The best way to put it is, you have time to read the whole thread before the world ends.
To elaborate a bit: The first page of a document regarding a change in venue for legal proceedings has been posted, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers did not "belong." It was supposedly copied and pasted from the second page, and ericsnow then posted the top of the second page, but the item referencing the Oath Keepers is still in a different font and misaligned. Furthermore, the document doesn't seem to have anything to do with the baby being taken.
I see no moral justification for taking a newborn from its mother on the day of its birth, but New Hampshire has been involved with the family for 21 months now according to item 5 in the posted document, and it may turn out that due process has technically been followed, in the legal sense. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it less outrageous than we originally assumed. We don't know anything for sure,
but it's looking more and more like our picture of the situation is being heavily distorted.
That still doesn't explain why the Oath Keepers were mentioned (although there's speculation about that), and it certainly doesn't explain their mischaracterization as a "militia." (Of course, that's assuming the text referring to the Oath Keepers actually came from ANY real legal document in the first place...) However, we do know that the Oath Keepers were only mentioned in connection with the change of venue, and we've seen no document relating to taking the baby.
UPDATE: I actually just read something interesting on JREF that I still didn't catch myself: The doctored first page is from a motion for a change in venue, and the apparently doctored second page is from an affidavit...but even if that second page is genuine (doubtful), it seems to come from a totally different document.
Connect With Us