View Full Version : Government Agents Seize An Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital (MIRROR)
Anyone heard of this? Any more information?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6qzhiJUkDw
O.S.O.K.
10-07-2010, 08:10 PM
WTF?
CPS takes this guy's baby because he's an oath keeper?
I find that a bit hard to believe...
I would think this would be making national news.
ETA - did a quick google and all's I see is the youtube link and several boards - like arfcom, ronpaul, etc.
I agree. No one seems to be covering this and it does seem unbelievable.
O.S.O.K.
10-07-2010, 08:25 PM
I'm not saying it isn't true - just incredible.
And it could be that this is just breaking - you never know.
Fox took several days to start reporting on the Lake Falcon shooting incident. Perhaps they were checking on the story first?
aliceinchains
10-07-2010, 08:26 PM
Yeah i am pretty stupified! WTF!
There better be more to it.
Oath keepers include everyone who served simply because no one ever released you from your solemn oath when you ets'd.
Statement from Oath Keeper's founder re: this incident:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
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.
That is pure leftist bullshit.
Even if the guy was a nut job he is dangerous to them; not his own blood.
Charliebravo
10-08-2010, 08:15 AM
$20 says mom tested positive for dope in the hospital and that the hospital notified Social Services. I think that whoever wrote the affidavit threw in the "militia" accusation as superfluous information to help bolster the case and to justify taking numerous cops into the room for the seizure. The information shouldn't have been in the complaint regardless of the other allegations, but if it had been the ONLY allegation in the complaint, the CPS employee that wrote the affidavit should be fired and the judge that signed the warrant should be impeached.
Warhog01
10-08-2010, 08:59 AM
I just seen it on alarm and muster this may be the first shot against groups like this and the timing of this a ".gov manmade event" just in time for an election it makes a normal person wonder about .gov and who is really in control.
This will not end well.....................
O.S.O.K.
10-08-2010, 09:06 AM
Apparently there's more to the story: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Check the update - the membership in Oath Keepers was cited on the warrant but there were other "more serious" allegations as well.
Regardless, citing membership in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking someone's child away is a serious situation that needs to be addressed agressively. The President of Oath Keepers has stated that he will pursue this legally.
The fail safe with this process is SUPPOSED to be the judge reviewing the request for the warrant - so WTF happened there?
Further, I'm seeing referrence to other situations just like this.
What's next? Membership in gunsnet being cited on warrants?
matshock
10-08-2010, 09:27 AM
What's next? Membership in gunsnet being cited on warrants?
My guess would be a leftist judge/ lefist agency losing their collective mind because they know their hour is almost up- like they're planning a revolution and pre-empting with hostage taking.
Yes, that's how bad this sounds.
What state is this in? Is there a chance that the governor will step in an slap down those responsible?
If they turn out to be feds and crossed state lines I'd declare civil war.
Watching closely.
Krupski
10-08-2010, 10:34 AM
Call me a "keyboard kommando" if you wish... but taking someone's child crosses the line... WAY OVER crosses the line. Anyone tried to take one of my kids I would shoot to kill each and every bastard who dared to try. The only way they would stop me would be to kill me.
Krupski
10-08-2010, 10:37 AM
$20 says mom tested positive for dope in the hospital and that the hospital notified Social Services.
IF that is the case, then why not arrest mom and give custody of the child to dad?
I think you're grasping for straws... to defend another wrong perpetrated by the "auth-or-ah-tays".
Kidnapping a child crosses the line. Those involved need to be executed. Preferably slow and painful.
Sidartha
10-08-2010, 11:30 AM
Apparently there's more to the story: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Check the update - the membership in Oath Keepers was cited on the warrant but there were other "more serious" allegations as well.
A careful reading of this statement by Rhodes seems to indicate that the charges stemmed from child abuse allegations and/or that association with the Oath Keepers constituted child abuse.
Either way, we are all correct in that using ones political affiliations as grounds for criminal charges are completely wrong.
I'm afraid that blood will eventually have to be spilled in this country because the people in the ivory towers believe that the law is whatever they went it to be and they don't understand that when there is no consistent rule of law, there is no law. And that all of their supposed authority is worth no more than the paper it's printed on.
I hope I'm wrong.
El Jefe
10-08-2010, 11:53 AM
It's hard to say at this point what caused the authorities to take the child away. The supposed update states clearly that there are other serious allegations against the parents. I'm highly doubtful of the fact that just because the parents were involved with an online forum they had their child seized. We'll see how this plays out.
matshock
10-08-2010, 12:06 PM
It's hard to say at this point what caused the authorities to take the child away. The supposed update states clearly that there are other serious allegations against the parents. I'm highly doubtful of the fact that just because the parents were involved with an online forum they had their child seized. We'll see how this plays out.
It's confirmed that Irish's association with the OKs is listed on the warrant and that is enough to void it IMO since the OKs are not defined as a criminal or terrorist org by any stretch of the imagination.
If they actually did commit any crimes it's sad because the leftists goons in charge of New Hampshire decided to inject their personal politics into the situation and that poisons it.
El Jefe
10-08-2010, 12:41 PM
It's confirmed that Irish's association with the OKs is listed on the warrant and that is enough to void it IMO since the OKs are not defined as a criminal or terrorist org by any stretch of the imagination.
If they actually did commit any crimes it's sad because the leftists goons in charge of New Hampshire decided to inject their personal politics into the situation and that poisons it.
I agree, the fact that their involvement with Oath Keepers is even mentioned, is indeed troubling. But, from the info available at this time, it appears that the authorities learned of problems with this couple above and beyond that. We don't have claims of any other children being taken from parents because of an association with Oath Keepers, so I don't think that was the actual cause. Hopefully all the info will come out eventually and we'll know for sure.
Kadmos
10-08-2010, 06:24 PM
Not buying this at all. I'd lay good odds it was a small mention of the Oath Keepers in some paperwork, but there obviously was something else going on which is the real reason the kid was taken.
The state very rarely takes kids without very good reason. It's pretty much always temporary, and a hearing generally occurs in a few days at the most.
I'm guessing this guy is trying to get sympathy/support from his Oath Keeper connection, and keeping real quiet on why the kid was actually taken.
O.S.O.K.
10-08-2010, 07:02 PM
Allowing the OK mention on a warrant under "cause" is not to be tollerated.
This is like mentioning membership in the NRA as a "cause".
It is an incremental step towards that reason rising to the top = look at the loony assed marxist judges that we have in some courts...
mriddick
10-08-2010, 07:13 PM
I would concur it's really hard to get children services to take kids (I've seen some pretty sorry parents keep their kids) so I would suspect something major happened (or someone at CS really screwed up). Either way so far all we know is the father has not told the full story to the Oath Keepers which doesn't bode well for him.
Appears there is a Motion for Change of Venue for Cheyenne Irish here:
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/government-agents-seize-oath?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A248178&xg_source=msg_com_blogpost
Note the yellow highlighted text. He is known to have a history of neglect, and he may very well be questionable character. But the association with OK really is troubling.
serf,
We have an appropriate forum reserved just for sites like that one..
Its called the K-files Forum.
:D
mriddick
10-08-2010, 07:51 PM
Appears there is a Motion for Change of Venue for Cheyenne Irish here:
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/government-agents-seize-oath?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A248178&xg_source=msg_com_blogpost
Note the yellow highlighted text. He is known to have a history of neglect, and he may very well be questionable character. But the association with OK really is troubling.
I wonder how questionable your character has to be before you're thrown out of the oath keepers?
serf,
We have an appropriate forum reserved just for sites like that one..
Its called the K-files Forum.:D
Never been to the site before. Was just searching for more information re: the officially stated reason for the seizure. I find it seriously troubling that the State can seize a child, use in the case of Paragraph 7, misleading and untrue information which even if true is legally insufficient, with vague insinuations of "other issues" that would distance any defenders of the couple. If there are valid other issues that have not yet been decided, e.g., the termination of parental rights case, the couple is still innocent untl proven guilty and there is no basis for the seizure. Period. OMG he had guns! He could be a serious creep, but there nothing is as creepy a State that can descend upon you and vilify you like they did to the Waco group, and take everything you have including your children.
Charliebravo
10-08-2010, 08:18 PM
IF that is the case, then why not arrest mom and give custody of the child to dad?Dad might be a shitbag too. Not saying that he is, but I'm not going to bat for the guy either. Unlike you, I prefer to get all the facts before passing judgement. The fact that he is involved with Oath Keepers doesn't automatically qualify him as a stand-up guy. There are assholes in all walks of life and all professions......law enforcement, military, medicine, and the clergy. The fact that he has taken an interest in Constitutional issues doesn't necessarily make him a good guy or a good parent.
I think you're grasping for straws... to defend another wrong perpetrated by the "auth-or-ah-tays".I know that government agencies, particularly CPS, can go a little overboard on occassion, but that's why we have courts. I'd like to hear all evidence before drawing and quartering the State employees.....even though the Oath Keepers reference was, IMO, inaccurate and irrelevant. I'm just not willing to hang people over one side of the story from one obscure internet news source.
Kidnapping a child crosses the line. Those involved need to be executed. Preferably slow and painful.It's not "kidnapping". There was a judge's order for seizure of the child. Whether the seizure was justified will be hashed out rather quickly. In Texas, a hearing will be held within 3 business days. We had a case recently in Dallas in which a man and woman had been living in an extended stay motel. They had their 10 year old daughter chained up in the bathroom. She was severely malnourinshed (40 lbs.) and her father (maybe stepfather) raped her almost daily. CPS ended up taking the kid. You'll have a hard time convincing me that it was a "kidnapping". Also, my cousin is in the process of adopting a child that she has been providing foster care for. When she got him, he was just released from the hospital where he was treated for bleeding in the brain and multiple broken bones, including both clavicles. The baby was 8 weeks old when she got him. Dad is still in jail. Mom is out on bond, but she ain't getting him back any time soon......probably not at all. Still not "kidnapping".
Charliebravo
10-08-2010, 08:22 PM
Call me a "keyboard kommando" if you wish... but taking someone's child crosses the line... WAY OVER crosses the line. Anyone tried to take one of my kids I would shoot to kill each and every bastard who dared to try. The only way they would stop me would be to kill me.Yep. You're a keyboard commando. Oh, sure, you'd snarl and blather on and on about "fucking Nazi's" this and "jack-booted thugs" that, but then you'd pipe down and go squeal to a lawyer......which is exactly what you're supposed to do.
Kadmos
10-09-2010, 03:14 AM
First, it's not seizure...it's protective custody. We are talking about a person, not property. And it is always considered temporary protective custody, lasting only until they can find a resolution to the problems, a different member of the family to care for the child, or long term foster care.
Second, in his own change of venue motion he states that he was arrested of possession on a concealed weapon without a permit, and was ordered by the court to take a violence management course.
That being the case, membership in an organization that arguably promotes guns, etc. may be relevant information for a judge on a temporary protective custody case. It is simply one thing that may go to argument that a court order is perhaps wise. Just as a person may get a reduced sentence or reduced bail for being an upstanding member of their church, being a member of the KKK or whatever may have a somewhat deleterious effect.
Given the implications of the other issues, it's fairly obvious that being an OK had little to do with this. It likely would have happened either way.
Oswald Bastable
10-09-2010, 03:41 AM
Second, in his own change of venue motion he states that he was arrested of possession on a concealed weapon without a permit, and was ordered by the court to take a violence management course.
This is arguable on 2A grounds, and given the direction of SCOTUS cases recently, is likely to come up at some point, hopefully before the balance is 5-4 (or greater) anti-constitution.
Given the implications of the other issues, it's fairly obvious that being an OK had little to do with this. It likely would have happened either way.
Which makes one wonder why it was mentioned in the warrant, if it was. Other than as a demonizing point for future cases, i.e., precedent.
Never been to the site before. Was just searching for more information re: the officially stated reason for the seizure. I find it seriously troubling that the State can seize a child, use in the case of Paragraph 7, misleading and untrue information which even if true is legally insufficient, with vague insinuations of "other issues" that would distance any defenders of the couple. If there are valid other issues that have not yet been decided, e.g., the termination of parental rights case, the couple is still innocent untl proven guilty and there is no basis for the seizure. Period. OMG he had guns! He could be a serious creep, but there nothing is as creepy a State that can descend upon you and vilify you like they did to the Waco group, and take everything you have including your children.
Do you know the reasons for the seizure; I don't. I know what I read online; however because the information isn't definitive I don't believe it.
A couple of years ago the national media showed all these pictures of guns that an "unfit" mother bought for her kid. There were pictures of a table filled with guns....
The evidence was damning until someone here found the local news article and all the ARs, AK's, and others became Airsoft replicas with the day-glow end of barrel device removed. The kid had one 22 RF...
My point is simple; no matter how well intentioned your search for information is you can't trust the media.
I am not sure I believe the source of this or the credibility of the person whose child was taken, the terms protective custody or seizure may depend upon your subjective assessment of the benevolent intent of the State. But I am concerned that the State is wrong on the paper of it.
It is though they realized that the anecdotal information supplied in section 6 of this Change in Venue were thin, and so they amassed items in section7 to "buttress" their extreme decision. Only the items there reveal their contempt for the liberties of those on the right. Those who carry guns and who may be associated online with dubious ideological groups that promote gun ownership, vigilance re: government, and which may or may not be a militia, which is not illegal anyway.
And there does seem to be a presumption many are very willing to make that there is more to it, that they are acting benevolently. When if they are they should be acting in the sunshine of information with clear charges against the parents. The presumption that the parents are somehow dirty, whether true or not, makes kooks of us all should anything similar happen to us.
They owe us a full explanation and soon.
mriddick
10-09-2010, 07:26 AM
So far what we do know is the father withheld information which doesn't speak well for him, he's apparently been caught trying to push the entire ordeal off on his involvement with the oath keepers when now it seems like a small detail at best.
matshock
10-09-2010, 09:35 AM
So far what we do know is the father withheld information which doesn't speak well for him, he's apparently been caught trying to push the entire ordeal off on his involvement with the oath keepers when now it seems like a small detail at best.
Yeah, but once again the state of New Hampshire put that little detail in the warrant and if I were counsel for the OKs I would want to be involved even if the suspect were guilty otherwise.
NH CPS has no one to thank for this ordeal but themselves.
TEN-32
10-09-2010, 12:09 PM
My point is simple; no matter how well intentioned your search for information is you can't trust the media.
I have been preaching that here for years. I think it is human nature to believe lies or buy into spin when it supports your belief system.
Kadmos
10-09-2010, 12:19 PM
This is arguable on 2A grounds, and given the direction of SCOTUS cases recently, is likely to come up at some point, hopefully before the balance is 5-4 (or greater) anti-constitution.
Sorry, I'm not following what you are saying here.
Are you saying carrying concealed without a permit shouldn't be a crime due to the 2nd?
Well I agree with you, but there are way to many precedents in every state that a trial judge would have to say it is a crime.
Which makes one wonder why it was mentioned in the warrant, if it was. Other than as a demonizing point for future cases, i.e., precedent.
You put it in there in hopes that is sways the judge to sign the order. It's a custody order, not a trial document. They put all kinds of things in these that would never pass muster in a court of law as actual evidence. Kinda like search warrants but even sloppier. They can put in that a "confidential informant" saw this or that.
A search warrant has to stand up to some measure of review, these things really don't. If a search warrant gets kicked out because it is flawed it has a tangable detriment to someone.
These things don't get kicked because they are flawed. The focus of the hearing (not trial) isn't on them much at all.
Only a total moron shows up in court and says "they took my kid because I'm a Oath Keeper" and bitches about the validity of the order. No, you go in there and try to prove you are a decent parent who deserves to have your kids back.
Couple more stories re: this - red lettered from Drudge Report:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby
I am not sure I believe the source of this or the credibility of the person whose child was taken, the terms protective custody or seizure may depend upon your subjective assessment of the benevolent intent of the State. But I am concerned that the State is wrong on the paper of it.
I am not assessing the "state" I am tying to learn wth happened.
Is the information correct or not is the issue. If it is correct then it is hardly anecdotal. If we hid the past; we'd let pedophiles adopt children wouldn't we?
There's been a trend in America to protect the wrong doer more than the victim.
O.S.O.K.
10-11-2010, 06:13 PM
OK -I saw the update and actual documents (with all of the "real" charges redacted) but they for sure did list membership in Oath Keepers in the list of causes - after 5 others.
Looks like they are deserving of this seizure (or protective custody whatever) - but the fact remains that the listing of membership in Oath Keepers as a cause should not be allowed to stand. It sets a dangerous precident.
The state very rarely takes kids without very good reason. It's pretty much always temporary, and a hearing generally occurs in a few days at the most.
The state rarely takes kids who are in real need of being taken.
Its the media's typical lack of facts while both sides attempting their hearts out to push buttons.
Gunreference1
10-12-2010, 09:52 AM
State to be challenged over politics in snatched-baby case
'Law that targets people for speech and association is unconstitutional'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 11, 2010
8:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Officials for an organization that promises its members will fulfill their sworn oaths to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies – in or out of the United States – say a New Hampshire court's decision to make an abuse case defendant's political affiliation part of the accusations sends a seriously troubling message.
"The 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," said Stewart Rhodes, chief of Oath Keepers on his website.
To read the rest of the story click the link below.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=214233
Steve
Oswald Bastable
10-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Looks like they had nothing...all charges dropped. No JBT's here...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=215537
Posted: October 14, 2010
9:15 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Johnathon Irish, fiancé and baby
A tiny baby girl snatched from her parents' custody a week ago when her father was accused of being an "Oath Keeper" was returned to her parents today.
According to WND sources close to the case, the accusations against the father, Johnathon Irish, whose fiancée, Stephanie Taylor, is the mother of Cheyenne, have been dropped.
Rest of story at the link.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.