RE: Oath Keeper Story... Reason Magazine debunking some elements of it?

[pcosmar]

Possibly. We can debate that later.

What is becoming clear is that the baby was NOT taken "because the father was an Oath Keeper."

No, "Because of" but that was used as an official justifications for a legal action.
One of several. Several which are being called into question.

The "because of" is yet to be disclosed.
It needs some fire under it to get the snitches to start snitching each other off.

The Oath Keepers can light a fire under it.
A lot of other issues can add kindling. Make it hot enough and we might get some real investigation into"Child services". It is long over due.

Then there is the 2nd Amendment issues. That I believe started all of this.

 

[BenIsForRon]

The Oath Keepers can light a fire under it.
A lot of other issues can add kindling. Make it hot enough and we might get some real investigation into"Child services". It is long over due.

Ummm, how about no. I don't think the Oath Keepers should devote their energy into giving support to a chronic child and wife abuser.

Seriously, that is a terrible fucking idea.

 

[pcosmar]

Ummm, how about no. I don't think the Oath Keepers should devote their energy into giving support to a chronic child and wife abuser.

Seriously, that is a terrible fucking idea.

And you have proof that they have been convicted of that?
If you do not have irrefutable proof that what you said is true, you are guilty of slander.

Now I heard the girl on tape saying he never hit her.
besides, she carried a gun. And had a concealed carry permit.

You have proof of a conviction that their background checks didn't catch?
Post it.


http://www.freebabycheyenne.com/

 

[BenIsForRon]

Reason's looked into the background. Are you saying that the local police forged 2+years of domestic violence documents?

 

[pcosmar]

Reason's looked into the background. Are you saying that the local police forged 2+years of domestic violence documents?

Reason was reading Wonkete, They posted their trash first, Reason responded to them.
Then they went off about some of that after reading an anonymous forum post.

Stewart Rhodes has seen enough to make a statement on it. I believe he has some legal experience. Unlike anonymous forum posters, or the wonk.

 

[Knightskye]

Yeah, that was the blog entry I recall.
The story was confirmed but grudgingly.

Is the first quote about Walker calling Infowars a "conspiracist site" or about putting quotes around "strategic report"? Because he also put quotes around other things:

A few days ago, the conspiracist site Infowars posted a "strategic report" by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a police "public safety partnership" that collects "incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri."

You said beards and lattes (lol) but there's only that one article.

Also, have you read his article The Paranoid Center?

 

[Reason]

YouTube - John Irish & Stephanie Taylor: Concord Hospital Protest

 

[pcosmar]

http://www.freebabycheyenne.com/

“An Epsom couple says state social workers seized their newborn baby hours after her birth because of the father’s affiliation with an organization that opposes government tyranny. State officials, however, cited domestic violence and child abuse allegations against the baby’s father in taking her into state custody.”

So this says the baby's father. That would be the guy she wants a divorce from and doesn't live with.
That would not be John Irish.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Just to throw another log on the fire here. In case you didn't know, Child Protective Services are now regularly hit with multi-million dollar civil judgments for FAILING to take a child from suspicious circumstances. Here is the typical scenario: someone calls in the tip on the abusive (typically) boyfriend. CPS investigates and decides it doesn't have enough evidence and closes the case. The boyfriend kills the baby. Relatives of the baby sue CPS and win millions because hindsight is always 20/20.

With tort law the way it is, if I was in charge of CPS my standing orders would be "if in doubt, take custody." I would rather have to face an irate parent than a dead baby and a multi-million dollar judgment.

Wow, "pre crime" and torts are enough justification to make the state default setting to be "snatch the kids"?

Holy shit.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Is the first quote about Walker calling Infowars a "conspiracist site" or about putting quotes around "strategic report"? Because he also put quotes around other things:



You said beards and lattes (lol) but there's only that one article.

Also, have you read his article The Paranoid Center?

The "conspiracist site" part.

It seems I recalled more FUD coming from Reason's corner over the whole MIAC thing.

I guess I was wrong.

I retract my statement.

And no, I haven't read that article, I'll take a look at it, thanks.

 

[Acala]

clarification

Wow, "pre crime" and torts are enough justification to make the state default setting to be "snatch the kids"?

Holy shit.

I'm not saying I think the state should even be involved in this kind of intervention. But given the system as it is, I can understand why an agency that is charged with this job would err on the side of taking custody. The cost to the taxpayers, to the child, and to the agent is WAY higher when they are wrong on the side of doing nothing. Put yourself in the shoes of the CPS agent for a moment and imagine that you personally investigated a case, chose not to take custody, and the child was subsequently murdered. If it is me, I can tell you which way I would lean just on that selfish personal matter alone.

Not justifying the system here, just pointing out that the incentives favor taking custody. And pretty powerfully too. So it is likely not just a case of an overzealous agent or a conspiracy to "get" the Oath Keepers. More likely just semi-competent government agents trying to do an impossible job while rapacious lawyers nip at their heels and sick assholes beat up babies.

 

[MelissaWV]

http://www.freebabycheyenne.com/

So this says the baby's father. That would be the guy she wants a divorce from and doesn't live with.
That would not be John Irish.

The previous sentence says "the father's affiliation" as well. It seems a lot of people have their stories scrambled on this one, which is why I still am not entirely sure that it's worthwile to demonize or deify either side of it.

 

[angelatc]

Wow, "pre crime" and torts are enough justification to make the state default setting to be "snatch the kids"?

Holy shit.

And people tolerate it. Apparently they'll tolerate anything.

 

[sratiug]

The previous sentence says "the father's affiliation" as well. It seems a lot of people have their stories scrambled on this one, which is why I still am not entirely sure that it's worthwile to demonize or deify either side of it.

Why would it not be ok to demonize someone stealing a baby? If the mother were convicted of killing her previous babies I would think she would be in jail. But even if she had been convicted of killing her babies and had served her time how could she be prevented from raising another one?

The state did not carry this baby to term and deliver it. The state would have been happy to allow her to abort the baby to prevent that from happening. The baby does not belong to the state. This is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment directed at the baby and the mother and the father even without a conviction for any crime.

 

[tropicangela]

If the petition by the State was for abuse and neglect, and there is no evidence that they abused or neglected this specific child, how can they take her away? They didn't even get her birth date correct on the paperwork. YouTube - Oppression By Oath

I realize there has been a trial for other children perhaps with evidence of neglect (by the mother) because of abuse (by her "ex" husband from what I've seen)... but have they really found evidence of abuse and neglect of Cheyenne within the first 16 hours of her life?

How many other people in America have their babies taken away within 16 hours of birth because of abuse or neglect cases with previous children?

 

[tropicangela]

The state would have been happy to allow her to abort the baby to prevent that from happening.

This. ^^^

 

[MelissaWV]

Why would it not be ok to demonize someone stealing a baby? If the mother were convicted of killing her previous babies I would think she would be in jail. But even if she had been convicted of killing her babies and had served her time how could she be prevented from raising another one?

The state did not carry this baby to term and deliver it. The state would have been happy to allow her to abort the baby to prevent that from happening. The baby does not belong to the state. This is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment directed at the baby and the mother and the father even without a conviction for any crime.

What makes sense to you, and what makes sense to "society," are sadly two different things. If she had a history of abusing children or of making the home environment unsafe, the State will tapdance its way to a justification that would be swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a huge portion of the populace.

So far, at least on the forums, the idea seems to be that these were good people who were merely Oath Keepers minding their own business and birthing a baby, when people swooped in and snatched the child from the mother's breast to parts unknown, purely on the basis of affiliation. The State would say they swooped in and saved a child from terrible parents and a terrifying home life filled with guns and militias, training to be the next Tim McVeigh.

The truth is usually in between somewhere.

 

[tropicangela]

What makes sense to you, and what makes sense to "society," are sadly two different things. If she had a history of abusing children or of making the home environment unsafe, the State will tapdance its way to a justification that would be swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a huge portion of the populace.

So rather than the State forcing sterilization based on a previous "crime" just in case, it takes future babies you have instead just in case? I can't understand how they can take a child without there being evidence of abuse or neglect on the particular child.

 

[pcosmar]

So rather than the State forcing sterilization based on a previous "crime" just in case, it takes future babies you have instead just in case? I can't understand how they can take a child without there being evidence of abuse or neglect on the particular child.

The same way they take any other children.
An allegation
Character Assassination
And a hearing (not a trial)

 

[Jcambeis]

If the petition by the State was for abuse and neglect, and there is no evidence that they abused or neglected this specific child, how can they take her away? They didn't even get her birth date correct on the paperwork.

How many other people in America have their babies taken away within 16 hours of birth because of abuse or neglect cases with previous children?

Watching that interview I had a few thoughts.
If they got the DOB on the paper work wrong, is it possible that it was filled out prior to the birth with the expected DOB listed?

John Irish says they baby was in their care for 16 hours but they only got to spend 2 minutes each with her. That sends up a red flare.

The more I think about this the more questions I have. I cant think of a worthier cause than the state stealing children but at the same time the fundamental role of the state is to protect innocent people. The child is an innocent person not a piece of property .