Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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.

I will not act nor suggest anyone else act without full knowledge of the facts. If you can't handle that I do not know what to tell you.

[Deborah K]

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.

I don't even know what the hell this means. Wise overlords?? As in the founder of O.K. who has made the determination that his organization is being targeted?

[pcosmar]

Are we really sure that Stewart Rhodes has taken a close look at the real thing in the first place?

He said he did.
What are you implying?

[Lucille]

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"

I believe George Donnelly started both the fb page and blog. This was a comment under the Kevin Bloom one I linked to upthread:

Free Baby Cheyenne Kevin, if you see any media about the protest, would you please post it here? Thanks - George Donnelly

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't even know what the hell this means. Wise overlords?? As in the founder of O.K. who has made the determination that his organization is being targeted?

I don't care if it's Ron Paul. The facts better be available for individual review.

[torchbearer]

wait, when did the oathkeepers become a militia?

[AGRP]

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.

The time for denial has long passed.

Paul Watson.

Thats the conclusion that I made.

The issue at hand is that they listed OK as a partial reason.

Thats like saying "and you spend time on the internet." Everyone uses the internet. Are you going to go after everyone now? The internet is not illegal.

[torchbearer]

Thats the conclusion that I made.

The issue at hand is that they listed OK as a partial reason.

common practice is to list a menu of charges, regardless of how real they are...

[Mini-Me]

He said he did.
What are you implying?

I'm not saying he hasn't taken a look at anything at all; I read the posts on the Oath Keepers website, so I know he has. My question is, how closely has he looked at them? Could he have been duped? The only reason I ask is, WE were duped. We were duped for a short time by two forgeries passed off as the real thing. (Well, at least one was a forgery; the other one seems to be.)

We were also misled to believe that the documents had something to do with taking the baby...which they didn't. Stewart Rhodes wouldn't have made this particular mistake, but the first...I don't know.

[Deborah K]

I don't care if it's Ron Paul. The facts better be available for individual review.

As I've already stated, pursuit of clarity is obviously needed and, I might add, always prudent. I'm sure as time passes, we'll learn more. In the meantime, the doubting thomas's can ride the fence. I intend to continue to disseminate information based on info I find at the O.K. site.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

As I've already stated, pursuit of clarity is obviously needed and, I might add, always prudent. I'm sure as time passes, we'll learn more. In the meantime, the doubting thomas's can ride the fence. I intend to continue to disseminate information based on info I find at the O.K. site.

That is what makes this situation even more appalling. There is supposed to be no red government tape here. A freedom of information act request should not have to occur in order for the facts to come out 20 years later.

[specsaregood]

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, then associations are relevant. eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

[Sola_Fide]

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, then associations are relevant. eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

I think it is the fact that it is not illegal (yet) to be associated with a militia...therefore it is not a legal reason to take children away...

...I think...if I understand everything correctly...


I am still really lost on this whole story...

[Mini-Me]

I'm guessing someone just did a huge thread merge?

[MelissaCato]

I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.

This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.

[torchbearer]

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, then associations are relevant. eg: there are charges of child sexual abuse and the parent is a member of NAMBLA.

would you find it unconstitutional if they took your kid because you were a member here?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.

This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.

Excuse me for demanding facts when one is surrounded by cowards that will not organize or act to protect fellow citizens from federal injustice or free political prisoners from captivity.

Excuse me for demanding facts when this is not an issue of principal because the same people demanding action for stealing a baby would demand the baby be stolen under circumstances of rape.

Excuse me for being a bad American who likes to think.

[klamath]

I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.

This is rapidly turning into a double kick in our arse.

I question EVERYTHING because.... "I have seen evidence that Iraq has WMD"

[Brian4Liberty]

common practice is to list a menu of charges, regardless of how real they are...

Yep. Proof, relevance, accuracy are not an issue when making up a character assassination document.

Of course it's up to a Judge and/or jury to determine the "truth". Which is another reason why taking the child before convicted (proven guilty of something) is a total injustice, let alone some bureaucrats playing accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, arbitrary penalty manufacturer and enforcer all at the same time.

[specsaregood]

would you find it unconstitutional if they took your kid because you were a member here?

don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use. Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given. I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.

Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional". I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.

[Brian4Liberty]

I can't believe the amount of you people doubting what Stewart Rhodes has publically stated about this issue so far.

Nobody is doubting what he has said. Some are doubting the validity of documents that may be the same documents that Stewart is working from. There is a shadow of a doubt there. If the authorities confirm that they put "Oath Keepers" in the documents, that particular issue will be resolved.

[Mini-Me]

don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use. Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given. I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.

Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional". I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.

If the government cited your group associations as a reason for taking your baby, it would be unconstitutional because it is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech and assembly. You cannot [Constitutionally] have your baby taken away for your speech and associations, for the same reason you cannot [Constitutionally] be imprisoned or otherwise harmed for them. Of course, statists would dispute this point, because they're vile scumbags, but that's statists for you. All that said, we'd be relying on the incorporation doctrine from the Fourteenth Amendment in a case like this, to apply the logic to state and local governments.

[Meatwasp]

I hope this is just a idiot Ghemmy hoax.
Remember how we all fell for that kid that supposily flew away in the balloon.

[specsaregood]

If the government cited your group associations as a reason for taking your baby, it would be unconstitutional because it is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech and assembly. You cannot [Constitutionally] have your baby taken away for your speech and associations, for the same reason you cannot [Constitutionally] be imprisoned or otherwise harmed for them. Of course, statists would dispute this point, because they're vile scumbags, but that's statists for you.

Ok fair enough. But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply? re: my nambla example

[Brian4Liberty]

don't know if unconstitutional is the word I would use. Besides, it wasn't "the reason" given. I think memberships could be relevant: eg. they seize my child for sexual abuse allegations and a supporting piece they use to get permission to do that is that if I was a member of nambla.

Still the OK says it was "utterly unconstitutional". I would think somebody could quickly and easily explain to me exactly why.

Maybe a due process argument?

The 5th:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Taking your newborn baby might qualify.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html

Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):

* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

[Mini-Me]

Ok fair enough. But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply? re: my nambla example

No, I don't think so. Brian's post above makes another good point that taking babies in general is unconstitutional without due process, though. (That said, there might have been more legal "due process" here than we realize, even if the whole system is a sham.)

[ericsnow]

Anyone have details on the event at the hospital today?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Nobody is doubting what he has said.

No doubt. Initiation of aggression by government to steal a baby soley because of political affiliations means the world stops, get your ass in your car, grab your rifle, because I am not going to stand for that $#@! in America and if you are... $#@! you and piss off.

If on the other hand political affiliation is not the sole reason of government initiating aggression to steal a baby the matter of citing a political affiliation in any due process documentation is a matter to be redressed in a petition for redress of grievances.

Third, there is the matter of supporting the individuals involved and before one can even comment on someones individual character the allegations one is responding to must be known.

I don't even want to hear any "this is a matter of principle" bull$#@! when people around here try to associate me with pedophiles because I question what does it mean to consent? Is age the best means to determine consent?

[pcosmar]

Anyone have details on the event at the hospital today?

Just from.
http://www.facebook.com/freebabycheyenne

Leigh Sparks per Watchman Noyes: Ok, latest update! ~ I just got off the phone with Johnathan, he is at the protest. They told him that he cannot be on hospital grounds. Long story short, WMUR did FINALLY show up and this SHOULD hit the 11PM news!

[Brian4Liberty]

Ok fair enough. But if those associations weren't given as "a reason" but rather as supporting evidence backing up other allegations, would "unconstitutional" still apply? re: my nambla example

It would make sense for unrelated associations to be thrown out (during due process) as being immaterial or inadmissible. Your NAMBLA example would probably be considered relevant in a child molestation case...