Showing posts with label CSPD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSPD. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

New Year Revolution

The focus of this blog, will be shifting slightly. Really, what more is there to say on the FLDS/YFZ matter? Nothing I can predict. The CSPD connection to the FBI and the call and the caller awaits press interest. To them, it is "timely" or "topical" and as every delay occurs in what might be the oldest misdemeanor case (still being actively pursued) in El Paso County Colorado, they do get MORE interested. It would seem to our "news hounds" (who like sleeping on the porch) that this degree of delay is, interesting. Once more a reporter has feigned some interest in why a woman who is charged with one of the most minor misdemeanors has an attorney who has successfully delayed the charges against her from 2008 to 2010. How do you plea bargain nearly nothing to anything but nothing? But they're going to wait until it happens.

The shift will be towards legalization, and to that end, I may fold up and throw away the "Vermont Polygamy" blog, and merge it into this one. Two major story lines were a bit much to ask of one blog, but now it seems I have only one major story line, and it isn't our friends in the American Southwest. Does this mean I am abandoning them? No. But there's not much to tell really.

The FLDS trial story goes like this: They did it. DNA proves it. Americans are afraid of/hate polygamists as it strikes at the core of their egalitarian ideal. They want it to be about abuse, sexual deviancy, repression and perversion. They want it mostly to be "icky." So the state of Texas proves paternity with DNA, ogles mutually with the jury the age difference, the inequity and the excess they perceive in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint practice of polygamy, they leer at young bodies pawed over by older men, and the larger the age difference, the longer the sentence. The trial and the sentencing are supposed to be about legal pedophilia which is really statutory rape, but they turn into disaffected former member rants about religion and female/male roles and polygamy. The horrified voyeuristic jury goes out to deliberate, and wishes only they had the option to kill the defendants. It's not going to change, it isn't going to get any better.

For their part, the FLDS seem to be running up trial balloons of potential defenses and lining the court record with book marks to be used later in appeal. I feel bad for every FLDS male caught up in this mess. A failure to reverse the verdicts on appeal will result in Allan Keate dying in jail. Your Modern Pharisee loathes prisons, and has a Biblical reason for that loathing. In my experience, prison is an ungodly punishment (never being ordered by the scriptures), it is dehumanizing to guard and guarded alike, and The Bible recoils in horror from the concept of prisons, equating them to hell itself.

The biggest stories coming down the pike are whether or not Rozita will be delayed again, what will happen with Allen Steed, what will the new wrinkle be in the Michael Emack trial, how will the evidence challenge go in February for Warren Jeffs? Judge Conn is a real Judge, perhaps a tad too liberal for my tastes, but he's not a cartoon judge like Barbara Walther. He writes well, he is honest, almost admitting the court lost something or lost track of it in his last ruling. He is disdainful of tricks such as Arizona acting as a proxy for Texas, and claiming that they "don't foresee using YFZ evidence."

So I'm on to legalization. Oddly, it is fellow polygynists who are some of my worst enemies in this regard. A conversation recently with an unnamed member of the FLDS yielded a rather startling insight, provided I understood that member correctly. They don't WANT it to be legal, they want an exception for religious reasons, which may ultimately explain some of the legal maneuvering, or lack thereof. If I understood it correctly, they'd just as soon it stayed against the law, but that the law recognize that those who practice it for religious reasons be given a pass.

It makes a sort of odd sense. Honestly, I don't see how you can BE a Latter Day Saint of any stripe, and not embrace the "principle." The most disturbing fact about the FLDS to the LDS is, that the FLDS are more faithful to the teachings of Joseph Smith than the LDS are, and the LDS are very uncomfortable with them for that reason. For the FLDS, if I am hearing it correctly, they don't see any reason to defend the practice among those who are not FLDS. It should be for religious reasons ONLY, and as with all credible religions, the FLDS see themselves as the "true" religion. I don't see why that should surprise us. They're not going away. Attempts to make the FLDS conform to standards that society sees as "good and moral and righteous" won't work. It's wrong in the first place (unconstitutional) and fundamentalists don't change. This is something theological liberals, agnostics and atheists don't get.

On my side of the street, among Christians (sorry Saints), there is a militant desire to not only practice polygamy, but to have it be a private contract. There's more hope here than with the above mentioned FLDS/LDS offshoot point of view. Most non Mormon Christian polygynists want to run the clock back about 100 years, and simply have marriages be an agreement between private parties with the state playing no role at all in who thinks who is married to whom. That's a pipe dream.

As we watch the most massive expansion of Federal Government in our history, we have to be honest. Obama Care is going to want to know everything about you. Register you as married, not married, living together, match DNA on everyone, parent and child, license who can have children and so on. Oh yes, that is coming. So if anything there will be more and more demanding interest in your family situation than before. When there was no national health care, maybe you could have gone for private civil contract as marriage. It was dicey because of the income tax system. After the Obamanation of Nationalized Health Care, you can forget that noise.

A national health care system will want to "save money" by tracking genetic diseases. They will establish paternity at some point regardless of what you want them to do. Just like at YFZ that will be used to prosecute some "crime," which if nothing else right now, is polygyny itself. Those of you who want to keep marriage off the books, you've lost that battle. I'm sorry. I sympathize and would have preferred that myself.

Here's why you should LEGALIZE polygyny. For the near future, you don't have to actually take advantage of the legal registration of your marriage, but the fact that it is legal, will take the heat off you. There is a creepy FBI connection that keeps getting larger in the YFZ case, particularly if some connections are solidified with the prank caller. The FBI seems to be in love with sex crimes these days, looking for creepy stalkers, old men and pedophiles. Whether right or wrong, they're looking to score in that regard. There are only two degrees of separation between FBI task forces on sex stings, and Rozita Swinton. They seem to be looking in on every high profile case of sexual abuse they can find:
ABC News - "Government documents released today show that the FBI assisted Santa Barbara, Calif., officials in their attempt to get cooperation from a person who could have been a key witness in the 2005 case child molestation case against Michael Jackson: the boy who accused the pop star of molesting him in 1993."
Freedom of information act requests were filed apparently, before Michael was cold, and now we know the FBI was up to their necks chasing down Mr. Jackson. It seems they are looking through every peephole.

Don't take it the wrong way, I'm hardly defending the Gloved One. It's just interesting to see what the FBI is, um, interested in. The only way to make them disinterested is to legalize polygamy, then they have no reason to peer through the keyhole of a man living in a house with five women. Right now, they have. Tony Alamo and Michael Jackson and the FLDS tell us they're going to keep right on doing it.

If you are a "private practitioner" of polygyny, let me warn you about what happened in Texas and how it affects you. When you are investigated for whatever crime you are investigated, bigamy and polygamy will be on the menu. You may try the strategy that FLDS men did. It won't work. What happened in Texas was Child Protective Services simply threatened to terminate parental rights. "Ok," you say, "My wife is a GOOD woman, and it won't matter if the state sees me as a father or not, my wife will stay loyal." Then she will be charged with something. Contempt of court for not testifying, bigamy herself, and so on. Now we have a mom in jail, a non Dad, and an abandoned child. It worked it Texas, and it will work with you, and it's now in the FBI playbook. They'll pass it along to each local jurisdiction and repeat as often as necessary.

Don't forget Project Megiddo. I'm sure the FBI hasn't. I see them acting on that template even today. They see religious polygynists as essentially breeding grounds for right wing terrorism, and frankly, the rhetoric I have been treated to by some of my brethren makes me wonder if they're not right about that. I can see some of my acquaintances holed up like Freemen in Jordan quite easily. I KNEW Randy Weaver, and liked the guy, he's not what you think he is, but he is just a tad too militant. He made himself a target, so did "Freeman" leader LeRoy Schweitzer, who is in maximum security prison until 2018. Fighting the "man" may be a romantic notion, but you usually fight the law, and the law wins. If you want to be a modern day John Brown, knock yourself out. A married man is to be concerned with pleasing his wife. Getting thrown in jail for idealistic reasons, isn't attending to that duty.

So it must be legalized. To that end I have ramped up rather unexpectedly my quarrel with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and I'm making an appeal. FIND SOMEBODY to champion the cause. I've offered myself several times. I'm going to be living in a home with four legislators in it, and I'm in walking distance of the Capitol in Vermont. I'm a registered lobbyist FOR the cause in the state of Vermont. I could register in New Hampshire, and very soon, Washington DC will be a tempting target for legalization, having merely to clear the hurdle of congressional review for their own "Gay Marriage" law. I could devote full time to this pursuit and could easily spend $100,000.00 just running around between legislatures in various states and pigeon holing various legislators. I've collected less than $100.00 and am only registered in the State of Vermont to lobby. You can look here at what attending only one "event" entails.

Make up your minds out there, because I have no need of self styled John Browns and unlike the FLDS who I will continue to champion, I'm not just doing this, for them. Unless they can manufacture some ecumenical love for legalization, ultimately, they're just today's "cause célèbre" and there will be others. The moving finger will write and move on past them.

I have the distinct feeling that a long "fish or cut bait" moment is rapidly approaching in my life. It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then. I can guess that I will go underground, debating it for the record within the church, or I will be cast out of that church altogether. Frankly, I will be content to go underground and leave the battle to others. For the near future though, it's legalization, to some degree the internal church debate, and regular seasoning of FLDS information, as it hits the fan.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

A fundamental reason Rozita's trial is being delayed.

There is supposed to be, this deposition.
A deposition that NO ONE on the defense side of the FLDS equation, knew about.

Well, they do now.

Thanks to a poster on the other side (everyone's good for something you know), It dawned on me. I've been saying that Rozita's relationship with Maggie Santos and her "partner," wasn't on the record.

Well, actually it was, in this "deposition."

As soon as the trial starts, don't those things come out? In the process of defending his client, David Foley would point out the relationship of Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton (and Maggie's partner) and who knows who else.

So the trial is delayed, and delayed, and delayed, and delayed.

I'd say that's pretty plausible, because once the trial starts, it's now on the record, for everyone. That's why the FLDS trials in Texas have to start, before Rozita is tried. Sounds plausible. Doesn't it?

If the plausible is the actual, there are a lot more people involved in covering this up because you don't delay trials for the reasons given about, without someone's participation and/or appreciation and/or request and/or a quid pro quo.

Sorry Rozita, if I'm right, I just took away a trump card. I hope you have others. Like maybe someone asked you to call.

If all of the above is TRUE. Texas probably knows about the deposition, and has withheld that knowledge, from the defense.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Did Rozita Have a Night Job? (UPDATED)

If someone is conducting an internet sting for sex crimes against children. Do they not need a little girl imitator?
Rocky Mountain Women in Law Enforcement - "Sgt. Maggie Santos has been with the Colorado Springs Police Department for 15 years. Before joining the CSPD, Maggie was a teacher for a few years and decided that policing was where she really wanted to be. She joined the department in 1992 and spent time working midnights on patrol, joined the Neighborhood Policing Unit, and spent time as a School Resource Officer. Maggie has also served the department with her bilingual skills as she is fluent in Spanish. Maggie was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 2000 and after a couple of years as a patrol supervisor, moved to the Major Crimes Section, in charge of the Sex Crimes, Crimes Against Children Unit. As part of her current position there, she supervises an Internet Crimes Against Children team which has been responsible for several high profile internet based sex offender arrests.

Maggie is currently working toward promoting to Lieutenant. Maggie was also one of the original members of the RMWLE Conference team, serving since our project begin back in 2002. Maggie serves as a Board Member and during our conferences is known as the 'AV Guru' knowing how to save the rest of us from our electronic stupidity. We are thankful!

When she is not toting her gun or fixing a digital projector, Maggie has two kids to keep her busy and spends time quilting, reading and mastering video games. Thanks Maggie!"
We've seen these stings on TV. They usually have someone pretending to be....

A little girl....
Colorado Springs Gazette - "Police in Mesa and Jefferson counties who posed as underage girls in Internet chat rooms say Sgt. Gregory A. Sallee attempted to arrange sexual encounters." Sept, 2007.
Nov, 2007:
The Gazette - "Cañon City (in neighboring Fremont County) police have arrested a California man in an Internet sex predator sting — the department’s 13th such arrest this year.

Police arrested Carl Michael Pfaff, 50, of Oxnard, Calif., on Friday after he traveled to Cañon City intending to have sex with an underage female. He was actually communicating online with an undercover police officer, police said."
Also in November 2007:
The Gazette - "Fremont County authorities have arrested a 52-year-old Denver man who they believe drove to Cañon City to have sex with a young girl.

Jeffrey A. Tensly was arrested Tuesday at a Cañon City convenience store on suspicion of criminal solicitation, sexual assault on a child and unlawful sexual contact, Cañon City Police Department Capt. Allen Cooper said."
August, 2005:
The Gazette - "Sgt. 1st Class Andre Ventura McDaniel, 40, shot himself in September 2004 after he was arrested in an Internet sting after allegedly trying to arrange sex with a teenage girl."
And from April of 2007:
The Gazette - "It was just one chapter Friday in what was one of the most hectic days for the department in recent memory.

On top of a carjacking that ended with two arrests after a 90-mph chase that included shots fired at sheriff’s deputies, police dealt with drug busts, robberies and a 34-year old man arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to try to arrange a sexual encounter with a 13-year-old."
Sept, 2007:
The Rocky Mountain News - "A correctional officer at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in Ordway has been arrested on suspicion of attempted sexual exploitation of a child.

Richard Jefferson Harris, 52, of Pueblo, is accused of contacting someone in an Internet chat room whom he believed to be under 15 — actually, an undercover district attorney's investigator — and allegedly solicited sexually explicit photographs.

He also attempted to arrange a meeting, said Pam Russell of the Jefferson County district attorney's office."
January 2008:
NBC "News First" 5 - "New developments regarding a News First Investigation we showed you over the Summer of 2007. It deals with some of the most disturbing criminal behavior our local officers have to deal with -- sex crimes against children.

Despite all the high profile crackdowns on internet predators, men continue traveling to the Front Range to try to have sex with young kids.

News First was granted exclusive access to what's arguably one of the most prolific Internet Crimes Against Children units in our state, at the Cañon City Police Department. It's one of Colorado's smallest police departments, and the officer who cruises the internet looking for predators only works that part of the job part-time. However, they still manage to capture, or assist other agencies in capturing, at least 1 suspected sex offender a month. Two of the units high profile captures that happened in Cañon City and include a Texas Constable and a Quiznos executive."
So, no one ever told me what Sex Crimes Unit Sgt. Sean Mandel was doing, on "detached duty" to the FBI.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Rozita, David Foley, Maggie Santos and Surprising things left unsaid.

Rozita's attorney David Foley has been confident from the beginning, boldly swaggering and making public statements, accurately predicting the future, and then, saying nothing more. Listen to what he said, one week after Rozita was arrested:
The San Antonio Express-News - "Texas Rangers accompanied Colorado Springs police officers last week when they searched Swinton's apartment, where they found items indicating a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding the Eldorado compound. Swinton, who works for an insurance office, is free on $10,000 bond. Her attorney, David Foley of Colorado Springs, said he could not discuss the allegations.

'There's a lot more to this than the public is getting. I think people would be surprised. Stay tuned,' Foley said.

Her initial court appearance is set for May 1, but Foley said he expects the case will be rescheduled."
Not only did someone probably pay cash for Rozita's bond (I checked) but David Foley is ALREADY saying the case will be delayed (has it ever been) and publicly trumpeting in the press that they should "stay tuned" because he thought "people would be surprised."

He's said exactly zero after that. You can't catch David Foley. He's casually skipped court dates and had arrest warrants sworn out for his client that were later dropped, his client has traveled the country after being listed as a flight risk in the warrant (probably routine, I grant you), she has received expensive psychiatric care out of state and she has skipped in and out of the court confidently, right under the noses of the press with last minute changes in venue.

You'd think she was a rich celebrity client.

She's not. She's a simple misdemeanor defendant.

So David Foley was right, his client did get a delay, and a delay and a delay and a delay and who knows how many other delays.

Why DO you go out and say that you've got surprising things to say and then not say them and then get everything you want?

Could it be because you've got surprising things to say, and you're not saying them?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, September 25, 2009

Revisiting Sean Mandel

Back in January, I may have been wrong. That happens.
That's may have been wrong, but not very. On January 21st I reported to you that I had contacted Sean Mandel of the CSPD and discovered that he had NOT been contacted by Texas, rather he had been contacted by an FBI agent he was working with on detached duty in April of the preceding year. That would be the month that the YFZ raid occurred and Rozita was apprehended.

In view of what has been discovered in the last several days, I'm forced to say this might not have been "first contact." This was indeed a "back channel" that I discovered, a sort of "carrier pigeon" network instead of the normal channel, but who contacted whom first? I have always assumed that I stumbled upon the first communication between CSPD and Texas and the FBI, but it may have been one in a long series of contacts, designed to stay OFF THE RECORD.

One of the things CSPD's IA needs to ask, and look for is who contacted who first? Was it "Beta" (Maggie's "longtime companion") or was it Maggie or did some other member of CSPD call TEXAS first and say "I think we know your caller?" The precise mechanism of the first contact between the FBI, the Texas Rangers, Sherri f David Doran and CSPD must be known. WHO called WHOM first and WHEN?

What if Maggie did the RIGHT THING and called before the kids were carted away? Before the raid took place?

PS: I'm apparently "Stalking" Rozita, assuming of course that this blogger is Rozita. It has always seemed to be her. The graphic is funny. (In case you're wondering, the smallest print says ("BTW, you're out of milk.")
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, September 24, 2009

More on the relationship of Lt. Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton

When someone doesn't tell you the truth, or at least, when they skirt around it, and you check their story, you keeping sitting up straight in your chair and having those insight moments. Here's another insight:
From the April 2008 arrest warrant of Rozita Swinton.
"On February 14, 2007, Sergeant Magdalena Santos (980D) was contacted by Jenna Hamilton from the Cocoon House located in the state of Washington. Ms. Hamilton stated she was concerned for the welfare of a 14-year-old she was talking to identified as 'April' from Colorado Springs, Colorado, who had been calling her since September 2006. Ms. Hamilton advised 'April' would call several times a week reporting sexual abuse by her father and uncle. She advised 'April' had told her she was staying at the TESSA safe house with her mother (at) the end of 2006. Ms. Hamilton stated 'April' told her she was a student at Rampart High School. Ms. Hamilton stated she had spoken with counselor Catherine DiNuzzo at the school in reference to 'April.' Ms. Hamilton advised 'April' had called from 719-447-7981 and 719-217-7329."
Since we now know it was "common knowledge" around CSPD that Lt. Maggie Santos knew Rozita Swinton, we can assume that Maggie was familiar with her cases. At least, she was familiar with the February 2007 call from Jenna Hamilton. She TOOK the 2007 call from Jenna Hamiliton. She KNOWS Rozita has "exported" her talents after her Douglas county guilty plea on similar charges where Rozita received a deferred sentence.

So, are we to believe that in view of Maggie's familiarity with this particular case of a young teen girl complaining of sexual abuse to a shelter in Washington State, from old friend Rozita, that Maggie turns on the tube, Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and during the first part of April 2008, watches the unfolding drama (along with her friend "Beta") and doesn't say "Oh CRAP...ROZITA?" Don't they have an IMMEDIATE responsibility to call and say "WHAT NUMBER IS YOUR CALLER CALLING FROM?" The story was so plastered all over the news that it was like it was happening in their back yard. And really, it was, because in February, the month before Rozita began calling Texas:
Newsweek - "This past February (2008), according to an arrest-warrant affidavit against Swinton, Colorado Springs police responded to two 911 calls from someone claiming to be Jennifer, a 4-year-old abused girl locked in a basement. By tracking the calls, cops narrowed the location to a two-block radius and then searched the area house by house for a trapped little girl. Swinton 'basically shut down a whole police division,' says Thrumston. The girl was never found. (In between calls, Swinton also found time to get elected as a state delegate for (then Sen.) Barack Obama in the Colorado Democratic caucuses.)"


Toes also says that if IA doesn't look at Rozita's and Maggies (and Beta's) phone numbers, they're not trying.

Don't tell me they didn't think of it. They are detectives. What do they do? They DETECT.
Last updated 7:22am EDT 09/25/09
More →

Sphere: Related Content

CSPD Internal Affairs, Lt. Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton

I had two conversations with Colorado Springs' Police Department's "Internal Affairs" division today.
The first was grossly unsuccessful. The listed contact for CSPD's "IA" is a Lt. Kirk Wilson, and it should be noted that while Lt. Wilson was with CSPD in April of 2008, he was not in "IA."

When I called, about 9am their time, a woman answered the phone and indicated that Lt. Wilson was "in training" this morning and was unavailable. I left my phone number and name and asked that he get back to me. Within the hour I had a call back from a male member of CSPD, presumably in IA named Sgt. Lux. The conversation with Sgt. Lux could be best described as initially cordial, then cold, and then verbal warfare. At no time during the conversation would I describe Sgt. Lux as being helpful.

The gist of the conversation from my point of view was, that if I brought evidence, signed sealed and delivered of impropriety on the part of a CSPD officer, they would look into it. Specific times, specific places, specific persons and specific crimes. I was verbally harassed at several turns in the conversation and it descended into an exchange that I could best compare to a traffic stop where I was the driver being asked to quickly produce my License, Insurance and Registration.

In calling CSPD's IA, I had little expectation of real result. Lt. Maggie Santos had directed me to call IA and so I did. In general I expected the most positive outcome to be that IA had investigated Lt. Santos, and had cleared her. That would be a positive result in terms of information. I also have no desire that Lt. Santos be involved in anything improper. That would be sad and would possibly destroy lives. I have no desire for such an outcome, but Lt. Santos has brought this on herself, by being less than forthcoming.

If there was an ongoing IA investigation, I would not expect IA to tell me, one way or the other, and as far as I know, there is an investigation. I think that is unlikely, but it's possible.

The conversation with Sgt. Lux was fruitless with me yelling at him in the end that he was obstructing, and being obtuse and wasting my time. He repeated questions and belittled saying I was unprepared for the call and didn't know what I was alleging. Right Sgt. Lux. I was unprepared, I don't know what I am alleging. This is all new to me. I eventually found part of the information he asked about, having no way to know in advance what CSPD's IA would want to know or use as documentation, and I gave it to him. Like I said, after that I ended up yelling at Sgt. Lux. It was an infuriating conversation.

So I went to Costco. Did some shopping, drove back, and called the number I had to pry out of Sgt. Lux for CSPD's records division in the hope that I get access to Becky Hoerth's deposition that almost certainly had to spring out of the April 2008 arrest warrant of Rozita Swinton.

And got interrupted.

By a call.

From Lt. Kirk Wilson.

Lt. Wilson said he had a "number on his phone" and was calling back, he also said he had an email about the conversation Sgt. Lux and I had from Sgt. Lux. The tone of our conversation was considerably different. Whereas the one that took place between myself and Sgt. Lux could be best characterized as Sgt. Lux telling me "What do you want US to do about it?" and me eventually becoming angry, Lt. Wilson wanted to know what I had called about, and made an effort to fit it into a form Internal Affairs could deal with.

Eventually I was able to clarify who it was that I was suggesting there be an investigation concerning and why it was important. Essentially it boiled down to "This is the largest child custody case in US History, Lt. Santos has not been forthcoming, it needs to be investigated for even the smallest appearance of impropriety and then those appearances pursued until resolution." It was not hard once the case was laid out to convince Lt. Wilson that this was important.

I would say there has NOT been a case opened with regard to Rozita at any time by IA involving Rozita and either Lt. Santos and her "friend" in the department, with whom she lives, the female officer I refer to as "Beta." Had there been, Lt. Santos would have been better prepared when I called on the 21st. She wasn't. Lt. Wilson would have been carrying out a case of faked ignorance as to some of the details, that should have him acting out his job, not doing it, in Hollywood, for bigger bucks. I'm going to call this as the first formal investigation into the matter. I of course, cannot predict the outcome.

One of the things that I told Lt. Wilson I would quote him on was his statement that it was "common knowledge" that Rozita and Lt. Maggie Santos had a "relationship" around CSPD, as an internal matter. For this to be true, contact with Maggie and Rozita simply had to be of a relatively contemporary nature. The obvious familiarity and "common knowledge" in the department (which included Lt. Wilson knowing at the time of Rozita's arrest) means that it wasn't a 15 year old relationship. I'm sorry. Rozita has gained weight, changed in appearance, and was arrested initially under a different name. Maggie, in addition had fielded a call in February of 2007 from Washington state regarding Rozita and if her memory had faded, it certainly had been recently refreshed, and a little over a year later, here they were again. Similar problem. False reporting across state lines.

After telling Lt. Wilson I intended to publish his statement, he hung a few believable qualifiers on it. By "common knowledge" he did not mean "EVERYBODY at CSPD knew." He offered that of course, he knew, but that didn't mean everybody, but indeed quite a few people at CSPD that were around for the arrest, did know.

He also did not mean that the quality or nature of the relationship was known for anything other than "they knew each other." In other words that's all that there might have been to the association. They knew each other. That makes sense to some degree for an officer that is the CSPD sex crimes unit and a frequent false reporter that used to be your kid's nanny. Except this was not acknowledged to me by Maggie, so that further erodes her credibility.

Basically it is evident to me so far that Lt. Wilson is being truthful with me (this could change) and at least initially intended to investigate the charge. The fact that a good number of CSPD officers knew of the familiarity of Santos and Swinton says that Lt. Santos blew smoke my direction.

At one point Lt. Wilson wondered aloud why I would want to push the issue and I explained. This is the largest child custody case in US History. Hoerth, Swinton, Santos and "Beta" are almost certainly all lesbians that at one time, hung out together. That makes their relationships anything from romantic to professional and inappropriate. If it was "common knowledge" at CSPD that Rozita and Maggie had a "relationship," then why has that fact NEVER come to light in the reporting of the story?

IA has opened a case or initial investigation, they will be getting back to me.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Latest Rozita Revelation started with this: Was she a NARC?

The latest Round of Rozita Revelations started with my friend "Toes," after one of our brain storming sessions. I updated a speculative post that was primarily written to tweak press interest which is typically pointed in other directions:
March 30, 2009 - "The owner of the MySpace page has made a convincing presentation that she is not a close friend of Rozita, but a passing acquaintance. For that reason I am at least for now, removing references to her home page and her name. What is odd is that this paints a portrait of a young woman trapped in the idea that she is still in High School, and hanging out with High School students in Colorado Springs, pretending to be one of them.

It has been suggested to me by a friend that this is what a 'NARC' does. It's a totally wild speculation, but could it be that Rozita was such a person, employed by law enforcement to befriend High School students, as if she was one herself?

Right now, I caution, that's just wild speculation, under the heading of "What if?' "
Trying to follow Rozita has always been very difficult. Her associations, aside from that claimed by former foster mother & GLBT rights advocate Mary Catharine Nelson, and a probable foster parent in Idaho have always been glancing at best. Rozita often claims strong ties by implications or actions with persons whose memory of her is fleeting. Either that or their memory of her is strong and they view her now as radioactive and lie about it.

The above quote is an edit from the original speculative post which was based on the fact that one of Rozita's two known "My Space" accounts was claiming to be moving, and the other was claiming to live in Ontario. As a now "put off" trial date approached, it seemed as if Rozita was saying she was leaving the country. The flurry of associations around Rozita led to a woman now no longer in Colorado Springs (or the west for that matter) that seemed to know Rozita well, based on what Rozita was saying about her. According to that woman, who I still believe, or at least want to believe, she barely remembers Rozita.

I believe her because of what she insisted was true about Rozita. That she was part of another group of High School students that hung out at the same bowling allies. She saw her, heard her name, and knew of her, but associated her with that "other High School" group. Why does one woman remember another woman she doesn't know in another group of High School students? The most credible reason is that the woman I mention that gave me this information is a lesbian. Rozita would seem to be one herself, and hung out with a group of lesbians in that time frame, in Colorado. Perhaps this unnamed person found Rozita attractive, at any rate, she remembered Rozita, but didn't really know her and claimed she was on the periphery of her activities.

This is what my tipster saw. The tipster has inside information that I have verified first hand. The tipster began to search the internet for terms like "Rozita" and "NARC" and found me. The tipster was concerned and increasingly agitated about the free pass Rozita was getting and claimed to know why.

Why?

Because "Tipper" alleged that Rozita was employed by Lt. Magdalena (Maggie) Santos of CSPD and her lesbian life partner who also works closely with Maggie at CSPD. Lesbians. Again.

I verified that the two individuals DO in fact work for CSPD. They are often mentioned together in CSPD and association literature. They own or recently owned a home together in in the Colorado Springs area and the other woman whom I've called "Beta" has been "outed" as a lesbian, by name. It makes sense to assume that she and Maggie are a "couple."



So on Saturday, I got an email from "Tipper."
"The interesting part about this is that during the interview of Becky Hoerth at Colorado Springs Police Department she stated she meet Rozita through friends Maggie Santos and **** ****(Beta) these two individuals are both Sargent's with CSPD who happens to be a Lesbian couple.. Rozita use to be there nanny! Very Interesting, right? For someone who claims to be LDS is surrounded by lesbians does not make sense. I was also told that Maggie Santos has a hand in the investigation with Terry Thurmston who is also a female. Does this not seem odd? Why would you not remove yourself from a case when you have a relationship with the individual involved? It's all shady to me but what do I know."
A subsequent interview with Maggie, which led off with me asking for "Rozita" after calling Maggie on her cell phone had Maggie immediately claiming that the relationship was 20 years old (Rozita was 14 and in Nashville TN). I discounted that as unlikely (frankly nearly impossible) and Maggie retrenched at 1995 being the date, after being confronted with the date of 1997. Maggie's recollections were alternately wrong, vague or specific based on what served her best. For that reason I do not believe Maggie. She has changed her story and Tipper has not. Maggie would not clarify and promised to swear out a criminal complaint if I contacted her again. All of this started in very friendly fashion but in less than 12 hours descended into threats and claims that I was "blackmailing" her. I would not publish her name until after she refused to clarify and after she cut off communication and after her story was called into question. I had kept her name out of the story because it would be wrong to name her if she just had a passing relationship with Rozita once. It now seems it was not a passing relationship. Back to Tipper, paraphrased and redacted ever so slightly so as to hide Tipper's identity:
"Page 1/50 of the discovery under Becky Hoerth Statement says:
'Ms. Hoerth stated she met Rozita in 1997 through a mutual friend at the Colorado Springs YMCA. She stated at the time Rozita was doing day care for Maggie Santos and **** ****(Beta). She stated the two of them have been friends and that Rozita has helped her out when ever she needs it. She stated she had just recently moved back from Wisconsin and due to financial reasons is staying with Rozita."
This cannot be disputed as it is in the discovery."
I stress that this document simply exists, or does not. "Beta" and Maggie are close enough to the situation to verify this, but Maggie will not. CSPD or El Paso/Douglas County officials can verify it too. I'm either wrong, or right about the existence of this statement, which is worded almost exactly as I have presented it above. There is even a page reference. Back to Tipper:
"Some of (Maggie's) statements to you are incorrect also; such as (Rozita) worked for her longer. (It was hoped that) if either one of them spoke with you that they would be honest this. My concern (is that Maggie) is hiding something. One of the problems is it's affecting the case against Rozita (for Rozita's benefit) since Maggie didn't recuse herself 3yrs ago. The only reason she pulled out was because Becky outed her and Beta in her statement so she was forced to pull out."
Again, this is ever so slightly redacted and paraphrased for the purposes of concealing Tipper's identity.

Since nothing Tipper has said to me has been contradicted by the facts and Maggie has already owned up to getting one critical detail wrong, I'm going with Tipper for now. Tipper has not had to retract one bit of the story so far. Much of it has been independently verified.

So when did Rozita start getting into trouble with the law on phony tips?
"ABC News - Colorado Springs police said Rozita Swinton had made calls in February (2008) in which she pretended to be a girl locked in a basement, claiming abuse and calling authorities for help. Swinton has a record for making similar calls in 2005."
2005? That fits with "3 years ago" when it is said that Maggie was forced out of the case, forced to recuse, as opposed to doing so voluntarily. If this is the case it would call entirely into question everything that Maggie said, such as details like not knowing what part of the south Rozita came from (Tennessee) or unverifiable (at this time) details like exactly when and how long Rozita worked for Maggie, or that Maggie and Beta both employed Rozita together.

So how do we speculate at this point?

Was Rozita at one time, "locked in" Maggie's basement? This is a fair question to ask. Unlikely, but nonetheless fair. As I have said to Maggie and many others, lies tend to contain elements of the truth. I would guess from what Rozita said, she'd been locked up somewhere once, by somebody and it really bothered her. Not exactly a surprise.

Was Ms. Swinton's relationship with either Beta or Maggie ever sexual? If a male police officer had a long ongoing relationship with a female suspect in and out of trouble with the law that required rescuing, it had better be a relative, or the department will eventually ask "are you doing her?"

Was Ms. Swinton a snitch? A confidential informant? A "Narc?" Stories from one of my other sources (now unnamed) says she may well have been. At the time she was in Colorado, she was in her 20's and apparently was viewed as another High School student and "hung out" with them.

Was Ms. Swinton a convenient warrant factory? Can't get into some residence? Need help? Maggie has a nanny that can fake an abused kid's voice and you're in the door, no problem! Rozita at 33 convincingly passed herself off as 15. To several people.

These last two speculations gains more weight when viewed with how quickly CSPD was said initially, to have ID'd her. Texas calls. There was a lot of back channel chatter off the record as well. We were asked to believe that they said "Oh yeah, those are Rozita's numbers." If most lies do indeed contain an element of truth, what if CSPD really knew who Rozita was by the phone numbers she used? Texas calls. "No problem, we know that gal."


Some other questions that need answering are among others, is there some sort of accessible database on which Rozita and her number were already published. We know that since 9/11 there has been an effort to coordinate and consolidate information between various law enforcement agencies. Would it be possible for the FBI in Texas for instance to type in Rozita's number and it comes back with "PAID SNITCH, ROZITA SWINTON - CSPD?"


Would you type in the number and it says "NUMBER IN CASE IN COLORADO SPRINGS, PERP ROZITA SWINTON?" This was the goal post 9/11. Is that possible in this case and if so, was it done?


More "out there" but deserving of consideration as well is the idea that someone was calling around looking for a decent actress to play a part. Does this lead to Maggie and "Beta's" warrant machine Rozita? Does someone need to be checking into cases investigated by Maggie and her department for the veracity of the information or informants used in gaining warrants in Colorado Springs?


I've fed all this information to the press and their reaction? Meh. As a matter of fact, I mentioned on Brooke Adams blog at the SLTrib that there was a relationship between Maggie and Rozita. Her reaction? She didn't publish it. I didn't link, as I recall. I did not characterize the relationship with anything other than that which Maggie has willingly confirmed to me personally. Brooke comes on today, makes a comment herself, but won't publish that cold hard simple fact.

Why?

PS: As of this post I am making it official. If you post at this blog, you're going to have to make sense. Ranting this and ranting that and blindly ignoring evidence will only get you published here if it is a great example of how idiotic you are. Other than that, you're going to get rejected. Jam's last post is not published, but not because it was stupid. It was not published for reasons Jam knows.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 21, 2009

UPDATED (again): Rozita. Source says: Lt Maggie Santos untruthful.

Since nothing essentially, that my source has told me, has been refuted, I will publish the source's response to Lt. Maggie Santos.
"Some of 'Alpha's' statements to you are incorrect. Rozita worked for her longer. I am concerned Alpha and Beta are hiding something. The problems is it is affecting the case against Rozita in ROZITA's FAVOR. Alpha DID NOT RECUSE 3 yrs ago. Alpha pulled out was because Becky Hoerth outed Alpha and Beta so they were forced to pull out." (this is a paraphrase)
This is getting VERY interesting.

Alpha is CSPD Lieutenant Maggie Santos.

Maggie's rebuttal to this information is the following:
"I have nothing to add, feel free to pull CSPD reports. If your source has a complaint they are welcome to file a complaint with IA (internal affairs)."
And:
"If your source has more information ask her."
Please note that I have not identified the gender of my source, nor will I be tricked into doing so now. I have disclosed nothing to Maggie about the identity of my source:
"Smells like blackmail."
Lt. Santos has had every opportunity to clarify and refuses to do so. I cannot evaluate the truthfulness, ultimately, of either party, but more of what my source has said, checks out, as opposed to that which Maggie has said. I note that Maggie was truthful that Rozita was her Nanny, but her explanation of time frames stretches credulity to the breaking point.

An invitation to file a complaint with internal affairs is an invitation to go public. I would greatly prefer to have Maggie's greater insight into this matter, but she does not give it.

The Modern Pharisee does not take the position that Maggie is untruthful. The Modern Pharisee does not take the position that the source I employ is truthful. I present both sides and point out that so far, more of what the source has said, checks out.

Maggie also says she will change her cell phone number tomorrow, which means that she no longer wishes to comment. Her last communication to me by email:
"I am requesting you not contact me again, by phone, email or in any other format. As I explained to you on the text, at this point any information you want should be done through CSPD. I have notified my chain of command that you are becoming creepy and I am concerned about the safety of my children (whom you are now bringing up). You have access to my personal cell, email and may have access to my address. Any further communication I will consider harassment and I will also consider filing this criminally."
This is what is known as a "non-denial denial."

I got Maggie's phone through a publication where she published that phone number. I got her email the same way. I have published neither. I believe that I have her address but I am not interested in revealing it. I will not do so. She has requested that I no longer communicate with her, and I will not. I asked her to clear up the time frames, and she would not. None of my communications will show that I have even hinted at revealing anything but her name. I will also point out that I have NOT identified "Beta."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Update on Rozita, she did work as a nanny for CSPD officers

She did indeed perform services as a "Nanny" in the rough time frame of 1995-1997, perhaps earlier for employees of the Colorado Springs Police Department.


I spoke with one of the officers involved and confirmed their occupation, relationship, and that Rozita was their nanny. I will call this officer Alpha. I am keeping their names out of the story, as it does not appear yet, nor do I suspect, that the relationship was anything other than I have been told, by officer Alpha. Officer Beta was not interviewed. The relationship of officers Alpha and Beta is professional and personal.

When Rozita was about 20 according to Alpha, she worked for a short time (months) for Alpha and Beta as a nanny. She was terminated quickly for being unsatisfactory. Alpha is very hawkish when it comes to protecting children. Alpha could not confirm aspects of Rozita's claimed background, and discharged her. Alpha says that Rozita was referred to Alpha by a "friend" that Alpha no longer keeps close contact with, though Alpha knows that this friend is in the Colorado Springs area, still. Alpha would not give me the name of this "friend." I have offered to email Alpha so if Alpha feels it appropriate to pass this information along, Alpha can do so.

The only disturbing aspect of the story was that Alpha tried to claim that the relationship was "20 years old" which is untrue. Rozita was not of age at that time, she was 14. When pressed, Alpha said the relationship was in the 1995 time frame or earlier. This begins to seriously encroach on the time frame during which we know Rozita was with Mary Catharine Nelson in the Nashville TN area. It is disturbing that this sort of distancing is taking place since it suggests there might be something to hide. In other words, this portion of the story does not match.

Becky Hoerth is said to have testified in "discovery" regarding Rozita, on a "page 50" of that document, that she was introduced to Rozita by Alpha and Beta. Alpha says that they were in the same circle of friends, but was vague. When asked about Becky's LE connections, Alpha says she thinks Becky was "in corrections."

Alpha also offered this intersting observation. "Dana Anderson" is an alias used by Rozita. It is a combination of "Gillian Anderson" and "Dana Scully," of the actress and the character portrayed, on the "X Files."

Alpha also offered that they recused themselves, when Rozita was arrested by Alpha's department. Alpha claims not to know David Foley, ex the El Paso county prosecuter, who now represents Rozita Swinton.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Rozita Again. Something new. UPDATED

I thought I would be done with this story, except for the forensic aspect of it.
The Modern Pharisee is now in possession of information, given to him unsolicited. Unsolicited in the sense that I did not go research and find the lead, the lead came to me. Not unsolicited in the sense that I have put a lot of work into this subject and anyone possessed of information about Rozita, and wondering what to do with it, would probably find, and consider turning that information over, to me.


This information has now been confirmed, click on the UPDATE above to go to the new post.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Texas KNEW all along. The FBI continues to Stonewall on Swinton investigation.

Mark D. White of the Dallas office of the FBI continues to have my calls verbally screened. Today though, the message changed.
Instead of saying that he doesn't have the time, or that he has nothing for me, he's now changed to saying he can't talk to me.

That'll do I guess. I am forced to interpret this as YES, The FBI DID open a case on the Texas side of the inquiry into Rozita Swinton. I am also forced to interpret this as being they are sensitive on the date.

What this means, until I am supplied information to disabuse me of this notion is, that if revealed, the date of inquiry into Rozita's phone numbers would substantially alter the public perception of the case. It's TOXIC in other words.

Mark of course could ask me to print a retraction of this, but in doing so, he would have to tell us when it was that the FBI requested the information. He knows my number. From now on out, I will cite this conversation with the Dallas office of the FBI as proof that Texas or the Texas FBI knew about Rozita Swinton, prior to executing their search warrants.

I will be HAPPY to issue an immediate retraction, but to do so, I would have to have the acknowledgment that a case was opened, when it was opened, and who requested it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content