Mary Harris
A review of the case action summary shows that someone might have falsified court records in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case. If the record knowingly was falsified, that would be a crime under Alabama law.
If such an unlawful act took place, it probably originated in the office of Shelby County Circuit Clerk Mary Harris. And evidence suggests it was done to cover for the corrupt actions of Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson. If Crowson directed that records be falsified, he might be at the center of a criminal conspiracy.
Under Code of Alabama 13A-10-12 (Tampering with governmental records), someone commits a crime if "he knowingly makes a false entry in or falsely alters any governmental record." A governmental record is defined as "any record, paper, document, or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for information or record . . ."
A state-court record meets that description, and someone clearly entered false information in the Rollins v Rollins case action summary, which Mary Harris' office maintains. (See document at the end of this post.)
Why would someone tamper with records in a Shelby County divorce case? Well, we have called Rollins v. Rollins the No. 1 courtroom cheat job we have encountered in the civil arena--and the false entries help obscure what actually happened in the case.
The record shows, in three places, that the case was settled. Here is how the relevant section of the case action summary reads:
7/18/2005: Court Action Judge: D. Al Crowson (AV07)
7/18/2005: ACDD Flag Set to "Y" (AV07)
7/18/2005: Disposed On: 7/7/2005 by (Settled) (AV07)
7/18/2005: Custody to Mother (AV07)
7/18/2005: C001 Disposed by (Settled) on 7/7/2005 (AV07)
7/18/2005: D001 Disposed by (Settled) on 7/7/2005 (AV07)
A reasonable person checking that file would say to himself, "Hey, this case was settled." In fact, Sherry Rollins told Legal Schnauzer that she took her file to one lawyer at some point after July 18, 2005. The man glanced briefly at the file and said, "This case was settled. Why are you here?"
Ms. Rollins' mouth must have fallen open, and with good reason. That's because the case was not settled. It was resolved by a Final Judgment of Divorce from Judge Crowson, and we have run the document in black and white right here on our blog. If you missed our earlier discussion of it, you can read it at the end of this post.
Why would the "justice infrastructure" in Shelby County benefit from having the Rollins v. Rollins fiasco listed as "settled" on the case action summary? Most anyone who reviews the case is likely, as a first step, to check the case action summary and go to the line for "disposition." If it says "settled," that pretty much closes the book on an inquiring mind.
It's the court's way of saying, "Move along, nothing to see here."
The false entry might have had the secondary benefit of costing Ms. Rollins any hope of justice on appeal. My understanding is that the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding, without issuing an opinion. In other words, the appellate court rubber stamped what had been done in Shelby County. That might be because Alabama appellate courts are hideously corrupt. But it also might be because someone took one look at the case action summary, saw the case was marked "settled," and essentially said, "Well there's no reason to review this. Next."
Rollins v. Rollins has been emitting a foul odor from the moment we first started reviewing it. But with these false entries in the official record, the odor just got stronger.
Here is the information sheet/case action summary, followed by Judge Crowson's Final Judgment of Divorce. Obviously, the case was not settled:
Rollins Case Action Summary Rollins Divorce Order
