False reports thrust Springs woman into polygamist case

[El Supremo]

Source: The Denver Post

Texas Rangers are investigating whether a Colorado Springs woman made calls pretending to be an abused girl in a polygamist compound, sparking a mass child protective action in Eldorado, Texas.

Rozita Estraletta Swinton, 33, was arrested at her home Wednesday evening on charges of false reporting in two Colorado cases, but Texas Rangers were present for the arrest, Colorado Springs police said Thursday night.

Colorado Springs police said Swinton's arrest Wednesday stemmed from local charges involving calls in February in which she claimed to be an abused child being held in a basement.

According to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records, Swinton also was arrested Wednesday on a fugitive warrant from Douglas County relating to another false reporting case....



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8971925

---

Uh Oh. I smell a big mess for Texas.

But isn't polygamy still ilegal?

[Ian David]

1. I'm going to guess someone else got the lowest bid on the cult's defense contract. n/t

[atreides1]

2. Yes Polygamy is Still Illegal

But technically getting married without a legal marriage certificate isn't getting married.

[El Supremo]

4. In Texas you have a common law marriage...

by just saying you are married in front of a witness. It carries all the legality of a licensed marriage. I think.

[aquart]

9. Can you do it with more than one person at a time?

[fed_up_mother]

12. No.

[fed_up_mother]

5. True.

So, according to the Texas statutes, it would be statutory rape (assuming the girl cooperated). Parents can't consent to that.

[marshall]

18. They have to prove the age of the father first

If they rounded up every pregnant teenage girl in Texas and arrested the father of her child there would be thousands of teenage boys in prison.

[yardwork]

7. In that case, statutory rape would be the charge. Or rape and assault.

[IronLionZion]

3. rape and abuse are most definitely illegal and evil no matter what

making it about polygamy just detracts from the real issue, especially since the marriages are just spiritual.

Another issue is the fact that those rural white conservative red state "single mothers" accept lots of welfare and tax-payer financed assistance.

[fed_up_mother]

6. And there would be nothing wrong wit your last statement

except that the FLDS cult has lots of money and assets. They should be supporting their own children.

If the women and children leave, they need all the help they can get...and more.

[KitSileya]

10. Not to mention, they lie to the authorities about the fathers

These mothers are instructed to lie and say they don't know the father of their children, so that the state can't force him to pay child support. In most cases, the mothers live with the father of their children, so this is outright fraud. (Of course, the welfare checks go directly to the prophet rather than the intended mother, and that's fraud too.) This cult has several millions in the bank, more than enough to support all these children.

And here I'm disregarding the whole raping and impregnating underaged girls who'd only be legal if they were legally married (an outrage in itself) and the tossing teenaged boys on the streets after exploiting them in child labor. In a few years, most of the boys would be eligible for the foster care system anyways, as these minors are thrown out of their homes and dumped in a neighboring city without money. Only by waiting so long, they ensure the boys are so indoctrinated they're afraid of seeking help from the government, as they've been told all their lives the government will destroy them.

[darue]

25. if we can't bust these people and stop this shit, we're dead as a civilization n/t

[High Plains]

29. Yes, we must destroy all who are not like us.

[darue]

31. some forms of difference are more different that others and...

there are some intolerables - slavery being one, and by my understanding so far... the system these people claim is just a form of slavery and exploitation.

[aquart]

8. Does this toss the whole case on fruit of the poisonous tree?

Will they have to send them all home?

[fed_up_mother]

11. Not necessarily.

If authorities act in good faith - believing that a complaint may have merit - they are obligated to act. That tells you right there that some complaints will be false. It just happens.

Furthermore, once investigators are there, anything they "happen to see" (like young pregnant girls) can be further investigated. They are not allowed to dig through personal files, etc, but once they saw the young pregnant girls, they were able to obtain another search warrant for that.

Hope that makes sense.

[lazer47]

13. WRONGO!!

If the first search warrant was flawed,, all evidence that would follow will be flawed and inadmissable..

[Xithras]

17. Depends on the nature of the flaw.

If the police can show that they acted in good faith and that their information was simply incorrect, it's no inadmissable.

If, however, the defense lawyers can show that the police should have REASONABLY known that the call was false, and that the warrant was pulled because of information that should have been immediately recognized as false, then they CAN get the original warrant overturned and suppress any evidence found in the raid or the investigation that followed.

Thing is, the defense attorneys aren't going to have a hard time proving that second option. If they based their impetus for obtaining the warrant on one anonymous phone call, the lawyers simply have to ask why the police didn't check the freaking caller ID. Why wasn't the call checked to verify it's source? The police are going to have a big problem defending themselves against that question. That COULD conceivably lead to the search being labelled improper, and evidence suppressed.

Suppressing that actually won't impact the custody hearings much, but it will make it almost impossible to prosecute anyone.

[marshall]

19. Wouldn't it depend on which case we're talking about?

If the search warrant were flawed perhaps it would affect the case involving the girl who made the initial complaint. But in the process of investigating that complaint they happened upon evidence relating to totally different girls, which is a whole new set of cases.

[fed_up_mother]

23. CPS does not abide by the same laws as other law enforcement

An anonymous phone call is all it takes to act in order to protect childen. That certainly isn't the standard most "cop operations" act under, is it?

The Texas Rangers were there because CPS workers were entering a vilotile situation. I don't remember the particulars, but an initial limited warrant was issued first. Once evidence of young, pregnant teenage girls was found, a second search warrant was issued to allow for a more thorough investigation. If I can remember where I read the legal explanation, I'll post it.

[aquart]

27. Yes, thank you.

[Honeycombe8]

34. No. Even if a report of abuse turns up no specific evidence (as is usu. the case), if the

government finds evidence of abuse upon entering, they have the obligation to rescue the children from the situation, even if the original report turns out not to be true.

The false report, or hoax, if that's what it was, may impact the government's ability to use evidence in criminal prosecution of the adults, but has no effect on rescuing children in harm's way.

[Dogtown]

14. "fruit of the poisonous tree"

The case now hinges on whether the prosecution can demonstrate the police acted in good faith.

If they had reason to believe that the report was credible, they are required to act.

The defense will need to prove that the reported crime was incredible. If the police shouldn't have believed the report, for example, if there had been a report of the "false reporting" made available to the Texas authorities, then any evidence gleaned by the raid would be deemed inadmissible, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; if the search is unlawful, then the evidence is tainted.

[fed_up_mother]

24. True.

And that could make a criminal prosecution difficult or next to impossible, but this case isn't a criminal prosecution. It's a hearing to determine custody of these children.

[Honeycombe8]

33. There are 2 issues: criminal actions; rescuing abused children.

If the original report proves not to be true (and remember that that is likely the case, but not necessarily so, at this point), all that does is make the evidence FOR CRIMINAL ACTION likely not to be able to be used.

BUT...even if a report of child abuse proves to be false, whether a hoax or a misinformed informant, that has no effect on the government's taking custody of children in harm's way, if, when the government goes in, it finds evidence of abuse.

Otherwise, no one would ever bother reporting child abuse, in the first instance, since most abusers hide it, and governments seldom find such evidence upon entering (we just hear about it usually after the children have been killed). Second, it doesn't matter WHY the government went in, specifically, if they find children in harm's way...it is their obligation to rescue the children.

Rescuing the children seems to have been the primary reason for going in, and it appears that so far, the judge in this case agrees the children should remain in the government's custody for the time being, there being enough evidence of abuse to warrant further investigation.

[Android3.14]

15. This makes the hair on my arm stand

A government comes in and carts off a person's children because someone claiming to be in their church says they were abused?

This reeks of the same asinine fascist BS that started the Waco disaster. There are better ways to deal with accusations of child abuse and/or rape.

And as far as these people brainwashing their children, what some call "brainwashing", others call socialization, civics lessons, or religious training. A parent has the right and responsibility to raise their kids in the best fashion they know how, and if that means they circumcise their children (oh the horror the horror, let's get the Jews!)or teach their girls to dress in full length clothing, or train their kids to regard religious people with suspicion, then it's their own damn business and the government should stay they heck out.

What this situation really needed was an FBI investigation, probably undercover, to determine who is abusing who, then set up a sting where the authorities could arrest the abusers without violating the civil liberties of several hundreds of other people just because they act weird.

I swear, the knee-jerk reactions to this kind of crap is exactly what allowed this burgeoning police state to drive us into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Have we learned nothing from China and Iran? A separation of church and state is essential to protect our liberties from the religious wackjobs as well as the secular ones.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

16. So 13 year old girls who have sex

with men much older than they and who have numerous children is ok with you? Which right becomes more important then? Protecting children (that's what 13 year olds are) from sexual predators or freedom of religion? What happens when the freedom of religion is used to mask rampant sexual abuse, not to mention welfare fraud?

[Android3.14]

20. Sigh...

Don't be silly.

The evidence leading to the raid is becoming increasingly questionable. I'd bet a nickel that in a year these kids are back in a compound at another FLDS situation because the authorities screwed this up.

If the police had respected the civil liberties of all the people there, carefully investigated the accusations, arrested specific suspects, then they would have had a much better chance of getting these younger girls into a better situation, and convicting the men who had broken the law. They also would have had a better public relations operation afterwards.

Now, because it is such a blatant violation of so many civil liberties, the initial warrant is going to collapse, the case is going to collapse, and it will be even more difficult to get the abused children out.

What kind of person makes a sick accusation like you did? Nothing in my original post indicated I didn't care about the fate of the possible young mothers.

But when you say, which is more important, protecting children or the freedom of religion, I have to point out it is a shrill and insipid comparison that has no merit. It's like asking, which is more important, food or farming.

A thinking person recognizes that a strong separation of church and state is exactly one of the civil guideposts that protects children.

[enlightenment]

21. Bit of backpedaling on your part, I think.

Yes, I'm a thinking person. You may have simply failed to make your point, but you did make a comment that led the poster to believe you were defending the actions of this group.

I quote:
And as far as these people brainwashing their children, what some call "brainwashing", others call socialization, civics lessons, or religious training. A parent has the right and responsibility to raise their kids in the best fashion they know how, and if that means they circumcise their children (oh the horror the horror, let's get the Jews!)or teach their girls to dress in full length clothing, or train their kids to regard religious people with suspicion, then it's their own damn business and the government should stay they heck out.

While it is true that parent's have a right to raise their children as they see fit - that right must be weighed against the best interests of the children.

In your statement, you seem to be deliberately ignoring what these children are taught, and that's the problem. What they are taught. Teaching young girls that it is their duty to submit to the sexual attentions of older men. Their duty to breed, repeatedly, and raise their daughters to submit in the same fashion. Taught that they should fear the "outside" world - which is a bit different from teaching them to be chaste, modest, and obedient. Taught that they should regard anyone outside their world with suspicion and fear. Taught very little beyond that.

That isn't socialization or civics training and trying to equate what this group teaches with circumcision is comparing apples and oranges.

[Android3.14]

22. Not so

So what you are saying is that the government should determine "the best interests of the children". The government uses that excuse in some of the most abusive places on the planet.

If a family is in a religion that teaches that girls must submit to men, breed repeatedly, and raise their daughters to do the same, then we must rely on our free and civil society to 1) provide adequate protections to keep the children from being raped and abused, such as a careful investigation that won't unravel because they ignore basic civil liberties, and 2) rely on that same society to be there so when these kids reach the age of reason, they have the opportunity to leave the religion.

And it is not apples and oranges to compare this to male circumcision, because many people see that as abuse as well. If the girls are underage mothers because of rape by older males, then the larger society should punish the individuals who did the crime. However, teaching people to submit to men, have children, and teach their children to do the same is not in and of itself a crime, just alien and illegal if acted upon.

Heck, there are people out there that teach their kids that people with different skin color should all die, just as there those who teach their kids that it is ok to marry outside of their race. Members of each group view the othewr as the barbarian. Is being a racist illegal? No, and thank the Constitution it isn't illegal. It's the act that is illegal, not the belief or passing on that belief.

Our rights carry good ramifications as well as bad, but the good outweighs the bad.

[LisaL]

26. Apparently it's not the first time this woman is alleged to have

falsely reported something.
http://www.denverpost.com/healthcare/ci_8971925
Even then, filing a false police report is just a misdemeanor.
What's interesting, that if she did not call the police, but a shelter for domestic violence, what could she be charged with?
False police report is a crime, but only a misdemeanor.
I am not sure calling a shelter alleging abuse even if it's totally false would be a crime.
I personally think there should be laws to make that sort of thing a felony.

[aquart]

28. So we should be blackmailed by threats of suicide like in Waco?

If they are free to rape children, are they not also free to commit mass suicide? A separation of church and state means that the church abides by the laws of the state. Rather than the other fucking way around.

[Android3.14]

32. Half right

Actually it means both the church and the state will abide by the law. All too often in our often stormy relationship with religion we forget the constitution is meant to keep all excesses (conservative, progressive, religious, or secular, etc) in check.

And while Waco should not be a source of blackmail (odd way to frame that), it most certainly should be a cautionary tale.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.