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

[Reason]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/baby-snatching-its-hilarious-w

[pcosmar]

I saw the article in Wonk.
I didn't post the link.

They were on it quick and nasty
:(

[2young2vote]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

[Reason]

Does accused abuse towards the wife and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

Who knows what the truth is behind all these accusations, I think we should be careful that we don't let this blow up in our faces and end up discrediting ourselves.

I am mostly concerned about the accusation that the document has been altered.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263687

//

[torchbearer]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

guitly until proven innocent.

[specsaregood]

guitly until proven innocent.

The articles and documents state that there were repeated cases of domestic abuse. enough warranting taking the other 2 kids out of the home almost 2 years ago. If one accepts that one of the government's duties is to protect life and liberty then taking kids out of a violent home can arguably fit. Esp. until the trial/verdict concludes. It is no different than putting people in jail while they are standing trial.

[pcosmar]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

Hmm,
Does an uncorroborated claim, an allegation. a charge.(no conviction) against the father
justify taking a child away from it's mother?

Did you use the word "justify" in there?
:(

[squarepusher]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

[torchbearer]

The articles and documents state that there were repeated cases of domestic abuse. enough warranting taking the other 2 kids out of the home almost 2 years ago. If one accepts that one of the government's duties is to protect life and liberty then taking kids out of a violent home can arguably fit. Esp. until the trial/verdict concludes. It is no different than putting people in jail while they are standing trial.

i'll call the cops to let them know i saw you abusing someone.
then you can see how it feels.

[specsaregood]

i'll call the cops to let them know i saw you abusing someone.
then you can see how it feels.

Yup, we should just let abusers walk around free. Hell, let em rape and beat their children too it ain't none of my business. FTR: I've been wrongfully arrested because of a computer glitch, I know how it feels.

[libertarian4321]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

Possibly. We can debate that later.

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

As I said in the original thread, the whole story MADE NO SENSE- if being an "Oath Keeper" was the reason for taking the kid, they would take the children of all Oath Keepers.

It appears that The father was trying to whip up support/hysteria for his cause and misled everyone.

That is why several of us urged caution in the original thread- it is important that we get all the details before we grab torches and pitchforks and take to the streets.

[MelissaWV]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

As I said in the other thread, there would be better ways of going about it.

A newborn was in a hospital setting, it seems. This is an easy enough location to secure. It's been done in the past, of course, with dangerous people getting procedures done to the extent they are sedated the whole time or there are guards outside or even restraints involved. In this case, it's as simple as keeping the infant and the parent(s) under watch in the hospital. This would allow the newborn to still be breastfed and bond with the mother. Hospitals have cameras everywhere, and generally put tracking devices or some other scannable ID on infants (baby-snatching is a big deal). People could be warned to not "let the mom walk out" with the baby, or even on her own if it's such a concern. If the father is SUCH a crazy bastard, then they could just keep him away entirely until all the allegations are investigated.

All of that seems excessive to me, but definitely it's better than taking an infant away from the necessary care of its parents, especially its mother.

[Anti Federalist]

Reason "debunks" this?

Yeah, that's about right.

IIRC they were still mumbling into their beards and lattes and spreading FUD about the validity of MIAC even after the Missouri state police verified that the document was legit.

[Knightskye]

Reason "debunks" this?

Yeah, that's about right.

IIRC they were still mumbling into their beards and lattes and spreading FUD about the validity of MIAC even after the Missouri state police verified that the document was legit.

Post a link. All I've found so far is this, and it's not saying the MIAC report is fake:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/14/look-out-hes-got-a-bob-barr-bu

[Maximus]

This was my first thought when I saw the story come out. If the state can prove its case that this guy is a serial abuser I don't have a problem with this.

[Anti Federalist]

Post a link. All I've found so far is this, and it's not saying the MIAC report is fake:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/14/look-out-hes-got-a-bob-barr-bu

Yeah, that was the blog entry I recall.

The story was confirmed but grudgingly.



Infowars isn't always reliable (to put it mildly), but this time it broke some real news

And:


A few days ago, the conspiracist site Infowars posted a "strategic report" by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a police

[pcosmar]

I think everybody is trying to scratch the dog to make it wag right.

[angelatc]

If the guy beats the wife and kids, perhaps the solution is actually to remove the GUY from the home. But of course, there's no federal bounty on his head, is there?

[Acala]

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.

[BenIsForRon]

If these guys have already had their other two babies taken away, its very possible that there is a good enough case to take this baby away. So yeah, it might not be a good idea to scream about oppression just yet.

[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.
:mad:

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?

:confused:
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 (http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/15/the-paranoid-center)?

[Reason]

YouTube - John Irish & Stephanie Taylor: Concord Hospital Protest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp0_aMbBLfU)

[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 (http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/15/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]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJUgkIOx5o)

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 .

[tropicangela]

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 .

The DYFS and officers wheeled the baby out of the room and then they let the parents spend 2 minutes with her in the nursery saying goodbye, before sending the couple out of the hospital with her crib card. The baby was in the birth suite with them for 16 hours postpartum.

It is important that this couple receives due process and can afford a good lawyer. The State should have evidence of abuse and neglect on this baby, and the previous children should not apply [edit] to preemptively remove her from the hospital.

[tropicangela]

Some hospital staff have threatened parents to call DYFS for not vaccinating. So the State's description of a good parent can be very different from mine or yours.

[legion]

So how is this 24 year old, disability check collecting, likely child and partner abusing, ward of the state an Oath Keeper?

I thought you would have to take some sort of oath to keep to join an organization called "Oath Keepers."

[tropicangela]

So how is this 24 year old, disability check collecting, likely child and partner abusing, ward of the state an Oath Keeper?

I thought you would have to take some sort of oath to keep to join an organization called "Oath Keepers."

I've seen that he belonged to the forum is all. Like you belonging here.

[legion]

I've seen that he belonged to the forum is all. Like you belonging here.

Well then, the next time I get a traffic ticket I'll try to stir up a media shitstorm claiming the only reason I was pulled over was because I am Ron Paul.

[pcosmar]

So how is this 24 year old, disability check collecting, likely child and partner abusing, ward of the state an Oath Keeper?

I thought you would have to take some sort of oath to keep to join an organization called "Oath Keepers."

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?

He didn't make any claim of being an Oathkeeper. The State did. And that question is between the OathKeepers and the State.

[tropicangela]

Well then, the next time I get a traffic ticket I'll try to stir up a media shitstorm claiming the only reason I was pulled over was because I am Ron Paul.

AF already responded to this, here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2923980&postcount=580

[Brian4Liberty]

Possibly. We can debate that later.

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

As I said in the original thread, the whole story MADE NO SENSE- if being an "Oath Keeper" was the reason for taking the kid, they would take the children of all Oath Keepers.

It appears that The father was trying to whip up support/hysteria for his cause and misled everyone.

That is why several of us urged caution in the original thread- it is important that we get all the details before we grab torches and pitchforks and take to the streets.


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

OK, so has anyone read the actual number 6 that comes before the number 7 on the document (that mentions the Oathkeepers) in the video? Mr. Irish holds it up to the camera. It appears that Ms. Taylor has "utilized" CPS at times in the past. Not that this justifies taking the baby, but it does show that there is a history here, and at the times where the couple (Irish/Taylor) were "separated", she was "working" with CPS. Most likely she has waffled back and forth, and the CPS people were frustrated at not getting their way.

For those who somehow missed it, here is a partial transcription from the video:


6. Ms. Taylor again reported to CPS's <illegible> 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 that she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him....

[tropicangela]

OK, so has anyone read the actual number 6 that comes before the number 7 on the document (that mentions the Oathkeepers) in the video? Mr. Irish holds it up to the camera. It appears that Ms. Taylor has "utilized" CPS at times in the past. Not that this justifies taking the baby, but it does show that there is a history here, and at the times where the couple (Irish/Taylor) were "separated", she was "working" with CPS. Most likely she has waffled back and forth, and the CPS people were frustrated at not getting their way.

For those who somehow missed it, here is a partial transcription from the video:

Was the couple referred to Irish/Taylor, or Taylor and her "ex" husband?

[Brian4Liberty]

Was the couple referred to Irish/Taylor, or Taylor and her "ex" husband?

See below:


6. Ms. Taylor again reported to CPS's <illegible> 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 that she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Ms. Taylor had purchased for him....

[tropicangela]

See below:

I thought the boys were children of her ex husband and the abuse issues had to do with him. That date is 2009, around the time the boys were removed? A timeline would help.

[pcosmar]

For those who somehow missed it, here is a partial transcription from the video:

Didn't miss it.
I ignore it. It is a baseless allegation at this point. I give very little credibility to these state agencies that have a documented history of lies and corruption.

However I did hear her say that John Irish never abused her and never hit her.

Now weighing the credibility of these statements I will have to go with the word of the victim.

[pcosmar]

I thought the boys were children of her ex husband and the abuse issues had to do with him. That date is 2009, around the time the boys were removed? A timeline would help.

That has been my understanding, and that her involvement with the system began at that time.

[sratiug]

Nothing about any of this has shown any reason for taking a newborn from her mother. They can't keep Irish away from his baby so they take the baby from the mother too??? Absolute and total fascist bullshit.

[specsaregood]

He didn't make any claim of being an Oathkeeper. The State did. And that question is between the OathKeepers and the State.

We don't know that, as we still don't know how the state came to believe that he was a member.

[pcosmar]

Relevant Information.

YouTube - CPS crimes against children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9OoWRPHs24)

This is SOP nation wide.
:mad:

[pcosmar]

We don't know that, as we still don't know how the state came to believe that he was a member.

He was a Open Carry Activist. A liberty activist.

[specsaregood]

He was a Open Carry Activist. A liberty activist.

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. But good on him.

[Brian4Liberty]

Didn't miss it.
I ignore it. It is a baseless allegation at this point. I give very little credibility to these state agencies that have a documented history of lies and corruption.

However I did hear her say that John Irish never abused her and never hit her.

Now weighing the credibility of these statements I will have to go with the word of the victim.

Maybe Jerry Springer will come in and do lie-detector tests on everyone involved. While he's at it, he can do DNA tests and find out who cheated on who. :D

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...

[sratiug]

We don't know that, as we still don't know how the state came to believe that he was a member.

Why would we care?

[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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
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 (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/baby-snatching-its-hilarious-w#comment_1943489) 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.

[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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lq5sr3hthk)

[Lucille]

Reason updates:


UPDATE IV (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/baby-snatching-its-hilarious-w): 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 (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/11/wonkette-its-even-funnier-when)

[pcosmar]

The debunk is about to hit the fan.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-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
:D
I don't see why not. They have a stake in his too.
:cool:

[bruce leeroy]

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

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.