View Full Version : State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Could one of 1L's explain how this can happen?
Are the Oath Keepers on berry's terrorist watch liist?
Does Big Sis have friends in NH??
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=213149
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
'You could be on 'the list' and then child protective services might come'
Posted: October 08, 2010
11:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A 16-hour-old newborn was snatched from her parents by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers.
The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.
The father, Johnathon Irish, told WND that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'"
Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Learn how to foil those who would damage the nation. Get "Taking America Back" now from the WND Superstore.
He told WND that other issues cited by authorities included an allegation of child abuse, which he assumed pertained to an incident weeks earlier in which one of his fiance's older sons allegedly was struck by a babysitter.
He said both he and his fiancé had been cleared by authorities in that investigation.
Kathleen Demaris, a spokeswoman for the state agency, refused to comment.
Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, expressed alarm when contacted by WND, describing the agency as a "chilling monster" that could "come get kids."
On his website, he confirmed the affidavit, along with other allegations, cites Irish's interest in Oath Keepers as a reason to separate the newborn from her parents.
"Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. … But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts – they are merely allegations," he said.
"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," Rhodes said.
"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 [nose] under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare," he continued. "'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.'"
He noted that the state made no allegation that Oath Keepers is "criminal" or that Irish was committing a crime with his affiliation.
Oath Keepers posted a video by George Heminger, who identifies himself as an independent journalist, who was interviewing Irish by telephone:
"We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins," Rhodes continued said. "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 d--- well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violent or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them 'thought crimes' 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)," he said.
"A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment," he said.
continued.....
Something don't smell rite in River City...
While this article has an "Oath Keepers focus" I wonder what the other "serious alligations" are.
I would be more worried if it was a stand alone "Oath Keepers".
But still - listing it as another one of the charges just ain't right.
If that was the case then every Revolution Muslim should have their kids taken away.
Team Sergeant
10-09-2010, 14:36
Could one of 1L's explain how this can happen?
Are the Oath Keepers on berry's terrorist watch liist?
Does Big Sis have friends in NH??
Something don't smell rite in River City...
JJ, you're scaring me......:rolleyes: ;)
wnd.com ranks right up there with the "national enquirer". wnd.com is, in my opinion an "internet tabloid".
TS
http://www.wmur.com/news/25340240/detail.html
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby?page=0,0
But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years.
The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.
Taylor "has failed to recognize the impact of domestic violence in her life and the potential danger it poses to a newborn baby," the affidavit reads. "Mr. Irish has not acknowledged any responsibility to date and remains a significant safety risk to an infant in his care. . . . Without the intervention of the court, the infant will be at risk of harm."
It looks like there is much more to the story. If the allegations in the newspaper are correct, it looks like a stereotypical case of a woman not being able to tear herself away from an abusive partner who is also abusing her children from another relationship. The statement about the oath keepers in the affidavit may have been included by a social services worker exhibiting bad judgement when detailing her probable cause. That statement was just what a bunch of bloggers grabbed on to.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Here is a portion of the blog from the Oath Keepers site. They are admitting that there are several other serious allegations in the affidavit that have nothing to do with the organization. Their primary concern is that the association was mentioned at all.
My apologies. We are in Alexandra for the G-Daughters BD and I fear the radiation form capital hill has affected my judgment.
I picked up the article from either Matt Drudge or Andrew Breitbart, two bastions of impartial news. I fear they may have slipped one thru.
Back to the party,, with Cookie Monster... :D:D
Looks like she is definitely having fun.
I picked up the article from either Matt Drudge or Andrew Breitbart, two bastions of impartial news. I fear they may have slipped one thru.
Yes and no.
It appears there were much larger issues in play, which brings to question why they felt the need to include in the report the individual was an Oath Keeper.
On another related Oath Keeper topic Rhodes has this to say about just that.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/08/its-official-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-part-of-dhs/
October 8th, 2010
It’s Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS
dhsAs the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS “Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism” along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select “law enforcement” officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie. What does the working group do? Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources – police, social services, media, NGO’s, you name it – to fight “extremism. So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists. Now it is in your face and the mask is off.
When you read the below document, keep in mind the current ordeal of the Irish family where their newborn baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father’s “association with a militia group known as Oath Keepers.”. Pay attention to who sits on this panel (see pages 26-30) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/38939569/Hsac-Cve-Working-Group-Recommendations), to who DOESN’T, how they plan on reaching DHS tentacles down into every level of society, and how they talk overtly about the need to utilize local SOCIAL WELFARE and MENTAL HEALTH agencies to counter “violent extremism.”. In other words, what is now being done to the Irish family will be done all over.
This is the overt politicization of DHS, to use it against political enemies
I will post more on this later today.
Stewart Rhodes
There is a real cast of characters working for or with the DHS.....some of who you might consider Extremists.
Omar Alomari (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203159.php)
Art Avecedo (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/acevedo-everyday-policing-will-suffer-under-new-arizona-657190.html)
Nimco Ahmed (http://www.mshale.com/article/Features/Features/Nimco_Ahmed_Community_Activist_With_a_Mission/1179)
Mohammed Elibiary (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/02/spencer-and-mohamed-elibiary-on-deception-in-islam.html)
That is just for starters.
BigJimCalhoun
10-10-2010, 21:04
My apologies. We are in Alexandra for the G-Daughters BD and I fear the radiation form capital hill has affected my judgment.
I picked up the article from either Matt Drudge or Andrew Breitbart, two bastions of impartial news. I fear they may have slipped one thru.
The story had been posted in a number of locations, specifically various gun blogs. I think I read it several times on Friday.
uboat509
10-11-2010, 10:40
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Here is a portion of the blog from the Oath Keepers site. They are admitting that there are several other serious allegations in the affidavit that have nothing to do with the organization. Their primary concern is that the association was mentioned at all.
They should probably be more concerned that it appears that a serial abuser is attempting to use the organization to shift focus away from his history of bad behavior.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/
October 11th, 2010
CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.
To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents: the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.
By looking at the below documents (http://www.scribd.com/doc/39099480/Irish-family-affidavit), you will be able to see from the two Petitions, the Order, and Affidavit item #7, in that order, that:
1. Both Petitions state: “7. Details or Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary): See affidavit filed with the Concord Family Court.”
2. The Court’s Ex Parte Order states:
“Findings of Fact:
There is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child’s health or life, which require the immediate placement of the child for the following reasons:
See attached affidavit”
Thus, the Court’s Order does, in fact, refer to, and adopt all of the reasons given in the Affidavit as being the reasons for the order.
3. The Attached Affidavit, referenced by the Petitions and adopted by the Court as its findings of fact, includes, at #7: “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.”
This is how all such petitions are done. The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition. And in this case, the Order explicitly states that the reasons in support are listed in the “attached affidavit.”
We have posted these documents with the permission of both parents, but we redacted (blacked out) all the personal information and allegations that do not pertain to Oath Keepers or gun ownership. This was done in part to respect the privacy of the family, including the kids. It is out of such concerns that family court proceedings are usually closed to the public and I think it would be improper to post the entirety of the affidavit for the same reason. If the parents choose to post a non-redacted version, they can do it themselves (we left in their address because they have given that information out in several interviews, asking for donations to their defense fund),
More to the point, we also blacked out the parts unrelated to Oath Keepers and to gun ownership because my focus in this case is on the illegitimate listing of a father’s political affiliations and his gun ownership as a reason to take his daughter away from him and also away from her mother. That the Court relied on an affidavit that explicitly lists the father’s association with Oath Keepers to issue that order makes it important to all ten thousand dues paying members of Oath Keepers (many of them current serving police and military), and also makes it important to the estimated thirty thousand people (and growing) who have “associated” with Oath Keepers in the past, or still do, on several social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, on our email alert list, in the comments section of our main site, in our free state forums, or in person at our many meetings across the country, and the many additional tens of thousands who have “associated” with us at various rallies, summits, and forums across the nation.
This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation. And that is why we must stand firm, now.
RALLY FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT! This Thursday, October 14, Dover, NH
We will be holding a rally in support of the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be held this Thursday, October 14, at the Rochester Family Division Court, 259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016. I will be there, and I am calling on all Oath Keepers, all who “associate” with us, and on all other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free from persecution, for ALL Americans. I will post more details later today. Please join us!
Please read the relevant sections of the documents below, and then I will have additional comments on the other side. – Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39099480/Irish-family-affidavit
alright4u
10-11-2010, 22:51
While this article has an "Oath Keepers focus" I wonder what the other "serious alligations" are.
I would be more worried if it was a stand alone "Oath Keepers".
But still - listing it as another one of the charges just ain't right.
If that was the case then every Revolution Muslim should have their kids taken away.
Roger That.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39099480/Irish-family-affidavit
With the majority of the affidavit being redacted, it is very misleading. We don't know what the other allegations are but do know that the police had several contacts with the family on a domestic violence basis. Social Services obviously did not do their homework when referencing "Oath Keepers" as a militia and neither did the court. I think it was that word which caused the court to include that as one of the contributing factors. They saw "militia", the suspect's alleged domestic violence record and alleged firearms violations which was enough to convince the judge.
If the domestic violence charges are true, I hope the case does not get derailed because of a poor choice of wording on an affidavit.