PDA

View Full Version : Drudge Report links Oath Keepers Baby Story



FrankRep
10-11-2010, 04:46 PM
Drudge Report:


Couple: State took our baby! (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby)

...dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper' (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149)



Oath Keepers
October 11th, 2010

CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/)


There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. An online website, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.

To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents: the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.


Irish family affidavit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39099480/Irish-family-affidavit
pcosmar
10-11-2010, 04:51 PM
CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

Court?
That's a stretch. A hearing,,a secret hearing.

Glad to see the Oath Keepers take lead on this.
There are a lot of other issues in the wings to pile on.
It just needs the Media exposure.
phill4paul
10-11-2010, 04:52 PM
Finally.:rolleyes:
mczerone
10-11-2010, 05:46 PM
CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

Court?
That's a stretch. A hearing,,a secret hearing.

Glad to see the Oath Keepers take lead on this.
There are a lot of other issues in the wings to pile on.
It just needs the Media exposure.

Whenever a judge acts, it is "the court". It's like a general pronoun for lawyers to refer to whoever is presiding, whether a single judge or a panel of judges.

So when a judge gets passed a stack of papers, reads what is alleged to see if it warrants action, and signs off on an order, it's the "the court", even if it was a "secret meeting" of just himself in the bathroom stall before his afternoon session.
pcosmar
10-11-2010, 06:06 PM
Whenever a judge acts, it is "the court". It's like a general pronoun for lawyers to refer to whoever is presiding, whether a single judge or a panel of judges.

So when a judge gets passed a stack of papers, reads what is alleged to see if it warrants action, and signs off on an order, it's the "the court", even if it was a "secret meeting" of just himself in the bathroom stall before his afternoon session.

Ahh,
I think of "court" as a place to present evidence, to refute evidence and, to face your accuser and to defend against allegations.

It is a good thing this gets some press.
torchbearer
10-11-2010, 06:08 PM
Whenever a judge acts, it is "the court". It's like a general pronoun for lawyers to refer to whoever is presiding, whether a single judge or a panel of judges.

So when a judge gets passed a stack of papers, reads what is alleged to see if it warrants action, and signs off on an order, it's the "the court", even if it was a "secret meeting" of just himself in the bathroom stall before his afternoon session.

semantics in this context.
the original post was not using legal jargon. Court in the context of the OP is referring to a open court session.