearing that proves what I'm talking about. Mrs. Schnauzer was on hand for the hearing and swore out an affidavit about Acker's statements. I included her affidavit in a complaint to the judicial council for the U.S. Eleventh Circuit.

The take-home lesson? Federal judges get away with all sorts of misconduct, even crimes, and the public is blissfully unaware of it.

We can thank Richard Cebull for accidentally shining light on the ugliness that resides in certain judicial hearts and minds. We especially can thank the person on the judge's e-mail list who apparently developed a conscience and decided to expose him.

Let's close with a legal tip: It's almost impossible to successfully sue any judge (federal or state) for an act that comes within his judicial duties. Judges can commit all sorts of fraud--and injure parties in heinous ways--and get away with it. That's because the doctrine of judicial immunity protects them for their judicial acts, no matter how unjust or unlawful they might be.

But I will let Schnauzer readers in on a secret, one the legal cartel does not want you to know: Sending racist e-mails is not part of Judge Cebull's judicial duties; even he would not seriously argue that it is. Our Montana judge, therefore, is vulnerable to a federal lawsuit.

Who could bring the lawsuit? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that any federal taxpayer could do it? What would be the claims? I feel certain the ACLU, or a similar organization, could come up with something involving the misuse of federal property.

This is a rare opportunity for the public to hold a federal judge accountable. We should not let it slip through our fingers.

Cause of Death In the Chace Swatek Case Remains Undetermined

Chace Swatek

Alabama lawyer Chace Swatek died of undetermined causes, and a law-enforcement official says cause of death probably will not be known for six months or more.

Captain Larry Palmer, of the Pelham Police Department, said an official cause of death would not be known until toxicology tests are completed. He said there were no marks on the body or evidence in the area to suggest that foul play was involved. That means testing in the Swatek case will take a relatively low priority at a time when Alabama forensic scientists are stressed by heavy caseloads and tight budgets.

"I've seen cases like this take six months to a year," Palmer said.

Palmer did clarify one item about the Swatek case. According to news reports, Swatek's body was found at a construction site near the Shelby County Services Building in Pelham. Palmer said the body actually was discovered in a vacant lot.

"A water line is being laid in the area, and pipes are placed at several spots beside the road," Palmer said. "But it really is not a construction site, and Mr. Swatek's body was found in what amounts to a vacant lot.

"It appeared he was walking beside the road when he came upon a stack of pipes. It looked like he chose to walk behind the pipes, rather than in front of them, and his body was found behind the pipes."

Upon initial inspection, Palmer said, it looked like the 35-year-old Swatek might have died from a heart attack. But he said the official cause of death currently is undetermined. It also is unknown why Swatek was walking beside the road.

UAB's Carol Garrison: Portrait of a Corrupt Univesity President, Part II

John Shumaker

We reported in April 2009 that officials at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) tried to fudge their numbers on a gender-related salary study, making it look like UAB was paying female faculty members better than it really was.

This has become just one entry in a growing list of problems on the Southside campus. But perhaps the public should not be surprised by the turmoil at Birmingham's largest employer. After all, UAB President Carol Garrison showed questionable ethics almost from the moment she took office. And there has been an alarming level of deceit at UAB under Garrison's leadership.

Garrison was named president of UAB on July 23, 2002, coming from the University of Louisville, where she had been provost since 1997.

On July 2, 2003, less than one year after she had been on the job in Birmingham, Garrison became entangled in a scandal surrounding University of Tennessee President John Shumaker. The two had worked together at Louisville, and Tennessee lawmakers began asking questions about Shumaker's use of the UT plane to make frequent trips to Birmingham.

Roughly a year earlier, before Shumaker's first official day of work at UT, Louisville officials had confirmed that he was in the process of getting a divorce from his wife, Lucy Shumaker. Throughout the job search, Lucy Shumaker had been at her husband's side, making it look like UT was getting an attractive, cohesive team. Reality turned out to be different from what the Shumakers projected.

One reason for that, apparently, was Carol Garrison.

The UT president at first claimed his trips to Birmingham were not to see Garrison, but his story soon changed. Here's how the Associated Press reported it in a story dated July 9, 2003:

Shumaker has been transported by the UT plane nine times to Birmingham, and he has been aboard it a dozen times as it took off from that city. On March 9, the plane picked up Shumaker and University of Alabama at Birmingham President Carol Garrison. It took them to Little Rock, Ark., for the Southeastern Conference championship women's basketball game, then returned them to Birmingham.

"The plane would have picked me up whether she was on or not," Shumaker said.

What was the nature of the Shumaker-Garrison relationship. The AP reported:

Shumaker described their relationship as "unassailable, perfectly proper and appropriate."

"Carol and I are very good personal friends," Shumaker said. "There is nothing to apologize for. We have never tried to conceal the fact that we were together on some occasions."

That explanation apparently didn't fly with officials in Tennessee. Two days later, in a story dated July 11, 2003, the Chattanooga Free-Press reported that Shumaker was being ordered to pay for personal flights:

The president of the University of Tennessee has been asked to reimburse the state for any personal flights aboard state aircraft. Gov. Phil Bredesen said Wednesday that UT President John W. Shumaker "needs to put to bed" questions raised about his use of state planes.

The governor asked Dr. Shumaker to examine his flights, and "if some are questionable, then you get paid a lot of money, write a check for it." The criteria to be used in making the evaluation is whether the trips were for state or university business, he said. UT officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Five days later, in a story dated July 16, 2003, Associated Press reported that Shumaker would pay back a substantial sum of money for his questionable air travel:

Facing questions about his use of the University of Tennessee plane and other resources, UT President John Shumaker said Wednesday he will reimburse the university $24,600 for 25 questionable flights, eliminate use of his corporate credit card and file more frequent expense reports.

Earlier this month, Shumaker asked the state comptroller to review use of UT's airplane because of state lawmaker concerns following an analysis of flight records during the last 22 months.

The most questionable flights were ones to Louisville, where Shumaker was the former president of the University of Louisville, and Birmingham, Ala., where former Louisville colleague Carol Garrison is president of the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

The day before this report hit the press, the vice chairman of the UT Board of Trustees ordered an audit of Shumaker's expenditures. And the governor made it clear, in a July 19, 2003, interview with the Chattanooga Free-Press, that he was not pleased with the UT president's cavalier use of state funds:

Gov. Phil Bredesen said on Friday that UT President John W. Shumaker's use of the university's airplane would not get a "Good Housekeeping seal of approval."

Gov. Bredesen said University of Tennessee officials should idle the plane and refocus on education priorities.

"I think it would probably be good for them to park that baby for a while and get the focus back on what they need to be doing," Gov. Bredesen said.

Shumaker might have parked "that baby" for a while. But his troubles were far from over. The University of Louisville, where Shumaker and Garrison had worked together, announced that it also was conducting an audit, focusing on Shumaker's spending while he was there.

Meanwhile, Shumaker resorted to telling a UT alumni group that he was the victim of tabloid journalism. He even tried to laugh off reports about his frequent trips to Birmingham to visit Garrison:

Shumaker joked Friday to alumni that "it was as though Birmingham was the center of sin in the Southeast." His former Louisville colleague Carol Garrison is president of the University of Alabama-Birmingham and accompanied him on the UT plane to an Arkansas basketball tournament.

Tennessee officials, however, must not have been in a joking mood because the heat under John Shumaker's chair was about to get even hotter. And Carol Garrison, again, would be right in the middle of it.


(To be continued)




Previously in the series:


Carol Garrison and John Shumaker, Part I