Updated June 22 & 26 – See bottom — A four five year old girl has been gang raped sexually assaulted by Muslim Refugees in Twin Falls, Idaho. The incident allegedly occurred on June 2, 2016. Twin Falls is located in the southern half of Idaho as shown on the map below:
Several unconfirmed reports concerning the case are circulating on social media. Both the Twin Falls Police Department and the prosecutor’s office have declined to comment publicly on the case while it is still under investigation.
Here is what SuperStation95 has been able to confirm:
The little girl was at the FAWNBROOK apartment buildings located at 645 Fawnbrook Ct., Twin Falls, ID 83301 where both her parents and grandmother reside
She was playing in between two apartment units similar to those seen in the image below:
Three boys from 2 separate refugee refugee families, ages 7, 10, and 14, allegedly pulled a knife on the girl, held it to her throat, forced her into the laundry unit, stripped her naked, and raped did things to her. The two refugee families are from Iraq and Sudan.
The 14 year old “coached” the younger boys and also allegedly videoed the incident using a cell phone!
Due to age the boys could not ejaculate so they urinated on the four five year old victim.
The victim’s Grandmother discovered the situation and called the 4 5 year old girl’s mother. Upon arriving the victims’s mother called Twin Falls Police.
The victim’s mother seized the video/phone from the 13 year old.
However, when the father of the 13 year old arrived on the scene, he allegedly high-fived his son.
A mother of one of the other two perps arrived and knew only enough English to repeatedly say, “No police”.
Police have not made any arrests, allegedly because of a “language barrier.”
Both families of the perps are still living in the apartment complex. The Landlord claims to be unable to evict.
The victim’s mother estimates there are about fifty Muslim Refugees living in the apartment complex.
Prosecuting Attorney Grant Loebs (or his office) suggested that the victim’s family “may not wish to prosecute.” Many locals are wondering aloud if that is out of fear of retaliation by the Muslims?
There is presently no word about what happened to the cell phone with the video recording of the attack. Charges HAVE been filed against at least one perpetrator.
Local news coverage by KMVT-TV Channel 11 News confirms that a sexual attack did take place — BUT THE FILES HAVE BEEN SEALED BY A JUDGE!
Earlier coverage by the same television station confirmed Police were investigating a sexual attack.
A Blog published by Dr. Rich Swier, a Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.) reports the girl was five years old and is a Special Needs child. He also reports the Muslim perps were ages 8, 9 and 13. Even worse, he reports:
Video on the phone displayed the sexual assault of the five year old girl according to the father who viewed it, and reportedly shows the older boy coaching the younger ones during the assault and attempted rape of the little girl as well as urinating in her mouth and over her body as they pinned her against a wall.
Adding insult to injury, Dr. Swier reports the local police took TWO AND A HALF HOURS to respond to the reported child rape.
Dr. Swier’s report can be read HERE.
UPDATE JUNE 22, 2016 —
Fawnbrook Apartments is evicting the families of the three boys implicated in a sexual assault against a 5-year-old girl there on June 2.
“With the police investigation now largely complete, acting in our capacity as property managers, we have served the legally required notifications to terminate the tenancy of those households who the police have identified as responsible for the criminal acts,” Jeffrey Passadore, president of Cambridge Real Estate Services, wrote in a letter to the complex’s tenants.
Passadore wrote that “events of recent days have focused our collective attention on the complexities of living in a culturally diverse society. When management was first notified in broad terms of the truly horrific events of earlier this month, we immediately offered our full support and cooperation to local law enforcement.”
Passadore urged people to support the victim’s family and to “focus on bringing about the positive changes necessary so that we might all contribute to a stronger community for our shared future.”
UPDATE JUNE 26, 2016 —
The Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho has taken the highly unusual step of intervening in a local criminal case involving an alleged sexual assault by juvenile Muslim migrants and threatened the community and media with federal prosecution if they “spread false information or inflammatory statements about the perpetrators.”
SuperStation95 and other news outlets have reported on the case involving three juvenile boys, two from Sudan and one from Iraq, who allegedly sexually assaulted a 5-year-old special-needs girl in the laundry room of the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho.
The incident occurred on June 2, but did not come to light until more than two weeks later when stories began to swirl on social media.
The two older boys from Sudan were arrested on June 17 and released from juvenile detention less than a week later on June 23 pending further court proceedings..
The following is a news release issued late Friday from the office of United States Attorney Wendy J. Olson.
“BOISE – The United States Attorney’s Office extends its support to the five-year-old victim of assault, and her family, at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls.
“The United States Attorney’s Office further encourages community members in Twin Falls and throughout Idaho to remain calm and supportive, to pay close attention to the facts that have been released by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney, and to avoid spreading false rumors and inaccuracies.
“Grant Loebs is an experienced prosecutor, and Chief Craig Kingsbury is an experienced law enforcement officer. They are moving fairly and thoughtfully in this case,” said Wendy J. Olson, U.S. Attorney for Idaho. “As Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury informed the public, the subjects in this case are juveniles, ages 14, 10 and 7. The criminal justice system, whether at the state or federal level, requires that juveniles be afforded a specific process with significant restrictions on the information that can be released. The fact that the subjects are juveniles in no way lessens the harm to or impact on the victim and her family.”
Olson continued, saying:
“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”
As one of 93 U.S. attorneys, Olson represents the federal government in all civil and criminal cases within her state.
Olson was appointed to her post in 2010 by President Obama and has a history of taking strong stands against “anti-Muslim bias.”
Ann Corcoran, the author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog and the book “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said Olson’s statement is reminiscent of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s warning the day after the San Bernardino jihad massacre in which Lynch said she would take “aggressive action” to prosecute “anti-Muslim” rhetoric that “edges toward violence.” Lynch was forced to walk back those comments after outrage from free speech advocates.
“This is threatening free speech,” Corcoran said of Olson’s statement. “It’s the federal government trying to intimidate into silence those citizens who don’t have resources or connections. This must mean we have hit a nerve with this administration.”
WorldNetDaily.com (WND) was the first to report a set of facts about the Twin Falls assault based on the eyewitness account of an 89-year-old grandmother who saw “something funny” going on at the laundry room entrance. It was there, on the afternoon of June 2, that Jolene Payne said she saw a 14-year-old boy filming something through a crack in the laundry room door. She flung open the door and was shocked at what she found. She said she saw two younger boys, ages 10 and 7, both naked, along with the little girl, who the boys had also allegedly stripped of her clothing.
The girl was covered in urine, Payne told WND.
The rest of the details are foggy due to the case being sealed, which is standard in juvenile cases.
A number of bloggers and at least one conservative news website reported erroneously that the girl had been “gang-raped” at “knifepoint” by “Syrian refugees.”
This report clarified exactly what happened, however, and was circulated widely on social media.
Olson has often been at odds with conservative voices in the Idaho community.
She issued a statement on ‘building resilient communities” on July 10, 2015, after meeting with law enforcement, the ACLU and other groups to discuss “anti-refugee” and “anti-Muslim” sentiments in Idaho and across the country that she deemed were “seeking to divide communities.”
Adopting Obama’s ‘violent extremism’ rhetoric
Olson used the language of the United Nations-sanctioned “Strong Cities Network” or SCN, which was announced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the U.N. last fall, when she called for building “resilient communities” in the fight against “violent extremism.”
Lynch announced the SCN at the U.N. on Sept. 30, 2015, a program that attempts to globalize law enforcement agencies, connecting U.S. agencies with those overseas to combat violent extremism in all its forms. By eliminating the focus on Islamic terrorism, however, many conservatives viewed the SCN initiative as an attempt to single out and silence conservatives under the guise of branding them “right wing extremists.”
On July 8, 2015, just over two months before Lynch’s U.N. announcement, Olson said her staff met with representatives from the refugee community, refugee support agencies, the Idaho Muslim community, Boise Police Department, FBI, the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, the ACLU and Stand Up America to discuss community responses to recent incidents in Idaho and across the country.
“We are at a critical time in our nation and in our own community – from the shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, to anti-refugee and anti-Muslim sentiments expressed by groups and individuals in Idaho, to defiance in parts of some states to the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges,” said Olson in a statement last summer. “There are many currents that seek to divide communities. Instead, we have to come together. We need to stand up and form strategies against those who espouse extremist ideologies and recruit others to engage in violent acts in our communities on their behalf. We want to mentor our young people, educate parents, identify solutions, and form closer relationships between refugees and Idahoans who have been here for generations.”
Protecting Muslims against ‘bias’
Olson said that an immediate objective of the July 8 meeting was to reassure members of the refugee and Muslim communities that with the federal terrorism trial in United States v. Kurbanov scheduled to begin July 13, “law enforcement officers will be vigilant to protecting them against bias crimes.”
Olson called this meeting and issued her statement ahead of the trial that ended up convicting Fazliddin Kurbanov, a Muslim refugee from Uzbekistan, of conspiring to blow up U.S. military installations with homemade bombs being made in his Boise apartment. An Idaho jury convicted Kurbanov on terror charges in August last year following a 20-day trial and two days of deliberation.
Prosecutors also said he tried to provide computer support and money to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which the U.S. government has identified as a terrorist organization.
Kurbanov, a Russian-speaking truck driver, is just one of dozens of refugees who have been tried and convicted on terrorism charges. More than 35 Somali refugees have also left the U.S. to join foreign terrorist organizations including al-Shabab and ISIS. Two Iraqi refugees were charged and convicted in 2011 of providing material support to al-Qaida.
“So in the run-up to that Kurbanov trial she (Olson) was wanting to make sure there was no backlash against Muslims,” Corcoran observed, even as more United Nations-selected refugees from Shariah-compliant Muslim countries were being planted in U.S. cities and towns. They are being resettled in more than 190 cities from Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Burma, Bosnia, Uzbekistan and Iraq as part of the federal government’s refugee resettlement program.
That program has been operating in its current form since 1980 and has enjoyed the support of every president since Ronald Reagan, who resettled several thousand Muslim refugees from Afghanistan who he called “freedom fighters” because they were fighting the Soviets.
SuperStation95 is represented by legal counsel. Our attorneys have counseled us as follows on the legal protection afforded speech from several landmark US Supreme Court cases:
Under US Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment in the Case “Watts v. United States” a “threat” must be a “true threat” in order to be criminally prosecuted, not merely “political hyperbole.”
Under US Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment in the case “Brandenberg v. Ohio” before a case of “Incitement” can be brought, a two part test must be applied to the speech at issue. Part one is whether or not the speech was “designed to cause imminent lawlessness,” AND; Part two is that “imminent lawlessness is likely to occur.” BOTH parts of the test must be “yes” before a citizen can be convicted of incitement.
Under US Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment in the case “Hess v. Indiana” even speech which takes place at an event wherein actual civil disorder is taking place, in order for the citizen to be convicted of Incitement, the two part test outlined above in “Brandenberg” must be met.
Under US Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment in the case “NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware” a speaker must be free to convey his emotion to his audience. He is not restricted to speaking in dulcet tones. Unless actual violence takes place, the speaker’s words are protected.
Under US Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment in the case “Virginia v. Black” the difference between a “threat” and a “true threat” is that a True threat is a statement of intent to commit an act of violence.
All of the protections above were thrown out the window by the federal courts in the case of “US v. Turner” wherein the courts decided that Incitement under state law, could be a “threat” under federal law. In that case, the government charged a “threat” but argued “incitement” and the District Court allowed it. This was the first and only time in US history that Incitement could be prosecuted as a threat, and done Ex Post Facto; this standard did not exist prior to the Turner case. After two hung juries, the defendant was convicted at a third trial. On Appeal, a divided panel UPHELD the conviction with two judges using the “reasonable person standard” as to whether or not a “threat” is actually a “threat.” The third judge dissented, saying the Threat statute does not proscribe Incitement and she would have overturned the conviction. The US Supreme Court refused to consider the case on Appeal. However, in a different case “Elonis v. US” the Supreme Court held that the “reasonable person standard” was “error” because it reduced criminal culpability to that of a negligence standard. The Elonis Decision came down during the active part of the previous Turner case, but the District Court refused to vacate the Turner conviction and forbid the defendant from appealing further! On Appeal of the Denial of Appealability, the Second US Circuit held that Turner, despite having been wrongly convicted through a standard which was error, did not raise a constitutional right and Appeal was denied. The First Amendment right to speak without being arrested was apparently not something the Second Circuit was interested in.
So the US Attorney in Idaho is powerless to do harm to anyone over this news coverage unless she can prove a writer made a true threat, wherein he stated an intent to commit an act of violence, and regardless of whether she charges a threat, or threat-by-incitement, (the new Turner standard) she cannot use the “reasonable person” standard as the basis of her prosecution.