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

[specsaregood]

Why would we care?

So you wouldn't care if they assumed he was a member because they were monitoring all traffic to the oath keeper forum and backtracked the ip to his identity? Or had access to their database and correlated his name/identity to his email address? Or, perhaps his girlfriend used it as a reason she was scared for her safety during one if her calls to police for help? How it got on that paperwork goes a long ways to showing whether it was malicious behavior or got on there because of previous complaints against him.

I'd say it is relevant information.

 

[specsaregood]

Seriously, the standard liberty position applies: the government should stay out of these things. People lying and changing their stories is common in troubled relationships. No need to add a government agency to the mix, where power corrupts, busy-bodies are empowered, and lawyers and liabilities are more important than the children. And all at taxpayer expense...

I disagree. I think one of the few roles of government it to protect life and liberty. Protecting children from abusive family situations fits into that definition in my book.

Your "standard liberty position" is that the government has no business stepping in if children are being abused? Not mine.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So you wouldn't care if they assumed he was a member because they were monitoring all traffic to the oath keeper forum and backtracked the ip to his identity? Or had access to their database and correlated his name/identity to his email address? Or, perhaps his girlfriend used it as a reason she was scared for her safety during one if her calls to police for help? How it got on that paperwork goes a long ways to showing whether it was malicious behavior or got on there because of previous complaints against him.

I'd say it is relevant information.

"The Division became aware and confirmed..."

Yeah, the details on that would be of interest. Might be as simple as she told them, and then Irish confirmed it. On the other hand, there might be some violations of the law involved.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I disagree. I think one of the few roles of government it to protect life and liberty. Protecting children from abusive family situations fits into that definition in my book.

Your "standard liberty position" is that the government has no business stepping in if children are being abused? Not mine.

"For the children, eh?"

And what solution do you propose? A massive, often corrupt bureaucracy that bypasses due process and is accountable to no one? And costs the taxpayers at the same time?

 

[sratiug]

So you wouldn't care if they assumed he was a member because they were monitoring all traffic to the oath keeper forum and backtracked the ip to his identity? Or had access to their database and correlated his name/identity to his email address? Or, perhaps his girlfriend used it as a reason she was scared for her safety during one if her calls to police for help? How it got on that paperwork goes a long ways to showing whether it was malicious behavior or got on there because of previous complaints against him.

I'd say it is relevant information.

Not really. I assume they monitor everything on Ron Paul Forums, don't you? They record every fucking phone call in the US. I have no delusion of privacy. It doesn't matter why they put Oathkeepers or guns on their paperwork, all that matters to me is that it's on there. We are not going to repeal government spying with this particular crusade. That is already out in the open.

I thought you were worried that he lied and said he was a member of Oathkeepers, which doesn't matter to me either.

 

[specsaregood]

"For the children, eh?"

And what solution do you propose? A massive, often corrupt bureaucracy that bypasses due process and is accountable to no one? And costs the taxpayers at the same time?

Yeah, thats exactly what I proposed.
I recognize that govt gets corrupt if we let it. But I see no reason that such a role for government isn't possible. Severely limited, accountable to the people and with a high burden of proof. I take it you are a pro-choice anarchist? I'm not.

 

[specsaregood]

Not really. I assume they monitor everything on Ron Paul Forums, don't you? They record every fucking phone call in the US. I have no delusion of privacy. It doesn't matter why they put Oathkeepers or guns on their paperwork, all that matters to me is that it's on there. We are not going to repeal government spying with this particular crusade. That is already out in the open.

Yes, well official confimation would be nice. And as I said the mother might have used it against him at some point, which led to a misunderstanding and why it got on the paperwork. In the end, we just dont know squat about this situation.

 

[Danke]

"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.""

 

[Jcambeis]

They guy posts on the Oath Keepers Forums. You can read his posts your self.
He is not a paying member and has little access. Reading his posts in context reveals much about him

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, thats exactly what I proposed.
I recognize that govt gets corrupt if we let it. But I see no reason that such a role for government isn't possible. Severely limited, accountable to the people and with a high burden of proof. I take it you are a pro-choice anarchist?

That's what we have now. If you want to just have standard assault/battery law handle child or spouse abuse, that would be an improvement.

If you want to debate (compare, contrast, integrate) the mission of Child Protective Services and abortion, you should probably start a new thread.

 

[pcosmar]

They guy posts on the Oath Keepers Forums. You can read his posts your self.
He is not a paying member and has little access. Reading his posts in context reveals much about him

Hey, guess what. I also post on Militia web sites. I have posted here and elsewhere both criticism and praise for the Oath Keepers.
AND that is irrelevant to any criminal investigation. Those are personal and political beliefs.

It had no business being in any way or for any reason included in Official Documents.

WHY WAS IT?
That is the question for the OathKeepers to ask and the State to answer.
And asking that question will open the whole case for investigation.

That is a good thing for Liberty activists, there is Raw Meat here.

 

[Jcambeis]

Hey, guess what. I also post on Militia web sites. I have posted here and elsewhere both criticism praise for the Oath Keepers.
AND that is irrelevant to any criminal investigation. Those are personal and political beliefs.

It had no business being in any way or for any reason included in Official Documents.

WHY WAS IT?
That is the question for the OathKeepers to ask and the State to answer.
And asking that question will open the whole case for investigation.

That is a good thing for Liberty activists, there is Raw Meat here.

What are you talking you about? You can verify he is member of oath Keepers forums by reading his posts. That is all I said. I made no comment about legitimacy of the claim

 

[specsaregood]

That's what we have now. If you want to just have standard assault/battery law handle child or spouse abuse, that would be an improvement.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that what we have now isn't corrupt and prone to abuse. At the same time, I'm not arguing that it never does any good and that the govt has no business ever meddling in family affairs. I would be fine with it being handled in the same manner as other crimes.

 

[MelissaWV]

What are you talking you about? You can verify he is member of oath Keepers forums by reading his posts. That is all I said. I made no comment about legitimacy of the claim

Whether or not it is legitimate, the question is why it would be on any documents at all. It is not relevant. Perhaps the people are also members of the ASPCA, or have given to the United Way, or donated to the Red Cross after one of the recent global disasters. None of that, I suspect, would be on any of those documents even if that were the case. That's what pcosmar is pointing out.

 

[pcosmar]

What are you talking you about? You can verify he is member of oath Keepers forums by reading his posts. That is all I said. I made no comment about legitimacy of the claim

I am saying that it is IN NO WAY RELEVANT.
There is no relevant reason for it ever to be mentioned in any way on any official Government Document.

And yet it was.

 

[Jcambeis]

I am saying that it is IN NO WAY RELEVANT.
There is no relevant reason for it ever to be mentioned in any way on any official Government Document.

And yet it was.

I agree it is not relevant and who ever filled out the affidavit should be informed that. In the very least, oath keepers should receive an apology and possibly sue so it does not happen again.

 

[Knightskye]

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There's a lawsuit, right?

 

[tropicangela]

I agree it is not relevant and who ever filled out the affidavit should be informed that. In the very least, oath keepers should receive an apology and possibly sue so it does not happen again.

The case worker(s) have done terrible investigative work re: oath keepers to call it a militia and misrepresent it as a negative affiliation, at least. And so I question the competency of the rest.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm still waiting on all the facts, and even I had to facepalm a bit at the notion of an "apology." I don't think Hallmark makes a "Sorry we wrongly accused you of being abusive assholes and took your infant away during a critical time when mother and child bond and often receive mutually beneficial effects from spending time together and the intimate act of breastfeeding." card. If they do, it hopefully doesn't sell very well.

 

[Lucille]

"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."

Indeed.

Steward Rhodes commented on the reason thread (I edited out some of it):

So the order DOES state, as the reasons for the order to remove the child from parental custody, the list of reasons given in the the affidavit attached to the petition. So it is the affidavit which contains the "reasons."

Go look at the affidavit. It was filed by Dana Bickford, Child Protective Service Worker, and then attached to the petition to remove the child.

The affidavit contains the "reasons" given for the need to remove the child from the custody of her parents. Within #7 it is stated that "The Division (of Children, Youth and Families) 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."

So, yes, the reasons given to the court, and the reasons cited by the court (which are all listed in the Affidavit) included his association with Oath Keepers.

So, both you and Wonkette are mistaken. His association is most certainly among the reasons given by the state and relied on by the judge.