Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

[ericsnow]

I think the George guy was posting in the GLP thread at the start.

[specsaregood]

I get information before everyone else because I'm constantly refreshing the thread on god like productions. Everything has seemed to be posted there first. The thread is 32 pages - http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...ge1214470/pg32

So all the information is originally being posted on a known cointelpro mindf*ck site. good to know.....

[tpreitzel]

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.

I thank you.

[pcosmar]

Well,,it's made Wonkette.

No, I won't link that trash.

[eOs]

Well,,it's made Wonkette.

No, I won't link that trash.

Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us.

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).

I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.

[pcosmar]

Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us.

I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.

It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.

Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
And he is pissed about it.

[Pericles]

It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.

Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
And he is pissed about it.

Which, as an Oathkeeper, I take my cue from the leadership, which have had access to and the ability to review the documents. Stewart says to standby, I standby, Stewart says it is time to pile on, I pile on.

[Deborah K]

Well, Wonkette did make a good point. This guy is being charged with other illegal activity, activity which is not being disclosed to us.

I don't know, I'm not willing to support any cause until I know what else he's being accused of and if those allegations are true or not.

Stewart Rhodes (founder of the OathKeepers) has seen the documentation in its entirety and still supports the Irish Family and so does A.J.. I highly doubt they would put their reputations on the line.

I'm in the same boat as Peter, a little surprised that so many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather than the innocent (until proven guilty). As Ron Paul supporters, you all know how easy it is for tptb to marginalize someone and make them out to be whack-jobs. The bottom line for me, is that a baby was taken from her mother and one of the reasons is because the father is a member of the O.K., which has been maligned as a "militia" group. I don't really care about the rest. Those two facts need to be addressed NOW!

[eOs]

It is not about whether the guy is guilty or not. It is not about the guy.

Stewart Rhodes has looked at it. He is a educated Lawyer, I am guessing that he knows what he saw.
And he is pissed about it.

Bottom line is the guy should tell everyone what else he's being accused of so we can judge for ourselves and support the guy if we decide to.

[pcosmar]

Bottom line is the guy should tell everyone what else he's being accused of so we can judge for ourselves and support the guy if we decide to.

You don't have to support the guy. This isn't about the guy.
This is about supporting the principal, supporting the free association. support the exercising of rights.
This is about State Sponsored Slander.
It is about Principals.

[specsaregood]

You don't have to support the guy. This isn't about the guy.
This is about supporting the principal, supporting the free association. support the exercising of rights.
This is about State Sponsored Slander.
It is about Principals.

Then you should start a new thread on that subject, since this one was explicitly created about the family affected. Just saying. I think most of us agree with your comments, but there is no way this particular thread is going to ever veer onto that as the main topic.

[pcosmar]

Then you should start a new thread on that subject, since this one was explicitly created about the family affected. Just saying. I think most of us agree with your comments, but there is no way this particular thread is going to ever veer onto that as the main topic.

That is the main topic. And has been since the beginning of the thread. Stewart Rhodes has been involved since last night. and that was the issue.
That (Fear) is being used to stifle and silence the outrage.

Post #3,,#50,,#58

[Deborah K]

Any word on the protest in front of the hospital?

[squarepusher]

wow looks like Ghemmy whipped up a real big sh*t storm, doesn't he get paid for web hits or views?

[Mini-Me]

Stewart Rhodes (founder of the OathKeepers) has seen the documentation in its entirety and still supports the Irish Family and so does A.J.. I highly doubt they would put their reputations on the line.

I'm in the same boat as Peter, a little surprised that so many people are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt rather than the innocent (until proven guilty). As Ron Paul supporters, you all know how easy it is for tptb to marginalize someone and make them out to be whack-jobs. The bottom line for me, is that a baby was taken from her mother and one of the reasons is because the father is a member of the O.K., which has been maligned as a "militia" group. I don't really care about the rest. Those two facts need to be addressed NOW!

The problem is, the documents we have seen so far DO NOT say that, because they relate to a motion to change venue, not to taking the baby. On top of that, the documents we've seen are doctored in the first place. (Just to clarify, Irish isn't a member of the O.K. anyway...just "associated with them" by being a poster on their forum.)

On the one hand, you and pcosmar make a good point that Stewart Rhodes has presumably seen the full documents, and he's educated enough to make an informed conclusion about them. On the other hand, do we know he's seen them in person, and not just quick scans of them, for instance? Even the best of us can let our emotions rush us into action, and he might have looked everything over quickly without thinking to scrutinize them for forgery.

[susano]

Has anyone seen the entire affidavit and has it been revealed who swore to it?

[Mini-Me]

Has anyone seen the entire affidavit and has it been revealed who swore to it?

As far as I know, nobody accessible to us [who can tell us about them] has. Stewart Rhodes presumably did, but I'm not sure whether he scrutinized it closely or not.

[Lucille]

Any word on the protest in front of the hospital?

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/freebabycheyenne

Kevin Bloom Just got back from the protest, the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor were both there plus Sam from OTN and other journalists, who somewhat outnumber the protesters although more are arriving. So the MSM will have a story tonight. This is going to be a very long and complicated story....that the state seized the bab...y and that they cited Oath Keepers in the docs seems not to be in dispute. The WHY of it isn't over yet and hinges on an ongoing legal battle which has spanned a couple of years and sounds like quite a mess. Incidentally the protest is going until 6 and is on the corner of Pleasant and Langley Pkwy.

http://freebabycheyenne.com/

[Deborah K]

The problem is, the documents we have seen so far DO NOT say that, because they relate to a motion to change venue, not to taking the baby. On top of that, the documents we've seen are doctored in the first place. (Just to clarify, Irish isn't a member of the O.K. anyway...just "associated with them" by being a poster on their forum.)

On the one hand, you and pcosmar make a good point that Stewart Rhodes has presumably seen the full documents, and he's educated enough to make an informed conclusion about them. On the other hand, do we know he's seen them in person, and not just quick scans of them, for instance? Even the best of us can let our emotions rush us into action, and he might have looked everything over quickly without thinking to scrutinize them for forgery.

I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here. I got that. But, does it really matter what document it's on? Really? And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership? Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?

[specsaregood]

I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here. I got that. But, does it really matter what document it's on? Really? And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership? Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?

It does, and nobody likes it. But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.

[Deborah K]

It does, and nobody likes it. But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.

So because someone jumped to conclusions, due to an obviously stressful situation, we should throw the baby out with the bathwater? Sorry for the untimely pun.

[AGRP]

After thinking about this for a while, why is being a member of OK listed as a reason to do this? Many people said: Well, theres probably "other reasons too", as did I. THAT DOESN'T MATTER.


That's like saying were going to take your baby because you do drugs and are a member of OK.

So they can do this to anyone who is a member of OK? Is that where they are going with this?

[pcosmar]

It does, and nobody likes it. But this whole firestorm was started by people claiming incorrectly the the "sole reason" the baby was taken was because of the father's supposed ties to the oath keepers.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/
There is an awareness of the people involved.
Perhaps you should tell Stewart to remove his position from his web page.

[squarepusher]

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/freebabycheyenne



http://freebabycheyenne.com/

that blog seems to really be pumping the Oath Keepers, but for all we know, he is using the Oath Keepers to fund his legal defense for reasons that aren't not strongly related.


Yes it was wrong that whatever affidavit mentioned anything about the Oath Keppers in a negative tone that would in anyway look bad upon him. However it appears this certainly isn't about, "they took my baby caus im an oath keeper"

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here. I got that. But, does it really matter what document it's on? Really? And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership? Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?

Yes, the specifics matter because not every situation merits the same response.

I do not need any wise overlords suggesting courses of action because they know better and have read the documents.

[specsaregood]

So because someone jumped to conclusions, due to an obviously stressful situation, we should throw the baby out with the bathwater? Sorry for the untimely pun.

I'm not of that opinion. The Oath keepers and others should definitely followup and raise hell about it -- independent of this particular family's situation.

But as you can see: http://freebabycheyenne.com/
Some are using the baby and the family as pawns in the debate.

[ericsnow]

http://www.infowars.com/government-s...fs-of-parents/

Below: Excerpts of State of New Hampshire documents concerning the case. Note: full documents withheld to ensure family privacy



Note: the following is from a separate document and not part of the above document.



http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index....een#msg1120814

admin:

At first people were claiming it was fake because we tagged the "Oath Keepers" part on to the first document. Now we tried to make it clear that the second part was on a different sheet of paper, some still can't accept it. Please stop the denial - we have the entire affidavit. This is real, we have confirmed the authenticity.

It seems amazing that many people claimed the MIAC report was fake when we released it until Rush Limbaugh and the rest started talking about it and only then did many people accept it was genuine.

Give us some credit please, we don't sit here all day faking documents and making stuff up.

And yes the couple has had issues with the state before, we never tried to hide this. One of the first things I pointed out in my article was that the mere mention of being associated with Oath Keepers and buying guns as a reason for snatching a newborn baby was the shocking aspect to the whole story.

Some people still can't come to terms with how horrible this is so they attempt to convince themselves that it's either not real or that the authorities really should have stolen the baby and forced it to grow up in an institutionalized government rape center after all.

The time for denial has long passed.

Paul Watson.

[pcosmar]

After thinking about this for a while, why is being a member of OK listed as a reason to do this?

That alone is wrong, no matter what other reasons they give or what else he's done wrong.

That's like saying were going to take your baby because you do drugs and are a member of OK.

So they can do this to anyone who is a member of OK? Is this where they are going with this?

Or just claim you are a pedophile and everyone will run from you.
Good luck challenging the allegation.Or making a political statement.

http://www.youtube.com/user/July4Patriot

[specsaregood]

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/
There is an awareness of the people involved.
Perhaps you should tell Stewart to remove his position from his web page.

Explain this part:

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

How is that unconstitutional? Not nitpicking, truly wondering how that particular point is unconstitutional.

If one accepts that the govt has a right or duty in some cases to take a child out of a home -- i know you probably don't -- then associations are relevant. eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

[Mini-Me]

I understand that pursuit of clarity is needed here. I got that. But, does it really matter what document it's on? Really? And, this is over a mere "association" and not even a membership? Does it not give you pause at all that the O.K. were called militia and were referred to in paperwork as a reason for some kind of litigation that is wholly unrelated to them?

It does indeed matter what document it's on. The premise here was that association with the Oath Keepers was given as a reason for taking the baby...but if it was not, and it was only cited as a [supposedly] relevant contextual fact in an affidavit relating to the motion to change venue, that's a HUGE difference. It still doesn't justify including them, especially since it's very unlikely that his association with them has any bearing on...anything whatsoever. Still, it's far less alarming than if association with them had actually been listed as a reason for taking their kid.

The inclusion and mischaracterization of the Oath Keepers is definitely concerning, and the Oath Keepers need to fight that...but that's also assuming it was actually written in a legal document whatsoever. What's bothering me here is that we've had two forgeries passed off as the real thing now, and we've seen nothing else. Are we really sure that Stewart Rhodes has taken a close look at the real thing in the first place?