Good!Quote:
Originally Posted by pcosmar
I wonder how many people showed up?
200 is the over/under. GO!
Printable View
Good!Quote:
Originally Posted by pcosmar
I wonder how many people showed up?
200 is the over/under. GO!
Huh? How is making a page to help the family using them as pawns in the debate? What debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
WMUR is reporting that an FBI K-9 unit was called out to hospital to sniff for bombs during protest.
XNN
YES THIS IS about the father's political activities and also the parents being gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepusher
This is a political hit by kidnapping in order to terrorize and intimidate patriots. THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS ABOUT.
These social workers are malignant statists who do this shit all over the country.
This is TYPICAL of these criminals:
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010
A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a “Substantial” damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.
After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jury’s verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: “Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously.”
The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick’s constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.
On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.
Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: “Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is "ubiquitous" as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.”
San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case, and the lead
appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.
RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103)
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogart...web4157254.htm
Sorry I'm behind on all of this. I can't keep up with all of the forums I'm on.
I just heard Alex Jones say that New Hampshire is moving to TERMINATE the mother's parental rights.
If the guy was an convicted criminal with his gun rights revoked then an association with what they thought was a militia group (O.K.) could be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Just heard? Is Alex back live or are you listening to the re broadcast?Quote:
Originally Posted by susano
Then back up your assertion with something... like an affidavit or other documents...Quote:
Originally Posted by susano
I do not care what is typical. I know what is typical. I want to know all of the relevant facts for the matter at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by susano
Well, guilt by association doesn't stand on it's own, even if it were to be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by klamath
In this child custody case, it's hard to see any relevance. As TorchBearer said, they will just throw anything in there to see if it sticks.
I have found no convictions of anything. I heard allegations, Apparently he had a Concealed Carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by klamath
But some questionable bust that is being contested. a technicality that is being called weapons violations..
I believe the term I am looking for is character assassination .
:(
It's premature to draw a lot of speculative conclusions. The parents need to release the backstory. For now, I support the baby. The state needs some serious charges and overwhelming evidence to deny a newborn breastfeeding and parental TLC. CPS is a nationwide scam and all current and future parents need to be aware of its misdeeds.
Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Check Hospital During Protest
Demonstrators Protest After DCYF Seizes Newborn
POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT October 8, 2010
CONCORD, N.H. -- FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrators gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother's care by the state.
The hospital said there was no threat made, but it was taking precautions in part to reassure staff and patients.
http://www.wmur.com/news/25332217/detail.html
"Keep politics out of protecting our children."
I read over 390 posts on this thread and I still do not have enough information.
I saw the one PDF that says these folk have had a few run-ins with the cops before. I'd like a lot more detailed information before making any sort of conclusion about this case.
Assuming this couple are either angels or demons seem like really poor assumptions at this point as the whole matter is developing.
The father is supposed to be on,
http://www.freetalklive.com/
Same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowlesy
I am not a fan of children being taken away by "the authorities" for any reason, really, but neither am I a fan of leaping to the conclusion that the reason the child was taken was because of affiliation with Oath Keepers, and not some other behavior.
Association in this case would be that if he was part of a militia they would naturally assume that he had weapons to become involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
I have a very jaded attitute toward county law having a son that was railroaded in highschool so the county could pad the numbers of an "exploding juvenile crime wave" all because they were trying to get a state grant for a new juvy hall.
I still try and stay objective though:D
Contact New Hampshire Governor Lynch:
(603) 271-2121
email form: http://www4.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp
This reminds me of Charles Dyer and all the people who scurried off from supporting him because the State accused him of all sorts of stuff that were ridiculous. Let us give the shadow of the doubt to the non-State person, ok?
I think it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah K
The charge being made is that his association with Oath Keepers was used as a reason (among other reasons) for taking their baby. If the only document that mentions that is the change of venue form, then that's not true. And, apart from the mischaracterization of Oath Keepers as a militia, I haven't seen anyone explain why the mention of Oath Keepers on that document would be such a big deal.
But everything I said in the above paragraph is assuming that it really is the case that the change of venue form was the one on which that information appeared, which it is looking more and more like that's not the case.
Weapons should have nothing to do with child custody. Second Amendment comes into play there. "Assuming" is not allowed in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by klamath
Jaded and objective, the only way to go. ;)
Bummer about the railroading...
Apparently ,from the papers that Stewart Rhodes has seen, He thinks it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by erowe1
Many others can see the implications.
Others look at it in the light of many things including the MIAC report, july4patriot and the Hutaree and see a pattern.
To others , it is just WRONG.
For better or worse this story has taken hold. Let's hope we don't find out this will be used to smear Oath Keepers in a bad light some how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsnow
Do they really think Bomb sniffing dogs were needed? or is that a show for the cameras?Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahApocalypse
Has there been a rash of bombings that I haven't heard of?
Actually there is not nearly enough information to make any kind of judgement on anything in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Either they're retarded, or it's a show for the cameras. The jury's out, though. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pcosmar
Some reason it couldn't be both? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Me
Oath Keepers, or not (it seems like not), the state was retarded for taking away a baby from a young mother like that after she gave birth. Justified or not in the protests, I"m glad its getting the attention it is now for exposing corrupt practices imo
I still have heard no reason why the child was taken from the mother. The mother did nothing to the child. At what point can the govt abolish the natural right to conceive birth?
Anybody in the MD/DE/VA area going to New Hampshire to join in the protest? If so than I would be very interested in tagging along if that is o.k.