Creflo Dollar v. Ted Rollins: A Comparison of Domestic-Violence Cases In Black and White

Creflo Dollar

The African-American pastor at one of Atlanta's largest churches was arrested last Friday on misdemeanor counts of battery, family violence, and cruelty to children.

Creflo Dollar told his congregation on Sunday that the incident stemmed from an argument with his 15-year-old daughter over a party she wanted to attend--and that it did not involve a crime, and he should not have been arrested.

The facts of the Dollar case are murky, but this much is clear: A domestic-violence case involving a prominent black family in Atlanta was handled in a radically different fashion from a similar case involving a member of a prominent white family with a strong base in Atlanta. In fact, the cases are not all that similar; the charges against a member of the white family were far more serious than those brought against Creflo Dollar--and yet, law enforcement acted in a more aggressive fashion in the Dollar case.

That raises this troubling question: Does racism play a factor in the way law enforcement approaches sensitive domestic cases, especially here in the Deep South. Is a member of a prominent, wealthy black family likely to be treated more aggressively by officers than a member of a prominent, wealthy white family?

Our research on cases involving Creflo Dollar and Ted Rollins indicates the answer is yes.

Ted Rollins belongs to the family that oversees Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the parent company of Orkin Pest Control. Ted's billionaire cousins, R. Randall and Gary Rollins, are the top executives at Rollins Inc. and are two of the wealthiest individuals in Atlanta--or anywhere else in the United States, for that matter. Ted Rollins now is the CEO of Charlotte-based Campus Crest Communities, a developer of student housing, but he has worked jointly with Randall Rollins on at least one enterprise--a real-estate investment firm called St. James Capital.

We have written extensively about a dubious divorce action Ted Rollins brought in Alabama, causing his ex wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins, and their daughters, Sarah and Emma Rollins, to wind up on food stamps here in Birmingham. In the process of researching Rollins v. Rollins, I uncovered an assault case that was brought against Ted Rollins in Franklin County, North Carolina.

Ted Rollins

The case stemmed from a brutal 1995 beating that Ted Rollins administered to his stepson, Zac Parrish, who had just turned 16 years old at the time--ironically, that's almost exactly the age of Creflo Dollar's daughter in the case against him.

How were Creflo Dollar and Ted Rollins treated differently when charges of domestic violence arose against both of them? Let's take a look:

* Officers responded to a 911 call from the Dollar home, took evidence and interviewed at least two witnesses before arresting Rev. Dollar. In the Rollins case, officers responded to a 911 call from Sherry Rollins, and when sirens could be heard approaching in the distance, Ted Rollins ceased beating his stepson and fled the scene in an automobile. According to Sherry Rollins, an eyewitness to the entire event, officers made no particular effort to find Mr. Rollins.

* Based on press reports, it appears that authorities pursued charges against Rev. Dollar. In the Rollins case, Zac Parrish had to swear out a criminal complaint himself. Since Ted Rollins fled the scene and officers made little or no attempt to find him, no charges probably would have been brought without the Parrish complaint.

* What kind of injuries did Creflo Dollar's daughter sustain? A deputy noted a mark on her neck, but Dollar said it was caused by a skin condition, eczema, and had been there for 10 years. There is no indication that the daughter required medical attention. In the Rollins case, Zac Parrish was bleeding profusely from cuts and abrasions on his face, he had a broken nose, and he was transported via ambulance to a hospital emergency room. During transit to the hospital, emergency-medical technicians administered oxygen, which is a sign that Parrish was in danger of going into shock, which can be a life-threatening condition.

* The Creflo Dollar case has been splashed all over major news outlets in the South and beyond, with prominent coverage in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I've seen no signs that the Ted Rollins case was covered by any newspaper in North Carolina, even though several metro dailies are not far from Franklin County.

To be sure, these two events took place in different jurisdictions, 17 years apart, with one in a major city (Atlanta) and the other in a rural county (one that is not far from the Raleigh-Durham area in North Carolina). Those factors could account for some differences in the way the cases were handled.

But one cannot escape the glaring impression that law enforcement treated a black man more aggressively than it did a white man, under circumstances where the black man's alleged misconduct did not appear nearly as serious as the white man's misconduct.

This all becomes more disturbing when you consider that Rollins Inc. has a documented history of committing gross fraud against black customers.

Does Ted Rollins come from an environment where family members are taught to expect favors from the justice system, based on their white skin and substantial bank accounts?

If so, it seems clear that Creflo Dollar is receiving no such favors.

Sports Artist Comes Up a Winner In First Amendment Battle With University of Alabama

Daniel Moore

Sports artist Daniel Moore won a major victory yesterday in his seven-year battle with the University of Alabama over his right to produce paintings of historic moments in Crimson Tide football.

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that Moore's paintings are protected by the First Amendment right to artistic expression and do not violate trademark law.

The outcome was good news for Moore--and for artists and journalists in general. Said Moore in a press release:

This long-awaited decision should come as good news to all who enjoy and respect our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights. Specifically, this is a significant victory for artists nationwide who have felt threatened by the aggressive and overreaching tactics of certain trademark owners, their agents and their lawyers who operate in the multi-billion dollar licensing industry. Furthermore, the ruling helps affirm the rights of news/media organizations and photographers--both journalistic and artistic--who have also kept a watchful and hopeful eye on this case. 

The appellate court's decision is harmonious with a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, specifically stating that "paintings" and "prints" are forms of expression that are protected by the First Amendment, as well as sister circuits of the 11th Circuit who have ruled likewise.

Twenty-seven universities joined Alabama in arguing that UA's crimson-and-white color scheme constitutes a trademark that is violated by Moore's paintings. Moore responded with support from journalists and photographers stating that his work is protected by the First Amendment.

The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to district court for possible further proceedings on secondary issues. But in general, the ruling was a clear victory for Moore. The artist seemed both elated and saddened by the latest turn in a long and winding legal battle that probably should have never happened. From the Moore press release:

The legal fight for the University was about the money it makes by licensing its trademarks. The University says that a portion of this money helps fund student scholarships, which is a good thing. It has been my good pleasure to help fund these scholarships through the art projects that I have voluntarily licensed. Ironically, this protracted litigation has now cost the University over $2 million. The sad irony is this money could otherwise have been used to fund an untold number of additional student scholarships. . . . 

I have respected the University's trademark rights in both my unlicensed and my voluntarily licensed projects heretofore since 1979. It is my hope that the University will now respect my First Amendment rights, and those of all artists, going forward. With such an understanding, it is my belief and hope that we can work together under the same mutually beneficial relationship we enjoyed for over 20 years prior to the University raising the dispute of trademark rights vs. First Amendment rights. I now call upon my alma mater to join with me in a mutually respectful understanding going forward.

Rosa Parks, In Death, Might Help Expose Judicial Corruption

Rosa Parks

A lawsuit recently filed in Detroit, Michigan, alleges that a judge and two lawyers conspired to loot the estate of civil-rights icon and Alabama native Rosa Parks.

We reported last week that the case is likely to run afoul of a legal doctrine called "judicial immunity," which protects judges from almost all lawsuits for misconduct in their official capacity. We expressed dismay at that possibility and noted that judicial immunity contributes to much of the corruption that wracks our courts, giving judges a free pass to rule unlawfully.

It turns out that we might have spoken (and written) too soon. The key word in the previous paragraph is "almost," and it means judicial immunity is not absolute. Stephen G. Cohen, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Rosa Parks estate, says his case should be able to get over the immunity hurdle.

The two attorney defendants in the Parks lawsuit, probate lawyers John Chase Jr. and Melvin Jefferson Jr., certainly appear to be vulnerable. But Cohen says even Judge Freddie Burton Jr. might have to answer for his actions.

Here is what Cohen said in an e-mail to Legal Schnauzer:

There is a very important immunity exception at play here--a judge is not immune from liability when he acts in the absence of jurisdiction. This rarely happens, but two factors in my case make the exception directly applicable. First, probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Judge Burton confiscated property belonging to my client, the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, which was never part of the estate (or even claimed to be part of the estate). This was done without jurisdiction. In addition, Burton repeatedly ruled on matters sua sponte and without notice or pleadings of any kind. For instance, he issued a judgment in the amount of $120,000.00 against my client on a purely oral request. A probate court can only acquire jurisdiction over a matter where there is a written pleading which states an action falling within the court's limited jurisdiction. No pleading, no jurisdiction.

Cohen must have a powerful sense of right and wrong, extraordinary fortitude, an unassailable financial position--or a combination of all three. I can't imagine an Alabama lawyer filing such a lawsuit against fellow members of the legal tribe, including a judge. My impression is that a lawyer who filed such a case here would find his practice eventually ruined by retaliatory actions from all directions, especially from the Alabama State Bar.

Given the repercussions I've experienced for standing up to judicial corruption in Alabama, you can bet I will be pulling big time for Mr. Cohen and his clients. Given that my wife also has been targeted by legal thugs . . . well, we both would be delighted to see a judge unmasked.

The Parks lawsuit is inherently intriguing, as it involves the estate of a major figure in 20th century history. But it becomes even more significant if Cohen's arguments win the day in court.

American citizens almost never see a judge held accountable for misconduct on the bench. But if Cohen's factual and legal contentions hold up, the Rosa Parks estate case might provide a rare glimpse into the dark hearts that beat beneath the robes of too many judges.

Rosa Parks' quest for justice, it seems, is never ending. She's still fighting for it, even in death.

Corrupt Judges and Lawyers Make Big Bucks Off The Misery of Broken Families In Divorce Cases

Have you ever wondered if lawyers (some of them, anyway) are the lowest form of scum on earth? Well, here is a story that should remove any doubt.

I've been married more or less happily for 23 years, so I don't personally know the horrors of domestic-relations court. But based on communications with Legal Schnauzer readers who have been there--and I've heard from a lot of them--it must be the worst experience on earth, short of torture.

Here's the recipe: You take men, women, and children in families that are breaking apart, when all parties are at their most vulnerable and emotions are on a razor's edge. And what happens, at least if you live in certain Alabama jurisdictions?

According to two federal lawsuits involving Joseph W. Blackburn, a professor of taxation at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, you are likely to encounter a "tribunal" that is corrupt from top to bottom--like something the Gambino family might have arranged.

How bad is it? To borrow a phrase from my Arkansas-raised mother, they are "crooked as a dog's hind leg."

How does it work? According to Blackburn, certain judges and lawyers belong to the same hunting club in Lowndes County, Alabama, and the activities there are not limited to shooting wild animals for "sport." No, the honorable "officers of the court" use their little club to fix divorce cases.

What's the result? Lawyers make grossly inflated fees, judges make extra cash on the side, and at least one party in each case gets the royal shaft. In many cases, it's a mother with children. Hey, who cares if single women trying to raise kids get screwed?

Federal judges dismissed both the lawsuits involving Blackburn, blatantly violating simple court procedure in the process. They made sure that the Blackburn cases were kicked out without any opportunity for discovery.

Why would federal judges do that? I can think of only one reason: Joe Blackburn is onto sickening corruption, and members of the legal tribe are determined to keep it hidden from the public.

Are Alabamians going to tolerate the enrichment of elitist lawyers at the expense of vulnerable mothers, fathers, and children? That is one of several questions we address in the following video:

Liberal Activist Brett Kimberlin Engages Right Wingers In a Battle of High-Stakes Hard Ball

Brett Kimberlin

One of my ongoing concerns with Democrats is that too many of them are timid, distracted, disorganized, and generally wussy.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin is none of those things, and that apparently is why the radical right has launched an extraordinary online jihad against him. In a delicious example of "turnabout is fair play," Kimberlin has used right wingers' tactics against them--causing the recent arrest of one thug, the outing of another as a criminal, and the transmission of a notice to others that they face possible legal action.

According to press reports, Kimberlin has some troubling incidents in his past. But by all accounts that I can find, he has served his punishment for any misdeed. And as a target of right-wing thugs myself, I can't help but admire Kimberlin's spunk--and his effectiveness.

Kimberlin actually has right wingers whining that he is using the court process against them. As a resident of Alabama who has held a front-row seat for the Bush-era political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, I can only marvel at the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming that the justice system is not working in their favor.

Right-wing bloggers have become so exorcised about Kimberlin that about 150 of them recently launched an "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day." They even got Fox News and ABC News to cover the story and enlisted the help of such conservative luminaries as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), author Michelle Malkin, and attorney Jay Sekulow in battling Kimberlin.

Anybody who can cause that many conservative panties to get into a bunch must be doing something right. So we decided to take a closer look at Brett Kimberlin and how he managed to rile the far right into a state of mass hysteria.

Who is Brett Kimberlin? He is the driving force behind the nonprofit Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) and the political activist organization Velvet Revolution (VR). Conservatives claim Kimberlin is funded by billionaire financier George Soros and singer/actress Barbra Streisand. (See video at the end of this post.) JTMP and VR have helped shine light on election fraud  and possible misconduct involving such conservative heavyweights as Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.

Those efforts apparently struck nerves because right-wing forces have launched a frenzied assault against Kimberlin, focusing mostly on his checkered past. Published reports indicate Kimberlin was convicted on charges related to drug trafficking and a series of bombings in the Midwest, dating to the 1970s.

Did Kimberlin actually commit the crimes? It's hard to say, but the appellate-court record shows that the testimony of hypnotized witnesses was allowed at one trial, so the convictions did not rest on the sturdiest ground. Records show that Kimberlin served 17 years in federal prison, so he appears to have paid any debt he owed to society.

Conservative bloggers, writing mostly in a network founded by Andrew Breitbart, have every right to report on Kimberlin's criminal history. But court documents indicate they have gone beyond that, to stalking, harassing, and even inciting death threats against him.

Key bloggers have written anonymously, but Kimberlin was able to determine their identities and bring legal action against them. That led to the eventual arrest of a blogger/lawyer who posts as Aaron Worthing (real name: Aaron Walker). And that sparked the right-wing blogapalooza against Kimberlin.

What's at the heart of the controversy? A FireDogLake blogger called DonkeyTale has been writing about it for some time and says the complex saga is "as densely peopled and subplotted as a 19th century Russian novel." That description is on target, but DonkeyTale still has managed to provide the best summary I've seen so far, at a post titled "Troll Wars 6.66."

The cast of characters on the right includes bloggers Socrates (Seth Allen), Goatsred (Mike Stack), and Patterico (Patrick Frey). Joining Kimberlin on the left are Brad Friedman (of BradBlog); Ron Brynaert (former editor of Raw Story); and, in a roundabout way, former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who was the target of a Breitbart-led attack. From DonkeyTale:

The story has its origins in Socrates’s blogging from 2008-2009, investigating connections between Kimberlin, Brad Friedman, election integrity, the death of alleged election rigger Michael Connell and the seemingly very intensive focus on gathering donations at the websites sponsored by Friedman and Kimberlin. Socrates’s court case, which occurred during and after the Weinergate saga was picked up and publicised and politicised by the Andrew Breitbart Empire as a way to fight back against their adversaries. Indeed, Kimberlin announced the lawsuit against Socrates on Patterico’s blog. 

In reaction to Weinergate, the hoaxing of ACORN and Shirley Sherrod by dirty tricksters affiliated with Breitbart, Kimberlin and/or his associates began a site called indictbreitbart.org which linked a donation button to Velvet Revolution, another site affiliated with Kimberlin and Brad Friedman. This move, along with the co-optation of the Socrates v Kimberlin court case by both sides, formed the battle lines of the Troll Wars, with the combatants colloquially named by Socrates “Team Numbnuts” and “Team Breitbart." 

As an interesting and tragic side note, Breitbart dropped dead of an apparent heart attack a few months ago just after his burgeoning rightwing media empire had received a reported $10 million private equity investment, from a pair of unidentified investors. This money no doubt invested to grow the media maven’s profit-making activities, which included funding ever more creative hoaxings and media manipulations targeting progressives. 

In the latest chapter, conservative blogger/lawyer Aaron Worthing (Aaron Walker), representing himself, was arrested in court last week for “incitement,” while arguing against a second degree assault charge pressed by Kimberlin from an earlier court incident when Walker was brought into the Socrates case by Kimberlin.

What's the very latest? Well, that's complicated.

First, we have charges from the right that Kimberlin and his associates are behind a couple of alleged "SWATting" incidents. Kimberlin has denied involvement, but Saxby Chambliss is calling for a Justice Department investigation.

Second, a left-leaning Web site called breitbartunmasked.com (BU) is unearthing unflattering information about the National Bloggers Club (NBC), an umbrella organization that is headed by a fellow named Ali A. Akbar. While conservatives have tried to portray Kimberlin as a mad man with a criminal history, they apparently neglected to check into the past of their own Mr. Akbar. BU revealed that Akbar has a criminal record of his own, with felony convictions for credit-card fraud and theft.

BU also revealed that Akbar runs his operation from a nondescript house in Fort Worth, Texas, and receives funding from a Wyoming billionaire named Foster Friess. Velvet Revolution has posted a document that notifies Akbar and Friess that they are to preserve boatloads of data for an upcoming lawsuit.

The Liberal Grouch, one of the few left-leaning Web sites that is covering the story, hints that Akbar's network might face trouble with the IRS.

Finally, we have today's National Day of Blogger Silence, which conservatives say is an effort to draw attention to Kimberlin's attacks on their freedom of expression.

Where is all of this headed? I have no idea, but Brett Kimberlin, whatever his past failings might be, knows how to fight--and how to throw conservatives into a tizzy. That's apparent from the video below.

Perhaps Kimberlin has Republicans so unnerved because they are used to Democrats who won't fight back, at least not effectively. The general maxim in politics long has been: "You can push around a Democrat; if you punch him, he won't punch back." That clearly is not how Brett Kimberlin operates. If you connect with one or two jabs, he will respond by landing three or four haymakers.

Maybe it's time Democrats took a few lessons from Mr. Kimberlin.

Orkin Pest Control's Conduct Was "Reprehensible" In Fraud Against An Elderly, Black Woman

Termites on wood

It takes a lot for a corporation's misconduct to make the conservative judges on the Alabama Supreme Court want to wretch.

But Orkin Pest Control and parent company Rollins Inc. accomplished that rare feat with a massive con they pulled on Artie Mae Jeter, an elderly black woman from Macon County, Alabama, who had signed a lifetime contract for termite protection on her home.

Court documents show that Orkin officials knew termites were eating Jeter's home to the point that it was on the verge of breaking apart, but they did not tell her and failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract. Jeter died before her lawsuit could go to trial, but an Alabama jury awarded her estate $80.8 million in damages.

The Alabama Supreme Court reduced the damages to $2.3 million for a variety of technical reasons, but language in the ruling indicates even the mostly pro-business justices were sickened by Orkin's behavior.

We have written extensively about Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins and the divorce case that caused his ex wife and their two daughters to wind up on food stamps because of a massive cheat job in an Alabama court. The judgment in that case came down in 2005, and it turns out that Ted Rollins was just following a family tradition--cheating people in Alabama.

Randall Rollins and Gary Rollins, Ted's cousins and the top executives at Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., oversaw a business scam on Artie Mae Jeter that made even Alabama judges want to puke--and that's hard to do.

How grotesque was the Orkin fraud? Consider the actions of several employees, according to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling. First up is a termite inspector named Clency Bowman:

In 1985, 1986, and 1987, Bowman reinspected Mrs. Jeter's home for termite damage.   Although Bowman found termite damage, he reported to Mrs. Jeter that there was no evidence of termite damage and no evidence of moisture damage. In May 1988, Mrs. Jeter found termites swarming all over her house;  she immediately contacted Orkin. Bowman reinspected and retreated Mrs. Jeter's home, reporting to Mrs. Jeter for the first time the termite damage. Bowman noted on his reinspection report that there was “[e]xtensive termite damage to about 90% of structure [and] [t]ermite swarmers in bathrooms.”   Because of Orkin's policy of not discussing termite damage with the homeowners, Bowman did not provide Mrs. Jeter with a copy of his report.

A branch manager named Bill Eady took Bowman's information and actually did the right thing, filing a report showing "damage very evident" at Jeter's home. That report found its way to a district manager named Bill Maxwell, and the deceit hit new levels:

Maxwell visited Mrs. Jeter's home and saw the termite damage. Despite Bowman and Eady's findings to the contrary, on November 9, 1988, Maxwell drafted a document stating that the bathroom in Mrs. Jeter's home had “no visible signs of termite damage” and that the damage to Mrs. Jeter's bathroom could be either termite damage or water damage and that Orkin would not be responsible for repairing the damage if it was found to be caused by water. Maxwell had Mrs. Jeter sign this document.

The Alabama Supreme Court was not amused. Here is how it described Orkin's actions:

The record is replete with evidence indicating deceitful conduct by the Orkin defendants toward Mrs. Jeter, an elderly widow with little formal education. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging internal memorandum than the one presented in this case. There is evidence that Orkin knew of the serious termite damage to Mrs. Jeter's home as early as 1984 and that it engaged in a policy of fraudulently concealing that damage. . . . The evidence shows that Orkin's conduct was highly reprehensible.

The degree of reprehensibility in a defendant's conduct is a key factor in determining punitive damages, so the state's high court addressed that issue further:

Orkin's reprehensible conduct in regard to Mrs. Jeter's claim spanned almost 10 years. The evidence is overwhelming that Orkin actively engaged in a plan to deceive Mrs. Jeter about the condition of her home. It is clear that the scheme to deceive Mrs. Jeter spanned from lower level termite inspectors to a branch manager, a district manager, and a regional manager. In addition, there is evidence that Orkin engaged in a pattern of misconduct by failing to inform homeowners of termite damage for which Orkin would be liable to repair. The evidence of Orkin's reprehensible conduct overwhelmingly weighs in favor of a finding that substantial punitive damages are appropriate.

One justice did not sugar coat matters in a special comment to the main opinion:

I have served as a Justice on this Court for more than 16 years. The reprehensibility of the defendants' conduct was great--as great as any I remember. To save money, the defendants violated their duty to Mrs. Jeter and subjected her to bodily injury or death in what she thought was the safe sanctuary of her home. I have no hesitation in supporting a $2,000,000 punitive-damages award in this case, regardless of the ratio such award bears to the compensatory damages.

So why did the court greatly reduce the overall damages to the Jeter estate? It involves complicated issues related to the ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages--and we will address those, along with strong signs of racism in the ranks at Orkin, in upcoming posts. But for now, this much is clear: Orkin's misconduct was as bad as any seen in Alabama for many years--and it was so gross that even staunchly pro-business judges could not tolerate it.

That's the family that produced Ted Rollins. We've reported extensively on his conduct in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which indicates he has learned well the lessons on how to abuse others.

Based on family tradition, one can only wonder what kind of treatment awaits college students who sign up for housing with Campus Crest Communities, the latest Rollins venture. I'm betting that, in some cases, it will be reprehensible.

Did Alabama Attorney Chace Swatek Fit the Standard Profile of a "Huffer"?

Common products used for huffing

Chace Swatek was a 35-year-old lawyer, from a wealthy Alabama family with strong ties to the Republican Party, and he had a penchant for driving Mercedes vehicles.

That does not fit the profile of someone who would die from inhalant abuse, known as "huffing" in street lingo. But our research indicates that the profile for huffers has begun to change over the past four or five years, particularly since 2010. And that might explain why, according to a source, investigators at the scene saw evidence that Swatek died in February from the effects of huffing.

The majority of journal articles and news reports we've seen about huffing say those who practice inhalant abuse tend to fall into two groups--adolescents (ages 12 to 17), from mostly white, middle-class families; and adults living in poverty.

An article in the July 2011 edition of Addiction Science and Clinical Practice (ASCP) provides insights on those who become addicted to inhaling the vapors from volatile solvents that are found in many common household products:

Inhalant, use disproportionately afflicts subpopulations including the poor, mentally ill, and juvenile- and criminal-justice involved. . . . 

Low monetary cost and ease of access probably contribute to the concentration of inhalant use among younger children and adolescents; low-income and unemployed adults; people living in isolated rural or reservation settings; and people housed in institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, prisons, and residential treatment centers. Inhalants can also be purchased and used without arousing the suspicion of parents, sales-people, school or law enforcement professionals, social service workers, or health care providers. Few people, for example, think of butane cigarette lighters, computer air dusters, nail polish, nail polish remover, or paint thinner as items that can be abused for their psychoactive effects; if challenged, young people can often offer plausible benign explanations for having these items.

What are the dangers of huffing? The ASCP article provides one of the best summaries I've seen:

Inhalant intoxication produces a syndrome similar to alcohol intoxication, consisting of dizziness, incoordination, slurred speech, euphoria, lethargy, slowed reflexes, slowed thinking and movement, tremor, blurred vision, stupor or coma, generalized muscle weakness, and involuntary eye movement. Inhalant use can result in chemical and thermal burns, withdrawal symptoms, persistent mental illness, and catastrophic medical emergencies such as ventricular arrhythmias leading to “sudden sniffing death.” Inhalant intoxication also increases the risk for fatal injuries from motor vehicle or other accidents.

Adult inhalant abuse often presents in individuals who have a variety of other disorders:

Studies of adults in substance abuse treatment and in the general population indicate that inhalant users have higher rates of major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, and other substance use disorders than nonusers of inhalants. [Two studies] documented dramatically elevated rates of mood and anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders in a nationally representative sample of U.S. inhalant users. Inhalant use and inhalant use disorders also appear to raise the odds for stressful life events such as having troubles at school or with a boss or co-worker, being fired, or being arrested or sent to jail.

The ASCP article makes it clear that science and mental-health professionals are a long way from coming to grips with inhalant abuse:

Although inhalant abuse is common and associated with harmful outcomes that may rival or exceed those of other psychoactive drugs, inhalants remain the least-studied class of psychoactive agents. There are no clearly effective treatment interventions reported in the clinical research literature.

Chace Swatek's body was found behind a stack of metal pipes, across from a Shell station near the intersection of Shelby County 35 and 52 in Pelham. Authorities say Swatek was on the return portion of a two-mile, round-trip walk to a CVS Pharmacy when he apparently collapsed behind the pipes. A CVS bag containing a receipt and several items was found near the body. Officials have declined to identify the items in the bag because the case remains under investigation.

Where does Swatek's death fit into the huffing scenario? That's hard to say with certainty. Law-enforcement officials have told us that they do not expect to receive a toxicology report on the Swatek case for perhaps a year or more.

Based on my experience with officials here in Shelby County, I would say that a cause of death in the Chace Swatek case never will be willingly released. And even if legal action is taken that might force the release of such information, any document is likely to be incomplete or even altered. Sources have told us that Swatek frequently practiced in Pelham Municipal Court, which is headed by Judge John McBrayer, a Swatek family friend. Would McBrayer be capable of ordering a coverup on the actual cause of death in the Chace Swatek case? The answer appears to be yes.

In my view, the most reliable information we have is a report from a source that evidence at the scene points to huffing as the cause of death.

How can that be if Chace Swatek did not fit the profile of a huffer? Well, our research indicates the huffing profile has evolved. A relatively new product can produce an intense high that appears to have drawn more adults from the middle class and above.

We will take a look, in an upcoming post, at what appears to be the latest trend in huffing.

SCOTUS' Refusal to Review Siegelman Case Will Forever Stand As a Reminder of Obama's Shame

Nick Bailey

The Obama Department of Justice, on multiple occasions, opposed U.S. Supreme Court review of the Don Siegelman case. The DOJ got its wish yesterday when the nation's highest court announced that it would not review what has come to be seen as the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

One can only wonder why a Democratic administration would be unconcerned about the prosecution of a former Democratic governor in a heavily Republican state. The wonder turns to amazement when you consider that evidence in the Siegelman case, even if taken as true, did not amount to a crime, as described by the U.S. Code and relevant case law.

But here is the most distressing part of the DOJ's actions in opposing certiorari review of the Siegelman case: A review of documents filed by government lawyers proves that even they do not believe the testimony of the key prosecution witness. Either that, or DOJ officials do not even bother to review documents they file in cases of national importance--and if that's the case, someone is committing professional negligence, misconduct or both.

What are we talking about? Let's consider the government's opposition brief in Siegelman's bid for certiorari review. It apparently was written by DOJ lawyer John-Alex Romano and approved by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. (The full opposition brief can be read at the end of this post.)

The following items are taken directly from the government's brief. First, we have what we will call Exhibit A, which can be found on page 4 of the brief. It involves interaction between Nick Bailey, a former Siegelman assistant who became the chief government witness, and Eric Hanson, a former HealthSouth executive under former CEO and Siegelman codefendant Richard Scrushy:

Bailey also testified that Hanson subsequently told Bailey that Scrushy wanted control of the CON Board and “made it clear to him that if Mr. Scrushy gave the $500,000 to the lottery campaign that [they] could not let him down” with respect to the CON Board seat.

With Exhibit A, we've established that Bailey knew exactly what Scrushy wanted in exchange for a  $500,000 contribution. With Exhibit B, we have Bailey reminding Siegelman about what Scrushy wanted. Again, from page 4 of the government's brief:

Bailey periodically reminded Siegelman of their conversations “with Eric Hanson about what Mr. Scrushy wanted for his contributions, and that was the CON Board.”

Exhibits A and B established, beyond any doubt, that Bailey knew what Scrushy wanted in exchange for his contribution. But look what happens with Exhibit C. From page 5 of the government's brief:

Siegelman and Scrushy subsequently met in Siegelman’s office. Bailey testified that, at some point after the meeting, Siegelman showed Bailey the IHS check and said that Scrushy was “halfway there. . . . ” Bailey asked, “what in the world is he [Scrushy] going to want for that?” Siegelman replied, “[T]he CON Board.” Bailey responded, “I wouldn’t think that would be a problem, would it?” Siegelman replied, “I wouldn’t think so.”

Here is the sequence of events, all from Bailey's testimony: (A) Bailey knows what Scrushy wants in his exchange for his contribution; (B) Bailey reminds his boss multiple times about what Scrushy wants in exchange for his contribution; (C) After a meeting between Siegelman and Scrushy, Bailey suddenly has no idea what Scrushy wants for his contribution.

It's easy to see that something does not add up here. And that sound you hear is Bailey's credibility being flushed down the toilet--with the government pushing the lever. Siegelman's lawyers recount the same evidence in their petition. (You can read the full petition for certiorari at the end of this post.) On page 7, Siegelman lawyers note the inconsistencies in Bailey's testimony with the following footnote:

The conflict within Bailey’s testimony, as recounted above, demonstrates how unsteady the proof of a quid pro quo can be, while still passing muster under the view of the law taken by the court below. Bailey first has himself telling Governor Siegelman repeatedly what Scrushy wanted; but then, quite oddly, he has himself asking Governor Siegelman what Scrushy wanted. In neither version is there evidence that Governor Siegelman actually promised Scrushy the appointment in return for the contribution. If shaky proof such as this will suffice instead of proof of an actual quid pro quo communication by the official to the donor, then proof of the crime is markedly easy and the range of potential prosecutorial targets is troublingly wide.

That range could someday include former President Obama. After all, it's well established that the president has rewarded some of his loyal contributors with plum ambassadorships. Could a future federal jury "infer" that those appointments involved illegal quid pro quo agreements? Under the loose standards set in the Siegelman case, the answer undoubtedly is yes.

Team Obama appears unconcerned about Don Siegelman's plight at the moment. But here is some free Schnauzer advice for the president and his staff: You had better figure out a way to beat Mitt Romney in November; if you don't, a Republican attorney general is going to have the facts and the law necessary to send a bunch of you to federal prison.
Siegelman--DOJ Reply Brief on Certiorari
Siegelman v. USA Cert Pet

What Is the Fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal To Hear the Siegelman Appeal?

Don Siegelman

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today ruled that citizens can be convicted of "crimes" that do not exist, based on jury instructions that do not mirror actual law. The Supreme Court also overturned the case that had served as precedent for more than 20 years in cases that allege bribery in the context of a campaign contribution. For good measure, the high court also provided overwhelming evidence that Barack Obama does not deserve a second term as president.

And, by the way, criminal cases no longer have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."

SCOTUS did not make any of those decisions in the form of actual rulings. But those are essentially the take-home lessons from the court's decision this morning not to hear an appeal in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Perhaps the most important lesson is this: The nation's highest court proved beyond any doubt--and there really was no doubt in light of the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling--that it is corrupt and our entire "justice system" needs a thorough cleansing from top to bottom.

How is this for irony? The Supreme Court almost certainly refused to hear the Siegelman appeal not because his case was weak, but because it was so strong. If the court had heard the case, it would have had to overturn the Siegelman/Scrushy convictions. It's about as close to an open-and-shut case as is ever likely to land before the Supremes.

But we suspect the high court could not countenance such an outcome. It would have shown that our justice system is riddled with politics, that judges at all levels routinely make rulings that are contrary to law, that our courts simply cannot be trusted--and, most importantly, that the Bush family and their surrogates (Karl Rove) have rigged our "justice system" into what amounts to a criminal enterprise.

We wrote months ago that one problem with overturning the Siegelman convictions is that it might open up a path for Siegelman and Scrushy to file civil cases against individuals and entities responsible for their prosecutions--and genuine discovery in such lawsuits almost certainly would lead to the doorsteps of powerful, wealthy, and loyal Bushies. That, in a postmodern America that has badly lost its way, could not be allowed to happen.

Today's ruling is further evidence that our "legal-industrial complex" wants no part of lawsuits that might grow from the gross abuses in the Siegelman case. By punting on an appeal, the Supremes found that it is more important to protect corrupt elites than to administer justice.

Documents filed in the Siegelman case, seeking certiorari review with the high court, make all of this painfully obvious. For the millions of words that have been written on the Siegelman case--quite a few of them on this blog--it all boils down to a few simple questions at this point. They are clearly stated in a docket entry, as reported last week by Matthew Bush at scotusblog.com:

Siegelman v. United States 

Docket: 11-955 

Issue(s): Whether the McCormick v. United States standard -- under which a connection between a campaign contribution and an official action is a crime “only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act” -- requires proof of an “explicit” quid pro quo in the sense of actually being communicated expressly, or whether there can be a conviction based instead only on the inference that there was an unstated and implied agreement connecting a campaign contribution and an official action; (2) whether 18 U.S.C. § 666 and “honest services” law (under 18 U.S.C. § 1346) cover campaign or referendum contributions as alleged bribes at all; and (3) whether the “intent” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) requires proof of the specific intent to interfere with communications to law enforcement, or whether it is satisfied by proof of an intent to engage in a “coverup” more generically.

Issue No. 1 is at the crux of both the Siegelman and Scrushy appeals. And the following facts are undisputed on that issue:

 * McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) is controlling law on bribery in the context of a campaign contribution;

 * McCormick does, in fact, require an "explicit" quid pro quo ("something for something") agreement in order to constitute the crime of bribery on a campaign contribution;

* Jury instructions from U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller did not include the "explicit promise" language required by McCormick;

* Fuller allowed the jury to "infer" that a crime took place, and the U.S. Eleventh Circuit upheld this outcome, which clearly is contrary to McCormick.

The bottom line? By refusing to hear the Siegelman appeal, the nation's highest court essentially is saying: (1) It's fine for a trial judge to give incorrect jury instructions; (2) It's fine for a jury to more or less guess at whether a crime occurred or not; (3) And McCormick no longer is good law.

For that matter, the notion that a crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" also appears to no longer be good law. The "inference of a crime" now is sufficient.

As for President Obama and what today's news means for him, we will address that in an upcoming post. But this much can be said with certainty: The Siegelman fiasco started off as a production of the George W. Bush Department of Justice, but it fully rests with the Obama administration now. His DOJ argued against certiorari review, and it got its wish--and that means the president supports everything that has transpired in a case that deserves its billing as the most blatant political prosecution in American history.

The Democratic Party, which has consistently took brave stands for civil rights over the past 45-plus years, now is led by a president who has shown utter disregard for the concepts of due process and equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly means nothing to Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and their minions in the DOJ.

Obama articulated a stance of cowardice on justice issues before he even took office, and now we see the natural outcome of that philosophy--a grotesque injustice lies at the feet of a Democratic president.

I'm not sure what that says to you. But it tells me that Barack Obama is not fit to be president.

Rosa Parks, Even In Death, Might Strike A Blow For Justice

Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks bravely took steps to fight injustice during her lifetime. Now, in death, the civil-rights icon from Alabama might be able to help shine light on a legal doctrine that contributes greatly to corruption in our courtrooms.

A lawyer in Detroit, Michigan, has sued a probate judge and two court-appointed attorneys, claiming they conspired to loot the Rosa Parks estate. The lawsuit almost certainly will run afoul of a legal concept called judicial immunity, which is designed to protect judges from almost all lawsuits. If a judge acts in his "judicial capacity," he can almost never be held accountable for wrongful acts, no matter how reprehensible they might be.

Judicial immunity hits close to home because it was a major issue in the Alabama hunting-club lawsuits, which we have covered extensively. In those cases, certain judges and lawyers used their membership in a Lowndes County hunting club to fix divorce cases in Jefferson County. A federal judge dismissed charges against his state-court brethren, stating they were free to engage in a criminal conspiracy as long their roles involved corrupt actions from the bench.

Believe or not, the federal judge actually ruled correctly under current law. Do citizens have any idea what judicial immunity means--that it allows a public official to behave like a common criminal, as long as he wears a robe and answers to the term "Your Honor"?

In theory, judicial immunity is supposed to give judges the freedom to act fearlessly, to make legally correct decisions that might be unpopular with the public. In reality, the concept is a license for judges to cheat--and even steal--and quite a few of them take advantage of it.

The public, for the most part, is blissfully unaware of the corruption that judicial immunity engenders. That needs to change. Congress has the power to hold judges accountable, but there has been no groundswell of support for such a cause. That, too, needs to change.

Perhaps a high-profile case involving the estate of an exalted figure in American history will prompt action, the kind that will strike terror in the hearts of judges from coast to coast.

What are the key issues in the Parks lawsuit? From reporter David Ashenfelter in the Detroit Free Press:

Lawyer Stephen G. Cohen said in court papers that Judge Freddie Burton Jr. conspired with probate lawyers John Chase Jr. and Melvin Jefferson Jr., enabling the pair to rack up more than $507,000 in mostly unnecessary legal fees that drained Parks' estate of its cash, leaving it $88,000 in debt 

Cohen also said Burton, through secret hearings and improper rulings, allowed the pair to concoct a bogus breach of confidentiality dispute. 

Cohen said the judge used the dispute to strip Elaine Steele and the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute that she created with Parks of their share of Parks' property, said to be worth up to $8 million. 

"Chase and Jefferson, together with Judge Burton, illegally, maliciously and wrongfully conspired … for the illegal purpose of raiding Mrs. Parks' estate of its value," Cohen said in a 38-page probate petition.

Those are serious charges, and the full complaint can be read here. But it's going to be almost impossible to hold the judge civilly liable because of judicial immunity. If the U.S. Department of Justice were to get interested, criminal charges could be brought against the judge and lawyers. But the chances of that happening are slim.

Criminal charges, even if pursued, might only punish the wrongdoers but do nothing to get justice for Rosa Parks' heirs.

How grotesque can judicial immunity be in the real world? In one of the Alabama hunting-club cases, Plaintiff Joseph W. Blackburn (a professor of tax law at Samford University) alleged that Judge John C. Calhoun was part of a conspiracy under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). But U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield found that Calhoun was immune, no matter how criminal his actions might have been. From page 23 of the ruling: (The full ruling can be read at the end of this post.)

This is where Calhoun gets off Blackburn's liability train. Plaintiff at most has alleged that he acted with corrupt (bribed) motives when he ruled against him and his proposed co-plaintiffs. True, he has alleged that this defendant has done things off the bench like pal around with corrupt lawyers, soak up illicit "hunting club" . . . benefits--all to help foster an illegal enterprise. 

But those allegations are all "quid-pro-quo-tied" to Calhoun's rulings. Meanwhile, it is settled that damage claims premised upon a judge's adjudicative (as opposed to, for example, administrative) duties are barred by judicial immunity. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991). 

In so many words, Edenfield said it was fine for Calhoun to be bribed as long as he acted corruptly in his official capacity as a judge. And Edenfield, believe it or not, got the law right.

How many Americans are aware of such law? How many of them, if they were aware of it, would be outraged?

The same issue almost certainly will be raised in the case involving Rosa Parks' estate. Could that help spark a groundswell of opposition to judicial immunity, one that will have judges quaking in their robes?

Let's hope so. If that were to happen, it would make one more debt of gratitude we owe to Rosa Parks.

  Blackburn Calhoun Opinion