Posted on 04/18/2008 11:39:55 AM PDT by Jenny Hatch
UPDATE: Friday April 18
The "Sixteen year old girl." A hoax???
I am SPITTING mad. Texas authorities better have those children back in their mothers arms by tonight.
"A 33-year-old Colorado Springs woman has been questioned about a telephone call that sparked a raid at the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound in western Texas two weeks ago.
Rozita Swinton was arrested at her home Wednesday night by Colorado Springs police for an incident that occurred in February. Members of the Texas Rangers were also in Colorado Springs as part of their investigation.
"The Texas Rangers were in Colorado Springs (Wednesday) as part of their investigation involving the compound in Texas. They left and have not filed any charges on Rozita Swinton as of this time," said Colorado Springs police spokesman Lt. Skip Arms.
Colorado Springs police said the arrest warrant has been sealed and refused to release any other details, reported Deseret News."
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalfamilyblog.com ...
Everyone’s an armchair constitutional law expert all of the sudden. And inadvertent sit-down comedians...
Well said.
No kidding.
It would be nice to read one of those posts that acknowledged the probable cause.
Texas Penal Code:
Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not his spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, he:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child; or
(2) exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex; and
(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.
Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of a child by any means;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;
(C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
(D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(E) [added 9/1/97] causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.
(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence;
(2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat;
(3) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;
(4) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;
(5) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring;
(6) the actor has intentionally impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the other person's conduct by administering any substance without the other person's knowledge;
(7) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat;
(8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;
(9) [amended 9/1/97] the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the actor; or
(10) [added 9/1/95] the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor.
(2) [amended 9/1/95] “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another.
(3) [added 9/1/97] “Health care services provider” means:
(A) a physician licensed under the Medical Practice Act (Article 4495b, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes);
(B) a chiropractor licensed under Chapter 94, Acts of the 51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1949 (Article 4512b, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes);
(C) a licensed vocational nurse licensed under Chapter 118, Acts of the 52nd Legislature, 1951 (Article 4528c, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes);
(D) a physical therapist licensed under Chapter 836, Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971 (Article 4512e, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes);
(E) a physician assistant licensed under the Physician Assistant Licensing Act (Article 4495b-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes); or
(F) a registered nurse or an advanced practice nurse licensed under Chapter 7, Title 71, Revised Statutes.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the conduct consisted of medical care for the child and did not include any contact between the anus or sexual organ of the child and the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of the actor or a third party.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor was not more than three years older than the victim, and the victim was a child of 14 years of age or older.
(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
Before 9/1/97 (b)(9) provided:
(9) [added 9/1/95] the actor is a mental health services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the actor; or
Before 9/1/95 (c)(2) provided:
(c)(2) “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another, except that persons married to each other are not treated as spouses if they do not reside together or if there is an action pending between them for dissolution of the marriage or for separate maintenance.
Sec. 22.021. AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense:
(1) if the person:
(A) intentionally or knowingly:
(i) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(ii) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(iii) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(B) intentionally or knowingly:
(i) causes the penetration of the anus or female sexual organ of a child by any means;
(ii) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;
(iii) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
(iv) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(v) [added 9/1/97] causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; and
(2) if:
(A) the person:
(i) causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause the death of the victim or another person in the course of the same criminal episode;
(ii) by acts or words places the victim in fear that death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping will be imminently inflicted on any person;
(iii) by acts or words occurring in the presence of the victim threatens to cause the death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping of any person;
(iv) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon in the course of the same criminal episode; or
(v) acts in concert with another who engages in conduct described by Subdivision (1) directed toward the same victim and occurring during the course of the same criminal episode;
(B) the victim is younger than 14 years of age; or
(C) [added 9/1/95] the victim is 65 years of age or older.
(b) In this section, “child” has the meaning assigned that term by Section 22.011(c).
(c) An aggravated sexual assault under this section is without the consent of the other person if the aggravated sexual assault occurs under the same circumstances listed in Section 22.011(b).
(d) The defense provided by Section 22.011(d) applies to this section.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
Sec. 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
(3) bodily injury.
(b) An omission that causes a condition described by Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if:
(1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or
(2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Child” means a person 14 years of age or younger.
(2) “Elderly individual” means a person 65 years of age or older.
(3) “Disabled individual” means a person older than 14 years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease, defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.
(d) The actor has assumed care, custody, or control if he has by act, words, or course of conduct acted so as to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he has accepted responsibility for protection, food, shelter, and medical care for a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a felony of the second degree.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly it shall be a state jail felony.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a) when the person acts with criminal negligence shall be a state jail felony.
(h) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another section of this code may be prosecuted under either or both sections. Section 3.04 does not apply to criminal episodes prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code. If a criminal episode is prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code and sentences are assessed for convictions under both sections, the sentences shall run concurrently.
(i) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) that before the offense the actor:
(1) notified in person the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d); and
(2) notified in writing the parents or person other than himself acting in loco parentis to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual that he would no longer provide any of the care described by Subsection (d); or
(3) [amended 9/1/95] notified in writing the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he would no longer provide any of the care set forth in Subsection (d).
(j) Written notification under Subsection (i)(2) or (i)(3) is not effective unless it contains the name and address of the actor, the name and address of the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual, the type of care provided by the actor, and the date the care was discontinued.
(k)(1) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the act or omission consisted of:
(A) reasonable medical care occurring under the direction of or by a licensed physician; or
(B) emergency medical care administered in good faith and with reasonable care by a person not licensed in the healing arts.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the act or omission was based on treatment in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized religious method of healing with a generally accepted record of efficacy. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a person charged with an act of [or?] omission under this section causing to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) that:
(A) there is no evidence that, on the date prior to the offense charged, the defendant was aware of an incident of injury to the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual and failed to report the incident; and
(B) the person:
(i) was a victim of family violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.01, Family Code, committed by a person who is also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual under this section or any other section of this title;
(ii) did not cause a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3); and
(iii) did not reasonably believe at the time of the omission that an effort to prevent the person also charged with an offense against the child, elderly individual, or disabled individual from committing the offense would have an effect.
Before 9/1/95 (i)(3) provided:
(i)(3) notified in writing the Texas Department of Human Services that he would no longer provide any of the care set forth in Subsection (d).
Washington Post:
"ELDORADO, Texas - The secretive and insular community established near this West Texas town by a radical offshoot of the Mormon Church is considered by the sect's members to be a holy shrine populated by its most fervent adherents and is propped up financially by members of the group living in other states, according to law enforcement officials and former members.
Interviews with law enforcement authorities and former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints depict the Yearning for Zion Ranch, which was raided last week by Texas authorities, as an outpost whose adult residents were considered the sect's elite. They were handpicked by the church's leader, Warren Jeffs, who was convicted last year in Utah of being an accomplice to rape for arranging the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her cousin.
Jeffs dubbed those chosen for the ranch as the "elect" or "heart's core," selected to live in the "holy land," as he called the compound. The adults were his most loyal followers and the young children were the least "contaminated" by the outside world, former church members say. According to court documents, adherents living at the ranch practiced the most extreme tenets of FLDS doctrine, including forcing girls as young as 13 to "spiritually marry" older men for the purpose of bearing their children. (excerpt)
Wow, those pesky facts!
I wonder if our our opposition will address any of the above, particularly,
“10) [added 9/1/95] the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser.”
If you know why, please tell us.
I don't know what it means. That they have poor taste?
Is that what passes for probable cause to seize children from their mothers?
It means they have NOT received an update from the out side world that they are still believing that Jeffs is still the Prophet Click to listen
So is there somekind of mind control going on in there?
Imagine that. That’s probably why they had Jeff’s photo in every room....?
Well said. Perhaps the addressee of the post will come back and answer this........
So file charges against the girl who phoned in a false report and since this is not her first time, push it for all it’s worth.
That being said, since they found evidence of abuse and kids can’t, or won’t, properly ID mom, investigation needs to continue.
If all of this was all because of a crank call and they believe these people's Constitutional rights were violated and they were just a nice, law abiding people, what should we do?
Should all the children be returned and the FLDS church be somehow compensated for their trouble? Should the Texas Rangers who requested the seizure warrant based on what they saw be fired? Should the Rangers who went in to investigate the call be fired for investigating the call?
If all the accusations of this being a trampling of rights is true, what should be done now?
Some really sick stuff going on.
If you look at the complete picture, I would suspect that these Polygamy Girls probably can't read or write or spell and they are completely incapable of fending for themselves outside the Cult Compound. If we believe the reports, they don't even know how old they are or who their parents are. They are taught to distrust everyone and to submit totally to the authority of their Cult leadership. They are in bondage to fear and mistrust.
Did you see those Polygamist women on TV? Where was the humanity in their voices or in their expressions? They were like robots.
Frankly, I think a 35% chance of graduating high school as a foster child would be a 1000% improvement for the lost girls from this baby factory and child molestation mill they call the FLDS Church.
Tell me, would you rather be raised in this clotured environment of brainwashing and fear and welfare fraud with absolutely no chance at all of ever being able to fend for yourself, or raised in a foster home where you at least have a 35% chance of graduating high school and being able to be a productive citizen.
I doubt you’ll get a sensible answer. jmho.
SAN ANGELO — A Houston child psychiatrist testified today in the custody hearing for 416 children from a polygamist sect that the group's sheltered environment makes members more immature than children in the outside world.
Dr. Bruce Perry said the adherence by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to underage marriage and underage sex puts all children at risk.
"I think that young girls — 14, 15, 16 (years) — are not mature enough to consent to a marriage," Perry said, testifying for the state of Texas.
Raised in a highly authoritarian culture, girls grew up believing that marrying early and having multiple children was their only option, Perry said. Boys grew up to perpetuate the abuse. Perry said he found even adults to be much less mature and less capable of making their own decisions.
"We found these children grow up to be 10, but they have the thinking patterns of a much younger child," he said.
As the custody hearing entered its second day, state District Judge Barbara Walther said today's session will conclude by 4 p.m., but she indicated the hearings will continue through at least tomorrow.
Attorneys for the sect's children are challenging the custody actions by questioning whether the state overstepped its bounds in seizing all 416 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch, and not just the teenage girls who allegedly were sexually abused and impregnated by much older husbands.
In what has become the biggest, most convoluted custody battle in state history and perhaps the nation's, attorneys for the children are saying the state failed to use the least intrusive means available to investigate child abuse at the ranch.
"How would an underage marriage affect a 4-year-old?" an attorney representing the mother of a small child had asked Thursday in court.
Attorneys are seizing on the fact that if Child Protective Services investigators have had so much trouble identifying the followers of the church, not to mention how they're all related, can they really establish that anyone was abused?
A supervisor for CPS said Thursday that she learned of five girls who were 16 or younger when they were married to older men, conceived or gave birth.
A girl can marry in Texas at 16 with a parent's consent. Without it, the age is 17.
This case has brought to town hundreds of big-city lawyers volunteering to represent the 416 children. They're pitted against a handful of CPS attorneys, and in the middle of all this courtroom drama sit the 100-or-so mothers in long, flowing pioneer dresses, and some fathers, too.
Even now, two weeks after the raid began, the state may not have anyone's complete identity and is struggling to determine who is related to whom. One woman who initially claimed four children as her own said Wednesday that none belonged to her, Voss said.
The state's effort to keep the children from being returned to the polygamist sect got off to a rocky start Thursday as hundreds of lawyers fought CPS attorneys on every legal point.
CPS officials want the children placed in foster care because they believe all were either sexually or physically abused or were at risk of abuse.
The parents, members of a breakaway Mormon sect, deny any abuse. They want their children back with their families at their community near Eldorado, where they feel safe from the dangers and perceived sins of the outside world.
The lawyers were unable to prevent testimony from the CPS supervising investigator, Angie Voss, who testified that interviews with scores of children over the past two weeks convinced her that underage girls were routinely married off to much older men and sexually abused by them, and that girls as young as 13 had had children.
"My conclusion is that there are children having children, and there is a mindset that it is appropriate and a goal to be reached," Voss said.
It is part of their faith, she said.
"If the prophet hears from the heavenly father that a girl should marry — at any age — that is what she should do," Voss said, referring to the sect's leader, Warren Jeffs, convicted in Utah last year of being an accomplice in the rape of a 14-year-old girl.
Warren Jeffs
He faces additional charges in Arizona of sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy.
Under normal conditions, a child-custody hearing could take no more than an hour to decide.
But once the decision was made to hold a single hearing for all cases involving the children removed from the Yearning for Zion Ranch, the process slowed to a crawl. Lawyers objected to just about anything CPS attorneys wanted to say or introduce as evidence.
The 16-year-old whose call to a family shelter triggered the raid has not been found. Voss said several girls said they knew who she was and one said they had last seen her in a garden several days before the raid.
What do you mean? *Whose next?* What rock have you been living under? They've been going after homeschoolers for decades.
So you're willing to protect the immoral illegal behavior of groups like the FLDS and muslims who wrap their deviant behavior in the cloak of religion to bind the hands of law enforcement?
Sharia law is religious, so is cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning women who have been raped, honor killings, FGM. That's all claimed to be part of their religion.
Child sacrifice has been part of many religions throughout history. Is it protected because it's religious or a crime because it's illegal?
Can I do anything I wish and claim it as part of my religion and tie the hands of the authorities?
If it's religious, it's protected but if it's illegal it needs to be prosecuted. So is it protected or is it illegal? You can't have it both ways.
Too much waterboarding as babies.
But, hey, if *breaking the baby* is part of their religion, who are we to interfere?
Here. Read and learn....
Newly Married Girls in Polygamist Sect Forced to Have Sex in Temple Bed, Court Documents Say
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=175#175
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=207#207
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=218#218
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=220#220
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=252#252
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=253#253
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=286#286
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=288#288
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999328/posts?page=300#300
Informant: Men had sex with underage girls in FLDS temple
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999244/posts?page=29#29
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999244/posts?page=93#93
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN (Interview of ex-FLDS member...male)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003232/posts
My Life in a Polygamist Compound
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2003504/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2003504/posts?page=97#97
“Did you know that this Rozita girl is LDS? It is proported she is a member of the Colorado Springs, East Stake. “
So, there is a logical reason she could have met ‘Sarah’ and conveyed the story to her.
Rozita then repeated this old story, to get attention.?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.