The Lawyer for CEO Ted Rollins Is Threatening Legal Action Once Again

Chad Essick

An attorney for Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has threatened me for the third time with legal action for reporting accurately about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.

Chad Essick, of the North Carolina firm Poyner Spruill, informs me this time that his client's patience is wearing "razor thin." Next thing you know counselor Essick will be putting me on double-secret probation.

Essick goes on to question why I continue to report about a case that he calls a "private family matter." If you know anything at all about the American court system, that sentence should make your jaw drop.

The court file in Rollins v. Rollins is a public record. The case was litigated in a taxpayer-funded courtroom, with lawyers who are officers of a taxpayer-funded court, overseen by a judge who is paid by taxpayers. The Rollins case could not be more public, and it only came to my attention here in Alabama because Ted Rollins filed a complaint in this state after Sherry Carroll Rollins got things rolling by suing him for divorce in South Carolina.

If Ted Rollins is unhappy that I'm reporting on his divorce case, which he brought to the county where I live, he has only himself to blame. The crumbling Rollins marriage was a private family matter back when the couple was developing "irreconcilable differences" and, according to Ms. Rollins' complaint, her husband was rather flagrantly committing adultery.

But once either party filed a lawsuit, it became as public as any other divorce record. Chad Essick has to know this. After all, he got through law school at Campbell University, so he probably isn't stupid.

Why then is Mr. Essick making wacky statements on Ted Rollins' behalf? Desperation, maybe? Heck, I don't know.

I do know that the business about a "private family matter" is not the only sign that Ted Rollins and his lawyer are out of touch with reality. Let's examine a few key issues in their latest missive. (You can read the whole thing at the end of this post.)

* Threats to cut off family support to Sherry Rollins and the couple's daughters, Sarah and Emma--I reported this in a February 3 post titled "Has CEO Resorted to Extortion In An Effort to Silence Our Reporting?" I reported the threat because Sherry Rollins called me and told me about it in detail, and I tape recorded the conversation. Ms. Rollins had reported similar threats to me on probably a dozen occasions over almost two years' time.

* Ted Rollins' status as a deadbeat dad--I've reported this in multiple posts, and public records--plus a videotaped interview with Sherry Rollins--show that it's true. Sherry Rollins stated, with a camera rolling and under no coercion from anyone, that Ted Rollins had failed to pay more than $200,000 in court-ordered family support from South Carolina. It still hasn't been paid, and that makes Mr. Rollins a deadbeat dad. It's fact.

* My communications with Sarah Rollins, and the threat of a restraining order--Mr. Essick is topping himself with this one. He states that I have been in contact with Sarah Rollins, and Ted Rollins vows to get a restraining order against me if I contact either of his minor children again. A fact: I was "in contact" with Sarah Rollins because she called me at home. Let me repeat: Sarah Rollins called me, not the other way around. Is Mr. Essick going to seek an order to prevent me from answering my own phone?

It's interesting that Ted Rollins would voice such concern about the welfare of minor children. I have information about how he has treated minor children who were under his care, and it's not a pretty story. More on that coming soon.

Mr. Essick says my posts contain "false and misleading" information, and he demands that I take "certain corrective action" in the form of a retraction. I made it clear that no retraction is forthcoming. Here is my full reply:

Mr. Essick:

A response to the latest in your ongoing series of threats:

* The threats to cut off family support were communicated to me by Sherry Rollins in a tape-recorded conversation. She called me about them, not the other way around, and she has made similar reports to me on probably 8-12 occasions. I've never initiated a conversation on such topics; she has always brought it up. My posts on this subject are true, and there will be no retraction.

* Public records, and videotaped interviews with Sherry Rollins, show that Mr. Rollins still owes a significant sum of money that he never paid, based on South Carolina court orders. Thus, he is a deadbeat dad. My posts on this subject are true, and there will be no retraction.

* Sarah Rollins contacted me via telephone. She initiated the communication. That is fact, and Mr. Rollins should learn the facts before making threats about restraining orders.

* Sherry Rollins has not provided documentation to show that one word of my reporting is false. Whether I continue to report on this subject is not her call--it's mine. This also is not a "private family matter," as you should know. Rollins v. Rollins is a matter of public record, litigated in taxpayer-funded courts, and Ted Rollins is CEO of a publicly traded company that conducts business from coast to coast.

Finally, public records show that you are not a member of the Alabama State Bar, and yet you continue to send law-related communications to an Alabama citizen. You appear to be practicing law in Alabama without a license. You also have repeatedly made threats against me, hinting at legal actions that you cannot lawfully take. This appears to be a violation of legal ethics at both the state and national levels.

Your unlawful and unethical actions will no longer be tolerated.

I've conducted additional research since I wrote that, and under the State Corporate Admission Rules of Alabama, I don't think Mr. Essick is practicing law without a license. He is, however, violating
Rule 3.1 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct ("Meritorious Claims and Contentions"), which states, in part:

(a) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the lawyer’s client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.

In addition, Mr. Essick, Mr. Rollins, and any number of other individuals and entities would be subject to a counterclaim for abuse of process, conspiracy, defamation (and other possible claims) if they bring a baseless lawsuit against me. Any lawsuit they file would be baseless because my reporting has been accurate.

Essick is threatening a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which is the kind of tactic to which a low-rent, cowardly law firm would resort. Is that what Poyner Spruill is all about? The answer appears to be yes.

Essick's claim that Rollins v. Rollins is a "private family matter" makes him come across as someone who knows he has no serious position other than to flail at the air.

It's ironic, however, that Essick raised the issue of Ted Rollins and minor children. That is a subject that merits very serious attention.


Ted Rollins--Letter No. 3

My Experience on Federal Jury Duty Is Short, Sweet, and Strange

I figured my trip for jury duty yesterday at the Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse in downtown Birmingham would be brief. But it turned out to be even more brief than I expected.

Lawyers usually are quick to strike potential jurors who've had experience with the justice system or have strong opinions about courtroom matters. As an outspoken critic of judges, prosecutors, and just about everyone associated with "justice" in America, I didn't figure to hang around long among the 30 to 40 folks who showed up at the jury room yesterday.

As it turned out, I didn't even get to be questioned by lawyers in the case for which I was called--and I'm still not sure why. All I know is that, less than two hours after I showed up, I was told to go home--and I wasn't about to ask too many questions.

Jury Specialist Cheryle Eiland spent about 30 minutes orienting us, telling us what we could expect from our jury experience and that we were there for only one case--a criminal matter of some sort. The most important information I gleaned from Eiland is that lunch was going to be catered. That meant I would get to eat free on the U.S. government's dime.

As I thought about the kind of sandwich I wanted, U.S. District Judge Karon Bowdre entered the jury room. She spent about 30 minutes asking certain questions to make sure we were qualified to be jurors--do you have three functioning brain cells, do you speak and understand English, have you ever been convicted for blowing up a meth lab in your basement? My answers were "maybe," "sort of," and "not yet," so I was in good shape.

Bowdre also told us that we have the world's finest justice system--one that deeply impressed recent visitors from Russia--and ensured us that everyone at the Hugo Black Courthouse is devoted to the cause of due process and equal protection under the law. I had to almost physically stifle a guffaw when I heard that one.

I wanted to say, "Judge, have you ever witnessed the way some of your colleagues--namely U.S. District Judges William M. Acker Jr. and Abdul Kallon--conduct business? Well, I have, and it ain't pretty, and I'm soon going to be exposing them on my blog. By the way, do you read Legal Schnauzer? My blog stats show that I have a bunch of readers in the U.S. Department of Justice. I hope you are among them.

"And for the record, are all Russians gullible or just the ones who visit courthouses in Alabama?"

I was on the front row, and perhaps Bowdre sensed that at least one person in the audience was not buying her spiel. After discerning that we all were qualified to be jurors, Bowdre said she was going upstairs to her courtroom to confer with prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case, and then we would be called up to be questioned in a process that is known as voir dire. (That's Latin for, "Try to pick as many clueless people as possible.")

After we had waited for about 15 minutes to be called to Bowdre's courtroom, Eiland stepped to the front of the jury room for an announcement. By then, I had meandered toward the back--still thinking about that all-important sandwich decision--when Eiland's voice snapped me out of my reverie.

I heard her say something about three people could go home, and one of the names she called was mine.

Not sure what was going on, I walked to the front of the room, introduced myself to Eiland, and said, "Did you just say that I could go home?"

"Yes, you're free to go," she said and started to walk away.

Another guy was standing there, wearing a big grin because his name had also been called. "Hey, luck of the draw, right?" he said to me.

"Yeah, I guess so," I said.

As for the third name that was called, I never figured out who that was. I only saw two of us stand up.

Before Eiland could get away, I said, "Why am I free to go? I'm not complaining, but I don't understand what happened."

She mumbled something about "random selection" and "you were excused" and wandered off.

I showed up at 8:15, it wasn't even 10 o'clock yet, and I was already being told to hit the road. My first thought was, "If I was going to be excused for some random reason, couldn't that have been done before I drove all the way downtown?"

My second thought, and by far the most important one, was: "I haven't had my free lunch--and it probably isn't going to be served for another two hours or more."

Eiland actually said that the other guy and I could stick around for our free lunch. And free lunches mean enough to me that I gave it serious thought. But I decided that spending more time than necessary in a jury room would be inexcusably bad form--and would raise questions about my need to get a life.

Is it possible that one of the lawyers in the case scanned the list of potential jurors, recognized my name, and alerted Bowdre? Is it possible the conversation among the lawyers went something like this?

"This is the guy who writes that blog that pisses everybody off. And by 'everybody,' I mean lawyers and judges."

"Those are the only people that matter, aren't they?"

"Exactly. If we call this fruit loop up here, he'll write about everything that goes on, and the last thing we want is transparency in our courtrooms."

"Agreed. Your Honor, we jointly move that Mr. Shuler be told to hit the exits, pronto. The 'people's business' must not be subjected to the prying eyes of the 'alternative press.'"

Is it possible that Bowdre took about 1.3 seconds to say, "Motion granted. Who wants the extra sandwich?"

Regardless of what happened, I was out the door--and I wasn't looking back.

Poor Leadership Is Causing UAB to be Left in the Dust of Big-Time Athletics

The University of Memphis, UAB's No. 1 sports rival, has accepted an invitation to join the prestigious Big East Conference. That means the university on Birmingham's Southside will be left to wallow in a crumbling Conference USA.

It didn't have to be that way.

The Big East, with headquarters in New York City, has a BCS spot in football, a reputation as a top two or three basketball league, and an enormous television footprint. Memphis has been dying to join the conference for years and finally got its wish last week.

Why was UAB left behind? We can think of several valid answers to that question, but the most important one is this: UAB has been suffering from wretched "leadership" for more than a decade, and that's why a league of the Big East's stature wants nothing to do with Blazer athletics. I personally have witnessed the corruption at the heart of UAB's current administration, so I can understand why Big East officials would want to keep the university at arm's length.

For those paying attention, President Carol Garrison has allowed decay to set in at UAB. She should have been fired after her first year on the job, but the University of Alabama already was facing a lawsuit from Garrison's predecessor (W. Ann Reynolds) and did not want to risk another one. Reynolds and Garrison now have combined to wipe out much of the progress UAB athletics made under the late Gene Bartow.

Why is UAB left to hope that Conference USA can salvage a far-flung merger with the Mountain West Conference? David Knox, of The Birmingham News, addressed that question in a recent column and hit on some key points. Here is a major reason UAB's athletics department figures to be flailing for the foreseeable future:

When the Big East is now made up of nine former foes from the Great Midwest/C-USA leagues that UAB co-founded -- Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, Memphis, South Florida and now Houston, SMU and Central Florida -- you have to ask how did UAB get left on the outside looking in. . . .

Fan support? Big part of it. UAB fans, administration, faculty, alumni and students have only themselves to blame here. They have not supported a fledgling football program that could have positioned itself for the Big East. Winning would have helped, but you have to support the program regardless.

And why are the fans not filling up Bartow Arena to watch a program that's historically among the 25 winningest programs in college basketball? No excuses. None.

Knox is right on target, but he fails to address UAB's leadership vacuum--and I think that and poor fan support are reasons 1(a) and 1(b) that Blazer sports are on shaky ground.

As we have reported previously, Carol Garrison's 10-year reign has been riddled with mismanagement, but let's focus on a few key items that might have given Big East officials pause:

* The John Shumaker Affair--In her first year on the job, Garrison became embroiled in a scandal that cost University of Tennessee President John Shumaker his job. It became known that Garrison was carrying on a "relationship" with Shumaker and jetting around the South with him at taxpayer expense. Any other UAB employee would have been canned for such behavior; Garrison was allowed to stay on. The Garrison/Shumaker alliance started when both were at the University of Louisville--and Louisville now is a member of the Big East. Any chance Louisville officials wanted to be affiliated again with Carol Garrison? I doubt it.

* Massive Research Fraud--Garrison was at the helm when UAB paid $3.4 million to settle a federal whistleblower case involving widespread research and Medicare fraud on campus. The fraud totaled an estimated $300 to $600 million, and the settlement agreement states that the government can reinstate a civil or criminal investigation at any time. Do you think the Big East wanted to risk the PR fallout from such a case in the future? I don't either.

* The Neil Callaway Fiasco--UAB's once-promising football program has gone in the tank, largely because of Garrison's decision to cave in to pressure from UA trustee Paul Bryant Jr. and hire Neil Callaway as head coach. After four losing seasons, Callaway was fired--and interest in Blazer football is at an all-time low.

* The Shadow of Paul Bryant Jr.--The Callaway hiring proved that Garrison does not have the spine to stand up to Bryant, who now has risen to be president of the UA Board of Trustees. It's a poorly kept secret in athletics circles that Bryant Jr. is a scam artist. We have written extensively about his ties to a massive insurance fraud scheme in Pennsylvania from the late 1990s. That case was tried in Philadelphia, which just happens to be a major market for the Big East. Can you imagine the conference taking on UAB, only to have investigative reporters from East Coast newspapers dig up the ugliness in Paul Bryant's past? I suspect Big East officials could live without that potential headache.

As for my own experience with corruption under Carol Garrison's regime, I worked in various editorial positions at UAB for 19 years before being unlawfully fired in May 2008. A tape-recorded conversation I had with UAB Employee Relations Director Anita Bonasera proves that I was targeted and fired because I have written numerous blog posts--on my own time, with my own resources--that have been supportive of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. I was one of many journalists--conservative icon George Will is the latest--to address the likelihood that Siegelman, a Democrat, was the victim of a political prosecution under the Bush Department of Justice. Evidence strongly suggests that Carol Garrison got heat about a UAB employee exercising his First Amendment rights to report on a matter of public concern, and she caved in from pressure to fire me.

I have an ongoing federal lawsuit against UAB, and who knows how that will turn out? But there is no doubt about why I was fired. The following video spells it out, especially at the 1:40 to 2:30 mark. This is the kind of "ethics" that UAB practices under Carol Garrison. Is it any wonder that the Big East wanted no part of it?

George Will, Of All People, Stands Up for Justice in the Don Siegelman Case

George Will

Who could have imagined that George Will would prove to be more progressive than Barack Obama on fundamental matters of justice?

Will, probably the nation's foremost conservative columnist, writes in his most recent piece that the U.S. Supreme Court should review the convictions of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy to ensure that overzealous prosecutors are not criminalizing standard political behavior.

The Obama Justice Department, meanwhile, has stated that the Siegelman case was correctly decided and should not be reviewed by the nation's highest court. That presents a disturbing scenario for Democrats as they think about heading to the polls in November: George Will actually is more enlightened than Barack Obama on constitutional issues of profound importance to many progressives.

In a piece titled "Is It Bribery Or Just Politics?" Will makes it clear that he finds the Siegelman prosecution deeply troubling:

All elected officials, and those who help finance elections in the expectation that certain promises will be kept — and everyone who cares about the rule of law — should hope the Supreme Court agrees to hear Don Siegelman’s appeal of his conviction. Until the court clarifies what constitutes quid pro quo political corruption, Americans engage in politics at their peril because prosecutors have dangerous discretion to criminalize politics.

Every American politician could wind up in the federal slammer if the "Siegelman standard" is applied across the board, Will writes:

Siegelman argues that political contributions enjoy First Amendment protection, and seeking them is not optional for a politician in America’s privately funded democracy. Furthermore, elected officials must undertake official acts; some will be pleasing or otherwise beneficial to contributors. (See Solyndra.) Often this is nothing more than keeping campaign promises: People contribute because they endorse a candidate’s agenda.

Will points out what we already have noted--that the Siegelman/Scrushy convictions hang on the definition of one word ("explicit")--and various courts disagree on what it means in the context of a bribery case involving campaign contributions. In fact, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that, contrary to clear precedent, a jury is free to find that a corrupt agreement is "implied." Will is correct when he states that the muddiness of current law requires U.S. Supreme Court intervention:

If bribery can be discerned in a somehow implicit connection between a contribution and an official action, prosecutorial discretion will be vast. And there will be the political temptation to ascribe unspoken but criminal mental states to elected officials. The Supreme Court can circumscribe this dangerous discretion by affirming the principle that the quid pro quo standard for bribery requires proof, not a mere inference, of an actual communication. In the law’s current, contradictory condition, the line is blurry between the exercise of constitutional rights and the commission of a crime.

Actually, the current law on political bribery is not all that muddy. Prosecutors and defendants in the Siegelman case agree that a Supreme Court ruling styled McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) is the controlling law, and it requires that an agreement must be "explicit" in order to constitute bribery.

The real issue in the Siegelman case is not the law but judicial buffoonery (or corruption, take your pick). U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee who oversaw the Siegelman trial in the Middle District of Alabama, got it wrong by giving jury instructions that were contrary to established law. The Eleventh Circuit got it wrong by stating, more or less, that Fuller's instructions were "in the ballpark," and that's good enough for a criminal conviction.

That notion should send a shiver down the spine of every sentient being in America. After all, as Don Siegelman has said many times, "if they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone."

George Will does not go far enough in his column. He correctly addresses the issue of lawless prosecutors while ignoring the fact that our federal courts also are filled with lawless judges. They are the real danger to our democracy. Prosecutors can do only so much harm, without the aid of corrupt judges. The Siegelman/Scrushy case, sadly, has featured rogue judges from the outset.

Still, George Will makes a valuable contribution to our nation's understanding of issues raised in the Siegelman case. This thought probably would turn Will's stomach, but progressives who care about justice should be singing his praises today.

As for the Obama administration . . . the president and Attorney General Eric Holder should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm On Call for Federal Jury Duty Again--and I'm Pissed Off About It

I am due to report to jury duty next week at the Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse in downtown Birmingham. That's hardly earth-shattering news under normal circumstances. But given the judicial corruption I've written about on this blog--and given signs that the Alabama legal cartel is nervous about my journalistic endeavors--I'm a bit concerned about serving my civic duty.

On top of that, I've seen signs in the past 24 hours or so that someone might be messing with our phone service. And I received another delightful missive yesterday from Chad Essick, the North Carolina-based attorney for Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins. It seems my recent video interview with Sherry Rollins (Ted's ex wife)--plus my reporting about her son, Zack Parrish (Ted's ex stepson)--has caused quite a stir in RollinsWorld. More on those events later, but suffice to say that I'm already dealing with third-rate thugs, and I'm not in the mood for more silliness related to jury duty.

This is the third time I've been called to federal jury duty in the past seven years. I was called in 2005, again in 2007 or '08 (I think), and now in 2012. Given all of the people who live in the Northern District of Alabama, and the fact that roughly 90 percent of trials are held in state court, it seems odd that my name would keep popping up on the jury-duty list. And I can't help but wonder if the feds have some ulterior motive in calling me for next week.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably has a better chance of being elected prime minister of Israel than I do of being selected to a jury--in any court, at any level. Lawyers who strike juries almost always want folks who've had little or no experience with the justice system and have nothing much in the way of opinions about the legal process. Regular readers of this blog know I hardly fit that profile.

Between Mrs. Schnauzer and me, we have four (I think; I lost count) pending cases in federal court. That alone will probably cause me to be stricken. I've written extensively on a pretty well-known blog about all sorts of underhandedness by just about everyone connected to courts--lawyers, judges, clerks, custodians. Aside from law librarians, who I have found to be helpful and decent folks, I have utter disdain for everyone connected to the "justice system"--and I have spelled out in detail on this blog why I feel that way.

That, of course, doesn't mean that I should be spared from being called for jury duty--even if it means I almost certainly will be sent packing very quickly. But three times in seven years? That seems pretty excessive to me.

For the record, you can spare me that crap about American jurors being noble, honorable, selfless servants. I've witnessed two jury trials from start to finish--one in state court, one in federal--and both times the juries didn't come close to getting anything right, based on the facts and law that were presented to them. Chuckie, the ground squirrel who busies himself by digging holes in my back yard, has more brain cells than the jurors I've seen in action. I'm convinced that juries easily can be corrupted. And even those that aren't, based on my experience, tend to consist of dunderheads who don't give a rip about justice. They just want to get home to catch the soft-core porn on Cinemax.

Here is my main concern: I know from my previous times on jury duty, that you are essentially under "federal custody" throughout the experience. That's not a problem if you have reason to trust your local federal officials. But I've witnessed gross corruption in the Hugo Black Courthouse, and I've written about it. I know what it's like to have federal marshals follow me around when I stop by to conduct business in the clerk's office. I know that numerous folks from the U.S. Department of Justice, uscourts.gov, and influential Birmingham law firms monitor my blog on a daily basis. I feel certain they aren't doing this for fun; they are doing it because they see me as a threat. And I don't like the thought of being "under their thumb"--if only for a few hours.

Is this call to jury duty an effort to threaten me or trap me in some way? That might sound loony to some people. But it doesn't sound loony to those who know what our system is really like. I relayed my concerns to the New York-based documentary filmmaker I wrote about the other day, and he said I was wise to be on the alert. This fellow has up-close experience with the "justice system," and here are his words:

Be careful at jury duty. You don’t need to hear it from me (obviously) but these guys take names. Did you check out what John Corzine told congressional investigators about the $1.2 billion that went south just before MF Global went belly up in Chapter 11? Much of it, Corzine confessed, will “never” be recovered; the 1.2 simply “vaporized.” These kleptocrats are playing for keeps, bro. And as long as these Bozos are strip-mining the country’s resources we’re slightly expendable.

Stay safe. It’s no joke.

It's tempting to "call in sick" for jury duty, but the easiest thing to do, I guess, is to show up.

As for Ted Rollins' lawyer, I will be sharing my latest back and forth with him. As for our phones, I'm not quite sure what is going on. I'm still checking for the possibility of a technical problem on our end; but at the moment, I'm leaning toward the notion that someone is tampering with our phone service.

What really has my goat? Well, here it is: This is the third time in seven years I've been called for federal jury duty, and when you add one appearance for a cattle call at the Shelby County Courthouse, that means I've served my "civic duty" four times since 2005. During that time, Mrs. Schnauzer has been called zero times--the big goose egg.

I'm starting to sense that she's gloating about it. My first clue was that she broke into what we call "the shove it, love it, and dance around above it" dance. It's a little number we learned from Dr. Chris Turk on Scrubs. Here is an example below. It will give you an idea of what I've been living with:

Here's the Price You Pay for Reporting the Truth About a CEO

Zac Parrish

What's the story behind mountschnauzer.com, a Web site that apparently was created in a rather pathetic attempt to threaten and intimidate yours truly?

That question has been making the rounds here, both in published comments and private e-mails, since I wrote last week about the peculiar communications I've received from Zac Parrish, managing member of Parrish Building Company in Birmingham. Why would a guy who seems to make his living as a residential builder be agitated about our reporting? Well, Zac Parrish is the former stepson of Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins, who has been the subject of numerous revelatory and unflattering posts herein.

Specifically, we've written about an unlawful divorce judgment in which Mr. Rollins and various corrupt forces in the Alabama legal community managed to cheat Sherry Carroll Rollins (his ex wife and Zac Parrish's mother) and the couple's two daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins. We've written about Mr. Rollins' shaky business practices, his connections to a family with an unsavory past, and his status as "the ultimate deadbeat dad." We've also written about his ties to Rollins Inc., the umbrella company of Orkin Pest Control that is run by his billionaire cousins Randall and Gary Rollins. And we've shown that, even though Ted Rollins is worth millions and his cousins are worth billions, Sherry Rollins and her two daughters are on food stamps in Birmingham.

Why would Zac Parrish be exorcised about all of this, clearly siding with Ted Rollins over his own mother and half sisters? Sources tell us that Parrish Building Company has benefited in a major way from Rollins-family largesse. Why has the Rollins family been supportive of Zac Parrish while going out of its way to cheat Ted Rollins' own flesh and blood? We will examine that question, in detail, soon. But first, let's consider mountschnauzer.com.

What is it? I first learned of it in an e-mail from Zac Parrish last October, and here were my initial thoughts on the subject:

What is Zac Parrish telling me with his reference to mountschnauzer.com, which to my knowledge has never taken flight as an actual Web site? I can think of only one perverse image. Schnauzer appears to be an obvious reference to me and my Web site. Why "mount"? It appears to be a reference to "doggy style" sex, from behind. In human form, it could be a reference to anal sex and a threat to "screw" with me.

With the assistance of several helpful readers, I've learned quite a bit about mountschnauzer.com. First, it doesn't appear to be an actual Web site at this point. It is a domain that is, in fact, registered to Zac Parrish.

The Web site whois.domaintools.com provides the following information about mountschnauzer.com:

Domain Name: MOUNTSCHNAUZER.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS49.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS50.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 03-oct-2011
Creation Date: 03-oct-2011
Expiration Date: 03-oct-2012

Registrant:
Zac Parrish
8673 lake drive
Bessemer, Alabama 35022
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: MOUNTSCHNAUZER.COM
Created on: 03-Oct-11
Expires on: 03-Oct-12
Last Updated on: 03-Oct-11

Administrative Contact:
Parrish, Zac z_Parrish@msn.com
8673 lake drive
Bessemer, Alabama 35022
United States
2052299054 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Parrish, Zac z_Parrish@msn.com
8673 lake drive
Bessemer, Alabama 35022
United States
2052299054 Fax --

You might recall that Zac Parrish sent a thinly veiled threat by stating in an e-mail that he knows where I live. Well, now it looks like we all know where he lives. And I'm pretty sure I have a "dear friend" who lives near Lake Drive in Bessemer. Seems two can play that "I know where you live" game.

Why did Zac Parrish pick mountschnauzer as the name for his domain? Several readers agree with me that it has something to do with off-centered ideas about sex. Said one:

My guess is mountschnauzer.com is simply a fishing expedition. Maybe from his experience and observation of his friends he is betting schnauzer surely has something of a sexual nature schnauzer wouldn't want exposed. He of course has nothing. His assumption is there must be something you wouldn't want exposed so he is bluffing that he knows your sexual secrets. Just a guess, but my bet is he thinks everyone has them. Pitiful and desperate attempt at playing on an unknown fear he hopes you have. Hahaha

A reader at Open Salon was thinking along the same lines:

Oldest and grossest play in the book. Usually the method of the direct threat is accompanied by some good old fashioned blackmail: "Sir, he's got something on us." "Well, get something on him then, damnit!" You must be into clean living, otherwise they would not be so frustrated and so desperate. Good luck.

If Zac Parrish discovers anything "edgy" going on in my sex life, I hope he clues me in on it. (Mrs. Schnauzer says she would appreciate a heads up, too.)

One reader thought "mount" was a reference to taxidermy, which is a possibility given that Zac Parrish is known to belong to a hunting club near Tuscaloosa and enjoy killing animals for no apparent reason:

Legal Schnauzer, My first thought when I read "mountschnauzer" is that animals (deer, duck, geese, etc.) are mounted--think taxidermy. Maybe it's a threat to your current pets, if you do have pets.

We do have pets, but thankfully, they are strictly indoor kitty kats, so Zac Parrish will have a hard time getting to them.

Here's a thought: Perhaps Zac Parrish is dreaming of having me stuffed and mounted. And that reminds us of a scene from "My Malpractical Decision," one of many classic episodes of Scrubs. Check it out below, from 1:00 to 1:50:

Terrell Owens vs. Ted Rollins: Does Racism Account for Vast Difference in Child-Support Payments?

Terrell Owens

Former National Football League star Terrell Owens reportedly is almost broke, the victim of poor investments and other financial downturns. According to a recent profile in GQ, Owens must pay $44,600 a month in child support--for four children he has by three women.

The court-ordered payments apparently are a major reason that Terrell Owens, 38, is on a financial precipice, now that his football career seems to be at an end. Owens' plight raises this disturbing question: Do American courts practice flagrant racism in making child-support orders?

It's a reasonable question when you compare Terrell Owens' child-support payments to those of Ted Rollins, the white CEO of Campus Crest Communities and a member of one of the nation's wealthiest families. The comparison is even more reasonable when you consider that both Owens and Rollins have strong ties to Alabama and the Deep South in general. (In fact, Owens' financial troubles stem in part from an investment in the failed Country Crossing development near Dothan, according to a recent report by Gus Garcia-Roberts in Miami New Times.)

Owens, who grew up in Alexander City, Alabama, pays $44,600 a month for four children--and if our math is correct, that comes to $11,150 per child. As we have reported numerous times, Ted Rollins has an ex wife (Sherry Carroll Rollins) and two teen-aged daughters (Sarah and Emma Rollins), who live in Birmingham. According to a final judgment of divorce in Shelby County, Alabama, Ted Rollins pays $815 a month in child support for two children. That comes to $407.50 per child.

Terrell Owens pays more than 27 times the amount that Ted Rollins pays, per child. How can that be?

I can think of only one explanation: Terrell Owens is black and comes from a relatively poor background, with no ties to the large law firms and corporations that control our courts. Ted Rollins is white and comes from a background of extreme privilege, with deep ties to corporate elites (his cousins, Randall and Gary Rollins of Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., are billionaires) and powerful law firms, such as Bradley Arant of Birmingham.

It's difficult to compare Terrell Owens' wealth to that of Ted Rollins, but let's give it a shot. According to GQ, Owens has made at least $80 million in his career. By all accounts, he has earned it, starting in obscurity at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga and growing to become an NFL receiver with Hall of Fame credentials.

Ted Rollins

Ted Rollins came by his wealth in a slightly different manner. His father, John W. Rollins Sr., was a corporate titan, successfully developing and leading companies in a variety of fields--broadcasting, advertising, pest control, vehicle leasing, energy, motorsports, hospitality, and more. To retool a line that the late Ann Richards once used about George W. Bush, "Ted Rollins was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."

The Rollins clan appears to be in the same financial stratosphere with the Du Pont family--and they both have strong ties to Delaware and Republican Party politics.

How wealthy is Ted Rollins? It's hard to say. We know that his current venture, Campus Crest Communities, completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010. We know he owns a company that owns three private planes. We know that he went in with Randall Rollins on a venture called St. James Capital--and Randall Rollins plays in the major leagues of Atlanta finance, with people like Warren Buffet (Coca-Cola) and Ted Turner (Turner Broadcasting). There are no financial leagues higher than that one.

Is Ted Rollins worth more than Terrell Owens and his paltry $80 million? My educated guess is that the answer is yes, by quite a bit.

So why, again, does Ted Rollins pay $407.15 per child in child support, while Terrell Owens pays $11,150 per child?

Is it possible that our courts are horrifically racist and elitist? Can you think of another explanation? I can't.

Appreciating the Glorious Sounds of Songs Called "Glory Bound"

We recently extolled the virtues of the Grass Roots, one of the prime hit-making bands of the late 1960s and early 1970s. While preparing that post, which noted the passing in 2011 of founding members Rob Grill and Rick Coone, I conducted a little YouTube research on one of the Grass Roots' last hit singles.

It's a song called "Glory Bound," which reached No. 34 on the Billboard charts in 1972 and should have reached the top 10, IMHO. "Glory Bound" was a splendid piece of soul-based pop/rock, a perfect fit for Grill's range on lead vocals.

As I scouted out one of my favorite Grass Roots tunes from yesteryear, I discovered at least two other songs, of more recent vintage, that are called "Glory Bound." Both come from different genres than the Grass Roots tune, but both captured me right off.

Let's give them all a listen. First, here is a stereo version of the Grass Roots from 1972. I have a 45 of this stored away somewhere, and its grooves have long since been worn out:





Next, I stumbled upon "Glory Bound" by a band called The Wailin' Jennys. I had never heard of them, but I gather that they are a poor man's version of the Dixie Chicks. Actually, that characterization is off target because The Wailin' Jennys easily can stand on their own abilities--no comparisons necessary. They are a folk band from Canada, like my Facebook friend Burton Cummings, and I definitely am going to learn more about them. Their "Glory Bound" is stunning, with drop-dead gorgeous harmonies and some of the finest lyrics I've heard in quite a while. The song, released in 2006, was written by band member Ruth Moody, and she has a deft touch with words. Here are The Wailin' Jennys from a live performance at Bethel College in Kansas:





Finally, we have "Glory Bound" from American singer-songwriter Martin Sexton, who specializes in an electic mix of rock, R&B, country, soul, and gospel. I first became aware of Sexton when his song "Diner" was featured on a 2007 episode of Scrubs. Sexton has an inventive, quirky sound, and his "Glory Bound" is a soulful number that features a virtuoso vocal performance. It grabs you immediately--and doesn't let go. Enjoy:

Documentary Filmmaker Plans to Train His Lens on Judicial Corruption in Alabama

A filmmaker in New York is planning to shoot a documentary about judicial corruption, focusing on the South in general and Alabama and Florida in particular.

I'm pleased to report that Legal Schnauzer has served as an inspiration for the project, which is in its infant stages. The filmmaker said he plans to focus on at least two of our major storylines and has asked me to send him relevant documentation. I'm gathering information for him at this moment.

The filmmaker first contacted me on January 25, and during our communications over roughly the past two weeks, here is what I've learned:

He has an insider's view of the law and once considered becoming a card-carrying member of the legal "profession." But a personal courtroom experience, one that is pretty similar to mine, convinced him that, in too many cases, the law amounts to nothing more than an elaborate form of taxpayer-funded organized crime.

Rather than joining the criminals, he decided to expose him, via his background in film. He plans for the project to begin as a law-review article, focusing on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, he plans to examine cases where judges and lawyers have conspired to fix cases. We, of course, have written about numerous such cases here in Alabama.

Prosecutors and the mainstream press often are afraid to tackle judicial racketeering. But our blog has shown that it is a common problem, and we have discovered a kindred spirit in New York.

Can the power of film help clean up corruption that is rotting our democracy to its core. It looks like we are about to find out. And I am pleased that Legal Schnauzer might be able to help make it happen.

Artur Davis' Phoniness Shines Through In His Comments on Gambling In Alabama

Artur Davis

Former Congressman Artur Davis probably erased what little credibility he had left within the Democratic Party with his recent comments about gambling in Alabama.

Progressives for some time have suspected that Davis was a tool of conservative elites, and he proved them correct in an interview with Lagniappe, an alternative bi-weekly in Mobile. Davis, in so many words, trashed the Alabama Democratic Party for supporting taxed and regulated gaming in the state. Davis hinted that Democrats had sold out to gaming interests while Republicans, under former Governor Bob Riley, had reached for higher ground by opposing gambling.

Davis conveniently ignored the mountains of evidence showing that Riley was bought by Mississippi Choctaw gaming interests, who wanted him to protect their market share by keeping gambling out of Alabama. Davis also failed to note Riley's documented ties to GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, who have admitted that they funneled $20 million into Alabama to help defeat gaming initiatives. And it had nothing to do with moral objections to gambling; it had everything to do with protecting the Choctaws' business turf.

We should note the curious timing of Davis' remarks. They were released on January 24 at the Lagniappe Web site, less than one week before the re-trial of the Alabama bingo trial was set to begin. The re-trial was moved back one week, to yesterday, because of the death of defendant Ray Crosby. Did our state's corporate elites, led by Davis' backers at the Business Council of Alabama, time the interview to help influence public opinion against the bingo defendants--and did the editorial staff at Lagniappe play along?

What exactly did Davis say about gaming interests and the Alabama Democratic Party? Well, he blasted the alliance, along with what he calls "black political interest groups." Gee, I can't imagine why voters handed this guy a 24-point spanking in the 2010 Democratic primary for governor:

"At some point in the last decade, the Democratic Party in Alabama seems to have decided that rather than being a diverse party, it’s going to become a party that’s pretty much controlled by narrow interest groups. And candidly what I observed in the last several years in my career was the Democratic Party in Alabama had pretty much fallen under the authority of the black political interest groups and the gambling industry. And that alliance between the gambling industry and the black political groups pretty much dominated every aspect of the Democratic Party. We couldn’t get around that alliance in our campaign. A good many other candidates who were running statewide couldn’t get around that alliance.”

Davis maintains that to succeed in the modern Alabama Democratic Party, one has to be liberal on national issues to accommodate the so-called "black interest groups,” but also set on expanding gambling within the state of Alabama.

"That’s not a broad enough platform to win in the state of Alabama,” Davis said. "It’s not a broad enough platform to move the state ahead substantively, and it’s certainly not a broad enough platform to win elections.”

Was Davis done bashing the Democratic base? Not by a long shot:

Throughout the last few decades, the powerful Alabama Education Association (AEA) teachers’ lobby has been a fixture in state politics and has been often seen as a bogeyman to state’s Republican apparatus. However, Davis said their role in his 2010 loss was (negligible). . . .

He explained that the AEA more or less became aligned with the state’s gambling interests, which the AEA viewed as a potential source of revenue for education in Alabama.

"What I observed in the last couple of years is that AEA – its politics aligned with the gambling industry,” he said. "Now some of that was understandable. Obviously AEA became very concerned about having extra funding for education and became very concerned about finding a new revenue stream to keep teachers’ pay at a certain level, and I basically think that led to an alliance forming between the gambling industry and the AEA.”

Davis, of course, gives Democrats no credit for at least being open about gambling and why they favor it. And he never takes Republicans to task for their hypocrisy on the issue.

Alabama Democrats have their faults, but they are pretty good at spotting a phony. That's why Artur Davis probably has no political future in our state.