Page 4 of 46 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1352

Thread: Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Dan Itse.

    Already got a call into him
    You read Stewart's mind. Can I PM you with Stewart's phone number so you can pass it to Dan?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    The document John Irish sent to us is from the State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch; it is a Juvenile Abuse / Neglect Ex Parte Order with an attached affidavit.

    This affidavit has a long list of reasons why the State became involved… one of the reasons: “The Division 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.”

    There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.

    That being said… even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?
    Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?

  4. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that those other items are relevent here.

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    That being said… even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?
    Did it say it was a crime? Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is a suitable environment for a child.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  5. #94
    Member JenH88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Free in the SC! Upstate
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericsnow View Post
    Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?
    +1

    what are the other reasons listed?

  6. #95
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    54,179
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    You read Stewart's mind. Can I PM you with Stewart's phone number so you can pass it to Dan?
    Sure, but I just updated the post with Itse's contact number and email, all public domain btw.
    "It's a Free Country."
    "They hate us for our Freedoms."
    "The troops are protecting your Freedom."




    You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!

  7. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericsnow View Post
    Were any of the other reasons listed anything serious like illegal drug use or past child abuse?
    Yes there are some serious allegations, however these are allegations... it does not mean they are true. But even a more fundemental point is that the mere association with OK or any other organization is not valid grounds for taking someones child away. If we allow that to happen people will be afraid to speak. That's called chilling their speech in first amendment law lingo.

  8. #97
    Moderator jdmyprez_deo_vindice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eastern Shore of Maryland
    Posts
    5,428
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Why the hell would it matter what these people did in the past? I don't care if they snorted a mountain of cocaine and beat themselves with steel dildos while wearing bugs bunny costumes.. The government has no right to barge in and remove a child from their biological parents when they have done no harm to that child.

    And since when does the government get to decide what an appropriate home is for this child? So the government has a right to also make our moral decisions now?
    "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
    designed to make of their victory,
    there would have been no surrender at
    Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
    Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
    I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
    with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (D-Texas), 1870


  9. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Sure, but I just updated the post with Itse's contact number and email, all public domain btw.
    Thanks, Stewart will call Dan tomorrow.

  10. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    But even a more fundemental point is that the mere association with OK or any other organization is not valid grounds for taking someones child away. If we allow that to happen people will be afraid to speak. That's called chilling their speech in first amendment law lingo.
    Right ... that particular point, i.e. his involvement in OK, should NEVER have made the list if this situation is actually true.
    Last edited by tpreitzel; 10-07-2010 at 10:28 PM.
    Truth Drives Me

  11. #100

    Default

    //
    Last edited by specsaregood; 04-10-2012 at 11:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  12. #101

    Default

    I need more details... need to see all allegations and supporting documents before I can make my judgement.....but I lean heavily on the WTF side!!!
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  13. #102

  14. #103
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    54,179
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    Thanks, Stewart will call Dan tomorrow.
    Excellent.

    I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.

    That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.

    Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.
    "It's a Free Country."
    "They hate us for our Freedoms."
    "The troops are protecting your Freedom."




    You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!

  15. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Excellent.

    I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.

    That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.

    Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.
    Exactly where I am at. If there was some valid reason to snatch this kid, why even mention the OK or legal firearm ownership.
    This smells of an agenda.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  16. #105

    Default

    a pre-meditated kidnapping of a child. in my parts, those criminals get rope burn on their necks.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  17. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    a pre-meditated kidnapping of a child. in my parts, those criminals get rope burn on their necks.
    If that turns out top be the case....then yes they should hang!

    Tell you what......if this happened to me then all hell would break loose 'round here!

    I still need more solid info!
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  18. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Excellent.

    I'm really curious to see what the hell is going on here.

    That said, there is, in my mind, almost no valid reason for the state to do what it did here, regardless of who it is.

    Charlie Manson could be the father, and I'd argue the case.
    That. It's precrime. The parents did nothing to warrant a child being taken away.

  19. #108

    Default

    The response time on disseminating facts for such a serious matter is not all that exciting. On the other hand this is a situation where crystal clear facts are vital. Like everyone else, waiting for more information.

  20. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdmyprez_deo_vindice View Post
    Why the hell would it matter what these people did in the past? I don't care if they snorted a mountain of cocaine and beat themselves with steel dildos while wearing bugs bunny costumes.. The government has no right to barge in and remove a child from their biological parents when they have done no harm to that child.

    And since when does the government get to decide what an appropriate home is for this child? So the government has a right to also make our moral decisions now?
    Fucking word.




    So what's the situation?

    Is this for real? Because if it is, then I'm crossposting this shit all over the world. I"m telling my Mom about it, and my mother in law.

    Every mother in the country(except the shitty ones) will come undone like a raging bear over a situation like this. I am chomping at the bit to know this is indeed for real and I can let everyone know about it.








    You do not take our babies. Period.

  21. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kylie View Post
    Fucking word.




    So what's the situation?

    Is this for real? Because if it is, then I'm crossposting this shit all over the world. I"m telling my Mom about it, and my mother in law.

    Every mother in the country(except the shitty ones) will come undone like a raging bear over a situation like this. I am chomping at the bit to know this is indeed for real and I can let everyone know about it.








    You do not take our babies. Period.
    I think it's safe to say it's for real:

    The document John Irish sent to us is from the State of New Hampshire Judicial Branch; it is a Juvenile Abuse / Neglect Ex Parte Order with an attached affidavit.

    This affidavit has a long list of reasons why the State became involved… one of the reasons: “The Division 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.”

    There are other items listed in the affidavit besides the association with Oath Keepers.

    That being said… even though OK is not a militia, since when is it a crime to be involved in a militia?

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=85
    Last edited by ericsnow; 10-07-2010 at 11:42 PM.

  22. #111

    Default

    Looks like it is confirmed to me - follow the link to the Oath Keepers site below and read it!

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

  23. #112

    Default

    UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).


    But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.


    Note that there is no allegation that Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime. We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, “held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.” We don’t even advocate that the current serving use violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence. We ask them to merely stand down.


    Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for that matter. However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid reason to take someone’s child away. PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE OTHER VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to associate with them. To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violence or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them “thought crime” like “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count -- at least not yet). A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so). Just recently a Time Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a militia member and his family -- and those kids are still at home, where they belong, as is the case with many th0usands of children across this country who have parents who “associate” with private militias and all manner of other non-criminal groups. You had damn well better defend the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militias and keep their kids while doing so. You can bet that if you let such an association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents that it won’t only be militia folks who have their rights violated. Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on the hit list. Just wait. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:


    They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    A modern version might read like this:

    They came first for the militia members,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a militia member.
    Then they came for the three percenters,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a three percenter.
    Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an Oath Keeper.
    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.



    So, defend the right of even the most hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.


    But this particular listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other level of Alice in Wonderland “down is up” and up is down,” when you consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers are current serving police, fire-fighters, and military personnel. Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving police officers. How can “associating” with such fine men and women who are daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute evidence of child endangerment? How can it be that a New Hampshire police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as evidence of child abuse and endangerment? Only in the bizzaro world of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law, keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered “extreme” and “dangerous.”


    This is the camel’s nose under the tent. We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly pushed upon us. If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about Oath Keepers except that the father “is associated” with this organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us -- and it will only be the beginning.


    OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK -- peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens. Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child. Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel. And we won’t relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights. Be professional, but firm. Make them hear you.


    Stewart Rhodes

    Link to article on Oath Keepers website: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

  24. #113
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    54,179
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeacePlan View Post
    Looks like it is confirmed to me - follow the link to the Oath Keepers site below and read it!

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/

    Stewart will post additional statements and info as this situation develops. Please be ready to flood the responsible parties with phone calls and emails to put public pressure on them in the court of public opinion.


    UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
    Not looking fucking promising.

    Some sorry ass state child abductors are about to have a world of shit land on their heads tomorrow morning.

    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. if it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and "speak truth to power," no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations - because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution. It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written. If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England. We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.

    Stewart Rhodes
    Founder of Oath Keepers
    Yale Law, 04
    Army Airborne School, 83
    "It's a Free Country."
    "They hate us for our Freedoms."
    "The troops are protecting your Freedom."




    You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!

  25. #114

    Default

    Has the full affidavit been made available anywhere?

  26. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not looking fucking promising.

    Some sorry ass state child abductors are about to have a world of shit land on their heads tomorrow morning.

    Anyone know how to contact the judge on Freedom Watch? He needs to hear about this..

  27. #116

    Default

    hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.

    First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we are pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.

    The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker fucks do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.

    Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.

  28. #117
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    54,179
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeacePlan View Post
    Anyone know how to contact the judge on Freedom Watch? He needs to hear about this..
    I don't know.

    I doubt any major media figure will touch this until more concrete facts are know.

    I'd wager Alex Jones will cover it though.
    "It's a Free Country."
    "They hate us for our Freedoms."
    "The troops are protecting your Freedom."




    You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!

  29. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    hey all, I have not read this thread as I've been following the story at GLP (which is linking to here). One thing I want to say is that every time I see a post saying "I'll wait and see", "I need more information", etc, it really pisses me off.

    First of all, we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. FFS, we are pro consitution, first and foremost, are we not? How would any of you like to have your baby STOLEN for any reason? The urgency of this cannot be understated. The imprtance of mother and infant being together right after birth is CRITICAL. There is no time to "wait and see". These are felloe Americans and human beings who need all the support they can get, RIGHT NOW.

    The govt is the problem. They are CORRUPT. These commie-fascist-totalitarian social worker fucks do this stuff all the time. NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt, EVER.

    Does anyone know who signed the affidavit against the dad? The mere fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is proof positive that's the agenda here.
    I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. I do want to see the affidavit, a rebuttal to the affidavit, and make an informed decision because I am not someone who is going to say... ok folks let's play nice, this is just one baby stolen, no big deal.

    I would also like to see Josh post any known government IP domains represented in the 5k views this thread has.

  30. #119

    Default

    I am in shock.

    If this is true, tell me what I can do to help this family.
    Ephesians 1:11

    In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will...

  31. #120
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    54,179
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
    I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. I do want to see the affidavit, a rebuttal to the affidavit, and make an informed decision because I am not someone who is going to say... ok folks let's play nice, this is just one baby stolen, no big deal.

    I would also like to see Josh post any known government IP domains represented in the 5k views this thread has.
    That.

    This is serious shit.


    Before acting in a "serious shit" fashion, you've damn well got to have all your ducks in row.
    "It's a Free Country."
    "They hate us for our Freedoms."
    "The troops are protecting your Freedom."




    You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!

Page 4 of 46 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •