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

[specsaregood]

Wow, you got all of the unverified Character Assassination points in one sentence.
Why do you support state sponsored slander? And why would you promote it?

Just for the sake of being a nitpicker: It is only slander if it not true AND the person knew it was false when they said it.

But I'm not for defaming these people. I'm all for demanding that the state rescind the allegation that he was involved with the oath keepers and demanding the people that made that claim and used it as justification be punished.

 

[pcosmar]

I'm all for demanding that the state rescind the allegation that he was involved with the oath keepers and demanding the people that made that claim and used it as justification be punished.

Ok, and what about the harassment over Open Carry? or the bogus charges filed there?
Given as a reason also.

And who is this father(Taylor) the first husband. The one that got all this started. Was he actually the abuser that got the state involved in these people's lives?

And just how did information about John Irish's Juvenal record get reported? Isn't that supposed to be sealed? I have heard allegations but nothing about any convictions.

And what would be the purpose of Character Assassination?

 

[specsaregood]

Ok, and what about the harassment over Open Carry? or the bogus charges filed there? Given as a reason also.

I don't know if they are bogus. I thought the main issue here was using his association as a charge. I'm all for following up on that and getting the situation rectified.

And who is this father(Taylor) the first husband. The one that got all this started. Was he actually the abuser that got the state involved in these people's lives?And just how did information about John Irish's Juvenal record get reported? Isn't that supposed to be sealed? I have heard allegations but nothing about any convictions.

Got me. You just pointed out that we don't know cr*p about these people's situation.

I will say though, if the guy is on the govt tit --as was alleged earlier in this thread-- you may get the milk; but you better expect the spankings too.

 

[pcosmar]

--as was alleged earlier in this thread--

A lot of things have been alleged in this thread and others.
I wonder why?

http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne
http://freebabycheyenne.com/

 

[specsaregood]

A lot of things have been alleged in this thread and others.
I wonder why?

Yeah I don't know.

http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne
http://freebabycheyenne.com/

See I'm not going to join on any freebabycheyenne movement. As that is just asking to get knocked out, should the state start to disclose henious sh*t.

I thought the issue was the state using his possible association with the oath keepers. Are we getting sidetracked here? I thought the family was NOT the issue. I coulda sworn you argued that....

 

[pcosmar]

Yeah I don't know.



See I'm not going to join on any freebabycheyenne movement. As that is just asking to get knocked out, should the state start to disclose henious sh*t.

I thought the issue was the state using his possible association with the oath keepers. Are we getting sidetracked here? I thought the family was NOT the issue. I coulda sworn you argued that....

It is not relevant to the Oathkeepers case. and that case will open up several other issues. Issues that are common to other liberty activists.

As to the links, That is for information and updates.

 

[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.

An answer is at 4:20 in this video. Google/Facebook is the culprit.

YouTube - Baby Cheyenne Story Part 1

 

[Lucille]

Reason updates:

UPDATE IV: Stuart Rhodes at the Oathkeepers site provides an actual scanned (though with some of the specific accusations against the couple redacted) version of the documents that show that indeed, despite the confusing way Prison Planet first presented them, that noting Irish's Oathkeepers membership was indeed part of the official set of reasons stated for snatching his girlfriend's and his baby.

Wonkette: It's Even Funnier When Anyone Thinks There Is Anything Untoward About Laughing at A Woman Having Her Kid Taken From Her If You Just Don't Like Their Kind

 

[pcosmar]

The debunk is about to hit the fan.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10...rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/

 

[bruce leeroy]

The debunk is about to hit the fan.

I wonder if there are gonna be a bunch of open carriers at the protest thurs, as it is legal to do in NH

 

[pcosmar]

I wonder if there are gonna be a bunch of open carriers at the protest thurs, as it is legal to do in NH

I don't see why not. They have a stake in his too.

 

[bruce leeroy]

I don't see why not. They have a stake in his too.

if I had the means to make it from texas to yankeeland; My mosin and I would gladly be there
to all my yankee bretheren.......................give em hell; WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Southron]

Oathkeepers makes a great point.

One last point: Too many people are asking “but did he do it.”* In constitutional law, what counts is not whether the particular defendant was an angel or a “dirtbag” – whether he is innocent or committed the underlying offense at issue.* What counts is whether the Constitution is protected.