A lot of us smelled this the instant we heard about the "16-year-old
caller" in the now unraveling polygamy case.
And when two days passed and still no "caller," the gangs of lawyers
from the East Coast were en route to San Angelo to grab their share of
what promises to be a multimillion-dollar round of lawsuits by
aggrieved "parents" whose kids were stolen (kidnapped) from them.
----------------------
"Texas 911 Calls Linked To 33-Year-Old in Colo."
"Woman Has History of False Claims"
By David Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 2008; A02
SAN ANGELO, Tex., April 23 -- The phone calls that triggered a massive
raid on a polygamist compound in west Texas -- in which a quavering
girl's voice described being forcibly married at 15 -- have been
linked to a Colorado woman with a history of making false claims of
sexual abuse, according to an affidavit filed in Colorado Springs.
The affidavit says calls that allegedly came from "Sarah Barlow" -- a
teenage girl at the Yearning for Zion Ranch outside Eldorado, Tex. --
actually came from numbers connected to Rozita Swinton, 33, of
Colorado Springs. The affidavit also notes Swinton's possible
involvement in a series of separate but similar reports in which the
young caller described being abused by a pastor, an uncle or her
father.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303351.html

"HGoering" <kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ed0f6e0-ff54-49a4-a688-8d1fab59ccf2@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
..
SNIP
Assuming this is true, and the call was totally a hoax, I wonder what
the Texas CPS is going to do in the way of reparations to the LDS?

Can you imagine how many lawyers are gonna get rich!

Assuming this is true, and the call was totally a hoax, I wonder what the
Texas CPS is going to do in the way of reparations to the LDS?

Can you imagine how many lawyers are gonna get rich!

A lot of us smelled this the instant we heard about the "16-year-old
caller" in the now unraveling polygamy case.
And when two days passed and still no "caller," the gangs of lawyers
from the East Coast were en route to San Angelo to grab their share of
what promises to be a multimillion-dollar round of lawsuits by
aggrieved "parents" whose kids were stolen (kidnapped) from them.
----------------------
"Texas 911 Calls Linked To 33-Year-Old in Colo."
"Woman Has History of False Claims"
By David Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 2008; A02
SAN ANGELO, Tex., April 23 -- The phone calls that triggered a massive
raid on a polygamist compound in west Texas -- in which a quavering
girl's voice described being forcibly married at 15 -- have been
linked to a Colorado woman with a history of making false claims of
sexual abuse, according to an affidavit filed in Colorado Springs.
The affidavit says calls that allegedly came from "Sarah Barlow" -- a
teenage girl at the Yearning for Zion Ranch outside Eldorado, Tex. --
actually came from numbers connected to Rozita Swinton, 33, of
Colorado Springs. The affidavit also notes Swinton's possible
involvement in a series of separate but similar reports in which the
young caller described being abused by a pastor, an uncle or her
father.
Texas authorities yesterday said they have not determined whether the
calls about the Yearning for Zion Ranch were a hoax and that they plan
to press on with their investigation of possible sexual abuse there.
More than 400 children are now in state custody, as authorities try to
sort out what happened at the ranch run by a polygamist group called
the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
"Until she's actually been charged" with a crime related to the phone
calls, Swinton's role "is still an open question," state Department of
Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said.
But the revelations about phone calls to shelters for abused women in
Colorado, Washington, Utah, Arizona and Florida cast doubt on the
dramatic scenario that led Texas authorities to investigate and
ultimately to raid the compound April 3. The raid made the insular
sect the subject of one of the most complex child-custody cases in
recent U.S. history.
The calls that launched the Texas case started coming in to a family
shelter in San Angelo, about 45 miles from Eldorado, on March 29. The
caller said that she was 16, and that she was bound in a "spiritual
marriage" to an older, abusive man. The girl said she had given birth
to one child and was pregnant with another.
The caller paused often, documents say, and talked quietly, so no one
would know she was calling for help.
On Wednesday, officials at the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services said that the facts surrounding the first phone
call had become irrelevant because the raid turned up independent
evidence that underage girls had been impregnated.
"The removal was based on our investigation. It was not based on the
initial call," spokesman Patrick Crimmins said.
The affidavit made public Wednesday, which was provided to The
Washington Post by the Associated Press, indicates links to Swinton
even though she has no apparent connection to the Eldorado ranch.
One phone number used to call the San Angelo shelter is registered to
a Courtney Swinton, with an address in Rozita Swinton's apartment
complex. The affidavit said authorities had "several reports regarding
Rozita Swinton making false reports" with another number that had also
been used to call the shelter.
The affidavit said that in previous years, Swinton had been linked to
other tales of terrifying abuse. In one, a woman calling herself Dana
Anderson phoned a hotline to say that she was 13 years old and had
been locked in a basement and sexually abused by her father. In
another, a girl calling herself Dana said she was abused by a youth
pastor at a Colorado church.
The affidavit described these events as part of a request for a
warrant for Swinton, charging her with false reporting to authorities.
It said she had already pleaded guilty to false reporting last year in
Colorado. Attempts to reach Swinton yesterday were unsuccessful: One
number listed on the affidavit was disconnected, and a call to another
was not returned.
The affidavit does not put forward any motive Swinton might have had
for allegedly making the calls, but it hints at a possible personality
disorder. The document quotes a former worker at a shelter for abused
women in Colorado Springs who may have received calls from Swinton in
February. In one, Swinton allegedly said, "Rozita and Dana are in the
same body, but just different personalities," and that the "Dana
personality is there to protect Rozita from being hurt."
[Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this
report.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303351.html

I can't link to your url, but the answer is probably nothing. Texas
officials no doubt have immunity, and if they acted in good faith (i.e.,
they had no prior knowledge that the call was a hoax), the warrant will
probably stand.

Child Protective Services is a way around the constitution.

It is likely not being handled lawfully

or ethically

and there is bias.

They have rights and those rights are being violated.

I would like to see
predators convicted but not at the expense of the innocent.

"HGoering" <kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ed0f6e0-ff54-49a4-a688-8d1fab59ccf2@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
..

Deadrat wrote:
Assuming this is true, and the call was totally a hoax, I wonder
what the Texas CPS is going to do in the way of reparations to the
LDS?
The question is about Texas officials' civil liability,

not about the validity of a search warrant.

There's no state law immunity from a
federal civil rights violation, and good faith is not a defense.

42 U.S.C. 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit
in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...

Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ybydnTvWMKX0do3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com:
They likely have none in this case.
Let me rephrase: The question of civil liability is so far
out of the question that even the warrant will likely stand.
You do understand, do you not, that if the warrant stands,
then the Texas authorities were legally performing their jobs
and will incur no liability?
Oh, really? See the word "color" in 42USC1983? What do you
think that means? Throwing crayons at someone?
What's illegal under federal law is using the pretext or
appearance of state authority to deprive someone of their
rights. Your rights are not violated if the authorities
follow the law to perform their duties, even if they turn out
to be wrong, and probably even if they were negligent in the
performance of those duties.
If the Texas authorities perpetrated the hoax call, then the
violated the law and the rights of those whose premises they
searched.

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote
in message BQ6Qj.309$506.70@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
And THERE's the rub.

Any state action is legal if
law enforcement can (by whatever means) claim
a phone call was received alleging such and such
against so-and-so.

Sounds like a ready-made recipe for any type of
law enforcement abuse, at any level, when they
decide some action needs to be taken. How
convenient.

Remember the Supreme Court case that decided
the police could not use infrared sensors in a public
area to scan houses for indoor marijuana growing
operations (the lighting produces a great deal of
heat)? Guess what? They just got an anonymous
phone call--never mind they came up with it them-
selves.

--John Miles

In our last episode, <fp4Qj.6074$Ux4.4662@trnddc07>, the lovely and
talented
Wayne broadcast on tx.politics:
Nothing of course, because the CPS owes the rapers nothing.
Defense attorneys for the rapers may get rich, but the rapers are going to
jail.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com

Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote
Let me rephrase: The question of civil liability is so far out of the
question that even the warrant will likely stand. You do understand, do
you not, that if the warrant stands, then the Texas authorities were
legally performing their jobs and will incur no liability?

Oh, really?

See the word "color" in 42USC1983? What do you think that
means? Throwing crayons at someone?

What's illegal under federal law is using the pretext or appearance of
state authority to deprive someone of their rights. Your rights are not
violated if the authorities follow the law to perform their duties,

If the Texas authorities perpetrated the hoax call, then the violated the
law and the rights of those whose premises they searched.

Deadrat wrote:
Not at all. Having a valid warrant does not make anything and
everything Texas authorities did in the execution of that warrant, or
the resulting aftermath, legal.

Yes, really.
See below.
How did you come up with that notion? In Lawrence v. Texas, Texas
authorities followed the law in arresting and charging a person for
homosexual conduct. A state trial court convicted him, relying on an
earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision had upheld the very law they were
enforcing as constitutional. Yet in that case, the Supreme Court held
the person's constitutional rights WERE violated, even though the
Supreme Court had to overrule its own prior decision to do it. That's
just one example where Texas authorities followed the law to perform
their duties, and thereby violated a person's rights. There are
thousands of other examples that prove your statement incorrect.

Yes, that's one possibility. It's not the ONLY one.
42 U.S.C. 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit
in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...
42 U.S.C. 1983 can cover a lot of stuff. For example, a police
officer executing a search warrant is acting under color of state law.
A CPS worker investigating a tip of child abuse is acting under color
of state law. An attorney representing Texas CPS is acting under
color of state law. A Judge sitting on a case is acting under color
of state law. There's any number of things they might do in the
process that would deprive a person of his or a constitutional right,
privilege or immunity. For example, taking a person's cell phone away
could violate her First Amendment right to free speech. Eavesdropping
on a private prayer could violate person's right to the free exercise
of religion. Barricading a person's home and not leaving him leave
could deprive him of liberty without due process of law. Removing a
child from a home without evidence that particular child had been
abused or was in immediate danger of harm could deprive the child of
liberty without due process of law, and could violate the parents'
constitutional rights to make decisions about that child's rearing.
Searching beyond the scope of the search warrant could violate a
person's constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and
seizures. Relegating a child to foster care through a "mass hearing"
without a hearing directed to that particular child, and without
affording that the child and his or her attorney, and child's parents
and their attorney, an opportunity to be heard, could deprive the
child of liberty without due process of law, could violate the child's
and parents' rights to free exercise of religion, could violate their
First Amendment rights to petition government for a redress of
grievances. Using a DNA test for any purpose other than
identification could be an unreasonable search and seizure. Limiting
a child's access to his attorney, or his mother's access to her
attorney, could infringe on any number of constitutional rights, and
--- well, this is just off the top of my head. I could go on, but
I've made my point.

The press coverage of the Texas raid and its
aftermath as reported events that would, if true, support civil rights
claims against Texas officials for all of these things and more.

Just Wondering <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in
news:FrKdnT41Htl6FIzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Try to focus. The topic here is civil liability for the use of an
invalid warrant.

And how much did Lawrence recover under civil rights statutes?

Just because the Supreme Court later finds unconstitutional a law under which
state authorities operated doesn't mean that the state actors incur civil
liability for operating under that law.

Taking away a person's cell phone could violate the First Amendment
guarantee of free speech? Doubtful.

More to the point, none of your hypotheticals apply, and even if they
did, there's no civil liability that attaches.

Can Texas authorities legally place a child in foster care when there's suspicion of abuse and
before there's an investigation? Whaddaya think?

Can a Texas judge legally hold a preliminary "mass hearing" in which not everyone involved
has a chance to be heard at first? Whaddaya think?

Is there the slightest evidence that the ordered DNA tests will be used for any
purpose other than "identifiction"?

Anybody can claim anything. Proof of that is your paragraph of
hypotheticals.

But nothing I've read in the press indicates that Texas
officials exceeded their legal authority.

Deadrat wrote:
No, the topic is civil liability for ANYTHING Texas authorities did.

Lawrence v. Texas was an appeal of a criminal conviction. A recovery
for civil rights violations would have involved a separate lawsuit by
him. So we can't know, from the appeal, what the result of the civil
action would be, or even whether Lawrence sued or not.

Not all by itself, no. But it certainly opens a door to the
possibility.

You're entitled to your opinion. But you certainly can't rule it out.

Some of the Texas attorneys have filed motions challenging the
legality,
so they certainly think there's some basis to make the challenge.

I think it certainly violates federal due process, and according to
reported statements by Texas attorneys challenging the process, it
violates the Texas statutes being applied.

Well, Texas authorities have certainly indicated they are looking at
criminal prosecutions for incest among other things, so I'd say yes,
there is some evidence of that.

All of which are taken directly from the new accounts, and many of
which the attorneys involved are apparently claiming to be violations
of law.