Showing posts with label CSPD IA Lt Kirk Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSPD IA Lt Kirk Wilson. Show all posts

Sunday, May 16, 2010

It's finally up (That Polygamy Show)

What was it? Two weeks ago? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 04, 2010

Rozita's Pre Trial Conference on Wednesday

It's been nearly two years since Rozita Swinton was arrested while driving around Colorado Springs, faking distress, and being a little girl.
Her pre-trial conference for that misdemeanor is Wednesday. It has not been "called off/postponed."

History tells us it will be again, and that no prior notice of this "call off" will be given. I will have to chase the prosecuting attorney for the county again, until he reveals that fact to me, that is, if history is our guide.

I remind you, there was an active channel of communication between the FBI in Texas, and the Colorado Springs Police Department. Messages from an unnamed FBI agent in Texas were passed via email or cell phone to Agent Steve Smith, who then wrote them down on paper, gave them to a detached duty member of CSPD on his "Task Force," a Lt. Sean Mandel, who then took them into CSPD. I talked to these men, they acknowledged the existence of this back channel.

The unanswered questions are:

WHY was there this elaborate off the record back channel communcication set up?

Why was this back channel being used prior to Rozita's arrest?

What was the nature of the Task Force Lt. Sean Mandel of CSPD was detached to, from CSPD to the FBI?

There is also the matter of CSPD employment of Rozita, through Lt. Magdalena Santos (980D) who was head of the "Internet Sex Crimes" wing of the "Sex Crimes Unit" of CSPD.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

And Rozita's Trial? YOU GUESSED IT (called off) UPDATED

Will Rozita EVER go to trial before a case in the YFZ matter is finished? It's beginning to look as if the answer is "NEVER."
CallOffs for Tuesday November 10, 2009
CaseNumber AppearanceDate DefLastName DefFirstName Division
D021 2009CR 003517 11/10/2009 Windle Emily 07
D021 2009CR 000857 11/10/2009 Rodriguez Jesus 09
D021 2008CR 005179 11/10/2009 Rodriguez Jesus 09
D021 2009CR 003056 11/10/2009 Allen-turner James 18
D021 2009CR 003389 11/10/2009 Tian-velasquez Pablo 18
C021 2008M 002726 11/10/2009 Swinton Rozita C
If you go there, go to this page, it will be under "View Cases For Tomorrow" until sometime this morning, then it will revert to "View Today's Cases." "Called Off" does not mean "it will never happen," at least TECHNICALLY it doesn't mean that. It means IN THEORY it is being rescheduled.

UPDATE: Judging from the case number, Rozita's case originated in 2008. The "M" after "2008" appears to does designate "Misdemeanor." On the whole page of 7 day call offs, there is only one case from 2008 that is a misdemeanor that is still in play in El Paso County. Rozita's. Don't tell me this is normal, this is highly unusual.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, November 07, 2009

CSPD Internal Affairs concludes it's investigation.

It lacks specifics and I have never been given the "receipt number" for the investigation:
November 2, 2009



Hugh McBryde
P.O. Box ****
Montpelier, VT 05601

Dear Mr. McBryde

This letter is in response to the suspicions you raised in your complaint on 09-24-09 regarding employees of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

A thorough inquiry was conducted which included a review of Department records and reports, interviews with involved employees and review of Department policies. The investigation disclosed there was no violation of Department policy nor was there any indication of inappropriate behavior by our employees.

Sincerely,


Lt. K. D. Wilson
Internal Affairs Division
Colorado Springs Police Department
The letter came in an envelope postmarked November 3rd, 2009, as Raymond Jessop's trial was winding down, and right before Rozita's starts in Colorado Springs. I got it today.

Right way I note it is fairly vague. What is "inappropriate behavior" on the part of their employees? What is department policy? Where's my receipt number?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Meanwhile, back in Colorado....

Here's a first. Rozita's pre-trial conference is NOT on the "Call off" list for today in Colorado Springs.
There is nothing to say that it might not appear later, or that at the pre-trial conference, more delays are in the offing, but she's not on the list today, which may mean she's actually there. You can look yourself, but only until about 9am tomorrow when it's updated to show Thursday's "Call Offs." If you recall, her trial is set for November 10th.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Slow Progress in the Santos-Swinton IA Investigation

Ah, bureaucracy. And some of us actually want Government Run Health Care. An update now on my dealings with CSPD's Internal Affairs.


It is October the 8th, 2009. I received the following in the mail today, postmarked from Colorado Springs on October 5th:
"On 09-24-09, Mr. McBryde contacted Internal Affairs regarding some suspicions he had developed while following the Texas child custody/abuse case involving the FLDS at the Yearning for Zion ranch. The Ranch was raided by Texas authorities in April of 2008. Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson. Mr. McBryde requested that Internal Affairs look in to the case as he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported. In particular he alleged the following:

1.) Ms. Swinton's relationship with Lt. Santos was more developed and long term,
2.) Ms. Swinton may have been a paid informant of the CSPD, 3.) The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest, 4.) Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County, 5.) Lt. Santos did not recuse herself from matters involving Ms. Swinton and that she should have due to the alleged relationship."
The "Complaint Receipt Form" which has no number ( I had been promised one ) goes on only to list Lt. Magdalena Santos, Gold Hill Patrol-Shift II as the "Involved Employee(s)" or the subject. A few observations. Lt. Jane Anderson is also named, but somehow is NOT one of the subjects. It was alleged by me and was specifically alleged by my source and supposedly in the statement or deposition of Becky Hoerth that Janie WAS involved, which would make her a subject as well.

The Supervisor Receiving Complaint is said to be a Sgt. Lux (true) and not mentioned is the fact that I viewed Sgt. Lux as obstructionist and combative. Sgt. Lux no doubt is useful in minimizing department complaints from the outside.

The Division Commander Review was done by Lt. Kirk D. Wilson, with whom I have made some progress. That progress may only be to "go through the motions" and not accomplish anything, but even in a sincere investigation, one must "go through the motions." I believe in going through proper channels first. This approach then is appropriate.

The status is listed as; "A preliminary inquiry will be conducted to determine whether or not a policy violation may have occurred. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results." In essence then, what is being done at CSPD's IA, is a "Preliminary Inquiry."

I will remark now on the body of he incident/allegation description.
"Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson."
As mentioned above, why is Lt. Jane Anderson not a subject of the inquiry?
"The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest..."
Not exactly. I suspect, and think there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Rozita was used by some branch of LE, up to and maybe including the FBI. Lt. Santos who USED to head up the Sex Crimes unit's Internet sting operations and now appears to have been demoted or moved sideways may have simply supplied Rozita to someone else that she worked with in documented Internet sex sting operations. I did not say that the phone call was made at the department's behest. If that occurred exactly as described, I would be one of the more surprised people on the planet. I don't think CSPD had it in their mind at any level above Lt's Santos and Anderson to "get" the FLDS at YFZ Ranch. They may have participated though in such an effort. Maybe they supplied Rozita's name and offered her as "voice talent."
"Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County..."
Again, not exactly. That is my best guess. It is said that Becky Lynn Hoerth alleged that Santos and Anderson intervened on Rozita's behalf "three years ago." If that remark was made in April of 2008, that would refer to an incident in 2005. The only known incident in 2005, to me, is the Douglas County/Castle Rock incident, for which Rozita was convicted and had her sentence deferred. She was convicted by guilty plea.

It should be noted that the complaint was received two weeks ago. I received documentation of the complaint's receipt, today. I have followed up several times on this inquiry. I will be very disappointed to say the least if the investigation now moves or is shown to have moved with such speed that the preliminary investigation is conducted and closed prior to me even receiving the receipt. That would show planned bureaucratic foot dragging.

Slightly color the complaint to make it less credible. Like me alleging that the call was made at CSPD's behest. Make my allegations less qualified. In general, pretend not to "get it."

There are also other interesting remarks made by Lt. Wilson that need attention:

What does the wording "he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported" imply? No relationship was previously reported outside CSPD. Lt. Wilson himself said that internally the relationship was "common knowledge."

I can say with certainty prior to my blog reports on the topic Rod Parker of Salt Lake City did not know. Neither did Michael Piccarreta. No FLDS member knew of the "previously reported" relationship. I suspect strongly that all find that relationship no matter how extensive, very interesting now. Was that relationship "previously reported" to Texas? If so, Texas knew and did not see fit to tell FLDS attorneys that their probable phony phone caller, that Texas refuses to investigate, whose computer records may show extensive LE contact, was that closely tied to Law Enforcement.

By doing this, supposing that contacts were widespread, Texas has now set themselves up for a Watergate style cover up. They may not have contracted for the break in, but they covered it up later. I don't know about you, but if LE held on to computers with potentially exculpatory evidence on them for 18 months and refused to investigate LE/caller connections and didn't tell the defense about them, it almost doesn't matter anymore if they were innocent of contracting for the call. You can no longer say with credibility that you are turning over all the evidence in the matter. You withheld evidence. There may be felonies involved now, where there were none before.

A post script. Lt. Wilson says "alleged relationship" but the only thing "alleged" for his purposes is the quality or color or extend or kind of relationship that existed. The relationship is not alleged. Lt. Wilson himself used the phrase "common knowledge" to refer to the relationship of Santos and Swinton. He does not now get to imply that I allege there was one. According to him, there was one, and it was "common knowledge" at the Colorado Springs Police Department.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Could the "Cry for Help" have been deliberately contracted for by Law Enforcement? (YAWN)

I sent the following summary out to a number of News organizations in the Rocky Mountain West, late last week, none even attempted to investigate it. I'd be happily wrong if one of the turns up not to have turned a deaf ear, but it seems that unless I serve it up with signed confessions, they won't even try.


In 2005, Rozita Swinton was arrested for false reporting in Castle Rock. She subsequently plead guilty in exchange for a deferred sentence, providing she did not have further scrapes with the law. After that it has been documented that Rozita exported her false reporting to other states, apparently depending on the practice of not prosecuting such "pranks" when the prankster is not in a local jurisdiction. Most states, Texas included, do not seek extradition of misdemeanor offenders for prosecution. It is documented in the April 2008 arrest warrant of Rozita Swinton that Lt. Magdalena Santos (980D), took a call from the "Cocoon House" in Washington state in February of 2007 regarding a case of False Reporting in that jurisdiction, that was later traced back to Rozita.

One year after the incident in Washington State, Rozita was arrested for the second time we know of, after the Castle Rock arrest, in February of 2008, in Colorado Springs, again, for false reporting. Rozita has a long history of manufactured or unsubstantiated allegations, whether made in person or made by proxy, against others. Quoting from the Newsweek Article, linked to previously:
"Soon, Swinton came to the attention of authorities. Around 1997, she filed the first of some 15 police reports claiming that her father or some other man was sexually assaulting her (Clarence denies he ever visited Colorado). But 'we could never corroborate information because she would never do any follow-up,' says Det. Terry Thrumston of the Colorado Springs Police Department."
This documents, among other things, Rozita's presence in Colorado Springs when she was about 22 years of age. One could actively wonder why Rozita was being paid attention to by CSPD, as most law enforcement agencies would not pay attention to complaints regarding persons that did not even live in or visit the state of residence of the supposed victim.

This could be explained by the facts uncovered by myself, after following up on a tip. The tip was that Rozita and Lt. Maggie (Magdalena) Santos, and Maggie's coworker and "longtime companion" Lt. Janie (Jane) Anderson had an over 10 year relationship with Rozita Swinton, dating back to at least one of them employing Rozita as a "nanny" in 1997. Lt. Santos and Lt. Anderson's relationship is corroborated by mutual home ownership in the Colorado Springs area.

When contacted, Lt. Santos declared that the relationship was "20 years old" and that she had employed Rozita for "a month or two" as a "nanny." I then confronted her with the statement of my source, that there was a deposition, purported to be given by Becky Hoerth that dated the relationship to the year 1997 and that Rozita was both 14, 20 years ago, and living in Tennessee. Maggie then quickly reset the date but insisted that it was not 1997, instead claiming the date of 1995. This claim is of dubious reliability since Maggie had been wrong in her initial claim and then claimed not to have known Rozita well, known that she was from Tennessee or known her since the time she did employ her "briefly." I refer again to the facts cited by Newsweek, that Rozita was a frequent complainer about her ex convict and murderer father Clarence, who did live in Tennessee.
"(O)n 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 Janie Anderson. 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."
In that Terry Thrumston of CSPD states the Rozita complaints regarding her father began around 1997, and the above alleged statement also refers to 1997, it would seem at least that Maggie's statement again, was at least inaccurate.

When confronted with information that the relationship was more extensive, and ongoing, and that she had been involved in subsequent dealings involving Rozita Swinton, Maggie claimed to have "recused" herself voluntarily from those proceedings, based on their previous passing acquaintance.

Again, returning to my source, who I checked with again:
"One of the problems is its affecting the case aganist [sic] 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 Janie in her statement so she was forced to pull out." (email via PDA)
This probably refers to the Douglas County case (Castle Rock) or some unknown incident in between the report from "Cocoon House" in Washington state and the Castle Rock case.

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."
Such interstate and region wide sex sting operations almost certainly involved the FBI at times. The stings did involve local police departments and also the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

I also called Lt. Kirk Wilson of the Internal Affairs division of the CSPD. Lt. Wilson took down all I had to tell him and promised to begin an investigation. He asked for my name, and date of birth, and said he'd send me a "receipt" for the report, which would contain a receipt number. That was late last week, I have not received it yet.

Lt. Wilson also declared in response to my claim of familiarity between Rozita and Maggie that indeed he knew of the relationship, and said it was "common knowledge" in the department. I returned later to this phrasing and challenged him a bit on it, and he qualified it a little bit and said that did not mean everyone knew of the relationship. Clearly the "relationship," whatever it might entail was widely known. None of this however was reported in the press, but it does lend credibility to the rather incredible suggestion at the time, that members of the Texas Rangers called CSPD and there was an immediate acknowledgement that the numbers the Rangers sought information about, were involved in previous cases. After all, the relationship of Maggie and Rozita is characterized as "common knowledge" by the head of CSPD's Internal Affairs.

This makes even more interesting another fact I discovered in January of this year. The April 2008 warrant says that the Rangers contacted Lt. (then Sgt.) Sean Mandel of CSPD first. This is not true, according to Sean Mandel. Per Sean, he was more or less a carrier pigeon for messages from Texas that were being received by Agent Steve Smith of the Colorado Springs office of the FBI. He distinctly recalled the incident and was quick to provide the information that he could NOT have received the call as he was on "detached duty" with the FBI, as part of a "task force." He stated clearly that he was NOT going into CSPD offices at the time. I did not think to ask what that "task force" was doing. Could it be Internet sting operations for predators? It would make sense, as Lt. Mandel is with the Sex Crimes Unit of CSPD.

Lt. Mandel readily provided me with Agent Steve Smith's number, I called him, and he answered a few questions briefly, and then called me back. He confirmed that he was taking information from the FBI in Texas, but "couldn't recall" which agent he was speaking to but "would know it again if he heard it." I asked him if he received the information by phone, or email, and he said he "didn't recall." I asked him if he could review the case and he said that he did not open one and thus could not access his records and determine by what method the request had come, or who had made it. Further questioning had Agent Smith stating that if such a request had come it, there would have had to have been a case opened on one side of the call or the other. I researched over the next day or two the officers that worked in the San Angelo office of the FBI, provided those names to Agent Smith, and asked if any were the agents that contacted him and he said none were.

Eventually my inquiries took me to the regional office of the FBI in Dallas, and Mark D. White, after initially speaking to me on the subject, dodged my questions for several weeks and eventually plead an "ongoing investigation" prevented him from even telling me IF there was a case properly opened on the Texas side of the Agent Smith conversation. What I have discovered here it would seem is a back channel of communications that would appear to be designed not to be "on the record." The warrants say the conversations were with CSPD directly, with Sean Mandel directly and began on April 13th, 2008, a Sunday, after the raid was over.

In view of the length of time it normally takes to set up such a carrier pigeon sort of relay, it is highly unlikely that this channel came into existence over that weekend. It seems designed to have stayed off the record and may well have been in use during the raid and perhaps before it. That goes directly to "what did they know and when did they know it?"

Some of the questions that arise from this research are:

  • * Was Rozita a "little girl voice" used as talent by any law enforcement agency?
  • * Why were (allegedly) Maggie and Janie shielding Rozita from prosecution?
  • * If there is a statement/deposition of Becky Hoerth, as alleged, was Texas aware of it?
  • * Is Rozita's attorney essentially blackmailing (legally) CSPD, the FBI and Texas with the knowledge that THEY KNOW of the character and extent of CSPD's relationship with Rozita Swinton?


Rozita has been provided with extensive medical treatment out of state, and has apparently not worked in the last year and a half. She has been seen and photographed in Burley Idaho, during the Thanksgiving holiday of 2008 and I have the pictures. She has some of the most expensive and connected legal talent in criminal defense in El Paso county. Her trial has been delayed more often and more successfully than that of Bernie Madoff and for more time. Within a week of her arrest, David Foley, her attorney, was trumpeting that there would be "surprises" in her case, and since then has gotten all these delays, which keep putting her case after FLDS cases in Texas on the calender, and he has said nothing about those "surprises" he asked us to "stay tuned" to hear.

If it is true, that Texas knew of the statement of Becky Hoerth, then it becomes a question of what might be called exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense.

Additionally, the relationship of Hoerth, Anderson, Santos and Swinton seems vastly deeper than has been admitted to by Lt. Santos. It is at least improper not to reveal these facts to the defense in the largest child custody episode of US History.

The call may have been contracted for by an law enforcement agency so as to gain access to the YFZ ranch. This would be criminal.

Rozita may have been criminally shielded from prosecution by her CSPD friends and as a result, was allowed to negligently wreak havoc later.

Any or all or any combination of these scenarios could lead to exclusion of evidence collected at YFZ. With that evidence excluded, most of the 12 YFZ defendants would likely go free.
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

Bring it on


A coward, and a nobody whose gender we do not even know, Texas Blues (Man?) aka "HeShe," aka "Hac Hoc" is telling me that I am risking a lawsuit. Do we REALLY think this is because he cares about what happens to me?
Bring it on. All of you. I would LOVE to make this an issue about ME. That is truly beyond my wildest dreams that I would be sued, and then have the opportunity to subpoena and depose and have testify, all these persons who I am alleged to treat poorly.

I am serious. Oh please. Oh please, OH PLEASE just do it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

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