Resident of The Grove at Austin Peay State Died In a Hail of Bullets

Shardae Wright

Fifteen to 20 shots were fired when a resident of The Grove apartment complex was murdered last month near Austin Peay State University at Clarksville, Tennessee.

Shardae Wright, a 23-year-old member of the U.S. Army at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was shot and killed in her apartment on March 3. Nicholas Rico Durant, who was described as Wright's boyfriend, has been arrested in the case. It now is being reported that Wright and Durant were married, and Durant also is a soldier.

A preliminary hearing was conducted recently, and Durant is being held without bond. An eyewitness said he saw a man fire almost 20 shots in and around Wright's apartment on the night of the murder. The witness was identified as Joshua Day, an Austin Peay student who was attending a party at The Grove. It's not clear if Day was a resident at the complex.

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 about 30 student-housing facilities near colleges and universities around the country. Based on the statements of Austin Peay student Joshua Day, life at one of those complexes sounds like a scene out of the wild, wild west. From NewsChannel5.com:

An Austin Peay student and eyewitness to the crime also took the stand. The student told the jury he saw a man fire seven to ten shots into the apartment and then eight more rounds when he was inside. Police are confident that man was Wright's newlywed husband and fellow Fort Campbell soldier, Nicholas Durant.

A report in Army Times picks up on that theme:

Joshua Day, an Austin Peay State University student, testified he heard the shooting and saw a man he later identified as Durant, firing several shots into the apartment.

“I was at Building 7 . . . there was a party going on and I was in the commons area of the stairs,” Day said. “All of a sudden, I heard gunshots . . . a man was standing in front of the door and began to shoot.”

Day said he saw the side of the man’s face, saw smoke and saw flashes. He said he heard seven to eight shots and then heard three to five muffled shots, and then saw a man running away.

“I waited 15 to 20 minutes and saw no one else,” Day said. “I knocked on the door and the frame of the door was busted. I pushed it and asked if everyone was OK. There was no response. I was on the phone with police.”

Day said he walked halfway into the living room, saw a door with a hole in it and exited the apartment.

How did the event affect those who were at The Grove that night? This from Army Times provides the answer:

Detective DeMone Chestnut testified police found Wright in the bathtub, in the fetal position with multiple gunshots and an emptied firearm underneath her head.

The gun, a Tek9, was identified as belonging to Durant, who was observed holding the gun on his public Facebook page, Chestnut said. A carrying case matching the gun was found in the stairwell. . . .

Chestnut testified Wright lived in Unit B of the apartment and was found in the bathroom of Unit C. Blood was found in various places.

A woman who witnessed the shooting was not present Wednesday to testify. Chestnut said the woman was in a medical facility because of the trauma of the shooting.

Could steps be taken to enhance security at The Grove locations and make it less likely that such events take place? The answer appears to be yes. We received the following comment on a previous post:

As a former grove employee I asked numerous times to have a security officer at our community and was told no because it cost too much. I asked for half rent off in return for a patrol (security actually walking property from 10pm-4am 7 days a week and was told no that security is up to the residents to make sure they are not being followed to their apartment and if there is an issue they can call police themselves or the after hour phone. Guess what after hour phone is kept by an employee which is a college student and most of the time doesn't answer it because they are partying or asleep. Go figure issues within the groves. The owners are VERY quick to point blame on onsite management when onsite management is scrutinized daily and are told no no no to every idea given to improve the property because it might take away from the funds they need to throw their annual 300k party for management.

March 29, 2012 2:47 PM

We have sent written questions about security and other issues to Ted Rollins. One of his residents is dead, and a woman who was at the scene is under medical care because of the trauma, but Ted Rollins has not responded. In fact, we are not aware of any public statement from Mr. Rollins about the victim of a murder at one of his apartments. It's as if he hopes Shardae Wright will quietly go away.

It appears that Ms. Wright had friends and family members who do not intend for that to happen. Here is a video they produced in her honor:

UAB's Carol Garrison and UT's John Shumaker: Playing Hanky Panky With Taxpayer Dollars

John Shumaker

We noted in our previous segment, that an audit in summer 2003 examined the spending habits of University of Tennessee President John Shumaker.

The audit would produce all kinds of damaging and embarrassing information about Shumaker, which was widely dessiminated in the Tennessee press. A torrent of bad news eventually led to Shumaker's resignation in August of '03.

Interestingly, the audit also produced damaging and embarrassing information about Shumaker's "close personal friend," UAB President Carol Garrison. The news generally was hushed up in the mainstream Alabama press, and Garrison managed to keep her job--even though she twice was implicated in actions that involved misuse of public funds.

The first episode involved Shumaker's use of the University of Tennessee airplane to make repeated trips to Birmingham for visits with Garrison, his former colleague at the University of Louisville. Tennessee officials determined that those trips were largely personal in nature, and Shumaker repaid the university almost $25,000.

As for Garrison, she has remained quiet on the subject. I'm not aware of any reporter from Alabama, or elsewhere, asking her a few simple questions:

* Why did you go along with a scheme to use public resources for personal pleasure?

* Didn't you owe a duty to the taxpayers of Tennessee to make sure their resources were not used in a wasteful way?

* What do these events say about your own stewardship of public funds?

The second episode involved a three-day conference in San Antonio. Shumaker resigned on August 8, 2003, but that didn't stop the bad news for him. Two weeks later, a UT official told lawmakers that Shumaker had spent three nights in a Texas hotel room with a female colleague and misled auditors about it.

Who was the female colleague? UAB President Carol Garrison.

In an article dated August 22, 2003, the Chattanooga Free-Press reported:

Former University of Tennessee President John W. Shumaker spent three nights in a Texas hotel room with a female colleague and then misled university auditors, an auditor told lawmakers Thursday.

Mark Paganelli, executive director of UT's auditing department, was one of five top administrators from the Knoxville campus questioned under oath Thursday by the General Assembly's Fiscal Review Committee.

Mr. Paganelli said Dr. Shumaker misled auditors who asked why the name of Dr. Carol Garrison, chancellor of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, had appeared on a hotel bill paid by UT.

Shumaker apparently had a hard time explaining that one to UT officials, the Free-Press reported:

Dr. Shumaker initially told auditors he gave his hotel room to Dr. Garrison, a former colleague at the University of Louisville, when she was unable to get a room at a conference last December in San Antonio, Texas.

Dr. Shumaker told auditors Dr. Garrison was walking in the rain to the conference, so he agreed to let her have his room, according to Mr. Paganelli.

"(Dr. Shumaker) said, 'I went and stayed with a friend in another room. Therefore, when the hotel changed the bill out, they made a mistake,'" Mr. Paganelli said.

That story didn't come close to flying, the Free-Press reported:

Lawmakers on the committee laughed at that explanation.

"I could have done better than that," said Sen. Jerry Cooper, D-Morrison, the committee's chairman.

Mr. Paganelli said Dr. Shumaker "came back the next day and said he was not truthful with us about that."

"They shared the room. He stayed three nights, but after the second night they transferred the charges over to her, which she turned in to UAB," Mr. Paganelli said. "The hotel made a mistake when they were splitting the cost between the two of them. She got the conference rate, and he had a rate of $120 more than she did."

Associated Press reported that Shumaker tried to conceal his relationship with Garrison when asked about the hotel receipt from San Antonio:

Shumaker, who resigned Aug. 8 while under investigation for extravagant spending and ethical lapses, had previously described his relationship with Garrison as "very good personal friends" and "unassailable, perfectly proper and appropriate."

Auditors caught on to the lie when questioning a receipt they found in Garrison's name, Paganelli said. The first two nights of their stay was paid by UT, while the third was billed to UAB at a rate $120 less than the previous two.

Garrison released a statement to AP, but she did not take questions about her role in the Shumaker scandal:

In a statement Thursday, Garrison acknowledged a relationship with Shumaker and said UAB paid for her hotel room because she was there on official business that had been approved by the chancellor.

"My relationship with John Shumaker at the University of Louisville was professional. Our relationship now is personal, and has been no secret, as he has attended a number of Birmingham and UAB events," Garrison said.

(To be continued)


Previously in the series:


Carol Garrison and John Shumaker, Part I


Carol Garrison and John Shumaker, Part II

Medical Examiner's Mistake Leads to Woman's Wrongful Imprisonment in Alabama

Bridget Lee

The State of Alabama has taken steps toward paying about $119,000 to compensate a woman who was wrongfully imprisoned for nine months on capital-murder charges because of a medical examiner's mistake.

Bridget Lee, 37, of Carrollton, was convicted of killing her newborn son by suffocation. But her court-appointed attorney launched an investigation that caused state forensic experts to rule the medical examiner made a mistake and the baby had been stillborn.

Ricky Lee said he opposes compensation for his ex wife because she became pregnant while having an affair and chose not to seek medical care. Bridget Lee says the murder charge and conviction, caused by a botched autopsy, cost her everything--her home, custody of her children, and her reputation. Ms. Lee said her ex husband's remarks do not surprise her. "He's very bitter," she said in an interview yesterday.

Mr. Lee might understandably be angry because his wife's behavior during their marriage was, at times, less than honorable. But Bridget Lee's experience drives home at least three key points about the way justice is administered and perceived in our country. It also touches on issues we've covered numerous times here at Legal Schnauzer:

* Medical examiners hardly are infallible, and the public should not blindly accept their findings as correct. This issue has been at the heart of our coverage on the death of prominent Birmingham attorney Major Bashinsky.

* Misbehavior in the civil arena should not be confused with, or compared to, official misconduct that causes an individual to lose her freedom. This issue has been a factor in our coverage of the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case.

* Court cases involving child custody or support can be highly emotional and can be decided on false or incomplete information. This has been an issue in our coverage of the Angela Drees and Sherry Carroll Rollins cases.

Evidence shows that Bridget Lee, in fact, made some poor decisions that led to her incarceration. Here is key background from the Associated Press:

Lee was a married mother of two and a Baptist church pianist when her life began to unravel. One thing both she and her husband agree on is that she suffered from depression and an eating disorder after giving birth to their second child.

She began meeting a man on Wednesday nights after choir practice in January 2006. She discovered in the spring that she was pregnant but never saw a doctor for prenatal care.

In a deposition, she acknowledged that the only doctor she saw during the pregnancy was a doctor at an abortion clinic in nearby Tuscaloosa, but she was too far along for an abortion. She kept the pregnancy secret from her family and planned to give up the baby for adoption. According to court records, she gained only about six pounds.

Bridget Lee wound up giving birth at home in her bathroom, and her legal problems started soon after that:

Bridget Lee insisted the baby was stillborn. An autopsy indicated it was born alive and suffocated. Lee was charged with capital murder, which carries the death penalty, and placed in jail. Her state-paid attorney launched an investigation that eventually resulted in the state forensic experts ruling that the medical examiner made a mistake and that the baby was stillborn.

Bridget Lee's life quickly unraveled while she was incarcerated because of a medical examiner's mistake:

While Lee was in jail, her husband got a divorce. He received the family home and custody of their two children, except for every other weekend when they see their mother.

What are we to learn from the Lee case? For one, medical examiners should not be blindly trusted. As in any profession, they come with varying degrees of competence--and they can be subject to political pressure. In the Major Bashinsky case, we have shown that Jefferson County Coroner Gary T. Simmons found the death was a suicide, even though the official report presents no scientific evidence to support that finding.

We also should not confuse Ms. Lee's poor behavior that contributed to a divorce--a civil matter--with the far more distressing criminal matters that led to her wrongful incarceration. In the Siegelman case, codefendant Richard Scrushy was found in a civil case to have been the "CEO of the fraud" at HealthSouth. But that does not mean Scrushy committed a crime when he made a donation to Siegelman's education-lottery fund and then was appointed to a hospital regulatory board. In fact, our reporting (and that of numerous other journalists) has shown that Scrushy did not bribe Siegelman under the facts and the actual law that was present in their criminal case. Court documents show that the criminal trial was riddled with judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

Finally, we should never assume that courts decide matters of child custody or support in a fair way. In the Angela Turner Drees case, she lost custody of her three children (triplets) because of allegations involving domestic violence against her current husband, Hajo Drees. We now know that the lawyers who made the allegations in official proceedings have acknowledged that the statements regarding Hajo Drees' previous marriage were false. In the Sherry Rollins case, we have seen that her child support for two daughters was determined by a sworn income statement from her ex husband, Ted Rollins, that clearly was false. Mr. Rollins stated under penalty of perjury that he made roughly $50,000 a year, even though he owned portions of at least two corporations, belonged to one of the nation's wealthiest families, and owned three private planes.

Ricky Lee might say that his ex wife does not deserve any compensation, but our question is this: Will about $119,000, if approved by the Alabama Legislature, be sufficient compensation for what Bridget Lee has experienced?

What about her child-custody arrangement? If that was decided primarily on her wrongful arrest and conviction, shouldn't a court revisit that?

I don't have children, so I will defer on this issue to a faithful reader who is a mother of two and has been through a custody battle:

Despite the bitterness spilling from the ex-husband, the state violated this woman's rights and the only attempt they are making to 'fix' it is money? I don't know about y'all, but my children are worth a hell of a lot more than $119k.

Why Did Ted Rollins' Former Stepson React With Rage to My Request for an Interview?

Zac Parrish

(Editor's Note: The following post contains language that some readers might find offensive.)

Zac Parrish, the former stepson of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins, flew into a profanity-filled rage when I asked him via telephone last week for an interview on subjects related to the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.

Parrish's anger, however, apparently went beyond words. He made several curious statements that indicate he was trying to provoke me into some sort of physical confrontation. If that's the case--and Zac Parrish is welcome to correct me if my impression is wrong--why would a simple interview request spark thoughts of violence?

After all, the gist of my reporting on the Rollins divorce case has been this: Sherry Carroll Rollins (Zac Parrish's mother) and her daughters, Sarah and Emma (Zac Parrish's half sisters), have been horribly cheated in a divorce case unlawfully brought by Ted Rollins (Sherry's former husband and Zac's former stepfather) in Shelby County, Alabama. A reasonable person might expect Zac Parrish to be pleased that a journalist is shining light on a court case in which his mother and sisters were the victims of a corrupt circuit judge named D. Al Crowson.

But you would be wrong. As I reported last Friday, Zac Parrish responded to my interview request by calling me just about every name in the book--and adding a few colorful names that might not be in the book. As I've gone over my notes from that conversation, I've decided that Zac Parrish probably was wanting to inflict, or at least threaten, violence upon my person. Sherry Rollins has told me on several occasions that her youngest son is fond of guns, belongs to a hunting club near Tuscaloosa, and has even been known to carry an Italian-made pistol in his truck.

Was Zac Parrish hoping to entice me into a modern-day version of The Shootout at the OK Corral? If so, it would have been an unfair firefight given that I don't own a firearm--although conversations like the one I had with Parrish last week are starting to make me think that needs to change.

What about Parrish's "curious statements" that I mentioned earlier? Well, they came not long after Parrish said, "If you've got something you want to know from me, or about my family, why don't you come fucking meet me face to face?"

Thinking he genuinely was willing to do an in-person interview, I said, "I'll be happy to. You want to set up a time?" I even suggested we do it the next day. But it soon became clear that Parrish was not interested in a face-to-face interview. Consider this exchange from later in our conversation (ZP is Zac Parrih; LS is me, Legal Schnauzer):

ZP: I'm going to leave it at this right now: Let this serve as fair warning. Do not contact me again.

LS: Well, I thought you said you would meet with me in person. That's what you just said.

ZP: Roger, you know what I meant by that.

LS: No, I don't . . .

ZP: You'd love nothing more . . . Roger, I'm not going to stoop to your level, but listen to me: Don't you fucking contact me again.

LS: Well then, can I talk to you now?

ZP: Do you understand? No, no . . . I'm about to hang up again.

What are we to make of this? Well, it seems that when Zac Parrish suggested I meet him face to face to ask him questions, he didn't really mean it. He meant something else. What? I didn't know then, and I don't know for sure now. But having thought about it, I can only assume that he had some form of intimidation or physical threat in mind. That's a pretty unusual response to a question that could have been answered with a simple, "I don't want to talk with you about those matters. I have no comment. Have a nice day."

What is going on with Zac Parrish? The picture remains murky, but based on numerous conversations I've had with Sherry Rollins, it appears that Zac Parrish and his two Birmingham-based construction companies have benefited nicely from support of the Rollins family. That's the same Rollins family that took extraordinary steps to help Ted Rollins cheat his ex wife and daughters out of alimony and child support to which they were entitled under the law.

As we've reported in previous posts, Ted Rollins did this partly by grossly understating his income on a CS-41, a sworn Alabama child-support document. Public records indicate that Ted Rollins had assistance in this endeavor from R. Randall Rollins, his cousin who is the chairman of Rollins Inc., the umbrella company for Orkin Pest Control. Randall Rollins and his brother, Gary (president and CEO of Rollins Inc.), are billionaires and two of the five wealthiest people in Atlanta--which, of course, is the center of commerce in the Southeast.

If Randall Rollins helped his cousin deceive the court in the Rollins divorce case, how did he do it? Well, public records indicate that Randall and Ted Rollins had started a real-estate investment firm called St. James Capital LLC during Ted's marriage to Sherry Rollins. Records also show that, when Rollins v. Rollins unlawfully was moved from South Carolina to Alabama, someone essentially helped St. James Capital--or at least Ted Rollins' interest in it--disappear. Sherry Rollins' interest in a clear marital asset, under the law, also seemed to disappear.

We still are piecing together Randall Rollins' role in all of this. But this much is certain: Some serious deception went on in an Alabama courtroom regarding St. James Capital. And it appears this caused a significant transfer of wealth--with money that should have gone to Sherry, Sarah, and Emma Rollins going somewhere else.

Where did it go? My conversations with Sherry Rollins indicate that one destination was Zac Parrish's construction businesses. In fact, the one person close to Sherry Rollins who seems to have emerged from the Rollins divorce case in good financial shape is her youngest son, Zac Parrish. Everyone else is, or has been, on food stamps. (Actually, that's not quite true; Eric Parrish, Ms. Rollins' oldest son, also seems to be faring pretty well in the construction business. He works for Birmingham-based Brasfield Gorrie, which has deep ties to Bradley Arant, Ted Rollins' primary corporate law firm.)

Once Sherry and Ted Rollins were divorced, Zac Parrish had pretty much no ties to the Rollins family. He wasn't related to them by blood, marriage, or anything else. So why has the Rollins corporate machine remained friendly to Zac Parrish, while dumping all over two teen-aged girls (Sarah and Emma Rollins) who have the family blood coursing through their veins?

That is one of several questions I wanted to put to Zac Parrish. He clearly wanted no part of answering it.

Obamacare Gives Conservative Justices A Chance To Prove They Are Political Hacks

Antonin Scalia and John Roberts

If nothing else, last week's arguments in Washington, D.C., about Obamacare proved one thing: We have some intellectual featherweights on the conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The dimmest bulb in the legal firmament appears to be Chief Justice John Roberts, followed closely by right-wing bomb thrower Antonin Scalia. Their comments strongly suggest that they are not taking a serious approach to deliberations on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). And that means Robert Parry, of Consortium News, almost certainly is correct when he suggests that right wingers on the court are "political hacks" who have predetermined that the health-care law will be struck down, at least in part.

Before the three days of oral arguments began last week, Parry wrote that Roberts and Company were not really interested in the constitutionality of the individual mandate--or any other portion of the ACA. In fact, Parry wrote, it's not seriously in doubt that the law, is constitutional. But GOP appointees appear willing to butcher the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and ignore legal precedent, in order to hand Obama a political setback in an election year.

What suggests that Roberts is not serious about the proceedings? For starters, he made a comment that surely ranks as one of the 10 most ignorant utterances ever made by a public official. Here is how Bloomberg News reported it:

During arguments over the insurance requirement, both justices (Roberts and Anthony Kennedy) trained the bulk of their questions on U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration lawyer who defended the law.

Roberts directed three-quarters of his approximately 20 questions to Verrilli during that two-hour argument. Roberts said the health plan would “require people who are never going to need pediatric or maternity services to participate in that market.”

Memo to Roberts: Insurance plans already require consumers to participate "in markets" they probably never need. When I had health coverage through my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) it was, like most plans, a relatively broad policy--covering my health in general. I was forced to participate in the "gynecology market," even though it was pretty clear I never would need those services. My female coworkers had to participate in the "prostate surgery market," probably not realizing there was such a thing.

This is how insurance, in general, has worked for decades. But in RobertsWorld, such policies apparently are unconstitutional. In RobertsWorld, it seems, you could get a health-care policy that covers your right arm (because you are right-handed), but not your left arm (hey, who needs it?).

Imagine this concept applied to other forms of insurance. You could get an automobile policy that covers your bumper but not your left rear door. (Why not?) Or you could get a homeowner's policy that covers your kitchen but not your bathrooms. (Got to eat, but hey, you can always take a dump outdoors!)

Progressive columnist E.J. Dionne gave Roberts the intellectual thrashing he deserves:

One of the most astonishing arguments came from Roberts, who spoke with alarm that people would be required to purchase coverage for issues they might never confront. He specifically cited “pediatric services” and “maternity services.”

Well, yes, men pay to cover maternity services while women pay for treating prostate problems. It’s called health insurance. Would it be better to segregate the insurance market along gender lines?

As for Scalia, he wondered aloud if the passage of Obamacare means the government could "make people buy broccoli." From all reports, Scalia raised this issue with a straight face. Columnist Eugene Robinson reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to be taking Scalia seriously, so U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was forced to address it:

Justice Antonin Scalia raised the specter of an all-powerful government that could even “make people buy broccoli” if it wished. Scalia’s mind seemed to be made up, but Kennedy seemed to be genuinely looking for a principle that permitted a health insurance mandate but not a broccoli mandate.

And Verrilli gave him one. The market for health insurance is inseparable from the market for health care, he argued, and every citizen is a consumer of health care. Those who choose not to buy health insurance require health care anyway — often expensive care at hospital emergency rooms — and these costs are borne by the rest of us in the form of higher premiums.

So there you have it: By virtue of being human, we all are going to need health care at some point, so Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that everyone participates in the market, and it has the authority to create such a mandate under the Commerce Clause.

Despite red herrings raised by the likes of Roberts and Scalia, the issue really is not complicated. And as Parry reports, even conservative federal judges have found that, based on the actual law and legal precedent, the ACA is constitutional:

For instance, in a Nov. 8, 2011, legal opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, conservative U.S. Appeals Court senior judge Laurence Silberman recognized this legal reality (even though he might not politically like “Obamacare”).

Silberman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan but a serious constitutional scholar, explained how the law – including its most controversial feature, the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance coverage – fits with the Commerce Clause.

“We look first to the text of the Constitution,” Silberman wrote in his opinion. “Article I, § 8, cl. 3, states: ‘The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’ (Emphasis added by Silberman).

“At the time the Constitution was fashioned, to ‘regulate’ meant, as it does now, ‘[t]o adjust by rule or method,’ as well as ‘[t]o direct.’ To ‘direct,’ in turn, included ‘[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course,’ and ‘[t]o order; to command.’

“In other words, to ‘regulate’ can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market. Nor was the term ‘commerce’ limited to only existing commerce. There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument” that mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional.

Is that delicious? Roberts, Scalia, and their conservative brethren claim to be "strict constructionists" who hold dear the plain text of the constitution--and a Reagan appointee already has stated that the plain text provides no support for the notion that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Still, Parry writes, we can look for Roberts and Scalia to vote for striking down the ACA. Why? Well, they are political hacks:

At least some of the five Republicans – John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy – are expected to find some legal argument that they can use as judicial cover to strike a blow at the Democratic president, Barack Obama.

To do that – in essence to overturn the legal reasoning of Appeals Court Judge Silberman – the GOP justices will have to intuit some unstated right in the Constitution on behalf of Americans who simply don’t want to buy health insurance.

Such creative legal reasoning is exactly what the right-wing justices typically condemn. After all, the phrase “strict construction” is supposed to mean following the precise language of the Constitution and not “legislating from the bench.” But it is already clear that some of the Republican justices, such as Clarence Thomas whose wife is publicly campaigning against the law, will find whatever excuse is necessary to vote no.

Does that mean Obamacare is pretty much dead on arrival. Not necessarily, writes Parry. But the vote on the Supreme Court undoubtedly will be close--and the issue at hand is not a close call. That is just one more sign that our "justice system" is badly broken--and that's the real story behind last week's oral arguments on Obamacare. From Parry:

It appears that constitutional principles will have less to do with how the Republican partisans on the Supreme Court rule than the perceived need to advance an ideological and political agenda.

These opponents of the health-care law surely will muster some impressive “lawyering” with lots of high-brow references to various articles and clauses – just as they did in the Bush v. Gore ruling. But that will mostly be window-dressing to impress those who still believe in the integrity of this Supreme Court.

Of course, it is still possible that one or more of the Republican partisans will overlook their political loyalty to the GOP and their ideological commitment to the anti-government Right – and agree with Judge Silberman that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

Such a justice might even think back on how the individual mandate began as a right-wing idea and thus refuse to behave as a political hack who simply switches constitutional principles based on whose name is associated with a law.

Yes, that could happen. But I'm not betting on it.

Key Figure in Rollins Divorce Case Responds To Interview Request With a Tirade

Zac Parrish

(Editor's Note: The following post contains language that some readers might find offensive.)

The former stepson of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins exploded with profanity-filled rage when I asked to interview him earlier this week about issues related to the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which was decided here in Alabama and has become a regular topic on this blog.

Zac Parrish first invited me to meet him in person. When I said I would be happy to conduct an in-person interview and offered to meet him the next day, Parrish became more or less unhinged. He cussed me out, refused to answer questions, hung up on me twice, and warned me never to contact him again or to write about him.

What makes Zac Parrish think I can't write about his connections to a public court case? Why did Zac Parrish display such venom when asked about Ted Rollins? Since Parrish obviously cannot keep me, or any journalist, from writing about him and Rollins v. Rollins, what does he plan to do about it--sue me, act out in violence, hire a hit man, put me on double-secret probation? I'm not sure about the answers to any of those questions.

We've written before about Zac Parrish's role in the Rollins drama. We've reported that he is the intermediary Ted Rollins has used to issue threats to Sherry Rollins about family support for her and the couple's two daughters, Sarah and Emma, who live with their mother in Birmingham. We've reported on Zac Parrish's threats to sue me in order to keep me from reporting on Rollins v. Rollins. And we've reported on Parrish's efforts to start mountschnauzer.com, a Web domain apparently designed to counter my reporting.

Parrish, 33, is the managing member of Parrish Building Company and McMichael and Parrish Homes LLC in Birmingham. He is one of two sons that Sherry Carroll Rollins has from her first marriage, to a Birmingham insurance executive named Allen Parrish. During the 14 years that his mother was married to Ted Rollins, Zac Parrish was Mr. Rollins' stepson.

That must be a sensitive subject, based on Parrish's reaction when I called him on Wednesday.

I've had several e-mail communications with Parrish, which he has initiated, and he apparently has made several anonymous comments on this blog--all seemingly supportive of Ted Rollins. But I had never spoken with Parrish until Wednesday.

According to numerous conversations I've had with Sherry Carroll Rollins, her youngest son was a central figure in several incidents that helped lead her to file for divorce from Ted Rollins in Greenville, South Carolina, where the family lived. Ted Rollins somehow managed to file for divorce in Alabama, and Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson--acting completely without jurisdiction--issued an unlawful judgment that is so absurd it left Sherry Rollins and her daughters on food stamps.

You might think that Zac Parrish would be outraged at how his mother and half sisters have been cheated in Alabama courts. But you would be wrong; he seems outraged that I am reporting on the case and the favorable treatment Ted Rollins received. Parrish clearly expressed that rage when I called him Wednesday to request an interview.

We soon will be reporting more fully on my encounter with Zac Parrish. But for now, here are a few snippets. When Parrish asked why I had an interest in the Rollins divorce case, I explained that I'm a journalist with 30 years of professional experience and a special interest in Alabama courts--and public documents show that Rollins v. Rollins was corruptly decided in Shelby County, where I live and have been cheated myself in courts. When Parrish continued to question my interest in a public court case, I offered to let him interview me, at his convenience. Here is that exchange (ZP is Zac Parrish; LS is me, Legal Schnauzer):

ZP: Roger, I personally don't give a shit about interviewing you because I have a life of my own and a family to raise, and I have no reason to give a shit what you do, Roger. You're a loser, plain and simple. You should feel ashamed of what you do, Roger. You should feel ashamed. You're a piece of garbage, you're a piece of garbage, Roger. I hope you're recording this . . .

LS: Can I ask you some questions?

ZP: No, you cannot ask me a question . . . get your fucking facts straight.

And then there was this:

ZP: I don't know why I'm even stooping to your fucking level. But if you've got something you want to know from me, or about my family, why don't you come fucking meet me face to face?

LS: I'll be happy to. You want to set up a time?

ZP: Uh . . . yeah, sure do. Name the time and place, Roger--name it.

LS: Tomorrow? I'm open . . . I'd like to do an interview with you. I would be glad to take notes, tape record it, whatever you're comfortable with. That's what reporters do; that's what I've done for 30 years.

ZP: Roger, you're not a reporter, you're a fucking idiot. You're a fucking fool that relies on real, hard-working American citizens to pay your fucking bill--you piece of garbage.

LS: Well, Zac, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you asked me . . .

Then I heard a dial tone because Zac Parrish had hung up. But that was not the end of the conversation.

Stay tuned.

New York Mets Pitcher Reveals That He Was the Victim of Child Sexual Abuse

New York Mets pitcher R.A. Dickey reveals in a new book that he was the victim of sexual abuse as a child.

Dickey's revelations are the latest in a string of stories about the sexual abuse of boys, many of the cases connected to sports. The issue jumped to front pages with the arrest last fall of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

In most of the recently reported cases, the perpetrator was an adult, usually a man in a position of trust. Dickey's story has a different twist--he was sexually abused by other children. From ESPN:

New York Mets knuckleballer R.A. Dickey openly discussed Tuesday the sexual abuse he said he endured as a child, which he chronicles in detail in memoirs due to hit bookstores later this week.

Dickey, author of "Wherever I Wind Up," said he was victimized by two separate perpetrators during the summer he was 8 years old -- by a 13-year-old female babysitter and a 17-year-old male.

"I started writing the book in 2005, and it was too painful then to write," Dickey said. "So I set it down a couple of years until I felt like I had the equipment to be able to hold it well and talk about it, in an effort not only for my own catharsis, but as a possibility to help other people. Sure, it's been difficult, but I feel like I'm OK with it."

Dickey said child sexual abuse leaves tough, long-lasting emotional scars:

"It's almost like the bullying stuff," he continued. "Unless you talk about it, unless it gets out there, unless you know there are people that care about you regardless of what has happened to you, unless you know that, it's hard to get to the place where you feel comfortable not only talking about that, but talking about what it's made you into.

"One of the hopes I have for the book, and will have as long as it's out, is that people will be able to draw something from it that may help them -- whether it's to talk about it more, not to be afraid, to be open with what's happened, and that there are people available that will love you no matter what. I kind of grew up in a place where I didn't necessarily feel that."

Dickey said he struggled to share his childhood experiences with his wife and once contemplated suicide. From The New York Daily News:

Dickey, who dedicates the book to his wife and their four children, writes about how the abuse made him terrified of intimacy, of truly trusting another human being. He writes about how Anne’s love and faith and forgiveness sustained him through another crisis in his life, when he had an affair — a transgression he explores with deep remorse, one that had him mulling how he might end his life during the winter of 2005-2006.

“I betrayed my wife and there are not words that can adequately convey the guilt I felt for hurting the person who has given me so much love, who I share my life with,” said Dickey, who adds he never went so far as to attempt suicide.

Dickey credits intensive counseling and therapy, prayer and faith, and the steadfast love of Anne and his kids for helping him through his most difficult moments.

Can something positive come from the spotlight currently shining on child sexual abuse? Dickey says the answer is yes. From the Daily News:

The revelations come during a year when cases of sexual abuse have dominated the sports landscape with molestation scandals at Penn State and Syracuse. Dickey said that those events have helped make it easier to come forward.

“I think it has done a lot,” he said. “Thankfully, I think it has done a lot. I hope sexual abuse is never looked at in the same way, as far as something that is taboo to talk about, or something that is tough to discuss.”

Dickey's book is excerpted in the April 2 issue of Sports Illustrated, which is currently on newsstands.

Suspect in Blake Lazenby Murder Says Wife Offered $40,000 for a Hit Man

Calvin McCall Haynes

A suspect in the murder of Talladega attorney Blake Lazenby said Lazenby's wife offered $40,000 to have her husband killed.

Calvin McCall Haynes said he did not want to take part in the murder plot, but he provided the name of another suspect, Ocie Lee Lynch. Haynes said Earnest James Files Jr. arranged the killing on behalf of Geanne Lazenby--and Lynch and Charles Andrew Joseph Hendrix carried it out by shooting and stabbing Blake Lazenby in his Sylacauga home.

Haynes made the statements during an interview at the Birmingham Police Department in January. The statements were presented Tuesday at a preliminary hearing and reported in yesterday's edition of The Talladega Daily Home.

Blake and Geanne Lazenby were in the midst of a contentious divorce at the time of the murder last July. Four men--Files, Hendrix, Haynes, and Lynch--have been arrested in the case. Haynes said he was not present during the murder, but a man identified only as Jeremy drove Lynch and Hendrix to Blake Lazenby's house.

Geanne Lazenby has not been arrested, but the Daily Home reports:

Solicitation of and conspiracy to commit murder are Class A felonies in Alabama, punishable upon conviction by 10 to 99 years or life in prison. Conviction for capital murder carries a penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole or death by lethal injection.

According to Haynes' statement to police, Files served as middle man in the murder plot. Reports the Daily Home:

Haynes said Earnest James Files Jr., who has been charged with the same two counts in the case, approached him roughly two years ago about murdering the husband of the woman he was dating.

“The first ever, ever time, I told him I didn’t want no part of it,” Haynes stated in the recording. “He came back in another year, last year. He was with the girl he was with and two children in a white Chevrolet Silverado. There was a white woman in the front and two kids in the back. (Files) was like, “She wants to talk to you about killing her husband.” She asked me to come around to her side, and I did. She was like, ‘I have all the money right here. I just want the job done.’”

Haynes said the woman showed him a bag full of money, but he did not count it.

“It was a lot of money,” he said. “Then she was like, ‘I want my husband dead.’ I said I didn’t want no part of it, but I said, ‘Well, Ocie (Lynch) might do something like that.’”

The plan picked up steam, according to Haynes, when Lynch became involved:

Haynes said he then contacted Ocie Lee Lynch, 30, of Birmingham, who is charged in this case with two counts of capital murder committed during a burglary in the first degree.

“I go to Ocie,” Haynes said. “I was like, ‘Well, the lady said she got 40 G’s, and she want her husband killed. Are you down with it?’ And he was like, ‘I’m down with it.’”

He said Files gave Lynch $2,000 of his own money when he agreed to carry out the murder. Haynes said he was not at Lazenby’s house the night of the murder, nor did he ever visit the house.

“(Files) wrote down the address and told Ocie how to get there,” Haynes said. “When he wrote down the address, Ocie was like, ‘I got it. You ain’t got nothing to worry about.’”

Haynes account is curious because it does not seem to fit with what we have reported earlier about the relationship between Geanne Lazenby and Earnest Files. From a post dated February 22, 2012:

According to documents obtained through the Coosa County Sheriff’s Department, Geanne Lazenby, who was living in Alexander City, filed a harassing communications and criminal trespass complaint against Files on March 28, 2011. According to her complaint, Files called her cell phone more than 100 times in less than a week, including once while a deputy was taking her statement. She said she had repeatedly told him not to call her, and added that he had visited her home on two occasions in spite of being told not to come by, either.

Haynes has Geanne Lazenby and Earnest Files acting as accomplices in a murder plot. Public records show Geanne Lazenby filing a criminal complaint against Earnest Files in an effort to keep him away from her.

Can those two accounts be reconciled? Perhaps we will find out soon. More preliminary hearings are scheduled for April 10.

University of Alabama Trustees Could Help Befoul the Drinking Water for 200,000 People

The water intake facility
 on the Mulberry Fork 

The University of Alabama Board of Trustees is led by a man with documented ties to massive insurance fraud. The board soon could sell or lease property for a strip-mining operation that would threaten the drinking water for approximately 200,000 people.

Those two sentences probably seem incongruent to a reasonable person. But they sum up the facts surrounding the Shepherd Bend Mine project, which has been generating spirited opposition for about five years now. The controversy might have reached a crescendo late last week when Black and White, an alternative biweekly newspaper in Birmingham, released perhaps the most comprehensive report on the project so far. Titled "A River Ruined Through It," the investigative piece is available in the March 22-April 4 issue.

Reporter David Pelfrey, practicing the kind of journalism that is all too rare in our state, found that university officials recited mostly stock answers when questioned recently about the project. And that was from the few UA higher ups who would even respond to Pelfrey's queries; most avoided him altogether.

The issue is picking up steam as the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release new rules on greenhouse-gas emissions that could end the construction of coal-fired power plants. Do the UA trustees care that they might be signing off on a strip-mining project just as the days of coal-fired plants could be numbered? Can we expect forward thinking from the leaders of our flagship state university? If they think money can somehow be made on the front end of the mining project, probably not.

UA's muted response to Pelfrey's questions should not inspire confidence in metro Birmingham residents who could see their drinking water befouled by the Shepherd Bend Mine. Citizens should be even less confident when they learn that Paul Bryant Jr. president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, has documented ties to a $15-million fraud scheme.

As we have reported in a series of posts, one of Bryant's companies, Alabama Reassurance, was implicated in a 1997 criminal case that netted a 15-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. Public documents show that Alabama Re, with at least $238 million in admitted assets, has since been liquidated and replaced by a company called Alabama Life Reinsurance. Those same documents show that Alabama Re had a five-person board, headed by Bryant, and only two full-time employees. It's hard to believe that anyone in such a closely held company could be unaware of a fraud scheme that left numerous consumers with worthless life-insurance policies.

In short, Paul Bryant Jr. is head of a company that has shown it operates in a greedy and unlawful fashion, with little concern for the public good. And yet, Bryant now heads a university board that could have a profoundly negative impact on the public--by turning over the board's land to a strip-mining project near a major source of drinking water.

What's at stake? The University of Alabama System owns the majority of the 1,773 acres at the mining site. The board of trustees issued a request for proposals in May 2007 that would lease the land and mineral rights for surface coal mining. Black Warrior Riverkeeper has led the opposition and says the project would discharge wastewater into the Mulberry Fork, only 800 feet from a major drinking-water intake for the Birmingham Water Works Board.

Shepherd Bend LLC has the leases it needs to begin mining on only 34 acres at the site. To move forward, it will need leases from other property owners, including the University of Alabama System. Without the consent of the UA System, the project might not be economically feasible.

And that's where potential conflicts of interest enter the equation. Shepherd Bend Mining LLC is owned by members of the Drummond Coal Company family, and Garry Neal Drummond is an emeritus member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. Will the trustees help one of their own turn a tidy profit by putting a key source of drinking water at risk? Pelfrey addressed that issue with Kellee Reinhart, the UA System's chief spokesperson and one of the few people who would respond to his questions:

Since Garry Neal Drummond, the owner of a multinational coal mining company and one of the most powerful industrialists in Alabama, is a trustee emeritus and an historic mover and shaker at UA, I asked Vice-Chancellor Reinhart if Garry Drummond had urged the board of trustees to make that Shepherd Bend property available for mining. Ms. Reinhart immediately said that I should consider the fact that Mr. Drummond has not sat on the board since 2001. That was by no means an answer to the question, but the very implication that Drummond is not part of the story because of his status with the board of trustees did lead to a key point in how the board operates (more on that later). In the meantime, I asked Reinhart why no trustee was willing to say how they would vote should the opportunity to sell the Shepherd Bend land to a coal mining interest. Reinhart says that "Typically the board does not pro-actively go out and take a position on business that is not currently before the board, or if it is not relevant to a decision they have made."

Pelfrey also examines the power that Bryant wields on the board, especially on a land-related issue:

Who are the most powerful trustees? In the narrow context of selling or leasing land for surface mining, at the top of the list might be Paul Bryant Jr., after which in no particular order are Angus Cooper, Finis St. John, Judge John England, and Joe Espy. These particular trustees form the board's Executive Committee, chaired by Bryant. This committee enjoys an interesting distinction, per Article IV, Section 1 of the bylaws of the UA Board of Trustees: Without further approval of the Board, the Executive Committee shall have the authority to lease, sell and convey real property of the Board, or any interest therein.

Translation: Paul Bryant Jr. chairs a committee that can unilaterally ensure that the Shepherd Bend Mine project moves forward.

Bryant's history as a businessman, especially involving Alabama Re, suggests that he hardly is a big-picture guy. He's a bottom-line guy, who is interested mainly in power and money--and he's willing to bend rules to obtain either.

Should he be involved in making decisions that could affect the quality of drinking water for some 200,000 people in and around Birmingham?

The answer to that question clearly is no. But Alabamians have allowed corporate types to dominate our executive, legislative, and judicial branches--even the boards of our universities. We've allowed moneyed elites to control every facet of our public life.

Because of that, we might soon have the nasty drinking water that corporatists think we deserve.

Here is a video about the Shepherd Bend controversy by UAB film student Rebecca Marston. It was released on February 14, 2012:



The Ripple Effect from Rebecca Marston on Vimeo.

"Fully Loaded" Activities at The Grove Apartments Include Homicides, Shootings, and Car Jackings

The Grove at Clarksville, Tennessee

Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has an MBA from Duke University, so it stands to reason that he knows a thing or two about business. But Rollins must have skipped classes for the marketing component in Duke's MBA program. How else can you explain Rollins' approval of the slogan "fully loaded" for the student-housing complexes his company builds under The Grove banner?

Was no one at the company capable of looking ahead and seeing that an unfortunate event likely was to happen at one of their facilities, bringing a dark and ironic twist to the term "fully loaded." Such an event happened recently when 23-year-old Shardae Wright was shot to death in her apartment at The Grove in Clarksville, Tennessee, near Austin Peay State University. Nicholas Rico Durant, Wright's boyfriend, has been arrested and charged with murder.

This was not the first time "fully loaded" has taken on a dark meaning in relation to a Grove site--and it surely will not be the last. Does the company plan to continue with that marketing campaign? We put that question to Ted Rollins in the wake of Shardae Wright's shooting death, but he has not responded to our message.

Rollins has been the subject of numerous posts at Legal Schnauzer because of Rollins v. Rollins, a divorce action he initiated in Alabama that left his ex wife and two daughters on food stamps here in Birmingham. For good measure, Rollins has a $26.3-million Grove project planned at Auburn University. Once completed, that complex should liven things up at the "Loveliest Village on the Plains."

It's been almost two years since Sherry Carroll Rollins contacted me and began to talk about an ex husband who belonged to one of the nation's wealthiest families, who managed to sue her for divorce in Alabama even though she sued him first in South Carolina (where they lived), and who was launching a company to build apartment complexes near college campuses around the country.

When news broke that the company had completed a $382-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010, it was obvious this was to be a major venture, run by serious business people. So I was stunned to discover that Campus Crest Communities planned to market itself as a provider of "fully loaded" living for college students.

Anyone paying the slightest attention to American culture knows we are awash in guns and alcohol--and both tend to be available to college students. Even the most unhip folks among us know the term "loaded" has unfortunate connotations when applied to firearms and booze. You did not have to be a visionary to see that the term "fully loaded" was going to come back to bite Campus Crest Communities on its marketing fanny.

In fact, the biting started long before the shooting death in Clarksville, Tennessee. In November 2009, a man was charged with felony reckless endangerment and public intoxication after firing a gun into a woman's apartment at The Grove in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, near Middle Tennessee State University. Suspect Angelo Demetrius Leach apparently was "fully loaded" in at least two senses of the term.

In July 2011, a woman had her 2005 Nissan Altima carjacked at The Grove in Mobile, on the campus of the University of South Alabama. In that case, the assailant wielded a knife, so it's not certain he qualified as "fully loaded."

These are serious matters, and we don't mean to make light of situations where young people have found themselves in danger. That's why we put some serious questions to Ted Rollins following the homicide at Austin Peay. The CEO has stated to us several times that he would be "more than happy" to respond to written questions, and we have submitted questions via e-mail on more than a dozen occasions. He has yet to respond to any of them.

Here are the questions we asked after the shooting death of Shardae Wright:

Ted:

I understand that a resident was murdered Friday evening at The Grove apartment complex near Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, TN.

I am developing a post about the homicide for tomorrow morning (3/7), so I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment by responding to the following questions:

* What does this incident say about security at The Grove complexes?

* What does this say about safety of students who live at The Grove, coming close on the heels of a balcony collapse at your complex near North Texas State?

* Are you concerned about your marketing theme--fully loaded living--in light of a shooting death at one of your properties?

* I wrote just this morning about allegations that you committed perjury in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case in Alabama, and you did not respond to questions in advance of that post. What does your own apparent disrespect for the law say about the lawlessness that now seems to be permeating your apartment complexes around the country?

This is a time-sensitive story, so I would appreciate a prompt response.

Does Ted Rollins' failure to respond indicate that he simply does not care that a young woman lost her life at one of his properties? Does it mean he does not have good answers to questions about safety and security for residents at The Grove? Does it mean he doesn't know what to do about a marketing campaign gone awry?

I could see how a reasonable person might answer yes to all of those questions.