Swinton has lately been convicted in Colorado of essentially similar charges, but oddly enough nobody in Texas seems interested in prosecuting her or even really finding out her story regarding the phone calls leading up to the YFZ Ranch raid. According to her lawyer,
to his knowledge, his client is not facing any criminal charges in Texas.To repeat what I wrote last year, "why hasn't Rozita Swinton been charged for her instigatory role in the Texas case? I think it's precisely because the last thing Judge Walther and the Texas Rangers want is for her to be cross-examined under oath about who knew what when and how she was able to pull off such a grand imposture." If that were to happen, I suspect it would reveal improprieties by authorities that would invalidate the search warrant used to get onto the property. I continue to believe officials were looking for any excuse to launch such a raid and knew or should have known at the time they went in that the call was a likely hoax.“I believe the phone call in Texas resulted in the prosecution of some people who were sexually assaulting young women,” ... “If anyone felt that Ms. Swinton was involved in that, that’s a good thing.”
Texas authorities, however, said they are still looking into Swinton’s role in the case.
“Our inquiry into Rozita Swinton and other aspects of this case is ongoing,” said Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Texas Attorney General.
The only other reason I can think of for failing to charge Swinton would be if prosecutors simply agree with her lawyer that the end justifies the means and that all the kids CPS illegally seized were acceptable collateral consequences that should be overlooked in deference to the larger goal of driving the YFZ Ranch residents out of Schleicher County. If that's the case, perhaps the Attorney General should just publish a list of unpopular victims - polygamists, illegal immigrants, Wiccans, or whoever - against whom crimes will be tolerated in Texas, just so we can all get on the same page.
Grits, I think the "other reason" you posit [the first sentence of your final paragraph] is probably real close to the truth. The Texas Attorney General, the Texas Rangers, Schleicher County law enforcement, and local judiciary have all demonstrated in the GEPR degrees of venality consistent with your suggestion.
ReplyDeleteLet me point out that if Rozita Swinton were to be charged with criminal conduct, that situation would not necessarily lead to her cross examination under oath. As a criminal defendant, she would enjoy the protection of the 5th Amendment.
What could happen, though, is a civil suit against her by one or more of the YFZ Ranch people who were injured by her behavior. Discovery of what Swinton knew and to whom she talked would be much broader than in a criminal proceeding. She might also invoke her 5th Amendment right, but others involved probably would not be able to invoke it.
But. The YFZ Ranch folks are such sweethearts, they probably have already forgiven the sins of all the law enforcement and everyone else involved, as their religious beliefs teaches them to do, firm in the knowledge that the righteous will go to heaven and the unrighteous to hell.
This makes me ill. "Venal" is a highly appropriate description.
ReplyDeleteWell, she did stop kids from being raped under the guise of religious doctrine. That should be worth something. (Also sounds like she has mental problems, making a prosecution difficult if she is incompetent or insane.)
ReplyDeleteSince she already pleaded guilty to a similar charge in another state maybe Texas just doesn't want to waste the tax payers dollars any further.
ReplyDeleteI can't see any reason in throwing anymore money down the drain. She is a very ill individual and hopefully will have to continue to get treatment for her condition.
If there is blame to go around, it's not the AG's or the Texas Rangers, Schleicher County law enforcement or the local judiciary. The Governor has accepted any and all responsibility for this..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060608dntexpolygamistsperry.2911ea7.html
8:58, what do you believe was "stopped," exactly? CPS returned all but one of the 466 kids they seized, so presumably they had no evidence the other 465 were being "raped." Do you?
ReplyDeleteJennie, I wish you were around to say "I can't see any reason in throwing anymore money down the drain" back in 2007 when it was already clear this whole escapade was based on false accusations. Instead, authorities pretended the hoaxer might exist and seemingly went out of their way to avoid diligently investigating Rozita Swinton's role, even as they rounded up hundreds of kids and smeared their parents with a misleading PR campaign.
After all that, NOW is a little late to decide that the tip that triggered the raid is unimportant and the story needn't ever come out.
Whoops, meant back in 2008, of course.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly how long does it take for the Texas Rangers to complete an investigation? I guess it would depend on exactly how much dust has accumulated on the evidence, how many politicians encourage them to ignore it and how long it takes to convict all those charged. I don't believe we'll see a bit of movement on this investigation until all the trials have been completed and even then, that movement will be to close the case and decline to press charges.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting question that I would like to see answered is who is paying for things like the attorney fees, the treatment center and pretty much everything else at this point for Swinton? I don't believe for a minute that if this had been any other case of a mentally ill person making false reports and costing multiple states what they spend in the response to these calls, the charges would not be filed and the caller behind bars.
Anon 8:58 and Jennie,
Those are about the lamest statements I have heard in a while.
First of all, the ends justify the means rationalization just doesn't cut it no matter how you wish to view the situation. If that's where you stand, then why not just toss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as in your mind it's little more than so much toilet paper. There are reasons why those documents were written and we fought a war to separate ourselves from England.
Before you get too comfortable in your rationalizations about why Texas doesn't prosecute the poor mentally ill woman, consider this. The poor mentally ill woman is a repeat offender and has been tied to numerous false calls costing at least one state, besides Texas, the price of a three day search for a woman who does not exist. Her actions potentially endangered others by diverting resources that could have been used for a real person, possibly endangered searchers and cost the states cash that could have been used elsewhere.
Secondly, Texas has absolutely no issues with executing the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Sometimes it seems they go out of their way to prove such people are not ill or disabled just to insure long prison sentences or the Texas God given right to off them. So what's so special about one possibly mentally ill woman? And she's a minority. We all know how Texas loves to imprison minorities. She's cost them well over 35 million dollars in the costs of the raid, endangered the welfare of hundreds of women and children and flat out broke the law. Mentally ill, a minority, broke the law (After all, as so many have pointed out since this began and Hildebran changed the law to target the FLDS in the first place, “the law is the law”.) and cost the state of Texas a load of money based on a false report. And despite it being a complete no brainer, somehow the state of Texas and the Rangers can't seem to manage to complete the investigation despite it being nearly two years since the calls were made, the evidence smacking them in the head like a two by four and a dozen court cases based on evidence that a higher court would throw out if the circumstances behind the calls and the warrants were to come to light.
Well silly me. I forgot, this is justice, Texas Style.
Anon 10:08 makes a good point by implication: Where are all the law and order advocates when you really want and need them? Swinton apparently made a false report to law enforcement. That is a crime. Where are strict law and order people, like our own beloved txbluesman, to insist that she be charged and tried?
ReplyDeleteOut to lunch, maybe?
As for the dilatory tactics of the Texas Rangers, and DPS-wanta-be-Rangers, this is really about par for them. Not all Texas Rangers, nor the Texas Rangers organization, have been the hot-shot, straight as arrows kinda lawmen their PR makes them out to be. During the Johnson County, New Mexico Range Wars, Texas Rangers and other Texas lawmen would be hired by one side or the other, maybe sometime by more than one side, as private armies. They operated outside the law, ran rampant in some areas, and then retire to Texas until called upon again by the cattle moguls in New Mexico.
Larry McMurtry's characterization of Texas Rangers in "Lonesome Dove" as horse thieves, whore mongers, women abusers, bank robbers, and all around sociopathic assholes, while totally fictional, was probably not all that far from being true.
During the 1970s Farmworkers' Strike (viva La Huelga!) in South Texas, Texas Rangers reprised their 30s and 40s behavior as strike-breakers.
My point is, if you are disappointed in the performance of Texas Rangers vis-a-vis the "investigation" of Rosita Swinton, don't bother youselves to be disappointed because you think their performance is anomalous.
Even in a civil suit she could assert her 5th amendment rights because she may be admitting to a crime. That just means she's also waive any defenses except for whether or not the Plaintiff met his burden of proof.
ReplyDeleteThe only way around it is to prosecute her to a final judgment. Then the 5th is moot, and she'll have to answer questions. That will likely never happen, though.
Rage
Doran, txbluesman can be yours, but please don't say "our own." I don't want him.
ReplyDeleteRage, we agree that Swinton could assert her 5th amendment right in a civil suit. But the important aspect of the civil suit is that the Plaintiff can do discovery of other people, like NGAs (non-governmental assholes) in the Eldorado Establishment, and other places, as well as law enforcement. Of if not law enforcement, then EMS, CPS, the Baptist Church which was deeply involved, etc. Seems to me to be a fertile ground for discovering other people and organizations who would or could have some civil liability.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the false claims allegedly made by Swinton constitute at most a misdemeanor charge.
Second, one State cannot extradite a suspect from another State for a misdemeanor.
Third, you must have evidence to charge someone with an offense, which no one seems to have. What has been made public thus far is far from the standard needed to obtain a conviction, although it could support probable cause for the misdemeanor charges.
Fourth, in several months, the statute of limitations will have passed on the offense, and the point will be moot.
Fifth, despite what Grits said about no evidence of the other "465" children being raped, there have already been two convictions for just that, based on DNA evidence.
Sixth, I have no problem with her being charged and tried. If she broke the law and it can be proven, as the convicted FLDS members had their charges proven, I'm all for it.
This is a case, no one wants to touch. Because it involves the FLDS , who advocate and more likely practice polygamy, and sex with teenage girls. Making them a very unpopular group whoes Constitution rights are easily violated. Apparently neither the state nor civil rights groups of any sort want to touch this case.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately because of the way Texas decided to go about this. What really on at the YFZ Ranch will never be known. What's more surprising is that people are asking why TX law enforcement is showing zero interest prosecuting Ms , Swinerton as Doran pointed out. Usually they of the first to prosecute, incarcerated , and occasionally execute someone for real and imagined crimes.
. If the state properly and legally investigated these claims and allegations along with people who made them . Not run to the YFZ Ranch way they did with unsubstantiated claims based on what appears to be a single phone call made by a very psychologically disturbed woman. While those claims may or may not be true , any investigative agency in any state should follow constitutional procedure to make sure that they have a legal case. Now, it will be more difficult to investigate any allegations of child abuse anywhere because of Texas for violating the rights of the people at the YFZ ran had they done it right. They might well have been able to uncover more abuse. It's no secret Warren Jeffs a FLDS "leader " is serving time in Utah and Arizona for sexually abusing minors. He allegedly had ties to the YFZ Ranch.
The only reason Texas has no interest in prosecuting her is possibly it could open the doors for hundreds if not thousands of people currently in TDCJ to at least file claims of constitutional violations at the federal level. If not get their cases dismissed because of Texas is when it all cost to hell with the Constitution mentality.
Had this been a case not involving polygamy and sexual abuse of teenage women. I have no doubts Texas would have already sent the person making the false allegations to TDCJ for a very long time.
Bluesman,
ReplyDeleteA misdemeanor still poisons the fruit, no?
Were the convictions based on the round up, or previous issues? (We all know the answer to that one.)
Doran:
In order to respond to who else was involved, she'd be admitting to a criminal conspiracy. I just don't think that as long as there are possible charges she would ever answer discovery with anything but asserting the 5th. if she were my client she wouldn't, anyway.
Rage
tx, as per usual, has managed to present some significantly wrong information, and to avoid giving some additional info that bears on the matters we are trying to discuss in an honest, forthright, adult fashion. Whether his lapse is a result of poor preparation or of intent to deceive, I will leave to other of his fans to determine.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a person who makes a false report of child abuse or child neglect can be charged with either a state jail felony or a felony of the third degree. Tex.Fam.Code section 261.107. Swinton, if charged with such a violation, could be extradited to Texas for trial.
Second, the statute of limitations on this felony is probably three years, UNLESS the accused is absent from the state, in which case that period of time is not computed in the period of limitation. The same "absent from the state" provision applies to misdemeanors. Read it and weep, Rozita. The matter is not, as tx asserts, moot.
Third, the statute of limitations on potential civil suits arising out of the Great Eldorado Debacle-- suits against Swinton or against others who may have some exposure to liability -- is probably four years. EXCEPT, if an injured person is under a legal disability including being under 18 years of age at the approximate time of Swinton's false report, the period of the disability is not included in the limitations period.
Thus, someone who was [for example] 6 years old when she was torn away from her parents and family and thrust into strange surroundings, suffering significant psychological and developmental injuries, would have about 16 years to file suit.
And finally, with regard to tx's Third paragraph: What the hell are you talking about, tx? Of course there is enough "evidence" [I call that kind of stuff FACTS] to charge Swinton. We can't rely upon what has been made public because the Texas Rangers have this investigation thing still going on and are not releasing the FACTS they have.
So, when we consider that some of the YFZ kids were babes in arms, and tack on 16 or 17 years to the civil statute of limitations of four years, the Texas Rangers, in order to protect themselves, local law enforcement, CPS, the Baptists, and the State from law suits, will have to keep the Swinton investigation open for at least 20 years from April 08 or thereabouts. This has the potential to be the longest and most fraudulent investigation in Texas history.
And, if Swinton never sticks herself back into Texas for years and years more, the Grand Swinton/Eldorado Bogus Investigation can just go on and on. I can see it now: Periodically, some Ranger or other LE who is short-timing will be given a small office to himself and the task of reviewing the evidence and looking for new evidence, so the investigation can be folded into a prosecution.
I want to suggest to Grits that he put a clock or calendar on his site, ticking off the days and years as the investigation goes on. Sort a commemorative thing to honor the Texas Rangers.
My final question: Will O.J. Simpson find the murderer of his wife before the Rangers find the person who made the fraudulent report of child abuse at the YFZ Ranch?
I wonder why the FLDS hasn't filed a civil suit against Ms. Swinton?
ReplyDeleteDo they have to wait until after the criminal case?
Isn't this similiar to the way the TYC sexual abuse of youth affair is being handled? If prolonged long enough, even if it goes to trial, there will be insufficient evidence to do much; time lapses, youth and staff unknown whereabouts, records misplaced,etc. A plea will result in mental time already served and the remainder of the problem dropped. Texas justice at its best....right from the Austin halo tribe.
ReplyDeleteAh, Doran, picking and choosing again?
ReplyDeleteTo be charged under Fam. Code Sec. 261.107, the offender must have made the report to: 1) a law enforcement agency; 2) DFPS; 3) the agency licensing the facility the child is placed at; or 4) an agency designated by the court.
Swinton did not make a report to any of the above, unless the Newbridge Center falls under #4, and I am not aware if it is so designated.
It may not fall under Pen. Code. Sec. 37.08 (False Report) either.
It could, however, fall under Pen. Code Sec. 42.06 (False Alarm), but that is a Class A misdemeanor.
To charge a criminal offense, your facts have to meet the elements of the offense - I would have thought that a civil rights attorney would have been cognizant of that...
You are correct on the absent from the state issue.
I hope that you noted that I qualified my remarks on the evidence or the facts, as you call them, with the proviso "made public." Neither you nor I know what the Rangers have, and I was not basing my post on speculation of what they may or may not have. I also noted that there appeared to be enough for probable cause, just not enough for a conviction.
Finally, since Grits was not speaking of civil actions, I did not address that.
I personally think a civil action would be great - think of the discovery opportunities that Swinton will have, in addition to the normal affirmative defense of contributory negligence that the FLDS will have to get past.
Grits said:
ReplyDeleteso presumably they had no evidence the other 465 were being "raped." Do you?
I don't, but FLDS Texas apparently does. There are 34 names of suspected underage mothers in the FLDS cult who gave birth while underage.
Bluesy, "gave birth while underage" is not always the same thing as "rape." And just for context, since I haven't looked at the data, taken as a percentage of the whole, how would that teen pregnancy rate stack up to, say, the rate in Houston, which has more pregnant girls under 15 than anywhere else in the country?
ReplyDeleteAlso relevant: how many of those youth gave birth before the Lege changed the marriage law in 2005 explicitly to target this group's religious beliefs?
And still no one cares that there was a carrier pigeon type back channel communications network between the FBI in Texas and the FBI in Colorado springs. I know, I've talked to the individual participants, FBI Agent Steve Smith and CSPD Lt. Sean Mandel. The chain literally involved hand written notes and literal runners to carry the messages between Texas and Colorado Springs PD and predated by an unknown period of time the arrest of Rozita.
ReplyDeleteStill completely under reported is the FACT that individual CSPD members actually EMPLOYED Rozita Swinton and have known her for over 10 years, so much so that the head of CSPD's Internal Affairs unit says the relationship of Lt. Maggie Santos (who was involved in several of Rozita's arrests) to Ms. Swinton was "Common Knowledge" around CSPD.
It is alleged with partial corroboration that Rozita's 10 year plus companion, Becky Hoerth, forced a recusal of Maggie Santos from interfering in Rozita's cases. No one will follow up on that either. Becky apparently made a 50 page statement to CSPD or another law enforcement agency to the effect that Lt Santos and Lt. Jane Anderson of CSPD regularly stepped between Rozita and the legal consequences of her actions.
Why no one asks what connection there might be between Lt. Magdalena Santos who was HEAD of the INTERNET SEX CRIMES unit of CSPD and a woman ACCOMPLISHED at faking underage voices, when Maggie Santos USED people who could fake those voices to lure predators in for arrest, is also beyond me. It in fact boggles my imagination but the only place you can find such reporting is on my blog.
I assure you I have talked to Sean Mandel, Steve Smith, Lt. Santos, and Lt. Kirk Wilson of CSPD, and I have correspondence from Kirk Wilson.
Nevertheless, no one cares, which flabbergasts me, to say the least.
On another topic, I don't know how suing Rozita would involve any kind of discovery that would harm the FLDS. It is none of Rozita's business nor does it affect her defense that the FLDS did anything, legal, or illegal. Rozita caused harm to them by illegal acts. The children were wrongly taken from FLDS parents, and this has been recognized by the courts. It doesn't MATTER what they were doing, because Rozita was not being harmed by the FLDS in any way, she harmed them.
Our resident commenter who thinks this would be a great thing because Rozita would have access to the FLDS through discovery, is such a great legal mind that he/she doesn't know hac from hoc, and is so sophisticated that he/she regards Natalie Malonis as appropriate legal representation for him/herself.
It is my contention that while I am no legal authority, anyone who has Natalie Malonis as an attorney, should know that Natalie only has fools for clients.
But, that's just me :)
Well, tx, it is my recollection that Swinton was in fact talking to County law enforcement about the abuse she had suffered at YFZ Ranch. Check me on that, if you wish, and tell us the people or agencies to which she communicated her false report.
ReplyDeleteSwinton served her purpose, dont expect Texas to do anything about the fact that she lied...TEXAS CANNOT BE BOTHERED BY FACTS!
ReplyDeleteGrits,
ReplyDeleteTrue, but the cases listed would involve statutory rape. BTW, the latest data I saw showed the Texas underage birthrate as 69 per 1,000. Based on the number of female children at the YFZ and the number of underage births, the rate there is above 150 per 1,000.
And the Lege did not target this groups religious beliefs by enacting a neutral law of general applicability. As Rep. Darby stated, "Pedophilia is not a religion."
Hugh, has anything you expected turned out the way you wanted? Which judge was it that replaced Judge Walther when she recused herself?
Doran, as far as I know, Swinton never spoke directly to law enforcement. If in fact she did, then that is a different matter, and would turn on whether she repeated any allegations of child abuse to the officers. If so, then F.C. 261.107 could be a valid charge, and if they can prove it, they should charge her.
If Swinton had been charged there would be an article here about how mean 'ol Texas is prosecuting a mentally ill individual. And with regard to the statement of there being only one (or two) sexual assault victims out of the four hundred or so children, bias is evident again. We would be reading an article about how Texas ignored the victimization of a child. Instead, there is reference to 400 plus children with ONLY one confirmed sexual assault victim. Geez, should they have done nothing?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the basis for the statement that you can't be extradited for a misdemeanor? The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (Chap. 51 of the Tex. Code Crim. Proc.) refers to "treason, felony or other crime" Surely that covers misdemeanors? Can we have an answer please, TXBluesMan? And how do you know that there is not enough evidence to convict?
ReplyDeleteIt is not common practice to extradite for a misdemeanor. I suppose it could be done.
ReplyDeleteAccording to articles like this: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/_rozita_swinton_may_finally.php, she spoke to the Texas Rangers.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I don't think that law enforcement is interested in going after people who make false reports unless it embarrasses and grossly inconveniences the State. I have complained to the AG and others about false and illegal reports made concerning my clients to Administrative Agencies and Abbot's office didn't give a rat's behind about it.
It's a great shame. As has been discussed on this blog in the past, the Bible prescribes onerous penalties for bearing false witness. That is one of the great checks and balances of a true justice system.
Under our present system of "justice" people can lie with impunity, as long as they lie to the benefit of those in power.
There is NO WAY that Abbot or Perry will bring the inconvenient Rozita to justice. This conservative, Christian Republican precinct chair considers them to be complete hypocrites.
Jerri, your link did not work for me; I instead got one of those messages saying I was not authorized to view the site.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is not important that Swinton did or did not speak directly to law enforcement. Tx is doing his usual disinformation dance when he suggests to the contrary:
" ...as far as I know, Swinton never spoke directly to law enforcement. If in fact she did, then that is a different matter, and would turn on whether she repeated any allegations of child abuse to the officers."
There is no express requirement in F.C. 261.107 that a false report be made directly to law enforcement. There is no express requirement that a true report or a false report be made under F.C. 261.103 directly to any of the entities mentioned there. What is important is that a report be made. If someone calls a child abuse hot line and reports child abuse, and the hot line people report it to the 261.103 entities, then that first person has in effect made the report as required or, if the report is false, has violated 261.107.
According to that wonderfully complex and creative affidavit for search warrant made by a Texas Ranger, "Sarah" called the New Bridge Family Shelter on March 29, 2008, reporting the false accusations of her having been abused. According to the Affidavit of Lynn McFadden filed in the civil actions, the Department of Protective and Family Services received an intake report on that same day. McFadden's affidavit states that the alleged victim had called a local family violence shelter, suggesting that it was the New Bridge Shelter which contacted the Department. Those facts are sufficient to put "Sarah" in jeopardy.
There are some very good, very important policy reasons why prosecution of "Sarah" should be pursued. There are family violence and child abuse hot lines in existence all over Texas. Probably not enough, but many. They are manned -- in most cases womanned -- by volunteers and underpaid staff on a 24 hour basis. A lot of time and hard to get money goes into staffing those hot lines, training staff, and building lines of communication to local law enforcement.
False reports not only take up the time of paid staff and volunteers, they also eat into budgets of the local family crises centers and of local law enforcement. False reports can take law enforcement away from other duties. They can be dis-couraging and disheartening to the women who devote a good deal of time and emotional energy to working with abused women and children. People who make those false calls need to be held to account.
So, why are the Attorney General of Texas and the Schleicher County DA dilly-dallying around about "Sarah?" I don't know for sure, but I will suggest the most venal, and corrupt reason, as a starting point for discussion: "Sarah" was put up to making that call either by law enforcement or by someone working closely with law enforcement, for the sole reason of giving law enforcement a reason for raiding the YFZ Ranch. That is my theory, and I'm sticking to it until the Texas Damn Rangers and the Attorney General of Texas come up with something better.
I keep telling people Doran, it is a fact, I have talked to the police officer involved. She's admitted to it, though she lied about time frames and other significant details.
ReplyDeleteRozita Swinton WAS IN FACT EMPLOYED BY A MEMBER (or members?) OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
That member of CSPD was in charge of luring sex predators discovered on the internet, into Colorado, and sometimes employed adults to VOICE fictional characters that SEEMED to be little girls.
Oddly, that's what Rozita does, fake convincing imitations of little girls.
I think the prosecution should have checked out Christopher Clark of Albion, Idaho, and asked him about where Rozita was during the days surrounding Thanksgiving in 2008.
ReplyDeletehttp://parent-rights.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-is-christopher-clark-and-how-is-he.html
Doran, I don't know why my link didn't work for you. It just worked for me:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/_rozita_swinton_may_finally.php
Regardless, your analysis in ON POINT.
I just LOVE how we SO agree on this point and, yet, are so different politically.
Jerri, I tried it again, from a different computer, and received a message that the website refused to let me look at it and that I need to log in. You probably logged in a long time ago and the site recognizes your computer. I'm not sure how I can log in if I can't access the site, but I'll keep trying.
ReplyDeleteOk, finally got to it.
ReplyDelete"The shelter contacted the Rangers, who also talked to Sarah by phone."
This was before the raid.
Jerri, how do I contact the reporter who wrote this to find out how she knows this? I really want to know which Ranger the reporter talked to, or if she did not talk to a Ranger, what her basis is for her report.
The report on the Westword blog is by Melanie Asmar.
Hugh????
This is fun stuff.
Doran,
ReplyDeleteHow important a fact do you think it is that Rozita WAS EMPLOYED by a member or MEMBERS of the Colorado Springs police department? This is a FACT, I have personally SPOKEN to the officer.
How important a fact is it that this relationship is ACTIVE and at least a decade old? Again, something I have confirmed PERSONALLY by talking to the internal affairs department of CSPD.
How important is it that this officer keeps showing up on her ARREST REPORTS as being involved?
How important is it that this officer also ran the INTERNET SEX CRIMES STING operation of CSPD, and employed people who could pretend to be little girls?
I've documented it all, no one seems to care. Like I said, I've even CALLED the officers involved and they've owned up to it.
I even documented their hand written notes communication channel that ran back and forth between Texas and Colorado Springs that PREDATES Rozita's arrest.
I have the phone records to prove it.
Hugh, I'm convinced that Rozita talked to CPS and/or law enforcement in Texas prior to the April 08 raid on YFZ. I'm satisfied that Rozita, if she was the Sarah person, made a false report for which she could be prosecuted. I would like to see whomever made that false report prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteBut in the over-all scheme of things, the false reporting is not nearly so important, or so venal, as what appears to have been a law enforcement set up, with law enforcement lying to Judge Walther or keeping from Judge Walther law enforcement's involvement in making a false report in order to lay the predicate for a search warrant.
If law enforcement set this up, either directly or acting through surrogates, or even had knowledge that the call was false, that fact will vitiate every criminal conviction that has or will flow from the search, and in addition will lead to some law enforcement types possibly being prosecuted and certainly out looking for jobs.
There are at least three ways of skinning this cat. One is for someone with a viable cause of action to file a civil damages suit against Swinton. Another is for law enforcement/District Attorney to file criminal charges against Swinton and prosecute her. This latter method seems unlikely to take place.
Another method is to file what was formerly known as a bill of discovery action. This is a process by which a suit is filed for the express purpose of determining if there is a basis for filing another suit against a particular individual, or a group, or an entity, asserting grounds for recovery of monetary damages, etc.
I suppose another method would be to seek under an open records act request all records of law enforcement's contacts with Swinton, and all of law enforcement's documents regarding their "investigation" of the false call. That request could be made in Texas as well as in Colorado, assuming Colorado has some kind of open records act.
In Texas, the request will be denied on the basis that there is an ongoing criminal investigation. At that point, it becomes necessary to file a suit and to ask a judge to compel the State to prove that there is in fact such an ongoing investigation. That is, that the State show the degree of activity going on in that investigation. This may not work, I admit. But what would come of it is a great deal of bad public relations for the Attorney General and the Texas Rangers.
Maybe there are other avenues to be taken to get to the bottom of this scandal. I invite being directed to those avenues.
Doran,
ReplyDeleteI've actually uncovered the tip of the iceberg in what may be a set up.
I know that the FBI in Texas was communicating with an FBI agent in Colorado Springs, I know because I have talked to that agent. I don't know how long that communications channel existed, but I can guarantee you it existed prior to April 13th, 2008. Rozita was arrested on April 16th, 2008.
He would then write down whatever request came from Texas (that he conveniently can't remember) and give it to Sgt. Sean Mandel of the CSPD who was on "detached duty" with a "task force" that the FBI was running or part of. I know this, because I have talked to Lt. (he's been promoted) Sean Mandel who would then go in to CSPD with the hand written note, and give it to CSPD.
All of this activity predates by some unknown period of time, the arrest of Rozita, and overlaps with the actual raid on YFZ.
Why is someone COMMUNICATING with CSPD through a back channel during the raid?
I'm NOT making this up, I have the phone records and contemporary notes to prove it. This isn't me commenting on press reports and drawing conclusions, this is me TALKING to the people involved and asking the questions.
To top it all off Rozita has known one of the arresting officers (Maggie Santos) for over a DECADE. Rozita has WORKED for her. I talked to Maggie. She ADMITTED that (reluctantly). Maggie Santos ran an internet sex sting operation with CSPD/CBI/regional police/FBI personnel. At times they would LURE the predator the rest of the way in to be arrested with VOICE CONTACT. That meant Rozita's EMPLOYER and longtime acquaintance HAD NEED OF PEOPLE WHO COULD CONVINCINGLY PORTRAY LITTLE GIRLS. Rozita CONVINCINGLY plays little girls.
Maggie had FBI contacts as part of her day to day activity.
Maggie had need of people with Rozita's talents.
The YFZ ranch is raided and the Sheriff says that HE believed the report as credible because the "victim" had knowledge of details in the ranch.
I have PROVEN through interviews the existence of a clandestine communications channel between the FBI in Texas and CSPD that was ACTIVE and being used.
Rozita is a little girl imitator employed by Maggie Santos who needs people like her. Maggie has FBI contacts that are regularly used and active. Rozita has information that is alleged to be highly accurate about the inner workings and appearance of the YFZ Ranch.
Is it too far out to suppose with all that documented connection that someone at the FBI gave details to Rozita through an intermediary (Maggie) and said "give these numbers a call and do your thing?"
Doran,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are willing to twist the law to suit your purposes. FC 261.103 says the report "shall" be made to one of the listed agencies. To be a violation, FC 261.107 states that the false report has to be made in violation of the reporting sub-chapter. Unless you can show a report by the suspect (Swinton) to one of the listed agencies in the code, there is no offense. The cost doesn't matter - a crime has to be specifically defined.
Again, I am surprised that a civil rights lawyer would propose such a thing... As to why the authorities aren't acting? Perhaps they realize that they don't have a case.
Hugh,
You keep alleging that Swinton was a police employee - where is your proof? You know, pay stub, statement, recording? Being employed as a nanny does not translate into Swinton being employed in any internet stings.
Blues.
ReplyDeleteMORON.
I called Maggie Santos. Her BADGE NUMBER IS 980D, CSPD. She SAID she did.
"I," as in "ME" as in "Hugh McBryde," with a PHONE and had VOICE CONTACT with Lt. Magdalena Santos.
You are a disgusting LIAR to pretend you don't already know that, but that is your stock and trade, to pretend you haven't heard an inconvenient fact to keep marketing your sound bite of disbelief as if I have not said those things before, and as if you have not heard me say them.
Lt. Kirk Wilson has state ALSO, to me PERSONALLY that the close relationship of Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton was "Common knowledge" (his unforced characterization, not mine) around CSPD. The time frame of that "common knowledge" status was April of 2008, when Rozita was arrested.
Lt. Santos' name is also on that arrest report.
Doran,
ReplyDeleteOn this page: http://www.westword.com/about/staff
there are e-mails for some of the staff. Hers is not hyperlinked, but it looks like you can e-mail one of her bosses.
The Trib has the info on the investigation into the call, including the officer, Texas Ranger Phillip Kemp, in court last May:
ReplyDelete"He said that within two days he had traced the calls to Rozita Swinton in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Kemp said he traveled to Colorado Springs, met with investigators and helped search Swinton's apartment. Officers found notes and materials about the FLDS, the Eldorado ranch, the shelter's hotline staff -- and even a scribbled calculation used to come up with the age 16.
Kemp also said that a review of Swinton's phone records showed numerous calls to the NewBridge crisis center in late March. That review also showed Swinton placed several calls to anti-polygamy activist Flora Jessop and a Washington state shelter around the same time."
---------------
So, there is already well-documented evidence, from a witness who has been sworn in and testified under oath. That seems to be a pretty airtight case right there. What can Swinton possibly say in her defense to counteract it? No one called in a fake phone call on her. Of course, the bigots want to continue to ignore sworn testimony, and say that there is no cause to charge Swinton.
FLDS 439 - Texas 0!
Fight Bigotry
Tx. Show us why a report through an intermediary to one of the entities listed does not qualify as a report. Ok?
ReplyDeleteTx. Assume someone, not a professional, has cause to believe that a little Joey's mental or physical health or welfare has been adversely by abuse or neglect. That person says to his or her secretary: "I just learned that little Joey has been abused by his mother. Call CPS, or the Sheriff's office, tell them that I think little Joey has been abused, and give them his parents' full names and address. I have to be in a super important meeting in three minutes and I just can't get to it. Do it now." The secretary does as instructed.
ReplyDeleteAre you really going to persist in the stupid position that this does not qualify as a report under F.C. 261.101, -.102, -.103, and -.104? GIVE. US. A. BREAK.
I was ready to chatise Hugh for calling you a moron, but your answer to my question may change my mind about doing so.
My assessment of Blues as a Moron Doran, springs from retaining Natalie Malonis as legal representation.
ReplyDeleteIt is my contention that Natalie Malonis only has fools for clients, providing they are willing clients.
It also comes from Blues not knowing hac from hoc.
Hugh, you probably know tx's real name, don't you?
ReplyDeletePLEASE!!!!
DON'T tell us. As long as he is using a nom de plume, you and I both can refer to him stupid, a moron, an incompetent lawyer, etc etc
All I know is that Blues and Blues companions are obsessed with polygamy. I ceased to care who Blues was when Blues wrote to me and declared Natalie Malonis to be Blues' attorney.
ReplyDeleteThat confidence had been eroded considerably with Blues not so deft handling of a pro hac vice issue.
I have had to downgrade my own assessment of myself, simply for regarding Blues to be an authority of any kind, after those two incidents.
Doran,
ReplyDeleteBecause the statute is very clear.
If he told his secretary, he did not make a report covered by FC 261.103 or FC 261.107.
The report must be made to the "Appropriate Agency" - you cannot just make up charges because you don't like what the person did. Plus, FC 261.101(b) states that a professional may "not delegate to or rely on another person to make the report." If a professional cannot delegate such reporting responsibility, what make you think that anyone else can? Besides, what you are describing is a preparatory offense called Criminal Solicitation (Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 15.03), which only applies to capital and first degree felonies, and it wouldn't even rise to that level.
Unless you can show that Swinton directly made a report, you don't have an offense. Reporting it to Newbridge does not constitute an offense.
My take then, if it wasn't an offense (if false) then it wasn't a report of anything either.
ReplyDeleteIf we can't take a report to a shelter seriously enough to enforce some sort of penalty on the caller, then we are saying such reports are semantically empty.
Since (apparently) according to TxHacHocMan, there is no crime, then there was no report of one either.
Odd that Blues is on OTHER side of the issue when it comes to Allen Steed's supposed rape of Elissa Wall.
tx, you have come to the conclusion, apparently, that Rozita failed to report child abuse and should therefore be prosecuted for failure to report, as provided by Chapter 261, Tex.Fam.Code. Of course, it was only a Class B Misd. at the time of the offense, which means she probably won't be prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteBut what is important is your own progress here. You have gone from saying things like "If she broke the law" to a tacit admission that she did.
How shrewd of you. You managed to lower the offense category -- and avoid extradition -- while at the same time bolstering the State's fantasy that the reported facts actually were truthful.
Great lawyering, Tx. I'm impressed, though I don't for a second accept the validity of your approach, of course.
Blues isn't a lawyer, unless blues is Natalie Malonis
ReplyDeleteDoran,
ReplyDeleteI don't have doubt that Rozita made the calls. I do have doubt that the State has enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think that she should be charged.
I do not think that she committed the offense of Failed to Report Child Abuse or False Report of Child Abuse, as defined in the Family Code.
I do think that she committed the offense of False Alarm or Report. That is a misdemeanor offense, and I doubt that she will show up to be charged and tried.
I don't think that an attempt to connect Rozita to a law enforcement conspiracy from Colorado to go after the FLDS is anything but a tinfoil hat theory. It has no basis in fact, nor any evidence to support it.
The other point is that the facts need not be true - only that the officers believed them to be true. With the findings and conclusions of Judge Walther in the MTS, it will be difficult to say otherwise, as she was the one to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Hugh,
Whatever.
Wow blues, they don't have enough evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........
They have her phones, they have the numbers she called and called from, and she's pled guilty to every charge of false reporting she's ever been brought up on in the past.
You're a lying joke hachoc.
Please dont stop the name calling and finger pointing. This is TEXAS TRASH at it's best!!
ReplyDeleteThank God then Boyness. I'm not from Texas, and Blues? Blues doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteWho cares?
ReplyDeleteU 4 1
ReplyDeleteThe Pharisee said...
ReplyDeleteThank God then Boyness. I'm not from Texas, and Blues? Blues doesn't exist.
1/19/2010 04:28:00 PM
-------------------------------------
As I said, who cares? I dont care of your not from Texas and I damn sure dont care if your made up alter-ego is a hoax. I dont care anymore than Texas officials care about Swinton or whetever her name is.
You can still fuel the fire as you have done and this IS a TEXAS ISSUE so like I said TEXAS TRASH...IDIOT!
Aw, you're so cute when you get worked up.
ReplyDeleteThe Pharisee
ReplyDelete----------------------------
MMMMM and a freak 2!