‘Object rape’ is defined as the involuntary “penetration, however
slight, of the genital or anal opening of another person who is 14
years of age or older, by any foreign object, substance,
instrument, or device….”
No document or directive can make the act of object rape “lawful,”
and yet police are now using “bodily fluids warrants” as
justification for forced catheterization.
And in the case represented in the following video, the warrant
wasn’t even issued by a judge, but a judicial “commissioner,”
whatever that is.
Check out the video, and please read the accompanying article for
more examples of this crime being committed by the people who are
supposed to PROTECT us.
Brasscheck TV news
************************************************************************************************************************************
Well since the video on youtube has been deleted I am adding a report here from abc4/You can watch a video there as well as read the rest of the article.
Man sues law enforcement over “forced catheterization”
SANPETE COUNTY, Utah (ABC 4 News) – Several law enforcement agencies in central Utah are facing an 11 million dollar federal lawsuit that accuses them of violating a young man’s civil rights.
22-year old Stephan Cook claims police forced a catheter in him after he refused a drug test in 2008 while he was attending Snow College.
As the plaintiff in the case, Cook claims the incident in question started on a quiet sideroad in Ephraim where he was parked smoking cigarettes inside a car with friends. Cook says police officers approached the car, suspecting the young men were smoking marijuana.
“When they approached us, they said it smelled like marijuana, but we said no, we’re smoking cigarettes and we just put the cigarettes out like you asked us to,” says Cook.
Over the next several minutes, during a search of the friend’s car and the police interrogation, cops asked Cook if he would submit to a urine test. Cook says he refused without an attorney and then subsequently refused several more times even when he was booked into jail.
“I said not without an attorney present, because I don’t know if what you’r doing is legal. And then he (the cop) said, well we’re getting a search warrant and we’ll have your bodily fluids by the end of the night.”
After police obtatined a search warrant for the bodily fluids, Cook was forced by police to be catheterized at Sanpete County Hospital. “The nurse told him to hold my shoulders and she undoes my pants and wipes me down with iodine, catheterized me and took my urine.”
Read Full Article and Watch Video Here
************************************************************************************************************************************
Judicially Authorized Rape: The Newest Weapon in the Prohibitionist Arsenal
Recently by William Norman Grigg: A Blasphemy Conviction in Kansas
Under Utah state law, “object rape” consists of the involuntary “penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of another person who is 14 years of age or older, by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device….” This act constitutes a form of aggravated sexual assault for which the penalty is a prison term of no less than ten years, followed by lifetime enrollment in the sex offender registry.
As 22-year-old Utah resident Stephan Cook discovered, the crime of object rape – like any other offense against person or property – can be transmuted into a policy option when it’s committed pursuant to a government decree.
While attending Snow College in Ephraim, Utah, four years ago, Cook and a friend were smoking cigarettes near a parked car when they were accosted by several police officers. Following the standard script, the officers – who, let us not forget, were trained to lie – claimed to smell marijuana and demanded to search the car.
Cook and his friend emptied their pockets and consented to a pat-down search. They permitted the officers to search the interior of the car several times with a drug-sniffing dog. Eventually a glass pipe was found in the trunk. Rather than arresting Cook, who was a passenger in the car, the officers ordered him to drive to a nearby police station, supposedly to save his friend the expense of an impound fee.
There was neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to justify the search the car. By ordering Cook to drive to the station, the police made it clear that they did not believe that he was under the influence of marijuana.
Furthermore, Cook didn’t own the car, a fact that severs the thinnest thread connecting him to the glass pipe found in the trunk.
Yet the officers persisted in their effort to manufacture an offense. Cook was detained and informed that he would have to undergo a drug test. When the police demanded that he sign a waiver of his rights, Cook – whose parents are police officers — repeatedly and explicitly demanded access to an attorney.
“I asked for an attorney because I didn’t know if this was right,” Cook recalled in a television interview. “Once I did that, they said ‘We’re getting a search warrant so we’re going to have your urine by the end of the night.’” A “bodily fluids warrant” was issued “authorizing” the cops to obtain a urine sample. It did not, however, specify that the sample could be taken by force. Lindsay Jarvis, Cook’s attorney, informed Pro Libertate that the warrant was issued by a judicial “commissioner,” rather than a judge.
Since the police considered Cook sufficiently sober to drive, they clearly weren’t facing exigent circumstances. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption that the police were entitled to take a urine sample, they had the luxury of collecting one at leisure – but this wouldn’t have satisfied whatever prurient interest they had in inflicting unnecessary pain on a teenage male.
Cook’s abductors took him to the Sanpete Valley Hospital, where Nurse Ratched told them “to hold my shoulders and she undoes my pants and wipes me down with iodine, catheterized me and took my urine,” the victim recalls.
Ms. Jarvis points out that the purpose of this procedure was clearly punitive, not investigative: “Rather than employ a simple blood test, they’re forcibly catheterizing these people.”
This satisfies another element of the statutory definition of object rape: The act was committed with the “intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to the victim.”
After sexually assaulting Cook, the offenders charged the victim with possession of marijuana and resisting arrest. Even before the matter was brought before a judge, Cook was also slapped with immediate disciplinary action by Snow College.
“The commissioner who issued the warrant was also on the college disciplinary board,” Jarvis observed in a phone interview with Pro Libertate. “So his student account was immediately put on hold until he completed a two-month class on alcohol and drug abuse. He wasn’t able to complete his midterms, or register for the following semester. This cost him a lot of money on what amounts to wasted tuition.”
Rather than being prosecuted, two of the officers who sexually assaulted Cook– Chad Huff and Justin Aagard –have been promoted. Huff is now Chief of Police in Fountain Green, Utah, and Aagard has been appointed to the same post in nearby Moroni City. In the interest of civic integrity, the municipal governments of Fountain Green and Moroni City should post a warning informing visitors that their respective police departments are under the direction of violent sex offenders.
Cook, who was forced to take a plea, has filed an $11 million lawsuit against Sanpete County. This has drawn the predictable shoulder-shrug response from county attorney Peter Stirba. “My client officers certainly did not do anything wrong,” Stirba declares, insisting that “the officers were acting pursuant to a lawful court order requiring catheterization of Mr. Cook.”
Leaving aside the fact that no document or directive can make the act of object rape “lawful,” the warrant to which Stirba refers was issued by a county functionary who had no legal training of any kind – and it did not require catheterization. The painful and degrading procedure was inflicted on Cook for the purpose of punishing him for invoking his rights, and to terrorize his friend into compliance: After witnessing what had been done to Cook, the owner of the vehicle surrendered a urine sample “voluntarily.”
The gratuitously vicious nature of this episode is further underscored by the fact that although Cook was booked into jail after being violated, the urine samples were never tested, and no record was made of his visit to the hospital.
“What they did was wrong – and I’m pretty sure they’re doing it to other people,” Cook observes. Indeed, there’s reason to believe that object rape of this variety has become a preferred tactic in the “war on drugs.”
“It was like I had been raped … and all those guards were helping,” testified Haley Owen Hooper of her own “forced catheterization” by Sevier County deputies in December 2004.
At first, the ad trackers whined really loudly. Then they threatened to hold their breath until they turned blue. When those things didn’t work, they decided to 
Of the two, the latter is by far the more preferable. It is the only true way to obtain explicit consent for tracking. But I’d be shocked if the ad industry went along with that, either. Why? Because they know that a lot of people – maybe not a majority, but a large number – would say ‘Don’t track me, bro.’
So I have a question for the ad guys in the audience. Let’s say a miracle happens and it’s suddenly easy for tens of millions of Netizens to say they don’t want their movements tracked across the Web by 800+ companies they’ve never heard of. Let’s say it’s even a majority of the people who go online.
An election poster for Greece’s left-wing Syriza party. (File photo/CNS)
