# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

## ericsnow

One of the reasons the infant was taken is because the father's a member of Oath Keepers - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

YouTube - Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

----------


## tpreitzel

More information needed ... bizarre.

----------


## VegasPatriot

WTF?  I just listened to the video... and I am in shock.  I will be meeting with Stewart Rhodes in about one hour and I will inform him of this situation.  I will post an update later tonight.

----------


## Dianne

This is shocking, and unbelievable..   Can you stay on top of this story to be sure it is factual?

----------


## pcosmar

Only finding a little of the story and Georges Video.
http://dprogram.net/2010/10/07/gover...from-hospital/



> New Hampshire, Wed. Oct. 6th, 2010
> Last Night John Irish & Stephanie Janvrin had their new born baby girl taken away by government officials because of their involvement with Oath Keepers, a non violent constitutional organization. According to Irish, The Director of Security and the Head Nurse of the Hospital said we want the pediatrician to check the baby in the nursery so that you can go home. The baby was wheeled out in the bassinet under the protest of Irish. Irish followed them out a took note of 3-4 men wearing suits with detective badges as well as 3 police officers.


Will look for more.

----------


## Deborah K

> Only finding a little of the story and Georges Video.
> http://dprogram.net/2010/10/07/gover...from-hospital/
> 
> 
> Will look for more.


This happened in N.H. ????  I thought it was a "free state".   

This is nuts.  If I were that Mother I think I might have gone mad.

----------


## ericsnow

Janvrin6228
2 minutes ago

Court is next week, I hope I can find a GOOD lawyer that﻿ will take this pro bono. These bastards are trying to say that my daughter is not safe with me because I am an OathKeeper WTF!!! IT ISN'T A DAMN MILITIA WHAT DON'T THEY COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS!!!

----------


## tpreitzel

> Janvrin6228
> 2 minutes ago
> 
> Court is next week, I hope I can find a GOOD lawyer that﻿ will take this pro bono. These bastards are trying to say that my daughter is not safe with me because I am an OathKeeper WTF!!! IT ISN'T A DAMN MILITIA WHAT DON'T THEY COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS!!!


If this situation is just this simple, it's nearly unbelievable... Personally, I need more information.

----------


## torchbearer

don't forget, daddy government owns your children.
let this be a lesson for all of you constitutional whackos, mess with us and we will steal your children.
if that doesn't end with a shot heard around a world, there will never be one again.

----------


## Deborah K

> Janvrin6228
> 2 minutes ago
> 
> Court is next week, I hope I can find a GOOD lawyer that﻿ will take this pro bono. These bastards are trying to say that my daughter is not safe with me because I am an OathKeeper WTF!!! IT ISN'T A DAMN MILITIA WHAT DON'T THEY COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS!!!


Have you alerted the President of the Oath Keepers about this?  He can get some media for you.  Judge Nap needs to know this as well.

----------


## Deborah K

> don't forget, daddy government owns your children.
> let this be a lesson for all of you constitutional whackos, mess with us and we will steal your children.
> if that doesn't end with a shot heard around a world, there will never be one again.


Kiss off Torch.

----------


## torchbearer

> Kiss off Torch.


maybe i should have had the /s on there.
what i said was suppose to get you mad though- people need to get really angry, because that is the proper emotional response for what is happening to us.

----------


## Deborah K

> maybe i should have had the /s on there.
> what i said was suppose to get you mad though- people need to get really angry, because that is the proper emotional response for what is happening to us.


Whatever!  I'm fed up with the "Constitutional whacko" holier than thou crap!  NOTHING - not even the foundation for which our laws are based - can withstand corruption when it is not faithfully adhered to.  Those of us who believe that - including Ron Paul - are NOT whackos!!!

----------


## MelissaCato

This info was posted on the YouTube Comments.




> TheShako4 
> 1 hour ago 3  
> 
> Mom: Stephanie Janvrin.
> 
> New Hampshire Youth and Family Services:
> 
> Maggie Bishop
> 
> ...

----------


## osan

> The infant was taken solely because the father is a member of Oath Keepers



What is this, Stalin's Russia?  East Germany and the Stasi?

Do you have the names of the agents who did this?

----------


## torchbearer

> Whatever!  I'm fed up with the "Constitutional whacko" holier than thou crap!  NOTHING - not even the foundation for which our laws are based - can withstand corruption when it is not faithfully adhered to.  Those of us who believe that - including Ron Paul - are NOT whackos!!!


you are speaking to the choir.
/s means sarcasm.
if you do a google news search for rand paul, you will see in the subheadlines, headlines, and by-lines the word *extremist* used in "reputable" news articles.

----------


## Dr.3D

If this is in fact true, it would seem the government is trying to drive Oath Keepers and other groups like them underground.

----------


## KCIndy

> Janvrin6228
> 2 minutes ago
> 
> Court is next week, I hope I can find a GOOD lawyer that﻿ will take this pro bono. These bastards are trying to say that my daughter is not safe with me because I am an OathKeeper WTF!!! IT ISN'T A DAMN MILITIA WHAT DON'T THEY COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS!!!



There shouldn't be any need for a Pro Bono attorney.  I can't imagine why Oath Keepers wouldn't get involved with this, and I imagine almost everyone here on these boards would chip in as well.  

This is absolutely unbelievable.

----------


## Philhelm

> Whatever!  I'm fed up with the "Constitutional whacko" holier than thou crap!  NOTHING - not even the foundation for which our laws are based - can withstand corruption when it is not faithfully adhered to.  Those of us who believe that - including Ron Paul - are NOT whackos!!!


  I thought Torchbearer's comment had clearly been sarcastic.




> don't forget, daddy government owns your children.
> let this be a lesson for all of you constitutional whackos, mess with us and we will steal your children.
> if that doesn't end with a shot heard around a world, there will never be one again.


He had pointed out that the government would do this to send a message to "whackos" who actually believe in the Constitution, the supposed supreme law of the land.  Seriously, how often is the term "Constitutionalist" or any reference toward obeying the Constitution looked upon as quaint, kooky, or the words of homegrown terrorists?

----------


## torchbearer

> If this is in fact true, it would seem the government is trying to drive Oath Keepers and other groups like them underground.


they are definitely trying to start a war so they can single out the "domestic terrorist" for assassination.

----------


## Deborah K

> you are speaking to the .
> /s means sarcasm.
> if you do a google news search for rand paul, you will see in the subheadlines, headlines, and by-lines the word *extremist* used in "reputable" news articles.


Sorry.  Misunderstood.  A little touchy right now.  hugs.

----------


## torchbearer

i'm sorry, it may be the wrong thing to do... but if they took my kid- it would be on like next of kin.

----------


## torchbearer

> Sorry.  Misunderstood.  A little touchy right now.  hugs.


yeah i know. luvs for you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

OK, so this is a Ghemmy video, so I'm a little skeptical right off the bat.

----------


## Danke

I'd recommend getting a hold of Gordon Hall.

----------


## Dr.3D

Well, it would seem the lesson to be learned from this is to keep out of the spotlight.   The names and identities of the Oath Keepers should probably be kept confidential.

----------


## Arklatex

.....   

Donated $100 to Oathkeepers after hearing this.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/...will-not-obey/

----------


## torchbearer

> OK, so this is a Ghemmy video, so I'm a little skeptical right off the bat.


yes, that would give pause.
remember the sick poodle?

----------


## pcosmar

> OK, so this is a Ghemmy video, so I'm a little skeptical right off the bat.


My first thought too, But looking for more and other sources.
Perhaps someone in NH knows this guy and his story.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, it would seem the lesson to be learned from this is to keep out of the spotlight.   The names and identities of the Oath Keepers should probably be kept confidential.


I think it would be better to shine the spotlight right on this atrocity!  Judge Nap and Stossel would take it on, I'm sure.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Only finding a little of the story and Georges Video.
> http://dprogram.net/2010/10/07/gover...from-hospital/
> 
> 
> Will look for more.


And that is nothing but a post from Ghemmy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My first thought too, But looking for more and other sources.
> Perhaps someone in NH knows this guy and his story.


On it.

Making calls now...

----------


## torchbearer

ericsnow = ghemmy?

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think it would be better to shine the spotlight right on this atrocity!  Judge Nap and Stossel would take it on, I'm sure.


Of course that is the way to handle this situation, after the fact.   Now knowing persecution is in store for those who would stand against tyranny, it may be advisable to keep the names and identities of those opposed to tyranny confidential.

----------


## Deborah K

> OK, so this is a Ghemmy video, so I'm a little skeptical right off the bat.


I saw that too but what about the OP? 




> Janvrin6228
> 2 minutes ago
> 
> Court is next week, I hope I can find a GOOD lawyer that﻿ will take this pro bono. These bastards are trying to say that my daughter is not safe with me because I am an OathKeeper WTF!!! IT ISN'T A DAMN MILITIA WHAT DON'T THEY COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS!!!

----------


## pcosmar

> ericsnow = ghemmy?


Possible. even likely.

Mixed feelings about George. but cautious.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I saw that too but what about the OP?


Can't speak to that, what I'm assuming was, a twitter post.

This post here is a Ghemmy post.

http://dprogram.net/2010/10/07/gover...from-hospital/

----------


## Deborah K

Wow!  If this is a prank, I will do everything within my power to discredit NIA.

----------


## Deborah K

> Of course that is the way to handle this situation, after the fact.   Now knowing persecution is in store for those who would stand against tyranny, it may be advisable to keep the names and identities of those opposed to tyranny confidential.


I see your point.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Of course that is the way to handle this situation, after the fact.   Now knowing persecution is in store for those who would stand against tyranny, it may be advisable to keep the names and identities of those opposed to tyranny confidential.


Negative.

Worst thing to do.

If anything, more people need to go public, more people need to openly declare that they stand against tyranny.

We are NOT the criminals here, we are NOT the ones that are supposed to cover our faces and go scuttling around in the dark.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Checking local news and talking to a few people here, nobody knows $#@!, and nothing in the news.

----------


## Deborah K

> Negative.
> 
> Worst thing to do.
> 
> If anything, more people need to go public, more people need to openly declare that they stand against tyranny.
> 
> We are NOT the criminals here, we are NOT the ones that are supposed to cover our faces and go scuttling around in the dark.


Think of it in terms of income tax, AF.  I'm pretty involved in the tax honesty movement and I can tell you, based on people I know who are political prisoners over the unconstitutionality of taxing wages, that those who have figured out how to work around the tyranny, are not so willing to stick their heads above the crowd.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Think of it in terms of income tax, AF.  I'm pretty involved in the tax honesty movement and I can tell you, based on people I know who are political prisoners over the unconstitutionality of taxing wages, that those who have figured out how to work around the tyranny, are not so willing to stick their heads above the crowd.


Oh, I understand, I've been there myself.

It's just the fact that we're all on our way to jail, regardless, that makes think more people should stand up.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Oh, I understand, I've been there myself.
> 
> It's just the fact that we're all on our way to jail, regardless, that makes think more people should stand up.


Remember the French Resistance.  They wouldn't have lasted very long if they had told everybody their identity.

----------


## oyarde

> Remember the French Resistance.  They wouldn't have lasted very long if they had told everybody their identity.


True .

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Remember the French Resistance.  They wouldn't have lasted very long if they had told everybody their identity.


The French Resistance was not very successful.

It took an allied invasion to free France.

_Everybody_ knew the founders names, identities and business whereabouts.

They put their names boldly on an open act of treason and rebellion.

----------


## RM918

Pessimistic as I am, this sounds pretty absurd. Would recommend not doing anything until it's verified somehow.

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh, I understand, I've been there myself.
> 
> It's just the fact that we're all on our way to jail, regardless, that makes think more people should stand up.


More and more are waking up _and_ standing up than ever before.  For that I thank Obama and his knucklehead crew in Congress.  

There are more of us than there are of them.  The Oathkeepers are a valuable asset to the movement.  If the gov't starts going after them, all hell could break loose.  I doubt seriously they will succumb to this kind of tyranny and hopefully they will back their brother up!

Maybe we should all send emails to Stuart Rhodes and ask him to check into this.  i'm going to send one now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> More and more are waking up _and_ standing up than ever before.  For that I thank Obama and his knucklehead crew in Congress.  
> 
> There are more of us than there are of them.  The Oathkeepers are a valuable asset to the movement.  If the gov't starts going after them, all hell could break loose.  I doubt seriously they will succumb to this kind of tyranny and hopefully they will back their brother up!
> 
> Maybe we should all send emails to Stuart Rhodes and ask him to check into this.  i'm going to send one now.


I've done the same.

----------


## VegasPatriot

OK, Oath Keepers is aware of this situation and we are trying to verify these claims.  If true, we will do everything in our power to help this family.  We are currently trying to contact them.  We are also in contact with Rob Dew (producer of the Alex Jones show) and Stewart will be on the AJ show tomorrow.  Thanks to everyone investigating this, we will be monitoring this thread for new information.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> negative.
> 
> Worst thing to do.
> 
> If anything, more people need to go public, more people need to openly declare that they stand against tyranny.
> 
> We are not the criminals here, we are not the ones that are supposed to cover our faces and go scuttling around in the dark.


That!

----------


## Arklatex

> *
> We are NOT the criminals here, we are NOT the ones that are supposed to cover our faces and go scuttling around in the dark.*



Si!

----------


## VegasPatriot

Stewart is on the phone with John Irish right now. John is going to fax a copy of the affidavit to us and we will post it on our website as well as Alex's websites.  I will post new updates as they come in.

----------


## ericsnow

> Possible. even likely.
> 
> Mixed feelings about George. but cautious.


Whoever Ghemmy is I am not him.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> .....   
> 
> Donated $100 to Oathkeepers after hearing this.
> 
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/...will-not-obey/


Thank you.  We are setting up a legal defense fund for John and his family and we will place your donation in that account.  Anyone else that wants to help John and his family can donate on our website; please note that you are donating for John Irish legal defense.

----------


## ericsnow

http://dprogram.net/2010/10/07/gover...from-hospital/

UPDATE:

Watchman Noyes
I have a copy of the affidavit and I can tell you that it says verbatim these words The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as Oath Keepers, and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser. (none of which is illegal, and anyone who has ever been to oathkeepers website knows that they are not a militia. I will not post the affidavit as it is still sealed information and I would be violating Mr. Irishs rights in doing so. If people have questions and they are a part of the media, then I can put them in touch with him. Otherwise for now, this is all the information that we have.

----------


## Romulus

this is huge....

----------


## VegasPatriot

Note from Stewart Rhodes:

Here is my  statement for now: 

We are doing all we can to confirm and document  this.  But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother's  arms because the parents were "associated" with Oath Keepers by simply being  members of our online ning  discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a  very serious line, and is utterly intolerable.  It cannot be done.  It cannot be  allowed to stand.   if it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it.    We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is  returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to  the fullest extent of the law.   There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom  of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and "speak truth to power,"  no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you  because of your political speech and associations - because you simply dare to  express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship  with other citizens and with active duty and retired  military and police who  simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution.  It was to prevent  just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our  First Amendment was written.   If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse,  than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists  as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for  separating from England.  We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to  be done.   And we will not let it stand.  

Stewart  Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers
Yale Law, 04
Army Airborne School, 83

----------


## oyarde

Someone post names of " govt agents " and agency .

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

if this is true this is some serious $#@!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I don't know man, this feels like a setup.  Not that Irish isn't the victim and his daughter didn't get kidnapped, but that it was done in all it's glory just in order to provoke a reaction...  

Reaction needs to be big, but it needs to be carefully thought out and well planned.  Who in the State Legislature there is friendly with our platform?

----------


## MelissaCato

Ya, this is serious $#@!.

----------


## Deborah K

> Note from Stewart Rhodes:
> 
> Here is my  statement for now: 
> 
> We are doing all we can to confirm and document  this.  But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother's  arms because the parents were "associated" with Oath Keepers by simply being  members of our online ning  discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a  very serious line, and is utterly intolerable.  It cannot be done.  It cannot be  allowed to stand.   if it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it.    We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is  returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to  the fullest extent of the law.   There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom  of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and "speak truth to power,"  no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you  because of your political speech and associations - because you simply dare to  express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship  with other citizens and with active duty and retired  military and police who  simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution.  It was to prevent  just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our  First Amendment was written.   If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse,  than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists  as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for  separating from England.  We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to  be done.   And we will not let it stand.  
> 
> Stewart  Rhodes
> Founder of Oath Keepers
> Yale Law, 04
> Army Airborne School, 83


Do you have a link for this?  I don't see anything on their site.

----------


## MelissaCato

Looks like it's only RPF and David Icke forums talking about it soo far.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...p?p=1059304642

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Do you have a link for this?  I don't see anything on their site.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

----------


## TrueAmerican

I also have a thread at ATS on this here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread617765/pg1

It's also on GLP:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1214470/pg1

It's spreading like viral, like fast.

----------


## amy31416

If Ghemmy is pimping this and it's bullsthit, can we finally dump him for good?

----------


## Bruno

skeptical

----------


## MelissaCato

I spoke to soon. Holy Cows ya it's viral. Google has 4 1/2 pages of discussions now.

----------


## Deborah K

> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/


Thank you.  Husband and I are on it.  Please, everyone, contact the Judge and Stossel, G.B., and Alex Jones.  We MUST protect our own!!!

----------


## Deborah K

> If Ghemmy is pimping this and it's bullsthit, can we finally dump him for good?


Oh I'll do more than that, I assure you!   But Rhodes is now in touch with the father as per the Oathkeeper's website.  It appears legit.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

r.... - Check
m........ - Check
a......... - Check
u...... - Check
k.. - Check

----------


## angelatc

> Do you have a link for this?  I don't see anything on their site.


It's there. http://bit.ly/cCJQ4q

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If Ghemmy is pimping this and it's bullsthit, can we finally dump him for good?


This.  And I vote for a deuce and a half to dump him off of - it's higher so it'll hurt more.   If it's legit, then good on him for breaking one.  But yeah, my eye is a little bit jaundiced right now too.

----------


## furface

Couple of problems with this story.

1. There is talk of an affidavit.  An affidavit is not a legal instrument that can separate a child from his/her parent.  You need a court order for that.  I highly doubt hospital staff would cooperate with an affidavit.  If they did they are in very serious trouble.

2. Where is the mother?  Does she have anything to say about this?

3. This happened last night?  This is enough to make national TV news if the circumstances are what they are claimed.

I have a very hard time believing this.

----------


## Deborah K

> This.  And I vote for a deuce and a half to dump him off of - it's higher so it'll hurt more.   If it's legit, then good on him for breaking one.  But yeah, my eye is a little bit jaundiced right now too.


If this is a hoax, and the Oathkeepers are being duped, there will be hell to be paid by someone, for sure.  This is waaaaay too serious!

----------


## Deborah K

> Stewart has just now as of 7:45PM PST, spoken to the father and he is faxing documents to Stewart. We are establishing a legal defense fund. Once it is confirmed through documentation that the father’s association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason, even if among several reasons listed, for taking the child, we will actively pursue aggressive legal remedy and redress. We will assist in locating competent local legal counsel in New Hampshire and additional expert legal counsel from around the country in First Amendment and child custody law. Stewart, who has worked on several First Amendment  cases in State and Federal court will also volunteer his services to assist in the case Pro Bono.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

----------


## angelatc

> Couple of problems with this story.
> 
> 1. There is talk of an affidavit.  An affidavit is not a legal instrument that can separate a child from his/her parent.  You need a court order for that.  I highly doubt hospital staff would cooperate with an affidavit.  If they did they are in very serious trouble.
> 
> 2. Where is the mother?  Does she have anything to say about this?
> 
> 3. This happened last night?  This is enough to make national TV news if the circumstances are what they are claimed.
> 
> I have a very hard time believing this.


Yes, but it is possible that the poster is misusing the word affidavit. It is probable that the mother can't even begin to talk right now. I can't imagine what she's going through.  

And this certainly won't be the first story that we heard about before it broke on national news.

But yeah - GHemmy isn't exactly reliable. He's supposed to be perma-banned, I think.

----------


## MelissaCato

> If this is a hoax, and the Oathkeepers are being duped, there will be hell to be paid by someone, for sure. This is waaaaay too serious!


I agree 100% and rightly so.

----------


## JoshLowry

Ghemmy was permabanned long ago.  

Pretty interesting story.

----------


## phill4paul

Waiting for and looking for confirmation.  So far nothing but the standard info in this thread.

----------


## angelatc

I'd bet that the state won't comment on it - they never comment on the kids they steal.

----------


## Philhelm

Well, first I'd like to say that I'm skeptical, not that I wouldn't put it past our government, mind you.  Having said that, if it is true, then this is a huge issue, and perhaps amongst the most grievous forms of tyranny a state can commit.

On the other hand, I can't help but to ask, "So what?"

What are we going to do?  Write our "representatives" and beg them to not steal our children for daring to exercise First Amendment Natural Law rights?  Are we going to have a sit-in somewhere?  Are we going to put our faith in the courts?  Or maybe we can post YouTube videos, gnashing our teeth and wringing our hands.  Wait, no...we can donate a few bucks to somebody!  Yeah, that'll show the government that we mean business, and that stealing our children is unacceptable.

----------


## Rael

Don't remember Ghemmy, why was he banned?

----------


## VegasPatriot

The document John Irish sent to us is from the State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch; it is a Juvenile Abuse / Neglect Ex Parte Order with an attached affidavit.  

This affidavit has a long list of reasons why the State became involved one of the reasons: The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, Oath Keepers, and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and taser.

  There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.

  That being said even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?

----------


## youngbuck

> The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a  militia known as Oath Keepers, and had purchased several different  types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser.


Holy sh't

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> Don't remember Ghemmy, why was he banned?


Long story Rael...

Now folks.. once we have this confirmed we need to really have a plan of action.. let's brainstorm... I have a feeling that if this is legit, phone calls and e-mails will be pointless.

----------


## Philhelm

> That being said even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?


Indeed, but let us not forget, when is it a crime for a father to lawfully own firearms?

----------


## Romulus

Sounds legit to me... but if someone knows the hospital, they can check birth records online... unless the hospital website scrubbed that info already?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't know man, this feels like a setup.  Not that Irish isn't the victim and his daughter didn't get kidnapped, but that it was done in all it's glory just in order to provoke a reaction...  
> 
> Reaction needs to be big, but it needs to be carefully thought out and well planned.  Who in the State Legislature there is friendly with our platform?


Dan Itse.

Already got a call in to him.

People, this man is on our side, don't call or email belligerently just because you're angry, rightly so, at the presumed premise of this story.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...?member=376357
Phone: (603)642-9403
Email: itsenh@comcast.net

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Dan Itse.
> 
> Already got a call into him


You read Stewart's mind.  Can I PM you with Stewart's phone number so you can pass it to Dan?

----------


## ericsnow

> The document John Irish sent to us is from the State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch; it is a Juvenile Abuse / Neglect Ex Parte Order with an attached affidavit.  
> 
> This affidavit has a long list of reasons why the State became involved… one of the reasons: “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and taser.”
> 
>   There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.
> 
>   That being said… even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?


Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?

----------


## specsaregood

> *There are other items listed* in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that those other items are relevent here.




> That being said even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?


Did it say it was a crime?  Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is a suitable environment for a child.

----------


## JenH88

> Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?


+1

what are the other reasons listed?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You read Stewart's mind.  Can I PM you with Stewart's phone number so you can pass it to Dan?


Sure, but I just updated the post with Itse's contact number and email, all public domain btw.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?


Yes there are some serious allegations, however these are allegations... it does not mean they are true.  But even a more fundemental point is that the mere association with OK or any other organization is not valid grounds for taking someones child away.  If we allow that to happen people will be afraid to speak.  That's called chilling their speech in first amendment law lingo.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Why the hell would it matter what these people did in the past? I don't care if they snorted a mountain of cocaine and beat themselves with steel dildos while wearing bugs bunny costumes.. The government has no right to barge in and remove a child from their biological parents when they have done no harm to that child.

And since when does the government get to decide what an appropriate home is for this child? So the government has a right to also make our moral decisions now?

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Sure, but I just updated the post with Itse's contact number and email, all public domain btw.


Thanks, Stewart will call Dan tomorrow.

----------


## tpreitzel

> But even a more fundemental point is that the mere association with OK or any other organization is not valid grounds for taking someones child away.  If we allow that to happen people will be afraid to speak.  That's called chilling their speech in first amendment law lingo.


Right ... that particular point, i.e. his involvement in OK, should NEVER have made the list if this situation is actually true.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## puppetmaster

I need more details... need to see all allegations and supporting documents before I can make my judgement.....but I lean heavily on the WTF side!!!

----------


## brandon

skeptical.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thanks, Stewart will call Dan tomorrow.


Excellent.

I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.

That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.

Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.

----------


## pcosmar

> Excellent.
> 
> I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.
> 
> That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.
> 
> Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.


Exactly where I am at. If there was some valid reason to snatch this kid, why even mention the OK or legal firearm ownership.
This smells of an agenda.

----------


## torchbearer

a pre-meditated kidnapping of a child. in my parts, those criminals get rope burn on their necks.

----------


## puppetmaster

> a pre-meditated kidnapping of a child. in my parts, those criminals get rope burn on their necks.


If that turns out top be the case....then yes they should hang!

Tell you what......if this happened to me then all hell would break loose 'round here!

I still need more solid info!

----------


## Romulus

> Excellent.
> 
> I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.
> 
> *That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.
> *
> Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.


That. It's precrime. The parents did nothing to warrant a child being taken away.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

The response time on disseminating facts for such a serious matter is not all that exciting.  On the other hand this is a situation where crystal clear facts are vital.  Like everyone else, waiting for more information.

----------


## Kylie

> Why the hell would it matter what these people did in the past? I don't care if they snorted a mountain of cocaine and beat themselves with steel dildos while wearing bugs bunny costumes.. The government has no right to barge in and remove a child from their biological parents when they have done no harm to that child.
> 
> And since when does the government get to decide what an appropriate home is for this child? So the government has a right to also make our moral decisions now?


$#@!ing word. 




So what's the situation? 

Is this for real? Because if it is, then I'm crossposting this $#@! all over the world.  I"m telling my Mom about it, and my mother in law. 

Every mother in the country(except the $#@!ty ones) will come undone like a raging bear over a situation like this. I am chomping at the bit to know this is indeed for real and I can let everyone know about it. 








You do not take our babies. Period.

----------


## ericsnow

> $#@!ing word. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the situation? 
> 
> Is this for real? Because if it is, then I'm crossposting this $#@! all over the world.  I"m telling my Mom about it, and my mother in law. 
> 
> ...


I think it's safe to say it's for real:

The document John Irish sent to us is from the State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch; it is a Juvenile Abuse / Neglect Ex Parte Order with an attached affidavit.

This affidavit has a long list of reasons why the State became involved… one of the reasons: “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and taser.”

There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.

That being said… even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=85

----------


## PeacePlan

Looks like it is confirmed to me - follow the link to the Oath Keepers site below and read it!

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

----------


## VegasPatriot

UPDATE :   10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in  support of the order to take the child from her parents  states ,along  with a long list of other assertions  against both parents, that The  Division became  aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a  militia known as  the Oath Keepers.     Yes, there are other, very  serious allegations.  Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we  will not publish the affidavit.  We will leave that to Mr. Irish.   But  please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are  merely allegations (and in my  experience as a criminal defense lawyer  in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).


 But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional  for government agencies to list Mr. Irishs association with Oath  Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his  daughter from his custody.    Talk about  chilling speech!   If this is  allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but  all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for  other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare.    Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong  to that officials may not approve of.   Dont you dare associate with  such and such group, or you could be on the list and then child  protective services might come take your kids.


 Note that there is no allegation that  Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the  context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime.   We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the  established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins  (See _Brandenburg v. Ohio_, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohios criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy  of violence.   We dont even advocate that the current serving use  violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence.  We ask them to  merely stand down.


 Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for  that matter.   However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid  reason to take someones child away.  PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE  OTHER  VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to  associate with them.   To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won  by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to  freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we  are not advocating or planning  imminent violence or directly harming  our children (and no, teaching them thought crime like All men are  created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable  rights, or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count  -- at least not yet).   A parent associating with a militia is not   engaged in child endangerment  and is not evidence of child endangerment  (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the  SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so).   Just recently a Time  Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a  militia member and his family -- and those kids are still at home, where  they belong, as is the case with many th0usands of children across this  country who have parents who associate with private militias and all  manner of other non-criminal groups.   You had damn well better defend  the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militias and  keep their kids while doing so.   You can bet that if you let such an  association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents  that it wont only be militia folks who have their rights violated.    Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on  the hit list.  Just wait.  Remember Pastor Niemöllers timeless warning:


 They came first for the Communists,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Communist.
 Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a trade unionist.
 Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Jew.
 Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up. 

A modern version might read like this:

They came first for the militia members,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a militia member.
 Then they came for the three percenters,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a three percenter.
 Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
and I didnt speak up because I wasnt an Oath Keeper.
 Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up. 



 So, defend the right of even the most  hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being  chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.


 But this particular listing of an  association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child  from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other  level of Alice in Wonderland down is up and up is down, when you  consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers  are current serving  police, fire-fighters, and military personnel.   Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving  police  officers.   How can associating  with such fine men and women who are  daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute   evidence of child endangerment?   How can it be that a New Hampshire  police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as  evidence of child abuse and endangerment?   Only in the bizzaro world  of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law,  keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered  extreme and dangerous.


 This is the camels nose under the  tent.  We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of  the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push  back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly  pushed upon us.   If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers  is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a  newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about  Oath Keepers except that the father is associated with this  organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First  Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly,  association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us -- and  it will only be the beginning.


 OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK --  peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens.  Let the officials in  question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association  with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child.  Let them  know you insist that they remove that reason from the affidavit and  issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all  of us, and also from our legal counsel.   And we wont relent until  they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and  association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights.  Be  professional, but firm.   Make them hear you.


 Stewart Rhodes

Link to article on Oath Keepers website: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Looks like it is confirmed to me - follow the link to the Oath Keepers site below and read it!
> 
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/





> *
> Stewart will post additional statements and info as this situation develops. Please be ready to flood the responsible parties with phone calls and emails to put public pressure on them in the court of public opinion.
> *
> 
> UPDATE :  10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents  states ,along with a long list of other assertions  against both parents, that The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.     Yes, there are other, very serious allegations.  Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit.  We will leave that to Mr. Irish.   *But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my  experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).*


Not looking $#@!ing promising. 

Some sorry ass state child abductors are about to have a world of $#@! land on their heads tomorrow morning. 




> We are doing all we can to confirm and document this. But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother's arms because the parents were "associated" with Oath Keepers by simply being members of our online ning discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a very serious line, and is utterly intolerable. It cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to stand. if it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and "speak truth to power," no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations - because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution. It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written. If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England. We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes
> Founder of Oath Keepers
> Yale Law, 04
> Army Airborne School, 83

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Has the full affidavit been made available anywhere?

----------


## PeacePlan

> Not looking $#@!ing promising. 
> 
> Some sorry ass state child abductors are about to have a world of $#@! land on their heads tomorrow morning.



Anyone know how to contact the judge on Freedom Watch? He needs to hear about this..

----------


## susano

hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.

First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we _are_ pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.

The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker $#@!s do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.

Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Anyone know how to contact the judge on Freedom Watch? He needs to hear about this..


I don't know.

I doubt any major media figure will touch this until more concrete facts are know.

I'd wager Alex Jones will cover it though.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.
> 
> First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we _are_ pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker $#@!s do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.
> 
> Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.


I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.  I do want to see the affidavit, a rebuttal to the affidavit, and make an informed decision because I am not someone who is going to say... ok folks let's play nice, this is just one baby stolen, no big deal.  

I would also like to see Josh post any known government IP domains represented in the 5k views this thread has.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I am in shock.

If this is true, tell me what I can do to help this family.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.  I do want to see the affidavit, a rebuttal to the affidavit, and make an informed decision because I am not someone who is going to say... ok folks let's play nice, this is just one baby stolen, no big deal.  
> 
> *I would also like to see Josh post any known government IP domains represented in the 5k views this thread has*.


That.
*
This is serious $#@!.*

Before acting in a "serious $#@!" fashion, you've damn well got to have all your ducks in row.

----------


## PeacePlan

> I don't know.
> 
> I doubt any major media figure will touch this until more concrete facts are know.
> 
> I'd wager Alex Jones will cover it though.


I just called Alex Jones and left a message on his tip line to check it out..

if anyone else wants to call - his # is 512-291-5750

----------


## VegasPatriot

> I just called Alex Jones and left a message on his tip line to check it out..
> 
> if anyone else wants to call - his # is 512-291-5750


Alex and his crew are already aware... Stewart and John Irish will be on his show tomorrow.

----------


## PeacePlan

> Alex and his crew are already aware... Stewart and John Irish will be on his show tomorrow.


Good I will have to watch that... Thx

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> UPDATE :   10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in  support of the order to take the child from her parents  states ,along  with a long list of other assertions  against both parents, that The  Division became  aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a  militia known as  the Oath Keepers.     Yes, there are other, very  serious allegations.  Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we  will not publish the affidavit.  We will leave that to Mr. Irish.   But  please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are  merely allegations (and in my  experience as a criminal defense lawyer  in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
> 
> 
>  But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional  for government agencies to list Mr. Irishs association with Oath  Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his  daughter from his custody.    Talk about  chilling speech!   If this is  allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but  all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for  other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare.    Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong  to that officials may not approve of.   Dont you dare associate with  such and such group, or you could be on the list and then child  protective services might come take your kids.
> 
> 
>  Note that there is no allegation that  Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the  context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime.   We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the  established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins  (See _Brandenburg v. Ohio_, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohios criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy  of violence.   We dont even advocate that the current serving use  violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence.  We ask them to  merely stand down.
> 
> 
> ...


Just.  damn.

----------


## puppetmaster

> hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.
> 
> First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we _are_ pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker $#@!s do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.
> 
> Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.


Acquiring the facts do not mean anything but that. I do not have enough evidence in this case to make a sound decision. THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL>>>>If there was evidence that this person is a child rapist than that would sway my opinion. I do not trust any story that I cannot get the full facts on. Bring forth the accusations...all of them, and any witness....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.
> 
> First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we _are_ pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker $#@!s do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.
> 
> Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.





100% agree with this post.


This is what being a "constitutionalist" in the USA will get you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 100% agree with this post.
> 
> 
> This is what being a "constitutionalist" in the USA will get you.


As do I, based on what's come out so far.

I'm only waiting on more information so as to make a determination on the very best way to blow these miserable sluts out of the water, metaphorically speaking.

----------


## squarepusher

> If Ghemmy is pimping this and it's bullsthit, can we finally dump him for good?


we haven't already?

----------


## Philhelm

> As do I, based on what's come out so far.
> 
> I'm only waiting on more information so as to make a determination on the very best way to blow these miserable sluts out of the water, metaphorically speaking.


I hate metaphors...

----------


## susano

You realize the way this $#@! comes down there is no due process. They just waltz in and kidnap the child. There is no way I believe there is any motivation in this situation other than intimidation of the dad for being associated with Oath Keepers, but even if there were, why shouldn't someone given a hearing FIRST? In the case of taking a newborn, there is no way to give back those critical hours lost with the mother.  The damage is DONE. This post is from GLP:


I am outraged and appalled that this child has been taken from its mother only 24 hrs after birth !!! The reasons given are suspect and have broad implications for all of us..

The child should at least be with the mother !!

Taking the baby away is child abuse...
MYTH
Babies Don't Need Their Mothers

This myth justifies keeping newborns in hospital nurseries and away from their mothers, a practice said to be necessary to ensure the babies' health. The opposite is true. From its mother the baby receives antibodies to ward off infections, as well as individual attention not available in a nursery. Lying next to mother helps the baby regulate its own body temperature, metabolic rate, hormone and enzyme levels, heart rate, and breathing. Separation of mothers and newborns is a physical deprivation and an emotional trial.

Mothers know deep within themselves what scientists are just discovering-that relations between mothers and babies are mutual, reciprocal, even magical. A baby's cry triggers release of the mother's milk, the only perfect milk on earth for babies. Breast-feeding after delivery speeds expulsion of the placenta and protects the mother from hemorrhaging. In addition, there is a vital power in the baby's look and touch to turn on feelings and skills necessary for successful mothering. Babies- need to hear their mother's voice, learn her sleep cycles, and recognize her body odors and facial expressions. Babies need to know their mothers are all right.

----------


## Kludge

I can't help but feel somewhat frustrated at how much public pressure will be on those involved to return the child and ignore the allegations. I'm not sure this should have been published until it was discovered whether or not the parents had the charges dropped and child returned because of being found innocent of the allegations.

Now, the results will very likely be tainted and we will never know if being an Oath Keeper had any bearing on why the child was abducted.

That said, best of luck to the innocent.

----------


## invisible

BOOOO!!!  Worst post of this entire thread ^^^^^

The key phrase here is "due process"

----------


## Kludge

> BOOOO!!!  Worst post of this entire thread ^^^^^
> 
> The key phrase here is "due process"


I didn't feel need to add to a topic already saturated. If this is just because of rape allegations or something, it's hardly news - it's a fairly common occurrence and the policy should be challenged. I have mixed feelings about gov't taking kids from homes where there's evidence of abuse. Is it worse to take kids away from likely abusive parents or to keep them together in case the allegations are false? I'm not sure. Is there evidence the parents are grossly unfit to care for their kid? I don't know. There still isn't enough info on this story to comment on that.

----------


## Scipio

> hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.
> 
> First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we _are_ pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker $#@!s do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.
> 
> Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.


But you have to understand. A lot of us have been burned with this type of story before. 

And this family just lost their kid, (for whatever reason) and I know i'd personally do or say anything if i thought it'd help me get my kid back too.

But if definently agree..URGENCY IS KEY. 

Even if this turns out to be bogus, let the powers that be know that we won't stand for this type of stuff incase they ever get the idea to do it later.

----------


## BenIsForRon

somebody needs to make a separate thread with a synopsis in OP later, I'm confused as hell.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't feel need to add to a topic already saturated. If this is just because of rape allegations or something, it's hardly news - it's a fairly common occurrence and the policy should be challenged. I have mixed feelings about gov't taking kids from homes where there's evidence of abuse. Is it worse to take kids away from likely abusive parents or to keep them together in case the allegations are false? I'm not sure. Is there evidence the parents are grossly unfit to care for their kid? I don't know. There still isn't enough info on this story to comment on that.


Let's just say for argument that this was a worst nightmare type situation, and even the most anarchistic amongst us would try and justify a way to protect the child.  Let's just say that's so to get to the next part - that they cited Oathkeepers association as a justification to seize custody of a newborn baby.

As soon as they start painting political perspectives into this, then the practice will grow, and soon every Constitutionalist will have to watch their backs from the liberals on the slow march through CPS.

I'm not assuming it, but even assuming that the child needed to be removed in every other way, the citation of association with a purely political organization as justification for the enforced seizure of custody of a child is a clear manifestation of thought crime and a direct chill on political speech everywhere.

This, if true, needs to be challenged, both publicly and very intensely.

----------


## Mach

A little skeptical too.... 

The joke here is, it doesn't matter what happens, no one in the government will take or receive any responsibility for this terrible thing, it will be swept around a few offices with nothing but an "official" statement from some public relations master.... and even then that will only happen if people don't let it get swept under the rug first.

----------


## libertarian4321

Have any other "Oath Keepers" had their children taken away because they were "Oath Keepers?"

I'm guessing the answer to that is "no."

Hence, one has to wonder, was the kid was taken because he was an "Oath Keeper" or because of the "long list" of other allegations against "both parents?"

My bet is, they had a ton of stuff against these people, and some low level clerk tossed the "Oath Keeper" stuff onto the long list of complaints.

Oath Keepers was likely not the primary reason the kid was taken.

Oath Keepers was likely not even an important reason the kid was taken.

Oath Keepers was probably a pile on- the government probably thought "we have all this bad stuff about the parents, and on top of that, the father is a member of this suspicious organization, so we'll just toss that onto the pile."

See, if being in Oath Keepers was a primary reason to take children, ALL OATH KEEPERS would have had their children taken, not just this one guy.

----------


## squarepusher

> Have any other "Oath Keepers" had their children taken away because they were "Oath Keepers?"
> 
> I'm guessing the answer to that is "no."
> 
> Hence, one has to wonder, was the kid was taken because he was an "Oath Keeper" or because of the "long list" of other allegations against "both parents?"
> 
> My bet is, they had a ton of stuff against these people, and some low level clerk tossed the "Oath Keeper" stuff onto the long list of complaints.
> 
> Oath Keepers was likely not the primary reason the kid was taken.
> ...


+1 lets  see the list

----------


## fj45lvr

Can't wait to see some actually firm reporting on the details here.  

I have to note too that this may be the work of officials for State? or county??  Not exactly a "blanket" condemnation on this instance here.  

If this is real I have to wonder what's up to bar "both" parents??  of course everyone has to know that when encroachments come you'd think that the "powers that be" in control would choose to "hand pick" an "example" that has the most shady and disgusting laundry to increase the chances that the statist interventions will "stick".

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Let's just say for argument that this was a worst nightmare type situation, and even the most anarchistic amongst us would try and justify a way to protect the child.  Let's just say that's so to get to the next part - that they cited Oathkeepers association as a justification to seize custody of a newborn baby.
> 
> As soon as they start painting political perspectives into this, then the practice will grow, and soon every Constitutionalist will have to watch their backs from the liberals on the slow march through CPS.
> 
> I'm not assuming it, but even assuming that the child needed to be removed in every other way, the citation of association with a purely political organization as justification for the enforced seizure of custody of a child is a clear manifestation of thought crime and a direct chill on political speech everywhere.
> 
> This, if true, needs to be challenged, both publicly and very intensely.


I don't like bull$#@!.  Especially when it is gravely serious bull$#@!.  

I do not like seeing a video talking about stolen newborn children where the only reason given is a political association.  I do not like a story confirmation that includes a disclosure there are other allegations but no disclosure as to what those allegations are.  I do not like seeing a video about stolen children, reference to political association, and lack of a timely full fact disclosure.  

It's all about context and the last thing that is needed is the bull $#@! pot being stirred on items of serious concern.

If the only item of concern turns out to be a political association articulated in an affidavit I agree it is a item of great concern but I am going to be very disappointed in the origins of this story.  Actually I will be disgusted with the origins of this story if that is the case.  You do not $#@! out of context on items of serious concern in uncertain times to your own team.

----------


## invisible

The government apologists here are appalling.  Gunny and AF have it right.

----------


## awake

If this story can be verified; today the Oath Keepers, tomorrow...?

----------


## phill4paul

> hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.


  susano, I think most of the "wait and see" attitude comes from the fact that the original disclosure came from ghemminger.
  Let's just say his video was taken with some scepitism as to whether ANY of it was indeed true.

 Since we now have confirmation and that the Oathkeepers were listed as a reason then we must all do our part. Since this salvo was fired at the Oathkeepers I have no problem letting them take the forefront in this battle and supporting them in EVERY way possible.

  So for starters...




> OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK -- peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens.  Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child.  Let them know you insist that they remove that reason from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel.   And we wont relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights.  Be professional, but firm.   Make them hear you.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## pcosmar

> Have any other "Oath Keepers" had their children taken away because they were "Oath Keepers?"
> 
> I'm guessing the answer to that is "no."
> 
> Hence, one has to wonder, was the kid was taken because he was an "Oath Keeper" or because of the "long list" of other allegations against "both parents?"
> 
> My bet is, they had a ton of stuff against these people, and some low level clerk tossed the "Oath Keeper" stuff onto the long list of complaints.
> 
> Oath Keepers was likely not the primary reason the kid was taken.
> ...


Actually Oathkeepers have in fact been targeted for malicious prosecution.
July4patriot (Charles Dyer) is one example. And there is another one (Darren Huff) that was challenging a corrupt local government official.
There have been targeted prosecutions.

*If there was a valid reason for this action that reason could be stated and stand on it's own.*
There is no reason to bring up either legal associations or legal property.
This stinks of agenda.

----------


## pcosmar

*For the morning crew. Wake up.*
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/



> But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional  for government agencies to list Mr. Irishs association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody.    Talk about  chilling speech!   If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare.   *Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that officials may not approve of.   Dont you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on the list and then child protective services might come take your kids.*

----------


## specsaregood

> The government apologists here are appalling.  Gunny and AF have it right.


Yeah, cuz jumping the gun and everybody rushing out in the name of people who might very well be child diddlers will turn out good for us and the oath keepers, etc.  As long as the long list of other accusations remains unknown, I'd error on the side of wait and see.   *If the parents were really looking for help they'd happily disclose and dispute the other list of allegations.*

With that said....if I had my tinfoil hat on I'd say this could be a great setup move and play on the over-reactiveness of the internet folk.

----------


## Arklatex

All I have to know is :


1) he is an oathkeeper
2) it is being used against him

check 
check

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, cuz jumping the gun and everybody rushing out in the name of people who might very well be child diddlers will turn out good for us and the oath keepers, etc.  As long as the long list of other accusations remains unknown, I'd error on the side of wait and see.   *If the parents were really looking for help they'd happily disclose and dispute the other list of allegations.*
> 
> With that said....if I had my tinfoil hat on I'd say this could be a great setup move and play on the over-reactiveness of the internet folk.


False allegations are common to the legal system. As is slander.

If there are grounds for removal that can stand alone without a mention of LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS.

The fact that this was mentioned in connection is Extremely Offensive.

The fact that this was mentioned as one of the reasons for removal call ANY other reason into question.

----------


## pcosmar

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html
*Is the Department of Homeland Security Targeting "Oath Keepers"* 




> This move is further proof of the radicalization of the government agents and their fear of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Why else would they be going after peaceful law abiding citizens who have are not charged with a crime ,and go to the extend of breaking apart the family bonds.
> The father, Jonathan Irish, has helped organize meetings around his home town in New Hampshire for over a year, but as far as we are aware is not an official part of the organization.   His facebook page shows that he has an interest in the Constitution, the second amendment, the bill of rights, martial arts, guns, the Dukes of Hazard, and the bible. All thoroughly American interests.  The mother Stephanie Janvrin fits the all American girl part; Her profile shows two beautiful toddlers at her household and show pictures of a most normal family. She is 22 years old, has two gorgeous toddlers, and a thoroughly normal facebook profile:
> 
> We spoke with one of their close friends today who told us that the family had been dutifully saving all their pennies for the arrival of baby Cheyenne, and that they were ecstatic at the birth and said that she was born a beautiful and healthy baby, and that the family was in shock the government could take away a baby from their family at less than 24 hours of age, when it needs her mother the most.  
> 
> Baby Cheyenne was taken away at Concord Hospital  by the so called Department of Health and Human Services, and the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF).





> Jonathan Irish and Stephanie are at home with the kids.  Neither has been charged with a crime at the time of this writing and none are expected. We at the Daily Tea Party ask them to remain strong and to know that the Freedom Movement community stands with them during this difficult period.  Everything will be alright, this perversion of justice can not last long once the light of truth and media scrutiny is shined.

----------


## JoshLowry

> The government apologists here are appalling.  Gunny and AF have it right.


I missed the posts where our members are apologizing for the government.  Ghemminger has a history of posting half truths for attention.

Most are reserving their outrage for some kind of hard facts, and I commend them.

----------


## specsaregood

> If there are grounds for removal that can stand alone without a mention of LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS.
> 
> The fact that this was mentioned in connection is Extremely Offensive.
> 
> The fact that this was mentioned as one of the reasons for removal call ANY other reason into question.


I'm with you.  But the fact that they haven't disclosed ALL the reasons is suspicious.   I don't know what the other allegations are and hopefully the parents are really upstanding moral people.  BUT if everybody jumps the gun and starts demanding the kids be returned and it turns out they were taken because of a history sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse, that is when the media will jump on this.  The headline will read:  _Oath Keepers want child to be returned home to parents accused of rape._ and the general public will associate Oath Keepers as a modern day version of nambla and the "oath" as some type of _don't tell on each other_ motto.

*I hope none of that ^ is true*; but we just don't know.  If I wanted to discredit an organization that would be a much more effective method......set the trap, let them walk into it.....

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> I missed the posts where our members are apologizing for the government.  Ghemminger has a history of posting half truths for attention.
> 
> Most are reserving their outrage for some kind of hard facts, and I commend them.


Exactly... I am highly pissed at this but will not turn that anger into action until I know for 100% certain that this is not a situation that was blown way out of proportion or outright fabricated for the sole purpose of getting attention.

----------


## pcosmar

> I missed the posts where our members are apologizing for the government.  Ghemminger has a history of posting half truths for attention.
> 
> Most are reserving their outrage for some kind of hard facts, and I commend them.





> Exactly... I am highly pissed at this but will not turn that anger into action until I know for 100% certain that this is not a situation that was blown way out of proportion or outright fabricated for the sole purpose of getting attention.


http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html
*Is the Department of Homeland Security Targeting "Oath Keepers"* 




> This move is further proof of the radicalization of the government agents and their fear of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Why else would they be going after peaceful law abiding citizens who have are not charged with a crime ,and go to the extend of breaking apart the family bonds.
> The father, Jonathan Irish, has helped organize meetings around his home town in New Hampshire for over a year, but as far as we are aware is not an official part of the organization.   His facebook page shows that he has an interest in the Constitution, the second amendment, the bill of rights, martial arts, guns, the Dukes of Hazard, and the bible. All thoroughly American interests.  The mother Stephanie Janvrin fits the all American girl part; Her profile shows two beautiful toddlers at her household and show pictures of a most normal family. She is 22 years old, has two gorgeous toddlers, and a thoroughly normal facebook profile:
> 
> We spoke with one of their close friends today who told us that the family had been dutifully saving all their pennies for the arrival of baby Cheyenne, and that they were ecstatic at the birth and said that she was born a beautiful and healthy baby, and that the family was in shock the government could take away a baby from their family at less than 24 hours of age, when it needs her mother the most.  
> 
> Baby Cheyenne was taken away at Concord Hospital  by the so called Department of Health and Human Services, and the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF).





> *Jonathan Irish and Stephanie are at home with the kids.  Neither has been charged with a crime at the time of this writing and none are expected.* We at the Daily Tea Party ask them to remain strong and to know that the Freedom Movement community stands with them during this difficult period.  Everything will be alright, this perversion of justice can not last long once the light of truth and media scrutiny is shined.

----------


## specsaregood

> http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html
> *Is the Department of Homeland Security Targeting "Oath Keepers"*


So the kids were removed, the allegations were investigated and then the children were returned already?

----------


## pcosmar

> So the kids were removed, the allegations were investigated and then the children were returned already?


NO
They took the newborn baby. They are charged with NO crime and they still have their other children.
They snatched the newborn baby from the mothers arms.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> So the kids were removed, the allegations were investigated and then the children were returned already?


No.  The infant is still gone.  The other two children (toddlers) are at home with the parents.

----------


## RM918

> False allegations are common to the legal system. As is slander.
> 
> If there are grounds for removal that can stand alone without a mention of LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS.
> 
> The fact that this was mentioned in connection is Extremely Offensive.
> 
> The fact that this was mentioned as one of the reasons for removal call ANY other reason into question.


Indeed. I know that it's actually not all that uncommon for, say, divorce cases to have charges of child molestation thrown in even if they're blatantly unfounded because there's no penalty for doing so. The accuser will get the kids immediately while the one being accused will be completely barred from seeing the kids and from what I've heard some lawyers will even advise this as a legal tactic.

----------


## pcosmar

> Indeed. I know that it's actually not all that uncommon for, say, divorce cases to have charges of child molestation thrown in even if they're blatantly unfounded because there's no penalty for doing so. The accuser will get the kids immediately while the one being accused will be completely barred from seeing the kids and from what I've heard some lawyers will even advise this as a legal tactic.


I witnessed a case in Florida. Navy couple. No abuse, no divorce,
Just the unilateral will of an "investigator".

It cost the family several thousands and took 3 years to get their kids back.

----------


## fisharmor

> If there are grounds for removal that can stand alone without a mention of LEGAL ASSOCIATIONS.


 At this point it really doesn't matter to me whether the parents are pedophiles.  If it was about pedophilia (or whatever the other charges are) then they wouldn't have made it about voluntary, lawful associations.

In a just world, one full of people who aren't American Idol watching $#@!tards, the government would be forced to return the daughter on this one sticking point.  In a sane world, people would realize that a government that can't stick to the point and has to throw vilification of politically incorrect organizations into the legal system ought not to exist.  People would be able to clearly differentiate between a group that is executing laws for the benefit of the people, and a group that's making $#@! up to harass its vassals, and they'd be able to make that distinction regardless of what the parents are up to.

That is the point to be made here, at least for those listening.  If the government isn't held to a higher standard than individuals for what is moral and just, then it has no business at all making pronouncements on what is moral and just.

I'm also really quite disappointed that things have gotten to this, and those who oppose the state are still keeping their torches and pitchforks in the closet.

It's also a great big shame to me that this was so unavoidable.... hospital childbirth is a racket, and if these people knew that, none of this would have happened.

----------


## Kludge

> I witnessed a case in Florida. Navy couple. No abuse, no divorce,
> Just the unilateral will of an "investigator".
> 
> It cost the family several thousands and took 3 years to get their kids back.


What is the solution to that?

+1 on FA's hospital birth comment

----------


## Romulus

> It's also a great big shame to me that this was so unavoidable.... *hospital childbirth is a racket*, and if these people knew that, none of this would have happened.


How so? I'm not disagreeing.. just want to get your take... my sense is when they take blood at birth and also push a Hep B vaccine. I'm sure there is more to it..

----------


## klamath

> I missed the posts where our members are apologizing for the government.  Ghemminger has a history of posting half truths for attention.
> 
> Most are reserving their outrage for some kind of hard facts, and I commend them.


That is the way I look at it. I really don't like the idea that Ghemmy is laughing his head off at those gullible F****.
I also don't like the possibility that this was a political setup to get the Oathkeepers to leap in and support some REAL REAL sick people and then have national news stories "OathKeepers defend child rapists!" The media has been looking for a reason to bash the oathkeepers and this could fall into their hands perfectly.
If this is real as current information makes it appear then all political and criminal hell should come down on this governement agency.

----------


## pcosmar

> What is the solution to that?
> 
> +1 on FA's hospital birth comment


You wouldn't like my solution. And it can not be posted on this forum.
And THAT IS the problem.

----------


## ericsnow

97.There are NO criminal charges, they are charging us with abuse and neglect on a child that wasnt even 16 hours old!!! This makes NO SENSE!!!

Comment by Johnathon Irish  October 8, 2010 @ 5:41 am

----------


## Original_Intent

> I missed the posts where our members are apologizing for the government.  Ghemminger has a history of posting half truths for attention.
> 
> Most are reserving their outrage for some kind of hard facts, and I commend them.


That's where I am. As soon as I saw that George had anything to do with the proliferation of this story my BS meter pegged.

If anything approaching what has been represented actually happened, there should be all kinds of hell to pay. And if this is just more of George4Title's bull$#@!, somebody needs to beat the living $#@! out of him.

I am not advocating violence. Notice the qualifier "if". But I am pretty sick of his crap, the guy is a complete horse's ass and this, if it is not true, is a new low for him and qualifies as "agent provacateur" material.

----------


## ericsnow

Send this story - http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/

to drudge@drudgereport.com

----------


## pcosmar

> That's where I am. As soon as I saw that George had anything to do with the proliferation of this story my BS meter pegged.
> 
> If anything approaching what has been represented actually happened, there should be all kinds of hell to pay. And if this is just more of George4Title's bull$#@!, somebody needs to beat the living $#@! out of him.
> 
> I am not advocating violence. Notice the qualifier "if". But I am pretty sick of his crap, the guy is a complete horse's ass and this, if it is not true, is a new low for him and qualifies as "agent provacateur" material.


Was my initial reaction as well, skeptical.
*HOWEVER*
*The story has been confirmed.* 
Got that, Confirmed, by responsible parties. This is no longer a question of IF.
This was done and it is ongoing.

So what if Ghemmy broke it. Folks had the same reaction to AJones when he broke the MIAC Report.
It's AJ , it can't be true.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Kludge

> You wouldn't like my solution. And it can not be posted on this forum.
> And THAT IS the problem.


No - I mean - let's say you're dictator for a day - how would you solve the problem of prosecutors like that? More strict and difficult BAR exams? Or would you h-word the prosecutor who attacked that couple? Something else?

----------


## JoshLowry

> Was my initial reaction as well, skeptical.
> *HOWEVER*
> *The story has been confirmed.* 
> Got that, Confirmed, by responsible parties. This is no longer a question of IF.
> This was done and it ongiong.


Well that sucks.  The blowback from this should be pretty large.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Hey eric, how about you edit and update your OP that started this thread for the new people coming across this.
> In it you say,_ "The infant was taken solely because the father is a member of Oath Keepers "_ which has been confirmed to not be true.


Removed.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I'm with you.  But the fact that they haven't disclosed ALL the reasons is suspicious.   I don't know what the other allegations are and hopefully the parents are really upstanding moral people.  BUT if everybody jumps the gun and starts demanding the kids be returned and it turns out they were taken because of a history sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse, that is when the media will jump on this.  The headline will read:  _Oath Keepers want child to be returned home to parents accused of rape._ and the general public will associate Oath Keepers as a modern day version of nambla and the "oath" as some type of _don't tell on each other_ motto.
> 
> *I hope none of that ^ is true*; but we just don't know.  If I wanted to discredit an organization that would be a much more effective method......set the trap, let them walk into it.....


This worries me as well:  If this is a carefully planned trap, it was likely constructed as a win/win situation for the statists.

Obviously, we all know that it's completely outrageous for a child to be taken from her parents with no conviction, trial, hearing, or even advance notice.  As others have said though, this deprival of due process tends to happen pretty regularly as a "precaution" when serious allegations of child abuse, molestation, etc. are initially brought forward by someone.  In that sense, it is not entirely unprecedented or completely unusual (even if it's terrible regardless).

*However, it does seem EXTREMELY unusual that the government would choose to take a newborn - and not the two other toddlers - away less than 24 hours after birth.  That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.  Think about this:  If the parents were truly a danger to the children, and the government was stepping in for that reason, they would have done so already "on behalf of the toddlers," long before this new child was born!  At the very least, they would have gone for the toddlers in addition to the newborn.*

*In short, we can conclude that this has nothing to do with overzealous statists trying to "protect the children."  The only reasonable alternative is that this abduction was methodically planned for some other reason.*  It may be to intimidate Oath Keepers and Constitutionalists and chill free speech, but the presence of other serious allegations in the affidavit indicate that this was planned out much, much better.

*I don't think they're trying to intimidate John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin for their association with the Oath Keepers.  I think the plan is to smear and discredit the Oath Keepers - and their supporters - for our association with Irish and Janvrin.*

All of us here agree that this is a matter of due process.  Regardless of whether the [unknown but apparently serious] allegations are true, a child - ESPECIALLY a newborn baby - should not be snatched from its parents without due process.  That's a no-brainer for us.  Furthermore, it's completely outrageous that weapon purchases and political associations were included in the affidavit.  We all agree on that.

At the same time, I think it's crucial that we go into this with our eyes wide open and proceed with caution.  This may be a direct assault on liberty, but even more so, it's probably intended as an indirect assault on liberty through publicly discrediting the Oath Keepers and us.  If so, it's extremely likely that the government hand-picked John Irish from all other possible Oath Keepers, because he somehow gave them the best odds of a win/win situation.

Because of that, the allegations (whatever they are) might even be true.  Even if they're false, they will be at least plausible enough that the public will be successfully convinced of their truth.  If this is a trap, the government is counting on us to publicize this and make it viral.  In the course of reporting this story, the Oath Keepers are going to be portrayed as insane reactionaries who defend child abusers, child molesters, or whatever they are going to pin on Irish and Janvrin.

The government will play dumb and fall back on the precedents others have mentioned, and so the media will also likely attack the Oath Keepers for "hypocritically" defending one of their own with ferocity while they let so many other state child abductions slide.  The red flags and [presumably] unique circumstances here, such as abducting a newborn but not the other children, will be glossed over.

*Bottom line:  This is an obvious assault on liberty, but I think there's more going on here.  We need to proceed against this, but we also need to look out for the attempt to discredit us and the Oath Keepers and outmaneuver it.*

Of course, all of this assumes that this isn't a hoax in the first place.  The odds of that have dropped very low though:  Given that the Oath Keepers have spoken with John Irish, the only I imagine it could still be a hoax is if Irish himself is behind it.

----------


## pcosmar

> No - I mean - let's say you're dictator for a day - how would you solve the problem of prosecutors like that? More strict and difficult BAR exams? Or would you h-word the prosecutor who attacked that couple? Something else?


I would eliminate Prosecutors. The very concept should not exist.

got a problem, see the Sheriff, That is what he is elected for, Or see the Judge and present facts corroborated with witnesses.

but they don't let me run anything.

----------


## fisharmor

> How so? I'm not disagreeing.. just want to get your take... my sense is when they take blood at birth and also push a Hep B vaccine. I'm sure there is more to it..


Here's the book that converted me....

Childbirth is so wrapped up in liability concerns that hospitals are still performing barbaric procedures as a matter of policy.

The state is no longer having people who buck the system beaten to death in an insane asylum, but they're certainly not the accepted norm.

My first-hand experience is that if you look for them in advance, there are childbirth professionals who know how to deal with a baby being accidentally born in your bathroom with the cord wrapped around her neck three times, and know that that can work out just fine....

----------


## Deborah K

I slept like crap last night thinking about this poor family.  Read through the thread and noticed some people are wondering if the so-called "other serious allegations" may have something to do with molestation. As has been mentioned, if that were the case, the other two children would be taken as well.  I don't know what the laws are in N.H. regarding drug addicted babies, but in Cali, they won't let you take the baby home.  

This is the parents' private business and as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with the matter at hand - that is - listing the father's association with O.K. as a reason.  

Please, contact everyone listed in this thread.  Make this important.  We cannot stand for this in any way, shape, or form!

----------


## squarepusher

we still need more information IMO, they could just be using the Oath Keepers as a tool or scapegoat for something more serious

but if is nothing else substantial there there should be big hell to pay

----------


## puppetmaster

> This worries me as well:  If this is a carefully planned trap, it was likely constructed as a win/win situation for the statists.
> 
> Obviously, we all know that it's completely outrageous for a child to be taken from her parents with no conviction, trial, hearing, or even advance notice.  As others have said though, this deprival of due process tends to happen pretty regularly as a "precaution" when serious allegations of child abuse, molestation, etc. are initially brought forward by someone.  In that sense, it is not entirely unprecedented or completely unusual (even if it's terrible regardless).
> 
> *However, it does seem EXTREMELY unusual that the government would choose to take a newborn - and not the two other toddlers - away less than 24 hours after birth.  That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.  Think about this:  If the parents were truly a danger to the children, and the government was stepping in for that reason, they would have done so already "on behalf of the toddlers," long before this new child was born!  At the very least, they would have gone for the toddlers in addition to the newborn.*
> 
> *In short, we can conclude that this has nothing to do with overzealous statists trying to "protect the children."  The only reasonable alternative is that this abduction was methodically planned for some other reason.*  It may be to intimidate Oath Keepers and Constitutionalists and chill free speech, but the presence of other serious allegations in the affidavit indicate that this was planned out much, much better.
> 
> *I don't think they're trying to intimidate John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin for their association with the Oath Keepers.  I think the plan is to smear and discredit the Oath Keepers - and their supporters - for our association with Irish and Janvrin.*
> ...



+1

----------


## pcosmar

> we still need more information IMO, they could just be using the Oath Keepers as a tool or scapegoat for something more serious
> 
> but if is nothing else substantial there there should be big hell to pay


And why would membership or association with the Oath Keepers be relevant in any way?
*Why was it included in the paperwork?*

----------


## fedup100

> Yeah, cuz jumping the gun and everybody rushing out in the name of people who might very well be child diddlers will turn out good for us and the oath keepers, etc.  As long as the long list of other accusations remains unknown, I'd error on the side of wait and see.   *If the parents were really looking for help they'd happily disclose and dispute the other list of allegations.*
> 
> With that said....if I had my tinfoil hat on I'd say this could be a great setup move and play on the over-reactiveness of the internet folk.


The biggest group of known child diddlers other than a catholic priest, IS child protective services. 

Those here who believe any citizen is guilty until proven innocent and their children, freedom and possessions should be taken until the unjust courts prove otherwise need to get off this forum

This is a RP forum that should be promoting constitutional freedoms and sanity.  To allow this forum to be tainted with the Obama lite form of morbid fascist constitutionalism is a disgrace and will eventually poison the whole lot of young seeking the truth of liberty. 

"Is it time" is a question that has been asked too many times with too few yea's, now the road to freedom will require too much sacrifice, our lot seems to be sealed.  

Get ready all you ignorant socialist jackasses that have promoted and allowed this kind of demonic fascist rule to creep like a dark cancer covering the land for you, your children and possessions will be next for evil owes no allegiance.

----------


## Mini-Me

> No - I mean - let's say you're dictator for a day - how would you solve the problem of prosecutors like that? More strict and difficult BAR exams? Or would you h-word the prosecutor who attacked that couple? Something else?


The problem is that there is no accountability for misbehaving CPS kidnappers, judges, prosecutors, etc.  As a rule, abducting children without due process cannot be allowed.  Under especially extreme circumstances, perhaps we can allow a judge to issue a warrant/court order to preemptively secure the children...*but by doing so, they should be putting their own asses on the line, and there should be serious consequences if they're wrong.*  A trial for the parents must follow shortly thereafter, much like with habeas corpus...and the interested parties (kidnappers, judge who signed warrant, etc.) should have no influence over the proceedings.  If the parents are exonerated by reasonable doubt, that means the warrant was wholly unjustified and on shaky grounds (because it should only be used in extreme and obvious smoking-gun situations).  At that point, the abductors and judge must be held FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, like anyone else would be.  No, "Oops, we were wrong.  Sorry we ruined your lives," $#@!.  Their sentence should be no different from any other child abductor's.  Basically, there are exceptions to every rule, but when you break a rule, you'd better have a damn good reason, or else.

Just to throw in a few more reforms:
Eliminate bar requirements or other legal requirements to become a practicing lawyer.  Short term, all hell breaks loose with crappy lawyers.  Long term, the market stabilizes.If you bring forth frivolous/unsubstantiated lawsuits as a plaintiff:  You should have to pay for all legal costs on both sides, plus compensation for wages, etc.  This doesn't happen enough, which is why there are too many frivolous lawsuits.Anyone should be able to bring forth criminal charges, not just government-appointed prosecutors.  If you bring forth frivolous/unsubstantiated criminal charges:  You should have to personally pay the same costs as above (unless the DA office pays for you, but taxpayers should have a say...that is, unless we go full-out voluntaryist).  On top of that, prosecutors (etc.) should seriously start being held criminally accountable for misconduct of all sorts...which would happen if anyone could bring charges against them in response to corruption/misconduct/etc. in another trial.

*That's for starters.  Now, this discussion is probably best continued in another thread, because it's only tangentially related to the matter at hand.*

----------


## squarepusher

> And why would membership or association with the Oath Keepers be relevant in any way?
> *Why was it included in the paperwork?*


well, lets say this person has a history of violent weapon assault or outstanding weapons warrants, then it may be a consideration.

We need the whole story, obviously Oath Keepers alone is not reason to take away a child...

----------


## Pericles

> This worries me as well:  If this is a carefully planned trap, it was likely constructed as a win/win situation for the statists.
> 
> Obviously, we all know that it's completely outrageous for a child to be taken from her parents with no conviction, trial, hearing, or even advance notice.  As others have said though, this deprival of due process tends to happen pretty regularly as a "precaution" when serious allegations of child abuse, molestation, etc. are initially brought forward by someone.  In that sense, it is not entirely unprecedented or completely unusual (even if it's terrible regardless).
> 
> *However, it does seem EXTREMELY unusual that the government would choose to take a newborn - and not the two other toddlers - away less than 24 hours after birth.  That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.  Think about this:  If the parents were truly a danger to the children, and the government was stepping in for that reason, they would have done so already "on behalf of the toddlers," long before this new child was born!  At the very least, they would have gone for the toddlers in addition to the newborn.*
> 
> *In short, we can conclude that this has nothing to do with overzealous statists trying to "protect the children."  The only reasonable alternative is that this abduction was methodically planned for some other reason.*  It may be to intimidate Oath Keepers and Constitutionalists and chill free speech, but the presence of other serious allegations in the affidavit indicate that this was planned out much, much better.
> 
> *I don't think they're trying to intimidate John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin for their association with the Oath Keepers.  I think the plan is to smear and discredit the Oath Keepers - and their supporters - for our association with Irish and Janvrin.*
> ...


Be that as it may, I suggest it misses the key points (A) membership in Oath Keepers is mention in the supporting document as justification for the action taken (B) ownership of firearms is also mentioned. The principle must be enforced that lawful activities can never be the grounds for government action against an individual. Other accusations must stand or fall on their own, without attempting to prejudice the case.

OK, firearms owners, and private military organizations (militias) must establish and maintain the principle that no one touches me with impunity. To imply that a member of one of the three groups of persons mentioned, is engaged in activity of a suspicious nature is a cancer that  must be removed from any government literature, training material, or policy. To do otherwise is to allow government agencies dictate what private associations of citizens are "acceptable", and that would be "fighting words" to those who believe in freedom.

----------


## Deborah K

> we still need more information IMO, they could just be using the Oath Keepers as a tool or scapegoat for something more serious
> 
> but if is nothing else substantial there there should be big hell to pay


The fact that the O.K. are willing to take this on, all while having facts that we don't have, I would venture to say that Rhodes (founder) is not one to be taken for a fool.

----------


## pcosmar

> well, lets say this person has a history of violent weapon assault or outstanding weapons warrants, then it may be a consideration.
> 
> We need the whole story, obviously Oath Keepers alone is not reason to take away a child...


No charges are filed. Weapons are legal, and are legally owned.

Of course association is not a reason to take the child. They don't ever need a valid reason to take a child. *only an excuse.*

This was the excuse STATED.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Be that as it may, I suggest it misses the key points (A) membership in Oath Keepers is mention in the supporting document as justification for the action taken (B) ownership of firearms is also mentioned. The principle must be enforced that lawful activities can never be the grounds for government action against an individual. Other accusations must stand or fall on their own, without attempting to prejudice the case.
> 
> OK, firearms owners, and private military organizations (militias) must establish and maintain the principle that no one touches me with impunity. To imply that a member of one of the three groups of persons mentioned, is engaged in activity of a suspicious nature is a cancer that  must be removed from any government literature, training material, or policy. To do otherwise is to allow government agencies dictate what private associations of citizens are "acceptable", and that would be "fighting words" to those who believe in freedom.


Don't worry, I'm with you on that.



> Furthermore, it's completely outrageous that weapon purchases and political associations were included in the affidavit. We all agree on that.


I totally agree that this cannot be allowed to stand.  I just think we all need to go forward with eyes wide open, because I think the government is counting on our reaction.  We have no choice but to walk into their trap, but we should go in recognizing it for what it is.

----------


## fedup100

> well, lets say this person has a history of violent weapon assault or outstanding weapons warrants, then it may be a consideration.
> 
> We need the whole story, obviously Oath Keepers alone is not reason to take away a child...


So the next logical step in the approved reasons for taking above would be to not allow any person with a gun to keep their new born children.  Next lets move on to food abuse.  The next family caught with sugar in their homes will not be allowed to keep their children.  This rabbit hole will go so deep, YOU will find your ox gored on the way down.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

did anyone catch the facebook page?

CPS Watch does have a legal team that does work pro-bono

-t

----------


## klamath

Oath keepers need to come down HARD on the fact that their name was listed as a reason. However they need to tread real cautiously with defending these people. Personally knowing someone that was highly involved in the Montana Militia I would want no part in defending this kind of person. This guy for years drugged his teenage step daughter with date rape drugs in her soft drinks. It started before she was even a teenager. When she finially found out what was going on he cautioned her that she loved her brother and mother too much to say anything.  This guy claimed to be a God fearing non violent christian. If the oath keepers stake their reputation on defending someone like this they will lose and lose bad as a viable organization.

----------


## angelatc

> My first-hand experience is that if you look for them in advance, there are childbirth professionals who know how to deal with a baby being accidentally born in your bathroom with the cord wrapped around her neck three times, and know that that can work out just fine....


Can a midwife do emergency surgery, and does she carry around bottles of blood for transfusions? If not, what about the woman who starts hemorrhaging when the placenta separates from the uterus during labor? That happened when I was in the hospital to the only other mother there.  Her OB/GYN wasn't even there yet. 

The anesthesiologist literally had the needle in her hand, ready to start my anesthetic when the nurse came in and told her and my doctor to come, NOW.  My OB/GYN told me that if I hadn't been there, and my doctors hadn't been there by extension, the other woman probably would have bled to death in minutes. 

It's a numbers game. Things like that probably won't happen. It's pretty rare when it happens, but insinuating that medical professionals have no bearing on the massive improvements on infant survival over the past century is deceptive.

----------


## Mini-Me

> And why would membership or association with the Oath Keepers be relevant in any way?
> *Why was it included in the paperwork?*


I see only three possibilities here:
As someone else mentioned, it could be some low-level grunt throwing as much $#@! onto the pile as possible for good measure, just to make the list longer.It could be to intimidate Irish by letting him know why he was really targeted...but there's hardly a point in that.More likely, I think it was specifically included to draw the Oath Keepers and us into a bad publicity trap.  If they hadn't done something so outrageous, and if this was just a run-of-the-mill state kidnapping case, would we be responding like we are now?




> The fact that the O.K. are willing to take this on, all while having facts that we don't have, I would venture to say that Rhodes (founder) is not one to be taken for a fool.


You make a very good point.

----------


## angelatc

> The fact that the O.K. are willing to take this on, all while having facts that we don't have, I would venture to say that Rhodes (founder) is not one to be taken for a fool.


Yes, and he's seen the paperwork.  I also suspect he's advising the family not to make it public.

----------


## ericsnow



----------


## klamath

Who is Stephinie Tayler listed in the change of venue? http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/  Is that the same Stephanie as Stephanie Janvrin? Stephanie Tayler has been to trial for revoking parental rights?

----------


## pcosmar

> Oath keepers need to come down HARD on the fact that their name was listed as a reason. However they need to tread real cautiously with defending these people. Personally knowing someone that was highly involved in the Montana Militia I would want no part in defending this kind of person. This guy for years drugged his teenage step daughter with date rape drugs in her soft drinks. It started before she was even a teenager. When she finially found out what was going on he cautioned her that she loved her brother and mother too much to say anything.  This guy claimed to be a God fearing non violent christian. If the oath keepers stake their reputation on defending someone like this they will lose and lose bad as a viable organization.


The same $#@! could be said of police officers in any city in this country if you want to use "guilt by association" as a grounds for arrest.
Wasn't a Federal judge just busted for drugs and prostitution?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Who is Stephinie Tayler listed in the change of venue? http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/  Is that the same Stephanie as Stephanie Janvrin? Stephanie Tayler has been to trial for revoking parental rights?


I was wondering the same thing...

----------


## klamath

> The same $#@! could be said of police officers in any city in this country if you want to use "guilt by association" as a grounds for arrest.
> Wasn't a Federal judge just busted for drugs and prostitution?


So. And any organization that would stake its reputation on defending those corrupt officers and judge would be taking itself down.

----------


## squarepusher

so this family had a Termination of Parental Rights Trial already, so this shouldn't be a surprise.  Why did they have a termination of parental rights trial?  That should be the main issue.

by the way, that point 7 looks photoshopped, or the formatting is not consistent with the previous 6 points

----------


## specsaregood

> so this family had a Termination of Parental Rights Trial already, so this shouldn't be a surprise.


Indeed and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with "oath keepers".




> by the way, that point 7 looks photoshopped, or the formatting is not consistent with the previous 6 points


It might have been done in order to get it all to fit on a single page.

----------


## squarepusher

> It might have been done in order to get it all to fit on a single page.


yeah, that makes sense, looks like it was the top of the 2nd page photocopied together.

I don't think this is an Oathkeeper Issue, there were other problems dating back in history, which may or may not have to do with the Oathkeepers, however  it should have been dealt with then, it seems this family, justifiably or not,  has a history with police and social workers

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> so this family had a Termination of Parental Rights Trial already, so this shouldn't be a surprise.


Even if this was the case, what authority would the government have to take away parental rights over a child that these people were never accused of mistreating, abusing, neglecting,etc. Would this not, in effect, be the same as convicting someone of a crime that they have not committed?

----------


## klamath

> Even if this was the case, what authority would the government have to take away parental rights over a child that these people were never accused of *mistreating, abusing, neglecting,etc*. Would this not, in effect, be the same as convicting someone of a crime that they have not committed?


That would be the evidence in the trial.

----------


## squarepusher

> Even if this was the case, what authority would the government have to take away parental rights over a child that these people were never accused of mistreating, abusing, neglecting,etc. Would this not, in effect, be the same as convicting someone of a crime that they have not committed?


well, what you say maybe very well may be true, but I don't think this is an Oathkeeper issue.  It seems like a separate issue they should deal with their public defender about.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I don't see anything on that paper that indicates a crime. Do any of you?

We all know what "Neglect" means in regards to the State. Similarly, it appears like carrying a weapon without a license is of supreme importance to the State, as they will now take your children for the aforementioned and other unmentionables not indicated in this injustice.

*Why does anyone even take State law serious anymore?*  It is pure edict, unrelated to actual crime, and it is used as a tool of tyranny. Those of you who actually hold the law in some relevance are funny.

----------


## pcosmar

> well, what you say maybe very well may be true, but I don't think this is an Oathkeeper issue.  It seems like a separate issue they should deal with their public defender about.


Then why was it put on official paperwork? Why was it mentioned or relevant at all?

And the story this morning is that they are at home with their other two children and NO charges are filed.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html

It seems that many here are seeking excuses to do nothing.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> I don't think this is an Oathkeeper Issue, there were other problems dating back in history, which may or may not have to do with the Oathkeepers, however  it should have been dealt with then, it seems this family, justifiably or not,  has a history with police and social workers


How could this NOT be an Oath Keeper issue?  Whether the parents are guilty as sin or completely innocent... Oath Keepers IS listed in the court document (falsely listed as a militia).  Why?  If the parents are guilty this could be seen as a smear on OK.  If the parents are innocent then maybe it is some bizarre way to try to pad the charges.  Either way, being associated with Oath Keepers should NOT be listed in this document.

----------


## pcosmar

> How could this NOT be an Oath Keeper issue?  Whether the parents are guilty as sin or completely innocent... Oath Keepers IS listed in the court document (falsely listed as a militia).  Why?  If the parents are guilty this could be seen as a smear on OK.  If the parents are innocent then maybe it is some bizarre way to try to pad the charges.  Either way, being associated with Oath Keepers should NOT be listed in this document.


Exactly.
Some folks just don't get it.

----------


## Pericles

> Exactly.
> Some folks just don't get it.


The father is a member of:
C4L
ADL
SPLC
Libertarian Party
PTA
PETA

And buys raw milk.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> yeah, that makes sense, looks like it was the top of the 2nd page photocopied together.
> 
> I don't think this is an Oathkeeper Issue, there were other problems dating back in history, which may or may not have to do with the Oathkeepers, however  it should have been dealt with then, it seems this family, justifiably or not,  has a history with police and social workers


I think anyone who is an advocate of liberty should have police problems. If you aren't you are doing something _wrong_.

----------


## fisharmor

> It's pretty rare when it happens, but insinuating that medical professionals have no bearing on the massive improvements on infant survival over the past century is deceptive.


At no point did I insinuate thus: in fact, I gave you an example of medical professionals being so resistant to change that they committed a man responsible for eliminating infant mortality in his hospital to an asylum where he was subsequently beaten to death.  Of course they have bearing on improvements: in some cases they prevent them.

All medical professionals in this country are also operating in a state-enforced guild system, which model has never been friendly to changes in policy or procedure.  Improvement never comes from stagnation.

This also explains why the hospital cooperates with such ridiculous requests as snatching newborns from their mothers.  What would they be able to do to keep the baby with its mother, when the state can shut down their entire operation in an instant?  What can be said about a hospital that allows this to happen?  Can we honestly say that they have the mother's and baby's best interests in mind?  Or can we more accurately say that it is an organization so bent on profit that it dare not stand up to the entity which has blessed its monopoly?

You have your opinion, I have mine: it is that it is more deceptive to insinuate that more than a fraction of births end up like your example, and that therefore our only option is to continue to patronize an industry which quite obviously doesn't have our interests in mind, and which allows our children to be kidnapped by its sugar daddy.

----------


## klamath

> How could this NOT be an Oath Keeper issue?  Whether the parents are guilty as sin or completely innocent... Oath Keepers IS listed in the court document (falsely listed as a militia).  Why?  If the parents are guilty this could be seen as a smear on OK.  If the parents are innocent then maybe it is some bizarre way to try to pad the charges.  Either way, being associated with Oath Keepers should NOT be listed in this document.


 If that has not been photo shopped in then the Oathkeepers should fight their name being put in there with a passion.

----------


## specsaregood

> Either way, being associated with Oath Keepers should NOT be listed in this document.


I don't think anybody is disagreeing with that statement.

----------


## Pericles

> If that has not been photo shopped in then the Oathkeepers should fight their name being put in there with a passion.


Exactly - it has no bearing on the case. The mention is either to prejudice the defendant or to associate the organization with possibly illegal activity unrelated to the activities of the organization.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> If that has not been photo shopped in then the Oathkeepers should fight their name being put in there with a passion.


I do not think there are any issues with forgery of the document, but we will be investigating all aspects of our involvement.  And fight we will.  Here is a quote from a comment Stewart wrote in the comment section of the article on OK's website:




> Before OathKeepers jumps to defend anything but the OathKeepers name,  a full disclosure should be made to those who will be paying for it.
> Comment by Jeff Cook  October 7, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
> 
>  I understand your point.  *Our principle concern as an organization is  the dangerous precedent of mere association with Oath Keepers being  presented as evidence in support of taking the child.*  It is a very  serious, potentially far reaching First Amendment free speech and free  association problem.  In that sense, by stepping up to help, we are  acting on behalf of all of our members, and on behalf of all of you, and  on behalf of the rights of the American people in general.  So the  First Amendment issue is what will have potentially far reaching  consequences.
> 
>  However, that being said, both parents deserve competent counsel,  which, so I understand, they cannot afford to pay for without donations  or unless a public spirited, patriotic attorney in NH steps up  to do it  pro bono (hint, hint).  As a father of five kids myself, my heart goes  out to anyone who endures this kind of a traumatic forced separation  from their baby.  I cannot imagine what it must be like.  They deserve  EFFECTIVE counsel, and unfortunately, that usually costs allot of money.  
> 
>  I will volunteer my time and legal abilities pro bono on the First  Amendment issue of association and speech, but Jonathan and Stephanie  Irish need local counsel who can focus on the abuse and neglect  allegations (preferably someone well respected and known in the local  courts, and experienced in NH family law and criminal law).  
> 
> ...

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Part of the affidavit



From 

http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/10/08/...d-at-hospital/

----------


## erowe1

I'm confused. Could someone who understands what's going on shed some light on this? And I don't mean, just someone who can repeat things people are saying on twitter or whatever, but someone who understands what this motion for change of venue is and how it would relate to the taking of the baby.

The only document I've seen on this thread that mentions Oath Keepers is that motion for change of venue. Is that correct? Or is there another document people are talking about?

If the only document that does mention Oath Keepers is that motion for change of venue, then what exactly is the significance of that as it relates to whatever happened when this child was allegedly taken from her parents? The motion for change of venue isn't about that, it's just about having a hearing in some other place where the parents are less well-known. And in that motion, the purpose for mentioning Oath Keepers doesn't appear to be given as a reason for taking their baby, but just as a reason for a change of venue. Or am I wrong about that? Maybe I misunderstand what a motion for change of venue is.

I'm not really sure how the Rochester Family Division having knowledge about his alleged involvement in Oath Keepers fits in as a reason for the motion for change of venue. And I can see why Oath Keepers also would take issue with being called a militia. But both of those points seem to me to be small potatoes in comparison with what was initially the reason this was all supposed to be a big deal.

It seems like the main claim that his involvement in Oath Keepers was somehow a contributing factor in some law enforcement people taking their baby is still an open question. And I see people here saying that the mere mention of Oath Keepers at all on any government document of any kind is a major problem, and I'm confused as to what that problem is. Should they really not be able to have that information on any government document at all? What if it's just in the police file on him related to the investigation?

And even if we agree that the association with Oath Keepers shouldn't be mentioned on this motion for change of venue, shouldn't that at least be kept in context and not painted as something different than it is, as though we have some smoking gun here that shows that they used his association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons to take his baby?

Or is there some other thing that I'm totally missing?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Family on Alex Jones right now.

www.infowars.com

ETA - Sounds like some of the "charges" were trumped up abuse charges.

----------


## Lucille

The parents are on with Jones now.

http://www.infowars.com/audiobox.html

ETA:  AF beat me to it.

----------


## Mach

Surprise, surprise......

---------------

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...w-part-of-dhs/

It’s Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS

As the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS “Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism” along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select “law enforcement” officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.  What does the working group do?  Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources – police, social services, media, NGO’s, you name it – to fight “extremism.  So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists.  Now it is in your face and the mask is off.

When you read the below document, *keep in mind the current ordeal of the Irish family where their newborn baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father’s “association with a militia group known as Oath Keepers.”.* Pay attention to who sits on this panel (see pages 26-30), to who DOESN’T, how they plan on reaching DHS tentacles down into every level of society, and how they talk overtly about the need to utilize local SOCIAL WELFARE and MENTAL HEALTH agencies to counter “violent extremism.”. In other words, what is now being done to the Irish family will be done all over.

*This is the overt politicization of DHS, to use it against political enemies*

I will post more on this later today.

Stewart Rhodes

-------

EXTRA: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/sitewidelinks/sitemap.htm

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Was my initial reaction as well, skeptical.
> *HOWEVER*
> *The story has been confirmed.* 
> Got that, Confirmed, by responsible parties. This is no longer a question of IF.
> This was done and it is ongoing.
> 
> So what if Ghemmy broke it. Folks had the same reaction to AJones when he broke the MIAC Report.
> It's AJ , it can't be true.


That ^^^

I had some initial skepticism as well.

But the affidavit is posted.

OathKeepers *IS* listed as a reason for the state abducting this child.

That is *CONFIRMED.*

And that cannot stand.

----------


## erowe1

> When you read the below document, *keep in mind the current ordeal of the Irish family where their newborn baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the fathers association with a militia group known as Oath Keepers..*


This is what I was asking about.

I still don't follow all this.

What is the basis for claiming that the Irish's baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father's association with Oath Keepers?

And how does that affidavit relate to the motion for change of venue that people have pasted above?

----------


## erowe1

> But the affidavit is posted.


Where?

----------


## Deborah K

> Surprise, surprise......
> 
> ---------------
> 
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...w-part-of-dhs/
> 
> Its Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS
> 
> As the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select law enforcement officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.  What does the working group do?  Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources  police, social services, media, NGOs, you name it  to fight extremism.  So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists.  Now it is in your face and the mask is off.
> ...


Wow!  Should have known SPLC was involved somehow.  I think it's time to launch a war of words on that organization.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I sent an email to Rep Carol McGuire, who is a freestater elected to the house from Epsom. Her contact info is: mcguire4house@gmail.com or 603-782-4918.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Where?


Post 216

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is what I was asking about.
> 
> I still don't follow all this.
> 
> What is the basis for claiming that the Irish's baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father's association with Oath Keepers?
> 
> And how does that affidavit relate to the motion for change of venue that people have pasted above?





> This is what I was asking about.
> 
> I still don't follow all this.
> 
> What is the basis for claiming that the Irish's baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father's association with Oath Keepers?
> 
> And how does that affidavit relate to the motion for change of venue that people have pasted above?


That family was sucked "into the system" 21 months ago on unrelated matters regarding this woman's first two children.

That was in Rochester.

Last know address was Epsom.

The baby was born in Concord.

That is trekking all over the state.

The "change of venue" was to move everything back to Rochester, but it also listed the reason for involving the state in the first place.

----------


## phill4paul

Ladies and gentleman when citizens of this nation are targeted, harassed and incarcerated for non-violent political affiliations how can it not be said that there is indeed a war going on to silence any dissent to the governments will.
  Whether an anti-war protester or a government watchdog group all dissent will be silenced. At any cost.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Surprise, surprise......
> 
> ---------------
> 
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...w-part-of-dhs/
> 
> Its Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS
> 
> As the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select law enforcement officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.  What does the working group do?  Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources  police, social services, media, NGOs, you name it  to fight extremism.  So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists.  Now it is in your face and the mask is off.
> ...


Oh $#@! Me...

----------


## amy31416

> Ladies and gentleman when citizens of this nation are targeted, harassed and incarcerated for non-violent political affiliations how can it not be said that there is indeed a war going on to silence any dissent to the governments will.
>   Whether an anti-war protester or a government watchdog group all dissent will be silenced. At any cost.


Might it be a good idea to bring this issue to the forefront by including incidents like this, that are considered "right wing" along with issues such as those anti-war protesters who were recently raided? Maybe even that Egyptian-American who was being tracked.

At least that way it'll be a non-partisan thing, and might stand a chance of gaining some traction, first in alternative media--until the main stream media can't avoid it.

----------


## Romulus

> Might it be a good idea to bring this issue to the forefront by including incidents like this, that are considered "right wing" along with issues such as those anti-war protesters who were recently raided? Maybe even that Egyptian-American who was being tracked.
> 
> At least that way it'll be a non-partisan thing, and might stand a chance of gaining some traction, first in alternative media--until the main stream media can't avoid it.


x2

----------


## erowe1

> That family was sucked "into the system" 21 months ago on unrelated matters regarding this woman's first two children.
> 
> That was in Rochester.
> 
> Last know address was Epsom.
> 
> The baby was born in Concord.
> 
> That is trekking all over the state.
> ...


But where's the connection between this change of venue form and the fact that they took their baby?

That seems to be a pretty important link that people are just assuming here.

The charge that has been repeated many times in this thread is that the mention of his association with Oath Keepers was given in an affidavit as a reason (among others) for taking their baby. I don't see that anywhere. The change of venue form doesn't say anything about taking their baby or the reasons for it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Might it be a good idea to bring this issue to the forefront by including incidents like this, that are considered "right wing" along with issues such as those anti-war protesters who were recently raided? Maybe even that Egyptian-American who was being tracked.
> 
> At least that way it'll be a non-partisan thing, and might stand a chance of gaining some traction, first in alternative media--until the main stream media can't avoid it.


  And that is exactly right because this attack against dissent goes across ALL spectrums. It matters not which political affiliation.

----------


## tropicangela

States sometimes take babies away from [educated, conscious] parents who choose home birth too.  Even if the babies are born healthy.

----------


## pcosmar

> But where's the connection between this change of venue form and the fact that they took their baby?
> 
> That seems to be a pretty important link that people are just assuming here.
> 
> The charge that has been repeated many times in this thread is that the mention of his association with Oath Keepers was given in an affidavit as a reason (among others) for taking their baby. I don't see that anywhere. The change of venue form doesn't say anything about taking their baby or the reasons for it.


http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html



> The affidavit  said “… the Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the “Oath Keepers”…” It was in forms from the DHHS and DCYF and signed by “Child Protective Service Worker” Dana Bicford on October 7th at 11:57AM.
> 
> If we in this “Free Country” are not free to associate with lawful and peaceful open organizations, or have to fear what many have termed “abduction” of our newborns if we do, who are we free to associate with or to do?! What government department is going to list the allowed organizations if we are not to have our children taken away from us?  Where does it stop; are we free to visit with the Boy Scouts?
> 
> Jonathan Irish and Stephanie are at home with the kids.  Neither has been charged with a crime at the time of this writing and none are expected. We at the Daily Tea Party ask them to remain strong and to know that the Freedom Movement community stands with them during this difficult period.  Everything will be alright, this perversion of justice can not last long once the light of truth and media scrutiny is shined.





> *But where's the connection between this change of venue form and the fact that they took their baby?*


A Very Good Question?

----------


## Lucille

8,624 views?

Wow.

----------


## Mini-Me

> 8,624 views?
> 
> Wow.


Are those unique, or are they counting my five hundred refreshes?

----------


## Deborah K

There's a protest being held at 3:00 pm et  in Concord at the hospital held by the Free State Project.

----------


## JK/SEA

I'm turning myself in to DHS today. I don't want any trouble, and will submit to re-education, and request to be re-plugged  back into the matrix. 

Government is my friend! 
We need more taxes!
I hate being free!


RON PAUL 2012................<<<<<<<<<

----------


## ericsnow

YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-4
YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-5
YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-6
YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-7
YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-8
YouTube - John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-9

----------


## Lucille

> Are those unique, or are they counting my five hundred refreshes?


LOL...  Dunno!

It's up to 9,345 now.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> I'm turning myself in to DHS today. I don't want any trouble, and will submit to re-education, and request to be re-plugged  back into the matrix. 
> 
> Government is my friend! 
> We need more taxes!
> I hate being free!
> 
> 
> RON PAUL 2012................<<<<<<<<<


I hope this means you will join me for a road trip from Washington State to New Hampshire if our assistance is needed for a sit-in.  Preferably an open carry sit in.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140134156032916 per the protest event.

Also, call flood the NH DCWY @ 603-271-4711 and the hospital @ 800-327-0464

----------


## EndDaFed

JREF is full of douche bags. I can't stand my authoritarian skeptical brethren. 

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909

----------


## ericsnow

> JREF is full of douche bags. I can't stand my authoritarian skeptical brethren. 
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909


Yeah help me defend this guy JREF is full of the most douchy people on planet Earth.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Just sent multiple links to the Nashua Telegraph, Concord Monitor, Union Leader and Keene Sentinel. The protest was just promoted via the Porc 411 line and it sounds like this is going to be one big event. It's all taking place right in front of the entrance to the Concord Hospital.

----------


## specsaregood

> JREF is full of douche bags. I can't stand my authoritarian skeptical brethren. 
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909


Hah, I think I kinda like those guys.
LOL @



> Lawyers never lie, ever. This is a known fact.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> by the way, that point 7 looks photoshopped, or the formatting is not consistent with the previous 6 points


This can not be overlooked. It is crooked, and looks like a different boldness. If there are two pages, show both pages and black out personal information. Having an obviously manipulated image as a source is not prudent.

----------


## ericsnow

Google search term - government seizes newborn

----------


## puppetmaster

> This can not be overlooked. It is crooked, and looks like a different boldness. If there are two pages, show both pages and black out personal information. Having an obviously manipulated image as a source is not prudent.



hmm

----------


## denison

> This can not be overlooked. It is crooked, and looks like a different boldness. If there are two pages, show both pages and black out personal information. Having an obviously manipulated image as a source is not prudent.


agreed. somethings up.

----------


## denison

well it looks like this may be the key to the kingdom.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=56

I knew something was off when another article, a few pages back, quoted her as 22 and already having two gorgeous toddlers. It just came across as weird that she already had two kids. I also wondered why they didn't mention the father's age.

----------


## Michael Landon

> Google search term - government seizes newborn


Holy $#@!.  I just searched the term and this came up:

_About 666,000 results (0.31 seconds)_ 

Anyone else think that is $#@!ed up?

- ML

----------


## ericsnow

Using these extensions directly will go right to the hospital executives.

Hospital: 800-327-0464
Michael Green, CEO x3003
Joe Conley, COO x3179

----------


## pcosmar

A troubling issue. And it is certainly not the first, but is a long train of them.
I am troubled with what I see coming from this forum.

I do not understand. I don't understand some of the reaction to this.
This is wrong. WRONG.
I am not educated in nor interested in what ever legalese it's called. What ever the reasons or justifications are used.
This is Wrong. I don't understand how some just can't understand this. WRONG.
I don't understand it.
_Or this other thread,_

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263345
Christians Are Hurting this Movement



> /groan
> 
> I don't get it. I think I am one of the most tolerant people you will meet.
> I an a ragged and unimpressive individual. I am a course man, and not "formally" educated.
> I am a Christian, however imperfect, I believe something, so I am a believer.
> I share that from time to time. I do not force it. I offer. Like anything else I have shared my thought. I have shared my past. My mistakes. My Home.(in several pics) My tattoos. my GPS coordinates and my SS#. On occasion I share my Faith. I am a Christian.
> So is Ron Paul ( one of the great many reasons to respect him), He is the first "politician" I have ever see that impresses me. A Thirty year *reputation* in politics both for honesty and integrity. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin ( a strong supporter till Ron dropped out) and also a Christian.
> All have a message of Liberty.
> And *we* are hurting the movement?


I just don't understand.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Can somebody give me 26 pages worth of an update here?

----------


## Michael Landon

> Holy $#@!.  I just searched the term and this came up:
> 
> _About 666,000 results (0.31 seconds)_ 
> 
> Anyone else think that is $#@!ed up?
> 
> - ML


Okay, I just did it again and it came up with 654,000 results this time.  But it was still an odd moment for me.

- ML

----------


## tropicangela

> Can somebody give me 26 pages worth of an update here?


http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140134156032916

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> agreed. somethings up.


Of course it could be that the "officials" added that part 7 at a later time than the rest of the document (so the "official" document is edited and sketchy). That would be interesting. Why throw in that at the last minute? Maybe after the "judge" had signed it? Who knows.

----------


## denison

Quoted from JREF MEMBER:

"Yes, I am pretty sure he is the same guy. Ticking timebomb comes to mind.

ETA: If this guy was in trouble for threatening people, discharging firearms and sexual assault, I wonder if a condition put on him was that he not own guns? I am pretty sure it would be where I live.

It would make sense then that buying guns and belonging to Oath Keepers would cause people to sit up and take notice. "

And suddenly it all makes sense. The OP felt like sensationalist garbarge and sadly most RPFormers bought it. Luckily most people at JREF didn't.

Remember folks, question everything.

----------


## EndDaFed

> well it looks like this may be the key to the kingdom.
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=56
> 
> I knew something was off when another article, a few pages back, quoted her as 22 and already having two gorgeous toddlers. It just came across as weird that she already had two kids. I also wondered why they didn't mention the father's age.


So what? Who is the victim in this case? There is none. No one has demonstrated any child abuse. No evidence as been presented to suggest such other than baseless accusations. All JREF is good at is character assassination and not sticking with the evidence. Oh but he is just asking questions! That is the same bull$#@! 911 truhers pull.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Have to  respond to this the right way. We should not jump to the defense of the family without full knowledge of the previous matters. This could be a trap to show us as defending abusers, or other activities. The media will be sure to tie the most negative spin to it.

However Oath Keepers should file an  action for false claims against their organization as being a milita

----------


## Number19

> ...I also don't like the possibility that this was a political setup to get the Oathkeepers to leap in and support some REAL REAL sick people and then have national news stories "OathKeepers defend child rapists!" The media has been looking for a reason to bash the oathkeepers and this could fall into their hands perfectly...


Under what conceivable scenario would CPS seize a newborn child, at the hospital, and leave two other young children, described as toddlers, in the care of the parents, at home?

----------


## tropicangela

> well it looks like this may be the key to the kingdom.
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=56
> 
> I knew something was off when another article, a few pages back, quoted her as 22 and already having two gorgeous toddlers. It just came across as weird that she already had two kids. I also wondered why they didn't mention the father's age.


There might be underlying causes, but they cited Oathkeepers as a militia, and being associated with Oathkeepers is not a crime.

This Motion Docket refers to her as Stephanie Taylor.  It says that a termination of parental rights trial for her other 2 children has CONCLUDED but NO ORDER yet.  http://static.infowars.com/2010/10/i...s/irishdoc.jpg

----------


## denison

> So what? Who is the victim in this case? There is none. No one has demonstrated any child abuse. No evidence as been presented to suggest such other than baseless accusations. All JREF is good at is character assassination and not sticking with the evidence. Oh but he is just asking questions. That is the same bull$#@! 911 truhers pose.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=60

----------


## specsaregood

> Remember folks, question everything.


People are getting played.

Of course the Oath keepers should be upset with being referenced, but that is an entirely different issue than what started this thread.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Can somebody give me 26 pages worth of an update here?


- Couple had an earlier issue with Police about a gun registration or something.
- Couple had a baby.
- The officials took the baby.
- There is a document that cites one reason as an association with the Oathkeepers as reason for stealing the baby. The part of the document (line item) that talks about the Oath Keepers seems manipulated. By who and when is unknown.

----------


## tropicangela

> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=60


What did the mother have to do with the firearms and alleged threats that it called for taking her newborn away?

----------


## denison

> There might be underlying causes, but they cited Oathkeepers as a militia, and being associated with Oathkeepers is not a crime.
> 
> This Motion Docket refers to her as Stephanie Taylor.  It says that a termination of parental rights trial for her other 2 children has CONCLUDED but NO ORDER yet.  http://static.infowars.com/2010/10/i...s/irishdoc.jpg


Again I quote:

"If this guy was in trouble for threatening people, discharging firearms and sexual assault, I wonder if a condition put on him was that he not own guns? I am pretty sure it would be where I live.

It would make sense then that buying guns and belonging to Oath Keepers would cause people to sit up and take notice. "

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=60

----------


## EndDaFed

> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=60


What if he was behind the moon hoax?  I'm just posting what ifs.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Quoted from JREF MEMBER:
> 
> "Yes, I am pretty sure he is the same guy. Ticking timebomb comes to mind.
> 
> ETA: If this guy was in trouble for threatening people, discharging firearms and sexual assault, I wonder if a condition put on him was that he not own guns? I am pretty sure it would be where I live.
> 
> It would make sense then that buying guns and belonging to Oath Keepers would cause people to sit up and take notice. "
> 
> And suddenly it all makes sense. The OP felt like sensationalist garbarge and sadly most RPFormers bought it. Luckily most people at JREF didn't.
> ...


We'll certainly question everything here. The use of the Oathkeepers as a justification is one issue.

The other issue is this: what crimes have the couple been convicted of which results in the punishment of a baby being taken away from them?

----------


## Pericles

> Quoted from JREF MEMBER:
> 
> "Yes, I am pretty sure he is the same guy. Ticking timebomb comes to mind.
> 
> ETA: If this guy was in trouble for threatening people, discharging firearms and sexual assault, I wonder if a condition put on him was that he not own guns? I am pretty sure it would be where I live.
> 
> It would make sense then that buying guns and belonging to Oath Keepers would cause people to sit up and take notice. "
> 
> And suddenly it all makes sense. The OP felt like sensationalist garbarge and sadly most RPFormers bought it. Luckily most people at JREF didn't.
> ...


Therefore, he is not allowed to have children?

----------


## tropicangela

> Therefore, he is not allowed to have children?


The baby has a mother too.  Why was she lumped in with whatever this guy allegedly did?

----------


## specsaregood

> The baby has a mother too.  Why was she lumped in with whatever this guy allegedly did?


Because she lives with the father?  If he didnt live in the same residence it probably wouldn't be an issue.

----------


## ericsnow

Even if Irish threatened killing someone back in 2003, that has nothing to do with his new born child. Should Obama have his kids taken away because he did cocaine in 1980?

----------


## EndDaFed

> Even if Irish threatened killing someone back in 2003, that has nothing to do with his new born child. Should Obama have his kids taken away because he did cocaine in 1980?


Don't use logic. JREF authoritarians can't stand that.

----------


## pcosmar

> Again I quote:
> 
> "If this guy was in trouble for threatening people, discharging firearms and sexual assault, I wonder if a condition put on him was that he not own guns? I am pretty sure it would be where I live.
> 
> It would make sense then that buying guns and belonging to Oath Keepers would cause people to sit up and take notice. "
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=60


And again you quote. *WHY?*
It's not relevant. It is not relevant what the guy is or is not. 
It's Wrong.
It's wrong to steal children.
It is WRONG to Name or involve the Oath Keepers.
It 's Wrong to link The Oath Keepers to any "Militia"
It's wrong to Mention any of that at all in the paperwork.
It is Irrelevant.
It is WRONG.

Damn, on so many levels.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## denison

> Part of the affidavit


"Why did you highlight the part about the Oathkeepers and not the part about concealed carry without a permit and multiple weapons violations?"-Sword_Of_Truth

----------


## tropicangela

> "Why did you highlight the part about the Oathkeepers and not the part about concealed carry without a permit and multiple weapons violations?"-Sword_Of_Truth


It's a pending charge.

----------


## Pericles

> Even if Irish threatened killing someone back in 2003, that has nothing to do with his new born child. Should Obama have his kids taken away because he did cocaine in 1980?


And he inhaled, too!

You don't always get perfect clients for court cases. One could argue that Heller and MacDonald were easier they they might have been because the plaintiffs were exemplary characters, which one can contrast with the Miller case and gun control, where Miller was a convicted bank robber (which was not mentioned in the decision), but was a factor in why the .gov wanted it as a test case for the NFA.

----------


## ericsnow

> "Why did you highlight the part about the Oathkeepers and not the part about concealed carry without a permit and multiple weapons violations?"-Sword_Of_Truth


Because the part about concealed carry without a permit was fabricated. Correct me if I'm wrong but Ms. Irish had a concealed carry license, the gun was in the car, and since the gun wasn't on her person Mr. Irish got charged.

----------


## pcosmar

> "Why did you highlight the part about the Oathkeepers and not the part about concealed carry without a permit and multiple weapons violations?"-Sword_Of_Truth


Because that is IRRELEVANT. Do you understand .
Not Relevant.

----------


## Baptist

I don't care what this guy did.  The government does not own our children, therefore it is NEVER okay for the government to steal kids.  If you believe it is, then you believe that the government owns our children, and lets those of us it deems "fit" watch _their_ children.  I could care less if this guy is a serial killer.  The government can't take kids.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It's a pending charge.


That is not even relevant. Like I said, earlier, what crimes do you see he is being alleged for? I see none. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a crime. Owning a weapon is not a crime. Where is the victim for this alleged crime he committed which forfeited his right to his newborn baby? 

Like I said, the law is not there to actually perform the job of law -- justice, but as an enforcement arm of tyranny for the State. The law should not be followed where it abridges liberty, period.

*My questions are directed towards denison, not you.

----------


## EndDaFed

> "Why did you highlight the part about the Oathkeepers and not the part about concealed carry without a permit and multiple weapons violations?"-Sword_Of_Truth


We already get it. Even if the case was not about Oath Keepers the reason for child theft is still bull$#@!. OMG weapons violations! You know those dumb victimless crime laws that most on these forums oppose. He should surly have his children taken for exercising his 2nd amendment right!

----------


## squarepusher

> We already get it. Even if the case was not about Oath Keepers the reason for child theft is still bull$#@!. OMG weapons violations! You know those dumb victimless crime laws that most on these forums oppose. He should surly have his children taken for exercising his 2nd amendment right!


but certainly there are hundred of child theft's by the state each year, and the liberty movement doesn't normally 'get behind' one of them

----------


## brandon

> well it looks like this may be the key to the kingdom.
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=56
> 
> I knew something was off when another article, a few pages back, quoted her as 22 and already having two gorgeous toddlers. It just came across as weird that she already had two kids. I also wondered why they didn't mention the father's age.


Not a surprise. As soon as I heard the interview in OP and heard him cursing like a sailor I knew this guy had other issues. I don't condone the state stealing babies but this isn't the type of guy I would go to bat for either.

----------


## EndDaFed

> but certainly there are hundred of child theft's by the state each year, and the liberty movement doesn't normally 'get behind' one of them


There was a case on this very forum involving a forum member not long ago.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Not a surprise. As soon as I heard the interview in OP and heard him cursing like a sailor I knew this guy had other issues. I don't condone the state stealing babies but this isn't the type of guy I would go to bat for either.


I don't agree with what you may say, but I would give my life defending your liberty to say it..blah blah freedom stuffs.

----------


## squarepusher

> Not a surprise. As soon as I heard the interview in OP and heard him cursing like a sailor I knew this guy had other issues. I don't condone the state stealing babies but this isn't the type of guy I would go to bat for either.


well, what are we up against.

Smoking weed, dating a girl 4 years younger than him, and then the school threat thing (but that was 7 years ago he must have been 14 himself).  Firing at an intruder who broke into his home

Nothing here really that strikes me as something a liberty lover would be that opposed to.

----------


## denison

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909&page=3

people should really read that thread in full to get a picture of reality.

The OP was sensationalist garbage. The parents are currently in court for termination of parental rights for the two toddlers, as well. Taking the baby was a precautionary measure.

----------


## ItsTime

For what its worth, different font on court papers/other papers happen all the time. It is a glitch in Works.

----------


## specsaregood

> I don't agree with what you may say, but I would give my life defending your liberty to say it..blah blah freedom stuffs.


Choose your battles wisely...blah blah, pragmatist stuffs.

----------


## EndDaFed

The EXIF data shows no use of photo manipulation software, but that is no guarantee.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not a surprise. As soon as I heard the interview in OP and heard him cursing like a sailor I knew this guy had other issues. I don't condone the state stealing babies but this isn't the type of guy I would go to bat for either.


It ain't about "this guy". This is about free association. Freedom of speech. 
This is about involving a large group of people.
This is about slander. Defamation of character.

The whole "this guy" is a whole group of other issues.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909&page=3
> 
> people should really read that thread in full to get a picture of reality.
> 
> The OP was sensationalist garbage. The parents are currently in court for termination of parental rights for the two toddlers, as well. Taking the baby was a precautionary measure.


Why do you assume that termination of parent rights by CPS are justified? Lots of folks lose their kids because of victimless 'crimes' -- e.g. edicts handed down on high from the State which is an imposition on liberty. You don't seem any different to me than the average statist. Now, if it comes to light there is an actual crime committed, you may have a point, but still the way the State handled this is horrendous even if it turns out he is a murderer (And even then the State has no right to take the child, and the child should stay with him until convicted, and when the child has to be taken, should be given to NEXT OF KIN)

----------


## tropicangela

> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909&page=3
> 
> people should really read that thread in full to get a picture of reality.
> 
> The OP was sensationalist garbage. The parents are currently in court for termination of parental rights for the two toddlers, as well. Taking the baby was a precautionary measure.


The government doesn't like the way you look.  They might be coming to take your baby too.  Just in case.

----------


## denison

"News Flash:

Read paragraph 5 of the motion cited.

These children are not in the care of the parents. There has been a motion for removal of parental rights which almost always means that someone is trying to adopt them. These children are no doubt in foster care, looks like for about 21 months, and it is probably the foster parents who are trying to adopt them.

That child protective services have been involved for 21 months indicates this is a serious case and the children are in serious danger. You can bet that CPS was involved with this new child from the moment they became aware of the mother being pregnant."


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=110

----------


## tropicangela

> "News Flash:
> 
> Read paragraph 5 of the motion cited.
> 
> These children are not in the care of the parents. There has been a motion for removal of parental rights which almost always means that someone is trying to adopt them. These children are no doubt in foster care, looks like for about 21 months, and it is probably the foster parents who are trying to adopt them.
> 
> That child protective services have been involved for 21 months indicates this is a serious case and the children are in serious danger. You can bet that CPS was involved with this new child from the moment they became aware of the mother being pregnant."
> 
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=110


says there was a trial.  there is not an order yet.  "the parties await an order on that matter."  it doesn't say the parents don't have the kids.

----------


## Pericles

> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187909&page=3
> 
> people should really read that thread in full to get a picture of reality.
> 
> The OP was sensationalist garbage. The parents are currently in court for termination of parental rights for the two toddlers, as well. Taking the baby was a precautionary measure.


There may be reasons for suspending parental rights, but if I were on such a jury to determine that (and in the Army I had the opportunity to be judge, jury, and prosecutor), but adding in bogus evidence tainted the rest of the case in my view.

----------


## ericsnow

#7 was copied to fit it onto one page. Here's the original 2nd page

----------


## specsaregood

> It ain't about "this guy". This is about free association. Freedom of speech. 
> This is about involving a large group of people.
> This is about slander. Defamation of character.
> 
> The whole "this guy" is a whole group of other issues.


I think we are all in agreement that the oath keepers should not be mentioned.  If you want outrage on that fact, then you have it.

The problem is the sensationalism and outright false claim that the kids were removed solely because of the father's supposedly link to the Oath Keepers.  That is what got the ball rolling, got the thread and story spread across the internets and why the father's issues matter.  Because first people ended up having to waste time disproving the original claim.

----------


## pcosmar

> "News Flash:


Yeah seen it several times, and also have contrary information.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html



> The affidavit  said  the Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers It was in forms from the DHHS and DCYF and signed by Child Protective Service Worker Dana Bicford on October 7th at 11:57AM.
> 
> If we in this Free Country are not free to associate with lawful and peaceful open organizations, or have to fear what many have termed abduction of our newborns if we do, who are we free to associate with or to do?! What government department is going to list the allowed organizations if we are not to have our children taken away from us?  Where does it stop; are we free to visit with the Boy Scouts?
> 
> *Jonathan Irish and Stephanie are at home with the kids.  Neither has been charged with a crime at the time of this writing and none are expected.* We at the Daily Tea Party ask them to remain strong and to know that the Freedom Movement community stands with them during this difficult period.  Everything will be alright, this perversion of justice can not last long once the light of truth and media scrutiny is shined.


This is about involving the Oath Keepers in this. It is about Connecting Oath Keepers ti "militia".
It is about Free association.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Yeah help me defend this guy JREF is full of the most douchy people on planet Earth.


There may be some douche-baggery going on there, but I think a lot of the dismissive attitude probably stems from your misleading OP.  If you're not already predisposed to half-expect this kind of stuff - like we are - then a disproportionately sensationalist OP is likely to make you pretty irritated.  We also weren't exactly happy with the phrasing in the OP.  Also, our own reactions were pretty similar to George Hemminger after a while (and he's ironically the one who broke this story ).  Besides, not all of them are douchey, either:  Ocelot seems to be pretty fair-minded, for instance (e.g. posts http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=81 and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=86).

Anyway, erowe has been repeatedly asking questions about the connection between the change of venue and taking the newborn...there's definitely a missing link, and it's looking more and more like this is an extremely important question to ask.  The douchey JREF folks dug up some very useful contextual information:



> There's something slipping through.
> 
> Since this is a newborn, has there been a pattern of abuse of previous children?
> 
> And is this the same Jonathan Irish in these articles?:
> 
> 2003 -- Seabrook teen jailed after school threat and WHS student arrested after ‘Columbine’ threat
> 
> 2005 -- Teen charged with sexual assault on minor (I wonder if the unnamed girl in this article was Stephanie Janvrin. The ages are right.)
> ...


Let's assume they're all referring to the same Irish.  Taken alone, each can be explained:
Maybe the allegation about the school threat was false?The "sexual assault on minor" looks like it's about "statutory rape" of his younger girlfriend, i.e. totally non-violent consentual sex.  Whatever your feelings on that, it's pretty irrelevant to actual violent abuse of anyone.The article seems to insinuate that Irish was crying wolf, but there's no proof of that.

Nevertheless, all of this is a reminder that there is a LOT that we don't know about this case, and there's a lot we don't know about Irish's credibility.  More to the point:  Do we really know that there was no warning, no hearing, etc.?  qayak seems far too trusting of CPS (most people are, unfortunately), but these two posts are potentially insightful:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=110
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=111

I mentioned earlier that the biggest red flag was that the other two children hadn't been taken.  However, if qayak's assessment in the first link is correct, that might not be entirely accurate...which changes things.  I see almost no possible moral justification for taking a newborn from her mother, but for all we know, this may be something that was settled legally months ago, after 21 months of dealing with the other two kids.  *Even if we disagree with the current law and find it tyrannical, it may turn out that due legal process actually has been followed here, and Irish might be misleading the Oath Keepers about it.*

qayak's guess in the second link is also interesting:  Without more information, we can't really tell whether the mention of Oath Keepers and weapon purchases might be linked with his specific posting history on their forum.  As erowe has pointed out a couple times, the affidavit seems to have nothing to do with a justification for taking the newborn; instead, it states facts relevant to the change of venue.  It's possible those facts might actually be relevant if we're missing an elaboration like, "Mr. Irish insinuated on the Oath Keepers forum that he was buying these weapons to kill any CPS workers who come for his kids."

At the same time, none of that explains the mischaracterization of the Oath Keepers as a militia group, and unless and until something specific about his posting patterns come up, there's still no justification for including them at all.  Basically, all of this reaffirms the need for caution:  Fight the attack on the Oath Keepers, but be careful about associating ourselves with Irish himself.

----------


## squarepusher

why the order in the first place?  we need more information, but I think it's at least apparent its not really an Oathkeeper issue, although the state screwed up severely for stating the Oath Keepers on the affidavit, which I believe they will pay for in the next several days and learn a lesson.

----------


## Romulus

So precrime is ok now?

----------


## klamath

> The baby has a mother too.  Why was she lumped in with whatever this guy allegedly did?


 If Stephanie Tayler is the same Staphanie then it was HER that was tried for child neglect not the father.

----------


## Mini-Me

> #7 was copied to fit it onto one page. Here's the original 2nd page


The text is still skewed, compared to the header.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> why the order in the first place?  we need more information, but I think it's at least apparent its not really an Oathkeeper issue, although the state screwed up severely for stating the Oath Keepers on the affidavit, which I believe they will pay for in the next several days and learn a lesson.





> Even if this was the case, what authority would the government have to take away parental rights over a child that these people were never accused of mistreating, abusing, neglecting,etc. Would this not, in effect, be the same as convicting someone of a crime that they have not committed?


Volunteering into the system.  Birth certificate, marriage license, things like that.  

Yaya those kooky legal eagles some people say but but lets look at one fact... the baby was taken based on an affidavit.  

This is the reason the Oath Keepers are listed on the document because this whole sham of a thing we have for a justice system is based on deciding from conflicting statements what is truth.

Everything is based on an affidavit.  Inclusion of Oath Keepers into this matter is all about that thread containing the clip of jury selection stating they would believe a police officer statement over a private citizen.

It's about people figuring out how the system works and using it against the state by simply doing the same thing the state does when it unlawfully coerces you.  Prepare an affidavit and send the state a bill.

People have to be discredited so their affidavits have no weight and that is one way the system protects itself.  Oath Keepers is a problem for the system because Oath Keepers boasts members consist of law enforcement.  It must be discredited because the system would not be able to handle any credible affidavit on a large scale such as a petition to redress grievances, which should be included in the response to this.

----------


## tropicangela

> If Stephanie Tayler is the same Staphanie then it was HER that was tried for child neglect not the father.


I know but there is no order on the conclusion of the trial and the kids are at home with her.

----------


## erowe1

> - Couple had an earlier issue with Police about a gun registration or something.
> - Couple had a baby.
> - The officials took the baby.
> - There is a document that cites one reason as an association with the Oathkeepers as reason for stealing the baby. The part of the document (line item) that talks about the Oath Keepers seems manipulated. By who and when is unknown.


It's not even that.

The manipulated document that we've seen on this forum doesn't even say anything about officials taking the baby or the reasons for that. It's just a motion for change of venue. I'm still not certain that the oft-repeated claim that there's an affidavit out there listing his involvement in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the kid is true.

----------


## klamath

> I know but there is no order on the conclusion of the trial and the kids are at home with her.


I can't waste the bandwidth but did these people say their kids were with them on the AJ interview that was posted?

----------


## libertygrl

> Well, first I'd like to say that I'm skeptical, not that I wouldn't put it past our government, mind you.  Having said that, if it is true, then this is a huge issue, and perhaps amongst the most grievous forms of tyranny a state can commit.
> 
> On the other hand, I can't help but to ask, "So what?"
> 
> What are we going to do?  Write our "representatives" and beg them to not steal our children for daring to exercise First Amendment Natural Law rights?  Are we going to have a sit-in somewhere?  Are we going to put our faith in the courts?  Or maybe we can post YouTube videos, gnashing our teeth and wringing our hands.  Wait, no...we can donate a few bucks to somebody!  Yeah, that'll show the government that we mean business, and that stealing our children is unacceptable.


Cooler heads must prevail or I fear we will be giving them the kind of reaction they are hoping for.   If this incident is true, this could be their main objective.

----------


## tpreitzel

Will someone please summarize the past 10 pages or so since last night?

----------


## pcosmar

> Will someone please summarize the past 10 pages or so since last night?



Protests. Indecision Talk.

----------


## tropicangela

> I can't waste the bandwidth but did these people say their kids were with them on the AJ interview that was posted?


Don't know I'm listening to part 7.  

But, it's here:




> Jonathan Irish and Stephanie are at home with the kids. Neither has been charged with a crime at the time of this writing and none are expected. http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010100...-keepersq.html

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I'm still not certain that it's true that the oft-repeated claim that there's an affidavit out there listing his involvement in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the kid.


That is one of several reasons the affidavit needs to be made available.  I am watching the AJ tubes and AJ mentions he has a copy of it.  Has it been made available yet?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Will someone please summarize the past 10 pages or so since last night?


The best way to put it is, you have time to read the whole thread before the world ends. 

To elaborate a bit:  The first page of a document regarding a change in venue for legal proceedings has been posted, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers did not "belong."  It was supposedly copied and pasted from the second page, and ericsnow then posted the top of the second page, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers is still in a different font and misaligned.  Furthermore, the document doesn't seem to have anything to do with the baby being taken.

I see no moral justification for taking a newborn from its mother on the day of its birth, but New Hampshire has been involved with the family for 21 months now according to item 5 in the posted document, and it may turn out that due process has technically been followed, in the legal sense.  That doesn't make it right, but it makes it less outrageous than we originally assumed.  We don't know anything for sure, *but it's looking more and more like our picture of the situation is being heavily distorted.*

That still doesn't explain why the Oath Keepers were mentioned (although there's speculation about that), and it certainly doesn't explain their mischaracterization as a "militia."  (Of course, that's assuming the text referring to the Oath Keepers actually came from ANY real legal document in the first place...)  However, we do know that the Oath Keepers were only mentioned in connection with the change of venue, and we've seen no document relating to taking the baby.

*UPDATE:  I actually just read something interesting on JREF that I still didn't catch myself:  The doctored first page is from a motion for a change in venue, and the apparently doctored second page is from an affidavit...but even if that second page is genuine (doubtful), it seems to come from a totally different document.*

----------


## klamath

> Don't know I'm listening to part 7.  
> 
> But, it's here:


I was looking for a second confirmation of that so keep listening.

----------


## ericsnow

Stewart Rhodes on The Alex Jones Show today:

YouTube - Stewart Rhodes on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-17
YouTube - Stewart Rhodes on The Alex Jones Show - Fri 10.08.2010 part-18

----------


## Mini-Me

After thinking more about my last post, which I just updated:
*At this point, I have to ask:  Are we SURE ericsnow isn't ghemminger conning the $#@! out of everyone?!?*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The best way to put it is, you have time to read the whole thread before the world ends. 
> 
> To elaborate a bit:  The first page of a document regarding a change in venue for legal proceedings has been posted, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers did not "belong."  It was supposedly copied and pasted from the second page, and ericisnow then posted the top of the second page, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers is still in a different font and misaligned.  Furthermore, the document doesn't seem to have anything to do with the baby being taken.
> 
> I see no moral justification for taking a newborn from its mother on the day of its birth, but New Hampshire has been involved with the family for 21 months now according to item 5 in the posted document, and it may turn out that due process has technically been followed, in the legal sense.  That doesn't make it right, but it makes it less outrageous than we originally assumed.  We don't know anything for sure, *but it's looking more and more like our picture of the situation is being heavily distorted.*
> 
> That still doesn't explain why the Oath Keepers were mentioned (although there's speculation about that), and it certainly doesn't explain their mischaracterization as a "militia."  (Of course, that's assuming the text referring to the Oath Keepers actually came from ANY real legal document in the first place...)  However, we do know that the Oath Keepers were only mentioned in connection with the change of venue, and we've seen no document relating to taking the baby.
> 
> *UPDATE:  I actually just read something interesting on JREF that I still didn't catch myself:  The doctored first page is from a motion for a change in venue, and the apparently doctored second page is from an affidavit...but even if that second page is genuine (doubtful), it seems to come from a totally different document.*




Thanks Mini-me for the persepective...

----------


## klamath

> After thinking more about my last post, which I just updated:
> *At this point, I have to ask:  Are we SURE ericsnow isn't ghemminger conning the $#@! out of everyone?!?*


Uh... no.

----------


## ericsnow

> Uh... no.


lol I can assure you I'm not.

----------


## Mini-Me

> lol I can assure you I'm not.


You mean like you can assure us about the authenticity of the documents you've been posting?  Where have you been getting them, anyway?  Where have you been getting your information?

----------


## EndDaFed

> After thinking more about my last post, which I just updated:
> *At this point, I have to ask:  Are we SURE ericsnow isn't ghemminger conning the $#@! out of everyone?!?*


Did you catch him in another thread trying to pump and dump penny stocks?

----------


## pcosmar

No, never sure. But I doubt it.

I know Ghemmy has a -rep. 
I always thought he had a good heart, even if he did have a weird head. But he has still been busy.
Pointing things like homelessness, and the housing crash. Saw a video of walking into Detroit.

He broke the story, But it seems some facts have offended a Bunch of folks and for good reason.
It is playing out now. but the stage has been being set for a long time.
Ghemmy didn't orchestrate the MIAC Report.
Or the Hutaree Arrest.
or the dozens of other stories of Official abuse.

He reported this. But didn't create it.

----------


## ericsnow

> You mean like you can assure us about the authenticity of the documents you've been posting?  Where have you been getting them, anyway?  Where have you been getting your information?


I get information before everyone else because I'm constantly refreshing the thread on god like productions. Everything has seemed to be posted there first. The thread is 32 pages - http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1214470/pg32

I'm just getting the documents from infowars.

----------


## EndDaFed

Nevermind :O

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> For what its worth, different font on court papers/other papers happen all the time. It is a glitch in Works.


Maybe, but that wouldn't make the text crooked. (Multiple faxes and copies might).




> #7 was copied to fit it onto one page. Here's the original 2nd page


That might explain it.




> The text is still skewed, compared to the header.


Ugh.




> *UPDATE:  I actually just read something interesting on JREF that I still didn't catch myself:  The doctored first page is from a motion for a change in venue, and the apparently doctored second page is from an affidavit...but even if that second page is genuine (doubtful), it seems to come from a totally different document.*


Double ugh.

----------


## ericsnow

I think the George guy was posting in the GLP thread at the start.

----------


## specsaregood

> I get information before everyone else because I'm constantly refreshing the thread on god like productions. Everything has seemed to be posted there first. The thread is 32 pages - http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1214470/pg32


So all the information is originally being posted on a known cointelpro mindf*ck site.  good to know.....

----------


## tpreitzel

> The best way to put it is, you have time to read the whole thread before the world ends. 
> 
> To elaborate a bit:  The first page of a document regarding a change in venue for legal proceedings has been posted, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers did not "belong."  It was supposedly copied and pasted from the second page, and ericsnow then posted the top of the second page, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers is still in a different font and misaligned.  Furthermore, the document doesn't seem to have anything to do with the baby being taken.
> 
> I see no moral justification for taking a newborn from its mother on the day of its birth, but New Hampshire has been involved with the family for 21 months now according to item 5 in the posted document, and it may turn out that due process has technically been followed, in the legal sense.  That doesn't make it right, but it makes it less outrageous than we originally assumed.  We don't know anything for sure, *but it's looking more and more like our picture of the situation is being heavily distorted.*
> 
> That still doesn't explain why the Oath Keepers were mentioned (although there's speculation about that), and it certainly doesn't explain their mischaracterization as a "militia."  (Of course, that's assuming the text referring to the Oath Keepers actually came from ANY real legal document in the first place...)  However, we do know that the Oath Keepers were only mentioned in connection with the change of venue, and we've seen no document relating to taking the baby.
> 
> *UPDATE:  I actually just read something interesting on JREF that I still didn't catch myself:  The doctored first page is from a motion for a change in venue, and the apparently doctored second page is from an affidavit...but even if that second page is genuine (doubtful), it seems to come from a totally different document.*


I thank you.

----------


## pcosmar

Well,,it's made *Wonkette*.

No, I won't link that trash.

----------


## eOs

> Well,,it's made *Wonkette*.
> 
> No, I won't link that trash.


Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us. 


> We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents  states ,along with a long list of other assertions  against both parents, that The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.     Yes, there are other, very serious allegations.  Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit.  We will leave that to Mr. Irish.   But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my  experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).


I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us. 
> 
> I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.


It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.

Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
And he is pissed about it.

----------


## Pericles

> It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
> And he is pissed about it.


Which, as an Oathkeeper, I take my cue from the leadership, which have had access to and the ability to review the documents. Stewart says to standby, I standby, Stewart says it is time to pile on, I pile on.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us. 
> 
> I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.


Stewart Rhodes (founder of the OathKeepers) has seen the documentation in its entirety and still supports the Irish Family and so does A.J..  I highly doubt they would put their reputations on the line.  

I'm in the same boat as Peter, a little surprised that so many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather than the innocent (until proven guilty).  As Ron Paul supporters, you all know how easy it is for tptb to marginalize someone and make them out to be whack-jobs.  The bottom line for me, is that a baby was taken from her mother and one of the reasons is because the father is a member of the O.K., which has been maligned as a "militia" group.  I don't really care about the rest.  Those two facts need to be addressed NOW!

----------


## eOs

> It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
> And he is pissed about it.


Bottom line is the guy should tell everyone what else he's being accused of so we can judge for ourselves and support the guy if we decide to.

----------


## pcosmar

> Bottom line is the guy should tell everyone what else he's being accused of so we can judge for ourselves and support the guy if we decide to.


You don't have to support the guy. This isn't about the guy.
This is about supporting the principal, supporting the free association. support the exercising of rights.
This is about State Sponsored Slander.
It is about Principals.

----------


## specsaregood

> You don't have to support the guy. This isn't about the guy.
> This is about supporting the principal, supporting the free association. support the exercising of rights.
> This is about State Sponsored Slander.
> It is about Principals.


Then you should start a new thread on that subject, since this one was explicitly created about the family affected.  Just saying.   I think most of us agree with your comments, but there is no way this particular thread is going to ever veer onto that as the main topic.

----------


## pcosmar

> Then you should start a new thread on that subject, since this one was explicitly created about the family affected.  Just saying.   I think most of us agree with your comments, but there is no way this particular thread is going to ever veer onto that as the main topic.


That is the main topic. And has been since the beginning of the thread. Stewart Rhodes  has been involved since last night. and that was the issue. 
That (Fear) is being used to stifle and silence the outrage.

Post #3,,#50,,#58

----------


## Deborah K

Any word on the protest in front of the hospital?

----------


## squarepusher

wow looks like Ghemmy whipped up a real big sh*t storm, doesn't he get paid for web hits or views?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Stewart Rhodes (founder of the OathKeepers) has seen the documentation in its entirety and still supports the Irish Family and so does A.J..  I highly doubt they would put their reputations on the line.  
> 
> I'm in the same boat as Peter, a little surprised that so many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather than the innocent (until proven guilty).  As Ron Paul supporters, you all know how easy it is for tptb to marginalize someone and make them out to be whack-jobs.  The bottom line for me, is that a baby was taken from her mother *and one of the reasons is because the father is a member of the O.K.*, which has been maligned as a "militia" group.  I don't really care about the rest.  Those two facts need to be addressed NOW!


The problem is, the documents we have seen so far DO NOT say that, because they relate to a motion to change venue, not to taking the baby.  On top of that, the documents we've seen are doctored in the first place.  (Just to clarify, Irish isn't a member of the O.K. anyway...just "associated with them" by being a poster on their forum.)

On the one hand, you and pcosmar make a good point that Stewart Rhodes has presumably seen the full documents, and he's educated enough to make an informed conclusion about them.  On the other hand, do we know he's seen them in person, and not just quick scans of them, for instance?  Even the best of us can let our emotions rush us into action, and he might have looked everything over quickly without thinking to scrutinize them for forgery.

----------


## susano

Has anyone seen the entire affidavit and has it been revealed who swore to it?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Has anyone seen the entire affidavit and has it been revealed who swore to it?


As far as I know, nobody accessible to us [who can tell us about them] has.  Stewart Rhodes presumably did, but I'm not sure whether he scrutinized it closely or not.

----------


## Lucille

> Any word on the protest in front of the hospital?


http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/freebabycheyenne




> Kevin Bloom  Just got back from the protest, the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor were both there plus Sam from OTN and other journalists, who somewhat outnumber the protesters although more are arriving. So the MSM will have a story tonight. This is going to be a very long and complicated story....that the state seized the bab...y and that they cited Oath Keepers in the docs seems not to be in dispute. The WHY of it isn't over yet and hinges on an ongoing legal battle which has spanned a couple of years and sounds like quite a mess. Incidentally the protest is going until 6 and is on the corner of Pleasant and Langley Pkwy.


http://freebabycheyenne.com/

----------


## Deborah K

> The problem is, the documents we have seen so far DO NOT say that, because they relate to a motion to change venue, not to taking the baby.  On top of that, the documents we've seen are doctored in the first place.  (Just to clarify, Irish isn't a member of the O.K. anyway...just "associated with them" by being a poster on their forum.)
> 
> On the one hand, you and pcosmar make a good point that Stewart Rhodes has presumably seen the full documents, and he's educated enough to make an informed conclusion about them.  On the other hand, do we know he's seen them in person, and not just quick scans of them, for instance?  Even the best of us can let our emotions rush us into action, and he might have looked everything over quickly without thinking to scrutinize them for forgery.


I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here.  I got that.  But, does it really matter what document it's on?  Really?  And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership?  Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?

----------


## specsaregood

> I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here.  I got that.  But, does it really matter what document it's on?  Really?  And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership?  Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?


It does, and nobody likes it.  But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.

----------


## Deborah K

> It does, and nobody likes it.  But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.


So because someone jumped to conclusions, due to an obviously stressful situation, we should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Sorry for the untimely pun.

----------


## AGRP

After thinking about this for a while, why is being a member of OK listed as a reason to do this?   Many people said:  Well, theres probably "other reasons too", as did I.  THAT DOESN'T MATTER.


That's like saying were going to take your baby because you do drugs and are a member of OK.  

So they can do this to anyone who is a member of OK? Is that where they are going with this?

----------


## pcosmar

> It does, and nobody likes it.  But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/
There is an awareness of the people involved.
Perhaps you should tell Stewart to remove his position from his web page.

----------


## squarepusher

> http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/freebabycheyenne
> 
> 
> 
> http://freebabycheyenne.com/


that blog seems to really be pumping the Oath Keepers, but for all we know, he is using the Oath Keepers to fund his legal defense for reasons that aren't not strongly related.


Yes it was wrong that whatever affidavit mentioned anything about the Oath Keppers in a negative tone that would in anyway look bad upon him.  However it appears this certainly isn't about, "they took my baby caus im an oath keeper"

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here.  I got that.  But, does it really matter what document it's on?  Really?  And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership?  Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?


Yes, the specifics matter because not every situation merits the same response.

I do not need any wise overlords suggesting courses of action because they know better and have read the documents.

----------


## specsaregood

> So because someone jumped to conclusions, due to an obviously stressful situation, we should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Sorry for the untimely pun.


I'm not of that opinion.  The Oath keepers and others should definitely followup and raise hell about it -- independent of this particular family's situation.

But as you can see:  http://freebabycheyenne.com/
Some are using the baby and the family as pawns in the debate.

----------


## ericsnow

http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/

Below: Excerpts of State of New Hampshire documents concerning the case. Note: full documents withheld to ensure family privacy



Note: the following is from a separate document and not part of the above document.



http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index....een#msg1120814

admin:

At first people were claiming it was fake because we tagged the "Oath Keepers" part on to the first document. Now we tried to make it clear that the second part was on a different sheet of paper, some still can't accept it. Please stop the denial - we have the entire affidavit. This is real, we have confirmed the authenticity.

It seems amazing that many people claimed the MIAC report was fake when we released it until Rush Limbaugh and the rest started talking about it and only then did many people accept it was genuine.

Give us some credit please, we don't sit here all day faking documents and making stuff up.

And yes the couple has had issues with the state before, we never tried to hide this. One of the first things I pointed out in my article was that the mere mention of being associated with Oath Keepers and buying guns as a reason for snatching a newborn baby was the shocking aspect to the whole story.

Some people still can't come to terms with how horrible this is so they attempt to convince themselves that it's either not real or that the authorities really should have stolen the baby and forced it to grow up in an institutionalized government rape center after all.

*The time for denial has long passed.
*
Paul Watson.

----------


## pcosmar

> After thinking about this for a while, why is being a member of OK listed as a reason to do this?  
> 
> That alone is wrong, no matter what other reasons they give or what else he's done wrong.
> 
> That's like saying were going to take your baby because you do drugs and are a member of OK.  
> 
> So they can do this to anyone who is a member of OK? Is this where they are going with this?


Or just claim you are a pedophile and everyone will run from you.
Good luck challenging the allegation.Or making a political statement.

http://www.youtube.com/user/July4Patriot

----------


## specsaregood

> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/
> There is an awareness of the people involved.
> Perhaps you should tell Stewart to remove his position from his web page.


Explain this part:



> But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody


How is that unconstitutional?  Not nitpicking, truly wondering how that particular point is unconstitutional.

If one accepts that the govt has a right or duty in some cases to take a child out of a home -- i know you probably don't -- then associations are relevant. eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here.  I got that.  But, does it really matter what document it's on?  Really?  And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership?  Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?


It does indeed matter what document it's on.  The premise here was that association with the Oath Keepers was given as a reason for taking the baby...but if it was not, and it was only cited as a [supposedly] relevant contextual fact in an affidavit relating to the motion to change venue, that's a HUGE difference.  It still doesn't justify including them, especially since it's very unlikely that his association with them has any bearing on...anything whatsoever.  Still, it's far less alarming than if association with them had actually been listed as a reason for taking their kid.

The inclusion and mischaracterization of the Oath Keepers is definitely concerning, and the Oath Keepers need to fight that...but that's also assuming it was actually written in a legal document whatsoever.  What's bothering me here is that we've had two forgeries passed off as the real thing now, and we've seen nothing else.  Are we really sure that Stewart Rhodes has taken a close look at the real thing in the first place?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/
> 
> Below: Excerpts of State of New Hampshire documents concerning the case. Note: full documents withheld to ensure family privacy
> 
> 
> 
> Note: the following is from a separate document and not part of the above document.
> 
> 
> ...


I will not act nor suggest anyone else act without full knowledge of the facts.  If you can't handle that I do not know what to tell you.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, the specifics matter because not every situation merits the same response.
> 
> I do not need any wise overlords suggesting courses of action because they know better and have read the documents.


I don't even know what the hell this means.  Wise overlords??  As in the founder of O.K.  who has made the determination that his organization is being targeted?

----------


## pcosmar

> Are we really sure that Stewart Rhodes has taken a close look at the real thing in the first place?


He said he did.
What are you implying?

----------


## Lucille

> that blog seems to really be pumping the Oath Keepers, but for all we know, he is using the Oath Keepers to fund his legal defense for reasons that aren't not strongly related.
> 
> 
> Yes it was wrong that whatever affidavit mentioned anything about the Oath Keppers in a negative tone that would in anyway look bad upon him.  However it appears this certainly isn't about, "they took my baby caus im an oath keeper"


I believe George Donnelly started both the fb page and blog.  This was a comment under the Kevin Bloom one I linked to upthread:




> Free Baby Cheyenne Kevin, if you see any media about the protest, would you please post it here? Thanks - George Donnelly

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I don't even know what the hell this means.  Wise overlords??  As in the founder of O.K.  who has made the determination that his organization is being targeted?


I don't care if it's Ron Paul.  The facts better be available for individual review.

----------


## torchbearer

wait, when did the oathkeepers become a militia?

----------


## AGRP

> And yes the couple has had issues with the state before, we never tried to hide this. One of the first things I pointed out in my article was that the mere mention of being associated with Oath Keepers and buying guns as a reason for snatching a newborn baby was the shocking aspect to the whole story.
> 
> *The time for denial has long passed.
> *
> Paul Watson.


Thats the conclusion that I made.

The issue at hand is that they listed OK as a partial reason.

Thats like saying "and you spend time on the internet."  Everyone uses the internet.  Are you going to go after everyone now?  The internet is not illegal.

----------


## torchbearer

> Thats the conclusion that I made.
> 
> The issue at hand is that they listed OK as a partial reason.


common practice is to list a menu of charges, regardless of how real they are...

----------


## Mini-Me

> He said he did.
> What are you implying?


I'm not saying he hasn't taken a look at anything at all; I read the posts on the Oath Keepers website, so I know he has.  My question is, *how closely* has he looked at them?  Could he have been duped?  The only reason I ask is, WE were duped.  We were duped for a short time by two forgeries passed off as the real thing.    (Well, at least one was a forgery; the other one seems to be.)

We were also misled to believe that the documents had something to do with taking the baby...which they didn't.  Stewart Rhodes wouldn't have made this particular mistake, but the first...I don't know.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't care if it's Ron Paul.  The facts better be available for individual review.


As I've already stated, pursuit of clarity is obviously needed and, I might add, always prudent.  I'm sure as time passes, we'll learn more.  In the meantime, the doubting thomas's can ride the fence.  I intend to continue to disseminate information based on info I find at the O.K. site.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> As I've already stated, pursuit of clarity is obviously needed and, I might add, always prudent.  I'm sure as time passes, we'll learn more.  In the meantime, the doubting thomas's can ride the fence.  I intend to continue to disseminate information based on info I find at the O.K. site.


That is what makes this situation even more appalling.  There is supposed to be no red government tape here.  A freedom of information act request should not have to occur in order for the facts to come out 20 years later.

----------


## specsaregood

> But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations,* it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers* in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody


How is that unconstitutional?  Not nitpicking, truly wondering how that particular point is unconstitutional.

If one accepts that the govt has a right or duty in some cases to take a child out of a home, then associations are relevant.  eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How is that unconstitutional?  Not nitpicking, truly wondering how that particular point is unconstitutional.
> 
> If one accepts that the govt has a right or duty in some cases to take a child out of a home, then associations are relevant.  eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.


I think it is the fact that it is not illegal (yet) to be associated with a militia...therefore it is not a _legal_ reason to take children away...

...I _think_...if I understand everything correctly...


I am still really lost on this whole story...

----------


## Mini-Me

I'm guessing someone just did a huge thread merge?

----------


## MelissaCato

I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.

This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.

----------


## torchbearer

> How is that unconstitutional?  Not nitpicking, truly wondering how that particular point is unconstitutional.
> 
> If one accepts that the govt has a right or duty in some cases to take a child out of a home, then associations are relevant.  eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.


would you find it unconstitutional if they took your kid because you were a member here?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.
> 
> This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.


Excuse me for demanding facts when one is surrounded by cowards that will not organize or act to protect fellow citizens from federal injustice or free political prisoners from captivity.

Excuse me for demanding facts when this is not an issue of principal because the same people demanding action for stealing a baby would demand the baby be stolen under circumstances of rape.

Excuse me for being a bad American who likes to think.

----------


## klamath

> I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.
> 
> This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.


I question EVERYTHING because.... "I have seen evidence that Iraq has WMD"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> common practice is to list a menu of charges, regardless of how real they are...


Yep. Proof, relevance, accuracy are not an issue when making up a character assassination document. 

Of course it's up to a Judge and/or jury to determine the "truth". Which is another reason why taking the child before convicted (proven guilty of something) is a total injustice, let alone some bureaucrats playing accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, arbitrary penalty manufacturer and enforcer all at the same time.

----------


## specsaregood

> would you find it unconstitutional if they took your kid because you were a member here?


don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use.  Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given.  I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.

Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional".  I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.


Nobody is doubting what he has said. Some are doubting the validity of documents that may be the same documents that Stewart is working from. There is a shadow of a doubt there. If the authorities confirm that they put "Oath Keepers" in the documents, that particular issue will be resolved.

----------


## Mini-Me

> don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use.  Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given.  I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.
> 
> Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional".  I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.


If the government cited your group associations as a reason for taking your baby, it would be unconstitutional because it is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech and assembly.  You cannot [Constitutionally] have your baby taken away for your speech and associations, for the same reason you cannot [Constitutionally] be imprisoned or otherwise harmed for them.  Of course, statists would dispute this point, because they're vile scumbags, but that's statists for you.   All that said, we'd be relying on the incorporation doctrine from the Fourteenth Amendment in a case like this, to apply the logic to state and local governments.

----------


## Meatwasp

I hope this is just a idiot Ghemmy hoax.
Remember how we all fell for that kid that supposily flew away in the balloon.

----------


## specsaregood

> If the government cited your group associations as a reason for taking your baby, it would be unconstitutional because it is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech and assembly.  You cannot [Constitutionally] have your baby taken away for your speech and associations, for the same reason you cannot [Constitutionally] be imprisoned or otherwise harmed for them.  Of course, statists would dispute this point, because they're vile scumbags, but that's statists for you.


Ok fair enough.  But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply?  re: my nambla example

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use.  Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given.  I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.
> 
> Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional".  I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.


Maybe a due process argument?

The 5th:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Taking your newborn baby might qualify.




> http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html
> 
> Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):
> 
>     * Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
>     * Right to be present at the trial
>     * Right to an impartial jury
>     * Right to be heard in one's own defense
>     * Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
> ...

----------


## Mini-Me

> Ok fair enough.  But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply?  re: my nambla example


No, I don't think so.  Brian's post above makes another good point that taking babies in general is unconstitutional without due process, though.  (That said, there might have been more legal "due process" here than we realize, even if the whole system is a sham.)

----------


## ericsnow

Anyone have details on the event at the hospital today?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Nobody is doubting what he has said.


No doubt.  Initiation of aggression by government to steal a baby soley because of political affiliations means the world stops, get your ass in your car, grab your rifle, because I am not going to stand for that $#@! in America and if you are... $#@! you and piss off.

If on the other hand political affiliation is not the sole reason of government initiating aggression to steal a baby the matter of citing a political affiliation in any due process documentation is a matter to be redressed in a petition for redress of grievances.

Third, there is the matter of supporting the individuals involved and before one can even comment on someones individual character the allegations one is responding to must be known.

I don't even want to hear any "this is a matter of principle" bull$#@! when people around here try to associate me with pedophiles because I question what does it mean to consent?  Is age the best means to determine consent?

----------


## pcosmar

> Anyone have details on the event at the hospital today?


Just from.
http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne



> Leigh Sparks  per Watchman Noyes: Ok, latest update! ~ I just got off the phone with Johnathan, he is at the protest. They told him that he cannot be on hospital grounds. Long story short, WMUR did FINALLY show up and this SHOULD hit the 11PM news!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ok fair enough.  But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply?  re: my nambla example


It would make sense for unrelated associations to be thrown out (during due process) as being immaterial or inadmissible. Your NAMBLA example would probably be considered relevant in a child molestation case...

----------


## ericsnow

> Just from.
> http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne


Good!

I wonder how many people showed up? 

200 is the over/under. GO!

----------


## georgedonnelly

> But as you can see:  http://freebabycheyenne.com/
> Some are using the baby and the family as pawns in the debate.


Huh? How is making a page to help the family using them as pawns in the debate? What debate?

----------


## XNavyNuke

WMUR is reporting that an FBI K-9 unit was called out to hospital to sniff for bombs during protest.

XNN

----------


## susano

> that blog seems to really be pumping the Oath Keepers, but for all we know, he is using the Oath Keepers to fund his legal defense for reasons that aren't not strongly related.
> 
> 
> Yes it was wrong that whatever affidavit mentioned anything about the Oath Keppers in a negative tone that would in anyway look bad upon him.  However it appears this certainly isn't about, "they took my baby caus im an oath keeper"


YES THIS IS about the father's political activities and also the parents being gun owners.

This is a political hit by kidnapping in order to terrorize and intimidate patriots. THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS ABOUT.

These social workers are malignant statists who do this $#@! all over the country. 


This is TYPICAL of these criminals:

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010 
A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a Substantial damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.

After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jurys verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude *not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident*. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously. 

The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwicks constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.

On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.

Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. *Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is "ubiquitous" as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties*. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.

    San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A. 
    McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case, and the lead 
    appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.

RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al. 
Superior Court of California, County of Orange 
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103) 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogart...web4157254.htm

----------


## susano

Sorry I'm behind on all of this. I can't keep up with all of the forums I'm on. 

I just heard Alex Jones say that New Hampshire is moving to TERMINATE the mother's parental rights.

----------


## klamath

> It would make sense for unrelated associations to be thrown out (during due process) as being immaterial or inadmissible. Your NAMBLA example would probably be considered relevant in a child molestation case...


If the guy was an convicted criminal with his gun rights revoked then an association with what they thought was a militia group (O.K.) could be made.

----------


## ericsnow

> Sorry I'm behind on all of this. I can't keep up with all of the forums I'm on. 
> 
> I just heard Alex Jones say that New Hampshire is moving to TERMINATE the mother's parental rights.


Just heard? Is Alex back live or are you listening to the re broadcast?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> YES THIS IS about the father's political activities and also the parents being gun owners.
> 
> This is a political hit by kidnapping in order to terrorize and intimidate patriots. THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS ABOUT.


Then back up your assertion with something...  like an affidavit or other documents...




> This is TYPICAL of these criminals:


I do not care what is typical.  I know what is typical.  I want to know all of the relevant facts for the matter at hand.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If the guy was an convicted criminal with his gun rights revoked then an association with what they thought was a militia group (O.K.) could be made.


Well, guilt by association doesn't stand on it's own, even if it were to be allowed.

In this child custody case, it's hard to see any relevance. As TorchBearer said, they will just throw anything in there to see if it sticks.

----------


## pcosmar

> If the guy was an convicted criminal with his gun rights revoked then an association with what they thought was a militia group (O.K.) could be made.


I have found no convictions of anything. I heard allegations, Apparently he had a Concealed Carry.
But some questionable bust that is being contested. a technicality that is being called *weapons violations.*.

I believe the term I am looking for is character assassination .

----------


## georgedonnelly

It's premature to draw a lot of speculative conclusions. The parents need to release the backstory. For now, I support the baby. The state needs some serious charges and overwhelming evidence to deny a newborn breastfeeding and parental TLC. CPS is a nationwide scam and all current and future parents need to be aware of its misdeeds.

----------


## ericsnow

Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Check Hospital During Protest
Demonstrators Protest After DCYF Seizes Newborn
POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT October 8, 2010

CONCORD, N.H. -- FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrators gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother's care by the state.

The hospital said there was no threat made, but it was taking precautions in part to reassure staff and patients.

http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html

----------


## GunnyFreedom

"Keep politics out of protecting our children."

----------


## Cowlesy

I read over 390 posts on this thread and I still do not have enough information.

I saw the one PDF that says these folk have had a few run-ins with the cops before.  I'd like a lot more detailed information before making any sort of conclusion about this case.

Assuming this couple are either angels or demons seem like really poor assumptions at this point as the whole matter is developing.

----------


## pcosmar

The father is supposed to be on,
http://www.freetalklive.com/

----------


## MelissaWV

> I read over 390 posts on this thread and I still do not have enough information.
> 
> I saw the one PDF that says these folk have had a few run-ins with the cops before.  I'd like a lot more detailed information before making any sort of conclusion about this case.
> 
> Assuming this couple are either angels or demons seem like really poor assumptions at this point as the whole matter is developing.


Same.

I am not a fan of children being taken away by "the authorities" for any reason, really, but neither am I a fan of leaping to the conclusion that the reason the child was taken was because of affiliation with Oath Keepers, and not some other behavior.

----------


## klamath

> Well, guilt by association doesn't stand on it's own, even if it were to be allowed.
> 
> In this child custody case, it's hard to see any relevance. As TorchBearer said, they will just throw anything in there to see if it sticks.


Association in this case would be that if he was part of a militia they would naturally assume that he had weapons to become involved.

I have a very jaded attitute toward county law having a son that was railroaded in highschool so the county could pad the numbers of an "exploding juvenile crime wave" all because they were trying to get a state grant for a new juvy hall.
I still try and stay objective though

----------


## ericsnow

Contact New Hampshire Governor Lynch:

(603) 271-2121
email form: http://www4.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

This reminds me of Charles Dyer and all the people who scurried off from supporting him because the State accused him of all sorts of stuff that were ridiculous. Let us give the shadow of the doubt to the non-State person, ok?

----------


## erowe1

> But, does it really matter what document it's on?  Really?


I think it matters.

The charge being made is that his association with Oath Keepers was used as a reason (among other reasons) for taking their baby. If the only document that mentions that is the change of venue form, then that's not true. And, apart from the mischaracterization of Oath Keepers as a militia, I haven't seen anyone explain why the mention of Oath Keepers on that document would be such a big deal.

But everything I said in the above paragraph is assuming that it really is the case that the change of venue form was the one on which that information appeared, which it is looking more and more like that's not the case.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Association in this case would be that if he was part of a militia they would naturally assume that he had weapons to become involved.
> 
> I have a very jaded attitute toward county law having a son that was railroaded in highschool so the county could pad the numbers of an "exploding juvenile crime wave" all because they were trying to get a state grant for a new juvy hall.
> I still try and stay objective though


Weapons should have nothing to do with child custody. Second Amendment comes into play there. "Assuming" is not allowed in court.

Jaded and objective, the only way to go. 

Bummer about the railroading...

----------


## pcosmar

> I think it matters.
> 
> The charge being made is that his association with Oath Keepers was used as a reason (among other reasons) for taking their baby. If the only document that mentions that is the change of venue form, then that's not true. And, apart from the mischaracterization of Oath Keepers as a militia, I haven't seen anyone explain why the mention of Oath Keepers on that document would be such a big deal.
> 
> But everything I said in the above paragraph is assuming that it really is the case that the change of venue form was the one on which that information appeared, which it is looking more and more like that's not the case.


Apparently ,from the papers that Stewart Rhodes has seen, He thinks it matters.

Many others can see the implications.

Others  look at it in the light of many things including the MIAC report,  july4patriot and the Hutaree and see a pattern.

To others , it is just WRONG.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

For better or worse this story has taken hold. Let's hope we don't find out this will be used to smear Oath Keepers in a bad light some how.



> Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Check Hospital During Protest
> Demonstrators Protest After DCYF Seizes Newborn
> POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT October 8, 2010
> 
> CONCORD, N.H. -- FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrators gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother's care by the state.
> 
> The hospital said there was no threat made, but it was taking precautions in part to reassure staff and patients.
> 
> http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html

----------


## pcosmar

> For better or worse this story has taken hold. Let's hope we don't find out this will be used to smear Oath Keepers in a bad light some how.


Do they really think Bomb sniffing dogs were needed? or is that a show for the cameras?

Has there been a rash of bombings that I haven't heard of?

----------


## klamath

> Weapons should have nothing to do with child custody. Second Amendment comes into play there. "Assuming" is not allowed in court.
> 
> Jaded and objective, the only way to go. 
> 
> Bummer about the railroading...


Actually there is not nearly enough information to make any kind of judgement on anything in this case.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Do they really think Bomb sniffing dogs were needed? or is that a show for the cameras?
> 
> Has there been a rash of bombings that I haven't heard of?


Either they're retarded, or it's a show for the cameras.  The jury's out, though.

----------


## Dr. Anomaly

> Either they're retarded, or it's a show for the cameras.  The jury's out, though.


Some reason it couldn't be _both_?

----------


## squarepusher

Oath Keepers, or not (it seems like not), the state was retarded for taking away a baby from a young mother like that after she gave birth.  Justified or not in the protests, I"m glad its getting the attention it is now for exposing corrupt practices imo

----------


## Romulus

I still have heard no reason why the child was taken from the mother. The mother did nothing to the child. At what point can the govt abolish the natural right to conceive birth?

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Anybody in the MD/DE/VA area going to New Hampshire to join in the protest? If so than I would be very interested in tagging along if that is o.k.

----------


## Number19

Here it is now 7:30 Central; and there's been no public statements By "the state"?

Does the couple have legal representation? Was any contact made with "the state"? Any motions or other paperwork filed? Has any kind of legal proceedings been started?

It's been 24 hours and good legal representation should already have put things in motion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anybody in the MD/DE/VA area going to New Hampshire to join in the protest? If so than I would be very interested in tagging along if that is o.k.




Please promote this.

If I was anywhere close, I would join you....

----------


## susano

> Yep. Proof, relevance, accuracy are not an issue when making up a character assassination document. 
> 
> Of course it's up to a Judge and/or jury to determine the "truth". Which is another reason why taking the child before convicted (proven guilty of something) is a total injustice, let alone some bureaucrats playing accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, arbitrary penalty manufacturer and enforcer all at the same time.


I've read so little of this thread and maybe it's been brought up -

These family "courts" are not courts of law. There will be no due process or a jury. In a civil matter one can be accused of anything and the rule of the criminal courts of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply. Only a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%) is required and w/o a jury state social workers, dishonest cops, and the other commu-fascist thugs can get away with murder. 

This is but one of hundreds of examples of the criminals running the govt child theft rings:

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010
A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a Substantial damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.

After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jurys verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously. 

The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwicks constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.

On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.

Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is ubiquitous as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.

San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case, and the lead
appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.

RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103) 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogart...web4157254.htm

I've read of other equally horrifying cases. In one, Colorado C&FS took two children from a loving family who had adopted them and the children were late found sold into sex slavery. In Florida, 5 year old Rilya Wilson was found missing from a state foster care home. The home was supposedly that of Rilya's grandmother, but it turned out to be a lie. Social workers had filled out paperwork for a YEAR claiming Rilya had been checked on and was safe. In reality, she had been MISSING for that year. She has never been found and no one has been criminally charged. Because of that case, it was revealled that the State of Florida had [b]500 children missing from state care, just that year, alone.[/i]

This baby, Cheyenne, is not safe. Some C&FS give bounties or bonuses for stealing children and adopting them out. Alex Jones was just discussing this happening in Austin.

----------


## pcosmar

http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

Posted for updates.

New video.

----------


## susano

> don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use.  Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given.  I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.
> 
> Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional".  I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.


WTF is wrong with you making and analogy between OK and NAMBLA? NAMBLA is a pedophile organization. Pedophelia is ILLEGAL. Freedom of speech and association with a political organization is protected by the constitution. OF COURSE it is unconstitutional to list as a reason for stealing a child perfectly LAWFUL activity.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

*Compare these two posts...*




> *i read over 390 posts on this thread* and i still do not have enough information.
> 
> I saw the one pdf that says these folk have had a few run-ins with the cops before.  I'd like a lot more detailed information before making any sort of conclusion about this case.
> 
> Assuming this couple are either angels or demons seem like really poor assumptions at this point as the whole matter is developing.





> *i've read so little of this thread* and maybe it's been brought up -
> 
> these family "courts" are not courts of law. There will be no due process or a jury. In a civil matter one can be accused of anything and the rule of the criminal courts of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply. Only a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%) is required and w/o a jury state social workers, dishonest cops, and the other commu-fascist thugs can get away with murder. 
> 
> This is but one of hundreds of examples of the criminals running the govt child theft rings:
> 
> San diego, ca (prweb) june 18, 2010
> a california appellate court found this week against orange county and its social services agency, and affirmed what is called a “substantial” damages award arising from a civil rights verdict obtained in may 2007.
> 
> ...


*If you don't have the common decency to read the thread why should I even read your long winded rant?*

----------


## pcosmar

It was WRONG. It was wrong on many levels.
I can not look at this case and not see a whole lot of Wrong. Just Wrong.

My wife is crying in the other room.
I ain't even got any kids. 

This is wrong.

some still just don't get it

----------


## specsaregood

> WTF is wrong with you making and analogy between OK and NAMBLA? NAMBLA is a pedophile organization. Pedophelia is ILLEGAL. Freedom of speech and association with a political organization is protected by the constitution. OF COURSE it is unconstitutional to list as a reason for stealing a child perfectly LAWFUL activity.


You obviously missed the point.  Luckily others understood it just fine and we had a reasonable discussion.

----------


## susano

> Just heard? Is Alex back live or are you listening to the re broadcast?


Rebroadcast and Ron Paul is on right now and will be commenting on baby Cheyenne.

----------


## susano

> Then back up your assertion with something...  like an affidavit or other documents...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not care what is typical.  I know what is typical.  I want to know all of the relevant facts for the matter at hand.




An affidavit? Are you $#@!ing serious? You want me to swear one out and mail you my accusations? Grow up, dude. 

Nobody owes you $#@!. If you aren't smart enough to know what's going on then that's your problem. Nobody asked you for help and these people have nothing to prove to you. They are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and the burden of proof is on the state of NH. This attack on them was done through a CIVIL agency precisely to deny them the protections of a court of LAW.

----------


## susano

> I have found no convictions of anything. I heard allegations, Apparently he had a Concealed Carry.
> But some questionable bust that is being contested. a technicality that is being called *weapons violations.*.
> 
> I believe the term I am looking for is character assassination .


From what I heard in the interview with AJ -

The mother has a concealed carry permit and they tried to charge _him_ with a gun violation in a traffic stop where _her_ handgun was in _her_ computer bag (she was driving).

Of course, we know that the commu-fascists in govt never  hassel people about their guns...

----------


## pcosmar

> From what I heard in the interview with AJ -
> 
> The mother has a concealed carry permit and they tried to charge _him_ with a gun violation in a traffic stop where _her_ handgun was in _her_ computer bag (she was driving).
> 
> Of course, we know that the commu-fascists in govt never  hassel people about their guns...


Naw, I probably wouldn't understand.

http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> An affidavit? Are you $#@!ing serious? You want me to swear one out and mail you my accusations? Grow up, dude. 
> 
> Nobody owes you $#@!. If you aren't smart enough to know what's going on then that's your problem. Nobody asked you for help and these people have nothing to prove to you. They are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and the burden of proof is on the state of NH. This attack on them was done through a CIVIL agency precisely to deny them the protections of a court of LAW.


Am I supposed to feel upset by your comment?  Psst.... I do not sweat your posting intelligence.  

Making stupid ass claims like:




> YES THIS IS about the father's political activities and also the parents being gun owners.
> 
> This is a political hit by kidnapping in order to terrorize and intimidate patriots. THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS ABOUT.


without anything to back it up or contradicting evidence in the public domain like:




> along with a long list of other assertions  against both parents
> 
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/


or a 21 month long dispute with family court like #5:




> 


is not going to win you any allies.

Maybe if you had the common decency to read the entire thread you would have understood my context using the word affidavit and not be making another stupid point.

----------


## susano

> For better or worse this story has taken hold. Let's hope we don't find out this will be used to smear Oath Keepers in a bad light some how.


Oh the smearing had been going on for a while

YouTube - Chris Matthews Twisting the Truth Attempts to Disparage Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes

----------


## Number19

Having read all 44 pages of posts, I can't remember, so I'm going to ask a fundamental question in all sincerity: do we know this whole thing is not a hoax? Do we know that there is a baby Cheyenne and this child was taken from the hospital by the authorities? Has there been any public statements by the authorities or by the hospital verifying the story?

----------


## susano

> Do they really think Bomb sniffing dogs were needed? or is that a show for the cameras?
> 
> Has there been a rash of bombings that I haven't heard of?


Vilified parent > Oath Keepers > Armed > Patriot > Terrorist


Southern Poverty Law Center tactic right there and the SPLC is now officially working with Homeland Security.

----------


## susano

> http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne
> 
> Posted for updates.
> 
> New video.


Just listened to the intro - there was a former social worker on GLP last night talking about her/his state conspiring to take children and adopt them out in under 1 one year (speeding up the process). Alex Jones mentioned Austin CPS getting huge money for stealing and adopting out babies.

----------


## susano

> *Compare these two posts...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you don't have the common decency to read the thread why should I even read your long winded rant?*


I don't have the time to be at the computer long enough to read this entire thread. It was not a "rant" but an article about a judgement against Orange County CA CPS workers conspiring to STEAL children.

----------


## susano

> You obviously missed the point.  Luckily others understood it just fine and we had a reasonable discussion.


I read the discussion and you conflated an organization that promotes CRIMINAL activity (NAMBLA) with constitutionally protected activity (Oath Keepers).

----------


## Number19

Has a birth certificate been produced? As the natural parents of the newborn, John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin will appear on this document and they have a legal right to a copy.

----------


## specsaregood

> I read the discussion and you conflated an organization that promotes CRIMINAL activity (NAMBLA) with constitutionally protected activity (Oath Keepers).


No, you still don't get it.  But like I said, other more reasonable people understood it just fine.  Perhaps you should read the discussion that came from that.  You might be enlightened.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Having read all 44 pages of posts, I can't remember, so I'm going to ask a fundamental question in all sincerity: do we know this whole thing is not a hoax? Do we know that there is a baby Cheyenne and this child was taken from the hospital by the authorities? Has there been any public statements by the authorities or by the hospital verifying the story?


As far as I know, no, the state and the hospital have been mum on all this.

----------


## susano

> Naw, I probably wouldn't understand.
> 
> http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html




How awful. I've known someone else who has been railroaded like that.

GOD forbid the UP thugs find out you are registered at the Ron Paul Forums.

----------


## susano

> Am I supposed to feel upset by your comment?  Psst.... I do not sweat your posting intelligence.  
> 
> Making stupid ass claims like:
> 
> 
> 
> without anything to back it up or contradicting evidence in the public domain like:
> 
> 
> ...


I read the affidavit and it doesn't mean a damn thing. It's an accusation without any proof of anything. Guess what? Govt workers and cops lie EVERY DAY. They gun people down and blame the dead and they get away with it. You choose to want more information from the people who stole a newborn from her mother, without DUE PROCESS. I do not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I read the affidavit and it doesn't mean a damn thing. It's an accusation without any proof of anything. Guess what? Govt workers and cops lie EVERY DAY. They gun people down and blame the dead and they get away with it. You choose to want more information from the people who stole a newborn from her mother, without DUE PROCESS. I do not.



this _is_ right...you have to admit....^^^

----------


## ericsnow

So WMUR Manchester is going to have a story on this at 11 for sure right? Can anyone living in that area upload it to youtube or maybe even stream it live on ustream or justin tv?

----------


## susano

Child Protective Services is nothing but a human trafficking network. How much money do they think baby Cheyenne will bring them?


YouTube - Nancy Schaefer exposes the EVIL CPS

----------


## tropicangela

> Has a birth certificate been produced? As the natural parents of the newborn, John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin will appear on this document and they have a legal right to a copy.


The birth certificate isn't made at the hospital.  The hospital normally submits paperwork to the State and then it's mailed to the parents.  It takes at least a week.  The parents would have had to fill out the document and sign it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I read the affidavit and it doesn't mean a damn thing.


I, King George III have read the ___________ and it doesn't mean a damn thing.

So an affidavit someone committed a rape, robbery, or murder doesn't mean a thing?  I did not realize you were an anarchist to such an extent you desired to see the courts undermined since without affidavits only omnipotent evidence would be admissible.




> It's an accusation without any proof of anything.


And what is "proof" exactly?  What information did I suggest be provided?  Obviously you have no clue based on one of your latter comments I am responding to in this same post.

One of the things I suggested publishing was the affidavit.
Another thing I suggested publishing was a rebuttal to the affidavit.




> Guess what? Govt workers and cops lie EVERY DAY.


Thank goodness we need them around because a few official liars is better than no official liars.




> They gun people down and blame the dead and they get away with it.


Thank goodness we need them around because a few official murderers is better than no official murderers.




> You choose to want more information from the people who stole a newborn from her mother, without DUE PROCESS. I do not.


At no time have I suggested additional information should be provided by anyone doing any alleged stealing.  Actually I think I previously stated it should not take a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain additional information.




> without DUE PROCESS. I do not.


I am not so ignorant to claim a recently concluded Termination of Parental Rights Trail following a 21 month long case could not be considered or have any bearing on what is due process in this matter, without additional information.

----------


## Number19

> The birth certificate isn't made at the hospital.  The hospital normally submits paperwork to the State and then it's mailed to the parents.  It takes at least a week.  The parents would have had to fill out the document and sign it.


Yes, this is what I am talking about, the Birth Certificate from the Hospital, not a "Certification of Live Birth" which is what seems to be issued by some states.

----------


## susano

From the OK comments section:

Here is one article of many published by the Late Nancy Schaefer in regards to her investive research on CPS. Maybe this will help SOME of you who are really feeling uncomfortable in regard to CPS and this particular situation. I worked very closely with Mrs.Schaefer prior to her death in uncovering the illegal activities if CPS/DCFS or whatever they want to call themselves
http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/repor...ps-corruption/

Comment by SereneCalm  October 8, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

----------


## susano

> blah, blah, blah
> 
> 
> 
> I am not so ignorant to claim a recently concluded Termination of Parental Rights Trail following a 21 month long case could not be considered or have any bearing on what is due process in this matter, without additional information.


Yes, you are ignorant and family courts are NOT COURTS OF LAW. There is no due process. 

You are beligerant AND not smart. I'm finished talking with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, you are ignorant and family courts are NOT COURTS OF LAW. There is no due process. 
> 
> You are beligerant AND not smart. I'm finished talking with you.




This is right^^^


Study up guys....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> family courts are NOT COURTS OF LAW. There is no due process.


But that would make them unconstitutional! 

Seriously though, this seems unconstitutional. Hasn't anyone taken this to court? I am afraid that the answer is yes, and that the Supremes found it to be perfectly acceptable. And even it if does go to the Court, our recent totalitarian statist additions (Kagan and Sotomayor) would go right along with all-powerful bureaucrats taking people's infants from them.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Yes, you are ignorant and family courts are NOT COURTS OF LAW. There is no due process. 
> 
> You are beligerant AND not smart. I'm finished talking with you.


Excellent, let me know if you need a tutorial on where to find the ignore button.

Now since I happen to have posted on several matters of law, legal, and statue I am wide awake that you voluntarily enter into the system.  I can't help it if crackpots can't realize this simple fact.

----------


## ericsnow

Anyone catch the WMUR Manchester news cast on this?

----------


## tropicangela

> Anyone catch the WMUR Manchester news cast on this?


Didn't see a video, but they updated the page 10 minutes ago.




> Stephanie Taylor said her infant daughter Cheyenne was taken into state custody. Taylor said she had two young sons removed from her care in 2009 due to abuse by a caretaker.
> 
> The father, Johnathon Irish, said court paperwork cited his involvement with an organization called the Oath Keepers, dedicated to defending the constitution.
> 
> While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.


http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html

----------


## susano

> But that would make them unconstitutional! 
> 
> Seriously though, this seems unconstitutional. Hasn't anyone taken this to court? I am afraid that the answer is yes, and that the Supremes found it to be perfectly acceptable. And even it if does go to the Court, our recent totalitarian statist additions (Kagan and Sotomayor) would go right along with all-powerful bureaucrats taking people's infants from them.


It's the court of equity vs. court of law stuff. If the parents had had the "benefit" of being charged criminally, this wouldn't have happened. They are charged with nothing and their child kidnapped by the state. The lined between these types of law have become blurred and most people don't know anything about it. I don't know much, either. Think civil case as opposed to criminal case. The IRS uses both. When they fail on the criminal, they destroy people through the civil. 

Do we have any common law people here? It takes an expert to explain this monstrosity of a system at work.

Read that Nancy Schaefer link up thread. This is an issue that we patriots and constitutionalists need to get very familiar with and fast. As I posted earlier, I know that CPS trafficks in children. Until last night, I didn't know they were PAID WITH TAX DOLLARS to do it.

----------


## klamath

> Didn't see a video, but they updated the page 10 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html


I guess the only thing new with that is it contradicts that first report that said she was home with her other two children.

----------


## tropicangela

> I guess the only thing new with that is it contradicts that first report that said she was home with her other two children.


They were removed from her care in 2009, but it doesn't say whether or not she got them back through the trial.  So while it's possible she doesn't have them, we're still not certain.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Some interesting comments:




> wmur why don't you do real reporting? Why not mention that the baby was taken away, mainly because the parents are associated with Oath Keepers? Why not tell people that the government has labeled it a militia, when all it is is a nonviolent group of our military and police forces that have agreed not to carry out any unconstitutional orders? Why not tell people that in the affidavit, DCYF states that one of the main reasons the baby was taken is because of the parents political views?


How many main reasons are there and what are the other ones?




> These parents have been under investigation for nearly two years and are awaiting a ruling on whether or not the other two children will be taken away for neglect. Do some research in the seacoast newspapers and you can read the heartwarming stories on Jonathan Irish who has been arrested for sexual assault on a minor & weapons charges, investigated for filing false police reports, driving under suspension, making Columbine type threats while in high school, ignoring restraining orders etc.





> I went to high school with Jon and he did make threats against our school (Winnacunnet). He said he was going to bring guns to school and shoot anyone he wanted. He was NUTS and he should not be allowed to procreate. In this case, the state did the right thing and it's obvious their decision was not soley based on his political views. The kid is not sane enough to care for a baby. End of story.





> After reading a copy of the affadavit, I'm convinced they removed this infant for her own safety. Mother has a history of child neglect and father has anger issues. Enough said.


http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Didn't see a video, but they updated the page 10 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization. 
> 			
> ...


Alright then, there clearly is something wrong.

The court documents list OathKeepers explicitly, as part of a larger overall picture they are trying to paint.

So, either the state is lying or the parents are.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

I can't wait for the conservative minarchists to jump on the fact he is a rapist.  An 18 year old having sex with a 14 is a big no-no with that crowd.  A 14 year old is a child and there is no such thing as consensual sex at 14 with that crowd...




> SEABROOK - A Seabrook teenager is scheduled for a probable cause hearing on April 4 after being charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl.
> 
> Jonathan Irish, 18, of 620 Lafayette Road, is being held at Rockingham County Jail without bail pending a psychological evaluation. He was arraigned Tuesday in Hampton District Court and is scheduled for a probable cause hearing at the court on April 4 at 11 a.m.
> 
> Police arrested Irish on Monday after going to his house for alleged illegal drug activity, according to an affidavit filed with the court by Seabrook Prosecutor Scott Mendes.
> 
> Irish allegedly told Sgt. Dana Bedell and Officer Frank Brown that two juvenile females in the apartment were doing drugs. The officers interviewed the girls, smelling the odor of burned marijuana on them, according to Mendes. One of the juveniles, who was 14, told police she and Irish were boyfriend and girlfriend and had sexual intercourse at least 10 times since they started dating, according to the affidavit. Police took her into protective custody.
> 
> The other girl, who was 17, was released.
> ...


Weapons at school.  Conservatives aren't fond of that either.




> HAMPTON - A Winnacunnet High School student from Seabrook was arrested last week following a report that he had a weapon and threatened "a Columbine-type crime" at the high school.
> 
> Jonathan Irish, 17, an incoming senior at WHS, was taken into custody by North Hampton police Thursday, after it was reported to them the young man was in possession of a weapon.
> 
> Irish allegedly told a friend from North Hampton he was going to bring guns to the school, "hide them, and kill anybody he wants to," according to a source close to the investigation about what he termed the "Columbine-type" situation.
> 
> The friend reported Irish’s comments to North Hampton police, who took Irish into custody. He was subsequently charged with criminal threatening. A search warrant was executed at the young man’s Seabrook home, but police did not immediately say whether any weapons were found at Irish’s home.
> 
> Irish was arraigned on the charge Friday morning in Hampton District Court, and is being held at Rockingham County House of Correction without bail.
> ...





> HAMPTON FALLS — A local resident reportedly fired shots at an armed, masked intruder he found inside his home Monday night.
> 
> But police have many questions about the alleged incident at 28 Kensington Road, according to Hampton Falls Police Chief Robbie Dirsa, because the resident reported a similar crime earlier this year.
> 
> Jonathan Irish, 21, is renting an apartment in the house from his grandparents, who were not home at the time of the alleged incident, according to Dirsa. Irish told police he saw an armed, masked, white male in the main section of the home. Irish, according to the report taken by police, got a shotgun and fired shots at the intruder, who fled into the basement.
> 
> “There was no evidence the intruder was hit by shotgun shot,” Dirsa said. “(Irish) said he saw a person in black, with a mask, who was a white male and that he had a handgun.”
> 
> Irish went to his apartment and called 911, Dirsa said.
> ...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Since this couple has not been forthcoming with additional information I think it's pretty safe to say if stories like the above continue to surface or if adverse stories on Stephanie Taylor start surfacing about child neglect support for this couple is going to diminish and the focus will likely be on the petition for redress addressing the OK citation because a political affiliation should never be part of any judicial proceeding.

----------


## pcosmar

> Since this couple has not been forthcoming with additional information I think it's pretty safe to say if stories like the above continue to surface or if adverse stories on Stephanie Taylor start surfacing about child neglect support for this couple is going to diminish and the focus will likely be on the petition for redress addressing the OK citation because a political affiliation should never be part of any judicial proceeding.


Curious about those stories. I see "charged" but not convicted.
And I see the name of a minor that has not been convicted, and would have been a minor (hence, record sealed.)
i would say these stories are in question.
Both in fact and purpose.

----------


## KCIndy

Story just posted on the Union Leader website:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc





> *State takes infant, spurs protest*
> 
> By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
> New Hampshire Sunday News Staff 
> 
> A baby girl was taken into state custody at Concord Hospital by child welfare officials on Thursday, just hours after she was born, according to her parents. And now the parents are at the center of an Internet-fueled fire storm over government intervention and parental rights.
> 
> In court paperwork, the state alleges the health and safety of the infant, named Cheyenne, was in "imminent danger" if she was left with her parents because of "a lengthy history of domestic violence" between them.
> 
> ...



The story continues but I'm only posting about half of it here for the sake of space.  Click the article link for the rest.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc

----------


## pcosmar

> Story just posted on the Union Leader website:
> 
> http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc
> 
> 
> The story continues but I'm only posting about half of it here for the sake of space.  Click the article link for the rest.
> 
> http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc


Beat me to it.

----------


## KCIndy

> Beat me to it.



I imagine there will be plenty more coming.  


At this point it's pretty clear that:

A) Regardless of the details, the basic story is true.

B) Oath Keepers and the Liberty movement/Tea Party is going to be right in the middle of things.

C) The $#@! has really hit the fan on this one.  Better strap in.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## ClayTrainor

Saw this post on another forum about the same topic.  I thought it might be worth posting here.




> Brilliant tactical move by government, many even on this board do not grasp...
> 
> s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h . . . .
> 
> They have legal grounds to sieze child, but they mention oath keepers affiliation as number one reason. 
> 
> s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h . . .
> 
> They make example of these parents, child abusers, already lost two children, no one can object to government's actions.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

I am more confused than ever about this.....

----------


## pcosmar

From Reason
*Baby Snatching: It's Hilarious When We Just Don't Like Their Kind*
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/ba...ts-hilarious-w

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

And now more information is coming to the surface:




> Taylor said she is seeking a divorce from her sons' father, who lives in Seabrook. But because she is still married to him, DCYF considers her husband to be the "legal father" of baby Cheyenne, according to the affidavit.
> 
> Irish said hospital staff "refused" to put his name on the baby's birth certificate unless Stephanie's husband signed off on it.


And we get to the heart of the matter and have some idea as to the context knowing of a recent neglect case.  Everything in the present system is based off of the mother.

John might have a remedy despite based on previous news articles he does not appear to be a stellar character witness, since the state is likely saying it did not take his daughter it took Stephanie's daughter.

But again they voluntarily decided to have this child at a hospital using doctor's who are protected by the state.  Doctors can force you to do something for your own health you do not want to do using the guns of government.

One recent example:



> Judge forces patient with hospital phobia to have lifesaving cancer surgery
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz11ppMtiHU

----------


## KCIndy

> But again they voluntarily decided to have this child at a hospital using doctor's who are protected by the state.  Doctors can force you to do something for your own health you do not want to do using the guns of government.



Did they have a choice?  What are NH's laws on home births and midwives?  (I have no idea...)

In some states it is illegal to deliberately have a birth at home....

----------


## pcosmar

> Did they have a choice?  What are NH's laws on home births and midwives?  (I have no idea...)
> 
> In some states it is illegal to deliberately have a birth at home....



Bizzaro World must be close nearby. None of this makes sense. 
It is full of wrong.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> In some states it is illegal to deliberately have a birth at home....


Everything is voluntary.  The only thing keeping people happily wearing the chains of bondage is fear.  For some reason I think Ron Paul is a sharp cookie and it is not a coincidence one of his most recent interviews was about this very subject... fear.

But then again I may be some kook out in left field.  It's not like I know Dr. Paul personally to call him up and ask him about it.

----------


## specsaregood

> For some reason I think Ron Paul is a sharp cookie and it is not a coincidence one of his most recent interviews was about this very subject... fear.


You happen to have a link to the interview you are referring to?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am more confused than ever about this.....


Nothing to be confused about.

I'd say that the parents are not the best and clearly have some sort of sordid history here.

However, that does *not* give the state the right to list association with a legal and lawful political action group as one of the justifications they used to snatch their newborn child away.

Period.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.
> 
> The boys currently live with a foster family, and Irish said he was told baby Cheyenne will go to live with the same family for now.
> 			
> 		
> 
> so the kids are NOT at home, despite earlier claims.


This could be a TV series with all of the twists and turns.  

And who is the real biological father?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> C) The $#@! has really hit the fan on this one.  Better strap in.


No kidding.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nothing to be confused about.
> 
> I'd say that the parents are not the best and clearly have some sort of sordid history here.
> 
> However, that does *not* give the state the right to list association with a legal and lawful political action group as one of the justifications they used to snatch their newborn child away.
> 
> Period.




Thanks for the perspective AF.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You happen to have a link to the interview you are referring to?


Top story on front page of Daily Paul has the tubes.

----------


## specsaregood

> However, that does *not* give the state the right to list association with a legal and lawful political action group as one of the justifications they used to snatch their newborn child away.
> 
> Period.


But it also doesn't mean it was part of some nefarious plot.  The article states that the mother complained to the government that she was scared for her safety and that Irish had a gun.   It seems reasonable to me that a simple misunderstanding of the Oath Keepers purpose/organization could be at fault here.

----------


## PeacePlan

Well all I can say is I feel like I was used and abused on this. I wrote judge Nap and Glenn Beck and called Alex Jones. 

This whole thing with her being married and losing 2 other children should have been told up front. I really no longer care about this after getting used by this person..

As far as I am concerned this story is over...........

----------


## KCIndy

> But it also doesn't mean it was part of some nefarious plot.  The article states that the mother complained to the government that she was scared for her safety and that Irish had a gun.   It seems reasonable to me that a simple misunderstanding of the Oath Keepers purpose/organization could be at fault here.



But the Union Leader article directly quotes Taylor (the mother) as denying the state's allegations:




> Taylor said she doesn't know why the agency states in court documents that she twice last year reported to a state social worker that Irish had hurt her and that she feared for her life because he had a gun. "The only time he would put his hands on me was to give me a hug," she said.


Why would she deny the allegations if there was clear evidence to the contrary, such as a police report?  

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Ghemmy.  Right up front my first thought was "uh oh."  Can we unban him just for the satisfaction of banning him again?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Nothing to be confused about.
> 
> I'd say that the parents are not the best and clearly have some sort of sordid history here.
> 
> However, that does *not* give the state the right to list association with a legal and lawful political action group as one of the justifications they used to snatch their newborn child away.
> 
> Period.


No disagreement at all I have only been skeptical that it is the only reason.  We should push back on that with a petition for redress of grievances.  I think could be a bipartisan political issue but it probably won't go anywhere due to the amount of Islamophobia in the U.S.  I doubt government wants to give up it's basis for terrorism and justification for modern Alien and Sedition Acts.

If this story continues to be followed, I think people are in for a big fat education and shock on exactly how the present family legal system works they are volunteering into as a direct result of this event.  Similar to becoming enlightened about the Federal Reserve this can only be a good development.

----------


## specsaregood

> Why would she deny the allegations if there was clear evidence to the contrary, such as a police report?


Because people lie?  Domestic violence victims are notorious for changing their mind and covering for their abusers aren't they?

Also, the change of venue affidavit said the reason for the venue change was that both the courts and police were very familiar with the family situation.....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But it also doesn't mean it was part of some nefarious plot.  The article states that the mother complained to the government that she was scared for her safety and that Irish had a gun.   It seems reasonable to me that a simple misunderstanding of the Oath Keepers purpose/organization could be at fault here.


Then the state should rapidly rescind item 7 and issue an apology, right?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

I have worked in preventive services and family counseling, and have never seen the mere listing of an association with a political organization used as major grounds for removal of children in a CPS case. If there is a "misunderstanding" about what the group is, it is not mentioned at all in the original incident reports, or else left for later counseling to discern its relevance.

In other words, major in the majors. The "misunderstanding" issue is moot, as *it should not have been an upfront issue at all*, in making a determination to yank a child from a home. Somebody in CPS in NH has an issue with Oathkeepers, and is using the coercive state administrative apparatus to punish a party associated with them.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Then the state should rapidly rescind item 7 and issue an apology, right?


Yes it should.

----------


## specsaregood

> Then the state should rapidly rescind item 7 and issue an apology, right?


Who should the apology go to?  The oath keepers? sure.  But it isn't like the state purposely smeared them or publicized it.  It was oath keeper people that pushed the story.    Like I warned early on, by the end of things people are gonna equate oath keepers with domestive abusers if they aren't careful.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No disagreement at all I have only been skeptical that it is the only reason.  We should push back on that with a petition for redress of grievances.  I think could be a bipartisan political issue but it probably won't go anywhere due to the amount of Islamophobia in the U.S.  I doubt government wants to give up it's basis for terrorism and justification for modern Alien and Sedition Acts.
> 
> If this story continues to be followed, I think people are in for a big fat education and shock on exactly how the present family legal system works they are volunteering into as a direct result of this event.  Similar to becoming enlightened about the Federal Reserve this can only be a good development.


Clearly, it's not the *only* reason.

But it is *a* reason.

And that is un-$#@!ing-acceptable.

Yeah, agreed, the more people that are exposed to the stinking cess pit that is the "family courts system" the better.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Then the state should rapidly rescind item 7 and issue an apology, right?


Yes, but the damage in the public's eye could potentially already be done by initially stating his affiliation in the documents and thereby many people associating OK's with it;  Irish being the state's "poster boy" for the movement.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Somebody in CPS in NH has an issue with Oathkeepers, and is using the coercive state administrative apparatus to punish a party associated with them.


Care to elaborate?

----------


## specsaregood

> But it is *a* reason.
> And that is un-$#@!ing-acceptable.


For all we know though, the mother might have mentioned it in a negative light after domestic violence call and used it as a reason to be afraid.  I could see that being how it made its way into the paperwork.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Who should the apology go to?  The oath keepers? sure.  But it isn't like the state purposely smeared them or publicized it.  It was oath keeper people that pushed the story.


Of course they smeared them.

The state practiced zero "due diligence" and listed a legal and lawful political action group as reason for removing a child from the parents, in direct violation of state law, which states that parent's affiliations cannot be used as a basis for removing a child from the home.




> Like I warned early on, by the end of things people are gonna equate oath keepers with domestive abusers if they aren't careful.


Which is why that needs to be removed from any legal documents in this case immediately.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Now that more information is available, I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your posts:




> I read the affidavit and it doesn't mean a damn thing.





> YES THIS IS about the father's political activities and also the parents being gun owners.
> 
> This is a political hit by kidnapping in order to terrorize and intimidate patriots. THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS ABOUT.





> Yes, you are ignorant





> You are beligerant AND not smart.





> If you aren't smart enough to know what's going on then that's your problem.


It keeps ignorant, beligerant, not smart, and if I may add one of my own personal favorite labels, kooks like me credible.

+rep just in case I am on your ignore list.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Care to elaborate?


I already did in the post. There was no legitimate basis, within the framework of Child Welfare practice (as fatally flawed as it already is), for mentioning Oathkeepers in the report as a factor in the state's abduction of that family's child.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes, but the damage in the public's eye could potentially already be done by initially stating his affiliation in the documents and thereby many people associating OK's with it;  Irish being the state's "poster boy" for the movement.


I could care less about damage control, the state was wrong, the state violated it's own rules by listing OK in the paperwork, the state needs to rescind that portion and issue an apology, at the very least.

The actual issue of the child and the family is too convoluted at this point to figure out.

----------


## specsaregood

> Which is why that needs to be removed from any legal documents in this case immediately.


Fair enough.


I'd wager the reference got put in there via information the mother voluntarily disclosed and probably tried to use against him at some point.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I'd wager the reference got put in there via information the mother voluntarily disclosed and probably tried to use against him at some point.


It shouldn't matter though.  Political affiliation should never be part of any judicial proceeding.  I hope liberty activists at least unify on this one point.  Especially in light of the fact we are living under modern Alien and Sedition Acts in this age of terrorism.

I do not like family courts or taking a fathers child because everything is based off the mother, but that is separate matter.  I am sure some will continue to support the couple involved and hopefully learn more about how screwed up family courts are.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> I'd wager the reference got put in there via information the mother voluntarily disclosed and probably tried to use against him at some point.


Could very well be, like I said, the actual custody issue is, so far, a tangled mess of conflicting stories.

But even if it was, it still doesn't matter, whether it was the girlfriend or the cops or the Fusion Center or the SPLC, this fact remains:




> *While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization. 
> *


Oathkeepers is a legal, legitimate and lawful political action organization.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I already did in the post. There was no legitimate basis, within the framework of Child Welfare practice (as fatally flawed as it already is), for mentioning Oathkeepers in the report as a factor in the state's abduction of that family's child.


Agreed. I thought you might have a reason why the Oathkeepers might come up in the report in the first place. Some people might say that it is the result of recent Homeland Security "reports" that list the Oathkeepers as potential domestic terrorists, and the influence of those reports is now filtering down into everyday child custody cases. Or not...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It shouldn't matter though.  *Political affiliation should never be part of any judicial proceeding.  I hope liberty activists at least unify on this one point.*  Especially in light of the fact we are living under modern Alien and Sedition Acts.


That ^^^

If we're going to run with this, then there has to unity on that issue.

As much as I despise the state child abducting agencies, the personal soap opera that appears to be the lives of these folks, makes it difficult, if not impossible, to unify on any other points.

----------


## specsaregood

> It shouldn't matter though.


Right, it only matters though in regards to why it was put in there.  eg: a giant conspiracy meant to threaten and harass the Oath Keepers or a mistake.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Right, it only matters though in regards to why it was put in there.  eg: a giant conspiracy meant to threaten and harass the Oath Keepers or a mistake.


I doubt it was a mistake, any more than MIAC was a mistake.

They are training the cops, and by extension the entire state apparatus, that "we" are the enemy.

*That's* the conspiracy, it's been confirmed a thousand times.

It's not meant to threaten the OKs, it's meant to threaten and intimidate an individual Mundane into silence and steering well clear of any non government approved groups.

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## TNforPaul45

Comments from one of the stories linked to earlier:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc




> This Irish clown needs to get a job and become a real productive member  of society. I find it hard to find any sympathy for these two when they  clearly can't even control their own lives, how can they expect to  handle a baby.   DCYF doesn't take kids without cause and these parents  are barking up the wrong tree if they are looking for sympathy.  Get a  job. Get a life.   It is sad that people need a license for a gun but  don't need a license to have kids.  As for the woman involved, stop  having kids. You can't care for the ones you have, what makes her think  she can care for additional children.
> - *Maddie, Manchester
> *





> Losers. This woman already had 2 kids taken from her. How selfish of her  to bring another kid into this world when she can't take care of her  other two. No sympathy for this woman and her loser fiance.   Why waste  print for someone like this.  Good for the state. Maybe if women like  this stopped having kids they could take care of the ones they already  have.
> - *Rocco, Manchester
> *

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Comments from one of the stories linked to earlier


Sounds like hooting from the Jerry Springer P-Nut gallery.

$#@! the boobisie, they haven't got a clue of what this is really all about and I haven't got the time or inclination to try and "educate" their dumb asses.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It shouldn't matter though.  Political affiliation should never be part of any judicial proceeding.


Potential Part 7:

"The division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Democrat Party..."

----------


## TNforPaul45

> Sounds like hooting from the Jerry Springer P-Nut gallery.
> 
> $#@! the boobisie, they haven't got a clue of what this is really all about and I haven't got the time or inclination to try and "educate" their dumb asses.


I'm sorry AF, but you are now required to hold Speech Permit 14-R in order to indirectly comment on a political situation that is potentially deterrent to the image of The State. 

Present your PAPERS SIR!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm sorry AF, but you are now required to hold Speech Permit 14-R in order to indirectly comment on a political situation that is potentially deterrent to the image of The State. 
> 
> Present your PAPERS SIR!!


HAH!

They can all do this:

YouTube - Shut the $#@! Up Pulp Fiction

----------


## TNforPaul45

Agent 1: "Sir, we asked for his papers and he hands us a copy of the Constitution!"
Agent 2: "Tasers out and at ready!!!"

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I have been saying it for years...  New Hampshire = Massachusetts Redux.
> 
> The place is so infested with Massachusetts rejects that it is on my list of $#@! holes that I would never live again.
> 
> Do not get suckered into the "Free State" bull$#@!.    New Hampshire is surrounded by cess pools and it, itself, was assimilated DECADES AGO.


Well, you're wrong. It is absolutely not like Mass nor are the people. This is an anomaly that doesn't look the best for the defendents. NH can be surrounded by whatever but it is still the best of the bunch, all things considered. 

That said, this ordeal doesn't have the PR that I thought it would have had. I'm all for people and their families, but this Irish guy leaves much to be desired. This could have happened anywhere, but blaming NH is being a simpleton.

----------


## pcosmar

> I doubt it was a mistake, any more than MIAC was a mistake.
> 
> They are training the cops, and by extension the entire state apparatus, that "we" are the enemy.
> 
> *That's* the conspiracy, it's been confirmed a thousand times.
> 
> It's not meant to threaten the OKs, it's meant to threaten and intimidate an individual Mundane into silence and steering well clear of any non government approved groups.


I am just not seeing how some folks just don't get it. The story is out there. 
Some folks think this might be some "Wag the Dog" $#@!. *Well,,it might be.*
Which way is the dog wagging,(?) and who is scratching the dog.(?)

Some question the story because of the source. Ghemmy. Known in the past for a sometimes odd mind. I think he had a good heart, though a poor sense of humor. What ever.
He only told people about this story. reported it.
It turns out to be a real story, real people, real politics. Ok.

This is is Red Meat.

Scratch a dog one way and he wags that way, or the other. Scratch just right and the dog rolls over and wants a belly rub.

This thing is so entirely wrong and on so many levels.
Wrong in taking kids
Wrong in targeting political groups
Wrong in so many ways

This is Red Meat. This is Ammunition.

----------


## pcosmar

I miss an old Pirate from the early days,
He was much more eloquent that I.

----------


## revolutionary8

Some of the posts on this thread remind of the Nancy Grace crime forums that are mostly comprised of old catty women. 
ps,
YES, I have read the whole thread, been tailin' it since it started.





nom nom.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Is this the most viewed thread at RPF?

----------


## revolutionary8

> Is this the most viewed thread at RPF?


what kind of question is that?

----------


## Bman

> Is this the most viewed thread at RPF?


Not even close.  I did a search using Torchbearer's name(he has the most posts on the forum).  Selected for the results to display based on views and for instance This thread has over 200,000 views.

----------


## pcosmar

Mr. Grigg's thoughts on it.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html

if it hasn't been posted

----------


## susano

> But the Union Leader article directly quotes Taylor (the mother) as denying the state's allegations:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she deny the allegations if there was clear evidence to the contrary, such as a police report?  
> 
> http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-ef5ae2329cbc


Quite right. There are lots of holes in that article.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not even close.  I did a search using Torchbearer's name(he has the most posts on the forum).  Selected for the results to display based on views and for instance This thread has over 200,000 views.




HAHAHAHA


"Home Made Weapons" has the most views on RPF

I just LOL'ed

----------


## revolutionary8

> HAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> "Home Made Weapons" has the most views on RPF
> 
> I just LOL'ed


fortunatley, for us,
"AquaBuddhas" are pacifists.

----------


## susano

> I have been saying it for years...  New Hampshire = Massachusetts Redux.
> 
> The place is so infested with Massachusetts rejects that it is on my list of $#@! holes that I would never live again.
> 
> Do not get suckered into the "Free State" bull$#@!.    New Hampshire is surrounded by cess pools and it, itself, was assimilated DECADES AGO.


That's the impression that I've gotten. Much as the Californication of the PNW destoyed Oregon & Washington. 


I cannot get over how much this situation reminds me of Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. In both of those cases the people were demonized over GUNS. So much so, in fact, that murder was sanctioned by the vast majority of the sheep. In both cases it was uncovered that the government's story was a pack of lies. In both they were terrorized and murdered because they had guns, for their ideas, and because they were "weird" or "troubled" or not considered mainstream. Jerry Spense, who was Randy Weaver's lawyer, made a very eloquant argument about people who the majority find to be repugnant and how people seem to think it's acceptable for them to be deprived of their rights because of it.

----------


## revolutionary8

> That's the impression that I've gotten. Much as the Californication of the PNW destoyed Oregon & Washington. 
> 
> 
> *I cannot get over how much this situation reminds me of Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians*. In both of those cases the people were demonized over GUNS. So much so, in fact, that murder was sanctioned by the vast majority of the sheep. In both cases it was uncovered that the government's story was a pack of lies. In both they were terrorized and murdered because they had guns, for their ideas, and because they were "weird" or "troubled" or not considered mainstream. Jerry Spense, who was Randy Weaver's lawyer, made a very eloquant argument about people who the majority find to be repugnant and how people seem to think it's acceptable for them to be deprived of their rights because of it.


I wanted to say it. But I was scared. It is THE SAME $#@!.

Burning Children. Not my "cup of tea".
that could be a t-shirt.

----------


## susano

> I wanted to say it. But I was scared. It is THE SAME $#@!.
> 
> Burning Children. Not my "cup of tea".
> that could be a t-shirt.


They killed the children in order to "save the children".

In this case, they kidnap children to save them and they terminate parental rights and get big bucks to adopt them out.

Gee, it's like 9/11 where one vile act serves lots of agendas. CPS makes money; patriots get intimidated; sociopathic statists get puffed up with self importance and power; liberty is lost to the delight of the Southern Poverty Law Center and all the other leftist, state worshipping traitors.

----------


## revolutionary8

> *They killed the children in order to "save the children".
> *


yep. And people wonder why there is "outrage".

----------


## Promontorium

From what I've seen, this guy is a piece of $#@!, and I don't know how he even qualifies as an "oath keeper" when it appears the only oath he's taken is as a defendant.

 Aside from that, I support the defense of individual liberty in association, due process, and parent's rights. And regardless of this guy's apparant drug filled Columbine wannabe life, the government daring to infer that association with oathkeepers is a valid attack is plain wrong.

 One thing I'd like to say is an 18 year old banging a 14 year old, however revealing of emotional deficiency, is not "sexual assault" and that conclusion is yet another product of this government that has been granted the authority to dictate arbitrary and altogether subjective morality.

 In a drunken side note, my good friend survived the Columbine shooting, and well, he was one of the guys that constantly $#@!ed with the killers, and that's pretty funny.

----------


## revolutionary8

> In a drunken side note, my good friend survived the Columbine shooting, and well, he was one of the guys that constantly $#@!ed with the killers, and that's pretty funny.


no not really. I am guessing your "good friend" didn't tell you about SWAT killing the kids, and I am guessing your "good friend" didn't tell you about the "third shooter"  I would even bet "your friend" didn't even mention Rachel Scott. tsk. tsk.
Let me give you a hint, "Bowling For Columbine" by Michael Moore was a WHITEWASH.
you don't want  to get me started on this, we will go so hawt so fast your head will spin, and that is NOT the purpose of this thread. No. Not amused.

----------


## revolutionary8

> From what I've seen, this guy is a piece of $#@!,


from what I have seen,* you* are acting like a piece of $#@!.
Why now?      unless of course you were born that way.

*Put your name and your family out there for the world to see.* 
Let's see it Preemie.

----------


## revolutionary8

double.

----------


## klamath

I hope the oath keepers steer clear ot these people and just hammer the state for the inclusion of their name in this case. Tying themselves to this disfunctional family will not help as a powerful organization. About the time this girl gets wacked by this unstable charactor while the oathkeepers are staking their reputation on defending him it won't look good.

----------


## RedStripe

lol there's a columbine conspiracy theory?

----------


## revolutionary8

> About the time this girl gets wacked by this unstable charactor while the oathkeepers are staking their reputation on defending him it won't look good.


wow. and I am sure you consider yourself "one of the good guys."

----------


## revolutionary8

> lol there's a columbine conspiracy theory?


ask Michael Moore.

----------


## tropicangela

> Did they have a choice?  What are NH's laws on home births and midwives?  (I have no idea...)
> 
> In some states it is illegal to deliberately have a birth at home....


*It is not illegal to have a home birth in any state.*  It can be illegal for midwives to attend in some states, that is all.  Anyone can legally choose to birth their baby anywhere they choose to... however, the state could decide later that you were medically neglectful and take your baby...

Like what happened here - http://ecochildsplay.com/2010/09/15/...dical-neglect/

Note:  Shoulder dystocia is not normally associated with breech birth which is what the article on baby Ruth cites.  

A close friend and another family member had home births with complications, but the midwives did lovely work, and the babies emerged at home with gentle intervention by the midwife.  In contrast, if they were in the hospital, the OB would likely not have been so gentle, and there would have been things like forceps and/or a cesarean surgery unnecessarily performed as a result.  Midwives have certain skills that most OB's don't practice for a gentler, successful outcome in the case of complications.  In normal births, which is what the majority of births are, no intervention is needed from another party at all.  Birth happens.

I am in the professional childbirth field and have had two gentle home births following two hospital births with too many unnecessary and dangerous interventions.

----------


## tropicangela

> no not really. I am guessing your "good friend" didn't tell you about SWAT killing the kids, and I am guessing your "good friend" didn't tell you about the "third shooter"  I would even bet "your friend" didn't even mention Rachel Scott. tsk. tsk.
> Let me give you a hint, "Bowling For Columbine" by Michael Moore was a WHITEWASH.
> you don't want  to get me started on this, we will go so hawt so fast your head will spin, and that is NOT the purpose of this thread. No. Not amused.


The Columbine kids were on prescription drugs.  The Drugging of our Children (Gary Null) (SSRI drug dangers)(Columbine shooting)

----------


## Elija

> I doubt it was a mistake, any more than MIAC was a mistake.
> 
> They are training the cops, and by extension the entire state apparatus, that "we" are the enemy.
> 
> *That's* the conspiracy, it's been confirmed a thousand times.
> 
> It's not meant to threaten the OKs, it's meant to threaten and intimidate an individual Mundane into silence and steering well clear of any non government approved groups.



OMG, somebody here has a working mind.

----------


## Bern

ericsnow - you posted some 10 or 20 pages back that item #7 was part of a separate document (affidavit?) from the Motion to Change Venue document.  Have you seen the full document that #7 came from?  Can you tell me what the title of the affidavit was?  Can you provide any more details on what the purpose of the affidavit was (who created it, who the intended audience was, etc.)?

----------


## erowe1

> ericsnow - you posted some 10 or 20 pages back that item #7 was part of a separate document (affidavit?) from the Motion to Change Venue document.  Have you seen the full document that #7 came from?  Can you tell me what the title of the affidavit was?  Can you provide any more details on what the purpose of the affidavit was (who created it, who the intended audience was, etc.)?


Also, who was it that put that item on the doctored change of venue form? And what were they trying to accomplish by doing that?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I miss an old Pirate from the early days,
> He was much more eloquent that I.


You sell yourself short Pete, but who might that be?

I think I know.

----------


## Promontorium

> from what I have seen,* you* are acting like a piece of $#@!.
> Why now?      unless of course you were born that way.
> 
> *Put your name and your family out there for the world to see.* 
> Let's see it Preemie.



I'd be almost offended if you hadn't just suggested I listen to Michael Moore. You know nothing of Colombine, and I'm really not interested in your Alex Jones rabbit hole. I will call any person that genuinely plans to massacre his fellow men a piece of $#@!. This person who has tossed their individual course aside with crime and drugs, and then dares bring children into this world they have failed to manage. What did this punk do in the meantime to become an oathkeeper? Has he crawled out on his own two feet and begun paying back for the $#@! he's forced on the people around him?  And as barely informed as you are about matters distant, as am I about this, but I am writing as the average, most people who read what he's done, will hopefully be as forgiving. I do not seek to cast aspersions, but to illustrate my resolve. Yes sir, indeed the day I'm on this website asking you to send money to pay for my legal fees I would be honored if you judged me too, for discernment is the best one can do, and proper application is the best one can hope for.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I read the discussion and you conflated an organization that promotes CRIMINAL activity (NAMBLA) with constitutionally protected activity (Oath Keepers).


I wanted to address this, and then get out so that the majority of posts are relevant to the main issue/event of the newborn being removed in THIS case.

It's going to sound wrong, but I don't care if the parents are members of NAMBLA.  I care if they are kid-touchers.  This is much the same as I don't care whether or not the parents are members of Oath Keepers, but would care if they were taking their baby to a firing range or something (think damage to hearing, or just how difficult it is to properly operate a weapon when you're holding an infant).  

You have made the fundamental mistake that the alleged seizure of this child is based upon:  the organization dictates the behavior of the parents.  The conclusion that is drawn is that those parents who are members of OK cannot keep their weapons secure, can't prevent themselves from accidentally shooting their children, or even less savory conclusions that I won't get into here.  Those are "unlawful" activities, the basis for the accusation being that their membership fosters those situations.  People who are members of NAMBLA are members of an organization that is repugnant to the very vast majority of people, but they have not necessarily done anything wrong as individuals.  If you have something to indicate that the individual parent is a molestor, there would be more merit in trying to "remove" the child.  If you have something to indicate that the parent is likely to molest their own child (based on past behavior, etc.), then there is yet more merit in that kind of proposal (removing the child).  Even then, the bulk of this is based purely on precrime and affiliation, rather than any real proven danger to the child.

The greater danger here is removing an infant from a mother's care shortly after birth.  Others have pointed out breast feeding being important in that time period, and it's true.  The mother MIGHT have wanted the child on formula, or perhaps could not feed the baby, but those are choices for parents and not the State.  I see no reason to "remove" a baby rather than to, if the charges had any basis, keep the mother and child under watch.  If the father is the alleged danger, then supervise his visits and prohibit the baby being taken home from the hospital until the investigation is over.  Despite being horrifying in and of themselves, those options are all infinitely less harmful to this baby than the option being allegedly exercised at the moment.

----------


## pcosmar

> Also, who was it that put that item on the doctored change of venue form? And what were they trying to accomplish by doing that?


What are we accomplishing here?
Arguing over minutiae?

There are issues here in this one story for several "factions" of the liberty movement to jump on.
The Oathkeepers have a good claim. Freedom of association, Freedom of speech.
Those that have Family rights issues, Government "services". CPS?
Any of several Constitutional Questions

OH ,,and don't even start on the 2nd Amendment.. That was what brought me to this room (RPF) and you might call it a pet issue. It is the issue that introduced me to Ron Paul.
Yes , there are several issues in this one story.

What are we going to do with them?

Perhaps a new thread.

----------


## erowe1

> What are we accomplishing here?
> Arguing over minutiae?


I haven't argued about anything. I just asked a question. I don't see why others don't consider it important. Earlier in this thread people were treating that doctored motion for change of venue as if it were one and the same with some alleged affidavit that allegedly lists involvement in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking a baby. Somebody created that doctored document for some reason. What was it they intended to accomplish with that document that they couldn't have accomplished with the simple truth?

I can't tell others what they should do about this. But, as for me, if the people close enough to this case to have the ability to make that doctored document were certain enough that the simple truth would not have gotten me on their side, so they had to lie, then I'll trust their judgment on that and continue to work with the assumption that when I do know the truth, I'll be glad I didn't listen to their lie. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, then I can always change my mind when I know enough.




> There are issues here in this one story for several "factions" of the liberty movement to jump on.
> The Oathkeepers have a good claim. Freedom of association, Freedom of speech.
> Those that have Family rights issues, Government "services". CPS?
> Any of several Constitutional Questions


I can see very legitimate reasons to oppose the whole process of taking babies from parents without trials, which happens all the time. If people are rallying to that general cause, then fine. But it's less clear to me that this one family should be the poster children for that cause.

As far as everything else you mention, I still don't have any clue what the basic facts are, nor do I know who does.

----------


## pcosmar

> I can see very legitimate reasons to oppose the whole process of taking babies from parents without trials, which happens all the time. If people are rallying to that general cause, then fine. But it's less clear to me that this one family should be the poster children for that cause.
> 
> As far as everything else you mention, I still don't have any clue what the basic facts are, nor do I know who does.


See, I don't see them as the "Poster Child". I see them as just one more of thousands of people.
This $#@! happens every day and is getting worse. This is just one more story.
But this one is in the news and could get legs.

----------


## Reason

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/v...647&forum_id=5

http://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...d.php?t=131807

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curren...-hospital.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...-hospital.html

----------


## specsaregood

> See, I don't see them as the "Poster Child". I see them as just one more of thousands of people.
> This $#@! happens every day and is getting worse. This is just one more story.
> *But this one is in the news and could get legs*.


But if those legs are made of lies and sensationalism, then it is all the more likely to get chopped down and hurt the chances of any positive outcome.

It looks to me like the Oath Keepers need to completely seperate their problem with this situation from the family itself.  And attack the govt directly on the fact that they were named when associations supposedly shouldn't not be named -- _although I'm not completely convinced of that myself_.

----------


## NiceGoing

> I haven't argued about anything. I just asked a question. I don't see why others don't consider it important. Earlier in this thread people were treating that doctored motion for change of venue as if it were one and the same with some alleged affidavit that allegedly lists involvement in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking a baby. Somebody created that doctored document for some reason. What was it they intended to accomplish with that document that they couldn't have accomplished with the simple truth?


(snip) and........blahblahbla.

While you're busy obscuring the issue with minutiae, as pcosmar said, other people here might want to actually do something _in reality_.  Please stop the trivial diversions ..

----------


## angelatc

> At no point did I insinuate thus: in fact, I gave you an example of medical professionals being so resistant to change that they committed a man responsible for eliminating infant mortality in his hospital to an asylum where he was subsequently beaten to death.  Of course they have bearing on improvements: in some cases they prevent them.


It is impossible to eliminate infant mortality.  





> This also explains why the hospital cooperates with such ridiculous requests as snatching newborns from their mothers.


You have your opinion, I have mine: it is that it is more deceptive to insinuate that more than a fraction of births end up like your example....sound familiar?




> You have your opinion, I have mine: it is that it is more deceptive to insinuate that more than a fraction of births end up like your example....
> , and that therefore our only option is to continue to patronize an industry which quite obviously doesn't have our interests in mind, and which allows our children to be kidnapped by its sugar daddy.


So a fraction of the infants will be kidnapped by the state, vs a fraction of infants and mothers who will be $#@!ing dead because medical help can't get there quick enough.   Like it or not, at least the baby kidnapped by the state isn't dead, and likewise doesn't have a mother that's dead either.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ericsnow - you posted some 10 or 20 pages back that item #7 was part of a separate document (affidavit?) from the Motion to Change Venue document.  Have you seen the full document that #7 came from?  Can you tell me what the title of the affidavit was?  Can you provide any more details on what the purpose of the affidavit was (who created it, who the intended audience was, etc.)?


Now that we have a partial second page with #7 on it, it's still incomplete. Is there more on that page? Item #8? Other sections? Other pages? A concluding section? Page numbers (1 of 4)? Dates? Why would page numbers or dates be "blacked out"?

It seems really sloppy, which may be how it came from the "authorities". Who knows.

----------


## erowe1

> (snip) and........blahblahbla.
> 
> While you're busy obscuring the issue with minutiae, as pcosmar said, other people here might want to actually do something _in reality_.  Please stop the trivial diversions ..


I don't get how it's minutiae. If the whole story as it's being told here is lie upon lie, then how is it that people going to protests over what never happened are doing something in reality? What good can come out of that?

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't get how it's minutiae. If the whole story as it's being told here is lie upon lie, then how is it that people going to protests over what never happened are doing something in reality? What good can come out of that?


Lie upon lie.
the child was taken from the parents.
Civil rights were violated. It appears that events leading up to this were either fabricated or distorted.
One Liberty oriented Political group was named.
This story is in the news.

----------


## erowe1

> Lie upon lie.
> the child was taken from the parents.
> Civil rights were violated. It appears that events leading up to this were either fabricated or distorted.
> One Liberty oriented Political group was named.
> This story is in the news.


So why not just rally against government kidnapping in general and leave the lies out of it? Why make this family part of the issue at all and end up being discredited, when you could make the issue itself the issue and know that you're entirely in the right?

----------


## libertarian4321

> (snip) and........blahblahbla.
> 
> While you're busy obscuring the issue with minutiae, as pcosmar said, other people here might want to actually do something _in reality_.  Please stop the trivial diversions ..


This isn't "Minutiae"- it's important.

I've said from the beginning that this "story" looked extremely fishy.  Not only because of the source, but the fact that it made no sense.

There are thousands of "Oath Keepers"- why is only this one guy losing his kid if "being an Oath Keeper" was the reason the child was taken?

We can debate all day whether there are instances in which children should be taken- but that isn't the question here.

It appears increasingly obvious that the original story, that the child was snatched because the father was an "Oath Keeper", is bogus.

That is why many of us have urged caution, and waiting until the facts come out, rather than grabbing our torches and pitch forks and running into the street at the drop of a hat.

If you go off half-cocked, without knowing the facts, you are likely to end up looking foolish.

----------


## libertarian4321

> lol there's a columbine conspiracy theory?


Welcome to the Ron Paul Forums! 

Of course Colombine was a conspiracy (in the minds of some).

Stick around here for about 10 minutes and you will see that some of the folks here think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

A bird craps on their head, it's a government conspiracy.  

Nothing ever just happens, it's all orchestrated by the government (yup, the same government that can't deliver the mail is capable of flawlessly executing elaborate conspiracies) or the NWO or the Bilderbergers or the CFR or the illuminati or the shady "powers that be" (or a combination of all of the above).

----------


## ericsnow

Video from the protest. The chief of police and director of security for the hospital came to Mr. Irish and said if he stepped on their property he would be arrested for trespassing. 

YouTube - Oppression By Oath

----------


## ericsnow

Email this story - http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/

to drudge@drudgereport.com

----------


## NiceGoing

> I don't get how it's minutiae. If the whole story as it's being told here is lie upon lie, then how is it that people going to protests over what never happened are doing something in reality? What good can come out of that?


    On the contrary, I think Nothing But Good can come from having a large turnout of concerned and angry citizen/patriots, demanding to know "what the hell right does the gov't have to kidnap a woman's baby without so much as a legal document or an explanation or anything that the recognition of basic rights and ordinary decency requires."  There can be *no harm* in that and in fact it is _long overdue_,in my opinion.

----------


## specsaregood

I thought you had to be/have been a member of the military, law enforcement or firefighter to be an "oath keeper".  I didn't see any reference to that in any of the info so far.  So is that part incorrect as well?  He isn't actually an _"Oath Keeper"_, and it isn't actually an _"oath keeper's new born"_?

Please direct me to a source if I am mistaken.

----------


## ericsnow

> Video from the protest. The chief of police and director of security for the hospital came to Mr. Irish and said if he stepped on their property he would be arrested for trespassing. 
> 
> YouTube - Oppression By Oath


Just wanted to bump this so people see it.

----------


## erowe1

> On the contrary, I think Nothing But Good can come from having a large turnout of concerned and angry citizen/patriots, demanding to know "what the hell right does the gov't have to kidnap a woman's baby without so much as a legal document or an explanation or anything that the recognition of basic rights and ordinary decency requires."  There can be *no harm* in that and in fact it is _long overdue_,in my opinion.


How do you know that the gov't kidnapped a woman's baby without so much as a legal document or an explanation or anything that the recognition of basic rights and ordinary decency requires? Are you getting your story from the same liars the rest of us are? Or do you know something that's not in this thread?

If people want to protest some act of government kidnapping, why not pick a case to focus on where we know the facts and know that they're on our side?

----------


## pcosmar

> How do you know that the gov't kidnapped a woman's baby without so much as a legal document or an explanation or anything that the recognition of basic rights and ordinary decency requires? Are you getting your story from the same liars the rest of us are? Or do you know something that's not in this thread?
> 
> If people want to protest some act of government kidnapping, why not pick a case to focus on where we know the facts and know that they're on our side?


_Cross post_
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263685
I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun. 

And I have years of personal experience.
The same corrupt system is here.
The county persecutor is Brian Peppler. His wife runs the other side.
http://www.dprcenter.org/

Can you see conflict of interest, or a merging of interests?
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html

__________________________________________________  _______

I do know a little. I know it is not just about this guy, there are thousands of these stories.
That's the problem.
This is the story that is in the news.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new..._cites_father/

----------


## susano

> I wanted to address this, and then get out so that the majority of posts are relevant to the main issue/event of the newborn being removed in THIS case.
> 
> It's going to sound wrong, but I don't care if the parents are members of NAMBLA.  I care if they are kid-touchers.  This is much the same as I don't care whether or not the parents are members of Oath Keepers, but would care if they were taking their baby to a firing range or something (think damage to hearing, or just how difficult it is to properly operate a weapon when you're holding an infant).  
> 
> You have made the fundamental mistake that the alleged seizure of this child is based upon:  the organization dictates the behavior of the parents.


No, I did not say that, nor do I believe that. The poster I was speaking to indicated that bringing up NAMBLA in an affidavit used to take a child is akin to mentioning Oath Keepers. They are not even remotely in the same ballpark. yes, someone has a right to be a NAMBLA member but it is an organization that advocates the right to have sex with children. IOW, it's members _advocate_ an illegal activity - sex between adult men and boys. If family court were a court of law, which it is not, membership in NAMBLA _might_ speak to intent if a child were taken because of accuastions of pedophelia. Oath Keepers does NOT advocate any criminal activity and could not be used as evidence of intent to anything illegal.





> The conclusion that is drawn is that those parents who are members of OK cannot keep their weapons secure, can't prevent themselves from accidentally shooting their children, or even less savory conclusions that I won't get into here.  Those are "unlawful" activities, the basis for the accusation being that their membership fosters those situations.  People who are members of NAMBLA are members of an organization that is repugnant to the very vast majority of people, but they have not necessarily done anything wrong as individuals.  If you have something to indicate that the individual parent is a molestor, there would be more merit in trying to "remove" the child.  If you have something to indicate that the parent is likely to molest their own child (based on past behavior, etc.), then there is yet more merit in that kind of proposal (removing the child).  Even then, the bulk of this is based purely on precrime and affiliation, rather than any real proven danger to the child.


_The conclusion that is drawn is that those parents who are members of OK cannot keep their weapons secure, can't prevent themselves from accidentally shooting their children, or even less savory conclusions that I won't get into here._ 

Conclusion drawn by whom - anti constitution communists? I'm not following. I don't draw any such conclusions about a parent exercising their unalienable rights. Of course, the commu-fascist $#@!s in CPS would, _even though that would be unconstitutional_ in a court of law, which family court is not.





> The greater danger here is removing an infant from a mother's care shortly after birth.  Others have pointed out breast feeding being important in that time period, and it's true.  The mother MIGHT have wanted the child on formula, or perhaps could not feed the baby, but those are choices for parents and not the State.  I see no reason to "remove" a baby rather than to, if the charges had any basis, keep the mother and child under watch.  If the father is the alleged danger, then supervise his visits and prohibit the baby being taken home from the hospital until the investigation is over.  Despite being horrifying in and of themselves, those options are all infinitely less harmful to this baby than the option being allegedly exercised at the moment.


A agree. I also posted about the biological and emotional need for mother and baby to be together. Taking the baby from her mother is child abuse.

----------


## susano

> So why not just rally against government kidnapping in general and leave the lies out of it? Why make this family part of the issue at all and end up being discredited, when you could make the issue itself the issue and know that you're entirely in the right?


Did it ever cross your mind that the information given about the mom and dad might be lies? It happens all the time. You are believing the state. Why should you? Were the lies about Randy and Vicky Weaver and the Branch Davidians not enough to prove to you that the state has an agenda and will always spin and lie to carry it out?

Here's a recommendation: Read John Grishom's _The Innocent Man_. It's non fiction and it's the story about a guy who spent years in prison and on death row and was totally innocent. I wept when I read it, The cops didn't like him, they lied their asses off, falsified evidence, as did the prosecutors, hid exculpatory evidence, and railroaded someone they KNEW was innocent. This $#@! happens ALL THE $#@!ING TIME. And, that all took place in courts of law, which family court is not. These young parents and their baby girl haven't had the benefit of any of  the requirements of a court of law.

----------


## susano

> This isn't "Minutiae"- it's important.
> 
> I've said from the beginning that this "story" looked extremely fishy.  Not only because of the source, but the fact that it made no sense.
> 
> There are thousands of "Oath Keepers"- why is only this one guy losing his kid if "being an Oath Keeper" was the reason the child was taken?
> 
> We can debate all day whether there are instances in which children should be taken- but that isn't the question here.
> 
> It appears increasingly obvious that the original story, that the child was snatched because the father was an "Oath Keeper", is bogus.
> ...


_We can debate all day whether there are instances in which children should be taken- but that isn't the question here.
_

The hell it isn't.

----------


## pcosmar

> _We can debate all day whether there are instances in which children should be taken- but that isn't the question here.
> _
> 
> The hell it isn't.


You could jump over to here, and explore the issue.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263685

----------


## susano

> On the contrary, I think Nothing But Good can come from having a large turnout of concerned and angry citizen/patriots, demanding to know "what the hell right does the gov't have to kidnap a woman's baby without so much as a legal document or an explanation or anything that the recognition of basic rights and ordinary decency requires."  There can be *no harm* in that and in fact it is _long overdue_,in my opinion.


Damn right. Child Protective Services (an Orwellian name if there ever was one) depends upon stealing children and destroying families for their income stream and careers. As we know, the communist agenda is replace the family with the state and CPS is used to facilitate that agenda. Now, it's also being used to target constitutionalists and gun owners. Getting federal dollars to steal children and adopt them out to other people is child trafficking. Alex Jones said, yesterday, that the Southern Poverty Law Center now has it's tentacles in CPS. It's easy to see where this will lead and it's has to be exposed and stopped. If one's own newborn child isn't about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nothing is.

----------


## specsaregood

> If one's own newborn child isn't about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nothing is.


So one should have the right to physically abuse their children?

----------


## erowe1

> Did it ever cross your mind that the information given about the mom and dad might be lies?


Yes. The moment I first saw this thread I thought that the information provided in the OP might be lies. And the way the discussion has gone since then has made me more suspicious, especially after seeing how that change of venue form was being used and reflecting on what the implications of that are.

That is what you meant by the phrase "the information being given out about the mom and the dad." Right? You can't be talking about any allegations of wrong-doing on their parts, since I haven't mentioned any of that stuff up to this point in this discussion.

----------


## revolutionary8

> Welcome to the Ron Paul Forums! 
> 
> Of course Colombine was a conspiracy (in the minds of some).
> 
> Stick around here for about 10 minutes and you will see that some of the folks here think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
> 
> A bird craps on their head, it's a government conspiracy.  
> 
> Nothing ever just happens, it's all orchestrated by the government (yup, the same government that can't deliver the mail is capable of flawlessly executing elaborate conspiracies) or the NWO or the Bilderbergers or the CFR or the illuminati or the shady "powers that be" (or a combination of all of the above).


wow. 
Let me guess, you were no where near CO when this went down, were ya? Let me guess, you don't know any of the kids that went to school there, and were there during the Columbine shooting. And let me guess, you LOVE calling out 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' to shut down all debate, with those who might have more information that you do...

Conspiracy NO. Murder YES. "Official Story"- BOGUS.




> AP)  The family of slain Columbine student Daniel Rohrbough claims a Denver police officer killed the boy as he fled the massacre inside the school.
> 
> A motion filed Wednesday in federal court said Sgt. Dan O'Shea, a member of the SWAT team during the April 20, 1999, shootings, was identified through testimony by a school administrator, Celine Marquez, who said O'Shea told her two days after the shooting that he feared he may have shot an innocent student.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...e=search_story
and that isn't even the beginning...
Get a clue, I can already tell you don't know squat about Columbine, yet you yell 'CONSPIRACY THEORY!', and patronize others about a topic that you know absolutely NOTHING about. 

(sorry for the OT, but I won't put up w/ that $#@! when it comes to Columbine)

----------


## susano

> I thought you had to be/have been a member of the military, law enforcement or firefighter to be an "oath keeper".  I didn't see any reference to that in any of the info so far.  So is that part incorrect as well?  He isn't actually an _"Oath Keeper"_, and it isn't actually an _"oath keeper's new born"_?
> 
> Please direct me to a source if I am mistaken.


He joined their forum. He is not a dues paying member.

----------


## specsaregood

> He joined their forum. He is not a dues paying member.


So he is as much an oath keeper as I am Ron Paul? Afterall, I'm a member of "Ron Paul Forums".

----------


## Anti Federalist

Wow, *this* thread sure separated the wheat from the chaff.

----------


## pcosmar

> So one should have the right to physically abuse their children?


When did you stop beating your wife?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So he is as much an oath keeper as I am Ron Paul? Afterall, I'm a member of "Ron Paul Forums".


specs, is it your contention that the documents that have been posted are fake?

That the fact that this man was not a "member" but just some guy who posted on their message board makes this worse, not better, as far as I'm concerned.

DHS has already listed Ron Paul supporters as "potential" terrorists.

Are you fully aware what that accusation could conceivably mean in this day and age in Amerika?

That means that you could be black bagged in the middle of the night, rendered to foreign country, tortured and then executed by military tribunal.

That's not wild eyed tin foil hattery, moonbat conspiracy theory, *that's established law as it stands right now.
*
All for posting on a message board.

----------


## erowe1

> specs, is it your contention that the documents that have been posted are fake?


Isn't it the case that we now know for a fact that they are?

----------


## pcosmar

> Who's says I did?


Seems I did. not much different than your allegations that I responded to.

It an allegation enough to take their Child away? Any allegation?  (make something up)

innocent till proven guilty
/?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Video from the protest. The chief of police and director of security for the hospital came to Mr. Irish and said if he stepped on their property he would be arrested for trespassing. 
> 
> YouTube - Oppression By Oath


Thanks for posting that. 

As for the documentation, at ~4:39 in the video, we get a clear look at the infamous Item #7 mentioning the OathKeepers. As was surmised, that Item 7 is from a completely different list than the original, one page image posted on the internet. There is a completely different item 6 right before this item 7. The documentation seems to consist of quite a few more than 2 pages, maybe 8-12.

Bottom line: The first document put out on the internet was edited to be brief and leave out personal information. It was also edited in a way to make an Item 6 and Item 7 from two different lists appear like they went together in a single document when they didn't (One being a "Change of Venue" document, and one being part of an "Affidavit"). A bit misleading, and not really necessary. Probably not a good idea in PR terms. It would have served the same purpose to just black out most of the page containing the reference to Oathkeepers (except for the Oathkeepers part of course) and distribute that page without any other edits or cuts and pastes.

----------


## specsaregood

> specs, is it your contention that the documents that have been posted are fake?


Hell if I know.  All I have seen is edited, mismatching scanned docs that don't correspond to the public information that has been detailed.




> That the fact that this man was not a "member" but just some guy who posted on their message board makes this worse, not better, as far as I'm concerned.


Well it makes the thread title false and futher casts doubts on the truthfulness of the claims.

But now that you mention it,  I'd be most interested in HOW they came to the belief that he was an "oath keeper" and how it came to be on those documents.  Who told them he was a member?  Who supposedly put it on the documents?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## susano

> _Cross post_
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263685
> I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
> It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
> there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
> btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun. 
> 
> And I have years of personal experience.
> The same corrupt system is here.
> ...


Wow, you're not kidding on that conflict of interest. Disgusting.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> specs, is it your contention that the documents that have been posted are fake?


Manipulated would probably be a better word.  And as I said in a previous post, really no need to do that manipulation, except if there was an attempt to push a story that the connection to the Oathkeepers was the *sole* reason for the stranger (gov) abduction. As we all know now, there's a lot of stuff in those docs. (Not that it justifies taking a baby, but that is a systemic issue).

----------


## pcosmar

> Sure,  so should nobody ever be in jail until they are fully convicted?


As a general rule, NO. I can see a few exceptions, But only a few.

However I have seen a lot of cases of government dishonesty.
So on the credibility scale the official government statements/allegations rate pretty low.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> When did you stop beating your wife?





> Who's says I did?


I think the question is better phrased as "Did you stop beating your wife? Yes or No?!"

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hell if I know.  All I have seen is edited, mismatching scanned docs that don't correspond to the public information that has been detailed.


OK, I don't have any reason to doubt it, and unless I've missed something Stewart Rhodes seems to think it's legit.




> Well it makes the thread title false and futher casts doubts on the truthfulness of the claims.
> 
> But now that you mention it,  I'd be most interested in HOW they came to the belief that he was an "oath keeper" and how it came to be on those documents.  Who told them he was a member?  Who supposedly put it on the documents?


True enough, the thread title is misleading.

I'd like to know that at well.

Who is watching those forums?

Who is watching these?

----------


## susano

> So one should have the right to physically abuse their children?


How did you arrive at that conclusion? What twisted thinking on your part.

I served on a jury in a child abuse case. THAT is how assault on child should be dealt with - in a court of LAW. The perp went to jail.

These people have not been criminally charged with abusing anyone. They are not in jail. Social workers can and do make any accusations thay want and their victims do not get due process.

You and those here who have bought the line of the govt, and convicted this couple in the court of public opinion, are no different than the sheep who cheered the murders at Waco.

----------


## low preference guy

> I think the question is better phrased as "Did you stop beating your wife? Yes or No?!"


I think the question should only be used as a response to an equivalent question. But pcosmar didn't use it well, because specs' question wasn't such that both a yes and a no answer would make the responder look bad.

----------


## susano

> So he is as much an oath keeper as I am Ron Paul? Afterall, I'm a member of "Ron Paul Forums".


No. He's as much an Oath Keeper forum member as you are a Ron Paul Forums member.

----------


## Dr.3D

> snip~
> Sure,  so should nobody ever be in jail until they are fully convicted?


Oh sure, people who are suspected of or accused of a serious crime should be put in jail till the end of the trial.   They should also be given a monetary sum equal to the amount they lose in pay from not being able to work and have their court expenses paid by the accuser if and when they are found not guilty.

----------


## susano

> When did you stop beating your wife?


And molesting children

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.perspectives.com/forums/v...647&forum_id=5
> 
> http://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...d.php?t=131807
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curren...-hospital.html
> 
> http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...-hospital.html


These folks aren't the poster kids that we'd like them to be, but this is making people uncomfortable.  Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has linked to Reason's take on it, and Memeorandum is linking to several blogs talking about it, including Oath Keepers.

----------


## MelissaWV

The focus on how allegedly icky the father is seems to ignore entirely the fact that the infant is the one being passed around and which will suffer potential harm at being split off from its mother at that time.

----------


## angelatc

> The focus on how allegedly icky the father is seems to ignore entirely the fact that the infant is the one being passed around and which will suffer potential harm at being split off from its mother at that time.


Eh - kids are resilient.  I don't like the idea of the government ever doing this to anybody, regardless of the age of the kid.

----------


## revolutionary8

> These folks aren't the poster kids that we'd like them to be, but this is making people uncomfortable.  Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has linked to Reason's take on it, and Memeorandum is linking to several blogs talking about it, including Oath Keepers.


Claudette Colvin: The "Real" Rosa Parks 




> Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice by Author Phillip Hoose
> On March 2, 1955, an impassioned teenager, fed up with the daily injustices of Jim Crow segregation, refused to give her seat to a white woman on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Instead of being celebrated as Rosa Parks would be just nine months later, fifteen-year-old Claudette Colvin found herself shunned by her classmates and dismissed by community leaders.

----------


## susano

> Wow, *this* thread sure separated the wheat from the chaff.


Didn't it though.

I would like to think that if anyone came here for help when targeted by the man, people here would jump all over it. Instead, I think they might be met with "yeah, but the government says you're guilty and they even have a list of stuff you did wrong".

It's really very scary because this board has far more awake people than the general population of sheep and you still  see that mentality.

Even in the most sensational cases, like the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, I try to force myself to remember innocent until PROVEN guilty. Even if this couple turned out to be serial killers, the point is everyone has a right to due process and to support that supports the fundamental principals this nation was founded on.

----------


## Son of Detroit

I can't believe I just sat here and read 60 pages in one sitting...

And I can't believe it's not butter!

----------


## susano

> Sure,  so should nobody ever be in jail until they are fully convicted?


Yes, nobody should be in jail until convicted.

----------


## susano

> OK, I don't have any reason to doubt it, and unless I've missed something Stewart Rhodes seems to think it's legit.
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, the thread title is misleading.
> 
> I'd like to know that at well.
> 
> Who is watching those forums?
> ...


Minor point, maybe, but I don't think the thread title is misleading.

The NH "authorities" did, in fact, make that claim as part of the basis for the abduction. As far as NH is concerned, they siezed an Oath Keepers newborn.

----------


## susano

> The focus on how allegedly icky the father is seems to ignore entirely the fact that the infant is the one being passed around and which will suffer potential harm at being split off from its mother at that time.


Indeed. Cheyenne has a RIGHT to be with her mother.


I'd also like to know when it became a requirement to be "a poster" anything in order to be entitled to one's unalienable rights.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> How did you arrive at that conclusion? What twisted thinking on your part.
> 
> I served on a jury in a child abuse case. THAT is how assault on child should be dealt with - in a court of LAW. The perp went to jail.
> 
> These people have not been criminally charged with abusing anyone. They are not in jail. Social workers can and do make any accusations thay want and their victims do not get due process.
> 
> You and those here who have bought the line of the govt, and convicted this couple in the court of public opinion, are no different than the sheep who cheered the murders at Waco.


People with balls to stand up are outnumbered, outgunned, and must pick what they choose to stand up and defend very carefully because it might be the last thing those people ever defend.  If this was solely about government stealing a baby for political association I  have an idea the few people I would not be surprised to see actually show up and make a stand for liberty on that type of government aggression alone.

There are many great Americans who are/have been political prisoners or killed by government.  This is reality.  You want everyone to get all riled up over a case that has been in the making for 20+ months?  Give me a break.  

There are only two immediate solution to unjust bull$#@! like family court.  Geographical organization or civic defense.  People are not prepared to move en masse and want to change an entire country engaging in politics before taking direct citizen action changing one community with a geographical majority.  Nor are people prepared to pledge lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  You have to deal with reality.  It's a matter of priorities and most people are not willing to do the above because liberty is just not _that_ important.

I personally have one action item and everything else takes a back seat to it.  End the Federal Reserve.  This is the one action item that will reign in government more than anything else.  It will reign in spending once they can't print it out of thin air.  It will balance trade once they can't print it out of thin air.  People owning their money is the issue for this generation to settle.  Since that is a monster action item and people are unwilling to implement a immediate solution you should be happy taking whatever amount of support you can muster for any local or state issue such as family court.

People don't agree on what it means to consent.  I have been associated with pedophiles in rebuttals debating consent should be based on something other than age.  Even if people acknowledge that historically it's been perfectly ok with Christians for 10 year olds to $#@! like rabbits, so long as they are married, that kind of as logic is not going to hold up today.  People in America have been to spoiled by the fruits of capitalism, the industrial revolution, and take kids for granted because children no longer have to contribute to the family unit for the family to survive.

I would rather put my life on the line defending someone who has contributed to society and takes a principled stand against government aggression than some young couple with only the sordid background of youth.  Without some form of direct citizen action where We The People decide we are not taking this $#@! any more, exercise Constitutional civic duty, the only potential for hope is some kind of trending toward liberty over time via the ballot box.  Since that is the kind of change many people around here have acknowledged they subscribe to I will give you some of their advice.

Vote.

Hope for the best.

Maybe in 50 years family courts will be liberty friendly.

----------


## KCIndy

> I can't believe I just sat here and read 60 pages in one sitting...



Not to stray OT, but did you know you can change the number of posts per page from 10 to 40 under the User CP?  Just click on User CP, then "Edit Options" and go to "Thread Options."

Makes reading 600+ posts go a little faster...

----------


## susano

> Eh - kids are resilient.


Don't bet on it. There is no way to measure the trauma of an infant being deprived her mother. Most people are screwed up in one way or another and much of that is due to early trauma.

----------


## susano

> People with balls to stand up are outnumbered, outgunned, and must pick what they choose to stand up and defend very carefully because it might be the last thing those people ever defend.  If this was solely about government stealing a baby for political association I  have an idea the few people I would not be surprised to see actually show up and make a stand for liberty on that type of government aggression alone.
> 
> There are many great Americans who are/have been political prisoners or killed by government.  This is reality.  You want everyone to get all riled up over a case that has been in the making for 20+ months?  Give me a break.  
> 
> There are only two immediate solution to unjust bull$#@! like family court.  Geographical organization or civic defense.  People are not prepared to move en masse and want to change an entire country engaging in politics before taking direct citizen action changing one community with a geographical majority.  Nor are people prepared to pledge lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  You have to deal with reality.  It's a matter of priorities and most people are not willing to do the above because liberty is just not _that_ important.
> 
> I personally have one action item and everything else takes a back seat to it.  End the Federal Reserve.  This is the one action item that will reign in government more than anything else.  It will reign in spending once they can't print it out of thin air.  It will balance trade once they can't print it out of thin air.  People owning their money is the issue for this generation to settle.  Since that is a monster action item and people are unwilling to implement a immediate solution you should be happy taking whatever amount of support you can muster for any local or state issue such as family court.
> 
> People don't agree on what it means to consent.  I have been associated with pedophiles in rebuttals debating consent should be based on something other than age.  Even if people acknowledge that historically it's been perfectly ok with Christians for 10 year olds to $#@! like rabbits, so long as they are married, that kind of as logic is not going to hold up today.  People in America have been to spoiled by the fruits of capitalism, the industrial revolution, and take kids for granted because children no longer have to contribute to the family unit for the family to survive.
> ...


Okay, yesterday I said I was finished talking with you but today is a new day and I don't hold grudges 

I understand where you're coming from with what we can do. There is so much that drives me crazy, on a daily basis, sometimes I want off planet earth. It's truely overwhelming. That said (and I think the same as you re: the Fed), there are things that trump money and economics.  We are seeing that with this state kidnapping. Nothing is more precious than a loved one. This baby is now a victim of extreme child abuse by the state of New Hampshire. It is no small thing to separate an infant from her mother. The trauma is inmeasurable. 

No matter what you dug up about the father and mother, you do NOT know what is true. If they are really such terrible people, why have they not been criminally charged and convicted? I'll tell you why: Because the state or local authorities decide to go after somone and they don't have grounds for it, they can use agencies like CPS to DESTROY people. They do it every damn day. 

Not only did the state accuse this guy of being an Oath Keeper "militia" member, which indicates the state is out to get militia members (as we have seen over and over, for years, in other states), they've made a point about them being gun owners, which means the state doesn't like that, either. Militia + guns = enemy of the government and authority, in the mind of the state and it's dangeous employees. 

Additionally, the stuff about Stephanie is vague and without proof. They are _allegations_. She had a problem with her husband, who refuses to sign divorce papers, and the state went after her kids. Where is the evidence that she neglected or abused ANYONE? It is not there. These are accusations by social workers, some of the most evil people in government. There is ZERO reason to believe anything they say. They MUST take people's children in order to perpetuate their incomes. They have a vested interest in doing so. Worse, they get financial incentives to get the parental rights taken away and to adopt the children out to strangers.  The whole system makes a ton of money off of stealing children. This is state child trafficking. We all need to be very suspect of anything that CPS (or whatever acronim they happen to use) says and does. All they have to do is _accuse_ and the cops and everyone else (in govt) joins in on going after the family.

----------


## ericsnow

CONCORD, N.H. -- A New Hampshire couple said their newborn girl was taken from them by the state because of the father's involvement in a national group that's against unrestrained federal authority. The state says he's accused of hitting the mother and abusing her children.

Stephanie Taylor and Johnathan Irish of Epsom, who protested with others outside of Concord Hospital on Friday, say their baby was taken into custody. Taylor says her two sons were removed from her care in 2009 because of abuse by a caretaker.

Irish denies any abuse. He said court paperwork cited his involvement with the Oath Keepers.

Child protection matters are confidential. But Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.

http://www.wmur.com/news/25340240/detail.html

----------


## NiceGoing

> Damn right. Child Protective Services (an Orwellian name if there ever was one) depends upon stealing children and destroying families for their income stream and careers. As we know, the communist agenda is replace the family with the state and CPS is used to facilitate that agenda. Now, it's also being used to target constitutionalists and gun owners. Getting federal dollars to steal children and adopt them out to other people is child trafficking. Alex Jones said, yesterday, that the Southern Poverty Law Center now has it's tentacles in CPS. It's easy to see where this will lead and it's has to be exposed and stopped. If one's own newborn child isn't about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nothing is.


My thoughts are that 'the people' have to show sustained resistance.  Probably what is needed is a leader, someone who would keep this resistance focused....on just this issue and this issue alone...and continue to protest outside that damn hospital until we get something we could call justice.  For me it would mean that the hospital discloses the whereabouts of the baby to her  parents ---- at the very least, and for starters.   

Also, there are discouraging posters in this discussion--they could help by just keeping quiet, and letting those who want to do, Do.  

Do you think there's any chance of something like this taking shape Susano?

----------


## susano

> My thoughts are that 'the people' have to show sustained resistance.  Probably what is needed is a leader, someone who would keep this resistance focused....on just this issue and this issue alone...and continue to protest outside that damn hospital until we get something we could call justice.  For me it would mean that the hospital discloses the whereabouts of the baby to her  parents ---- at the very least, and for starters.   
> 
> Also, there are discouraging posters in this discussion--they could help by just keeping quiet, and letting those who want to do, Do.  
> 
> Do you think there's any chance of something like this taking shape Susano?


I don't know, NG. I agree with you, though. There must be sustained pressure with demonstrations outside of that hospital. This couple also needs competent attornies who are anti-CPS and know how the system works. They need a good organizer to help round up more and more people for regular demos, calls to lawmakers, etc. 

I was just sitting here reading this report from Nancy Schaefer 

http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/repor...ps-corruption/

and it's very, very scary. This HAS to exposed and stopped. Schaefer and her husband were murdered over her exposing this. The state called it a "murder-suicide".

http://www.infowars.com/oddities-in-...-suicide-case/

----------


## PeacePlan

http://archive.seacoastonline.com/20...news/47841.htm

----------


## susano

> http://archive.seacoastonline.com/20...news/47841.htm


Yes, I read that. It was posted earlier.

_Irish will appear next in court on Sept. 24. 

Police did not disclose whether any weapon was found. 

Irishs mother would only acknowledge that her son was arrested. 

Winnacunnet High School Principal Ruth Leveille said a letter was sent to parents Friday, telling them about the situation. 

Ashley Stoddard, of North Hampton, a 15-year-old Winnacunnet sophomore and a friend of Irish, said she was "very surprised" to learn of the arrest. 

Stoddard said Irish looked "so scared" during his court appearance, and she called it "the saddest thing I ever saw."_ 

How did it turn out? Was it true that he made these threats? If so, did he do time? 

If it is true, how does that justify taking Cheyenne from her mother?

----------


## pcosmar

Ridley Report.

YouTube - Oath Keeper baby stolen? An update.

it is a shame that it had to be broken by you know who.

Perhaps the liberty activists should look at working together with other liberty activists.
this has so many issues in it it could pull folks together.

freebabycheyenne.com
http://freebabycheyenne.com/

----------


## angelatc

> Don't bet on it. There is no way to measure the trauma of an infant being deprived her mother. Most people are screwed up in one way or another and much of that is due to early trauma.


Your statement seems to contradict itself.

----------


## NiceGoing

Very sorry to hear about this, and I agree with your conclusion:




> I was just sitting here reading this report from Nancy Schaefer 
> 
> http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/repor...ps-corruption/
> 
> and it's very, very scary. This HAS to exposed and stopped. Schaefer and her husband were murdered over her exposing this. The state called it a "murder-suicide".
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/oddities-in-...-suicide-case/



Below is the link to William Grigg's article. I know he will do it justice, if anyone will..

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html

----------


## tropicangela

> Don't bet on it. There is no way to measure the trauma of an infant being deprived her mother.


The biological response of baby with the mother are undeniable, premature or not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_care

Mother's cuddles brings baby 'back from dead'
An Australian woman has told how she brought her 'dead' premature baby son back to life with two hours of cuddles, baffling doctors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...from-dead.html

The baby on the mother's breast postpartum contracts the uterus back to its original size to prevent uncontrolled bleeding.  

The State doesn't care about the well being of the child, or the mother, acting as it has.

----------


## pcosmar

Relevant news story.

YouTube - CPS crimes against children

----------


## Kylie

> The biological response of baby with the mother are undeniable, premature or not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_care
> 
> Mother's cuddles brings baby 'back from dead'
> An Australian woman has told how she brought her 'dead' premature baby son back to life with two hours of cuddles, baffling doctors.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...from-dead.html
> 
> The baby on the mother's breast postpartum contracts the uterus back to its original size to prevent uncontrolled bleeding.  
> 
> The State doesn't care about the well being of the child, or the mother, acting as it has.



This has been my point all along. 

I could see them watching the baby with the mother if they were that worried, but to take a nursing baby from it's mother the day it's born? Over the line. Waaaay over the line. 

They let women in prison keep their babies for a while after birth to allow the mother and child to bond, and those women have actually been CONVICTED of a crime. 


But they took this woman's baby with no due process, to the detriment of both baby and mother. I would be a mess if I were this woman.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Minor point, maybe, but I don't think the thread title is misleading.
> 
> The NH "authorities" did, in fact, make that claim as part of the basis for the abduction. *As far as NH is concerned, they siezed an Oath Keepers newborn.*


That is certainly true.

To be accurate the headline should have read:
*
NH state seizes newborn from parents, lists association with OathKeepers as one of the reasons.
*

The "association" part is critical, just for understanding, since the father was never an "official" member of OathKeepers.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Below is the link to William Grigg's article. I know he will do it justice, if anyone will..
> 
> http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html


That needs it's own thread.

----------


## susano

> Very sorry to hear about this, and I agree with your conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the link to William Grigg's article. I know he will do it justice, if anyone will..
> 
> http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html


From that link:

_As with the mass seizure of children from the FLDS polygamist enclave a couple of years ago, this case seems like a perfect illustration of H.L. Mencken's maxim that "the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of ones time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."_


THAT is something that a few people here need to comprehend. It speaks directly to these stupid comments about the parents not being "poster children".

----------


## erowe1

> From that link:
> 
> _As with the mass seizure of children from the FLDS polygamist enclave a couple of years ago, this case seems like a perfect illustration of H.L. Mencken's maxim that "the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of ones time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."_
> 
> 
> THAT is something that a few people here need to comprehend. It speaks directly to these stupid comments about the parents not being "poster children".


Like which comments? I know I said something about not making them poster children, but that was in the context of pointing out that the desire many people seem to have of making them poster children appears to be based on a hoax, and not in the context of anyone alleging them to be scoundrels.

This all reminds me of the Ashton Lundeby case, where the mom lied and said her son was arrested under some provision in the Patriot Act, knowing that it would rile up a bunch of patriots to her cause. Grigg was taken in by that one as well.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Like which comments? I know I said something about not making them poster children, but that was in the context of pointing out that the desire many people seem to have of making them poster children appears to be based on a hoax, and not in the context of anyone alleging them to be scoundrels.
> 
> *This all reminds me of the Ashton Lundeby case, where the mom lied and said her son was arrested under some provision in the Patriot Act, knowing that it would rile up a bunch of patriots to her cause. Grigg was taken in by that one as well*.


Indeed.  

The tactic of starting with scoundrels is well-known, but so is the tactic of rallying a group together and then painting them all as demons via some bombshell of information.  While that shouldn't prevent some folks from rallying to aid, it's something that needs to be kept in mind.  The bulk of people would be "okay" with the State taking away a baby from an abusive household, and if the other questions --- relevant questions --- get swept under the rug.  If these parents are so abusive, where are the other kids?  Which allegation goes with whom (there seems to be ambiguity here)?  If the parents were too dangerous for the infant to be with them on day two, then why were they not too dangerous to be around the infant and take pictures on day one?  Why is an affiliation with Oath Keepers even on any paperwork (and not other affiliations, such as helping the United Way, Red Cross, March of Dimes, or having a Facebook, or maybe they have a Twitter... you get the idea)?  There are certainly more questions than that to be asked, but they won't be asked in the Cliff's Notes version of the story that most people will digest from the nightly news.

Rallying would bring those questions to the forefront, maybe.  Or it might mean that the headlines will read that more militia members are gathering to support this crazy kooky abusive couple and their radical ideas.  It might then be a great time to plant someone who throws a rock or two, or fires a shot "towards" innocents, or any number of things.  Those are all things to ponder, no, before you suggest that there be a powerful public push to assist someone and affiliate them with your causes?  That's what making it your pet project implies, and if they go down, your ship is damaged and might go right down with them.  

There are too many questions still completely and utterly unanswered to make martyrs out of these folks and go riding in on a white horse to their aid, at least from where I see it.  Others will feel differently and put their time and money and other resources where their text is, and that's a damned good thing.  We still need doers in this movement, even if they get burned from time to time.

----------


## pcosmar

> Indeed.  
> 
> Rallying would bring those questions to the forefront, maybe.  Or it might mean that the headlines will read that more militia members are gathering to support this crazy kooky abusive couple and their radical ideas.  It might then be a great time to plant someone who throws a rock or two, or fires a shot "towards" innocents, or any number of things.  Those are all things to ponder, no, before you suggest that there be a powerful public push to assist someone and affiliate them with your causes?  That's what making it your pet project implies, and if they go down, your ship is damaged and might go right down with them.


And this is why we should control the spin, or at least counter the spin that is being put on it.
*
Innocent Until Proven Guilty* should be the mantra here.
The guilt of the state is an often proven fact

Why they are even considered credible boggles my mind.

----------


## erowe1

> And this is why we should control the spin, or at least counter the spin that is being put on it.
> *
> Innocent Until Proven Guilty* should be the mantra here.
> The guilt of the state is an often proven fact
> 
> Why they are even considered credible boggles my mind.


I don't consider the state credible.

I also don't consider credible anyone who has to make a fake document in order to make it appear that the state used association with Oath Keepers as a reason to kidnap their baby.

----------


## VegasPatriot

As some here may know, I have been involved with the Oath Keepers from day one.  I was the second person Stewart Rhodes talked to when contemplating starting this organization; I make all the videos for OK.  I have been aware of this situation since nearly the first post here and unfortunately I have not had time to post here the last few days for personal reasons, and I am trying to catch up with all the remarks in this thread but I would like to remark on some of the comments made.

  As usual, pcosmar & Anti Federalist have been the voices of reason in this tread.  Both are spot on.




> I doubt it was a mistake, any more than MIAC was a mistake.
> 
> They are training the cops, and by extension the entire state apparatus, that "we" are the enemy.
> 
> *That's* the conspiracy, it's been confirmed a thousand times.
> 
> It's not meant to threaten the OKs, it's meant to threaten and intimidate an individual Mundane into silence and steering well clear of any non government approved groups.


  THAT




> Clearly, it's not the *only* reason.
> 
> But it is *a* reason.
> 
> And that is un-$#@!ing-acceptable.
> 
> Yeah, agreed, the more people that are exposed to the stinking cess pit that is the "family courts system" the better.


  THAT




> You don't have to support the guy. This isn't about the guy.
> This is about supporting the principal, supporting the free association. support the exercising of rights.
> This is about State Sponsored Slander.
> It is about Principals.


  THAT




> It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
> And he is pissed about it.


  And THAT




> Thanks for posting that. 
> 
> As for the documentation, at ~4:39 in the video, we get a clear look at the infamous Item #7 mentioning the OathKeepers. As was surmised, that Item 7 is from a completely different list than the original, one page image posted on the internet. There is a completely different item 6 right before this item 7. The documentation seems to consist of quite a few more than 2 pages, maybe 8-12.
> 
> Bottom line: The first document put out on the internet was edited to be brief and leave out personal information. It was also edited in a way to make an Item 6 and Item 7 from two different lists appear like they went together in a single document when they didn't (One being a "Change of Venue" document, and one being part of an "Affidavit"). A bit misleading, and not really necessary. Probably not a good idea in PR terms. It would have served the same purpose to just black out most of the page containing the reference to Oathkeepers (except for the Oathkeepers part of course) and distribute that page without any other edits or cuts and pastes.


  This is correct.  I received the fax sent by the Irish family to my business fax line, Stewart was in Las Vegas when we found out about this (he is now back in Montana).  

  There are a total of 13 pages in the court document.

----------


## pcosmar

> As some here may know, I have been involved with the Oath Keepers from day one.  I was the second person Stewart Rhodes talked to when contemplating starting this organization; I make all the videos for OK.  I have been aware of this situation since nearly the first post here and unfortunately I have not had time to post here the last few days for personal reasons, and I am trying to catch up with all the remarks in this thread but I would like to remark on some of the comments made.
> 
>   As usual, pcosmar & Anti Federalist have been the voices of reason in this tread.  Both are spot on.


OMG
That AF and myself are voices of reason,,,


That other voices aren't.

----------


## erowe1

> This is correct.  I received the fax sent by the Irish family to my business fax line, Stewart was in Las Vegas when we found out about this (he is now back in Montana).  
> 
>   There are a total of 13 pages in the court document.


So the Irish family is the source for the document you have.

Who's the source for the fake one that has been posted here? If that's also the Irish family, then what assurance do you have that the one they sent you has not been doctored as well?

----------


## MelissaWV

> OMG
> That AF and myself are voices of reason,,,
> 
> 
> That other voices aren't.


Intriguing that those of us who want to wait until all the documentation is out and about, and its veracity/sourcing verified, are unreasonable.  I know you didn't say it, but it makes me sigh to hear that on this forum.

----------


## pcosmar

> So the Irish family is the source for the document you have.
> 
> Who's the source for the fake one that has been posted here? If that's also the Irish family, then what assurance do you have that the one they sent you has not been doctored as well?


There was a Fake Document posted?
Or was there an edited portion of a copy of some paper work posted?

I haven't seen any of the paper work. But accept that Stewart Rhodes has.
Are you challenging his honesty or his competence?

----------


## susano

I just emailed Gerry Spence:



From: "susan xxxx" <susanxxx@yahoo.com>Add sender to ContactsTo: gerryspence@gerryspence.com

Dear Gerry,

Long time fan and admirer, here.

First, let me apologize for writing to you and even thinking of asking you to accept a burden. I'm sure there is a lot of pressue that comes with being seen as some kind of a hero in the fight for liberty against state tryanny. There really are so few who exhibit any courage, and fewer who have any influence and expertise. You are one of that few, along with Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano and a couple of others. I hate that We the People, in desperate situations, scramble for leaders, but there it is.

Have you heard about the case of newborn baby, Cheyenne Irish, being taken from her mother by the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth and Family Services (DCYF)? She was born Friday night and was only 16 hours old.  The state listed the father's membership in Oath Keepers "militia" (OK is not a militia but even if it were...) as one of the justifications to kidnap the child. There are also other allegations of child neglect (the mother has two other children) and some mention of gun ownership. Here are some links that give background:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html

http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263496

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/


I've known for a long time that the states CPS are corrupt. Over the weekend, I've done done some research and learned it is far worse than I knew - like getting federal dollars/incentives to adopt out children in state custody and NOT "keep families together". I found this report from Georgia state senator, Nancy Schaefer, that is hair raising:

PLEASE READ THIS! 
http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/repor...ps-corruption/

Senator Schaefer and her husband were found murdered, this year, no doubt due to her activism on this matter:

http://www.infowars.com/oddities-in-...-suicide-case/

In the blog that I linked for you, the author said:

As with the mass seizure of children from the FLDS polygamist enclave a couple of years ago, this case seems like a perfect illustration of H.L. Mencken's maxim that "the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

I know that you, more than anyone, knows that, Gerry. This couple has it problems. However, neither has been criminally charged with anything. Like all other CPS victims they have not had the "benefit" of the criminal system - only the civil and corrupt social workers and family court.

As senator Schaefer makes clear, CPS is often used as a weapon to harass the poor and uneducated. New Hampshire has now ramped it up to include attacking the first amendment. As if what these agencies do were not bad enough, we are now looking a very dangerous precedent being set - pro constitution, "anti government" people are now at risk of having their children stolen. It doesn't get any more chilling than that. 

I am writing to you because I know this young couple and their precious baby girl need seriously experienced and good legal council - not some court appointed atty who lunches with the family court crowd. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I was wondering if this issue could be forced out of family court and the parents given the benefit of a court of law. I know that family court hides behind it's civil status, not having to meet the burden of proof required in a criminal case. They can say and do anything they want and they do it all the time. They don't even have to reveal the whereabouts of the child. That children can be stolen on flimsy accusations is terrifying. That there is financial incentive to do so is mindblowing. I don't see how this is much different than child trafficking except that it's "legal".

Can you fly to New Hampshire and help these people? Can you assist whomever it is that represents them? Yes, I know that is a lot to ask. If not you though, Gerry, then who??? We have reached a crisis point. Things have gotten far worse since you took Randy Weaver's case, not better. If New Hampshire is not stopped in it's tracks, we are at a whole new level of tyranny. THEY MUST BE STOPPED AND CHEYENNE RETURNED TO HER MOTHER, IMMEDIATELY. If people fear that their children can be kidnapped by the state for their political affiliations, then people will be afraid to excersise their most fundamental rights.

I think of the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." 

Is this what is required, Gerry? How many babies can we sit by and see stolen before we are "paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase" ? Do we need a war? If this isn't resolved peacefully, we either live under this state tyranny or we don't. Time is running short. You aren't going to live forever. We need you. Please, please, please consider getting involved in this case - for Cheyenne and her family and for our country.

With greatest respect to you and our founders,

susan xxx 
Alto, Michigan

----------


## Jcambeis

> There was a Fake Document posted?
> Or was there an edited portion of a copy of some paper work posted?
> 
> I haven't seen any of the paper work. But accept that Stewart Rhodes has.
> Are you challenging his honesty or his competence?


There was an original document posted on the web(i think by alex jones). That document was a motion for a change of venue.  That document contained six paragraphs. A seventh paragraph was added to it and made to appear to be part of the same document. That seventh paragraph was part of the affidavit. 

I have been trying to figure out the difference between the three known documents that have been made known by Irish.
There is a petition of abuse and neglect
There is an affidavit from the DYCF
There is a motion to change the venue.

----------


## VegasPatriot

I just spoke with Stewart and I am working on blocking the personal information from the document and releasing the entire document on OK's website  with the permission of Mr Irish.  I will post a link here as soon as we have the article up on our website.

----------


## VegasPatriot

> OMG
> That AF and myself are voices of reason,,,
> 
> 
> That other voices aren't.


Yes, I must admit this.  I know I have bumped heads with both of you over some other stuff... and it was a bit hard to acknowledge both of you... but nice job here guys.

----------


## susano

Amanda said... 


thanks so much for picking this story up. i always enjoy your lew rockwell articles so i'm delighted you are carrying this story.

i met with the parents today at the protest outside Concord Hospital and they seem 100% legit to me. they are not violent people, which is what most people assume. they are also not drug addicts, another thing people have been assuming about why the state would take their children.

*the neglect accusation is the result of a caretaker's abuse of one of their older children.

the neglect accusation is crazy in itself... almost 2 years ago, they left their children with someone they trusted, who then hurt one of the children, and 'child protection' decided to charge the parents with neglect and remove the children! although 'charge' isn't really the right word for this because, so far, no one's been arrested.*
and if i understand correctly, based on a poor caretaker pick, the state has denied them 'parental rights' and this is apparently extended to all unborn children. WOW.

this agency is totally out of control. this is sick sick sick.

they have court in dover, NH on thursday. mr. grigg you will be interested in this tid bit - the *family courts in fabulous NH have NO jury, allow NO media or public attendance, and will not make any information about their decisions public*. look up the 'termination of parental rights' law for NH. 
so while we do plan to rally outside the courthouse on thursday (if the family invites us), we will not be able to witness or record anything that happens.

SICK.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...nne-irish.html

----------


## pcosmar

> There was an original document posted on the web


Well no. 
there was a portion(edited) of a document. actually I believe it was portions of 2 documents.
It only showed that the Oathkeepers were indeed named. 

That was not what I ever based my view on.
Stewart Rhodes said he saw the documents. He believed it to be actionable.
I am trusting his word and his experience.

Detractors come from anonymous forum posts.

There is an issue of credibility.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Well no. 
> there was a portion(edited) of a document. actually I believe it was portions of 2 documents.
> It only showed that the Oathkeepers were indeed named. 
> 
> That was not what I ever based my view on.
> Stewart Rhodes said he saw the documents. He believed it to be actionable.
> I am trusting his word and his experience.
> 
> Detractors come from anonymous forum posts.
> ...


Uhmmm that is why I said "There was an original document posted on the web(i think by alex jones). That document was a motion for a change of venue. That document contained six paragraphs. A seventh paragraph was added to it and made to appear to be part of the same document. That seventh paragraph was part of the affidavit" 

The original document posted on the alex jones web page. As in the very first document posted by the Alex Jones was edited. It looked like something it was not.

----------


## ericsnow

Email these to drudge
http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...-took-our-baby

http://www.wmur.com/news/25340240/detail.html

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=213149

We need to make this a national news story come on people lets save this baby!
drudge@drudgereport.com

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Well no. 
> there was a portion(edited) of a document. actually I believe it was portions of 2 documents.
> It only showed that the Oathkeepers were indeed named. 
> 
> That was not what I ever based my view on.
> Stewart Rhodes said he saw the documents. He believed it to be actionable.
> I am trusting his word and his experience.
> 
> Detractors come from anonymous forum posts.
> ...


That is just plain pathetic dude, especially when Vegas acknowledges forged documents.  I was going to duck out of this thread since I don't have a high opinion.  And it is not even primarily because of a potential sordid background.

*It is because I am not getting manipulated by government or my own liberty team*.  If an item is *actionable* then it better be 100% in daylight.

This couple could have completely avoided the train wreck by being 100% open, honest, and forth coming with the facts that do not contradict themselves like forged documents, contradicting statements kids are still present that have been taken, etc.  Hell they knew they recently concluded a DHS trail and 20+ month long case.  Do people think all of this crap is not going to come out?

I repeat, if an item is *actionable* then it better be 100% in daylight, not wise overlords saying it is actionable because they have read classified documents no one else gets to read.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> OMG
> That AF and myself are voices of reason,,,
> 
> 
> That other voices aren't.


Yeah, $#@!, I was thinking the same thing myself.

I'm really disappointed to see so many running for the tall grass on this one.




> So the Irish family is the source for the document you have.
> 
> Who's the source for the fake one that has been posted here? If that's also the Irish family, then what assurance do you have that the one they sent you has not been doctored as well?


What fake document?

There's a fake document running around?

Where?




> Intriguing that those of us who want to wait until all the documentation is out and about, and its veracity/sourcing verified, are unreasonable.  I know you didn't say it, but it makes me sigh to hear that on this forum.


Look, I was skeptical right at the get go, since Ghemmy was the source.

But the document posted was written in the "legalese" style that NH uses, and I'm prepared to believe it is true.

If the state comes along and denies that they ever wrote Item 7, then I'll consider it was an elaboarte hoax.

But my default setting is the state is guilty, not the citizen.

----------


## Jcambeis

> I repeat, if an item is *actionable* then it better be 100% in daylight, not wise overlords saying it is actionable because they have read classified documents no one else gets to read.


You mean we dont get to bash other people for being sheep while being sheep ourselves?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes, I must admit this.  I know I have bumped heads with both of you over some other stuff... and it was a bit hard to acknowledge both of you... but nice job here guys.


You're very welcome.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Look, I was skeptical right at the get go, since Ghemmy was the source.
> 
> But the document posted was written in the "legalese" style that NH uses, and I'm prepared to believe it is true.
> 
> If the state comes along and denies that they ever wrote Item 7, then I'll consider it was an elaboarte hoax.
> 
> But my default setting is the state is guilty, not the citizen.


I've never said it's unreasonable to leap into this and get involved.  I've talked about caution, and I don't feel the evidence is up to my personal standards.  

I was addressing the poster who said that you guys were the "voice of reason," which implies that caution is unreasonable and unwarranted.

Writing in legalese shouldn't be your criteria, by the way.  You can take any number of documents, substitute the right names and dates, and have a convincing forgery.  Add to that the fact that, since you're looking at a scan or a fax, various lines and imperfections can be smoothed out... and documentation in and of itself is a pretty precarious thing to hang one's hat on.  I know that's not your only evidence by a longshot, but just wanted to point that out

----------


## susano

> That is just plain pathetic dude, especially when Vegas acknowledges forged documents.


I didn't see VP make any accusations of forgery. He acknowledged tow douments being merged. Could be that Alex Jones did that, for brevity (which was not a good choice), I don't know. You seem to think that Jon Irish did it. Do you know that he did?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> But the document posted was written in the "legalese" style that NH uses, and I'm prepared to believe it is true.


You made an excellent point I did not respond to in another thread about people the FBI should use surveillance on according to the statistics that concluded with something like....  might want to rethink because this is according to your logic.

The 911 official report was written in "ese" the federal government uses and I am not prepared to believe it is true.




> But my default setting is the state is guilty, not the citizen.


I do concur on that point.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> What fake document?
> 
> There's a fake document running around?
> 
> Where?


I was assuming Vegas was referring to the document that looks like it was merged people were calling suspect earlier in the thread.  Maybe Vegas should clarify what was being referred to exactly since not everyone here has top secret clearance.

----------


## pcosmar

> I was assuming Vegas was referring to the document that looks like it was merged people were calling suspect earlier in the thread.  Maybe Vegas should clarify what was being referred to exactly since not everyone here has top secret clearance.


Watching for that too.



> *Johnathon Scott Irish*  Alright, I know that I said we were going to be posting a video tonight. The camera is giving us issues. It is an SD chip camera and is only letting me record about 60 seconds before the chip fills up and yes the chip IS empty when I start. Watchmen Noyes was kind and generous to facilitate a Q/A session on his page...  that I hope alliviated at least a few questions. I know many more people have many more questions and we are NOT afraid to answer them which is why I am going to figure out how to do a call in Q/A that can broadcast so all can hear. Thank you all and God Bless you all and thank you for your questions, we look forward to more!!!


There are a few folks that should have video up, I understand there have been a couple of interviews done.
Waiting for news.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You seem to think that Jon Irish did it. Do you know that he did?


I have not made any comments in this entire thread on any suspect documents until the past couple posts to suggest or infer any such thing.

----------


## easycougar

This story has made it to the front page of Glenn Beck's news site:

http://www.theblaze.com/

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> This story has made it to the front page of Glenn Beck's news site:
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/


Breaking this story without all of the facts is going to be THE source of all division.  There should be a lesson to be learned here regardless of how this plays out.  I guarantee if I was the victim of government aggression and reached out, you would know more about me than I do because that is how media works.  

There would be no withholding of details because first impressions are everything in the media.  If a clear compelling case of facts is not made this story is going to parallel 911.  People are going to form their first impressions and then become rigid as they usually do in belief.

Yay, it made front page of Glenn Beck but the story still is still breaking with a lot of gaps.  I don't know if I would portray that a marketing success.

The evidence is in the comments that go back and forth.

----------


## pcosmar

The Ridley Report has some,

http://www.youtube.com/user/RidleyReport

YouTube - "Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics

----------


## ericsnow

I knew this was going to go mainstream. Just a matter of time.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-...-oath-keepers/

----------


## Pericles

> OK, I don't have any reason to doubt it, and unless I've missed something Stewart Rhodes seems to think it's legit.


We have never seen all of the paper, but I'm sure that Rhodes would have taken a look at it all before releasing a statement.

It has been truly amazing how many forum members here don't want to take a risk unless all of the planets are perfectly aligned, and have been distracted from the real issue - the mention of OK and firearm ownership being used as criteria (admittedly minor criteria) in determining whether a parent should lose custody of a child. The mere mention of the OK or firearms ownership is what should draw so much publicity and distress that no state agency would dare do that again.

----------


## susano

> This story has made it to the front page of Glenn Beck's news site:
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/


That site belongs to Glenn Beck?

----------


## ericsnow

> That site belongs to Glenn Beck?


Yes it is his official news site.

----------


## Jcambeis

> We have never seen all of the paper, but I'm sure that Rhodes would have taken a look at it all before releasing a statement.
> 
> It has been truly amazing how many forum members here don't want to take a risk unless all of the planets are perfectly aligned, and have been distracted from the real issue - the mention of OK and firearm ownership being used as criteria (admittedly minor criteria) in determining whether a parent should lose custody of a child. The mere mention of the OK or firearms ownership is what should draw so much publicity and distress that no state agency would dare do that again.


Considering the original information was edited and the family has series other series charges against as well as a speckled past are you really that amazed? 

I am truly amazed people expect others not to collect facts before spending capital political or monetary

----------


## DadaOrwell

From RidleyReport.com:  

"Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics 

YouTube - "Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics

----------


## susano

> It has been truly amazing how many forum members here don't want to take a risk unless all of the planets are perfectly aligned, and have been distracted from the real issue - the mention of OK and firearm ownership being used as criteria (admittedly minor criteria) in determining whether a parent should lose custody of a child. The mere mention of the OK or firearms ownership is what should draw so much publicity and distress that no state agency would dare do that again.


I see two very important issues here. One is the mention of Oath Keepers by the state, and the other is DCYF and all states CPS (whatever name they might go by).

If there were no mention of OK, we wouldn't even be hearing about the theft of a newborn by state gestapo. The reason what CPS does is important is because people who are their victims do not have the benefit of the criminal court system. They are not charged or convicted and they do not get the constitutional protections of a court of law. CPS need only accuse. Heresay is allowed as "evidence". The procedure is as secret and dirty as any secret trial under the PATRIOT Act. We should be just as concerned about this as about the mention of OK. These family courts and their statist goons carry on as though this were the USSR.

Mark my words about what happens next if we don't also take issue with the mere existance of states CPS: The next time they go after a patriot they'll be careful to make no mention of it in their documents. They'll find some goose stepping, govt loving, do-gooder to make spurious allegations about the personal character of the patriot and the child wil be taken. Nobody will be able to prove a damn thing because CPS doesn't have to prove $#@! and their hearings and documents can be secret.

This is about more than Oath Keepers. It's about a fundamentaly unconstitutional civil law apparatus that is not accountable to anyone. As Americans and constitutionalists we should not accept this. We should not accept the state taking anyone's child without criminal charges and conviction with solid evidence presented under the rules of the criminal court.

----------


## Pericles

> Considering the original information was edited and the family has series other series charges against as well as a speckled past are you really that amazed? 
> 
> I am truly amazed people expect others not to collect facts before spending capital political or monetary


The student of human behavior would never be amazed at the number of people who allow themselves to be distracted by facts not germane to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that a liberty minded organization (Oathkeepers) and lawful activity (ownership of firearms) are considered pertinent facts in a child custody legal proceeding. The president of the organization mentioned had the opportunity to review ALL of the documents and found  a basis for a complaint. But that isn't good enough for some of the members here - they require the opportunity to personally review any and all facts they wish to peruse before determining that there could be an issue.

Some people can figure out what is going on based on a limited set of information - those are the people who make effective leaders.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Some people can figure out what is going on based on a limited set of information - those are the people who make effective leaders.


That made me smile  and cry at the same time

----------


## susano

> Yes it is his official news site.


Then that is good news and I hope it generates more attention from Beck and zillions of 9/12 people. I was thinking of how Beck, himself, had a histroy that could have been used to take HIS children - down and out alcoholic with serious psychological probelms. Beck's 9/12 members are just the type of people who could find themsleves in this sutuation when the statist thugs decide to take issue with some gun owning Christian homeschooler.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I didn't see VP make any accusations of forgery. He acknowledged tow douments being merged. Could be that Alex Jones did that, for brevity (which was not a good choice), I don't know. You seem to think that Jon Irish did it. Do you know that he did?


Who made up that first edited document? We may never know...




> I knew this was going to go mainstream. Just a matter of time.
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-...-oath-keepers/


That story is a pretty a good summary of everything that has come out so far.

----------


## tropicangela

this briefly cites another story of a baby removed from the hospital in the past *before there is a chance for something to happen*

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 1/3 KY - Forced Adoption, Federal Bonus $, Corrupt Experts

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 2/3 KY - Secrecy, False Allegations, Altered Files

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 3/3 KY - Stalking, Orders 4 Babies, Forced Adoptions Confirmed

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It has been truly amazing how many forum members here don't want to take a risk unless all of the planets are perfectly aligned, ...


In all of these threads, has there been anyone who disagrees that the mention of Oathkeepers in the CPS document was "wrong"? Is there anyone who doesn't believe that Oathkeepers was mentioned in Item #7 of *some* CPS document?

Speak up now, you deniers! 

Seriously though, should we lobby our lawmakers to make it illegal for gun ownership to be used for any purpose, in any government action or documentation, based on the Second Amendment? We could, and would be Constitutionally correct, but our current Supremes probably wouldn't go for it.




> I see two very important issues here. One is the mention of Oath Keepers by the state, and the other is DCYF and all states CPS (whatever name they might go by).


That's it exactly. Two big issues, plus a little distinction on this specific case.

On the issue of the Oathkeepers "wrongful" inclusion in the affidavit, we are all aligned (Hopefully. Anyone who disagrees, speak up now!).

On the issue of CPS having too much power (and no due process), we probably all agree. (Anyone care to disagree?).

On the specific issues related to this couple and their history with CPS and the authorities, not sure where everybody stands, other than the fact that some people are reserving judgment on their specific case. (Other than agreeing that taking children is a drastic action by the authorities. Anyone who wants to argue for routine removal of children from their families by the state, here's your chance).

----------


## Jcambeis

> In all of these threads, has there been anyone who disagrees that the mention of Oathkeepers in the CPS document was "wrong"? Is there anyone who doesn't believe that Oathkeepers was mentioned in Item #7 of *some* CPS document?
> 
> Speak up now, you deniers! 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it exactly. Two big issues, plus a little distinction on this specific case.
> 
> On the issue of the Oathkeepers "wrongful" inclusion in the affidavit, we are all aligned (Hopefully. Anyone who disagrees, speak up now!).
> ...


The mention of oath keepers in the affidavit is wrong. I do not know if it is illegal or unconstitutional according to what my understanding of what an affidavit is. 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affidavit

CPS has to much power and in the past has abused it. Not enough information has been supplied to determine if they abused power in this particular case. 

Posting a video about CPS abuse and relating it to this case is akin to posting a video about parents abusing their kid and relating it to this case.

----------


## squarepusher

> The mention of oath keepers in the affidavit is wrong. I do not know if it is illegal or unconstitutional according to what my understanding of what an affidavit is. 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affidavit
> 
> CPS has to much power and in the past has abused it. Not enough information has been supplied to determine if they abused power in this particular case. 
> 
> Posting a video about CPS abuse and relating it to this case is akin to posting a video about parents abusing their kid and relating it to this case.


The father wasn't even an oathkeeper, afaik hes been on disability his entire adult life

----------


## Jcambeis

> The father wasn't even an oathkeeper, afaik hes been on disability his entire adult life


My understanding, is you can sign an affidavit saying the earth is flat and it is legal if that is what you believe.

Irish is now claiming he lied, He is not on disability and he works.

I am glad to find out he is not an oath keeper. I was having a hard time believing a guy who is living with, sleeping with, and having babies with some one else's wife would keep any sort of oath

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> We have never seen all of the paper, but I'm sure that Rhodes would have taken a look at it all before releasing a statement.
> 
> It has been truly amazing how many forum members here don't want to take a risk unless all of the planets are perfectly aligned, and have been distracted from the real issue - the mention of OK and firearm ownership being used as criteria (admittedly minor criteria) in determining whether a parent should lose custody of a child. The mere mention of the OK or firearms ownership is what should draw so much publicity and distress that no state agency would dare do that again.


Define risk?
Define actionable?

Don't just throw out propaganda terms.  Suggest a specific course of action that is an appropriate response to baby theft for political association.

What kind of risk are you suggesting as a response?  Are you suggesting say... individuals showing up armed exercising Constitutional civic duty demanding the return of a stolen baby without full knowledge of the facts?

----------


## pcosmar

> The father wasn't even an oathkeeper, afaik hes been on disability his entire adult life


AFAIK you don't know much at all, and half of that is confused.

What is known.
A child was taken from the Mother hours after birth. (undisputed)
The Oath Keepers organization was named in legal documents. (Credible source)

They have been in the system with their children since the divorce from her first husband.

He admits to smoking pot.
There are a lot of allegations and some are challenged. Some have been debunked.

----------


## Jcambeis

> They have been in the system with their children since the divorce from her first husband.
> 
> .


They are not divorced.

According to oath keepers he posted on their forums and is not a dues paying member. Some one made the comment that because you post on the RP forums does not make you RP.

----------


## pcosmar

> They are not divorced.
> .


Officially
But that is the problem isn't it?

Makes me wonder who this Taylor guy is and how he is connected to their troubles. 

but that is a side issue.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Officially
> But that is the problem isn't it?
> 
> Makes me wonder who this Taylor guy is and how he is connected to their troubles.



I did not you could have an unofficial divorce. Can you have an unofficial marriage too? 

I would like for Mr Taylor to be interviewed and get his take on the situation.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Suggest a specific course of action that is an appropriate response to baby theft for political association.


Good question. Is there a good legislative answer that would pass our current Supreme Court?

----------


## specsaregood

> The Oath Keepers organization was named in legal documents. (Credible source)


I'm ready and willing to focus on that.  What has been suggested so far or asked by the OK in order to work on THAT issue?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I did not you could have an unofficial divorce. Can you have an unofficial marriage too? 
> 
> I would like for Mr Taylor to be interviewed and get his take on the situation.


Who cares?

Right now, there is only one issue for me.

Item number 7 listed an affiliation with a lawful political action group as a legitimate reason for the state to take a child from their parents.

That cannot be allowed to stand.

----------


## susano

> YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 3/3 KY - Stalking, Orders 4 Babies, Forced Adoptions Confirmed


They took the victim's kids. She fights back, they take her relatives kids, they get a lawyer, they take the lawyer's kids.

Unbelievable (if I didn't know better(.

This is why this about more than Oath Keepers. This is about tyranny.

----------


## specsaregood

> Right now, there is only one issue for me.
> Item number 7 listed an affiliation with a lawful political action group as a legitimate reason for the state to take a child from their parents.
> That cannot be allowed to stand.


And it is such a universal issue that almost all should be able to agree upon, that we should resist being distracted by the other issues.   It's why I object to the current domain name/website people are pointing to.

Has the Oath Keepers, come up with an action plan yet?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Who cares?
> 
> Right now, there is only one issue for me.
> 
> Item number 7 listed an affiliation with a lawful political action group as a legitimate reason for the state to take a child from their parents.
> 
> That cannot be allowed to stand.


I agree that is the issue. On that Stewart is a constitutional lawyer I am sure he knows what he is doing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And it is such a universal issue that almost all should be able to agree upon, that we should resist being distracted by the other issues.   It's why I object to the current domain name/website people are pointing to.
> 
> Has the Oath Keepers, come up with an action plan yet?


Not that I've heard.

Monday will, perhaps, bring more details.

----------


## pcosmar

> Has the Oath Keepers, come up with an action plan yet?


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/




> OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK -- peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens.  Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child.  Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel.   And we won’t relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights.  Be professional, but firm.   Make them hear you.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes


At this moment. But still expecting news.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Who cares?
> 
> Right now, there is only one issue for me.
> 
> Item number 7 listed an affiliation with a lawful political action group as a legitimate reason for the state to take a child from their parents.
> 
> That cannot be allowed to stand.


You already know I agree with you on this.  The question is what is the course of action to make sure it does not stand?

If a petition for redress of grievances is prepared at a state level many here are not state residents and do not have really have standing to sign it complaining about what goes on in another state.

Should a protest rally be scheduled to attract a show of support from in state and out of state?

Should a writ be filed with the court pursuing legal remedy that requires financial support?

----------


## Pericles

Answer is in the post above yours from the OK website:

"OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK --  peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens.  Let the officials in  question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association  with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child.  Let them  know you insist that they remove that reason from the affidavit and  issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all  of us, and also from our legal counsel.   And we wont relent until  they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and  association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights.  Be  professional, but firm.   Make them hear you.
 Stewart Rhodes"


I have expressed my appreciation to the State of NH for making me aware of how agencies charged with child protection are willing to use any innuendo unfettered by any standards of legal proof or fact checking in the performance of their actions. I will now keep a more watchful approach to my own state's government.


Meanwhile, all of the fact gatherers can just carry on. When it is your turn, you can ask the people with the guns to let you check their facts.

----------


## Danke

> The mention of oath keepers in the affidavit is wrong. I do not know if it is illegal or unconstitutional according to what my understanding of what an affidavit is.


An unrebutted affidavit can stand as truth.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You already know I agree with you on this.  The question is what is the course of action to make sure it does not stand?
> 
> If a petition for redress of grievances is prepared at a state level many here are not state residents and do not have really have standing to sign it complaining about what goes on in another state.
> 
> Should a protest rally be scheduled to attract a show of support from in state and out of state?
> 
> Should a writ be filed with the court pursuing legal remedy that requires financial support?


Two pronged approach.

Local pressure through protests and local legal action.

National pressure from people outside the state, including legal and financial support, if not to the family, then to OK to fund the legal battle.

----------


## Jcambeis

> An unrebutted affidavit can stand as truth.


So can oath keepers just simply rebut the current affidavit?
If it is something simple maybe that is why Stewart has not called out the big guns yet

----------


## pcosmar

> So can oath keepers just simply rebut the current affidavit?
> If it is something simple maybe that is why Stewart has not called out the big guns yet


I don't want them to simple take their name off the paperwork and say "sorry".
I want the Beast beaten into submission and then put on a very tight leash.

Like I ever get what I want.

----------


## tropicangela

Not to derail the topic of Irish and of the oathkeepers, see this thread where I posted a local CPS story.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...58#post2925658

----------


## Danke

> So can oath keepers just simply rebut the current affidavit?
> If it is something simple maybe that is why Stewart has not called out the big guns yet


I would think that is something for the couple of the baby to do.

----------


## Reason

YouTube - "Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I have expressed my appreciation to the State of NH for making me aware of how agencies charged with child protection are willing to use any innuendo unfettered by any standards of legal proof or fact checking in the performance of their actions. I will now keep a more watchful approach to my own state's government.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, all of the fact gatherers can just carry on. When it is your turn, you can ask the people with the guns to let you check their facts.


Aw hell, I thought people opposed to baby snatching might actually want to pursue a course of action that would immediately demand the return of a stolen baby and might be interested in facts before doing so.  My bad I should not have had the presumption people actually gave a $#@!.  If the only risk or actionable items ever on the table to defend against government aggression stealing babies is a little bitching to the elected status quo and court system then.... 

HELL I don't even consider that a risk.  Why didn't people say that is all we ever planned on doing up front?  Why didn't people come out and say roll over folks and start writing elected officials...  I might not have even posted in the thread.

I stand corrected.  Please carry on bitching to government about government, I apologize if I held up the bitching in any way.

----------


## Kylie

> YouTube - "Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics


God, they're just kids. Young, poor kids.

----------


## susano

> I don't want them to simple take their name off the paperwork and say "sorry".
> I want the Beast beaten into submission and then put on a very tight leash.
> 
> Like I ever get what I want.


I agree. If they said "sorry" and backed off OK, would it be okay to kidnap the baby then?

HELL NO.

----------


## NiceGoing

> From that link:
> 
> _As with the mass seizure of children from the FLDS polygamist enclave a couple of years ago, this case seems like a perfect illustration of H.L. Mencken's maxim that "the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of ones time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."_
> 
> 
> THAT is something that a few people here need to comprehend. It speaks directly to these stupid comments about the parents not being "poster children".


Agreed.

Great job on the Gerry Spence letter, btw.  That would be a very very bright event, should it happen.  Fingers crossed

----------


## pcosmar

For those that think this is anything new,
You might learn about FAMTRAK.
http://apatriotsmanifest.com/oct08/index08102501.html




> FamTrak is an underground railroad, safe homes all across the United States where families on the run from local Government authorities who wish to profit from their children through false charges hide. It's not perfect, some places are discovered by the authorities, but because the infrastructure is set up where the people only know the next destination an hour before they leave for it, the entire chain cannot be compromised by a single mother or father who needs to make a deal to keep their children.


and then look at the rest of the story.
http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.p...;f=43;t=000116



> In short, whatever agency took down FAMTRAK with secret arrests, detentions, and quite possibly killings (some operatives and fugitives apparently have not checked in for months now), that agency must be put on the top of every single patriot or revolutionary hit list in existence. I mean, can you think of any human rights violation worse than illegal human trafficking for profit where the victims are actually "owned" and traded by business entities and then they utilize extralegal means to retain control of their "property?" Thing is right now, not a single US government agency has been traced to the "disappearances". Even the topic dropped off the top of this forum when we never got updates from the people who were going to check the situation out.


know where you are?

----------


## Carson

I met a Navajo lady that was stolen from her parents by our government. 

I could see some of the benefits of the education she ended up with but I have no idea of what was lost to her.

It is lost. 

Lost forever. 

?

----------


## Jcambeis

It seems the government kid nappers are letting the mother have supervised visits with the baby

----------


## sratiug

> It seems the government kid nappers are letting the mother have supervised visits with the baby


Well, isn't that special... barf.  This $#@! is disgusting.

----------


## tropicangela

On drudge today.  

Also, Irish, the father, isn't allowed to see her due to safety concerns.
[Edit:  Source was the mother Stephanie at http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne]

----------


## Bruno

> *On drudge today*.  
> 
> Also, Irish, the father, isn't allowed to see her due to safety concerns.
> [Edit:  Source was the mother Stephanie at http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne]


I just caught that, it wasn't there earlier.

----------


## VegasPatriot

*CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

New article from Stewart Rhodes

Note:

**RALLY FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT!   This Thursday, October 14, Dover, NH*
 We will be holding a rally in support of  the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be  held this Thursday, October 14, at the Rochester Family Division Court,  259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016.  I (Stewart Rhodes) will be there, and I am  calling on all Oath Keepers, all who “associate” with us, and on all  other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to  be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process  rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also  to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free  from persecution, for ALL Americans.  I will post more details later  today.   Please join us!

----------


## Deborah K

> That the Court relied on an affidavit that explicitly lists the father’s association with Oath Keepers to issue that order makes it important to all ten thousand dues paying members of Oath Keepers (many of them current serving police and military), and also makes it important to the estimated thirty thousand people (and growing) who have “associated” with Oath Keepers in the past, or still do, on several social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, on our email alert list, in the comments section of our main site, in our free state forums, or in person at our many meetings across the country, and the many additional tens of thousands who have “associated” with us at various rallies, summits, and forums across the nation.
> 
> This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation.   And that is why we must stand firm, now.


There you have it.  Can we stop all the nay-saying now and get to work on this?

----------


## specsaregood

> There you have it.  Can we stop all the nay-saying now and get to work on this?


What type of Remedy are the Oath Keepers looking for here?  ie: what will make them happy?

----------


## Bern

Thanks VP.  Good stuff in that last update from OK.

----------


## Deborah K

> What type of Remedy are the Oath Keepers looking for here?  ie: what will make them happy?


I'm sure we'll find that out soon enough.  I would think that they would file an action to have them removed as a cause and also a retraction for the false information that they are a militia.  In addition, as much media exposure and public pressure on the legal system for listing free association as a reason to remove a child would be in order.

----------


## pcosmar

> There you have it.  Can we stop all the nay-saying now and get to work on this?


I would hope so. I started a thread for brain storming. I had hoped that folks could find ways to get this story into every home and every conversation.
The Oathkeepers have good grounds to peruse, but there are other issues as well. If we had folks attacking this from several directions  we could break this open. Put on the heat.
This is the best opportunity to kick the Police State square in the balls.
There is ammunition for everyone.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm sure we'll find that out soon enough.  I would think that they would file an action to have them removed as a cause and also a retraction for the false information that they are a militia.  In addition, as much media exposure and public pressure on the legal system for listing free association as a reason to remove a child would be in order.


That sounds reasonable enough.   I hope the OK, or somebody similar works up a draft letter/template that others can use.   If a decent one is setup, I'll snailmail one in.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
> 
> New article from Stewart Rhodes
> 
> Note:
> 
> **RALLY FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT!   This Thursday, October 14, Dover, NH*
>  We will be holding a rally in support of  the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be  held this Thursday, October 14, at the Rochester Family Division Court,  259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016.  I (Stewart Rhodes) will be there, and I am  calling on all Oath Keepers, all who associate with us, and on all  other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to  be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process  rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also  to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free  from persecution, for ALL Americans.  I will post more details later  today.   Please join us!


Yep. Good stuff.

Worth going to the link. 

(Also, the full 13 pages of documentation are there.)

----------


## Deborah K

> I would hope so. I started a thread for brain storming. I had hoped that folks could find ways to get this story into every home and every conversation.
> The Oathkeepers have good grounds to peruse, but there are other issues as well. If we had folks attacking this from several directions  we could break this open. Put on the heat.
> This is the best opportunity to kick the Police State square in the balls.
> There is ammunition for everyone.


Will you post the thread?

----------


## pcosmar

It also needs to be pushed into the light. Media coverage.
This is only one of thousands of stories Thousands of families all across the country.
Nearly everyone has had some experience with this $#@!, or knows somebody that did.

Get this into conversation and spotlighted on the news.
Then Gang Jump it. 
1st amendment. Oathkeepers have that.
2nd amendment, Need GOA and JPFO 

4th amendment,  needs to be addressed.

The CPS,or any other acronym that steals children. They have long been out of control.
The connection between SPLC/ADL and Law enforcement. Conflicts of interest. Corruption.
What political hard balls are there? Tough questions to nail candidates. 

This is a chance to beat down the beast and put it on a leash.

----------


## pcosmar

> Will you post the thread?


Sure,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263685

----------


## ericsnow

Anyone know why I can't embed the PDF of the full affidavit? I'm copying the embed code exactly.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> An unrebutted affidavit can stand as truth.





> This is how all such petitions are done.  The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition.


Maybe some people will listen now that OK has stated the same exact thing other people have been stating for a long time.




> Too many people are asking “but did he do it.”


Maybe some are but I am not, because like Danke and others, understand how court works.  Court begins before you ever get to a judge and it's all based on affidavit.  He said, she said.  Like I posted in another thread recently, human beings are creatures of observation and we record our observations.  Courts do not defy the laws of nature and work on the same principal except they call those observations affidavits.  Once it gets to a judge, very often the facts (ie. unrebutted affidavits), are not in dispute.  When I ask for the facts I want to know what does the affidavit state, what has been rebutted, and if it is a case in progress have there been any findings of fact where the court has rendered an opinion on truth.  Facts have nothing to do with "but did he do it."




> *CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
> 
> New article from Stewart Rhodes
> 
> Note:
> 
> **RALLY FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT!   This Thursday, October 14, Dover, NH*
>  We will be holding a rally in support of  the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be  held this Thursday, October 14, at the Rochester Family Division Court,  259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016.  I (Stewart Rhodes) will be there, and I am  calling on all Oath Keepers, all who “associate” with us, and on all  other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to  be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process  rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also  to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free  from persecution, for ALL Americans.  I will post more details later  today.   Please join us!


thanks for the update.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This is how all such petitions are done.  The same goes for a restraining order.


And there's an entirely different, but related subject. Gun ownership is commonly listed on restraining orders.

----------


## ericsnow

Lol at the ignorant deniers at the randi/JREF forums - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...75#post6429675

----------


## tropicangela

Link to copies of redacted affidavit.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...&id=1086982051

----------


## Deborah K

> And there's an entirely different, but related subject. Gun ownership is commonly listed on restraining orders.


No $#@!??

----------


## tropicangela

> Link to copies of redacted affidavit.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...&id=1086982051


"Child shall receive medical treatment which may be deemed necessary by DCYF" = vaccinations if parents opted out.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No $#@!??


So I've heard. No personal experience! One guy told me his wife sprung divorce papers and a restraining order on him at the same time. She later admitted to him that "she didn't know how he would take the divorce papers, and her lawyer recommended the restraining order". The restraining order was based on nothing more than "he might get mad" (no history of violence at all), "fear for safety" and that he owned guns.

Remember Chris Simcox? They can take away your Second Amendment rights with very little due process...(once again, maybe he's not the best example, don't know).

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...der-of-the.php

----------


## pcosmar

Anyone curious about the Father David Taylor.
He has a FB.
http://www.facebook.com/freebabychey...?id=1149087441



> Giving away free dildos so you all can go $#@! yourselves XD

----------


## Deborah K

> So I've heard. No personal experience! One guy told me his wife sprung divorce papers and a restraining order on him at the same time. She later admitted to him that "she didn't know how he would take the divorce papers, and her lawyer recommended the restraining order". The restraining order was based on nothing more than "he might get mad" (no history of violence at all), "fear for safety" and that he owned guns.
> 
> Remember Chris Simcox? They can take away your Second Amendment rights with very little due process...(once again, maybe he's not the best example, don't know).
> 
> http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...der-of-the.php


Chris has been unjustly vilified imo, although he's no saint.  None of us are.  I know I'm not.   

I believe restraining orders are a matter of common practice with divorce proceedings but never knew that weapons were listed.  Such BS!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Anyone curious about the Father David Taylor.
> He has a FB.
> http://www.facebook.com/freebabychey...?id=1149087441

----------


## pcosmar

> 


Fills out a bit more of the picture.
His post here.



> *David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor*  Even though I hate both John and my Ex-wife, I do think its $#@!ed up how the state went about this bull$#@!.


http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

----------


## specsaregood

> Fills out a bit more of the picture.
> His post here.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne


So does this:




> David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor:
> lol so glad its not my kid XD, and *im so glad she dont have custody of our kids*
> 
> Andrea Barton 
> She isn't likely to. *She screwed that up with David's children*. I hated that wench from the word go and I still do.

----------


## moostraks

> It also needs to be pushed into the light. Media coverage.
> This is only one of thousands of stories Thousands of families all across the country.
> Nearly everyone has had some experience with this $#@!, or knows somebody that did.
> 
> Get this into conversation and spotlighted on the news.
> Then Gang Jump it. 
> 1st amendment. Oathkeepers have that.
> 2nd amendment, Need GOA and JPFO 
> 
> ...


Hey Pete another conflict of interest is the psych industry tied to them. They are corrupt to the bones as well. They operate as an independent agency but you will find only specific offices having the case load. Cases are referred with prejudice towards the assumption of what occurred based on allegations. In the area of Ohio that I am in there is only one juvenile psych hospital available for a large area and the families are cross related in both service departments.

----------


## phill4paul

Just had a weekend without internet and this has been in my mind the whole time. I expected it to be all over the news by now. 
  Looks like I have some catching up to do.

----------


## pcosmar

> Hey Pete another conflict of interest is the psych industry tied to them. They are corrupt to the bones as well. They operate as an independent agency but you will find only specific offices having the case load. Cases are referred with prejudice towards the assumption of what occurred based on allegations. In the area of Ohio that I am in there is only one juvenile psych hospital available for a large area and the families are cross related in both service departments.


That is true. And that all ties to the 2nd Amendment issues.
There are a great many issues in this one case. Several rights are violated.
Numerous agencies . And political connections too.
I hope the scrutiny shakes out whistle blowers, or at least snitches. CYA can be great incentive to finally do the right thing.

----------


## Bern

Read a bit on Mr. Taylor's FB.  Seems like he's consumed with anger and spite.  Divorce is such a destructive endeavor (for all involved).

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> So does this:


Time for the Jerry Springer show?

----------


## ericsnow

> Just had a weekend without internet and this has been in my mind the whole time. I expected it to be all over the news by now. 
>   Looks like I have some catching up to do.


It is all over the news... theblaze.com (Beck's site) and drudgereport are reporting on it.

----------


## tropicangela

> Read a bit on Mr. Taylor's FB.  Seems like he's consumed with anger and spite.  Divorce is such a destructive endeavor (for all involved).


He finds it comical that he's listed as the legal father of Irish's biological baby as I do.

----------


## tropicangela

> He finds it comical that he's listed as the legal father of Irish's biological baby as I do.


This might have been discussed already, but earlier in the morning, before they removed the baby, the hospital wouldn't put the father's name on the birth certificate.

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Story Part 1

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Story Part 2

----------


## pcosmar

Video up,

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Story Part 1

Beat me

----------


## phill4paul

If people are waiting for a clear cut scenario to act on it will never happen. Ever.

  There will be too many obfuscations, he said/she said hearsay and deliberate CYA half truths.

  At the very least, in this instance, there is simply the inclusion of an association in the affidavit that is being used as causal for government intervention.

 If THAT in and of itself, after the MIAC report, does not cause EVERY member of RPFs to be up in arms and supportive of the OK actions to get to the bottom of how and why this information would even be included then I don't know what ever will.

  Until, someone has their child taken away or are accused of insurrection by the state because of their posting history on RPFs. And even then I'm sure there will be those that say..."Yeah, I always wondered about that poster."

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Video up,
> 
> YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Story Part 1
> 
> Beat me



Aha! Google is the culprit! Go to 4:20 in the video.

----------


## tropicangela

> Aha! Google is the culprit! Go to 4:20 in the video.


Dumbass caseworker Googled Irish and his Facebook page (with Oath Keepers association) came up.  Of course.  And then she called it a militia and gave it negative connotation for listing it along with *scary* weapons.  Terrible investigative skills Ms. Caseworker.  WTG.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Stewart Rhodes on Alex Jones right now (1540 hrs. EDT) confirming that the state *did,* in fact, use his association with OKs as reason for taking the child. 

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/

*Full copy* of all the legal documents at the above link.

Protest scheduled for 14 October at Rochester Family Court House, Dover NH.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Every time a political association is cited as being among the reasons for seizure of custody, it will become more acceptable to cite political associations as a more primary cause, until we get to the point where political associations will one day become the sole justification for stealing someone's children.

Citing a political affiliation as just cause to bring the guns of the State into play and to break up families through the physical custody of human beings is a line that cannot be crossed without response or protest.  I'll stand with the OK, for political success or failure.  This is just another creeping increment towards the destruction of liberty and the freedom movement.

It is time to put a definitive stop to these incremental creepers.

----------


## phill4paul

> Every time a political association is cited as being among the reasons for seizure of custody, it will become more acceptable to cite political associations as a more primary cause, until we get to the point where political associations will one day become the sole justification for stealing someone's children.
> 
> Citing a political affiliation as just cause to bring the guns of the State into play and to break up families through the physical custody of human beings is a line that cannot be crossed without response or protest.  I'll stand with the OK, for political success or failure.  This is just another creeping increment towards the destruction of liberty and the freedom movement.
> 
> It is time to put a definitive stop to these incremental creepers.


  ^^^.

  It doesn't even matter if the SPLC was directly involved or not.
  It is this atmosphere that they have created by being a part of the fusion centers and directly influencing all "law-enforcement" that incite this kind of behavior.
  I know all to well the ramifications of allegations that lead to this kind of child seizure.
  When I was stationed at Yokosuka, Japan an E-6 that I knew had just returned from shopping. He was playing with his two kids. Putting them in the trunk of his car then letting them out. A jogger saw him doing this and without investigating the situation further made an anonymous tip to the SP. 
  Result. Child seizure and over a year to get them back. Phych evals, counseling, the whole works.
  Simply for playing with his kids. And I can tell you if you spent twenty minutes in a room with this man and his children it was readily apparent that there was NO abuse going on. Children simply do not DOTE on an individual that abuses them.
  So no it is absolutely not acceptable to add political affiliation unto a system that is already proven to abuse its authority.

----------


## Philhelm

This reminds me of Charles Dyer, aka July4Patriot on YouTube.  He had been charged with having stolen and possessing a military grenade launcher, as well as for molesting his daughter.  It's pretty clear that there is a political agenda, in which those who speak out against government are being systematically targetted.

The reality, is that the government cannot possibly hope to round up every person that would uphold the Constitution.  However, strategic victims, be it those who have a following, or organizations that present a challenge to government authority, can send a message to the rest.  The "charge" of being associated with the Oath Keepers wasn't to attack Irish, but to attack the Oath Keepers.  Join them and you too may have your children taken.

----------


## squarepusher

*David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor*  So appearently, according to the legal system, I appearently have a daughter.... but its a $#@!ing morons kid, but legally due to the fact me and my ex are still married I get to have that on my $#@!.... wtf man... and the sick thing is that people are sending those two $#@! ups money!


lmao this guy's great

*David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor* OMFG MY JUST BECAME AMAZING! MY EX WIFE GOT HER KID TAKEN AWAY AND ITS ON THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP ON YOUTUBE, $#@! IT HERES THE LINK!!!! $#@! YES!!!

YouTube - John Irish & Stephanie Taylor: New Hampshire State "Thugs" Snatch Newborn Over Political Beliefs 1/3

----------


## Anti Federalist

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/

Dana Bickford is the "agent" of DCYF that signed the order.

Based on the signature and handwriting, I'd guess she was 19 years old.

Here is her public domain email and phone number

BICKFORD , DANA  J.  	

HHS:CHILDREN AND YOUTH    	
ROCHESTER DO    	
CPSW TR    	
(603) 332-9120
dbickford@dhhs.state.nh.us 

http://admin.state.nh.us/directory/p...DREN+AND+YOUTH

----------


## tropicangela

> *David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor*  So appearently, according to the legal system, I appearently have a daughter.... but its a $#@!ing morons kid, but legally due to the fact me and my ex are still married I get to have that on my $#@!.... wtf man... and the sick thing is that people are sending those two $#@! ups money!


He said this on the Free Baby Cheyenne Facebook Page:




> *David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor* Even though I hate both John and my Ex-wife, I do think its $#@!ed up how the state went about this bull$#@!.
> 4 hours ago


People are telling him to work with John & Stephanie to get her back and sign the divorce papers.

----------


## moostraks

> This reminds me of Charles Dyer, aka July4Patriot on YouTube.  He had been charged with having stolen and possessing a military grenade launcher, as well as for molesting his daughter.  It's pretty clear that there is a political agenda, in which those who speak out against government are being systematically targetted.
> 
> The reality, is that the government cannot possibly hope to round up every person that would uphold the Constitution.  However, strategic victims, be it those who have a following, or organizations that present a challenge to government authority, can send a message to the rest.  The "charge" of being associated with the Oath Keepers wasn't to attack Irish, but to attack the Oath Keepers.  Join them and you too may have your children taken.


Fairly effective if you ask me. Especially for those of us who have been cannon fodder for social services before. I know until my youngest is 18 I am not going to give them much ammunition if I can help it.

----------


## phill4paul

> This reminds me of Charles Dyer, aka July4Patriot on YouTube.  He had been charged with having stolen and possessing a military grenade launcher, as well as for molesting his daughter.  It's pretty clear that there is a political agenda, in which those who speak out against government are being systematically targetted.
> 
> The reality, is that the government cannot possibly hope to round up every person that would uphold the Constitution.  However, strategic victims, be it those who have a following, or organizations that present a challenge to government authority, can send a message to the rest.  The "charge" of being associated with the Oath Keepers wasn't to attack Irish, but to attack the Oath Keepers.  Join them and you too may have your children taken.


  ^^^ and this.

  There is a systemic approach to those that would defy authority now.

  Defy the cops. Get dead. Cop gets vacation then exoneration. Dead men tell no tales.

  Defy the government. Get slandered and excoriated by the media. I have yet to see that the Hutaree were an "imminent threat." Or that Mr. Irish was either. They are sending a message.

  And the best way to do that is by citing accusations that appeal to the baser of human instincts. With the Hutarre it was fear for self because of terrorists events on 9/11 and then a word association of "homegrown terrorism" when there has been none. With Irish it is the worst of worst. Child endangerment.

----------


## specsaregood

> Based on the signature and handwriting, I'd guess she was 19 years old.
> Here is her public domain email and phone number
> BICKFORD , DANA  J.


This looks like an interesting myspace profile....

http://www.myspace.com/danajeannette

Female 
28 years old 
New Hampshire 
United States

----------


## Deborah K

> He said this on the Free Baby Cheyenne Facebook Page:
> 
> 
> 
> People are telling him to work with John & Stephanie to get her back and sign the divorce papers.


Wow. This is getting really sordid now.  Yuk.

----------


## Bern

> ...
> Dana Bickford is the "agent" of DCYF that signed the order.
> ...
> Here is her public domain email and phone number
> ...


I sent her a polite and respectful email asking what purpose was served in mentioning the Oath Keepers and why she characterized them as a militia.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This looks like an interesting myspace profile....
> 
> http://www.myspace.com/danajeannette
> 
> Female 
> 28 years old 
> New Hampshire 
> United States


I'll bet the response would be:

"I was following orders. I was just doing my job."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I sent her a polite and respectful email asking what purpose was served in mentioning the Oath Keepers and why she characterized them as a militia.


Be interesting if you get a reply.

I sent the same sort of thing myself.

----------


## specsaregood

> "I was following orders. I was just doing my job."


If that is her picture and I think it might, perhaps she has a drinking problem, just look at the empty bottle and more filled cups!  Perhaps she needs to be reported.   not a good home life for potential children to have an alcoholic parent ya know.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wow. This is getting really sordid now.  Yuk.


The ex has been wheezing and bitching since all of this started.

Some of his comments are posted in this thread.

Would not be surprised to find out he was the "bad guy" in all of this.

----------


## moostraks

> ^^^ and this.
> 
>   There is a systemic approach to those that would defy authority now.
> 
>   Defy the cops. Get dead. Cop gets vacation then exoneration. Dead men tell no tales.
> 
>   Defy the government. Get slandered and excoriated by the media. I have yet to see that the Hutaree were an "imminent threat." Or that Mr. Irish was either. They are sending a message.
> 
>   And the best way to do that is by citing accusations that appeal to the baser of human instincts. With the Hutarre it was fear for self because of terrorists events on 9/11 and then a word association of "homegrown terrorism" when there has been none. With Irish it is the worst of worst. Child endangerment.


They used the same thing for so called "religious extremists". We were harassed because we homeschool and were "different"(see not mainstreaming our children). My daughter wanted tight, low rise jeans and cable television. So in the affidavit these were actually cited as neglect issues. They took custody and gave her everything she wanted. A television in her own room with cable, and they took her shopping every few weeks because she was always causing problems in foster care and wanting more. In Alabama that was effective...

When we moved to Ohio they wanted psych cases so she learned what they wanted and fed them the new story. For about 2 years we were put through hell here trying to get someone to see what was going on. It takes time and the destruction that occurs based upon the interference is irreparable. What social services has is a rapport in the court system and the family is generally strangers to the court so the word of the department is taken as gospel. 

Seems to me that the exploit the weaknesses based upon what they feel will get traction with the local judge. The individual reward is to get bonuses and advancements. The systems reward is kickbacks from the federal government. the judges are usually ignorant whether willfully or not....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If that is her picture and I think it might, perhaps she has a drinking problem, just look at the empty bottle and more filled cups!  Perhaps she needs to be reported.   not a good home life for potential children to have an alcoholic parent ya know.


You're right.

And drinking leads to drug use, we all know that, so maybe a mandatory work piss test is in order as well.

----------


## moostraks

> I sent her a polite and respectful email asking what purpose was served in mentioning the Oath Keepers and why she characterized them as a militia.


Bet money she is anti gun and thinks that her description is accurate. The intake is so subjective as to what is described you would be amazed...

Was told by attorney that does family court most judges don't even really question initial intake (request for 30 day hearing, initial seizure of child) as it is taken as necessary since they took the time to request,kwim???

----------


## Deborah K

> They used the same thing for so called "religious extremists". We were harassed because we homeschool and were "different"(see not mainstreaming our children). My daughter wanted tight, low rise jeans and cable television. So in the affidavit these were actually cited as neglect issues. They took custody and gave her everything she wanted. A television in her own room with cable, and they took her shopping every few weeks because she was always causing problems in foster care and wanting more. In Alabama that was effective...
> 
> When we moved to Ohio they wanted psych cases so she learned what they wanted and fed them the new story. For about 2 years we were put through hell here trying to get someone to see what was going on. It takes time and the destruction that occurs based upon the interference is irreparable. What social services has is a rapport in the court system and the family is generally strangers to the court so the word of the department is taken as gospel. 
> 
> Seems to me that the exploit the weaknesses based upon what they feel will get traction with the local judge. The individual reward is to get bonuses and advancements. The systems reward is kickbacks from the federal government. the judges are usually ignorant whether willfully or not....


So sorry you went through that.

----------


## Philhelm

> Be interesting if you get a reply.
> 
> I sent the same sort of thing myself.


The only reply you guys might get is a No Fly List certificate.  It's not like this bitch really gives a $#@! about the implications of "just doing her job."

----------


## Deborah K

> "I was following orders. I was just doing my job."


So adding an association to a group as a reason to remove a child is legal????  And who told her to put it in there if she was just obeying orders??

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So adding an association to a group as a reason to remove a child is legal????  And who told her to put it in there if she was just obeying orders??


No, it is not legal under NH law.

That would be a good question.

BTW, I don't *know* that she said that, I'm just guessing that will be her response.

----------


## specsaregood

> You're right.
> 
> And drinking leads to drug use, we all know that, so maybe a mandatory work piss test is in order as well.


Yes, she certainly does look like she could be on drugs, eh?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...p?id=508830182

----------


## pcosmar

> So adding an association to a group as a reason to remove a child is legal????  And who told her to put it in there if she was just obeying orders??


Well If her SPLC training could be exposed it may go to showing a connection.

----------


## moostraks

> So adding an association to a group as a reason to remove a child is legal????  And who told her to put it in there if she was just obeying orders??


I know AF is just guessing but it is a typical manner they deflect responsibility. The way it seems to work,in our experience, is you have 1-2 workers that investigate then they go and discuss it with their boss who has a team decision as to how best to handle the situation. Then when shtf they all start blaming it on someone else.

----------


## phill4paul

> They used the same thing for so called "religious extremists". We were harassed because we homeschool and were "different"(see not mainstreaming our children). My daughter wanted tight, low rise jeans and cable television. So in the affidavit these were actually cited as neglect issues. They took custody and gave her everything she wanted. A television in her own room with cable, and they took her shopping every few weeks because she was always causing problems in foster care and wanting more. In Alabama that was effective...
> 
> When we moved to Ohio they wanted psych cases so she learned what they wanted and fed them the new story. For about 2 years we were put through hell here trying to get someone to see what was going on. It takes time and the destruction that occurs based upon the interference is irreparable. What social services has is a rapport in the court system and the family is generally strangers to the court so the word of the department is taken as gospel. 
> 
> Seems to me that the exploit the weaknesses based upon what they feel will get traction with the local judge. The individual reward is to get bonuses and advancements. The systems reward is kickbacks from the federal government. the judges are usually ignorant whether willfully or not....


  I understand fully. I've experienced these situations through people I have known. I am sure that you have to live between walking a thin line and speaking the truth while raising your children. Much the shame.

----------


## Deborah K

> I heard his story on Alex Jones today and I was shocked.  You could have peeled me off the ceiling I was so fired up.


Welcome Nevster.

----------


## aravoth

What do we know about the reporting process of as it pertains to New Hampshire child abuse laws?

And most importantly... is there a clause that makes any person who report suspected abuse to the state free of criminal charge if the report is false?

----------


## ericsnow

How many people are expected to be at the rally on the 14th?

----------


## phill4paul

> What do we know about the reporting process of as it pertains to New Hampshire child abuse laws?
> 
> And most importantly... is there a clause that makes any person who report suspected abuse to the state free of criminal charge if the report is false?


  I don't know about NH but in NC any information can be given anonymously to police.

  I am so against this that I could explode.

  It is said that every man has a right to face his accusers. Yet in many incidents the only recourse is to face the LE authorities as the true accusers remain faceless.

  IMHO if anonymous tipsters could be faced with slander charges then there would be a whole lot less of vindictive and warrantless accusations.

----------


## Deborah K

And the fact that anyone can say anything anonymously violates your right to face your accuser.  Such BS!

----------


## DadaOrwell

Officer used force to quell recording, says "Oath Keeper Baby's" mom

YouTube - Officer used force to quell recording, says "Oath Keeper Baby's" mom

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Dana Bickford is the "agent" of DCYF that signed the order.
> 
> Based on the signature and handwriting, I'd guess she was 19 years old.


Lol! My thought too... 

Even the Judge can't print his name legibly.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor*  So appearently, according to the legal system, I appearently have a daughter.... but its a $#@!ing morons kid, but legally due to the fact me and my ex are still married I get to have that on my $#@!.... wtf man... and the sick thing is that people are sending those two $#@! ups money!
> 
> lmao this guy's great
> 
> *David-Micheal Lawrence Taylor* OMFG MY JUST BECAME AMAZING! MY EX WIFE GOT HER KID TAKEN AWAY AND ITS ON THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP ON YOUTUBE, $#@! IT HERES THE LINK!!!! $#@! YES!!!


And this is the father of the first two children? There is only one appropriate response to this: 

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution

----------


## Brian4Liberty

And one of his "likes" on Facebook is "money"...

YouTube - Idiocracy "I like money"

----------


## Jcambeis

> And one of his "likes" on Facebook is "money"...
> 
> YouTube - Idiocracy "I like money"


Why is his character under question but not his wife's or Irish's

----------


## pcosmar

> Why is his character under question but not his wife's or Irish's


Why any of them?
*Character Assassination*
That is the only purpose of it.
Forget about all the civil rights being trampled and focus on minor personal flaws.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Why any of them?
> *Character Assassination*
> That is the only purpose of it.
> Forget about all the civil rights being trampled and focus on minor personal flaws.


The civil rights issues should be preeminent but once you make your self a public figure, make your situation public knowledge and donations in your name are requested IMO you invite a certain level of personal critique. 

Everyone is going to have a different take on this case. Some people are challanging the authority of the State to protect the civil liberties of the baby. 

Some people think the state should protect the child's civil liberties 

Some people think Oath Keepers is under attack, Other people think a person mentioning a group  in an affidavit is of no consequence unless the judge used that specific mention to make his decision. 

My personal opinion has been continuously evolving. I have previously not given much thought to how children should be handled in free society. I have been reading a lot of different opinions but I have to find or form one that is logically consistent and  non contradictory.  

This a hot topic with strong emotions 

I am no longer convinced mentioning OK on the affidavit is unconstitutional. I arrived at that conclusion after much reading on different legal websites and speaking to a criminal attorney friend. My understanding is that an affidavit is a written statement given under oath under oath about things a person believes to be true and relevant. 
If that is a definition of an affidavit then almost nothing a person can put in an affidavit can be considered unconstitutional, unless the affidavit was acquired by corrosive force.  
If the judge uses, or receives testimony about OK during the court hearing, that is a different story.

I should add, that because I doubt the social worker who wrote the affidavit is a moron she likely put it in their knowingly. Her doing a slimy piece of crap thing is different from her doing an unconstitutional thing   

I reserve the right to wrong and have my opinion changed by either external or internal arguments

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why is his character under question but not his wife's or Irish's


And why are you trolling this forum and the Free Baby Cheyenne FB page as well?




> Jeff Cambeis Shoot I thought this FB page was about freeing the baby from crazy parents





> Jeff Cambeis Is that why they were on the government tit? the state is their mother and father? When you on the government and expect milk, dont cry when you get a spanking





> Jeff Cambeis I am willing to kill for a new born child's rights.


http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

You've come to the wrong place and taken a wrong turn on the intertubes if you're thinking the state is going to get the benefit of the doubt and not the parents around here.

STFU and GTFO

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I should add, that because I doubt the social worker who wrote the affidavit is a moron she likely put it in their knowingly. Her doing a slimy piece of crap thing is different from her doing an unconstitutional thing


*
While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.*

----------


## Jcambeis

> *
> While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.*


There is no evidence that happened

----------


## Anti Federalist

> There is no evidence that happened


So it's your contention that the document affirming the reasons for the child's removal, listing, among other things, an association with OathKeepers is forgery?

----------


## pcosmar

> The civil rights issues should be preeminent but once you make your self a public figure, make your situation public knowledge and donations in your name are requested IMO you invite a certain level of personal critique. 
> 
> Everyone is going to have a different take on this case. Some people are challanging the authority of the State to protect the civil liberties of the baby. 
> 
> Some people think the state should protect the child's civil liberties 
> 
> Some people think Oath Keepers is under attack, Other people think a person mentioning a group  in an affidavit is of no consequence unless the judge used that specific mention to make his decision. 
> 
> My personal opinion has been continuously evolving. I have previously not given much thought to how children should be handled in free society. I have been reading a lot of different opinions but I have to find or form one that is logically consistent and  non contradictory.  
> ...


Do you have any Idea what you are talking about or to who?
This was the issue that brought me.




> I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
> It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
> there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
> btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun. 
> 
> And I have years of personal experience.
> The same corrupt system is here.
> The county persecutor is Brian Peppler. His wife runs the other side.
> http://www.dprcenter.org/
> ...


I do know what is going on.

----------


## Jcambeis

> So it's your contention that the document affirming the reasons for the child's removal, listing, among other things, an association with OathKeepers is forgery?


hypothetical
If my neighbor has people trapped in his basement and I call the police to check it out. The police request I write an affidavit to the judge so they can get a warrant. In the written affidavit if I include, among the pages of reason why I believe such, that he is a member of the cult known as the Jehovah's witness that would not mean the affidavit is unconstitutional. It does not mean I am unconstitutional.  It means only that part of the affidavit where I name his church and call it a cult is irrelevant.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I am no longer convinced mentioning OK on the affidavit is unconstitutional. I arrived at that conclusion after much reading on different legal websites and speaking to a criminal attorney friend. My understanding is that an affidavit is a written statement given under oath under oath about things a person believes to be true and relevant. 
> If that is a definition of an affidavit then almost nothing a person can put in an affidavit can be considered unconstitutional, unless the affidavit was acquired by corrosive force.


If the LAW (aka We The People via constitution, not STATUE or CODE aka legislated or regulated) expressly delegate (federal constitution) a thing to be lawful or expressly prohibit (state constitution) a thing from government jurisdiction a person can not reasonably believe doing something that is LAWFUL is a crime.  Ignorance of the LAW is not an excuse.  Especially if you are a public servant.

Therefore...

Government has not been delegated any authority to criminalize lawful political association and no reasonable person can believe a lawful political association is a crime.  Especially a public servant.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> hypothetical
> If my neighbor has people trapped in his basement and I call the police to check it out. The police request I write an affidavit to the judge so they can get a warrant. In the written affidavit if I include, among the pages of reason why I believe such, that he is a member of the cult known as the Jehovah's witness that would not mean the affidavit is unconstitutional. It does not mean I am unconstitutional.  It means only that part of the affidavit where I name his church and call it a cult is irrelevant.


If you cause injury to another party you are responsible for your actions.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

----------


## pcosmar

> hypothetical
> If my neighbor has people trapped in his basement and I call the police to check it out. The police request I write an affidavit to the judge so they can get a warrant. In the written affidavit if I include, among the pages of reason why I believe such, that he is a member of the cult known as the Jehovah's witness that would not mean the affidavit is unconstitutional. It does not mean I am unconstitutional.  It means only that part of the affidavit where I name his church and call it a cult is irrelevant.


Why would you call the police?

Why don't you find out if they want to be there first. 
Why not talk to your neighbor and see if he knows there are people in his basement.

If you believe they need to be out why don't you do it?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> hypothetical
> If my neighbor has people trapped in his basement and I call the police to check it out. The police request I write an affidavit to the judge so they can get a warrant. In the written affidavit if I include, among the pages of reason why I believe such, that he is a member of the cult known as the Jehovah's witness that would not mean the affidavit is unconstitutional. It does not mean I am unconstitutional.  It means only that part of the affidavit where I name his church and call it a cult is irrelevant.


Yes, it is *not* relevant, and if action is taken, (and it was, the child *was* seized) in NH at least, based on that irrelevant and erroneous assertion, it is a violation of state law.

I'll have the RSA citation shortly.

Therefore, any mention of Oathkeepers should be immediately removed from the public record, an apology issued, and a complete re-evaluation of the facts of this case needs to be done.

In the meantime, if the state wishes to pursue that, the child needs to be returned to the parents.

To even *think* about listing a parent's association with a legal and lawful political action group on an official state document and seizure order, sets an incredbily bold and dangerous precedent that cannot be tolerated, ever, for any reason, period.

----------


## Jcambeis

> If you cause injury to another party you are responsible for your actions.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.


No because the judge sings off on it. I would be responsible only if knowingly lied.  If the evidence is inadmissible than it is inadmissible and the judge does not use it forming his opinion. Every Joe on the street is not a constitutional scholar, or able to determine what is legally relevant. that is why we have courts and why the supreme court has more than one judge 

It is interesting that you put the burden on the person making the affidavit. This goes back to my point about child law. If a child is in an abused home and signs an affidavit against his parents if harm came would he also be responsible?

----------


## Instant-K9

> If the LAW (aka We The People via constitution, not STATUE or CODE aka legislated or regulated) expressly delegate (federal constitution) a thing to be lawful or expressly prohibit (state constitution) a thing from government jurisdiction a person can not reasonably believe doing something that is LAWFUL is a crime.  Ignorance of the LAW is not an excuse.  Especially if you are a public servant.
> 
> Therefore...
> 
> Government has not been delegated any authority to criminalize lawful political association and no reasonable person can believe a lawful political association is a crime.  Especially a public servant.


No where in that affidavit did the case worker state belonging to OK is a crime.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Yes, it is *not* relevant, and if action is taken, (and it was, the child *was* seized) in NH at least, based on that irrelevant and erroneous assertion, it is a violation of state law.
> 
> I'll have the RSA citation shortly.
> 
> Therefore, any mention of Oathkeepers should be immediately removed from the public record, an apology issued, and a complete re-evaluation of the facts of this case needs to be done.
> 
> In the meantime, if the state wishes to pursue that, the child needs to be returned to the parents.
> 
> To even *think* about listing a parent's association with a legal and lawful political action group on an official state document and seizure order, sets an incredbily bold and dangerous precedent that cannot be tolerated, ever, for any reason, period.


The affidavit is public record it cant be edited or withdrawn. it is a stament on what the FILER claimed to believe true and relevant at that moment in time it was signed

----------


## Jcambeis

> No where in that affidavit did the case worker state belonging to OK is a crime.


that was my next question. Why it is assumed being in a militia is bad thing. Where the Minute men bad people?

----------


## pcosmar

> No where in that affidavit did the case worker state belonging to OK is a crime.


Thank you for your input.
Worthless as it is.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If the evidence is inadmissible than it is inadmissible and the judge does not use it forming his opinion.


The judge, or in this case the court clerk acting in the role of the judge did sign off on it.

The Clerk's name is LoriAnne Dionne.

And *real* people got their *real* child taken away from them based, to some degree, on that.

WTF are you trying to prove?

----------


## pcosmar

> that was my next question. Why it is assumed being in a militia is bad thing. Where the Minute men bad people?


It's in the SPLC training programs. They will get to that..

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thank you for your input.
> Worthless as it is.


WTF, word go out to the cop shops to get online?

----------


## Jcambeis

> The judge, or in this case the court clerk acting in the role of the judge did sign off on it.
> 
> The Clerk's name is LoriAnne Dionne.
> 
> And *real* people got their *real* child taken away from them based, to some degree, on that.
> 
> WTF are you trying to prove?


I am not trying to "prove" anything.
your above statement is false

----------


## pcosmar

> WTF, word go out to the cop shops to get online?


Been felling like a bar fight in here lately.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Do you have any Idea what you are talking about or to who?
> This was the issue that brought me.
> 
> 
> 
> I do know what is going on.


Did you happen to see this part of the Affidavit?

5) (con't from preceding page) ... *involuntarily admitted to Concord Hospital. Ms. Taylor dropped her restraining order against Mr. Irish* less than two weeks later.

6)* Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW Court on August 24, 2009, that she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and had left him.
*
Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. Another safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were involved.

*On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him.*

The Division became aware that Mr. Irish and Ms. Taylor were again living together shortly after the incident occurred."

My sources tell me Irish was not allowed to own weapons due to the other weapons charges and his domestic violence charges.

Sure would be nice if we could see the other redacted parts.

----------


## KCIndy

On something like this, it's a no brainer that the "Powers That Be" will be watching these forums very closely.

Personally, I really EXPECT to see a lot of agitators jump on board right about now.  Just be careful not to give 'em anything they can use...

----------


## pcosmar

> Did you happen to see this part of the Affidavit?
> .


And your point is (moot)
As in you have none.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/
Since you claim to be able to read. Read it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am not trying to "prove" anything.
> your above statement is false


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/

The entire document is posted at the above site.

Page 7 is the section that mentions the Oathkeepers.

This statement was given by the case worker, Dana J. Bickford.

It was countersigned by the regional clerk of the court, LoriAnne Dionne.

She also signed every page of the seizure order.

What is not being understood here? It was a seizure order based on the sworn affidavit of Bickford, signed off by an officer of the court, Dionne.

----------


## pcosmar

> On something like this, it's a no brainer that the "Powers That Be" will be watching these forums very closely.
> 
> Personally, I really EXPECT to see a lot of agitators jump on board right about now.  Just be careful not to give 'em anything they can use...


Ya can't expect this beast to die without a fight. Expect more as it feels pain.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Of no relevance whatsoever.

The only relevant point at this juncture is that an association with a legal and lawful political action group was listed in an official child seizure order as one of the reasons for that seizure.




> Did you happen to see this part of the Affidavit?
> 
> 5) (con't from preceding page) ... *involuntarily admitted to Concord Hospital. Ms. Taylor dropped her restraining order against Mr. Irish* less than two weeks later.
> 
> 6)* Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW Court on August 24, 2009, that she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and had left him.
> *
> Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. Another safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were involved.
> 
> *On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him.*
> ...

----------


## Instant-K9

> And your point is (moot)
> As in you have none.
> http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/
> Since you claim to be able to read. Read it.


Read it a long time ago - and every post on it in this forum, and the Oath Keepers forum, and the Free Baby Cheyenne page, and about 30 other forums, all the youtubes on it and just about everything there is out there.

This case fascinates me.  I have no personal or professional  stake here other than being a good citizen and libertarian going back to the 80's.  Before most people even knew what libertarian was.

Sorry if I upset your applecart with my presence.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Did you happen to see this part of the Affidavit?
> 
> 5) (con't from preceding page) ... *involuntarily admitted to Concord Hospital. Ms. Taylor dropped her restraining order against Mr. Irish* less than two weeks later.
> 
> 6)* Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW Court on August 24, 2009, that she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and had left him.
> *
> Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. Another safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were involved.
> 
> *On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him.*
> ...


The most important part of the paper work IMHO is the JUVENILE ABUSE / NEGLECT portion Item 4. If a child is to be or has been removed from his/her home:
a) Reasonable efforts  were made by DCYF to prevent the ch!ld(ren)"s
removal from the home of  mother, father as follows: Services
ervices have been ordered through a current open case in Rochester Famitv Division

For what ever reason it appears they refused to deal with their issues from their other children.

----------


## pcosmar

*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*



> Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts.  In this case, they ask whether the parents are guilty, as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents.  If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic?   That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought.  And it will.





> Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary reasons they want, like in some third world junta.   The choice is yours.  I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state on Thursday.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## Instant-K9

> Of no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> The only relevant point at this juncture is that an association with a legal and lawful political action group was listed in an official child seizure order as one of the reasons for that seizure.


I disagree.  

It is relevant - just like the items one through five are relevant on the previous page.  

We don't know what most of those say though, do we?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Of no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> The only relevant point at this juncture is that an association with a legal and lawful political action group was listed in an official child seizure order as one of the reasons for that seizure.


I would agree with you if a judge made his decision on that alone, or in part but alas there is no evidence of that.

----------


## Kylie

> Did you happen to see this part of the Affidavit?
> 
> 5) (con't from preceding page) ... *involuntarily admitted to Concord Hospital. Ms. Taylor dropped her restraining order against Mr. Irish* less than two weeks later.
> 
> 6)* Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW Court on August 24, 2009, that she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and had left him.
> *
> Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. Another safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were involved.
> 
> *On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him.*
> ...




So? 


This is her fault? Or his? 


(Oh wait. That would be THEIR BUSINESS. This is the problem in and of itself. DO NOT GET THE STATE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN YOUR FAMILY. 

But I'm preaching to the choir here. )





Or is the newborn baby's? 


WHOSE FAULT IS IT THAT THE STATE DECIDED THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SEIZE A YET TO BORN CHILD, AGAIN????


$#@!ing noObs. Like we don't know you're a cop. Hello????



We will not quarter you.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sorry if I upset your applecart with my presence.


Good you have been here,, then you would know I don't tolerate bull$#@! very well.

----------


## Jcambeis

> So? 
> 
> 
> This is her fault? Or his? 
> 
> 
> (Oh wait. That would be THEIR BUSINESS. This is the problem in and of itself. DO NOT GET THE STATE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN YOUR FAMILY. 
> 
> But I'm preaching to the choir here. )
> ...


Does the state have a role in protecting natural rights? Do children have natural rights?

----------


## Instant-K9

> The most important part of the paper work IMHO is the JUVENILE ABUSE / NEGLECT portion Item 4. If a child is to be or has been removed from his/her home:
> a) Reasonable efforts  were made by DCYF to prevent the ch!ld(ren)"s
> removal from the home of  mother, father as follows: Services
> ervices have been ordered through a current open case in Rochester Famitv Division
> 
> For what ever reason it appears they refused to deal with their issues from their other children.


It appears that way.

----------


## Instant-K9

> So? 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> $#@!ing noObs. Like we don't know you're a cop. Hello????
> 
> 
> 
> We will not quarter you.



lol.

A cop.  

Funny.

----------


## pcosmar

> It appears that way.


Does it. It appears to me that the state is covering for the real abuser and hanging these kids.

But that is not relevant to the fact that the state is about to get an ass whoopin'

----------


## Instant-K9

Nor do I.

We should get along great.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would agree with you if a judge made his decision on that alone, or in part but alas there is no evidence of that.


OK, I'll troll along.

What in those documents is fake?

The seizure order was based on the sworn affidavit given by Bickford.

Item 7 of the affidavit, *the basis for the seizure order*, listed, in part, association with OathKeepers.

Now, you tell me, what am I missing here?

Or is it your contention that, simply because other items were listed, we should just let this slide?

----------


## pcosmar

> OK, I'll troll along.
> 
> What in those documents is fake?
> 
> The seizure order was based on the sworn affidavit given by Bickford.
> 
> Item 7 of the affidavit, *the basis for the seizure order*, listed, in part, association with OathKeepers.
> 
> Now, you tell me, what am I missing here?


Your not emphasizing Character Assassination enough.

----------


## Instant-K9

> OK, I'll troll along.
> 
> What in those documents is fake?
> 
> The seizure order was based on the sworn affidavit given by Bickford.
> 
> Item 7 of the affidavit, *the basis for the seizure order*, listed, in part, association with OathKeepers.
> 
> Now, you tell me, what am I missing here?
> ...


How about the first six items, four of which have been redacted and YOU, nor I have any idea what's on them.

THAT have any impact on your 'missing' logic?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No where in that affidavit did the case worker state belonging to OK is a crime.





> PETITION FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT
> 
> 7.  Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary)
>         See affidavit filed with Concord Family Court
> 
> Signed 
> Same public servant who signed affidavit


It's pretty obvious where it's stated.

----------


## pcosmar

> How about the first six items, four of which have been redacted and YOU, nor I have any idea what's on them.
> 
> THAT have any impact on your 'missing' logic?


*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*
In large friendly letters so you can read it.
Try to grasp the concept.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's pretty obvious where it's stated.


And by who.
But that gets into the whole credibility issue.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> How about the first six items, four of which have been redacted and YOU, nor I have any idea what's on them.
> 
> THAT have any impact on your 'missing' logic?


Look, what am I not making clear here?

*I don't care if items one through six claim that this couple are the spawn of Beelzebub and skewer cats on their front lawn for fun.*

I Don't Give A $#@!.

I give a $#@! about *Item Number 7* that lists association with a lawful political group as a basis for the state to seize this child from the birth parents.

ETA - that is also a violation of state law.




> While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.

----------


## Instant-K9

> It's pretty obvious where it's stated.


Where?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No because the judge sings off on it. I would be responsible only if knowingly lied.  If the evidence is inadmissible than it is inadmissible and the judge does not use it forming his opinion. Every Joe on the street is not a constitutional scholar, or able to determine what is legally relevant. that is why we have courts and why the supreme court has more than one judge 
> 
> It is interesting that you put the burden on the person making the affidavit. This goes back to my point about child law. If a child is in an abused home and signs an affidavit against his parents if harm came would he also be responsible?


You are responsible for your actions if you injure another party.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and is not a defense recognized by any court in the United States.  Nor would a court hold is it an excuse holding you accountable to your actions injuring another party.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Where?





> PETITION FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT
> 
> 7.  *Details or facts of abuse/neglect* (attach separate sheet if necessary)
> *See affidavit filed with Concord Family Court*
> 
> Signed 
> *Signature of Petitioner - Same public servant who signed affidavit*


Do you not see the page titled PETITION FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT?

----------


## Instant-K9

> Do you not see the page titled PETITION FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT?


No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.


Who ever made that claim?
You really don't read well do you?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.


Obviously I am conversing with some ignoramus who is too ignorant to realize that is the purpose of the petition:




> 169-C:7 Petition. 
>     I. A proceeding under this chapter is originated by any person filing a petition, with a judge or clerk in the judicial district in which the child is found or resides, alleging neglect or abuse of a child.
>     II. The petition shall be entitled ""In the Matter of __________,'' and shall be verified under oath by the petitioner.
> *    III. To be legally sufficient, the petition shall set forth the facts alleged to constitute abuse or neglect, and the statutory grounds upon which the petition is based.*
>     IV. In addition, the petition shall also include, to the extent known:
>        (a) The name, birth date, and address of the child.
>        (b) The name and address of any custodial parent.
>        (c) The name and address of any other individual or agency having custody of the child.
>        (d) The name of any non-custodial parent.
>        (e) The name of any household member who is subject to the order.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.


It's not.

That's what's so outrageous about this case.

One would assume that the state would have to have concrete proof of felony crimes being committed or possibly being committed in the immediate future, as the only basis to seize a child from the birth parents.

Not a very tenuous and ephemeral association with lawful political action group.

----------


## Jcambeis

Can anyone name a case where the contents of affidavit was deemed unconstitutional

----------


## Kylie

> Does the state have a role in protecting natural rights? Do children have natural rights?


And what rights are being neglected BY THE STATE when they allow this child to suckle her mother's tit? 



NONE. THAT'S HOW MANY. 

$#@!ING NONE. 

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY A BABY FROM HER MOTHER. Even CONVICTED felons have the right to bond and nurse their children. 


But not this mother. 


And that, among many other things, is what is $#@!ed with this case.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Obviously I am conversing with some ignoramus who is too ignorant to realize that is the purpose of the petition:


Boys, you do realize we're being trolled, right?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Obviously I am conversing with some ignoramus who is too ignorant to realize that is the purpose of the petition:


Key words alleged

----------


## Kylie

> Boys, you do realize we're being trolled, right?




Can't help myself, dammit

----------


## Jcambeis

> And what rights are being neglected BY THE STATE when they allow this child to suckle her mother's tit? 
> 
> 
> 
> NONE. THAT'S HOW MANY. 
> 
> $#@!ING NONE. 
> 
> YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY A BABY FROM HER MOTHER. Even CONVICTED felons have the right to bond and nurse their children. 
> ...


What rights does the state neglect when a defenseless child with no choice is sent home with abusive parents?
The mom is now allowed to be with the child, under supervision

----------


## pcosmar

> Boys, you do realize we're being trolled, right?


Does this mean I can't poke it with sticks.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Can anyone name a case where the contents of affidavit was deemed unconstitutional


Sure.

_DC v. Heller._

The city filed numerous affidavits in the process of trying that case, making numerous assumptions about the constitutionality of the city's gun laws.

Those sworn statements were thrown out and the argument rejected as unconstitutional.

----------


## Jcambeis

> No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.


I dont think they like K9's maybe if you were a sheep of the Alex Jones flock and just said  Baaaaa instead of questioning the questioners

----------


## Anti Federalist

> does this mean i can't poke it with sticks.


rofl

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Can anyone name a case where the contents of affidavit was deemed unconstitutional


How about if I help you formulate a proper question.

Can anyone name a case where a party was injured by false arrest and redress was obtained in the court?

----------


## Instant-K9

> Who ever made that claim?
> You really don't read well do you?





> If the LAW (aka We The People via constitution, not STATUE or CODE aka legislated or regulated) expressly delegate (federal constitution) a thing to be lawful or expressly prohibit (state constitution) a thing from government jurisdiction a person can not reasonably believe doing *something that is LAWFUL is a crime.*  Ignorance of the LAW is not an excuse.  Especially if you are a public servant.
> 
> Therefore...
> *
> Government has not been delegated any authority to criminalize lawful political association and no reasonable person can believe a lawful political association is a crime. * Especially a public servant.


You really don't read well do you?

----------


## KCIndy

> Boys, you do realize we're being trolled, right?


*ahem*

*cough cough*

As I said a bit earlier:





> On something like this, it's a no brainer that the "Powers That Be" will be watching these forums very closely.
> 
> Personally, I really EXPECT to see a lot of agitators jump on board right about now.  Just be careful not to give 'em anything they can use...



F*CK yeah, we're being trolled, lol.

Poke 'em with a stick all ya want, just don't bite on the hook.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I dont think they like K9's maybe if you were a sheep of the Alex Jones flock and just said  Baaaaa instead of questioning the questioners


And here come the Ad hominem.

Lolz.

Successful troll is successful.

YouTube - Successful Troll Song

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

If this is the best trolling has to offer they better replace these trolls with some DA's that have some IQ or they are going to look stupid.

----------


## Instant-K9

> And here come the Ad hominem.
> 
> Lolz.
> 
> Successful troll is successful.


You just finished calling me a troll and then you cry waaaaa!  Here come the Ad hominems.

Cute.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You just finished calling me a troll and then you cry waaaaa!  Here come the Ad hominems.
> 
> Cute.


I thought so.

LulZ

----------


## pcosmar

> You really don't read well do you?


No one said it was a crime.
It was included as a reason. And since it is not a crime there is no reason to include it.
But it was included as a reason (one of many) *Allegations*. including an allegation of abuse that after 2 years they have been unable produce any evidence of.
Do you understand
The difference between
Allegation and conviction.

Do you understand?

----------


## Philhelm

> No, I don't see where the case worker states belonging to OK is a crime.


No, it has not been listed as a crime...yet.  This follows since no criminal charges were filed against Irish at this time.  However, by using affiliation with the Oath Keepers and possession of firearms as support for taking the child, it has become a defacto crime.  Rather than imprisonment or a fine as per a normal violation of criminal law, one may run the risk of having their children seized by the state for political affiliations, if this stands.  If Irish had committed acts that made him unfit as a parent, then they should have been strong enough to stand on their own, without using the Oath Keepers and possession of firearms.

Also, this issue needs to be viewed with the larger picture.  With the SPLC officially joining the DHS, and knowing of their crusade against anything remotely right wing, I view these current actions as nothing less than an outright attack by the state, against those who would support the cause of liberty.  If the state can successfully instill fear into those who would support the Oath Keepers, by using such affiliation for the purposes of taking children from their families, then it will be a major loss for the people.

----------


## Philhelm

> Can anyone name a case where the contents of affidavit was deemed unconstitutional


I find using freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and firearm ownership even being mentioned as any grounds for the child to be taken, completely unconstitutional.  CPS should not circumvent the rule of law in order to seize children.

----------


## Jcambeis

> No, it has not been listed as a crime...yet.  This follows since no criminal charges were filed against Irish at this time.  However, by using affiliation with the Oath Keepers and possession of firearms as support for taking the child, it has become a defacto crime.  Rather than imprisonment or a fine as per a normal violation of criminal law, one may run the risk of having their children seized by the state for political affiliations, if this stands.  If Irish had committed acts that made him unfit as a parent, then they should have been strong enough to stand on their own, without using the Oath Keepers and possession of firearms.
> 
> Also, this issue needs to be viewed with the larger picture.  With the SPLC officially joining the DHS, and knowing of their crusade against anything remotely right wing, I view these current actions as nothing less than an outright attack by the state, against those who would support the cause of liberty.  If the state can successfully instill fear into those who would support the Oath Keepers, by using such affiliation for the purposes of taking children from their families, then it will be a major loss for the people.


Agreed, is this a mistake, moral issue or constitutional issue?
I have yet to see a any reference in hundreds of sworn affidavits I have read in the last two days where part of the affidavit made it unconstitutional. I am still looking but I keep coming up empty handed.

----------


## Jcambeis

> If this is the best trolling has to offer they better replace these trolls with some DA's that have some IQ or they are going to look stupid.


Trolling for trolls.....

----------


## pcosmar

> Agreed, is this a mistake, moral issue or constitutional issue?
> I have yet to see a any reference in hundreds of sworn affidavits I have read in the last two days where part of the affidavit made it unconstitutional. I am still looking but I keep coming up empty handed.


Then you might defer to your betters.



> Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status won Yales Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> 169-C:31 Immunity From Liability.  Anyone participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this chapter is immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Any such participant has the same immunity with respect to participation in any investigation by the department or judicial proceeding resulting from such report.


It is pretty hard to be acting in good faith when you ignorantly injure the reputation of an organization that is not even a party to a proceeding.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Then you might defer to your betters.


You want me to bahhh like a sheep? Shut up get in line and follow?

No thank you. No matter who you are when you make a claim you defend it. I agree that listing OK was morally wrong. IF OK reputation was harmed by it they should take appropriate action. 
What I have not seen is that it specifically played a roll in the judged decision, it will play a roll in his decision on Thursday, and any precedent that makes it unconstitutional.   
I have read several affidavits in criminal and civil cases listing people religious affiliation with no mention of constitutionality.

I am not saying I have secret truth or that I am all knowing I am saying what I believe and backing it up with my reasons.

If the Thursday ruling is based in any part of in Irish's political affiliation then I will be very upset and will donate every resource I can to defend him against that charge

----------


## Jcambeis

> It is pretty hard to be acting in good faith when you ignorantly injure the reputation of an organization that is not even a party to a proceeding.


Very true, but proving motives is a hard thing to do. Was she ignorant or was she deceptive?

----------


## Philhelm

> Agreed, is this a mistake, moral issue or constitutional issue?
> I have yet to see a any reference in hundreds of sworn affidavits I have read in the last two days where part of the affidavit made it unconstitutional. I am still looking but I keep coming up empty handed.


Perhaps all three.  While there may not necessarily be an agenda, and perhaps the citing of the Oath Keepers was just the ignorant misunderstanding of a clueless leftist, the current political climate, especially with the involvement of the SPLC and DHS (i.e. MIAC Report and DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism) makes me suspicious.  If affiliation with the Oath Keepers or firearm possession is in any way used, whether on its own or along with other allegations, then such grounds for seperation would be unconstitutional.  Whether or not criminal charges are brought up, using freedom of speech and association as "evidence" to support seizure of the child is unconstitutional.

I suppose I don't understand what angle you are taking.  Are you suggesting that so long as no criminal charges are filed against Irish due to the Oath Keeper affiliation that it would not be unconstitutional to seize the child?

----------


## pcosmar

> IF OK reputation was harmed by it they should take appropriate action.


They are, Oct 14 in NH

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Very true, but proving motives is a hard thing to do. Was she ignorant or was she deceptive?


It doesn't matter.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  The difference between ignorance and deception is a distinction between civil and criminal liability.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Perhaps all three.  While there may not necessarily be an agenda, and perhaps the citing of the Oath Keepers was just the ignorant misunderstanding of a clueless leftist, the current political climate, especially with the involvement of the SPLC and DHS (i.e. MIAC Report and DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism) makes me suspicious.  If affiliation with the Oath Keepers or firearm possession is in any way used, whether on its own or along with other allegations, then such grounds for seperation would be unconstitutional.  Whether or not criminal charges are brought up, using freedom of speech and association as "evidence" to support seizure of the child is unconstitutional.
> 
> I suppose I don't understand what angle you are taking.  Are you suggesting that so long as no criminal charges are filed against Irish due to the Oath Keeper affiliation that it would not be unconstitutional to seize the child?



You basically summarized my position. As long as the mention of OK past affiliation did not influence the judge then nothing unconstitutional happened.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You basically summarized my position. As long as the mention of OK past affiliation did not influence the judge then nothing unconstitutional happened.


You keep using the word unconstitutional.  It is about injury and it is about the fact if government injures based on a lawful political association that is an unlawful activity for government to do because government has not been delegated any authority in state or federal constitutions to injure based on lawful political association.

If government injures based on political association government has exceeded its constitutional mandate from We The People.

----------


## Philhelm

> You basically summarized my position. As long as the mention of OK past affiliation did not influence the judge then nothing unconstitutional happened.


Well, any potential judgment aside, we need to remember that the child was, in fact, taken.  If a police officer were to arrest someone for being affiliated with the Oath Keepers, or being registered as a Democrat or Republican, then said officer would be violating the Constitution.  If nothing else, violation of civil rights under the color of law, comes to mind, as well as false imprisonment.  Damage has been done, so regardless of whatever other reasons the state has for seizing the child, even the mentioning of this issue has crossed a serious line.

What if the affadavit said that the parent was a member of PETA, Greenpeace, or the Democratic or Republican party as support favoring the seizure of the child?  Constitutional arguments aside, this should simply not stand, and a line needs to be drawn immediately, or else a grave precedent will be set.  Whatever judge who may have seen the affadavit and would be the one to make a ruling should recuse himself, and the mentioning of the Oath Keepers should be removed.  To allow this will be to allow the state to destroy families based on one's politics (First Amendment).

Also, whoever in CPS who had drafted the affadavit is representing the state.  This isn't just some private citizen claiming that Oath Keepers are unfit parents.

----------


## Jcambeis

> You keep using the word unconstitutional.  It is about injury and it is about the fact if government injures based on a lawful political association that is an unlawful activity for government to do because government has not been delegated any authority in state or federal constitutions to injure based on lawful political association.
> 
> If government injures based on political association government has exceeded its constitutional mandate from We The People.


Unconstitutional is the word Stewart is using

----------


## Jcambeis

> Well, any potential judgment aside, we need to remember that the child was, in fact, taken.  If a police officer were to arrest someone for being affiliated with the Oath Keepers, or being registered as a Democrat or Republican, then said officer would be violating the Constitution.  If nothing else, violation of civil rights under the color of law, comes to mind, as well as false imprisonment.  Damage has been done, so regardless of whatever other reasons the state has for seizing the child, even the mentioning of this issue has crossed a serious line.
> 
> What if the affadavit said that the parent was a member of PETA, Greenpeace, or the Democratic or Republican party as support favoring the seizure of the child?  Constitutional arguments aside, this should simply not stand, and a line needs to be drawn immediately, or else a grave precedent will be set.  Whatever judge who may have seen the affadavit and would be the one to make a ruling should recuse himself, and the mentioning of the Oath Keepers should be removed.  To allow this will be to allow the state to destroy families based on one's politics (First Amendment).
> 
> Also, whoever in CPS who had drafted the affadavit is representing the state.  This isn't just some private citizen claiming that Oath Keepers are unfit parents.



Good point! What if a woman had a baby in the hospital and the baby was addicted to crack. CPS takes the baby away. In the litany of claims listed in the afidavit including drug abuse, prostitution, theft, plans to sell the baby like she did her previous 2, there was a mention she associated in the past with a political group named PETA.

Would it be unconstitutional to take the baby away or should we wait to the mother sells the baby?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Would it be unconstitutional to take the baby away or should we wait to the mother sells the baby?


Might want to pose that to OK since Stewart is using the term unconstitutional.

----------


## Philhelm

> Good point! What if a woman had a baby in the hospital and the baby was addicted to crack. CPS takes the baby away. In the litany of claims listed in the afidavit including drug abuse, prostitution, theft, plans to sell the baby like she did her previous 2, there was a mention she associated in the past with a political group named PETA.
> 
> Would it be unconstitutional to take the baby away or should we wait to the mother sells the baby?


I thought I had addressed that.  I'm not concerned with whatever other grounds there may be to seize the child.  Each charge must be viewed seperately.  If he hammers his childrens' toes every night, then sure, the children should be taken, and given to next of kin if possible.  I'm focusing on the fact that his affiliation with the Oath Keepers, as well as his firearm ownership, has been used as evidence to support seizure of the child.  That evidence should be inadmissible.  Rather, it must be inadmissible if we are to (one day) live in a free society.

I think people who watch American Idol are stupid, and are probably not fit for parenthood.  However, that should never, ever, ever be used as evidence to support child seizure.  This is where the rule of law should step in, and not take personal beliefs, affiliations, etc., in order to make a judgment.  As it stands, the intention of the affidavit is clear:  His affiliation with the Oath Keepers, falsely labelled as a militia (not that there's anything wrong with that even), as well as the multiple firearms he possesses, are clearly being stated as evidence, in order to paint him as some crazed, right wing nutjob who is unfit for parenthood.  So, because CPS serves the states, they are attempting to cause injury to the defendant (i.e. parents) based on unconstitutional grounds (First and Second Amendments).  This is much different than an affadavit from a private party.

Also, I had done a search, and I had found the following in the Federal Rules of Evidence (note: Most states use almost the same rules):

*Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.*

Granted, this is based on religion; however, my search was perhaps not thorough enough, but I'd imagine that there are similar rules for political beliefs and affiliations which would coincide with the spirit of the rule posted.

The bottom line is that any mentioning of his affiliation with the Oath Keepers, a lawful organization, as well as firearm ownership, a Constitutional right, should be completely striken.

Edit:  Any action which causes harm to individuals based on political affiliation should be prevented, lest we become one step closer to overtly allowing political prisoners within the U.S.

----------


## Instant-K9

http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...rs-plans-rally                               Oath Keepers plans rally
Anti-totalitarian group: State kidnapped baby

----------


## moostraks

> Good point! What if a woman had a baby in the hospital and the baby was addicted to crack. CPS takes the baby away. In the litany of claims listed in the afidavit including drug abuse, prostitution, theft, plans to sell the baby like she did her previous 2, there was a mention she associated in the past with a political group named PETA.
> 
> Would it be unconstitutional to take the baby away or should we wait to the mother sells the baby?


This should have been stricken from the record. Entering it in means it was considered probable cause along with the rest of it. This will then open the door for other children to be taken based upon this judges decision to agree with the heinous nature of OK and use it as an aggravating factor.

FWIW most judges, from my understanding from a prominent family law attorney, do so many of these a day they don't read them. So this needs to be hammered home as to the fact that basically social services can write anything down as it isn't being read!!! Just the fact that they have their attorney present the paperwork is seen as sufficient cause for removal for 72 hours. Then the request for 30 day hearing is just perfunctory as once they have stolen the children it is seen as necessary to "sort the matter out".

----------


## pcosmar

Seems like some folks just don't want this Can-o-Worms opened.
and are doing all they can to discourage it.

I wonder why?

----------


## Instant-K9

> This should have been stricken from the record. Entering it in means it was considered probable cause along with the rest of it. This will then open the door for other children to be taken based upon this judges decision to agree with the heinous nature of OK and use it as an aggravating factor.
> 
> FWIW most judges, from my understanding from a prominent family law attorney, do so many of these a day they don't read them. So this needs to be hammered home as to the fact that basically social services can write anything down as it isn't being read!!! Just the fact that they have their attorney present the paperwork is seen as sufficient cause for removal for 72 hours. Then the request for 30 day hearing is just perfunctory as once they have stolen the children it is seen as necessary to "sort the matter out".


It's an Affidavit.

Do you know what an Affidavit is??

_A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an  oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law._
...
_An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant  or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the  recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or  experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she  can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge._

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affidavit

If the defendants think this prejudicial or irrelevant, in the COURT HEARING which will take place tomorrow, this is how it is handled:

“Objection Your Honor. Prejudicial (or Irrelevant).” and if it is sustained, it is stricken.

That's pretty basic Law101 $#@! there.  

There's   more molehills you can make into mountains, over there ------->

Look, over there, behind the black helicopter...

----------


## Bern

Instant-K9, the primary issue of concern for me is, on an affidavit prepared by a government agency to the courts laying out reasons why a child should be removed from its parent:

Why did they include the mention of the Oath Keepers?
Why did they characterize the OK as a militia when it isn't?
Why did an agent of the government consider this to be germane?
What was the purpose in including that language in the affidavit?

Because, from where I sit, and knowing the history of the SPLC efforts with the MIAC fiasco and "hit list" memo, it seems clear to me that this was intended to be prejudicial.  As such, it is, intentionally or not, chilling speech and a very serious matter.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Good point! What if a woman had a baby in the hospital and the baby was addicted to crack. CPS takes the baby away. In the litany of claims listed in the afidavit including drug abuse, prostitution, theft, plans to sell the baby like she did her previous 2, there was a mention she associated in the past with a political group named PETA.
> 
> Would it be unconstitutional to take the baby away or should we wait to the mother sells the baby?


Prior bad acts are often allowed if they are actually relevant.  The entire premise of this thread is that the documentation mentions membership in Oath Keepers, which is not relevant to whether or not an infant would be safe in the home.  The baby being addicted to crack (a fact which would be easily confirmed) is a tangible, real threat to the child, and shows an obvious action by the mother (continuing to use crack while pregnant) that would seem to indicate she doesn't care much about the baby's well-being --- certainly not more than her own.  Drug abuse is relevant to the removal of the child, obviously.  Prostitution and theft would go to show, again, that she is highly unlikely to provide a stable home and may wind up in trouble with the law shortly down the line again (though that is mostly conjecture, and would be worrisome if it made it into evidence as it often does).  The prior sales of children would show a pattern, sure, though it would be easy enough to counter this if she didn't want to sell this child.  You can show preparations on the part of the mother/family which would imply they wanted to keep this child, which would make the prior sales irrelevant.

You threw in the affiliation with PETA.  Let's throw in a different affiliation, instead.  Let's say she attends a mosque some of the 9/11 hijackers were known to frequent.  PETA is not likely to turn a jury against her, however an affiliation like the one I mentioned would cause a few eyebrows to raise.  They would certainly tip someone who might be on the fence.  The potential is there, even if as I said before the mother is not making preparations to sell the child, and perhaps has stopped using (and only used for the very beginning of her pregnancy, which is the touchstone that caused her to "sober up"), and those convictions for theft were 10 years ago, and the prostitution convicion was even longer before that.  

If the State is going to be in the business (and oh it IS a business!) of taking away children from unfit parents, then the evidence should absolutely be related directly to the subject at hand and avoid prejudicial bull$#@! that is not relevant to the subject.  If the allegation is that they are likely to abuse this infant and the other children, then there should be signs of a pattern of abuse and neglect, and there should be such a dire danger in the home that the infant cannot be allowed into such a terrible situation.  None of this means that it's okay to remove the infant from the mother's immediate care while in the hospital.  None of this means that "Oath Keepers" should appear anywhere on court documents.

----------


## Instant-K9

pcosmar:  I see your little childish ways of handling differing opinions is leave negative reputation and tell me to leave..

Nice way to welcome a newby who was  libertarian probably before you were born.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's pretty basic Law101 $#@! there.


Who the $#@! are you talking to?
Are you saying that none of us here  had any experience with the "law",?
 or the courts?
Or that Srewart has no understanding of the law?
Just who do you think you are talking to?

Crawl back under your bridge.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Instant-K9, the primary issue of concern for me is, on an affidavit prepared by a government agency to the courts laying out reasons why a child should be removed from its parent:
> 
> Why did they include the mention of the Oath Keepers?
> Why did they characterize the OK as a militia when it isn't?
> Why did an agent of the government consider this to be germane?
> What was the purpose in including that language in the affidavit?
> 
> Because, from where I sit, and knowing the history of the SPLC efforts with the MIAC fiasco and "hit list" memo, it seems clear to me that this was intended to be prejudicial.  As such, it is, intentionally or not, chilling speech and a very serious matter.


You really don't see the irony of you saying:  "you can't say that" to someone based on *rightly or wrongly* what they thought to be the case -- 
and crying in the same sentence about "chilling speech."

Really?

You can't see that?

----------


## Instant-K9

> Who the $#@! are you talking to?
> Are you saying that none of us here  had any experience with the "law",?
>  or the courts?
> Or that Srewart has no understanding of the law?
> Just who do you think you are talking to?
> 
> Crawl back under your bridge.


You're an emotional little thing, arntcha?

----------


## sratiug

> You really don't see the irony of you saying:  "you can't say that" to someone based on *rightly or wrongly* what they thought to be the case -- 
> and crying in the same sentence about "chilling speech."
> 
> Really?
> 
> You can't see that?


Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

----------


## Instant-K9

> Have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Have you?

----------


## pcosmar

> pcosmar:  I see your little childish ways of handling differing opinions is leave negative reputation and tell me to leave..
> 
> Nice way to welcome a newby who was  libertarian probably before you were born.


Get the $#@! out troll.
There is that better?

Just to clear up any misunderstanding. You came here trolling. Have been from the start.
I very much welcome this Challenge to the Beast. I am hoping that once it is opened by the Oath Keepers that GOA and JPOF will jump on it.
Then all the Family groups and Police State groups will jump in. And anyone else that can find an issue with the state Pile anything at all on top.
I would love to see the SPLC publicly and permanently humiliated.

I hope to see the beast kicked to the curb.. I doubt that we can kill it. but perhaps we can push it back and put a leash on it.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Get the $#@! out troll.
> There is that better?
> 
> Just to clear up any misunderstanding. You came here trolling. Have been from the start.
> I very much welcome this Challenge to the Beast. I am hoping that once it is opened by the Oath Keepers that GOA and JPOF will jump on it.
> Then all the Family groups and Police State groups will jump in. And anyone else that can find an issue with the state Pile anything at all on top.
> I would love to see the SPLC publicly and permanently humiliated.
> 
> I hope to see the beast kicked to the curb.. I doubt that we can kill it. but perhaps we can push it back and put a leash on it.


If disagreeing with you constitutes troll, I'll bet, to you,  there are a lot of trolls here.


You're quite the debater, I can see.  lol.

----------


## Bern

> You really don't see the irony of you saying:  "you can't say that" to someone based on *rightly or wrongly* what they thought to be the case -- 
> and crying in the same sentence about "chilling speech."
> 
> Really?
> 
> You can't see that?


I don't understand what you are trying to convey here.  I never told anyone they couldn't say something.  I am an ardent advocate of our 1st Amendment right to free speech.

I'm objecting to the State targeting a political affiliation as part of a justification for declaring a parent unfit to raise their child.  Since you used chilling speech in quotes, I wonder if you understand what it means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)

----------


## Instant-K9

> I don't understand what you are trying to convey here.  I never told anyone they couldn't say something.  I am an ardent advocate of our 1st Amendment right to free speech.
> 
> I'm objecting to the State targeting a political affiliation as part of a justification for declaring a parent unfit to raise their child.  Since you used chilling speech in quotes, I wonder if you understand what it means:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)


I used "chilling speech" cause I was quoting your words.  Duh.

Your link is to the legal term, and it refers to a law. A single person's few words in an affidavit in a private family matter  regarding abuse, neglect and domestic violence taken up by family courts is not a_ law._

----------


## pcosmar

> I used "chilling speech" cause I was quoting your words.  Duh.
> 
> Your link is to the legal term, and it refers to a law. A single person's few words in an affidavit in a private family matter  regarding abuse, neglect and domestic violence taken up by family courts is not a_ law._


And an allegation is not a conviction.

Seems there may be some good news though.



> *Aj Haskell * GOOD NEWS! Stephanie and Johnathon were called a FEW MINUTES AGO and will be visiting with Cheyenne at NOON today. This proves there is NO VALID SAFETY concerns. Update will given after the visit.


Perhaps the beast is recognizing it's error, perhaps just trying to get out of the heat.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Seems there may be some good news though.
> 
> Perhaps the beast is recognizing it's error, perhaps just trying to get out of the heat.


Right on the paperwork handed to them when they left the hospital, were the words "The Court further orders -- (and typed in this line): *visitation between the parents and the child shall be supervised."*

So they apparently wrote parental visits  in the order -- long before the_ Victims R Us_ crowd crowed.

----------


## pcosmar

> : *visitation between the parents and the child shall be supervised."*
> 
> .


Why?  What right do they have being involved at all? 
Oh yeah, the hear say and unfounded allegations.  Got it.

----------


## tropicangela

> Right on the paperwork handed to them when they left the hospital, were the words "The Court further orders -- (and typed in this line): *visitation between the parents and the child shall be supervised."*
> 
> So they apparently wrote parental visits  in the order -- long before the_ Victims R Us_ crowd crowed.


The "court" did write it in the order, but yesterday the state wasn't allowing the father to visit his own baby, even supervised, and with no basis.  So it's another turning point.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Why?  What right do they have being involved at all? 
> Oh yeah, the hear say and unfounded allegations.  Got it.


Maybe because of the $#@!ing history of abuse, neglect and domestic violence that's already taken place.  

Ferchissakes.  How can someone be so dense?

Her children were taken away from her nearly TWO years ago.  She hasn't been fightin too damn hard to get them back.  

No. Instead she goes $#@!ing around while still married and has *another* baby.  

If that were me, (which it never could be...) I'd be parked on their doorstep day and night doing everything I could to prove I was a fit parent - not breaking the law and taking up with a guy who has a history of violence and abuse which includes a threatened Columbine style takedown of his high school 

- and telling the police and family court she fears for her safety from the Father (Irish) after he hit her and she had a restraining order on him, and she noted she was afraid of him using the gun she bought him (what an idiot...buys a batterer a gun..).

You know, 

*Just two days before DCYF took Stephanie's baby away, this happened a half hour away*:

Police: Mother On Internet While Son Nearly Drowned
1-Year-Old Died After Taken Off Life Support

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- *A Manchester mother has been charged with negligent homicide in the death of her 1-year-old over the summer.*

Police said that in July, Jessica Botelho, 23, was on the Internet on  her porch for 40 minutes while her son nearly drowned in the bathtub.
...
*
Investigators said it was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern  of neglect against the 1-year-old and his 2-year-old brother.*
http://www.wmur.com/news/25271980/detail.html

 A pattern.  You see that there?

Maybe it might give some insight as to why DCYF acted as they did and responded proactively here.  Good for them.              

Maybe if DCYF had acted proactively _there_, that one year old would be alive today.

----------


## pcosmar

YouTube - Nancy Schaefer "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" Part 1 of 2.flv

YouTube - Child Protective Services: CPS & Police Abuse Constitution, Invading Homes, Kidnapping Children, Ignoring Courts, and Criminalizing Americans. Polygamist FLDS Raid Sheds Light on More Cases.

There are lots more. Educate yourself.

----------


## tropicangela

> *Just two days before DCYF took Stephanie's baby away, this happened a half hour away*:


It's been said that the state would be ok with these cases had they been abortions.

----------


## specsaregood

> It's been said that the state would be ok with these cases had they been abortions.


At the same time, if you think the govt should pass a law banning abortions, then you should also should be ok with the govt stepping into family affairs and protecting born children from potential parental abuse.

----------


## Instant-K9

> The "court" did write it in the order, but yesterday the state wasn't allowing the father to visit his own baby, even supervised, and with no basis.  So it's another turning point.


We disagree on the phrase "no basis."

Doesn't it bother you you don't know what the rest of the affidavit says?

A little?  A tiny bit?

----------


## tropicangela

Instant-K9, character assassinations.  Fail.

Since her other two boys were removed from HER for what the state called neglect BECAUSE of alleged abuse by another person (by WHO is still UNKNOWN,) it is probable that the state told her she had to report anything to them... any argument with Irish, etc. if she ever hoped to get her boys back again.

----------


## tropicangela

> We disagree on the phrase "no basis."
> 
> Doesn't it bother you you don't know what the rest of the affidavit says?
> 
> A little?  A tiny bit?


If the papers you and I read say supervised visitation for the parents, doesn't it bother you that they suddenly said no to the father and aren't following their own documents?  They are making $#@! up as they go.

----------


## pcosmar

> Maybe because of the $#@!ing history of abuse, neglect and domestic violence that's already taken place.


And that is a clear case of slander. An accusation that you have NO evidence to back up.
An accusation, that to my understanding has been investigated and no evidence was found to convict on.
It also stems from the first husband and not Irish. 

Now my opinion, and from what I have seen, It seems that John Irish is the one that has been protecting her and the children.
It is only my guess, but then I have been there and in that position before.

----------


## sratiug

> At the same time, if you think the govt should pass a law banning abortions, then you should also should be ok with the govt stepping into family affairs and protecting born children from potential parental abuse.


Usually the punishment comes after the crime.  If abortion were illegal you wouldn't lock up all pregnant women and cut their babies out prematurely to prevent them from being aborted.

----------


## Instant-K9

> There are lots more. Educate yourself.


And I can give you lots more examples where an abused and neglected child should have been taken away, but wasn't. 

 this 
  this
^




Tit,  meet tat.

----------


## pcosmar

SOP. 
If you have no case focus on character assassination.

Seen it before. It is getting old.

----------


## tropicangela

> At the same time, if you think the govt should pass a law banning abortions, then you should also should be ok with the govt stepping into family affairs and protecting born children from potential parental abuse.


I never said the government should pass a law banning abortions; however, abortions are an act of violence.  Those can be punished after the crime, as sratiug said.  Is there evidence you know of that convicted Irish of using force and acts of violence against the children?  The state papers said the perpetrator is unnamed and that evidence points to Irish, but it doesn't seem like there is enough... so the state is grasping, obviously, with the addition of #7 to the affidavit.

----------


## Instant-K9

> If the papers you and I read say supervised visitation for the parents, doesn't it bother you that they suddenly said no to the father and aren't following their own documents?  They are making $#@! up as they go.


You are taking the word of two people, both of which were caught lying.

----------


## specsaregood

> Usually the punishment comes after the crime.  If abortion were illegal you wouldn't lock up all pregnant women and cut their babies out prematurely to prevent them from being aborted.


Fair enough.

----------


## Instant-K9

> And that is a clear case of slander. An accusation that you have NO evidence to back up.
> An accusation, that to my understanding has been investigated and no evidence was found to convict on.
> It also stems from the first husband and not Irish. 
> 
> Now my opinion, and from what I have seen, It seems that John Irish is the one that has been protecting her and the children.
> It is only my guess, but then I have been there and in that position before.


THIS, the part Irish held up before a youtube camera was available for the world to see (but redacted for *ahem* _privacy*_ reasons) when we wanted to see the full affidavit, along with the other bill of particulars, which NEITHER YOU OR I HAVE READ, but which comprise a Neglect and Abuse of a Child Petition. 
*
    5) (con't from preceding page) ... involuntarily admitted to Concord     Hospital. Ms. Taylor dropped her restraining order against Mr. Irish     less than two weeks later.*

    6) *Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW Court on August 24, 2009, that     she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and     had left him.
    Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. 
Another     safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were     involved.

On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her     safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor     had purchased for him.*
    The Division became aware that Mr. Irish and Ms. Taylor were again     living together shortly after the incident occurred."

----------


## tropicangela

> Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault.


Why would that be?

I could see the state putting that story together by asking her 100 questions.

----------


## pcosmar

> You are taking the word of two people, both of which were caught lying.


The government has been caught lying, often, and continuously.
*They have absolutely no credibility.*

----------


## pcosmar

> THIS, the part Irish held up before a youtube camera was available for the world to see


Blaa Bla bla.

And I heard from here own mouth ,not some unfounded allegation, that John never hit or harmed her.
Again the Documents have *NO Credibility.*

----------


## Instant-K9

> Why would that be?
> 
> I could see the state putting that story together by asking her 100 questions.


You really think everyone in Child Protective Services is out to eat your babies, don't you?

----------


## tropicangela

> You really think everyone in Child Protective Services is out to eat your babies, don't you?


I *know* that the agencies are capable of lies, deceit, and corruption.  

Do you have experience in dealing with such an agency?

----------


## MikeStanart

I smell a troll.  Don't feed Instant K-9.  Dont' take anyone with only 20 ish posts seriously.

----------


## Bern

> ... A single person's few words in an affidavit in a private family matter  regarding abuse, neglect and domestic violence taken up by family courts is not a_ law._


The person who wrote the affidavit to the court was an agent of the State.  It is an agent of the State petitioning a court that a parent is unfit to raise their child because, in part, they are affiliated with a political organization.  If you are unable to see the problem with that, there isn't any further point in discussing the issue with you.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Blaa Bla bla.
> 
> And I heard from here own mouth ,not some unfounded allegation, that John never hit or harmed her.
> Again the Documents have *NO Credibility.*


Poloce records, restraining orders...yup, those are made up too.

"But I heard Stephanie _say he didn't_..."

Geesh. It's like you are completely unfamiliar with abusive spouse/partner syndrome. I've seen a woman show up regularly with black eyes, bruised arms, legs...and still claim "he never hit me...I'm just clumsy..."

Till he forgot where he was one day and tore up on her with witnesses.  Then we found out later, after a long journey...just what a batterer he really was.  She was covering up for him.

Stockholm syndrome is another word for it.  Thank God _she_ got out.  Finally.

----------


## Instant-K9

> I smell a troll.  Don't feed Instant K-9.  Dont' take anyone with only 20 ish posts seriously.


I suppose you just started here with 1000 posts, huh?

----------


## Instant-K9

> I *know* that the agencies are capable of lies, deceit, and corruption.


Do you think because *some*_ agencies are capable of lies, deceit, and corruption,_ they all are?

Do you apply this rule to everything?  Some people are $#@!s, therefore all people are $#@!s?

----------


## sratiug

> Poloce records, restraining orders...yup, those are made up too.
> 
> "But I heard Stephanie _say he didn't_..."
> 
> Geesh. It's like you are completely unfamiliar with abusive spouse/partner syndrome. I've seen a woman show up regularly with black eyes, bruised arms, legs...and still claim "he never hit me...I'm just clumsy..."
> 
> Till he forgot where he was one day and tore up on her with witnesses.  Then we found out later, after a long journey...just what a batterer he really was.  She was covering up for him.
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is another word for it.  Thank God _she_ got out.  Finally.


And you are like a woman married to a serial rapist that defends her husband till the end because he hasn't felt the need to beat and rape you and he's such a nice guy.

----------


## tropicangela

> Do you think because *some*_ agencies are capable of lies, deceit, and corruption,_ they all are?
> 
> Do you apply this rule to everything?  Some people are $#@!s, therefore all people are $#@!s?


They are *all* capable.  You added a word to my statement to change its meaning.

----------


## Instant-K9

> And you are like a woman married to a serial rapist that defends her husband till the end because he hasn't felt the need to beat and rape you and he's such a nice guy.


What a $#@!ed up analogy.

----------


## tropicangela

So why isn't Irish in prison to *save the children,* Instant?

----------


## Instant-K9

> They are *all* capable.  You added a word to my statement to change its meaning.


Yeah. OK.  We are all a _capable_ of anything, anytime, anywhere.  

Better?

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you think because *some*_ agencies are capable of lies, deceit, and corruption,_ they all are?


Yes, I have personally witnessed it for years.   They have been caught several times.
It is a well documented fact, The Government, Government agencies and Government employees lie. As a habit and as a rule.

----------


## Instant-K9

> So why isn't Irish in prison to *save the children,* Instant?


Family court is different than criminal court, but I'm guessing you knew that.

Charges are still pending on the Irish dude for other matters.  He's got a long history with the law....what the NH police refer to as a_ frequent flier._

----------


## tropicangela

> Family court is different than criminal court, but I'm guessing you knew that.
> 
> Charges are still pending on the Irish dude for other matters.  He's got a long history with the law....what the NH police refer to as a_ frequent flier._


For possession of weed?  Criminal trespassing?  Driving on suspended license?

----------


## pcosmar

*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*



> Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts.  In this case, they ask whether the parents are guilty, as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents.  If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic?   That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought.  And it will.





> Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary reasons they want, like in some third world junta.   The choice is yours.  I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state on Thursday.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## MelissaCato

This whole situation is a mess. The mom and dad of the infant, now the husband David the other kids in foster care .. what a tangled mess. 

But regardless of what, and who, or how they act(ed) criminals or not... that #7 listing the political association is a direct hit on ALL Americans associations and free speech if you care to know what I think. THIS (#7 alone) is why I personally am glad this mess went viral. It cannot stand.

Other than #7 ... I dunno, but that infant needed her mother I'm sure. Sad.

----------


## tropicangela

> This whole situation is a mess. The mom and dad of the infant, now the husband David the other kids in foster care .. what a tangled mess. 
> 
> But regardless of what, and who, or how they act(ed) criminals or not... that #7 listing the political association is a direct hit on ALL Americans associations and free speech if you care to know what I think. THIS (#7 alone) is why I personally am glad this mess went viral. It cannot stand.
> 
> Other than #7 ... I dunno, but that infant needed her mother I'm sure. Sad.


Stephanie and her baby could have gotten better treatment as a *convicted criminal* in prison. 




> Lankey did not sing the tune in the baby's bedroom. She was behind bars at the Indiana Women's Prison, where a new program allows some inmates to keep their newborns in their cells for up to 18 months.
> 
> Byrne said children separated from their inmate parents run higher risks for emotional and behavioral disorders, school failure and trouble with the law. The babies born to mothers in prisons generally are better off staying there with them, she said.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24557669

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> a guy who has a history of violence and abuse which includes a Columbine style takedown of his high school


Wow, did that one make the news? He took down his High School Columbine style? 

Me-thinks the Judge may have issues with "misstatements" like that from the Prosecution...

----------


## sratiug

> What a $#@!ed up analogy.


Why is that?  You don't believe the government murders people routinely?

How many happy homes broken up (which is child abuse) are acceptable to you  to save one child from abuse.  Maybe the state should take everyone's children and prevent all abuse?

----------


## Pericles

> The person who wrote the affidavit to the court was an agent of the State.  It is an agent of the State petitioning a court that a parent is unfit to raise their child because, in part, they are affiliated with a political organization.  If you are unable to see the problem with that, there isn't any further point in discussing the issue with you.


I came to that conclusion pages ago. The key question around here is not if you believe in liberty for yourself, but whether you believe in liberty for others. I have arrived at the judgment that *Instant-K9* does not.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *Just two days before DCYF took Stephanie's baby away, this happened a half hour away*:
> 
> Police: Mother On Internet While Son Nearly Drowned
> 1-Year-Old Died After Taken Off Life Support
> 
> MANCHESTER, N.H. -- *A Manchester mother has been charged with negligent homicide in the death of her 1-year-old over the summer.*
> 
> Police said that in July, Jessica Botelho, 23, was on the Internet on  her porch for 40 minutes while her son nearly drowned in the bathtub.
> ...
> ...


And your point is? Government will save all children from drowning? As if children have never drowned in government care or foster care. Children drown. It happens. Parents make mistakes. A child can drown in 30 seconds while your back is turned in a 1 inch deep puddle. Big Brother is going to save us from the risks in the world? Did you say you were a libertarian?

----------


## tropicangela

> As if children have never drowned in government care or foster care.


This.  

http://www.facebook.com/pages/CPS-Watch/133339569426

----------


## MikeStanart

This story finally hit Drudgereport!

Check middle of page

----------


## AxisMundi

> One of the reasons the infant was taken is because the father's a member of Oath Keepers.....


This may have been covered already, but I've no wish to read so many pages just to insert my opinions.

Between the media and the posting on other forums I frequent, I see a general denial to recognize the simple facts that...

1. This couple had two other children removed from their custody last year and placed in foster homes, and his affiliations were not mentioned. The children were removed due to neglect, abuse, and the mother's refusal to attend rehab for her drug addiction.

2. There is a history of drug use, neglect, and abuse in the household.

3. Jonathan Irish has a history of violence and a long history with the local police, including his high school threats of the "Columbine style shooting" while in possession of firearms a mere four years ago. A "Peacefull Oath Keeper" he is not.

I find this entire circus built up around his alleged membership with the OK's to be absolutely disgusting, as it ignores the simple fact that these people are unfit to be parents. 

This fiasco may also put other children in harm's way as politicizing this non-issue may create an atmosphere of reservation on the part of child protective services in removing children from harmful or even potentially deadly circumstances.

----------


## specsaregood

> This may have been covered already, but I've no wish to read so many pages just to insert my opinions.
> 
> I find this entire circus built up around his alleged membership with the OK's to be absolutely disgusting, as it ignores the simple fact that these people are unfit to be parents.


Yes it has been covered to death.   

Nobody here is really arguing the fitness of the parents -- as we do not know the facts; but rather that using an individual's association with a lawful political group as part of the basis for demeaning them unfit is improper.    It didn't belong on the affidavit, it has no business being there and they need to make sure to institute guidelines to prevent it from happening in the future.

Edit: also, since the father is not actually an Oath Keeper, one could argue that the O.K. have been unjustly harmed by being linked to him if in fact he is guilty of abuse.

----------


## pcosmar

> This may have been covered already, but I've no wish to read so many pages just to insert my opinions.
> 
> Between the media and the posting on other forums I frequent, I see a general denial to recognize the simple facts that...
> 
> 1. This couple had two other children removed from their custody last year and placed in foster homes, and his affiliations were not mentioned. The children were removed due to neglect, abuse, and the mother's refusal to attend rehab for her drug addiction.
> 
> 2. There is a history of drug use, neglect, and abuse in the household.
> 
> 3. Jonathan Irish has a history of violence and a long history with the local police, including his high school threats of the "Columbine style shooting" while in possession of firearms a mere four years ago. A "Peacefull Oath Keeper" he is not.
> ...


*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*



> Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts.  In this case, they ask whether the parents are guilty, as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents.  If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic?   That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought.  And it will.





> Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary reasons they want, like in some third world junta.   The choice is yours.  I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state on Thursday.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes



I'm just gonna keep posting this till folks read it.

----------


## Philhelm

> Yes it has been covered to death.   
> 
> Nobody here is really arguing the fitness of the parents -- as we do not know the facts; but rather that using an individual's association with a lawful political group as part of the basis for demeaning them unfit is improper.    It didn't belong on the affidavit, it has no business being there and they need to make sure to institute guidelines to prevent it from happening in the future.
> 
> Edit: also, since the father is not actually an Oath Keeper, one could argue that the O.K. have been unjustly harmed by being linked to him if in fact he is guilty of abuse.


This.  Is it really hard for some people to grasp this concept?  I have read every post on this thread, and I cannot recall one time in which someone has defended the parents' fitness.  This is not the issue!

The mention of political affiliation should not be included, and should not be used as evidence to support whether or not the parents are unfit in any way whatsoever.  If #7 on the affidavit is not striken, then it is a blow to all of America.

Seriously, is this going over people's heads?  *Entry #7 of the affadavit is what we are concerned with.  We are not arguing over the parents' ability to raise a child or whether or not the child should be seized if there are legitimate reasons to do so.  Entry #7 should have never been included, and it must not be allowed to be admissible as evidence!*

----------


## specsaregood

> Seriously, is this going over people's heads?  *Entry #7 of the affadavit is what we are concerned with.  We are not arguing over the parents' ability to raise a child or whether or not the child should be seized if there are legitimate reasons to do so.  Entry #7 should have never been included, and it must not be allowed to be admissible as evidence!*


To be fair, it is really the fault of how this story was originally spread/promoted.  Where the claim was that it was the "sole reason" or even the primary reason.  When the truth is it was a minor reason seemingly tacked onto just to pile on more allegations.   It is an example of how sensationalism and mischaracterization of a situation hurts your cause.

Even now, people are pointing to/referencing a domain titled "free baby cheyenne" for updates, when there very well might be a good reason for her to have been removed.   It hurts the overall cause.

----------


## torchbearer

> To be fair, it is really the fault of how this story was originally spread/promoted.  Where the claim was that it was the "sole reason" or even the primary reason.  When the truth is it was a minor reason seemingly tacked onto just to pile on more allegations.   It is an example of how sensationalism and mischaracterization of a situation hurts your cause.
> 
> Even now, people are pointing to/referencing a domain titled "free baby cheyenne" for updates, when there very well might be a good reason for her to have been removed.   It hurts the overall cause.


so, you think these people where going to abuse their new born child?

----------


## specsaregood

> so, you think these people where going to abuse their new born child?


How should I know?  I don't know their history.  I thought that wasn't the point.

----------


## moostraks

> Who the $#@! are you talking to?
> Are you saying that none of us here  had any experience with the "law",?
>  or the courts?
> Or that Srewart has no understanding of the law?
> Just who do you think you are talking to?
> 
> Crawl back under your bridge.


THanks. I was thinking of using some french myself but figured discretion was in order. Mr.Law 101 has apparently limited experience in what said affidavit constitutes in the kangaroo, err family court. Generally it will be the states attorney's office that will draft the paperwork stating what was used as aggravating circumstances and the affidavit will be included in toto unless people have an attorney that is proactive and has it stricken from the record.

People should be very aware of just how many mundane bull crap reasons are included in the request for removal that these judges sign off on. My response was merely that of one who has been there done that and received the not so pleasant explanation of what will happen unless someone makes the court understand they will not play ball like that. FWIW it is incredibly expensive to find someone who is effective in repudiating what the state puts forth as fact.

Troll does need to crawl under bridge.

----------


## torchbearer

> How should I know?  I don't know their history.  I thought that wasn't the point.


guilty until proven innocent.
a good reason to take a child at the hospital with no previous proof of child abuse to that child. 
it would be a different story if the baby had bruises on it. no. this child was just born- it was taken, not the other children.
doesn't add up.

----------


## specsaregood

> guilty until proven innocent.
> a good reason to take a child at the hospital with no previous proof of child abuse to that child. 
> it would be a different story if the baby had bruises on it. no. this child was just born- it was taken, not the other children.
> doesn't add up.


Uhm, the other children were taken, they are in foster care have been for almost 2 years.

It is 2 completely seperate issues.

----------


## torchbearer

> Uhm, the other children were taken, they are in foster care have been for almost 2 years.
> 
> It is 2 completely seperate issues.


I hope someone takes your children, after I place the call to CPS. I don't agree with the way you discipline your children. Have fun playing in that hell hole.
You are obviously someone who has never dealt with these thugs.
I dealt with them daily when I worked at the battered women's shelter. For every child they may have rescued from a serious abuse situation, they $#@! up 20 families, simply because they have the power to do so.
Hope you enjoy your police state.

----------


## Matthew Zak

This thread is a microcosm of the Liberty movement through the years. Find something to be passionate about, lose our minds over it, and then completely forget how it is even related to Liberty or what needs to be said/done. We burn hot and burn out.

----------


## torchbearer

> This thread is a microcosm of the Liberty movement through the years. Find something to be passionate about, lose our minds over it, and then completely forget how it is even related to Liberty or what needs to be said/done. We burn hot and burn out.


I've been 'burning' for 15 years. THis torch doesn't go out.

----------


## specsaregood

> I hope someone takes your children, after I place the call to CPS. I don't agree with the way you discipline your children. Have fun playing in that hell hole.
> You are obviously someone who has never dealt with these thugs.
> I dealt with them daily when I worked at the battered women's shelter. For every child they may have rescued from a serious abuse situation, they $#@! up 20 families, simply because they have the power to do so.
> Hope you enjoy your police state.


Yeah, back at you pal.

If you want to have the argument of whether assocation with lawful organizations should be allowed as a reason for taking custody of children to rely on the fitness of these particular parents, rather than on the principle itself.....well that is just asking to get screwed over.

I don't think I have argued that these children should have been removed, as I don't know the whole story.  But I have come to the conclusion that such associations should not be used as the basis and am looking at the best way to prevent that from happening again.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yeah, back at you pal.
> 
> If you want to have the argument of whether assocation with lawful organizations should be allowed as a reason for taking custody of children to rely on the fitness of these particular parents, rather than on the principle itself.....well that is just asking to get screwed over.
> 
> I don't think I have argued that these children should have been removed, as I don't know the whole story.  But I have come to the conclusion that such associations should not be used as the basis and am looking at the best way to prevent that from happening again.


I'd kill the CPS agent before handing over my child.
Send someone here is sending them to their death.
But you deserve to go through it, then your opinion will change as you watch your children being shipped from abusive home to abusive home to keep them from your 'abusive' home.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'd kill the CPS agent before handing over my child.
> Send someone here is sending them to their death.
> But you deserve to go through it, then your opinion will change as you watch your children being shipped from abusive home to abusive home to keep them from your 'abusive' home.


Exactly what did I say that you got all butthurt about?

----------


## pcosmar

_repost;_

I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun. 

And I have years of personal experience.
The same corrupt system is here.
The county persecutor is Brian Peppler. His wife runs the other side.
http://www.dprcenter.org/

Can you see conflict of interest, or a merging of interests?
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html

I would like you to read this. This was a couple years ago and was what got me involved in this movement. Do you have any concept of liberty or how far away from it we are.

Look closely at the relationship of the State and the "services".

----------


## torchbearer

> Exactly what did I say that you got all butthurt about?


Defending an undefendable agency. YOu obvious never had to deal with them before.

----------


## specsaregood

> Defending an undefendable agency. YOu obvious never had to deal with them before.


Because in your mind there is absolutely no role for the govt in dealing with abusive family situations?   We'll have to disagree if that is the case.  But I'd never wish harm upon you or your family.

----------


## torchbearer

> Because in your mind there is absolutely no role for the govt in dealing with abusive family situations?   We'll have to disagree if that is the case.  But I'd never wish harm upon you or your family.


There would need to be proof before hand, as in bruised child.
I don't believe in "pre-crimes", unlike you.

----------


## torchbearer

CPS sole job is to kidnap kids. If they are having a slow month- the find families to $#@! up.
any reason is good enough. spanking a child is an easy reason.

----------


## Instant-K9

Let me ask ya'll a hypothetical.

If Irish *had* been a member of a militia, (and lets not get into the whether OK is or is not a militia, leave OK out of this)
but the Affidavit #7 had said this instead:

*7. Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton, however, to date, has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr. Irish, 
as they have responded to multiple calls, which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, 
one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. 
The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser.*

The only difference is the absence of the words "Oath Keepers."

Would this have been acceptable to any of you?

----------


## specsaregood

> There would need to be proof before hand, as in bruised child.


A pattern of abuse, isn't relevant at all?  So if he raped the other kids and was on record as saying he likes raping small kids.  There would be no role for government until the new baby was raped?  Just theoretically of course....




> I don't believe in "pre-crimes", unlike you.


No, but you wish harm upon others who have done you no harm.

----------


## AxisMundi

> Yes it has been covered to death.   
> 
> Nobody here is really arguing the fitness of the parents -- as we do not know the facts; but rather that using an individual's association with a lawful political group as part of the basis for demeaning them unfit is improper.    It didn't belong on the affidavit, it has no business being there and they need to make sure to institute guidelines to prevent it from happening in the future.
> 
> Edit: also, since the father is not actually an Oath Keeper, one could argue that the O.K. have been unjustly harmed by being linked to him if in fact he is guilty of abuse.


I agree that the inclusion on the affidavite is undesirable, and shows a complete lack of research on the part of whomever wrote the document, but only from the standpoint that his membership in anything other than the OK's website has never been established, and OK isn't a "militia".

However, in all criminal cases there is never any one piece of evidence that convicts. Each conviction comes from a preponderance of evidence, ie several incriminating factors coming together to provide and establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you will note, said relationship was included in the section that listed his prior involvment with law enforcment. The court clerk was merely attempting to establish a violent nature.

That said, I was addressing those who do in fact ignore the unfit nature of these people as aprents, and who think that this entire fiasco is merely some politically motivated attempt to "punish" people.

----------


## torchbearer

> A pattern of abuse, isn't relevant at all?  So if he raped the other kids and was on record as saying he likes raping small kids.  There would be no role for government until the new baby was raped?  Just theoretically of course....
> 
> 
> No, but you wish harm upon others who have done you no harm.


This guy was raping his kids?
You wish harm on people who have done nothing, that is why you deserve the same.

----------


## moostraks

> Maybe because of the $#@!ing history of abuse, neglect and domestic violence that's already taken place.  
> 
> Ferchissakes.  How can someone be so dense?
> 
> Her children were taken away from her nearly TWO years ago.  She hasn't been fightin too damn hard to get them back.  
> 
> No. Instead she goes $#@!ing around while still married and has *another* baby.  
> 
> If that were me, (which it never could be...) I'd be parked on their doorstep day and night doing everything I could to prove I was a fit parent - not breaking the law and taking up with a guy who has a history of violence and abuse which includes a threatened Columbine style takedown of his high school 
> ...


Good for them??? You are an incredibly sick individual with a very myopic view of the reality of social services care. 

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster03.htm

"...    A Sacramento, Calif., man was charged last December with raping and murdering one of his three foster children, a 16-year-old girl. He was arrested after holding the other two children at gunpoint during a standoff with police.

    The Cook County public guardian's office recently sued a Chicago private social agency for placing an 11-year-old girl in the home of a convicted rapist who allegedly raped the child.

    In a separate case, Chicago police say 2-year-old Corese Goldman was killed in February by a foster mother who held him under a faucet to toilet-train him. The woman, a distant relative, was not required to go through training, background checks and a home inspection before taking the child...

In the District of Columbia, social workers removed four of Debra Hampton's children from her home placing them in foster care. According to the testimony of a social worker, the children were removed because Mrs. Hampton had left them alone and was not properly supervising them, and her home was "generally uninhabitable."

Three months later, the foster mother left two-year-old Mykeeda Hampton at home for over ten hours. While she was out running errands, Mykeeda was beaten to death by the foster mothers' twelve-year-old son. An autopsy later established that the two-year-old died of "blunt force injuries to the head, abdomen, and back, with internal hemorrhaging." As of September 1995, several years after the incident, the case was still under litigation.[21]

In August of 1995, San Francisco officials took custody of Selena Hill a few days after her birth because of concerns that her parents, Stacey and Claudia Hill, had physically abused each other and didn't seem capable of caring for their newborn.

In September, seven-week-old Selena Hill was rushed to Children's Hospital in Oakland with a fractured skull and other injuries that almost killed her. In their efforts to protect her from her actual parents, child welfare workers placed Selena into a foster home with a history of domestic violence. In the nine months before the infant was injured, Berkeley police had visited the residence three times after receiving reports about violent disturbances in the foster home.[22]

The state of Georgia placed Clayton and Kelly Miracle in foster care with Betty and Joe Wilkins in June of 1993. Two months later paramedics would arrive at the foster home in response to a 911 call, finding Clayton barely breathing, with two large knots on his head, one in the front and one in back. Clayton died as a result of blunt force trauma to his head. The doctor who performed the autopsy testified that Clayton's fatal injuries could not have been caused by an accidental fall and that injuries and bruising found all over Clayton's body were consistent with battered child syndrome. Doctors also examined Kelly and found the same pattern of bruising.[23]

Newsday reports the tragic story of one father whose desperate pleas to the family court fell on deaf ears. David Roman fights back tears as he recounts the shooting death of his son who had been placed into foster care in the Jamaica section of New York City...


FATALITIES - A CLOSER LOOK

During a recent two year period, one foster child died on average every seven and a half weeks in the state of Arizona. Four of them were reported as having been "viciously beaten to death" by their foster parents.[25]

Among the deaths in Arizona was that of China Marie Davis, of Phoenix. An autopsy revealed that over her 11 months in the care of her foster mother, Dorothy Jean Livingston, China Marie suffered a compression fracture of the spine, breaks in both forearms and wrists, two broken collarbones, fractures of both thighs, and a broken left arm, right rib and left hand.

China Marie finally found her relief in death, after Livingston repeatedly kicked her down a staircase because she refused to clap her hands to gospel music.[26]

Among the deaths was that of Tajuana Davidson, also of Phoenix. While in foster care the three-year-old suffered a broken shoulder blade, a black eye, and bruises on her stomach, back, legs and arms. But it was the "seven crushing blows to the head" that finally killed her.[27]

Just how many abuse and neglect related incidents actually occur in foster care is difficult to determine, given the child protection agencies apparent unwillingness to investigate them. It becomes nearly impossible with confidentiality laws shielding child protection agencies from public scrutiny. What is clear is that there is no shortage of them.

"The state's foster care system has been racked by tragedy in recent years," note Boston Globe reporters. "In the past three years, several foster children have been murdered or have died from neglect, while others have been horrifically abused."[28]

In 1995, at least eight children died while in foster care in Massachusetts, and federal officials were threatening a private lawsuit against the agency if changes weren't made.[29]

But the most telling statistic of all may be that of the seven deaths directly attributable to maltreatment in Massachusetts in 1995, three of them--nearly half--were in foster care.[30]

In this respect Massachusetts is a more or less a typical state. Notes outspoken veteran juvenile court judge Judy Sheindlin:

    Every year in every a state a commission meets to attempt to identify the scores of children killed and maimed while in foster care. And each year a report is published with suggestions for legislative and systemic change. Although the number of victims is increasing, there has been no nationwide overhaul of the systems that permit these in-house tragedies to occur.[31] 

Sheindlin attributes much of the problem to confidentiality laws. "The only people being protected here are caseworkers and other officials, who regularly hide behind a wall of secrecy," she writes.

She notes that dozens of New York City cases where children have been maimed or murdered never reach public attention, and it is not just because they are poor minority children. Rather it is "because of confidentiality rules, which protect inept bureaucrats and a faltering social services system."[32]

"In the name of protecting children, we have kept it a secret how we as a society deal with our most vulnerable children," explained American Civil Liberties Union attorney Eric S. Maxwell to the Massachusetts Senate Committee on Post-Audit and Oversight.

"There is a great gap between protecting a child's identity and keeping the process and acts of our government secret."

Maxwell urged the Committee to push for legislation to open court proceedings involving the removal of children from their parents, and child guardianship cases.

"I think any time you take a system and cloak it in secrecy there are going to be substantial abuses," said Maxwell, adding that he believes the Department of Social Services is often too quick to take custody of children away from their parents.[33]

"Foster care systems are cloaked in secrecy that often is used to conceal illegal and unconscionable practices," explained children's advocate and attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry during Congressional hearings.

*"Every state in the country cloaks its foster care system in secrecy, prohibiting the disclosure of any information about children's experiences in foster care. Though these statutes often were enacted to protect children, they routinely are used by state officials to conceal illegal and unconscionable practices*."[34]

These confidentiality laws have served the system well, if the figures from the state of Georgia are any indication.

Nancy Schaefer, twice a gubernatorial candidate for governor, has repeatedly called for a fundamental restructuring of the state's foster care system, including the dismantling of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services.

Schaefer charges that an astounding 433 children have died while in state care over the last several years.[35]

"Words cannot describe the travesty of justice suffered by these children who, rather than receiving the protection of the state, gave their lives in a most horrible and painful death because of a failed and unaccountable system of administration," says Schaefer.[36]

"We have to ask ourselves whether we're doing children a service by taking them out of their homes and placing them in a system that's just as unable to meet their needs," says District Judge Bill Jones of Charlotte, North Carolina.

"Are we doing them more harm than good?"

Says District Judge Deborah Burgin of Rutherfordton, North Carolina: "If you take on the responsibility to take care of someone - and are paid to take care of someone - the least we can ask is that they come out of it alive."[37] "

----------


## AxisMundi

> *You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just gonna keep posting this till folks read it.


How was his Constitutional Rights impacted?

He and his wife were found guilty of neglect in a court of law.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Each conviction comes from a preponderance of evidence, ie several incriminating factors coming together to provide and establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Didn't Google this, but aren't you mixing civil and criminal courts there? (i.e. civil = "preponderance of evidence" and criminal = "beyond a shadow of a doubt")

----------


## specsaregood

> This guy was raping his kids?


Way to avoid the question. I don't know if he was, that is the darn point!  We don't know.  i'll take your avoiding the question, as an affirmative that there is a role for government in preventing abuse (pre-crime).




> You wish harm on people who have done nothing, that is why you deserve the same.


Where have I done that?  Please quote it.

----------


## torchbearer

CPS is a like carpet bombing a city to kill one terrorist.
Some will argue, that it is just to kill off a lot of innocent people because every once in awhile it actually hits the mark.

----------


## torchbearer

> Way to avoid the question. I don't know if he was, that is the darn point!  We don't know.  i'll take your avoiding the question, as an affirmative that there is a role for government in preventing abuse (pre-crime).
> 
> 
> Where have I done that?  Please quote it.


Your support of the CPS- see all your post.
See post above as to how that is wishing harm on innocent people.
CPS does more harm than good.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Your support of the CPS- see all your post.
> See post above as to how that is wishing harm on innocent people.
> CPS does more harm than good.


So you don't think there should be any child protection services available at all, am I reading you right?

----------


## AxisMundi

> guilty until proven innocent.
> a good reason to take a child at the hospital with no previous proof of child abuse to that child. 
> it would be a different story if the baby had bruises on it. no. this child was just born- it was taken, not the other children.
> doesn't add up.


The couple's other two chidlren are in foster care as we speak, removed from the household due to neglect and the mother's drug use and refusal to attend drug rehab.

I ahve no idea how things are done in your neck of the woods, but around here it is automatic for a newborn child to be removed to state custody in such a situation.

Neither parent has attempted to seek professional help, they have made no efforts to prove to the authorities that they are even trying to eliminate the circumstances that resulted in the other two children being taken.

----------


## specsaregood

> Your support of the CPS- see all your post.
> See post above as to how that is wishing harm on innocent people.
> CPS does more harm than good.


Oh really?  Where did I say in that that I support CPS? 
I've said in other threads/posts that I readily accept that the system needs to be replaced and or altered/reformed.
I didn't say CPs was good or should be supported, just that there is a role for govt.

----------


## torchbearer

> So you don't think there should be any child protection services available at all, am I reading you right?


wtf are police for?
oh wait, they are out chasing pot smokers, so we need a special agency set up for kidnapping kids.
if you see a child being abused, call the police.

----------


## pcosmar

> This guy was raping his kids?
> You wish harm on people who have done nothing, that is why you deserve the same.


They have no case. They are relying on character assassination.
They have been harassing them for 2 years because they have no case. This all started with the first husband (also a real winner) and the divorce.
I am not sure at this point if Irish wasn't the only one protecting her and the kids.

That all is irrelevant. The Oath Keepers were named. Officially. They have both the constitution  and political capital. There is a lot wrong here. It is an opportunity .

*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*



> Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts.  In this case, they ask whether the parents are guilty, as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents.  If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic?   That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought.  And it will.





> Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary reasons they want, like in some third world junta.   The choice is yours.  I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state on Thursday.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## tropicangela

> How was his Constitutional Rights impacted?
> 
> He and his wife were found guilty of neglect in a court of law.


I thought it said there was not an order from the trial as of yet.

----------


## tropicangela

> The couple's other two chidlren are in foster care as we speak, removed from the household due to neglect and the* mother's drug use and refusal to attend drug rehab*.


Source?

----------


## torchbearer

Think about this one-
This kidnapping was premeditated.
How did the pigs know the baby was there?
The hospital must have a blacklist, just waiting for you to arrive.
Viva la police state!

----------


## tropicangela

> Think about this one-
> This kidnapping was premeditated.
> How did the pigs know the baby was there?
> The hospital must have a blacklist, just waiting for you to arrive.
> Viva la police state!


Kill the children to save the children.

----------


## Instant-K9

> wtf are police for?
> oh wait, they are out chasing pot smokers, so we need a special agency set up for kidnapping kids.
> if you see a child being abused, call the police.


Then what?

After investigation, due process, and it is an obvious case of brutal abuse and neglect, then what?

The police are the ones who place the children in a suitable home, and  do what CPS is doing now?

Is that how it would work?

----------


## MelissaCato

> Let me ask ya'll a hypothetical.
> 
> If Irish *had* been a member of a militia, (and lets not get into the whether OK is or is not a militia, leave OK out of this)
> but the Affidavit #7 had said this instead:
> 
> *
> The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser.*
> 
> The only difference is the absence of the words "Oath Keepers."
> ...


I'll bite. No not acceptable. There is nothing illegal about a militia in America. Nothing. 

BUT, OathKeepers was named a Militia in that Affidavit #7 and so this is why I think this went viral to begin with. OathKeepers is NOT a Militia and even if it WAS a militia.. Affidavit #7 is a direct hit on ALL Americans and obviously ALL militias who infact are the last defenders of our Republic. JMO.

Maybe you should ask the question .. IS America still a *Republic* ?

----------


## specsaregood

> How did the pigs know the baby was there?
> The hospital must have a blacklist, just waiting for you to arrive.
> Viva la police state!


Good question, I wonder if all births are reported to CPS/DFS?
Or, the good possibility that they are on welfare of some sort. medicaid to cover the hospital costs? which resulted in their info going into the govt system?   It was stated in other documents that CPS knew she was pregnant as they had been working with her.

----------


## Instant-K9

I've noticed no one has taken me up on this question I asked earlier:

Let me ask ya'll a hypothetical.

If Irish *had* been a member of a militia, (and lets not get into the whether OK is or is not a militia, leave OK out of this)
but the Affidavit #7 had said this instead:

*7. Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton, however, to date, has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr. Irish, 
as they have responded to multiple calls, which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, 
one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. 
The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser.*

The only difference is the absence of the word "Oath Keepers."

Would this have been acceptable to any of you?

----------


## AxisMundi

> Didn't Google this, but aren't you mixing civil and criminal courts there? (i.e. civil = "preponderance of evidence" and criminal = "beyond a shadow of a doubt")


Not at all.

Look, I claim no legal expertise, but my remarks above are based on researching items such as the viability of teh impeachment of Bush43.

Even in civil matters, a shadow of a doubt can ruin the prosecution. And there simply isn't any criminal case you can find that will list one sole reason for conviction. 

Short of direct quality video evidence anyways, I haven't researched that at all.

----------


## torchbearer

> Then what?
> 
> After investigation, due process, and it is an obvious case of brutal abuse and neglect, then what?
> 
> The police are the ones who place the children in a suitable home, and  do what CPS is doing now?
> 
> Is that how it would work?


King as father, or you as father- your choice.

----------


## tropicangela

> I'll bite. No not acceptable. There is nothing illegal about a militia in America. Nothing. 
> 
> BUT, OathKeepers was named a Militia in that Affidavit #7 and so this is why I think this went viral to begin with. OathKeepers is NOT a Militia and even if it WAS a militia.. Affidavit #7 is a direct hit on ALL Americans and obviously ALL militias who infact are the last defenders of our Republic. JMO.
> 
> Maybe you should ask the question .. IS America still a *Republic* ?


Yep, CPS tried to give militia a negative connotation without citing any specific evidence of violence connected to his association with a militia OR oathkeepers.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Think about this one-
> This kidnapping was premeditated.
> How did the pigs know the baby was there?
> The hospital must have a blacklist, just waiting for you to arrive.
> Viva la police state!


She was on the government dole, as was he.

I think getting state aid for the prenatal care & hosp charges gave 'em a clue about it.

----------


## Instant-K9

> King as father, or you as father- your choice.


Could you expound on this?  It's rather vague.

I asked you: 

Then what?

After investigation, due process, and it is an obvious case of brutal abuse and neglect, then what?

The police are the ones who place the children in a suitable home, and  do what CPS is doing now?

Is that how it would work?

----------


## Instant-K9

> I'll bite. No not acceptable. There is nothing illegal about a militia in America. Nothing. 
> 
> BUT, OathKeepers was named a Militia in that Affidavit #7 and so this is why I think this went viral to begin with. OathKeepers is NOT a Militia and even if it WAS a militia.. Affidavit #7 is a direct hit on ALL Americans and obviously ALL militias who infact are the last defenders of our Republic. JMO.
> 
> Maybe you should ask the question .. IS America still a *Republic* ?


Even when the Affadavit is listing a Bill of Particulars regarding violence and abuse and  a court ordered Ending the Violence program, (which Irish FAILED to attend - contempt) 
and there is a pending gun charge on him (and could be more charges, we don't know) 

-- the inclusion of a gun-centric association (a nameless one)  is not relevant to person who, as I understand, is under court order not to be in possession of weapons?

----------


## pcosmar

> Could you expound on this?  It's rather vague.
> 
> , and  do what CPS is doing now?


yeah that is kind of vague.
Lets see,, there selling kids
Abusing kids
Killing kids

I think we have a distinct credibility problem here.


Perhaps that should be openly investigated.

----------


## tropicangela

> After investigation, *due process*, and it is an obvious case of brutal abuse and neglect, then what?


Key words:  due process

----------


## specsaregood

> This.  Is it really hard for some people to grasp this concept?  I have read every post on this thread, and I cannot recall one time in which someone has defended the parents' fitness.  This is not the issue!
> 
> The mention of political affiliation should not be included, and should not be used as evidence to support whether or not the parents are unfit in any way whatsoever.  If #7 on the affidavit is not striken, then it is a blow to all of America.
> 
> Seriously, is this going over people's heads?  *Entry #7 of the affadavit is what we are concerned with.  We are not arguing over the parents' ability to raise a child or whether or not the child should be seized if there are legitimate reasons to do so.  Entry #7 should have never been included, and it must not be allowed to be admissible as evidence!*


You see what happened here?  We were getting to the point most of us were in agreement on the actual big issue at hand: freedom association.  And some people piped right up, bringing the thread back to focusing on the fitness of the parents....

Interesting.... it is almost like some people want the parents to be the focus of the argument/debate.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Think about this one-
> This kidnapping was premeditated.
> How did the pigs know the baby was there?
> The hospital must have a blacklist, just waiting for you to arrive.
> Viva la police state!


The mother stated on a video that she had discussed the upcoming birth with her CPS caseworker. The subject of the baby being taken had previously been discussed.




> Then what?
> 
> After investigation, due process, and it is an obvious case of brutal abuse and neglect, then what?
> 
> The police are the ones who place the children in a suitable home, and  do what CPS is doing now?
> 
> Is that how it would work?


Put the perp in jail? Isn't that what happens with assault and battery?

----------


## MelissaCato

> Even when the Affadavit is listing a Bill of Particulars regarding violence and abuse and  a court ordered Ending the Violence program, (which Irish FAILED to attend - contempt) 
> and there is a pending gun charge on him (and could be more charges, we don't know) 
> 
> -- the inclusion of a gun-centric association (a nameless one)  is not relevant to person who, as I understand, is under court order not to be in possession of weapons?


I think your grasping. So are saying if he isn't allowed to be in possession of weapons .. he isn't allowed to talk about weapons ?

----------


## Instant-K9

> yeah that is kind of vague.
> Lets see,, there selling kids
> Abusing kids
> Killing kids
> 
> I think we have a distinct credibility problem here.
> 
> 
> Perhaps that should be openly investigated.


You guys have an incredibility capacity to not answer direct questions and speak in vague revolutionary trumpets at every turn, I can see.

Does the police now handle abused and neglected children for you too?

Or do we just drop all child protection altogether?

----------


## pcosmar

> You see what happened here?  We were getting to the point most of us were in agreement on the actual big issue at hand: freedom association.  And some people piped right up, bringing the thread back to focusing on the fitness of the parents....
> 
> Interesting.... it is almost like some people want the parents to be the focus of the argument/debate.



They have no case. They are relying on character assassination.
They have been harassing them for 2 years because they have no case. This all started with the first husband (also a real winner) and the divorce.
I am not sure at this point if Irish wasn't the only one protecting her and the kids.

That all is irrelevant. The Oath Keepers were named. Officially. They have both the constitution  and political capital. There is a lot wrong here. It is an opportunity .

*You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice*



> Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts.  In this case, they ask whether the parents are guilty, as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents.  If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic?   That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought.  And it will.





> Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary reasons they want, like in some third world junta.   The choice is yours.  I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state on Thursday.
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## tropicangela

> You see what happened here?  We were getting to the point most of us were in agreement on the actual big issue at hand: freedom association.  And some people piped right up, bringing the thread back to focusing on the fitness of the parents....
> 
> Interesting.... it is almost like some people want the parents to be the focus of the argument/debate.


I am arguing the state's shoddy investigation and the fact that a militia/oathkeeper association was cited as a reason for removing the child which IMO compromises the rest of the info.  And I want to see this couple have true due process with good representation and #7 addressed.

----------


## Instant-K9

> The mother stated on a video that she had discussed the upcoming birth with her CPS caseworker. The subject of the baby being taken had previously been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Put the perp in jail? Isn't that what happens with assault and battery?


I asked about WHO places the children.  Obviously the dirtbags should be put in jail...but who handles that part of what CPS does now...

Where do the kids go?  Who handles it?  That was my question./

----------


## specsaregood

> That all is irrelevant. The Oath Keepers were named. Officially. They have both the constitution  and political capital. There is a lot wrong here. It is an opportunity .


When you get the "opportunity" to eat a big fat cheesesteak.  do you cram the whole thing in your mouth at once or take bites?

All I'm saying is we seperate the issues,  if you rely on the these parents to be your role model of why CPS is bad and using freedom of association as a reason is bad.....you stand to get sucker punched should something truly heinous come out.  I say this because I don't know all the facts of the case or their history.

----------


## specsaregood

> I am arguing the state's shoddy investigation and the fact that a militia/oathkeeper association was cited as a reason for removing the child which IMO compromises the rest of the info.  And I want to see this couple have true due process with good representation and #7 addressed.


I'm with you 100%.

----------


## Instant-K9

> I think your grasping. So are saying if he isn't allowed to be in possession of weapons .. he isn't allowed to talk about weapons ?


Belonging to a militia generally doesn't mean you just "talk" about weapons honey.

----------


## pcosmar

> You guys have an incredibility capacity to not answer direct questions and speak in vague revolutionary trumpets at every turn, I can see.
> 
> Does the police now handle abused and neglected children for you too?
> 
> Or do we just drop all child protection altogether?


Hell no. Would have been best if they (police) had never been conceived. I just want to beat that beast back into it's box. Or keep it on a very short leash.

----------


## pcosmar

> Belonging to a militia generally doesn't mean you just "talk" about weapons honey.


It means you are one.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You guys have an incredibility capacity to not answer direct questions


You must have missed this post then, where you were asked a question:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=924




> I asked about WHO places the children.  Obviously the dirtbags should be put in jail...but who handles that part of what CPS does now...
> 
> Where do the kids go?  Who handles it?  That was my question./


What would we do without a benevolent government to take care of us at every turn? The abuser goes to jail, the kids stay in their home! Duh! If both parents go to jail, the kids go with next of kin. Is government bureaucracy the solution to everything?

----------


## pcosmar

> When you get the "opportunity" to eat a big fat cheesesteak.  do you cram the whole thing in your mouth at once or take bites?


That would be how hungry I am, and when I expect another meal.

----------


## Instant-K9

> You must have missed this post then, where you were asked a question:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=924
> 
> 
> 
> What would we do without a benevolent government to take care of us at every turn? The abuser goes to jail, the kids stay in their home! Duh! If both parents go to jail, the kids go with next of kin. Is government bureaucracy the solution to everything?


You asked that question you linked  2 hours ago, and I wasn't here/ or didn't see it...

Many posts have passed since then.

You think just a simple "next of kin" is the answer, bada bing...?  Really?  For all cases?

----------


## MelissaCato

> Belonging to a militia generally doesn't mean you just "talk" about weapons honey.


I dunno cowboy every American is a militia...  but I see YOUR problem.

----------


## Philhelm

> I've noticed no one has taken me up on this question I asked earlier:
> 
> Let me ask ya'll a hypothetical.
> 
> If Irish *had* been a member of a militia, (and lets not get into the whether OK is or is not a militia, leave OK out of this)
> but the Affidavit #7 had said this instead:
> 
> *7. Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton, however, to date, has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr. Irish, 
> as they have responded to multiple calls, which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, 
> ...


No it would not be acceptable to me.  I had earlier skirted this issue in general, although with another poster.  Replace Oath Keeper with militia, PETA, Greenpeace, Democrat, Republican, CPUSA, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, NRA, etc., and I would oppose this.  Using political affiliation (or any lawful affiliation, for that matter) as evidence to *support* (I realize there are other allegations) due cause to seize the child is wrong.

"The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with Muslims and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser."

Would the above statement sound like there is no implication that the intent is to proclaim that being a Muslim and owning firearms is questionable behavior?  Forgetting the fact that the Oath Keepers are not a militia, the implication is clear that someone representing the state wishes to use militia membership, in conjunction with possession of firearms, as evidence to support seizure of a child.

Taking lawful associations and ownership further, let us say that the following were stated:

"The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with AdultFriendFinder.com and had purchased several different types of items including a dildo, anal beads, and a ball gag."

While I'm not going to try and compare weapons to sex toys, the idea is that they are trying to use the fact that he is in the Oath Keepers and that he owns firearms as evidence that he may commit acts of violence.  If there is any evidence or history of violence, such evidence should stand on its own.  Similarly, going back to the sex toy revision above, would it be acceptable to imply that Irish is a sexual predator?

Finally, I would not be as upset if it were a private citizen who had listed #7 in the affidavit.  What really concerns me is that an agent of the state is using militia membership (or so they thought) as evidence to support seizure of the child.  If Irish committed unlawful acts against the children, then all evidence should depend upon that, not his lawful, political associations.

----------


## tropicangela

> You asked that question you linked  2 hours ago, and I wasn't here/ or didn't see it...
> 
> Many posts have passed since then.
> 
> You think just a simple "next of kin" is the answer, bada bing...?  Really?  For all cases?


There is a real big problem with federal money given to these agencies and kickbacks for adoptions and kidjackings.  

If one parent is labelled an abuser, then the other is often labelled a neglecter because of it, and they both lose.

----------


## pcosmar

Instant-K9
Do you really have no concept. No concept of Liberty at all?
no concept of the name or purpose of this forum
no Concept of Freedom

You really just don't get it,,
that is sad.

Or are you here with some other purpose?

----------


## Philhelm

> Not at all.
> 
> Look, I claim no legal expertise, but my remarks above are based on researching items such as the viability of teh impeachment of Bush43.
> 
> Even in civil matters, a shadow of a doubt can ruin the prosecution. And there simply isn't any criminal case you can find that will list one sole reason for conviction. 
> 
> Short of direct quality video evidence anyways, I haven't researched that at all.


Wrong.  All criminal cases use "beyond reasonable doubt."  Civil cases use "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on subject matter.  Never would preponderance of evidence be (officially) used as the standard of proof in a criminal case.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You asked that question you linked  2 hours ago, and I wasn't here/ or didn't see it...
> 
> Many posts have passed since then.
> 
> You think just a simple "next of kin" is the answer, bada bing...?  Really?  For all cases?


Yes. Humans have existed and thrived without CPS for tens of thousands of years. If there is some exceptional case where there is absolutely no family, then adoption is appropriate.

Heck, I met a woman who "informally" adopted her neighbor's infant. The mother was unstable and said, "would you be willing to take my baby?" It turned permanent, the bio-mother left and was never seen again. God forbid, there was no government employees involved at all.

----------


## tropicangela

Can I be certain that the CPS is acting in Cheyenne's best interest?  No.  I can't.  I can't be certain that the parents acted in the toddlers' best interest either.  There must be due process and good representation to sort this out. 

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 1/3 KY - Forced Adoption, Federal Bonus $, Corrupt Experts

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 2/3 KY - Secrecy, False Allegations, Altered Files

YouTube - CPS Corruption Investigation 3/3 KY - Stalking, Orders 4 Babies, Forced Adoptions Confirmed

----------


## JK/SEA

I think Instant K-9 is Lawrence O'Donnell...

Just a hunch....lol

----------


## Instant-K9

> No it would not be acceptable to me.  I had earlier skirted this issue in general, although with another poster.  Replace Oath Keeper with militia, PETA, Greenpeace, Democrat, Republican, CPUSA, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, NRA, etc., and I would oppose this.  Using political affiliation (or any lawful affiliation, for that matter) as evidence to *support* (I realize there are other allegations) due cause to seize the child is wrong.
> 
> "The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with Muslims and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser."
> 
> Would the above statement sound like there is no implication that the intent is to proclaim that being a Muslim and owning firearms is questionable behavior?  Forgetting the fact that the Oath Keepers are not a militia, the implication is clear that someone representing the state wishes to use militia membership, in conjunction with possession of firearms, as evidence to support seizure of a child.
> 
> Taking lawful associations and ownership further, let us say that the following were stated:
> 
> "The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with AdultFriendFinder.com and had purchased several different types of items including a dildo, anal beads, and a ball gag."
> ...


Thank you for your reasoned response.

I do find you sex toy and other examples hardly comparable (where the hell is _your_ mind lately lol  when we are talking a bout a weapons charge, a court ordered gun restriction and part of the purpose of a militia, generally, is to carry a weapon and use it if needed. 

I'm trying to get at the heart of what it is...not so much Oath Keepers then-- just the militia in general.

Associations are listed on thousands of Affidavits each day.  I really don't see the hayyyoumongeous deal about it.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Instant-K9
> Do you really have no concept. No concept of Liberty at all?
> no concept of the name or purpose of this forum
> no Concept of Freedom
> 
> You really just don't get it,,
> that is sad.
> 
> Or are you here with some other purpose?


My life is probably 10,000 times more free than yours will ever be.

I guess all you have is recycling old posts and throwing poison darts at people who are new here and disagree on an issue. 


Is this how you overcompensate?

----------


## Instant-K9

> Yes. Humans have existed and thrived without CPS for tens of thousands of years. If there is some exceptional case where there is absolutely no family, then adoption is appropriate.


So we just do it the way the cave men did it....I see.

I'm beginning to get it now.

----------


## Instant-K9

> There is a real big problem with federal money given to these agencies and kickbacks for adoptions and kidjackings.  
> 
> If one parent is labelled an abuser, then the other is often labelled a neglecter because of it, and they both lose.


Then we need to fix that -- and not throw, literally, the baby out with the bathwater.

----------


## JK/SEA

> So we just do it the way the cave men did it....I see.
> 
> I'm beginning to get it now.



uh...what does that even mean?....my smarmy alarm went off on that remark.

----------


## pcosmar

> uh...what does that even mean?....my smarmy alarm went off on that remark.


lol
readjust your settings.

----------


## jclay2

Can someone post a thread update? It seems like every time I check, this thread grows by a 100 posts or so. Has there been any other developments besides the citation of the oathkeepers on the affidavit?

----------


## MelissaCato

> Associations are listed on thousands of Affidavits each day.  I really don't see the hayyyoumongeous deal about it.


Maybe the *time has come* to make a hayyyoumongeous deal about it ? 

I mean seriously, if being a militia (which every single American has a Constitutional right and duty to do as the last defenders of this Republic) is mentioned everyday on these "affidavits" ... what's next if the last and final defenders of Liberty are targeted ? 

What's next ?

----------


## Instant-K9

> uh...what does that even mean?....my smarmy alarm went off on that remark.


Close.  

Occasionally I'm snarky.  _Snarky_, not smarmy.  It's one of my adorable character features.

You'll learn to love it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Can someone post a thread update? It seems like every time I check, this thread grows by a 100 posts or so. Has there been any other developments besides the citation of the oathkeepers on the affidavit?


The Oath Keepers have a case, The state is under attack.
some are leaping to it's defense. 

Stay tuned.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Can someone post a thread update? It seems like every time I check, this thread grows by a 100 posts or so. Has there been any other developments besides the citation of the oathkeepers on the affidavit?


A gang of Oath Keepers will descend on the Live Free or Die state tomorrow. 

That's new.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...rs-plans-rally

----------


## aGameOfThrones

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine

----------


## Instant-K9

> Maybe the *time has come* to make a hayyyoumongeous deal about it ? 
> 
> I mean seriously, if being a militia (which every single American has a Constitutional right and duty to do as the last defenders of this Republic) is mentioned everyday on these "affidavits" ... what's next if the last and final defenders of Liberty are targeted ? 
> 
> What's next ?


No, _associations_ in general are.

I didn't say mention of  _militia'_s were in thousands of them, but no doubt they are in some of them.  No one made a big deal out of it before.  

If you feel this is a cause worth fighting for, then fight it, full speed ahead. 

Just be careful who you hold up as the poster child.  It may end up by coming back to bitecha

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> So we just do it the way the cave men did it....I see.
> 
> I'm beginning to get it now.


Rumor has it that they made the babies the same way back then too (without government help).

----------


## specsaregood

> Rumor has it that they made the babies the same way back then too (without government help).


You sure about that?  Depending on their age and schooling, they probably went through a class on that topic.  :P

----------


## Philhelm

> Thank you for your reasoned response.
> 
> I do find you sex toy and other examples hardly comparable (where the hell is _your_ mind lately lol  when we are talking a bout a weapons charge, a court ordered gun restriction and part of the purpose of a militia, generally, is to carry a weapon and use it if needed. 
> 
> I'm trying to get at the heart of what it is...not so much Oath Keepers then-- just the militia in general.
> 
> Associations are listed on thousands of Affidavits each day.  I really don't see the hayyyoumongeous deal about it.


My intent wasn't to compare firearms to sex toys.  The reason I brought up the sex toys is because I'd imagine that most people would agree that physical or sexual abuse would be the two most reasonable grounds for child seperation (Whether or not CPS or the government should be involved is a discussion that would convolute the issue).  My intent was to demonstrate ways in which unpopular associations could be used as "evidence" to support wrong doing.  If Irish were accused of sexual abuse, using my example, should the fact that he has sexual toys and frequents an intimate encounter site be used as evidence to imply sexual deviance?  I'd argue no.  Similarly, I would argue that militia membership and firearm ownership should not be used as evidence to support possible physical abuse.  In both cases, lawful associations and property ownership are cited; that is the similarity.

Now, if Irish unlawfully possesses firearms due to a previous conviction, then perhaps that should have been stated in #7, rather than merely citing firearm ownership.

As far as the militias, they are widely unpopular and misunderstood.  Some people believe that militias are illegal, and are surprised to find out that they are not.  It is clear that militia membership, depsite being perfectly lawful, is being used negatively against Irish, which is highly innapropriate.  Now, if he was involved in a militia which had conducted unlawful acts, then would be another matter.  However, this is not the case.

Whether people like it or not, militias are legal, and affiliation with a militia should not be used as evidence in a court to smear one's character.  If we allow political bias to be allowed in the legal system, then that would be a blow to all Americans.  Should we go back to the days of McCarthyism?  Should Communists and Socialists have their children taken?

----------


## Instant-K9

I think there should be a militia sex toy.

----------


## MelissaCato

> No, _associations_ in general are.
> 
> I didn't say mention of  _militia'_s were in thousands of them, but no doubt they are in some of them.  No one made a big deal out of it before.  
> 
> If you feel this is a cause worth fighting for, then fight it, full speed ahead. 
> 
> Just be careful who you hold up as the poster child.  It may end up by coming back to bitecha


There is no poster child. This is about America and our Republic.

I'm just glad # 7 this was brought to our attention, because now we can do something about it. Just like we did something about that MIAC Report.

----------


## MelissaCato

> I think there should be a militia sex toy.


You kinda sound like a good one.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Now, if Irish unlawfully possesses firearms due to a previous  conviction, then perhaps that should have been stated in #7, rather than  merely citing firearm ownership.


You think the redacted portion MAY have included something about this?

Doesn't it bother you a person is asking us to to gather behind him in a patriot cause is not being upfront with us and about the other details in that Affidavit? 

 I mean, those are some big pieces of black redaction there, and they could be very very very damaging -- likely it is, but he won't share with us. 

That should be troublesome to most of his defenders.  Hell, some of the OK'ers are pretty ripped about that fact.

----------


## Pericles

> Let me ask ya'll a hypothetical.
> 
> If Irish *had* been a member of a militia, (and lets not get into the whether OK is or is not a militia, leave OK out of this)
> but the Affidavit #7 had said this instead:
> 
> *7. Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton, however, to date, has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr. Irish, 
> as they have responded to multiple calls, which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, 
> one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. 
> The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and a taser.*
> ...


Against my better judgment, I'll engage the question. Also unacceptable. Neither statement bears on the issue of parental fitness.

----------


## Philhelm

> I think there should be a militia sex toy.


It's called a Pocket Constitution.

----------


## pcosmar

> You think the redacted portion MAY have included something about this?
> 
> Doesn't it bother you a person is asking us to to gather behind him in a patriot cause is not being upfront with us and about the other details in that Affidavit? 
> 
>  I mean, those are some big pieces of black redaction there, and they could be very very very damaging -- likely it is, but he won't share with us. 
> 
> That should be troublesome to most of his defenders.  Hell, some of the OK'ers are pretty ripped about that fact.


Actually I believe some 2nd Amendment folks are looking at that.
That may well open a third front on this. I'm stoked.

----------


## Philhelm

> You think the redacted portion MAY have included something about this?
> 
> Doesn't it bother you a person is asking us to to gather behind him in a patriot cause is not being upfront with us and about the other details in that Affidavit? 
> 
>  I mean, those are some big pieces of black redaction there, and they could be very very very damaging -- likely it is, but he won't share with us. 
> 
> That should be troublesome to most of his defenders.  Hell, some of the OK'ers are pretty ripped about that fact.


I only defend him on one issue: political affiliation.  I'm not arguing whether or not Irish is a fit parent.  The state may have good reason for its action in this particular case.  However, his supposed affiliation with a militia should not be used as evidence to support such a case.  I have no agenda other than this one particular point.

----------


## Instant-K9

> You kinda sound like a good one.


I think you'll find me more agreeable than some here first suspected, and all around a peachy fun 'n perky poster.

----------


## Instant-K9

> It's called a Pocket Constitution.


Now that's funny.

lol.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You sure about that?  Depending on their age and schooling, they probably went through a class on that topic.  :P


Item #7: Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend "Proper and Acceptable Copulation" Training with Instant-K9, however, to this date, has not completed this program. The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish has engaged in copulation without a representative of the State present to supervise, inspect and verify methods and procedures that would result in successful conception. Without official certification, the State can not guarantee conception. Because of this failure, it has been determined that the new born infant should be removed from the custody of the parents, as they failed to follow proper procedure to ensure successful conception. He is also in some way affiliated with the swingers group known as the Oath Keepers, as verified by a county clerk utilizing the latest high-tech investigative computer equipment. She also successfully won a bid on a signed pair of Justin Bieber underoos on EBay at approximately the same time.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? -- Thomas Jefferson

----------


## ericsnow

YouTube - Officer used force to quell recording, says "Oath Keeper Baby's" mom

----------


## Instant-K9

> Against my better judgment, I'll engage the question. Also unacceptable. Neither statement bears on the issue of parental fitness.


What if conditions of a bond agreement are that the person not be allowed to own guns at that point  or be in the presence where loaded weapons are present?

Same thing?

----------


## Pericles

> T............................
> 
> Associations are listed on thousands of Affidavits each day.  I really don't see the hayyyoumongeous deal about it.


And the typical person on the receiving end of all of this typically does not have the resources needed to hire an attorney capable of impeaching a witness who gets caught out with a pile of BS in an affidavit.

Point being that the crap listed in #7 in the hands of a skilled lawyer can be used to show bias that might even get the legit accusations tossed.

Do you care about that?

----------


## Pericles

> What if conditions of a bond agreement are that the person not be allowed to own guns at that point  or be in the presence where loaded weapons are present?
> 
> Same thing?


Such conditions would violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

----------


## ericsnow

Oath Keepers plans rally - http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...rs-plans-rally

----------


## Instant-K9

> And the typical person on the receiving end of all of this typically does not have the resources needed to hire an attorney capable of impeaching a witness who gets caught out with a pile of BS in an affidavit.
> 
> Point being that the crap listed in #7 in the hands of a skilled lawyer can be used to show bias that might even get the legit accusations tossed.
> 
> Do you care about that?


That's ridiculous.

I answered that earlier.

It's an Affidavit. An Af-a-da-Vit!

Do you know what an Affidavit is??

_A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an   oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by  law._
...
_An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the  affiant  or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the   recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or   experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she   can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge._

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affidavit

If the defendants think this prejudicial or irrelevant, in the COURT  HEARING which will take place tomorrow, this is how it is handled:

“Objection Your Honor. Prejudicial (or Irrelevant).” and if it is sustained, it is stricken.

That's pretty basic Law101 $#@! there.  

There's   more molehills you can make into mountains, over there ------->

Look, over there, behind the black helicopter...

----------


## Philhelm

> That's ridiculous.
> 
> I answered that earlier.
> 
> It's an Affidavit. An Af-a-da-Vit!
> 
> Do you know what an Affidavit is??
> 
> _A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an   oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by  law._
> ...


Here's a big problem though...what if the objection is not sustained?  It's better to not even let that statement be seen by any ruling judge.  Militias are obviously controversial, but such an affiliation should not be used as evidence or produce bias in the ruling.  If I were the judge, I'd strike #7 as inadmissible and recuse myself after calling for a new affidavit without the inclusion of #7.

----------


## pcosmar

> What if


What if?
What is the 2nd Amendment was not infringed? At all, Ever.

----------


## Pericles

> That's ridiculous.
> 
> I answered that earlier.
> 
> It's an Affidavit. An Af-a-da-Vit!
> 
> Do you know what an Affidavit is??
> 
> _A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an   oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by  law._
> ...


  One of the cool things in the Army is that when you are an Article 32 investigating officer, you are the judge, jury, and on occasion, the prosecutor as well. In my world, people who present affidavits with false (and knowingly false) statements face a consequence more severe that having the statement tossed as inadmissible. Making a false official statement is a criminal act - and what gripes my ass in the civilian world is that agencies willingly make false statements, that a reasonable person could easily conclude are knowingly false, without being held accountable for their actions.

----------


## phill4paul

Oh yeah! Another new member that only joined us this month and who's only posting history deals only with one thread.

----------


## moostraks

> One of the cool things in the Army is that when you are an Article 32 investigating officer, you are the judge, jury, and on occasion, the prosecutor as well. In my world, people who present affidavits with false (and knowingly false) statements face a consequence more severe that having the statement tossed as inadmissible. Making a false official statement is a criminal act - and what gripes my ass in the civilian world is that agencies willingly make false statements, that a reasonable person could easily conclude are knowingly false, without being held accountable for their actions.


They are completely above the law and throw as much information at the wall to see what sticks. The cost of an effective attorney to shine the light on the evil of social services is so cost prohibitive for many. So they will kindly give you a court appointed hack who won't give you the time of day and your children will eventually time out of the system.

----------


## specsaregood

> Oh yeah! Another new member that only joined us this month and who's only posting history deals only with one thread.


That isn't necessarily a bad thing OR a surprising thing as this thread was linked to from a number of sites when the topic started being spread.

----------


## moostraks

> That's ridiculous.
> 
> I answered that earlier.
> 
> It's an Affidavit. An Af-a-da-Vit!
> 
> Do you know what an Affidavit is??
> 
> _A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an   oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by  law._
> ...


Hey copy/paste, since you missed /ignored the first time:

"Generally it will be the states attorney's office that will draft the paperwork stating what was used as aggravating circumstances and the affidavit will be included in toto unless people have an attorney that is proactive and has it stricken from the record.

People should be very aware of just how many mundane bull crap reasons are included in the request for removal that these judges sign off on. My response was merely that of one who has been there done that and received the not so pleasant explanation of what will happen unless someone makes the court understand they will not play ball like that. FWIW it is incredibly expensive to find someone who is effective in repudiating what the state puts forth as fact."

They attack people who cannot afford to pay and steal children for federal kickbacks. Infants are a premium because they are given to hopeless women with ineffective wombs that make up the basis of the foster parent pool in most regions. They will provide you with a court appointed attorney that will generally not even give you the time of day and you will be given less than 72 hours to get the attorney for the first hearing which then gives them 30 days retention until the 2nd hearing and all the initial biases are entered as FACT!!!

----------


## Pericles

> They are completely above the law and throw as much information at the wall to see what sticks. The cost of an effective attorney to shine the light on the evil of social services is so cost prohibitive for many. So they will kindly give you a court appointed hack who won't give you the time of day and your children will eventually time out of the system.


And that is the way they like it. Mentioning Oathkeepers was a major mistake, as now there is a Yale law graduate pushing back, which I suspect is going to be a new experience for that particular government agency.

----------


## pcosmar

Another read,
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-ols...uspicions.html
*DCYF Rightfully Deserves Our Suspicions*

----------


## tropicangela

> Another read,
> http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-ols...uspicions.html
> *DCYF Rightfully Deserves Our Suspicions*

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> One of the cool things in the Army is that when you are an Article 32 investigating officer, you are the judge, jury, and on occasion, the prosecutor as well. In my world, people who present affidavits with false (and knowingly false) statements face a consequence more severe that having the statement tossed as inadmissible. Making a false official statement is a criminal act - and what gripes my ass in the civilian world is that agencies willingly make false statements, that a reasonable person could easily conclude are knowingly false, without being held accountable for their actions.


NH as well as every other state has something like this to my knowledge:



> 96:2 False Statement; Penalty. – If any officer or employee of the state in performing the duty of awarding any contract as a result of competitive bid, required under any capital budget act, shall knowingly or wilfully make or certify any false statement in connection therewith or shall recommend to the governor and council the approval of any such award to other than the lowest responsible bidder, except as provided by law, he shall be guilty of a class B felony. 
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/96/96-2.htm


But it's not really about making a false statement.  It is government injuring people and what government can or can not injure people for.  It is about government injuring organizational reputations for lawful activity such as politically organizing.  It is about government injuring parental rights for lawful activity such as political association and owning firearms.  That is what constitutions do, delegate or restrict things government can injure people for using force.

----------


## pcosmar

TPM article
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...th_keepers.php
First MSM, Spin on it.

----------


## Deborah K

Check out what the World Net Daily wrote:





> LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
> State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
> 'You could be on 'the list' and then child protective services might come
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149

----------


## specsaregood

> TPM article
> http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...th_keepers.php
> First MSM, Spin on it.


I think that article demonstrates why we need to seperate the actual family and incident from the desired outcome of not having associations used as a basis for taking custody.

Also, this is a bit of change from earlier statements:



> But speaking generally, a DCYF representative said that *under no circumstances would a parent's membership in any organization be a sole cause for removal*. The representative noted that there were situations where a *person's organizational affiliations might be referenced in an affidavit*: for instance, if the person against whom the agency was considering legal action blamed his or her behavior on the organization in question

----------


## Deborah K

> TPM article
> http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...th_keepers.php
> First MSM, Spin on it.


Hit piece!  Have you read any of the moronic comments beneath that rubbish?

----------


## Deborah K

> I think that article demonstrates why we need to seperate the actual family and incident from the desired outcome of not having associations used as a basis for taking custody.
> 
> Also, this is a bit of change from earlier statements:





> But speaking generally, a DCYF representative said that under no circumstances would a parent's membership in any organization be a sole cause for removal. The representative noted that there were situations where a person's organizational affiliations might be referenced in an affidavit: for instance, if the person against whom the agency was considering legal action blamed his or her behavior on the organization in question


"....under no circumstances would a parent's membership in any organization be a *sole cause* for removal. "   A SOLE cause?  But it can be used as *A* cause?  Can someone tell me if it is legal to use association to a group as A cause for removing a child?

----------


## pcosmar

> Hit piece!  Have you read any of the moronic comments beneath that rubbish?


You don't expect the beast give up with out a fight do you?

----------


## Pericles

> Hit piece!  Have you read any of the moronic comments beneath that rubbish?


Predictable. If there are those posting here that conflate the person with the issue, you can expect those who differ with our views will focus on the parents and their past actions, to the exclusion of asking why the allegations made in the affidavit have any relevance to the case. In effect, smearing an organization, that if they had even researched Oath Keepers, who know that the father did not even qualify to be a full member of the organization named.

----------


## Instant-K9

Well, I feel totally and utterly honored. <cough>

I must say.

I come here - only yesterday, though a lurker here and there before,  discussing a topic that really set my feet on fire and caused me to join  in, happily,
one because of the local interest to me, (I'm a NH resident) and two  because I care about children, and I think libertarians and others are  taking a wrong tack on standing behind a douchebag on *this* cause.

And what has it yielded me?

I note - GET THIS - out of nearly 26,000 members who have joined up on  RonPaulForums, I have the honor of being only one of THREE who have a negative  reputation count, due to the lovable shmuggables who saw fit to throw  sticks my way cause I happen to not see eye to eye with them, not only  that, 

*I am THE top neg repped poster here*.  After one day only, and contributing to the conversation in good robust, adult way. 

I'll state again, I am a libertarian, and have been one since the mid  80's - but I have concerns that I care about when it comes to children,  so I do disagree with the fundamentals of this issue.  I think it is  freaking crazy to gather eggs behind this dude, based on what I know of  his character, and I think libertarians would be wise to step back and  catch a glimpse of what negative firestorm you ignite when you rally  behind a law-breaking, abusive skunk like this.

I have been told by members here even just the mention of him being in a_ militia_  in an Affidavit - where even the name Oath Keepers is not mentioned, is  in some wild way, not acceptable or constitutional, and yeah, I  disagree.  

That's what happens sometimes. People of similar ideologies can  sometimes disagree on the details when it comes to certain factors.

And what did I receive for my ***audacity** to express my thoughts about using dirtbags to elevate a cause?

TOP NEGGED RATED POSTER in the entire forum.  In one day.

Isn't that special?  

 Is that a record?

I had heard the forums here were a bit of an echo chamber, but I didn't  believe them. I trusted my fellow libertarians would be open to 
a little _nuance_ and respect for opposing views when it came to beaten and abused children.  

I guess I was wrong.

----------


## pcosmar

> I guess I was wrong.


Guessed wrong. 
The lack of even feigned humility, from your first post onward gave you away.

----------


## susano

I would like to see the DCYF case worker, Dana Bickford, and the DCYF lawyer who singed off, Dennis May, prosecuted and sent to prison. This is the perfect case to pursue something like this and it can be used to start taking down CPS:


CITE-
18 USC Sec. 241 02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

-HEAD-
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

-STATUTE-
*If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same*;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - 
*They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both*; [and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C13.txt

----------


## Instant-K9

> Guessed wrong. 
> The lack of even feigned humility, from your first post onward gave you away.


Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.

My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 

I didn't know.

----------


## pcosmar

> I would like to see the DCYF case worker, Dana Bickford, and the DCYF lawyer who singed off, Dennis May, prosecuted and sent to prison. This is the perfect case to pursue something like this and it can be used to start taking down CPS:
> 
> 
> CITE-
> 18 USC Sec. 241 02/01/2010
> 
> -EXPCITE-
> TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
> PART I - CRIMES
> ...


Thank you.
That would go nice in an E-Mail. Just a friendly reminder.

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.
> 
> My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 
> 
> I didn't know.


It isn't.  I haven't been following your posts but if you haven't violated any forum guidelines or the mission and have merely expressed an opposing opinion, then in my opinion you're being treated unfairly.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.
> 
> My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 
> 
> I didn't know.


Well you can keep being an ass or shut up . That's up to you.

----------


## susano

> Well, I feel totally and utterly honored. <cough>
> 
> I must say.
> 
> I come here - only yesterday, though a lurker here and there before,  discussing a topic that really set my feet on fire and caused me to join  in, happily,
> one because of the local interest to me, (I'm a NH resident) and two  because I care about children, and I think libertarians and others are  taking a wrong tack on standing behind a douchebag on *this* cause.
> 
> And what has it yielded me?
> 
> ...


The "douchebag(s)" (father or mother?) has not had the benefit of a trial in criminal court or due process. 


I had never noticed that feature to give a review on a poster. I found it and joined in, _douchebag_.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.
> 
> My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 
> 
> I didn't know.


Generally when you are a new member it is best to not come across as confrontational in a matter that is a little condescending (Refering black helicopter comment, etc.). You came here voluntarily. I think if you used a different tactic you would have been more successful. If you present a well reasoned articulation on why you believe a certain thing more people are apt to listen and respond in kind. It is a mutualistic approach. It seems to me it is out of place to expect certain behavior from one person while attributing to yourself a completely contradictive behavior (Hence flows from argumentation ethics). 

I may be passionate with my defense for my beliefs and philosophy, but I try as best to stay away from those types of posts (Referencing some of your earlier ones). I am not immune however, but those posts are directed towards certain members whom share a history with me...you know who you are!

----------


## susano

> Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.
> 
> My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 
> 
> I didn't know.


My criterea for a decent human being is one who supports the rights of all people and our constitution. It appears that you don't. At least you're not alone.

----------


## Instant-K9

> It isn't.  I haven't been following your posts but if you haven't violated any forum guidelines or the mission and have merely expressed an opposing opinion, then in my opinion you're being treated unfairly.


Thank you Deborah.  If anyone can point out where I  violated any forum guidelines, please let me know.  I don't think I have.

I am passionate about beaten, neglected & abused children, and that is where this is coming from.  I sincerely beleive THIS, these people,  are going to do the mission harm.

I am left with a very raw feeling about the Ron Paul Forums, and it is causing me to wonder what the libertarian movement has become.

----------


## Instant-K9

> The "douchebag(s)" (father or mother?) has not had the benefit of a trial in criminal court or due process. 
> 
> 
> I had never noticed that feature to give a review on a poster. I found it and joined in, _douchebag_.


I think you're going to find it interesting what transpires when more is known about Mr. Irish. 

But rally up, chuck.

The media will love it!

----------


## moostraks

> Well, I feel totally and utterly honored. <cough>
> 
> I must say.
> 
> I come here - only yesterday, though a lurker here and there before,  discussing a topic that really set my feet on fire and caused me to join  in, happily,
> one because of the local interest to me, (I'm a NH resident) and two  because I care about children, and I think libertarians and others are  taking a wrong tack on standing behind a douchebag on *this* cause.
> 
> And what has it yielded me?
> 
> ...


Hey while you are busy spinning your wheels dreaming of your own self importance maybe you should realize many are here BECAUSE of social services trying to destroy their lives and the realization of the filth that hides in their shadows. So you aren't some voice of reason but of ignorance. Social services doesn't need anymore cheerleaders they, like yourself, are busy singing their own praises loudly night and day and are infallible because they serve the rights of the children.

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster03.htm

Read it and get back to us about the great service social services is providing. Your disparaging comments (such as those regarding black helicopters,etc...) repetitively copy/pasted will win you many enemies. Don't like it then be a bit less arrogant and disruptive until you've established a rapport then many of us cut you some slack and realize you have a blind spot on this issue. Far from being an echo chamber views are respected when they are offered without derogatory remarks thrown around about people's character and stability.

Here's the high points since you felt the need to post your pathetic article regarding the "need" for the corrupt dfcs to intervene so hastily.

"... A Sacramento, Calif., man was charged last December with raping and murdering one of his three foster children, a 16-year-old girl. He was arrested after holding the other two children at gunpoint during a standoff with police.

The Cook County public guardian's office recently sued a Chicago private social agency for placing an 11-year-old girl in the home of a convicted rapist who allegedly raped the child.

In a separate case, Chicago police say 2-year-old Corese Goldman was killed in February by a foster mother who held him under a faucet to toilet-train him. The woman, a distant relative, was not required to go through training, background checks and a home inspection before taking the child...

In the District of Columbia, social workers removed four of Debra Hampton's children from her home placing them in foster care. According to the testimony of a social worker, the children were removed because Mrs. Hampton had left them alone and was not properly supervising them, and her home was "generally uninhabitable."

Three months later, the foster mother left two-year-old Mykeeda Hampton at home for over ten hours. While she was out running errands, Mykeeda was beaten to death by the foster mothers' twelve-year-old son. An autopsy later established that the two-year-old died of "blunt force injuries to the head, abdomen, and back, with internal hemorrhaging." As of September 1995, several years after the incident, the case was still under litigation.[21]

In August of 1995, San Francisco officials took custody of Selena Hill a few days after her birth because of concerns that her parents, Stacey and Claudia Hill, had physically abused each other and didn't seem capable of caring for their newborn.

In September, seven-week-old Selena Hill was rushed to Children's Hospital in Oakland with a fractured skull and other injuries that almost killed her. In their efforts to protect her from her actual parents, child welfare workers placed Selena into a foster home with a history of domestic violence. In the nine months before the infant was injured, Berkeley police had visited the residence three times after receiving reports about violent disturbances in the foster home.[22]

The state of Georgia placed Clayton and Kelly Miracle in foster care with Betty and Joe Wilkins in June of 1993. Two months later paramedics would arrive at the foster home in response to a 911 call, finding Clayton barely breathing, with two large knots on his head, one in the front and one in back. Clayton died as a result of blunt force trauma to his head. The doctor who performed the autopsy testified that Clayton's fatal injuries could not have been caused by an accidental fall and that injuries and bruising found all over Clayton's body were consistent with battered child syndrome. Doctors also examined Kelly and found the same pattern of bruising.[23]

Newsday reports the tragic story of one father whose desperate pleas to the family court fell on deaf ears. David Roman fights back tears as he recounts the shooting death of his son who had been placed into foster care in the Jamaica section of New York City...


FATALITIES - A CLOSER LOOK

During a recent two year period, one foster child died on average every seven and a half weeks in the state of Arizona. Four of them were reported as having been "viciously beaten to death" by their foster parents.[25]

Among the deaths in Arizona was that of China Marie Davis, of Phoenix. An autopsy revealed that over her 11 months in the care of her foster mother, Dorothy Jean Livingston, China Marie suffered a compression fracture of the spine, breaks in both forearms and wrists, two broken collarbones, fractures of both thighs, and a broken left arm, right rib and left hand.

China Marie finally found her relief in death, after Livingston repeatedly kicked her down a staircase because she refused to clap her hands to gospel music.[26]

Among the deaths was that of Tajuana Davidson, also of Phoenix. While in foster care the three-year-old suffered a broken shoulder blade, a black eye, and bruises on her stomach, back, legs and arms. But it was the "seven crushing blows to the head" that finally killed her.[27]

Just how many abuse and neglect related incidents actually occur in foster care is difficult to determine, given the child protection agencies apparent unwillingness to investigate them. It becomes nearly impossible with confidentiality laws shielding child protection agencies from public scrutiny. What is clear is that there is no shortage of them.

"The state's foster care system has been racked by tragedy in recent years," note Boston Globe reporters. "In the past three years, several foster children have been murdered or have died from neglect, while others have been horrifically abused."[28]

In 1995, at least eight children died while in foster care in Massachusetts, and federal officials were threatening a private lawsuit against the agency if changes weren't made.[29]

But the most telling statistic of all may be that of the seven deaths directly attributable to maltreatment in Massachusetts in 1995, three of them--nearly half--were in foster care.[30]

In this respect Massachusetts is a more or less a typical state. Notes outspoken veteran juvenile court judge Judy Sheindlin:

Every year in every a state a commission meets to attempt to identify the scores of children killed and maimed while in foster care. And each year a report is published with suggestions for legislative and systemic change. Although the number of victims is increasing, there has been no nationwide overhaul of the systems that permit these in-house tragedies to occur.[31]

Sheindlin attributes much of the problem to confidentiality laws. "The only people being protected here are caseworkers and other officials, who regularly hide behind a wall of secrecy," she writes.

She notes that dozens of New York City cases where children have been maimed or murdered never reach public attention, and it is not just because they are poor minority children. Rather it is "because of confidentiality rules, which protect inept bureaucrats and a faltering social services system."[32]

"In the name of protecting children, we have kept it a secret how we as a society deal with our most vulnerable children," explained American Civil Liberties Union attorney Eric S. Maxwell to the Massachusetts Senate Committee on Post-Audit and Oversight.

"There is a great gap between protecting a child's identity and keeping the process and acts of our government secret."

Maxwell urged the Committee to push for legislation to open court proceedings involving the removal of children from their parents, and child guardianship cases.

"I think any time you take a system and cloak it in secrecy there are going to be substantial abuses," said Maxwell, adding that he believes the Department of Social Services is often too quick to take custody of children away from their parents.[33]

"Foster care systems are cloaked in secrecy that often is used to conceal illegal and unconscionable practices," explained children's advocate and attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry during Congressional hearings.

"Every state in the country cloaks its foster care system in secrecy, prohibiting the disclosure of any information about children's experiences in foster care. Though these statutes often were enacted to protect children, they routinely are used by state officials to conceal illegal and unconscionable practices."[34]

These confidentiality laws have served the system well, if the figures from the state of Georgia are any indication.

Nancy Schaefer, twice a gubernatorial candidate for governor, has repeatedly called for a fundamental restructuring of the state's foster care system, including the dismantling of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services.

Schaefer charges that an astounding 433 children have died while in state care over the last several years.[35]

"Words cannot describe the travesty of justice suffered by these children who, rather than receiving the protection of the state, gave their lives in a most horrible and painful death because of a failed and unaccountable system of administration," says Schaefer.[36]

"We have to ask ourselves whether we're doing children a service by taking them out of their homes and placing them in a system that's just as unable to meet their needs," says District Judge Bill Jones of Charlotte, North Carolina.

"Are we doing them more harm than good?"

Says District Judge Deborah Burgin of Rutherfordton, North Carolina: "If you take on the responsibility to take care of someone - and are paid to take care of someone - the least we can ask is that they come out of it alive."[37] "

----------


## Deborah K

> Thank you Deborah.  If anyone can point out where I  violated any forum guidelines, please let me know.  I don't think I have.
> 
> I am passionate about beaten, neglected & abused children, and that is where this is coming from.  I sincerely beleive THIS, these people,  are going to do the mission harm.
> 
> I am left with a very raw feeling about the Ron Paul Forums, and it is causing me to wonder what the libertarian movement has become.


I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as they are not insulting about how they relay it.  Austrian Econ Disciple gave some sage advice when conducting yourself as a newcomer on these forums.  Many of the established members are highly suspicious of newcomers because the forums have been badly assaulted in the past.

Try not to paint the entire population with a broad stroke.  This  too would be very unfair.

----------


## pcosmar

YouTube - The Franklin Cover Up Part 1

Just for background.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Generally when you are a new member it is best to not come across as confrontational in a matter that is a little condescending (Refering black helicopter comment, etc.). You came here voluntarily. I think if you used a different tactic you would have been more successful. If you present a well reasoned articulation on why you believe a certain thing more people are apt to listen and respond in kind. It is a mutualistic approach. It seems to me it is out of place to expect certain behavior from one person while attributing to yourself a completely contradictive behavior (Hence flows from argumentation ethics). 
> 
> I may be passionate with my defense for my beliefs and philosophy, but I try as best to stay away from those types of posts (Referencing some of your earlier ones). I am not immune however, but those posts are directed towards certain members whom share a history with me...you know who you are!


I will take your counsel under advisement .  Thank you. 

But one thing I wish to know:  Is worried concern over black helicopters here a requirement?

----------


## pcosmar

> I will take your counsel under advisement .  Thank you. 
> 
> But one thing I wish to know:  Is worried concern over black helicopters here a requirement?


Black helicopters?  Why would I  care what color they are.
They can target kids from a mile away. Hell they got drones now. Imagine if they had those at Waco. Oh, yeah,,,that is another one "for the children".

----------


## Deborah K

> I will take your counsel under advisement .  Thank you. 
> 
> But one thing I wish to know:  Is worried concern over black helicopters here a requirement?


i don't know about black helicopters, but you should be concerned about the xray trucks, coming to a town near you!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100929/ts_csm/329052




> "Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of national security … you have to be realistic that this is another way in which the government is capturing information they may lose control over," says Mr. Lane. "I just have some real problems with the idea of even beginning a campaign of rolling surveillance of American citizens, which is what this essentially is."

----------


## Danke

> Oh.  I didn't know it was a requirement to walk in here with hat in hand and kneeling at the beloved alter of the majesties of Dorum.
> 
> My eternal forgiveness.  Head-bowed humility is what is required here as a poster when entering these walls. 
> 
> I didn't know.


I don't expect humility from a Hannity Forum member, no.  Carry on for your brief stay.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Thank you Deborah.  If anyone can point out where I  violated any forum guidelines, please let me know.  I don't think I have.
> 
> I am passionate about beaten, neglected & abused children, and that is where this is coming from.  I sincerely beleive THIS, these people,  are going to do the mission harm.
> 
> I am left with a very raw feeling about the Ron Paul Forums, and it is causing me to wonder what the libertarian movement has become.


I would come to the defense of a communistic pedophiliac NAMBLA lover (Considering all the aforementioned was completely consensual) if for example he was arrested for political speech. It matters not the content of the character to whom defense is riden to, but under what pretenses his liberties were stolen. The matter at hand is liberty, not the character of the person. 

I suppose you will disagree and assert that because you may be the 'under-belly' of society or that you have broken some of the tyrants laws, that disqualifies you from liberty. In fact, a consistent libertarian would assert the exact opposite and would ride to the defense of those whose liberties were taken. Take for instance the anti-war activists whose liberties were violated recently. If they were wretched creatures I would still come to their defense -- on the basis of a violation of LIBERTY. How can you call yourself a libertarian if your arching philosophical position is anything other than liberty? For shame.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Stephanie Janvrin*  Johnathon and myself got to visit with baby Cheyenne for one hour earlier today. She is doing good she would be better if she was home with us but this fight is not over this visit was a hell of a lot better than nothing at all!





> *
> Stephanie Janvrin*  Cheyenne is still the beautiful little angel that I had given birth to. She really only wanted her Daddy today, when I was holding her she didn't look at me much her eyes were closed. Yet when I handed her to her Daddy she opened her eyes right away and just laid in his arms looking at him the whole time!


http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

----------


## Instant-K9

I'm guessing I am going to have to come to terms with the fact I am a non-conspiratorial thinking libertarian.  

Damn. It must be an old school thing.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'm guessing I am going to have to come to terms with the fact I am a non-conspiratorial thinking libertarian.  
> 
> Damn. It must be an old school thing.


This is why you get negative rep. Reminds me of Lawrence O'Donnell. I distinctly remember why I brought up that comment -- because of its condescending nature in context. You however chose to ignore the important part (_condescension_), and continue on with the same behavior. You wonder why you get negative rep?

----------


## Instant-K9

> I don't expect humility from a Hannity Forum member, no.  Carry on for your brief stay.


Is that conjecture because I used a dancing emoticon I found there?

----------


## Deborah K

> http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne


Sad!  That baby needs to be with her parents.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Instant-K9, the primary issue of concern for me is, on an affidavit prepared by a government agency to the courts laying out reasons why a child should be removed from its parent:
> 
> Why did they include the mention of the Oath Keepers?
> Why did they characterize the OK as a militia when it isn't?
> Why did an agent of the government consider this to be germane?
> What was the purpose in including that language in the affidavit?
> 
> Because, from where I sit, and knowing the history of the SPLC efforts with the MIAC fiasco and "hit list" memo, it seems clear to me that this was intended to be prejudicial.  As such, it is, intentionally or not, chilling speech and a very serious matter.


Employee not a government agency. If an employee buys a cheeseburger for a homeless person would you conclude the Agency purchased the cheeseburger?

----------


## susano

> Thank you.
> That would go nice in an E-Mail. Just a friendly reminder.


Sent.



Stewart,

Because of the case of Cheyenne Irish, I've taken the time to look beyond the issue of the mention of OK and guns in the affidavit, and I've spent a couple of days of in depth research on the family court system and states CPS. I always knew there were serious abuses, but I had no idea who deep it went. I discovered that Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer and her husband were murdered (just this year) because of her work exposing the crimial kidnapping network known as CPS.

I see two issues here: 

Using constitutionally protected rights as a reason to target someone for destruction;

The nature of the family court system that denies constitutional rights in order to steal and traffic in children and destroy families for profit.

It appears that a hearing in family court is about the equivalent of secret trials under the PATRIOT Act - without as many protections for the defendent (unbleivable as that is).

I would like to see this used to not only address the unconstitutionality of mentioning OK and guns, but to make an example of those who abuse their power by getting them criminally prosecuted. I'm thinking of the case worker, Dana Bickford, and DCYF atty, Dennis May. 

Raising a stink, getting the case thrown out (if that's even possible in family court), and getting Cheyenne back are not enough. The people responsible need to be held accountable if we are to stop this in it's tracks. Next time they target someone who is pro constituion they'll just leave that part out of the documents and cook up some other false charges to get whoever it is they go after.

I am not an atty and I'm just a long time liberty lover and Ron Paul supporter. I am very serious and I want to know this can be accomplished. I want those people criminally charged and punished. As far I can tell, that is within reason and the law:

CITE-
18 USC Sec. 241 02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

-HEAD-
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

-STATUTE-
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - 
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; [and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.


http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C13.txt

What do you say? How can we go about getting a criminal prosecution against these people?

Please email me.




Will anyone join me in this effort to try and get criminal charges filed?

----------


## Instant-K9

> This is why you get negative rep. Reminds me of Lawrence O'Donnell. I distinctly remember why I brought up that comment -- because of its condescending nature in context. You however chose to ignore the important part (_condescension_), and continue on with the same behavior. You wonder why you get negative rep?


I'm sorry.  I don't get it. I am punched just now with two posts about drones and then X-ray trucks, and fighting off a comment I made in jest about worrying about black helicopters and say I really am not conspiratorially minded.

I'm not. It befuddles me.

Maybe, after all these years, I not a libertarian.  Though I do wish government OUT of our lives in so many ways, and have for decades, I can't jump a bug a boo behind every corner conspiracy theory.

Like I said, maybe it's just the movement is leaving me.  It was not like this in the old days.

Then again, there were only like 12 of us.

----------


## Danke

> Is that conjecture because I used a dancing emoticon I found there?


Is that a denial?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'm sorry.  I don't get it. I am punched just now with two posts about drones and then X-ray trucks, and fighting off a comment I made in jest about worrying about black helicopters and say I really am not conspiratorially minded.
> 
> I'm not. It befuddles me.
> 
> Maybe, after all these years, I not a libertarian.  Though I do wish government OUT of our lives in so many ways, and have for decades, I can't jump a bug a boo behind every corner conspiracy theory.
> 
> Like I said, maybe it's just the movement is leaving me.  It was not like this in the old days.
> 
> Then again, there were only like 12 of us.


Again, you fail to see why I said what I did. I am an intellectual, not a conspitorialist. I merely pointed out why one would negative rep you (New member being condescending and provided reference..). If you don't want to take that criticism and review your behavior that is up to you, just don't be surprised when you get negative rep. 

Might as well mention you begging the question. If it wasn't like this in your day, why would you assume that it is today and even bring that condescending comment up which has no relevance to the issue at hand? So, I don't believe what you say given this obvious contradiction.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I am passionate about beaten, neglected & abused children, and that is where this is coming from.


That part is not an issue. It's the *solutions* that may be an issue. 

If your solution is a bureaucracy such as CPS, which often makes things worse by putting children into even more harmful situations, with little oversight or due process, which tramples on basic rights, while sucking up taxpayer dollars, then you will have a lot of disagreement on this particular forum about that solution. Basically, your short history here has been as advocate for or defender of CPS. At least that's how it's coming off.

What "libertarian" views do you hold? What sub-type of libertarian are you? There are several represented here. Who are your favorite libertarians?

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not. It befuddles me.


Not surprising. I am not a theorist. I am a realist.
I'm still alive, and in a pretty good place . I'm ready for anything.
I am Resistance.

----------


## Jcambeis

This topic is still rolling. 
I enjoying people opinions. 

I want to ask a question. Why is everything in Irish's past deemed irrelevant, and yet every abuse by CPS or government agency is. I have even seen posts demonizing the social worker. 

It seems to be a huge double standard. Irish is involved in this case. Every person that ever worked for CPS is not.

----------


## pcosmar

> This topic is still rolling. 
> I enjoying people opinions. 
> 
> I want to ask a question. Why is everything in Irish's past deemed irrelevant, and yet every abuse by CPS or government agency is. I have even seen posts demonizing the social worker. 
> 
> It seems to be a huge double standard. Irish is involved in this case. Every person that ever worked for CPS is not.


No actually that goes to credibility.
The state has none.

----------


## Instant-K9

> Again, you fail to see why I said what I did. I am an intellectual, not a conspitorialist. I merely pointed out why one would negative rep you (New member being condescending and provided reference..). If you don't want to take that criticism and review your behavior that is up to you, just don't be surprised when you get negative rep. 
> 
> Might as well mention you begging the question. If it wasn't like this in your day, why would you assume that it is today and even bring that condescending comment up which has no relevance to the issue at hand? So, I don't believe what you say given this obvious contradiction.


OK. I will "review my behavior" and make sure I fit into the mold that is accepted here.

Yes, you will call foul on that comment too, I am sure. 

Sorry.  It's what it seems like you are asking of me. 

I tell you what, I don't care if you folks choose to lash out with electronic stones.  I am here voicing an opinion.  I will not fit a mold.  that's not what LIBERTY is to me. 

If that is reason to cast me away, ban me, shun me in the 21st century forum version,  so be it.

I am sincere.  I know I have done nothing more than express my opinion on a  forum I thought cared about freedom of thought and expression.

----------


## Jcambeis

@ K9

If you want to make more friends here just claim you have secret truth that the baby was kidnapped by the Illuminati because she was immune to the chemicals in chemtrails, amalgam, fluoride, and negative effects of vaccines. The baby has been cloned with out the benefits of natures blessing out of fear the new traits will dominate their method of population control

you will be worshiped as a god

----------


## Jcambeis

> No actually that goes to credibility.
> The state has none.


So you think going to the state to return the child is waste of time?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> OK. I will "review my behavior" and make sure I fit into the mold that is accepted here.
> 
> Yes, you will call foul on that comment too, I am sure. 
> 
> Sorry.  It's what it seems like you are asking of me. 
> 
> I tell you what, I don't care if you folks choose to lash out with electronic stones.  I am here voicing an opinion.  I will not fit a mold.  that's not what LIBERTY is to me. 
> 
> If that is reason to cast me away, ban me, shun me in the 21st century forum version,  so be it.
> ...



lmao -- nobody's trying to stuff you into a corner, least of all AED!  

All he's saying is if you are gonna be rude, you should expect people to get pissed.  :shrug:  sounds like an axiom to me, not a cattle prod 

ETA - I, myself, have no idea if you were rude, to be honest I haven't read your posts.  Running for office I just don't have time.  I was just translating.

----------


## susano

> Employee not a government agency. If an employee buys a cheeseburger for a homeless person would you conclude the Agency purchased the cheeseburger?


Govt agency. The employee is an agent of that agency and carries out it's agenda. The DCYF staff atty signed off on it, as well.

----------


## Deborah K

> @ K9
> 
> If you want to make more friends here just claim you have secret truth that the baby was kidnapped by the Illuminati because she was immune to the chemicals in chemtrails, amalgam, fluoride, and negative effects of vaccines. The baby has been cloned with out the benefits of natures blessing out of fear the new traits will dominate their method of population control
> 
> you will be worshiped as a god


huh?  what??

----------


## AxisMundi

> Wrong.  All criminal cases use "beyond reasonable doubt."  Civil cases use "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on subject matter.  Never would preponderance of evidence be (officially) used as the standard of proof in a criminal case.


Link please.

----------


## susano

> Link please.


Look it up

----------


## Jcambeis

@ Phil
is family court the same as civil court? How does that work considering the rolls of the family, state and child?

Editing for clarity

In a civil case two free moral agents engage in conflict and the winner is the person that convinces the jury they have preponderance of the evidence.

In family law, the state is acting as the guardian of the children. The child is not a free moral agent, at least in this case. There is also no jury trials in family law.

----------


## pcosmar

> So you think going to the state to return the child is waste of time?


Well it's the last peaceful one.

----------


## KCIndy

> @ K9
> 
> If you want to make more friends here just claim you have secret truth that the baby was kidnapped by the Illuminati because she was immune to the chemicals in chemtrails, amalgam, fluoride, and negative effects of vaccines. The baby has been cloned with out the benefits of natures blessing out of fear the new traits will dominate their method of population control
> 
> you will be worshiped as a god



Nice.

That's really nice.

So basically, you're painting everyone on RPF as a whacko, conspiracy-minded, tinfoil hat wearing nut job.  I can't think of a better way to write a post more provocative, inflammatory and offensive to everyone on these forums.  

And you wonder why people get pissed???

----------


## Jcambeis

> Nice.
> 
> That's really nice.
> 
> So basically, you're painting everyone on RPF as a whacko, conspiracy-minded, tinfoil hat wearing nut job.  I can't think of a better way to write a post more provocative, inflammatory and offensive to everyone on these forums.  
> 
> And you wonder why people get pissed???


No I am not, I said if you want to make MORE friends. 
There are some very intelligent people on this forum.

People got pissed as soon as I asked a question about Stewart Rhodes claim on the constitutionality of naming OK in the affidavit. I was basically told to shut up, and follow like a good sheep or go elsewhere

----------


## pcosmar

> No I am not, I said if you want to make MORE friends. 
> There are some very intelligent people on this forum.
> 
> People got pissed as soon as I asked a question about Stewart Rhodes claim on the constitutionality of naming OK in the affidavit. I was basically told to shut up, and follow like a good sheep or go elsewhere


No the question was asked and answered. Long ago, but rather than accept that you continue to push character assassination. Rather that the principals.
And you give the State far too much credibility.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No the question was asked and answered. Long ago, ...


Lol! Yeah, every angle has been covered in this monster thread! I'll admit, it is difficult to go through this entire thread to find out if a question or topic has come up already, but odds are, it has already been discussed.

----------


## Jcambeis

> No the question was asked and answered. Long ago, but rather than accept that you continue to push character assassination. Rather that the principals.
> And you give the State far too much credibility.


Requiring a person to support their claim about anything including the state does not mean you support them. 

Can the state be evil? ABSOLUTELY. Can parents be evil? ABSOLUTELY.  Can parents that work for the State be evil? ABSOLUTELY

Does that mean the state was wrong in this case? We will find out. 

I don't know how many times I read the generic claim that even is Irish was abusive in the past it is irrelevant to this case because he was not yet abusive here. Shortly after that claim was made they then claimed the states crime in the past is relevant to this particular case.

----------


## pcosmar

> Requiring a person to support their claim about anything including the state does not mean you support them. 
> 
> Can the state be evil? ABSOLUTELY. Can parents be evil? ABSOLUTELY.  Can parents that work for the State be evil? ABSOLUTELY
> 
> Does that mean the state was wrong in this case? We will find out. 
> 
> I don't know how many times I read the generic claim that even is Irish was abusive in the past it is irrelevant to this case because he was not yet abusive here. Shortly after that claim was made they then claimed the states crime in the past is relevant to this particular case.


I have seen no proof of abuse, I have heard allegations.(questionable allegations)
I have not seen any evidence that he abused anyone, even if someone did.

I am inclined to believe that John Irish was the only one protecting her and the children.
Perhaps that is why he is being targeted.

----------


## Jcambeis

> I have seen no proof of abuse, I have heard allegations.(questionable allegations)
> I have not seen any evidence that he abused anyone, even if someone did.
> 
> I am inclined to believe that John Irish was the only one protecting her and the children.
> Perhaps that is why he is being targeted.


Perhaps it is. Perhaps evidence exists you pcosmar has not yet seen

----------


## pcosmar

> Perhaps it is. Perhaps evidence exists you pcosmar has not yet seen


Perhaps.
I am not jumping to "guilty" in the mean time.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Perhaps.
> I am not jumping to "guilty" in the mean time.


That is why I like you

----------


## Deborah K

Or perhaps it doesn't matter:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...-to-take-baby/


Excerpts:




> Relevance?
> Whether it is a criminal or a civil proceeding, the political affiliations of the accused are both irrelevant and prejudicial.  For example, if I had a criminal defense client accused of beating his wife, what relevance would his NRA membership have to the question of whether he beat his wife?   And what relevance would there be if he were a Tea Party member, or belonged to a 912 group, or was a member of Rush Limbaugh fan club, or a member of Glen Becks Insider Extreme which includes a message board?   Or what if he were a member of the ACLU, or Answer, or ACORN, or Code Pink, etc.?  What relevance would any such associations have to the question of whether he assaulted his wife?   The political associations of the accused in a child endangerment case are no less irrelevant to the question of whether he or the mother are guilty or whether the child is endangered.





> Prejudicial.
> In addition to a relevancy problem, it would also be prejudicial for the finder(s) of fact to hear testimony on the suspects political association, especially when such may be with an unpopular group.  Say, for example, you have a conservative, pro-drug war jury in a theft case and the defendant turns out to be a member of NORML (which advocates legalizing marijuana).  Should the jury be able to hear evidence of that membership?  Or imagine a liberal jury, with jurors who are anti-gun.  Should the jury be able to hear evidence that the accused was an NRA member, or, perhaps even a member of the far more hardcore Gun Owners of America?  Mention of the defendants associations in either case would not only be irrelevant but also potentially prejudicial.  Even if some twisted argument convinced the judge to find those associations relevant, their  prejudicial effect would outweigh any such relevance.  See Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm






> *Yes, it is true that in family court one does not get the same level of due process as in a criminal trial, but that only makes it a more likely system to be abused to target political undesirables.  The lower the threshold of due process protection, the more ripe it is for arbitrary abuse.
> *





> The Chilling Effect: Making People Afraid to Speak Out and Associate
> And in this case the problem is not just a possible violation of the due process rights of these particular parents, but also the very real chilling effect this case will have not just on their speech but also on the free speech of potentially millions of other American parents who will, if this is allowed to stand, thereafter have to worry that their political affiliations will be listed among the reasons for taking their children in some future run-in with CPS.

----------


## Jcambeis

Debrah
we have been through this. Listing something irrelevant in an affidavit is not uncommon, illegal or illegitimate. A judge making a decision based on that information is uncommon, illegal and illegitimate. There is no evidence that is the case.

Why is the rally Stewart calling for on Thursday only a first Amendment issue when in the very same sentence OK is mentioned guns are also mentioned?

----------


## Deborah K

> Debrah
> we have been through this. Listing something irrelevant in an affidavit is not uncommon, illegal or illegitimate. A judge making a decision based on that information is uncommon, illegal and illegitimate. There is no evidence that is the case.
> 
> Why is the rally Stewart calling for on Thursday only a first Amendment issue when in the very same sentence OK is mentioned guns are also mentioned?


Did you even read the excerpts?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Did you even read the excerpts?


yes several times

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Debrah
> we have been through this. Listing something irrelevant in an affidavit is not uncommon, illegal or illegitimate.


And I have explained several times it is illegal but I concede it is not uncommon and that is because most people do not know anything about the society they profess to live in and exist ignorant of the law which is not an excuse for them.

You are choosing not to believe what I have explained to you and explained plain as day;

Unlawful arrest.

Which is also based on an affidavit.  I can't help it if you choose not to believe but to continue claiming it is not illegal when it injures is ridiculous.

----------


## Jcambeis

> And I have explained several times it is illegal but I concede it is not uncommon and that is because most people do not know anything about the society they profess to live in and exist ignorant of the law which is not an excuse for them.
> 
> You are choosing not to believe what I have explained to you and explained plain as day;
> 
> Unlawful arrest.
> 
> Which is also based on an affidavit.  I can't help it if you choose not to believe but to continue claiming it is not illegal is ridiculous.


We disagree. Why do you think you are Allah and only your opinion matters or is correct.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> We disagree.


I had to edit because I realized the word injure was not in my post. 




> Why do you think you are Allah and only your opinion matters or is correct.


Because I can back my claims up and since I am using such a common example such as unlawful arrest one would not think it necessary because I could take a survey in the United States and everyone has heard of it.

Do you have something you can cite to refute unlawful arrest?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Do you have something you can cite to refute unlawful arrest?


yes lawful arrest.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> yes lawful arrest.


You haven't refuted anything and you can't understand why you come under criticism but continue to post claiming something that injures is not illegal.

Obviously not all arrests are lawful because there are unlawful ones.

What happens in an unlawful arrest?

They say oh my, in this affidavit the police officer justifying the use of force against this person injured this person because we _____________  (arrested the wrong person or whatever the injury resulting from the affidavit).

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Uh oh...




> Masters detective Jim Broderick indicted, accused of lying in affidavits, testimony
> 
> FORT COLLINS  A Fort Collins police officer accused of lying to secure the conviction of a man who police believed killed a Fort Collins woman in 1987 was indicted Wednesday on eight felony counts of perjury in the case.


Hell I didn't have to dig far to illustrate my point.  Any more rambling about something you can't back up?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Uh oh...
> 
> 
> 
> Hell I didn't have to dig far to illustrate my point.  Any more rambling about something you can't back up?


A cop committing perjury does not make your case.  That is why when you make a statement under oath perjury laws apply to you. 


As a side relevant issue the cop was also innocent until proven guilty

----------


## Jcambeis

> You haven't refuted anything and you can't understand why you come under criticism but continue to post claiming something that injures is not illegal.
> 
> Obviously not all arrests are lawful because there are unlawful ones.
> 
> What happens in an unlawful arrest?
> 
> They say oh my, in this affidavit the police officer justifying the use of force against this person injured this person because we _____________  (arrested the wrong person or whatever the injury resulting from the affidavit).


(EDited for ad hominen) and your argument is irrelevant

if you are arrested unlawfully you go to court and cop gets punished. Arresting some one unlawfully and writing some thing irrelevant in an affidavit are two distinct issues

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> A cop committing perjury does not make your case.  That is why when you make a statement under oath perjury laws apply to you. 
> 
> 
> As a side relevant issue the cop was also innocent until proven guilty


Oh yes it does.  It makes my case in that if you injure someone in an affidavit it can rise to the level of a criminal offense instead of just your garden variety civil injury.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Oh yes it does.  It makes my case in that if you injure someone in an affidavit it can rise to the level of a criminal offense instead of just your garden variety civil injury.


It is criminal to lie under oath, have i disputed that?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> It is criminal to lie under oath, have i disputed that?


You are using garden variety sheeple indoctrination terminology.  

What is really going on is injuring via affidavit.  Learn more about the process, injury is the correct word.  

Lying under oath is only one example of an injury.

----------


## Jcambeis

> You are using garden variety sheeple indoctrination terminology.  
> 
> What is really going on is injuring via affidavit.  Learn more about the process, injury is the correct word.  
> 
> Lying under oath is only one example of an injury.


Funny you I have the same complaint about you, except Alex Jones is your shepherd while the constitution is mine

----------


## Philhelm

> Link please.


From:  http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm

STANDARD OF PROOF
The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are: 

Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done.
Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that.
Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true.

----------


## Kylie

> Well, I feel totally and utterly honored. <cough>
> 
> I must say.
> 
> I come here - only yesterday, though a lurker here and there before,  discussing a topic that really set my feet on fire and caused me to join  in, happily,
> one because of the local interest to me, (I'm a NH resident) and two  because I care about children, and I think libertarians and others are  taking a wrong tack on standing behind a douchebag on *this* cause.
> 
> And what has it yielded me?
> 
> ...



But at least you weren't asked if you eat box and to post nekkid pics of yourself, Chop. 

Another website I(and I bet you too) know very well. 

BTW, welcome.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Funny you I have the same complaint about you, except Alex Jones is your shepherd while the constitution is mine


Funny, I don't listen to Alex Jones.  You must though in order to deduce I do.  Maybe since I don't listen to Alex Jones, Alex Jones reads my posts on RonPaulForums.com.

Even funnier is that you have demonstrated you know so little about the Constitution in that injury via affidavit is an alien concept to you.

----------


## Philhelm

> @ Phil
> is family court the same as civil court? How does that work considering the rolls of the family, state and child?
> 
> Editing for clarity
> 
> In a civil case two free moral agents engage in conflict and the winner is the person that convinces the jury they have preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> In family law, the state is acting as the guardian of the children. The child is not a free moral agent, at least in this case. There is also no jury trials in family law.


Clear and convinving would be the standard of proof used for child separation.  I had posted a source directly above in response to another poster.

Also, a jury is not always required for civil cases (Think Judge Judy, for instance).  Furthermore, a judge does not need to abide by the decision of a jury, although it is rare that a judge would do such.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Funny, I don't listen to Alex Jones.  You must though in order to deduce I do.  Maybe since I don't listen to Alex Jones, Alex Jones reads my posts on RonPaulForums.com.
> 
> Even funnier is that you have demonstrated you know so little about the Constitution in that injury via affidavit is an alien concept to you.




I have addressed the issue of injury as the result of perjury. 

How do you know AJ reads your posts?

----------


## Philhelm

> Funny, I don't listen to Alex Jones.  You must though in order to deduce I do.  Maybe since I don't listen to Alex Jones, Alex Jones reads my posts on RonPaulForums.com.
> 
> Even funnier is that you have demonstrated you know so little about the Constitution in that injury via affidavit is an alien concept to you.


I had done a bit of searching yesterday, and there are rules for affidavits, in which the party that produces the affidavit can be held liable.  For one, they have to be truthful, as far as the issuing party is concerned.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Funny, I don't listen to Alex Jones.  You must though in order to deduce I do.  Maybe since I don't listen to Alex Jones, Alex Jones reads my posts on RonPaulForums.com.
> 
> Even funnier is that you have demonstrated you know so little about the Constitution in that injury via affidavit is an alien concept to you.




I have addressed the issue of injury as the result of perjury. 

How do you know AJ reads your posts? Is it only because you average 5 posts a day for the last several years hence you cant read the forums with out reading your posts or is it because he told you and you listened to him?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I have addressed the issue of injury as the result of perjury. 
> 
> How do you know AJ reads your posts? Is it only because you average 5 posts a day for the last several years hence you cant read the forums with out reading your posts or is it because he told you and you listened to him?


We are talking about your beliefs, not mine, that Alex Jones is my shepard.

Since I do not listen to Alex Jones it would only be logical for Alex Jones to read my posts and that I was his shepherd for you to deduce anything.

I reckon it could also be a miracle coincidence.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I have addressed the issue of injury as the result of perjury.


No you have not.  I am the only person using raising the importance of the term injury in the thread.

You stated something irrelevant in an affidavit is not illegal.  Obviously such a statement does not even take into consideration whether or not it injures.  It's pretty obvious the concept is alien to you because in your mind something irrelevant is not illegal without any other consideration.

----------


## pcosmar

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157377754295596
*RALLY FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT protected Right of freedom of association!*

----------


## TNforPaul45

> I had done a bit of searching yesterday, and there are rules for affidavits, in which the party that produces the affidavit can be held liable.  For one, they have to be truthful, as far as the issuing party is concerned.


If the Government issues the Affidavit, then the Government can never be charged with injury by Affidavit. 

The Government is never wrong.

Ever.

..........EVAH.

----------


## tropicangela

New Hampshire's "physical force" (spanking) law.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../627/627-6.htm

 627:6 Physical Force by Persons With Special Responsibilities. – 
    I. A parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general care and welfare of a minor is justified in using force against such minor when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish such minor's misconduct.

IV. The justification extended in paragraphs I, II, and III does not apply to the malicious or reckless use of force that creates a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or substantial pain.

----------


## Jcambeis

> No you have not.  I am the only person using raising the importance of the term injury in the thread.
> 
> You stated something irrelevant in an affidavit is not illegal.  Obviously such a statement does not even take into consideration whether or not it injures.  It's pretty obvious the concept is alien to you because in your mind something irrelevant is not illegal without any other consideration.



Relevancy is determined by the Judge. If the judge says it is relevant and harms comes a result, and it was not irrelevant that is on the judge not the who wrote the affidavit. If the person knowingly lies and misleads the judge, that is a different story because it is perjury and therefore criminal.

----------


## Philhelm

> If the Government issues the Affidavit, then the Government can never be charged with injury by Affidavit. 
> 
> The Government is never wrong.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> ..........EVAH.


Indeed.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Relevancy is determined by the Judge. If the judge says it is relevant and harms comes a result, and it was not irrelevant that is on the judge not the who wrote the affidavit. If the person knowingly lies and misleads the judge, that is a different story because it is perjury and therefore criminal.


Believe what you want to believe.  

An example of a case where injury was claimed via affidavit.  

Case summary:



> On August 24, 2004, Katherine Mosley Morrison (Morrison) filed an application with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) seeking a septic tank permit. I-77 Properties, LLC (I-77 Properties) opposes the application and seeks a contested case in which to argue that the permit should be denied.
> 
> Believing that a contested case hearing is improper, DHEC, in a Motion to Dismiss filed on December 22, 2004, (joined in by Morrison on January 3, 2005) argues the challenge to the Morrison application must be dismissed since I-77 Properties not only lacks standing but also presents a matter not yet ripe for decision. I-77 Properties filed its opposition to the motion. Since I-77 Properties lacks standing, the ripeness issue is not reached.


This is why it was dismissed and not considered ripe.  Again the affidavit was quite relevant for purposes of injury it just happened to be in this case affidavit alone was not enough for the injury to be actual.




> Since the septic tank system is not yet installed, the injury alleged cannot be actual. Further, nothing in the evidence establishes how the injury complained of is imminent. For example, harm from the alleged contamination cannot result unless the contamination moves from Morrison's property to the property of I-77 Properties. To establish movement requires at least proving the gradient of the land on and between the two properties, how surface water or groundwater will flow from Morrison's property to property of I-77 Properties, and where the water table is on Morrison's property.
> 
> None of these elements are even alleged let alone proven. The only evidence of injury is the affidavit's simple assertion that "[i]mproperly sited septic tanks create the potential for contamination of both surface water and groundwater that can migrate to adjacent properties." (Emphasis added). Such an assertion does not present a harm that is actual or imminent, but instead suggests a harm that is only conjectural or hypothetical.


If I must live in statist society that is only going to stifle competition and first resort to force as the solution, more and more I am liking the idea of an ignorant population.  You are easier to take advantage of (err excuse me... obtain justice from) that way and by the time I have a judgment, you won't have any idea what just happened.

----------


## Jcambeis

> An example of a case where injury was claimed via affidavit.  
> .


Thank you for posting that. I believe and have stated over and over and over gain that anything can be claimed via affidavit as long as it believed to be true and relevant. The judge then determines the merits of the affidavit.
Thank you for supporting my argument.

----------


## Jcambeis

> If I must live in statist society that is only going to stifle competition and first resort to force as the solution, more and more I am liking the idea of an ignorant population.  You are easier to take advantage of that way and by the time I have a judgment, you won't have any idea what just happened.


If the society is so statist you can move. No one is holding you against your will....

It does not follow that because you  must live in a statist society of ignorant people you should take advantage of people or impose your will on them. 
Hitler and Mao shared that philosophy.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Thank you for posting that. I believe and have stated over and over and over gain that anything can be claimed via affidavit as long as it believed to be true and relevant.


Of course anything can be claimed.  What you deny is that people are not responsible for any injuries caused by an affidavit which is what this example illustrates can happen.




> The judge then determines the merits of the affidavit.


The courts are a monopoly on truth.  That is what judges and juries do and it is completely irrelevant to anything.




> Thank you for supporting my argument.


Oh no thank you so much for continuing to illustrate mine.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> If the society is so statist you can move. No one is holding you against your will....
> 
> It does not follow that because you  must live in a statist society of ignorant people you should take advantage of people or impose your will on them. 
> Hitler and Mao shared that philosophy.


It has been a recurring theme of history.  Justice must be obtained for the injustice a society of people has imposed.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Let's recap.  Your unfounded claim:




> Debrah
> we have been through this. Listing something irrelevant in an affidavit is not uncommon, illegal or illegitimate.


Completely bogus.  I just posted a case where one party alleged injury based on information in an affidavit of another party who was simply filing for a permit that was considered by a judge.

If that something irrelevant injures it is illegal.  A concept that is as alien to you now as it has been since I brought it up.

----------


## Philhelm

> If the society is so statist you can move. No one is holding you against your will....


I will have to disagree with this statement.  I'd prefer the ones who ruin this nation to leave (I'm not saying that is you, mind you).  On the other hand, where in the world is there a place to live in freedom, even if I were inclined to leave the U.S.?

----------


## Jcambeis

> Let's recap.  Your unfounded claim:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely bogus.  I just posted a case where one party alleged injury based on information in an affidavit of another party who was simply filing for a permit that was considered by a judge.
> 
> If that something irrelevant injures it is illegal.  A concept that is as alien to you now as it has been since I brought it up.


And the judge mediated. like he is suppose to do in cases of conflicting testimony . 

Something irrelevant can not injure because it is not taken into consideration into the decision, hence the word irrelevant

----------


## Jcambeis

Interesting interview from 10/12/10 from Johnathan Irish father 
http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/call...n/archives.php

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> And the judge mediated. like he is suppose to do in cases of conflicting testimony . 
> 
> Something irrelevant can not injure because it is not taken into consideration into the decision, hence the word irrelevant


Just because something might be considered irrelevant in one instance does not mean it is irrelevant across the board.  Irrelevant could be defamation of character and injure another party.

So for you it would be irrelevant if government listed as one of the reasons for taking your neighbors children was because they associated with a neighbor who checked out books from the local library on how to _make bombs_ (insert something controversial).

So for you it would be irrelevant if government listed as one of the reasons for taking your neighbors children was because they associated with a neighbor who  _is a nudist_ (insert something controversial).

Yes, I am sure something like that getting out would improve your relationship with neighbors.  Don't worry though the Judge said it was irrelevant in the family services hearing so your neighbors will think nothing of it.

----------


## tropicangela

> Interesting interview from 10/12/10 from Johnathan Irish father 
> http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/call...n/archives.php


Direct link - http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Arch...ion/101210.mp3

Does Jonathan's father not understand that the patriots are going to New Hampshire only for the oathkeepers being listed on the affidavit?  They aren't going there to defend his son's abuse allegations.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Direct link - http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Arch...ion/101210.mp3
> 
> Does Jonathan's father not understand that the patriots are going to New Hampshire only for the oathkeepers being listed on the affidavit?  They aren't going there to defend his son's abuse allegations.


The price of not getting all of the facts when there are sordid backgrounds evidenced in newspapers, a 20+ month long pre-existing case, possible other charges, and a lot of unknown information.  

I think his father got it.  Oath Keepers should invite John Irish's father to join Oath Keepers while they address the one issue they are there to address.

----------


## Jcambeis

> Direct link - http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Arch...ion/101210.mp3
> 
> Does Jonathan's father not understand that the patriots are going to New Hampshire only for the oathkeepers being listed on the affidavit?  They aren't going there to defend his son's abuse allegations.


According to posts I read on this forum and Oath Keepers that is not the only reason. Some people are pissed that the state can take away the child for any reason. Other people are pissed guns were mentioned.

If this is a first amendment issue, it is a second amendment issue. Reasons stated in the affidavit include not just a past affiliation with OK but also recent gun purchases.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> According to posts I read on this forum and Oath Keepers that is not the only reason. Some people are pissed that the state can take away the child for any reason. Other people are pissed guns were mentioned.
> 
> If this is a first amendment issue, it is a second amendment issue. Reasons stated in the affidavit include not just a past affiliation with OK but also recent gun purchases.


This site is not OK. 

If you look around here most posters are unified on the mention of a political association in any government affidavit and realize that matter has nothing to do with the couple.

In addition to mentioning OK, some members are unhappy ownership of firearms are mentioned and I think it is a legitimate gripe.  Owning a firearm is a lawful activity which also has nothing to do with the couple.

The weakest issue from the beginning that has had the least support has been the merits and details of the actual case involving the couple.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't expect humility from a Hannity Forum member, no.  Carry on for your brief stay.


LOL, so *that's* what's going on here.

$#@!, I thought the cops were working shifts on the disinfo terminal.

----------


## AxisMundi

> Look it up


Not my job to do other people's homework for them.

----------


## tropicangela

> According to posts I read on this forum and Oath Keepers that is not the only reason. Some people are pissed that the state can take away the child for any reason. Other people are pissed guns were mentioned.
> 
> If this is a first amendment issue, it is a second amendment issue. Reasons stated in the affidavit include not just a past affiliation with OK but also recent gun purchases.


Ok.  Still not anything to do with going to New Hampshire to defend the abuse allegations which is what Jonathan's father seems concerned about.  The oathkeepers website even says that there are serious allegations.  

His father called the oathkeeper mention in the affidavit "minor."  I disagree.




> Originally Posted by* pcosmar*
> 
> You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------


## specsaregood

> Ok.  Still not anything to do with going to New Hampshire to defend the abuse allegations which is what Jonathan's father seems concerned about.  The oathkeepers website even says that there are serious allegations.  
> 
> His father called the oathkeeper mention in the affidavit "minor."  I disagree.


Tread lightly Angela, you talk much more like that and some people here will be wishing harm upon you and your family.

----------


## tropicangela

> Tread lightly Angela, you talk much more like that and some people here will be wishing harm upon you and your family.

----------


## torchbearer

> Tread lightly Angela, you talk much more like that and some people here will be wishing harm upon you and your family.


we can do more than wish. we can do.

----------


## specsaregood

> we can do more than wish. we can do.


Is that a threat? You big internet tough guy?

----------


## torchbearer

> Is that a threat? You big internet tough guy?


Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to fear from the benevolent CPS?

----------


## tropicangela

There is no doubt question as to the evidence and actions of CPS in this case.  The legal defense fund is set up to help the family have due process, no?  

But, the oath keepers listed is not minor IMO!

----------


## specsaregood

> Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to fear from the benevolent CPS?


That's what I thought.

----------


## torchbearer

> That's what I thought.


Sometimes, for some people, some lessons can only be learned by experience. If you need to have CPS target you for you to find out what they are about. Why should anyone deny you that education?

----------


## tropicangela

> Sometimes, for some people, some lessons can only be learned by experience. If you need to have CPS target you for you to find out what they are about. Why should anyone deny you that education?


I've had experience...  can anyone tell me what where the baby sleeps has to do with an argument between the parents?  ONE argument?

----------


## torchbearer

> I've had experience...  can anyone tell me what where the baby sleeps has to do with an argument between the parents?  ONE argument?


not sure what the question is-

----------


## specsaregood

> Sometimes, for some people, some lessons can only be learned by experience. If you need to have CPS target you for you to find out what they are about. Why should anyone deny you that education?


Speaking of education, you ever file with the FEC?

----------


## torchbearer

> Speaking of education, you ever file with the FEC?


nope.

----------


## tropicangela

> not sure what the question is-


Parents had argument, police called by third party.  Resulting in CPS involved simply because they reside in the home.  Followed by surprise home visits by worker.  Thorough home inspections due to legal weapons in home.  Worker wants to know where the baby sleeps.  Wants mother to sign a form stating she understands the risks of SIDS and cosleeping.  Mother refuses to sign and sends case worker off with an educational cosleeping brochure and says keep it in the file.  Schooled.  Case closed.

Question:  What does the location of where the infant sleeps have to do with an argument between the parents?

----------


## torchbearer

> Parents had argument, police called by third party.  Resulting in CPS involved simply because they reside in the home.  Followed by surprise home visits by worker.  Thorough home inspections due to legal weapons in home.  Worker wants to know where the baby sleeps.  Wants mother to sign a form stating she understands the risks of SIDS and cosleeping.  Mother refuses to sign and sends case worker off with an educational cosleeping brochure and says keep it in the file.  Schooled.  Case closed.
> 
> Question:  What does where the location of the infant sleeps have to do with an argument between the parents?


it doesn't matter. but the person involved in this story is lucky that it stopped there.

----------


## tropicangela

> it doesn't matter. but the person involved in this story is lucky that it stopped there.


Agreed.  Child protective services has done terrible things to families.  I don't dispute that.

Also, form the mother was told to sign states that mother will agree not to allow baby to sleep anywhere except alone in a crib.  Yet... babies die in cribs all the time.  Cribs are constantly recalled, and last night I read a case of a foster child dying from getting stuck in a crib.

----------


## torchbearer

> Agreed.  Child protective services has done terrible things to families.  I don't dispute that.
> 
> Also, form the mother was told to sign states that mother will agree not to allow baby to sleep anywhere except alone in a crib.  Yet... babies die in cribs all the time.  Cribs are constantly recalled, and last night I read a case of a foster child dying from getting stuck in a crib.


why is the government telling people how to raise their children?
if you don't follow their prefered method, they take your child and give him/her to a stranger? 
and that is better?

----------


## Bern

> ... His father called the oathkeeper mention in the affidavit "minor."  I disagree.


With respect to his fitness to be a parent, I completely agree.  That's why it shouldn't have been mentioned in the affidavit.  It's irrelevant.  That's the whole point.

What isn't "minor" is the implication that the State may use political affiliations as an argument for said fitness.  That's a huge issue.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> CPS we can do more than wish. CPS we can do.


Fixed that for you.

----------


## torchbearer

> Fixed that for you.


thanks, i gave ya pos rep for being johnny-on-the-spot.

----------


## tropicangela

> With respect to his fitness to be a parent, I completely agree.  That's why it shouldn't have been mentioned in the affidavit.  It's irrelevant.  That's the whole point.
> 
> What isn't "minor" is the implication that the State may use political affiliations as an argument for said fitness.  That's a huge issue.


Yes, there are two issues, both of huge importance.

----------


## Instant-K9

Click on October 12th  of this page:
http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/call...n/archives.php

Listen to JOHN'S OWN FATHER explain it some. 

Absolutely amazing story unfolding.

----------


## sratiug

In the radio interview with Irish's father I heard no evidence of any wrongdoing.   I did hear a man bitter because his wife left him and his son hates him.   I didn't hear who was running the lawnmower that almost killed his son and cost him an eye.  I wonder where CPS was when that happened?

I also heard Christian zealots, probably neocons, mad because a woman left her husband while he was busy killing children in the middle east.   And an advertisement for a magazine or newspaper called the Nationalist.

----------


## Deborah K

Off the current subject a bit.  Does anyone know how CPS found out that he was associated with the O.K.s?  Are they monitoring his internet use?

----------


## torchbearer

> In the radio interview with Irish's father I heard no evidence of any wrongdoing.   I did hear a man bitter because his wife left him and his son hates him.   I didn't hear who was running the lawnmower that almost killed his son and cost him an eye.  I wonder where CPS was when that happened?


$#@!, i'd hate to see CPS checking on a farm kid.
I had a lot more dangers and near-misses that an object being thrown from a lawn mower. which happens- from time to time. no matter where you stand.. if you are within 50 years of the mower, you are a target.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Off the current subject a bit.  Does anyone know how CPS found out that he was associated with the O.K.s?  Are they monitoring his internet use?


Come on Deb, you haven't read every post on this subject yet? 

The mother said that the CPS person Googled Irish's name and found the Oath Keepers references on his Facebook page.

----------


## Deborah K

> Come on Deb, you haven't read every post on this subject yet? 
> 
> The mother said that the CPS person Googled Irish's name and found the Oath Keepers references on his Facebook page.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Come on Deb, you haven't read every post on this subject yet? 
> 
> The mother said that the CPS person Googled Irish's name and found the Oath Keepers references on his Facebook page.


Valuable lesson learned about posting your whole life's story on MyLinkedInSpacePageBook with your real name, FFS.

I fail to see the worth.

----------


## specsaregood

> The mother said that the CPS person Googled Irish's name and found the Oath Keepers references on his Facebook page.


And just for fun, googling her turns up:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...p?id=508830182
http://www.myspace.com/danajeannette

----------


## pcosmar

> Valuable lesson learned about posting your whole life's story on MyLinkedInSpacePageBook with your real name, FFS.
> 
> I fail to see the worth.


I have put mine all out there, I ain't hiding. And they have all that stuff anyway. I just get the chance to spin it differently.
I have seen kids like this, several times. Helped some of them.
This isn't about "these kids", it's about all kids. It is about a corrupt and destructive government.

I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun. 

And I have years of personal experience.
The same corrupt system is here.
The county persecutor is Brian Peppler. His wife runs the other side.
http://www.dprcenter.org/

Can you see conflict of interest, or a merging of interests?
http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html

This is not these kids or just NH "family  services", it is all of them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Absolutely amazing story unfolding.


Not sure if it's amazing. As I have said before, perfect for an episode of Jerry Springer though...(minus the Oath Keepers).

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I really dislike the character assassination going on but it is common enough.
> It seems that  the "Weapons Charges"  are questionable. He and she carried, He was an Open Carry Advocate and she had a concealed carry permit. Reports are that he Open Carried regularly and had some contact with LE.
> there are no convictions to my knowledge. 
> btw. I also question the abuse charges. She carried a gun.


Since I am a character critic for purely tactical reasoning I will expand on my personal opinion.  I don't hold anyone guilty and you know I have posted enough about government corruption to know government is corrupt as hell but I don't think any organization such as OK should take that hit.  I hope OK or 2nd Amendment groups if they get involved get in, strike their one respective issues, and get out.

What would be wrong with a decentralized coordinated effort of unaffiliated individuals supporting the couple?

----------


## pcosmar

Just got back online, but ,,
http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10...abuse-in-care/
Baby Cheyenne: Evidence of Neglect or Abuse in Care



> Confirmed reports have come to our attention that Baby Cheyenne is either being neglected or abused in the care of foster parents.
> 
> When Jonathan and Stephanie arrived at at scheduled visit the baby would not wake up. They decided to change the diaper as that will wake up a baby. As they did, they discovered blood in her diaper and was found to be coming from her privates. The sheriff is a witness to this fact and the baby has been rushed to hospital by the sheriff as this discharge is not within the normal levels expected due to hormonal changes in a new born baby girl.
> 
> 
> These foster parents also have Stephanie's other two children in their care from her former relationship.


From FB,



> *Free Baby Cheyenne*  via Laurie Bethel "Update: The Dr. at the hospital has recommended
> that the baby be examined by a sexual abuse specialist. The family is
> in route to the specialist right now."


http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

----------


## pcosmar

> Since I am a character critic for purely tactical reasoning I will expand on my personal opinion.  I don't hold anyone guilty and you know I have posted enough about government corruption to know government is corrupt as hell but I don't think any organization such as OK should take that hit.  I hope OK or 2nd Amendment groups if they get involved get in, strike their one respective issues, and get out.
> *
> What would be wrong with a decentralized coordinated effort of unaffiliated individuals supporting the couple?*


Nothing wrong with that.
I think the OK's have a good case. A good frontal assault. And on one specific, but very important point.
I hope others will join in,,there is a whole lot wrong here.

----------


## ericsnow

The New developments in the Cheyenne Irish CPS kidnapping case are going to blow this wide open.

John Irish called into the live show on Alex's cell phone at about 12:40CT.

When the mother and father were given visitation due to public pressure, and the baby arrived she was lethargic... they decided to change the baby's diaper since that will usually rouse the child... when the diaper came off their was blood all over her vaginal area.

The DHHS worker that was there to supervise the visitation mumbled..."We're screwed." overheard by Irish.

YouTube - John Irish with an Emergency update on The Alex Jones Show - Wed 10.13.2010 part-10

YouTube - John Irish with an Emergency update on The Alex Jones Show - Wed 10.13.2010 part-11

----------


## tropicangela

I didn't watch this yet, but reading that Cheyenne is in and out of consciousness reminded me that Enfamil makes baby formula called "REST FULL" that is supposed to make them sleep?  It's terrible.  There are biological benefits to babies frequently waking up...  

Rest Full - http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/enfam...l-formula.html

Night waking protects against SIDS - http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/night...inst-sids.html

----------


## Thomas

Wtf! >:{

----------


## Pericles

> Valuable lesson learned about posting your whole life's story on MyLinkedInSpacePageBook with your real name, FFS.
> 
> I fail to see the worth.


FWIW, I consider posting one's life story on those sites as the dumb f*ck's attempt at starring in his own reality TV show.

----------


## Jcambeis

WOW that is sickening. It is does not matter if Irish is not a suitable parent, thinking some one hurt you baby is a pain beyond imagine.

Also wanted to mention that a new born can lose up to 20% of their birth weight in the fist two weeks with out much concern.

----------


## tropicangela

Here's a long list of foster parent misdeeds:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/CPS-Watch/133339569426

----------


## VegasPatriot

> "As I have said numerous times, what we oppose is the listing of  political affiliations as a reason for taking children from their  parents.  That gun ownership is also deemed a reason is also a troubling  problem, but even that is not as blatant and disturbing as listing  political association.  What political group a parent associates with  should never be listed as a reason for CPS action. 
> 
> We are not defending John Irish or Stephanie Taylor.  We are  defending YOUR right to not have your political affiliations listed as a  reason for government taking your kids.  The only reason this case is  on our radar screen and why it is now getting national attention is that  the CPS worker chose to list association with this organization as one  of the reasons to take the child, and the judge then adopted that  reason, along with all the others, by making the affidavit the Courts  findings of fact in the Order. 
> 
>  And by the judge adopting the affidavit as the Courts findings of  fact, it is no longer just some opinion of the CPS worker (as some  have contended), it is now part of a judicial order.  The judge adopted  ALL of the affidavit as the courts findings of fact and reasons for the  taking.  Thus, among those reasons for taking the child is the  association with Oath Keepers. "
> 
>  "we have no choice but to denounce this.  It is a  matter of defending free speech and association against the use of those  associations to justify taking kids, not defending against run of the  mill allegations of child abuse."
> 
>  Stewart Rhodes


This quote is taken form the comment section at OK's website.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This quote is taken form the comment section at OK's website.


*That* needs to be burned into some brain cells in this thread.




> "As I have said numerous times, what we oppose is the listing of political affiliations as a reason for taking children from their parents. That gun ownership is also deemed a reason is also a troubling problem, but even that is not as blatant and disturbing as listing political association. What political group a parent associates with should never be listed as a reason for CPS action. 
> 
> We are not defending John Irish or Stephanie Taylor. We are defending YOUR right to not have your political affiliations listed as a reason for government taking your kids. The only reason this case is on our radar screen and why it is now getting national attention is that the CPS worker chose to list association with this organization as one of the reasons to take the child, and the judge then adopted that reason, along with all the others, by making the affidavit the Court’s findings of fact in the Order. 
> 
> *And by the judge adopting the affidavit as the Court’s findings of fact, it is no longer just some “opinion” of the CPS worker (as some have contended), it is now part of a judicial order. The judge adopted ALL of the affidavit as the court’s findings of fact and reasons for the taking. Thus, among those reasons for taking the child is the association with Oath Keepers. "*
> 
> "we have no choice but to denounce this. It is a matter of defending free speech and association against the use of those associations to justify taking kids, not defending against run of the mill allegations of child abuse."
> 
> Stewart Rhodes

----------


## phill4paul

Qfi-




> and by the judge adopting the affidavit as the courts findings of fact, it is no longer just some opinion of the cps worker (as some have contended), it is now part of a judicial order. The judge adopted all of the affidavit as the courts findings of fact and reasons for the taking. Thus, among those reasons for taking the child is the association with oath keepers. "

----------


## Pericles

> *That* needs to be burned into some brain cells in this thread.


Yes - are those crickets I hear?

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes - are those crickets I hear?


I am hoping for boots.  In NH tomorrow. And cameras, lots of cameras.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...r-14-dover-nh/

----------


## wizardwatson

It seems to me if this story does "break" which I doubt.  The story will likely be, "Tea Party supports abusive father", not "Tea Party fights against tyranny and saves baby from the clutches of the state."

Still dumbfounded why people find this story so captivating.

----------


## jclay2

From fb:




> Jonathan Irish called into the Alex Jones show this morning to report that he and his wife had a supervised visit with their daughter this morning. During the visit they found the baby bleeding from the vaginal area. It appears the newborn infant was raped while in state custody. They are on the way to the hospital with the baby and a sheriff escort.


From DailyTeaParty:




> Update 20:00 BST (15:00 CST)
> 
> Baby Cheyenne has been taken to a sexual assault speciality Doctor under police escort. The sheriff is with the baby. Stephanie and Jonathan are following them, along with CPS. Baby Cheyenne is ‘fussy’, going in and out of consciousness, and when she is awake doesn’t want any one touching her, which shows the level of her injuries and distress.
> 
> Update 20:16 BST (15:16 CST)
> 
> Baby Cheyenne has been taken out of CPS custody by the sheriff, who has taken over the whole case. She is being seen by a sexual abuse specialist. There were also abrasions on her vaginal area.


From some random person on fb:




> they found a hair near the baby's genitals. They aren't charging anyone, and gave John the hair in a plastic bag, didn't want to look at any evidence and basically had them leave. I'm just absolutely speechless at this point


Another random person on fb:




> M wife is a pediatric nurse, she has infomred me that it is very common for baby girls to menstruate in the first week or two after birth. It has to do with the hormones she received from her mother in the womb building up her uterus


This could just be a normal common medical issue. However, if the abrasions and the hair turn out to be confirmed, God help this family.

----------


## phill4paul

> It seems to me if this story does "break" which I doubt.  The story will likely be, "Tea Party supports abusive father", not "Tea Party fights against tyranny and saves baby from the clutches of the state."
> 
> Still dumbfounded why people find this story so captivating.


  Because political affiliation was used in an affidavit to secure a judges order for removal of the child by the state from its natural parents.

  At this point no more or less.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Because political affiliation was used in an affidavit to secure a judges order for removal of the child by the state from its natural parents.
> 
>   At this point no more or less.


Honestly.

What's so hard to understand here?

My confusion and skepticism is reserved for all those throwing great, heaping, glops of FUD all over this.

Phil's point is factual, there is no argument or clarification needed.

*"Association" with a legal, lawful, political action group was cited as a reason for the state snatching a newborn baby away from their parents.*

Period, FFS.

----------


## torchbearer

that baby is going to be $#@!ed up for life because of the CPS. i'm glad they kidnapped that child from those horrible parents.

----------


## speciallyblend

> It seems to me if this story does "break" which I doubt.  The story will likely be, "Tea Party supports abusive father", not "Tea Party fights against tyranny and saves baby from the clutches of the state."
> 
> Still dumbfounded why people find this story so captivating.


i have been watching these threads on rpf etc etc . I think the root of the story is using the association of oathkeepers as a reason to take the baby!

----------


## wizardwatson

> i have been watching these threads on rpf etc etc . I think the root of the story is using the association of oathkeepers as a reason to take the baby!


I get that, just wondering why people think this is an issue to rally around.  I think it will come to nothing and die away.  Probably the minute AJ stops talking about it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I get that, just wondering why people think this is an issue to rally around.  I think it will come to nothing and die away.  Probably the minute AJ stops talking about it.


So you want that precedent to stand? That the state, in violation of it's own law, can snatch newborn children away from their parents and use the parent's political affiliations as one of the reasons for doing so?

Or is it just *too* uncomfortable, getting *too* close to that final line in the sand?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I get that, just wondering why people think this is an issue to rally around.  I think it will come to nothing and die away.  Probably the minute AJ stops talking about it.


Admission of affiliation which could be seen as prejudicial is often debatable in court cases.  If a prosecutor tried to enter into evidence the fact that the defendant once went to SE Asia and ate dog meat (and liked it; we have witnesses!) in a case regarding a carjacking... that would probably be seen as a pretty obvious attempt to make the jury think the defendant is a bad guy, even though eating dog meat has NOTHING to do with the carjacking.  

Now, rather than erring on the side of caution, you have an allegation that a Government organization is putting unrelated affiliations on legal documentation and using their conclusions about those organizations to form decisions affecting the lives and health of infants/children.  That's pretty serious stuff right there.  You also have a pretty plain case of better courses of action being open to CPS.  If all of the pieces are really that neatly in place, then it's a noble thing to rally around, sure.  

If it's all true, and it "dies away," then we're beyond screwed.  Your property can already be taken away until you're on trial.  Your children can suffer while you await trial.  This, however, is a new one as there seems to be no underlying arrest of the mother, and no reason to have removed the infant from the mother while she and the baby were both still at the hospital.

This case is full of  for me, but if it's all true then I don't see why one would be shrugging and saying "this too shall pass" about it.

----------


## phill4paul

> I get that, just wondering why people think this is an issue to rally around.  I think it will come to nothing and die away.  Probably the minute AJ stops talking about it.


  It dies away if we allow it to die away. Much like every other issue. 
  I think the OK will take this one to the bank. That it will become larger than AJ or internet forums. At least I hope so.
   This can be a news one day forget about it the next event or one that  helps galvanize the hearts and minds of the independents across this country to help in breaking the back of the status-quo. 
  If you think that it will come to nothing and die away or stop the minute that AJ stops talking about it then you should probably just ignore the situation and this thread.
  No harm no foul.

----------


## wizardwatson

Look.  I get the state is "evil".  But I separate "state" from "government".  Yes this legal "precedent" is going the way of the nazi's.  But as has been said before, pre-emptive war is also going the way of the nazi's.  

I'm just wondering why everyone's getting all indignant about this specific issue.

Because my opinion is that you are all taking this as an "attack on the liberty movement."

Cuz if the affiliation listed was "NAACP", I doubt very many on this forum would take notice.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Look.  I get the state is "evil".  But I separate "state" from "government".  Yes this legal "precedent" is going the way of the nazi's.  But as has been said before, pre-emptive war is also going the way of the nazi's.  
> 
> I'm just wondering why everyone's getting all indignant about this specific issue.
> 
> Because my opinion is that you are all taking this as an "attack on the liberty movement."
> 
> Cuz if the affiliation listed was "NAACP", I doubt very many on this forum would take notice.


I've already given examples about that, actually, and I would take notice if it were a story that were brought to my attention.  Of course, if the baby were taken away because the parents were suspected NAACP members, it would be all over the news and various groups would rally to the parents' side even IF they WERE criminals, and it would be a huge to-do  

I'm not taking it as an attack on the liberty movement.  It is a loose affiliation that will be used in the future to indict a wide range of people, sure, but I've been wary of that for quite a long time.  Hell, people used to do this based off of what music you listened to (remember, kids, metal makes you kill people).  The difference is that instead of simply implying you might be a certain "type," there is now action being taken.  It is the line that most of us talk about when it comes to prejudice of any sort.  You can be a racist, but when you start lynching people there's a problem.  You can hate "militia groups" and even spread rumors or be nasty about them, but when you rationalize taking someone's baby because the danger to the child is the parents' affiliation with a group of "gun-toting kooks" or whatever else... it's a problem.  

If there are allegations against the mother to support removing the infant, they have yet to make an appearance.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Cuz if the affiliation listed was "NAACP", I doubt very many on this forum would take notice.


Oh, I understand now.

Well, perhaps there's a grain of truth to that, but I'd like to think not at least for me, personally.

In every battle of the state vs. the individual over the past, almost 20 years now, I've come down on the side of the individual.

And many times I had to listen to the character assassins that were trying to sluff the incident off by bringing the unsavory aspects of the people involved to the forefront.

I heard the same arguments that I'm hearing now when I was defending Rodney King, and Randy Weaver, and the Branch Davidians, and Elian Gonzalez and so on, all the way to Oscar Grant.

So if I had found out that a child had been taken based on NAACP affiliation, I'm thinking I would be just as outraged.

----------


## MelissaWV

> ...
> 
> So if I had found out that a child had been taken based on NAACP affiliation, I'm thinking I would be just as outraged.


You'd have a lot more company, too.

----------


## Ekrub

I'm too lazy to read all 121 pages. Can somebody sum this topic up for me?

----------


## purplechoe

> I'm too lazy to read all 121 pages. Can somebody sum this topic up for me?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You'd have a lot more company, too.


Yeah, no kidding.

Perhaps because black folks still have some sense of "belonging" with each other?

Or because they have access to a 24/7 professional grievance machine?

Seems white folks just rip their "own" to shreds.

----------


## Anti Federalist

That's the first LOL I've had in any of the threads on this subject.

Well done, +rep.




>

----------


## pcosmar

Is this guy out yet?



Speaking of outrage. and keeping things in perspective.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is this guy out yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of outrage. and keeping things in perspective.


I'll admit, I'm stumped.

Who am I looking at Pete?

----------


## pcosmar

> I'll admit, I'm stumped.
> 
> Who am I looking at Pete?


Lawrence King 
Franklin Savings &Loan sex scandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankli...ng_allegations

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, no kidding.
> 
> Perhaps because black folks still have some sense of "belonging" with each other?
> 
> Or because they have access to a 24/7 professional grievance machine?
> 
> Seems white folks just rip their "own" to shreds.


"From the ground up, this country has no sense of itself."  Guess where that quote is from?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "From the ground up, this country has no sense of itself."  Guess where that quote is from?


LOL, great scene.

----------


## Deborah K

> LOL, great scene.


Did I ever tell you that movie has been my all time favorite since I first saw it in the theatre?  I've seen it so many times, I have it memorized.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Lawrence King 
> Franklin Savings &Loan sex scandal.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankli...ng_allegations


Oh, OK, I know the story, didn't recognize the face.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Did I ever tell you that movie has been my all time favorite since I first saw it in the theatre?  I've seen it so many times, I have it memorized.


_We'll make spears, as long as a man.

Aye, but, some men are longer than others._

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh, OK, I know the story, didn't recognize the face.


  I didn't. So Thanks Pete for posting this.

----------


## amy31416

Dupe post....

----------


## amy31416

> 


You're a terrible person for making me laugh at this subject.

+rep (as soon as I have available to hand out.)

----------


## Deborah K

> _We'll make spears, as long as a man.
> 
> Aye, but, some men are longer than others._


Hahahaha!


It's MY island!

I love Stephen!

The Lord told me he could get me out of this mess but he's pretty sure you're Focked!  

YouTube - Stephen - The Mad Irishman - Braveheart


just a little comic relief digression folks!

----------


## VegasPatriot

> Look.  I get the state is "evil".  But I  separate "state" from "government".  Yes this legal "precedent" is going  the way of the nazi's.  But as has been said before, pre-emptive war is  also going the way of the nazi's.  
> 
> *I'm just wondering why everyone's getting all indignant about this specific issue.*
> 
> Because my opinion is that you are all taking this as an "attack on the liberty movement."
> 
> Cuz if the affiliation listed was "NAACP", I doubt very many on this forum would take notice.


   What a surprise.  People here supporting an organization that supports  the constitution.  
Not to mention those of us who started OK are also  Ron Paul supporters.  
  Shocking, just shocking I say!

----------


## Kylie

> Look.  I get the state is "evil".  But I separate "state" from "government".  Yes this legal "precedent" is going the way of the nazi's.  But as has been said before, pre-emptive war is also going the way of the nazi's.  
> 
> I'm just wondering why everyone's getting all indignant about this specific issue.
> 
> Because my opinion is that you are all taking this as an "attack on the liberty movement."
> 
> Cuz if the affiliation listed was "NAACP", I doubt very many on this forum would take notice.




If I didn't know better, I would say that you are putting us off as racists. 

And for that, I have this to say to you......

----------


## DadaOrwell

Baby Cheyenne Granddad proposes solution 

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne granddad proposes solution

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Baby Cheyenne Granddad proposes solution.


Douchebagsayswhat?

----------


## pcosmar

Yeah, quite the stateist.
In the last video he was hitting all the SPLC talking points.

wonder if he was coached ?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yeah, quite the stateist.
> In the last video he was hitting all the SPLC talking points.
> 
> wonder if he was coached ?


Who knows. Maybe garden variety douche. Didn't one of the videos say that he had been criminally convicted of assaulting his son recently?

Just in! The latest interview (gratuitous sarcasm due to overload on this story). 

Reporter: Hello Douchebag, you wanted to tell us about your son?
Douchebag: Yes, my son is a douchebag.
Reporter: That's interesting. I guess the douche doesn't fall far from the bag?
Douchebag: Damn right. I tried to beat the douche out of him when he was a little bag.
Reporter: I wonder where he learned to be a douche?
Douchebag: No idea. All I can say is he's a douchebag.
Reporter: Do you think it's appropriate for a father to publicly call his son a douche during a trying time like this?
Douchebag: Well, it's the truth!
Reporter: Doesn't that make you a bigger douche?
Douchebag: Of course I'm bigger, I'm a grandfather now.
Reporter: Congratulations on that. I'm glad to see you support family values.
Douchebag: Hell yes. I went on my favorite radio show to talk about it yesterday.
Reporter: That's great. I don't think I have any more questions.
Douchebag: Thanks. Let me know if you need me to talk again. Do you think they will put me on TV for my next interview?
Reporter: I'll ask my boss.
Douchebag: Great, I can't stand to see the little douche get more airtime than me.
Reporter: Uhhh...yeah...airtime is important, we don't give it to just anybody. Buh-bye now.

----------


## pcosmar

Mr. William N. Grigg writes,

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...kids-back.html



> "Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the smirking DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

----------


## tsetsefly

What is the update on this story? Is it true he had physically abused his other kids?

----------


## pcosmar

> What is the update on this story?


The OathKeepers are going to press a Freedom of Association charge against the state.
Huge First Amendment violation.

Read this,
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...r-14-dover-nh/

----------


## pcosmar

> *Stephanie Janvrin*  I just wanted to remind every one before signing off for the night that
> court is tomorrow at the Rochester Family court in Dover NH at 1
> tomorrow, and there is a rally being held there from 12-4 Johnathon and I
> will be there at 11 so that we can try to met with any one that shows
> up early. Thank you again for your support!


http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

----------


## wizardwatson

> If I didn't know better, I would say that you are putting us off as racists. 
> 
> And for that, I have this to say to you......


Well, thank God you know better.

----------


## revolutionary8

Originally Posted by Kylie  



> If I didn't know better, I would say that you are putting us off as racists.





> Well, thank God you know better.


Since I see an "us" in there, and you sarcastically responded, let's see what you meant. 
 What* did* you mean Wizzy? I'd appreciate the chance to debate ya, since now you are talking smack, speaking in we's, and rolling your eyes.

----------


## A. Havnes

Is anyone going to represent the father in court?

----------


## pcosmar

Not to my knowledge.
And *this is not a trial.*, it is a hearing.

Generally it is the rubber stamp on the state agencies actions.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Originally Posted by Kylie  
> 
> 
> 
> Since I see an "us" in there, and you sarcastically responded, let's see what you meant. 
>  What* did* you mean Wizzy? I'd appreciate the chance to debate ya, since now you are talking smack, speaking in we's, and rolling your eyes.


I said NAACP because it's a liberal organization.  It's the only quote "liberal" organization I could think of at the time.  

What do you want to debate about.  All I'm saying/wondering is why is everyone so flared up over this issue.  To me its one dumb CPS worker and one dumb judge.  

People are dying from the criminal activities of Presidents with no morals, controlled by military industrialists and bankers with no morals, hiring contract killers with no morals.  I'm only asking why "this" is the issue we should all rally around.  Like this is the final straw, the line in the sand where we make our final stand.  I take issue with the rhetoric not with the principles people are claiming are the basis for their involvement.

And don't get all hoity-toity with me about me "talking smack".  I'm just posting $#@! on a BB.  And you are posting $#@! on a BB too.  It ain't that big a deal.  If you really take issue with what I've been saying as some kind of personal attack then flag me or PM me your gripes, and don't try to single me out as some kind of troll, it don't work.  I've been here too long for that and I don't personally attack people.  I don't mind that everyone's an exhibitionist online, but don't start role-playing me as the $#@!.

And the day people stop speaking on this BB in "we"s and "us"s and the "movement" and "TPTB" and "anarchists" and "austrian" and all the other collectivist drivel that goes on around here and every other place online, well, I'll just say "that'll be the day", because it ain't gonna happen.

----------


## VegasPatriot

*High Noon for New Hampshire DCYF: Oath Keepers Sheriffs and Police Issue Demand Letter*




> This  morning, at approximately 10am, October 14, 2010, the Sheriffs and  police leaders within Oath Keepers delivered their demand letter to New  Hampshire DCYF  on behalf of all sheriffs and police within our  organization, as well as on behalf of the military and emergency  personnel in our organization.  The letter calls for removing our  organizations name from the affidavit that was relied upon by the court  and adopted as the courts finding of facts in its order.
> 
> 
>  We certainly hope that further,  meaningful  scrutiny of the New Hampshire DCYF will be undertaken by the  states attorney general and legislature. The use of political  association in a child protective proceeding is good cause to question  the training and the motives of those involved in this case.
> 
> 
>  But our demand letter is focused on  securing a retraction on behalf of our membership and in defense of free  speech for all.  That would be a good first step.
> 
> 
>  Stewart Rhodes

----------


## wizardwatson

> *High Noon for New Hampshire DCYF: Oath Keepers Sheriffs and Police Issue Demand Letter*


It seems to me people are blurring the "injustice" of the "state" taking a baby from parents at all, with the "injustice" to the father by listing Oathkeepers as an affiliation, with the injustice to the liberty movement by listing Oathkeepers at all.

These are three separate issues to me, and while the 2nd issue is definitely wrong, the 3rd is because people around here self-identity the "movement" with Oathkeepers, and the 1st may not be an injustice at all when the facts come out.

A lot of blurring going on, imo.

----------


## Deborah K

> I said NAACP because it's a liberal organization.  It's the only quote "liberal" organization I could think of at the time.  
> 
> What do you want to debate about.  All I'm saying/wondering is why is everyone so flared up over this issue.  To me its one dumb CPS worker and one dumb judge.  
> 
> People are dying from the criminal activities of Presidents with no morals, controlled by military industrialists and bankers with no morals, hiring contract killers with no morals.  I'm only asking why "this" is the issue we should all rally around.  Like this is the final straw, the line in the sand where we make our final stand.  I take issue with the rhetoric not with the principles people are claiming are the basis for their involvement.
> 
> And don't get all hoity-toity with me about me "talking smack".  I'm just posting $#@! on a BB.  And you are posting $#@! on a BB too.  It ain't that big a deal.  If you really take issue with what I've been saying as some kind of personal attack then flag me or PM me your gripes, and don't try to single me out as some kind of troll, it don't work.  I've been here too long for that and I don't personally attack people.  I don't mind that everyone's an exhibitionist online, but don't start role-playing me as the $#@!.
> 
> And the day people stop speaking on this BB in "we"s and "us"s and the "movement" and "TPTB" and "anarchists" and "austrian" and all the other collectivist drivel that goes on around here and every other place online, well, I'll just say "that'll be the day", because it ain't gonna happen.


For me, the reason I am so concerned is because the Oath Keepers are part of this movement to try and restore liberty.  They are active military, police, fire, etc. who have vowed to adhere to the Constitution even when their superiors direct them to do otherwise.  This is vital.  And when a group like this is smeared as a "militia" in an affidavit and used as a reason to take a child away from its parents, this sends a chilling message about free association.

That this story has become a soap opera, is a testament to our human nature. We are social animals.  As with everything else, it is up to each individual to rise above the fray.

----------


## wizardwatson

> For me, the reason I am so concerned is because the Oath Keepers are part of this movement to try and restore liberty.  They are active military, police, fire, etc. who have vowed to adhere to the Constitution even when their superiors direct them to do otherwise.  This is vital.  And when a group like this is smeared as a "militia" in an affidavit and used as a reason to take a child away from its parents, then this send a chilling message about free association.
> 
> That this story has become a soap opera, is a testament to our human nature. We are social animals.  As with everything else, it is up to each individual to rise above the fray.


True, and I just posted above that one of the issues, and there are a few, is that some, like you, self-identify with the Oathkeepers as being part of the "movement".  

But you're right its a soap opera.  I just hate when I try to play devil's advocate a little, or try to say "Hey, why is this one issue so important over all the others." and people start trying to take their aggression out on me.

It's all exhibitionism and bravado, and it annoys me, because its an online phenomenon.  People don't do that $#@! in "real" life.

----------


## torchbearer

> True, and I just posted above that one of the issues, and there are a few, is that some, like you, self-identify with the Oathkeepers as being part of the "movement".  
> 
> But you're right its a soap opera.  I just hate when I try to play devil's advocate a little, or try to say "Hey, why is this one issue so important over all the others." and people start trying to take their aggression out on me.
> 
> It's all exhibitionism and bravado, and it annoys me, because its an online phenomenon.  People don't do that $#@! in "real" life.


you haven't taken part in a political debate at my house. it can get violent.

----------


## Instant-K9

Any one know how the rally is going?

----------


## Deborah K

> True, and I just posted above that one of the issues, and there are a few, is that some, like you, self-identify with the Oathkeepers as being part of the "movement".  
> 
> But you're right its a soap opera.  I just hate when I try to play devil's advocate a little, or try to say "Hey, why is this one issue so important over all the others." and people start trying to take their aggression out on me.
> 
> It's all exhibitionism and bravado, and it annoys me, because its an online phenomenon.  People don't do that $#@! in "real" life.


No, most people don't act irl the way they do online.  And getting attacked is commonplace unfortunately.

----------


## Deborah K

> you haven't taken part in a political debate at my house. it can get violent.


hahah!  It gets loud at my house too!  But we're loud anyway.

----------


## DadaOrwell

From RidleyReport.com

Baby Cheyenne dad: I'm not on govt. assistance anymore

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne dad: I'm not on govt. assistance

----------


## phill4paul

Update 21:00 BST (15:00 CST)

*Jonathan and Stephanie have won their court case with regards to custody of Baby Cheyenne.* Details are sketchy right now but as son as I have a full account I will do a separate article detailing everything.

http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10...abuse-in-care/

  I can't find confirmation either on FB or elsewhere so we will have to wait a bit and see this new development.

----------


## Lucille

> Update 21:00 BST (15:00 CST)
> 
> *Jonathan and Stephanie have won their court case with regards to custody of Baby Cheyenne.* Details are sketchy right now but as son as I have a full account I will do a separate article detailing everything.
> 
> http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10...abuse-in-care/
> 
>   I can't find confirmation either on FB or elsewhere so we will have to wait a bit and see this new development.


Union Leader:  State expected to return infant daughter of 'Oath Keeper'

(via a no doubt very disappointed Jeff Cambeis)

Feel free to use it for a new thread.

----------


## Lucille

Jeff Cambeis "Word is that it was thrown out because CPS amended the affidavit."

----------


## pcosmar

> Jeff Cambeis "Word is that it was thrown out because CPS amended the affidavit."


Without the reference to Oath Keepers they had no grounds?

I suppose the threat to the First amendment is "handled" too.

and they will never do it again

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Union Leader:  State expected to return infant daughter of 'Oath Keeper'
> 
> (via a no doubt very disappointed Jeff Cambeis)
> 
> Feel free to use it for a new thread.


*State expected to return infant daughter of 'Oath Keeper'*

DOVER  Johnathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor emerged from a closed family court hearing Thursday afternoon with smiles on their faces and indicated they may be getting back their daughter Cheyenne, whom state officials took from them hours after her birth last week.

Irish said he was instructed to say nothing about the hearing, citing a state confidentiality law, but said: "A picture's worth a thousand words. What's a smile worth?"

All indications were that Irish and Taylor received good news at the hearing.

"I haven't seen you smile in a while," Irish's mother Nancy, who declined to give her last name, said just before embracing her son. 

Nancy added: "Justice prevails."

Irish also told her he had to get a car seat ready.

----------


## Kylie

Good news. 

Can't wait for confirmation.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Without the reference to Oath Keepers they had no grounds?
> 
> I suppose the threat to the First amendment is "handled" too.
> 
> and they will never do it again


A little victory now and again is nice.

While the beast isn't caged, we gave it a good smack.

Johnathan and Stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.

You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.

*Earn what happened this day.*

----------


## Kylie

> A little victory now and again is nice.
> 
> While the beast isn't caged, we gave it a good smack.
> 
> Johnathan and Stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.
> 
> You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.
> 
> *Earn what happened this day.*





Truer words have never been spoken, brother. 
You guys do right by this baby, because we are all watching. ....not just CPS.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Stephanie Janvrin*  ALL WE CAN SAY IS SHE IS HOME!!!!!!

----------


## tropicangela

YouTube - Johnathon Irish, Stephanie and Cheyenne- Reunited

----------


## MelissaCato

OMG I'm crying. Great job everyone !!

----------


## Dr.3D

*W*hat *T*he *F*udge.... a gag order?

----------


## pcosmar

> *W*hat *T*he *F*udge.... a gag order?


Yup,  protecting who?

----------


## tropicangela

> a little victory now and again is nice.
> 
> While the beast isn't caged, we gave it a good smack.
> 
> Johnathan and stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.
> 
> You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.
> 
> *earn what happened this day.*


qft!!!

----------


## Kylie

> Yup,  protecting who?


Who do you think? 


Video is very touching. I feel good for these kids. 





It's like we helped finally make one thing right in the world. Enjoy it guys, because there will be another wrong to be righted soon enough.

----------


## torchbearer

> hahah!  It gets loud at my house too!  But we're loud anyway.


I call socialist thieves to their face. that's just to start everything off.
then I prove self-ownership by stealing their weed from them and asking them how they feel about it.
after 4 hours of very heated and insulting conversation, i have them logically painted into a corner of surrender.

----------


## Lucille

> A little victory now and again is nice.
> 
> While the beast isn't caged, we gave it a good smack.
> 
> Johnathan and Stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.
> 
> You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.
> 
> *Earn what happened this day.*


This.

She's such a pretty baby!

----------


## Deborah K

> YouTube - Johnathon Irish, Stephanie and Cheyenne- Reunited


Awwwwwww!!!    She shall forever be known as the Oath Keeper Baby.

----------


## pcosmar

The news coverage,
http://www.wmur.com/r/25394494/detail.html

----------


## MelissaCato

> Awwwwwww!!!  She shall forever be known as the Oath Keeper Baby.


Amazing. Ya know it though. When's the online Oath Keeper Baby shower ? I feel like going baby girl shopping now !!

----------


## Deborah K

> Amazing. Ya know it though. When's the online Oath Keeper Baby shower ? I feel like going baby girl shopping now !!


Hey!  Good idea!

----------


## tropicangela

Many thanks to the alternative media people for keeping us informed and giving the parents a platform to reach out.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Who do you think? 
> 
> ~snip


Perhaps a guilty party?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> A little victory now and again is nice.
> 
> While the beast isn't caged, we gave it a good smack.
> 
> Johnathan and Stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.
> 
> You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.
> 
> *Earn what happened this day.*


this

----------


## Kylie

> Perhaps a guilty party?


Yep. 


The state.

----------


## DadaOrwell

From RidleyReport.com 

Oath Keeper Baby: Indie observer needed

http://ridleyreport.podomatic.com/pl...21_33_17-07_00

----------


## VegasPatriot

*Oath Keeper Rally in NH to protest CPS seizing baby  * 



YouTube - Oath Keeper Rally in NH to protest CPS seizing baby!

----------


## pcosmar

> *Oath Keeper Rally in NH to protest CPS seizing baby  * 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Oath Keeper Rally in NH to protest CPS seizing baby!


Good vid, Glad to see he got the SPLC connection out there.

Se still wish this had gotten more coverage and backing. It could have become a serious blow to the system. Disappointment there, but am happy for the folks involved.

----------


## speciallyblend

some key folks need to lose their jobs over this but i bet they get paid vacations!! glad to hear the good news! next step get rid of the tyrannical government!

----------


## pcosmar

*And Gemmy did good*, (someone has to say it).  These kids would have been screwed and the paperwork would have stood uncontested otherwise.

pat on the back is due

----------


## angelatc

They should get out of that state ASAP.

----------


## speciallyblend

> *And Gemmy did good*, (someone has to say it).  These kids would have been screwed and the paperwork would have stood uncontested otherwise.
> 
> pat on the back is due


I like Gemmy he has passion we need to keep pushing this story somehow and hold folks accountable! We cannot let this story go away! the police establishment would love this story to go away we must not allow this to happen! 

We must stop this tyrannical government from local,state and national!!

Fight Homeland Terrorism(our government) VOTE!!!!

----------


## VegasPatriot

*Images From the New Hampshire Rally*

                                                        As you know the baby of John Irish  and his fiancee Stephanie was taken  16 hours after her birth. She was  taken in part because of association  with Oath keepers (as is clear  from the Court order, which adopted the  CPS agents entire affidavit   as the Courts findings of fact and  reasons for the order.   Another  reason given by CPS, and adopted by  the Court in its findings of  fact, was gun ownership.
 We had a rally in support of the First  Amendment protected right of freedom of  association, and the  Second  Amendment protected right to keep and bear  arms. Below are some of the  images from the rally.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *And Gemmy did good*, (someone has to say it).  These kids would have been screwed and the paperwork would have stood uncontested otherwise.
> 
> pat on the back is due


You know, I meant to mention this yesterday, you're right.

I've bashed Ghemmy a few times in the past, but on this one he did damn good.

Can I +rep banned members?

Can this count as good behavior for an "unbanning"?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They should get out of that state ASAP.


And go where?

----------


## torchbearer

oathkeepers ftw.

----------


## VegasPatriot

Story just broke on Fox news with Megan Kelly...  not the most favorable take of the story. They reported court is still trying to take child.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Story just broke on Fox news with Megan Kelly...  not the most favorable take of the story. They reported court is still trying to take child.


The lamestream media is not our friend.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Story just broke on Fox news with Megan Kelly...  not the most favorable take of the story. They reported *court is still trying to take child*.


That is probably why they put a gag order on the case.

----------


## torchbearer

> That is probably why they put a gag order on the case.


it would fit the CPS's M.O. to keep harrassing them continually until the children are grown up.
once you are targeted, you stay targeted- whether they have any proof of abuse or not.
the only way for CPS to save face is to keep digging until they find something. And that they will do.

----------


## speciallyblend

> The lamestream media is not our friend.


I was thinking samething,
fox news is not news it is a joke of a station along with cnn and msnbc!!!

Jon stewart and Colbert are better at giving us news and they are comedy!!

----------


## Dr.3D

> it would fit the CPS's M.O. to keep harrassing them continually until the children are grown up.
> once you are targeted, you stay targeted- whether they have any proof of abuse or not.
> the only way for CPS to save face is to keep digging until they find something. And that they will do.





> As most commonly used, a judge will impose a gag order in a case to prohibit the opposing parties involved from disclosing information about the case to the public, especially any members of the news media. A gag order may prohibit the disclosure of only specific details in a case or it may prohibit the parties from speaking at all about a case. A party to a case that violates a Court's gag order can be held in contempt of court subjecting the violator to appropriate monetary fines or jail in certain instances.
> 
> A judge will issue a gag order in cases where the judge believes that the interests of one or both sides will be unfairly prejudiced if the public becomes aware of certain information. The intent of a judge's gag order may also be to prevent the the parties, especially their lawyers, from trying to create favorable public sentiment in the newspapers or on television for their side.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...gag_order.html

Sounds to me like this isn't finished yet.

----------


## torchbearer

> http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...gag_order.html
> 
> Sounds to me like this isn't finished yet.


according to mr. irish's interview on AJ, there is a state statute concerning family law cases that require a gag order on all family cases. Probably put in place with the best of intentions, as most laws are.

----------


## Dr.3D

> according to mr. irish's interview on AJ, there is a state statute concerning family law cases that require a gag order on all family cases. Probably put in place with the best of intentions, as most laws are.


Well, I guess time will tell.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well, I guess time will tell.


watch the AJ interview that is posted on the forum. He actually gives the statutes number- if you are interested in looking it up.

----------


## MelissaCato

Sooo where's my new sextoy Insta-K9 ? 

Woof Woof  

LMAO

----------


## Lucille

http://ridleyreport.podomatic.com/pl...21_33_17-07_00

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Johnathan and Stephanie, if you are reading this, do right by your daughter.
> 
> You got a second chance that thousands of other families will *never* have.


Missed all the excitement, but this is great news!

Alex Jones also gave Irish a bit of advice on staying out of trouble. Let's hope he can take that advise. They are not out of the woods yet, and any excuse will have them back in trouble. Not that thy're reading this, but here's some more specific, unsolicited advise for the couple:

- Never call the Police. Never. Don't complain to the Police or other representatives of the State (CPS). 
- Don't get in big fights. Stay quite, stay cool. You make noise, other people might call the Police.
- Leave activism to others. Let others do open carry or other "protest activities". Don't attempt to make points of law with LEOs of any kind. Don't call the Police, don't talk to them either. Don't antagonize them, don't confront them, don't engage them at all.
- Free yourself from government. Help from the government comes with strings.

Just some friendly advise...

----------


## Danke

> Missed all the excitement, but this is great news!
> 
> Alex Jones also gave Irish a bit of advice on staying out of trouble. Let's hope he can take that advise. They are not out of the woods yet, and any excuse will have them back in trouble. Not that thy're reading this, but here's some more specific, unsolicited advise for the couple:
> 
> - Never call the Police. Never. Don't complain to the Police or other representatives of the State (CPS). 
> - Don't get in big fights. Stay quite, stay cool. You make noise, other people might call the Police.
> - Leave activism to others. Let others do open carry or other "protest activities". Don't attempt to make points of law with LEOs of any kind. Don't call the Police, don't talk to them either. Don't antagonize them, don't confront them, don't engage them at all.
> - Free yourself from government. Help from the government comes with strings.
> 
> Just some friendly advise...


I expect AF or Cowlesy to critique this soon...

----------


## Cowlesy

> I expect AF or Cowlesy to critique this soon...


I am in no position to give any sort of advice on that as you well know. :P

(I haven't read any posts on here since my last one about 10 pages back).

All I can say is,

I hope Mr. Irish, and his fiance, after getting their child back have a "come to Jesus" moment and get their lives back on track.  A lot of people worldwide came to their defense, and it would behoove them to raise their little girl well.  I think they are extraordinarily fortunate they got her back.  I believe in second chances, and from what I've read about this guy, this is his second chance at being a good Dad and a good citizen.

Best of luck to all involved!

----------


## Bern

If the rumor I read about the judge returning the baby because of point #7 in the affidavit is true, I would expect the DCYF to try again with an improved affidavit.

Even so, it's good that the freedom of association issue was exposed and hopefully won't be repeated.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Missed all the excitement, but this is great news!
> 
> Alex Jones also gave Irish a bit of advice on staying out of trouble. Let's hope he can take that advise. They are not out of the woods yet, and any excuse will have them back in trouble. Not that thy're reading this, but here's some more specific, unsolicited advise for the couple:
> 
> - Never call the Police. Never. Don't complain to the Police or other representatives of the State (CPS). 
> - Don't get in big fights. Stay quite, stay cool. You make noise, other people might call the Police.
> - Leave activism to others. Let others do open carry or other "protest activities". Don't attempt to make points of law with LEOs of any kind. Don't call the Police, don't talk to them either. Don't antagonize them, don't confront them, don't engage them at all.
> - Free yourself from government. Help from the government comes with strings.
> 
> Just some friendly advise...


Very conflicted about this.

Item one, don't call or complain to or use for any reason the police? Right freakin' on, couldn't agree more.

Item two, agreed, leave the "baby mama drama" and all the yelling and fighting and stupidity that goes along with it to the mouth breathers on the Jerry Springer show. 

Item four, very similar to item one and fully agreed upon.

Item three gives me pain. While I certainly see your point, and understand it completely, it troubles me to think that the state can force someone back into the corner and silence them into submission. I'd be inclined to give just the opposite advice, after some of the heat was off of course, to be even more vocal and press even harder. They did not get their child back by meekly submitting to the system after all.

----------


## Anti Federalist

^^^^^^^^^Done




> I expect AF or Cowlesy to critique this soon...

----------


## Danke

> ^^^^^^^^^Done





> I am in no position to give any sort of advice on that as you well know. :P


Slackers.


Melissa?

----------


## phill4paul

> Very conflicted about this.
> 
> Item one, don't call or complain to or use for any reason the police? Right freakin' on, couldn't agree more.
> 
> Item two, agreed, leave the "baby mama drama" and all the yelling and fighting and stupidity that goes along with it to the mouth breathers on the Jerry Springer show. 
> 
> Item four, very similar to item one and fully agreed upon.
> 
> Item three gives me pain. While I certainly see your point, and understand it completely, it troubles me to think that the state can force someone back into the corner and silence them into submission. I'd be inclined to give just the opposite advice, after some of the heat was off of course, to be even more vocal and press even harder. They did not get their child back by meekly submitting to the system after all.


  I would add if he feels the need to continue activism to make sure that there is a video camera handy or rolling 24/7. Hell I'd honestly have one doing that at all times within the household/presence of the child anyway and having it archived at a secure site. 
  Unfortunate that it should have to be that way but if any charges were ever brought again then there would be audio/video proof.

----------


## sluggo

What's this about the SPLC being on some DHS panel?

Who specifically?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What's this about the SPLC being on some DHS panel?
> 
> Who specifically?


Document at link. 





> October 8th, 2010 
> Its Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS
> As the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select law enforcement officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.  What does the working group do?  Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources  police, social services, media, NGOs, you name it  to fight extremism.  So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists.  Now it is in your face and the mask is off.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...w-part-of-dhs/

----------


## sluggo

I can't see the doc on this computer.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I can't see the doc on this computer.


Yah, you need a Flash player to read the SRIBD document.

Google: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group

----------


## phill4paul

> What's this about the SPLC being on some DHS panel?
> 
> *Who specifically?*


  Subject Matter Experts
Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS
John Cohen Special Advisor to the Secretary on Information Sharing, DHS
Bart Johnson Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, DHS 
David Schanzer Associate Professor of the Practice for Public Policy and Director, 
Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security, Sanford 
School of Public Policy, Duke University
Bob Wasserman Chairman, Strategic Policy Partnership
*Laurie  Wood Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor,  Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Bob Wasserman Chairman, Strategic Policy Partnership


That name sounds familiar

ADL member, perhaps.

----------


## sluggo

Thanks to both of you.

Why does this not surprise me?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sooo where's my new sextoy Insta-K9 ? 
> 
> Woof Woof  
> 
> LMAO

----------


## phill4paul

> That name sounds familiar
> 
> ADL member, perhaps.


  Dunno AF. He has his fingers in anything and everything law enforcement as far as I can see including NATO.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Dunno AF. He has his fingers in anything and everything law enforcement as far as I can see including NATO.


Like roaches or a filthy Rat King, these pricks are.

Got ties to and making money off of, every single angle of the military/surveillance complex.

----------


## phill4paul

> Like roaches or a filthy Rat King, these pricks are.
> 
> Got ties to and making money off of, every single angle of the military/surveillance complex.


  Oh yeah. This guy is in a major way. National and International. Croatia. NATO.  Give him five minutes worth of google and you'll have everything you need to know.

----------


## DadaOrwell

From RidleyReport.com 

Did state accuse wrong guy in Oath Keeper case? 

YouTube - Did state accuse wrong guy in Oath Keeper case? (Baby Cheyenne NH)

----------


## VegasPatriot

*Update on the New Hampshire Case After the Hearing and Our Rally: It Was A GOOD Day!*

                                                        As  most of you know, on Thursday there was a hearing held at the Rochester  Family Division Court in Dover, NH regarding the New Hampshire DCYF  action of taking a newborn child from her parents, John Irish and  Stephanie Taylor.  Oath Keepers held a rally outside the courthouse  during the hearing in support of the right of freedom of association and  freedom of speech, as well as in support of the due process rights of  the parents.  The reason this became such a national issue, and thus the  reason we were there, is because DCYF justified its actions in part  because of the fathers association with Oath Keepers (he had been a  forum user on our free-to-the-public Ning social network).  The event  sparked national attention after a video was posted  on Youtube of the father explaining the ordeal. In addition to Oath  Keepers who traveled from as far away as North Carolina, the rally  attracted several other liberty groups and individuals from the North  East.


 The closed court session was not  attended by any of the rally participants, and the participants in the  hearing are prohibited from discussing what went on, but it was clear  from the smiles on the faces of the parents as they came out that they  were very happy with the outcome.  You can get a very good sense of the  outcome from the below linked mainstream media articles and videos, so  we will let those news reports speak for themselves:


Baby girl taken after birth returned to parents
Father Happy With Courts Decision Over Child Custody
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...937/-1/fosnews
http://www.concordmonitor.com/articl...o-epsom-couple
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nh-b...epers-parents/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=215537
 And from David Codrea
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2010/1...snatchers.html_David Codrea, who also writes the Gun Rights Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...l/david-codrea),  is a long-time supporter of Oath Keepers and is a very consistent and  effective voice for not just the right to keep and bear arms, but for  the entire range of rights protected by our Bill of Rights.  His work is  highly recommended reading._ We Oath Keepers were very  pleased with how the entire day went, and despite the occasional bump  and minor drama, it truly was a GOOD DAY.   in a followup post we will  have more to say about the rally, and also about how wonderful it was to  work with a very squared away Sheriff and his deputies who followed  their oaths and respected the rights of the rally participants.


 As for our demand to New Hampshire DCYF  to remove the name of Oath Keepers from the affidavit, we have yet to  receive any official confirmation that our request was honored (since  this was a closed proceeding, it is hard to officially confirm whether  that was done during the hearing).  We hope to secure that official  confirmation soon.  Meanwhile, until we do get that confirmation, we  will continue to research our full legal options, including a possible  Section 1983 claim for violation of civil rights, or perhaps a  defamation claim in state court.  As I have stated from the start, if we  go forward with such claims, I intend to serve as one of the named  counsel, but yesterday I also spoke to a couple of excellent New  Hampshire lawyers who are very interested in assisting in such a case,  and this next week I will be speaking to several other highly skilled,  very experienced, and nationally known constitutional law litigators  from the DC area about our options.   It was high time we assembled a  stellar legal team of patriotic, constitutionalist lawyers anyway.   Whether we actually pursue formal legal action in this case is largely  now up to the employees of the state of New Hampshire  what they do or do not do will make our decision for us.


 Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers

----------


## pcosmar

> *Update on the New Hampshire Case After the Hearing and Our Rally: It Was A GOOD Day!*
> 
> 
> 
>   It was high time we assembled a  stellar legal team of patriotic, constitutionalist lawyers anyway.   Whether we actually pursue formal legal action in this case is largely  now up to the employees of the state of New Hampshire * what they do or do not do will make our decision for us.*
> 
> 
>  Stewart Rhodes
> Founder of Oath Keepers

----------


## MelissaCato



----------


## Anti Federalist

> *Update on the New Hampshire Case After the Hearing and Our Rally: It Was A GOOD Day!*
> 
>                                                         As  most of you know, on Thursday there was a hearing held at the Rochester  Family Division Court in Dover, NH regarding the New Hampshire DCYF  action of taking a newborn child from her parents, John Irish and  Stephanie Taylor.  Oath Keepers held a rally outside the courthouse  during the hearing in support of the right of freedom of association and  freedom of speech, as well as in support of the due process rights of  the parents.  The reason this became such a national issue, and thus the  reason we were there, is because DCYF justified its actions in part  because of the fathers association with Oath Keepers (he had been a  forum user on our free-to-the-public Ning social network).  The event  sparked national attention after a video was posted  on Youtube of the father explaining the ordeal. In addition to Oath  Keepers who traveled from as far away as North Carolina, the rally  attracted several other liberty groups and individuals from the North  East.
> 
> 
>  The closed court session was not  attended by any of the rally participants, and the participants in the  hearing are prohibited from discussing what went on, but it was clear  from the smiles on the faces of the parents as they came out that they  were very happy with the outcome.  You can get a very good sense of the  outcome from the below linked mainstream media articles and videos, so  we will let those news reports speak for themselves:
> 
> 
> Baby girl taken after birth returned to parents
> ...

----------


## sratiug

At a minimum, the "judge" should lose his job forever.

----------


## torchbearer

> At a minimum, the "judge" should lose his job forever.


in louisiana, our state judges are elected. that judge would lose his job here.

----------


## Lucille

The Wankerteers can't wait for Irish to abuse his daughter so they can blame Doherty, OK, et al.

They still don't have the facts.  They're still using Irish's abusive father as some sort of paragon of virtue, and make no mention of the mistaken identity issue.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The Wankerteers can't wait for Irish to abuse his daughter so they can blame Doherty, OK, et al.
> 
> They still don't have the facts.  They're still using Irish's abusive father as some sort of paragon of virtue, and make no mention of the mistaken identity issue.


Ugh, my God, who are those $#@!ing people?

----------


## Anti Federalist

///

----------


## DadaOrwell

From RidleyReport.com 

Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats 

YouTube - Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## revolutionary8

> 


I love that pic. 

God I LOVE free speech. It is beautiful.

----------


## low preference guy

> I love that pic. 
> People keep talking about _the photographer_. They forget to credit the *brave soul* who had the *cahones* to wear it, and I don't mean naming names.  
> God I LOVE free speech. It is beautiful.


cojones

----------


## revolutionary8

> From RidleyReport.com 
> 
> Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats 
> 
> YouTube - Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats


Good reporting by RidleyReport, thank you.

----------


## squarepusher

> 


holy smokes nice shirt lmao

----------


## revolutionary8

> cojones


dang!
THANK YOU! I deal in phonetics.  I knew I was f'd, it just didn't sound right.

----------


## revolutionary8

> Ugh, my God, who are those $#@!ing people?


AF,
in all honesty, I am not sure the majority of "them" really exist. I am sure other people around here will call me "crazy", but here is my theory regarding the WONKHOLE...
there are a few regular commenters. The majority of their traffic is just as horrif $#@!ing fied as myself and skips right the f' along to "next"...

the ones that remain, that is a different story that I will NEVER be able to publish, nor read, nor comprehend... unless of course it was made in to a red box movie that I could rent for a dollar.

----------


## DadaOrwell

> The student of human behavior would never be amazed at the number of people who allow themselves to be distracted by facts not germane to the issue at hand.
> 
> The issue at hand is that a liberty minded organization (Oathkeepers) and lawful activity (ownership of firearms) are considered pertinent facts in a child custody legal proceeding. The president of the organization mentioned had the opportunity to review ALL of the documents and found  a basis for a complaint. But that isn't good enough for some of the members here - they require the opportunity to personally review any and all facts they wish to peruse before determining that there could be an issue.
> 
> Some people can figure out what is going on based on a limited set of information - those are the people who make effective leaders.


That's a great quote and I used part of it on the Ridley Report.

----------


## Pericles

> That's a great quote and I used part of it on the Ridley Report.


Glad to be helpful.

----------


## Pericles

> Sooo where's my new sextoy Insta-K9 ? 
> 
> Woof Woof  
> 
> LMAO


Now, that is funny.

----------


## Anti Federalist

New Twist in The Jonathan Irish Case! - Alex Jones Tv 

YouTube - New Twist in The Jonathan Irish Case! - Alex Jones Tv

----------


## pcosmar

> New Twist in The Jonathan Irish Case! - Alex Jones Tv


They gave the child back to shut down the growing story. They don't want it investigated or examined. All the "visitors" disappeared immediately on the announcement. Here and elsewhere.

There is so much wrong about this case,, So much to be addressed. It could bow up and seriously harm the growth of state services, and very likely result in prosecution of officials involved.

It is not over. It happens every day, and in all states. They will wait for the hornets nest to quiet down and then go for retaliation against Irish.

I hope that the Oath Keepers can push this further. Secret trials and secret police need to be exposed for what they are. Wrong.

There is so much wrong with this case.

----------


## Danke

YouTube - The Child Documentary Promo!

----------


## tropicangela

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Comes Home

----------


## VegasPatriot

*Letter From Retired Police Captain Chauncey Normandin Regarding New Hampshire Case and Surrounding Events*

                                                        Im  sure everyone has been following the events involving John Irish,  Stephanie Taylor and their new born daughter. Without looking  at anything else contained within the original affidavit sworn to and  submitted by Dana Bickford of the DCYF, her inclusion of the statement,  the Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a  militia known as the Oath Keepers was a slap in the face directed  at every police officer, deputy sheriff, peace officer, fire  fighter and  emergency service person who has ever helped, held or cried  over an abused, neglected or injured child. The inclusion of Oath  Keepers as a part of the justification to remove a child was the  defining reason for the members of the police leadership in Oath Keepers  to issue our letter demanding the removal of the reference.


 The thought that association with any of  us could be used as justification, in any form, to remove a child  disgusted us. We have held the welfare of children as one our most  sacred duties. Most of us are fathers, mothers and grand parents. We are  the ones who always respond to a call for help. We are there 24 hours a  day, 7 days a week, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Politics does not  come into our mind. It does not affect how we perform our duties. We are  there for everyone regardless of political affiliation.


 Had the investigator simply gone to the  Oath Keepers web site and actually confirmed who we are and what our  mission is that statement would not have been included. We have  requested an acknowledgment of its removal be sent to Oath Keepers as  soon as possible.


 On another note, with everything else  going on with this issue the Stafford County Sheriffs Office contacted  Oath Keepers on Monday, October 11th. They actually investigated who we  are and what we are about. Captain Joseph DiGregorio was assigned by  Sheriff Wayne Estes to head up the security for the County facility  where the hearing and rally was to be held. He was on our web site and  read most of the entries and posts. We spoke on several occasions and  worked with them. On October 14th we met in person at the court facility  in their office. It is so refreshing to work with professionals. The  Stafford County Sheriffs Office knows and operates under the  Constitution. They have a deep respect for the rights of the citizens.  They were not concerned about any true Oath Keepers being a problem.  They wanted to make sure that anyone who came was able to exercise their  Constitutional rights. Thanks to them and the Oath Keepers and  supporters who attended we were again able to demonstrate how easy it is  to have a peaceful and respectful rally. I cannot say enough good  things about their entire staff. It is another example of good  leadership flowing down through the ranks.


 During our conversation with Sheriff  Estes and Captain DiGregorio it became clear they are big fans of  Sheriff Mack. Both have read his books and they have actually bought  extras to pass on to other Sheriffs and Deputies. Thank you Brothers  for a job well done. It was an honor to work with you.


 Many of us believe in Providence. So  many wonderful things have happened to Oath Keepers in the 18 months  since the reaffirmation of our Oaths on Lexington Green April 19, 2009.  This event started for us when our name was maligned by an  unsubstantiated and unsupported remark in a sworn affidavit. The day of  the hearing, October 14th, was also the day of the ground breaking for  the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Museum in Judiciary  Square, Washington, D.C. This facility will allow the world to see and  celebrate the history of policing, and peace keeping, in America. We  hope to receive notice that on that day our good name was returned to  its rightful place.


 Captain Chauncey E. Normandin (Retired)
Lowell, MA PD
Oath Keepers National Vice President, East of Mississippi
President, Oath Keepers Florida State Chapter
Member of the Oath Keepers National Board of Directors

----------


## DadaOrwell

I hadn't seen the Reality Report vid.  Guess I should subscribe to them on YouTube!

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

The tyranny continues

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/...y-cheyene.html




> On Wednesday the 29th of December, Stephanie Janvrin received a demand for $4119.33 from the New Hampshire Child Support Division with menaces. The demanded money is for the "maintenance" of her other two children in care, Kamon and Jonathan, who were taken illegally from Stephanie and Jonathon's custody in relation to false allegations which were later disproved during the Baby Cheyenne custody battle earlier this year.

----------


## Mach

> The tyranny continues
> 
> http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/...y-cheyene.html


Not very shocking to me at all, the government illegally kidnaps your kids and then demands that you pay them for all cost incurred, just another day for them.




> While baby Cheyenne was in the custody of foster parents, evidence came to light of either gross neglect or sexual abuse, which the CPS first tried to cover up, and when this failed on the testimony of a Sheriff who was present when the evidence was uncovered, they then tried to pin the blame on Jonathan. Fortunately for this couple the Sheriff was having none of this, and backed them up to the hilt against the CPS.


Sheriffs like that should not be exceptions to the rule, I should not want to thank him just for being honest. 

.
.
.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The tyranny continues
> 
> http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/...y-cheyene.html


*sigh*

Reminds of the old story, perhaps apocryphal, where in Stalinist USSR, the family of "unpersons" would suddenly receive a bill for the bullet that was used to exterminate their family member.

Thanks for the update, M.

Did this come through Stewart?

----------


## Lucille

> The tyranny continues
> 
> http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/...y-cheyene.html


That is one of the craziest things I have ever heard.  Do all parents who have their kids taken away from them by the state have to pay "maintenance?"  And four days to get the money together?  W.T.F.

----------


## bruce leeroy

anybody heard anything about that other oathkeeper, july4patriot

----------


## pcosmar

> anybody heard anything about that other oathkeeper, july4patriot


Yup, Having CPS problems also.
They moved the GFs daughter out of state with family while he is fighting the case on OK. She was snatched by CPS in Tennessee.
http://freedomguide.blogspot.com/201...t-looking.html

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> ...
> Sheriffs like that should not be exceptions to the rule, I should not want to thank him just for being honest. 
> .


Isn't positive reinforcement a tactic for effective leadership? And since we are supposed to be the bosses of elected officials, it seems to follow that positive reinforcement from us would have positive effects...  




> *sigh*
> 
> Reminds of the old story, perhaps apocryphal, where in Stalinist USSR, the family of "unpersons" would suddenly receive a bill for the bullet that was used to exterminate their family member.
> 
> Thanks for the update, M.
> 
> Did this come through Stewart?


Yeah, the correlation to historical tyrannies would be shocking, if not so common nowadays... The link came through my FB wall, not from Stewart...




> Yup, Having CPS problems also.
> They moved the GFs daughter out of state with family while he is fighting the case on OK. She was snatched by CPS in Tennessee.
> http://freedomguide.blogspot.com/201...t-looking.html


grrrrrrr...

----------


## Lucille

> ...If I do not pay my license will be suspended and then the next step is me going to jail! I do not think so!!!
> [...]
> *Erica Nicole* If you're being served, and it sounds like it might be what this is, aren't they required to give you 20-30 days to respond? Are you able to find a law team to take your case? 
> 
> 
> *Stephanie Janvrin* *I was notified a while ago but I was under the impression that my lawyer took care of it, then i fired that lawyer and months later I got notice in the mail that I was to be paying child support of something like $180 per month per child*!!! but when I talked to my case worker about it she told me that I needed to pay it my response was "I think that you are on crack if you think im going to pay you a$$ wholes for stealing my kids from me" she chuckled and I walked out of the room!


It's too important of an issue to not follow-up on.

Why her drivers license is being threatened with suspension is beyond me.  WTF does driving have to do with it?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump to show what motivated Oath Keepers and patriots can do, RE: SWAT team gunning down Marine in AZ.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Wow, five years ago...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Page after page after page of intial skepticism.

I wonder now, five years later as these stories come out every day, who is still skeptical?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Page after page after page of intial skepticism.

I wonder now, five years later as these stories come out every day, who is still skeptical?

----------


## pcosmar

> Page after page after page of intial skepticism.
> 
> I wonder now, five years later as these stories come out every day, who is still skeptical?


And there were a few threads on the subject, I remember some notable "new comers" that showed up just for those threads too.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Again, we see justice has been turned on it's head. They take your children, and you have to go to court to beg for your children back. This is backwards, if they want to take your children, they should have to take you to court first.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

out of the depts of history, a resurrected thread. 




> well, lets say this person has a history of violent weapon assault or outstanding weapons warrants, then it may be a consideration.
> 
> We need the whole story, obviously Oath Keepers alone is not reason to take away a child...


It shouldn't even be part of a larger consideration, particularly when it falsely painted OKs as a militia. I would not tolerate the survival of "Oathkeepers - militia" in the public record at all. I mean, it would be the same as using "Republican" or "Democrat" as a justification for taking children away from a family, so citing OKs was bad enough but then on top of that calling them a militia had to be challenged.  It was propaganda.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Page after page after page of intial skepticism.
> 
> I wonder now, five years later as these stories come out every day, who is still skeptical?


Are you actually being paranoid if they really are out to get you?

----------


## Pericles

> Again, we see justice has been turned on it's head. They take your children, and you have to go to court to beg for your children back. This is backwards, if the[s]y[/s] surviviors of the firefight want to take your children, they should have to take you to court first.


  Fixed

----------

