• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
too early to verify the truth behind this, but I'm sure there is more to come.


Last Night John Irish & Stephanie Janvrin had their new born baby girl taken away by government officials because of their involvement with Oath Keepers, a non violent constitutional organization. According to Irish, The Director of Security and the Head Nurse of the Hospital said "we want the pediatrician to check the baby in the nursery so that you can go home." The baby was wheeled out in the bassinet under the protest of Irish. Irish followed them out and took note of 3-4 men wearing suits with detective badges as well as 3 police officers.

The Division of Family Child Services proceeded to pat down John and inform the parents they would be taking the daughter. "They Stole our Child" says John Irish. An Affidavit was produced that claimed an affiliation with a militia called Oath Keepers. Irish claims Oath Keepers is a non violent organization. John and Stephanie were able to spend a few minutes with their daughter and were forced to leave. A security officer escorted the two out of the hospital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZRM-P46rI&feature=player_embedded
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
:evil: F#%@g BS! I can't believe the garbage you post Crazy Kanuck

How do you know it is BS? I was more than fair when I posted it, in saying that we don't know the whole story. It could be that the child was taken for other reasons, but it may be because of what he claims the affidavit states, "because he is a member of a militia". Maybe no child was seized, I don't know.

I can't verify the truth behind it at present, any more than you can or can not.

At this point, I would say I don't believe it totally either, but it is a story that is important either way.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Thanks Hypo- please keep us posted!

I've now read that Oath Keepers are aware of the report and are also trying to verify. I'm still not confident this is not a hoax/scam. The guy on the video has some questionable credentials.

October 7th, 2010
Oath Keepers statement about video titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”

Stewart has just now as of 7:45PM PST, spoken to the father and he is faxing documents to Stewart. We are establishing a legal defense fund. Once it is confirmed through documentation that the father’s association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason, even if among several reasons listed, for taking the child, we will actively pursue aggressive legal remedy and redress. We will assist in locating competent local legal counsel in New Hampshire and additional expert legal counsel from around the country in First Amendment and child custody law. Stewart, who has worked on several First Amendment cases in State and Federal court will also volunteer his services to assist in the case Pro Bono.




Note from Stewart Rhodes:

Here is my statement for now:

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

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
From the comments section

Please also note for the record that the father is not a dues-paying member in Oath Keepers. He had registered for free on Oath Keepers’ now-retired ning system. That in no way makes him a member in Oath Keepers, for any non-dues-paying person could register at that ning site anytime. But it does show his loyalty to this nation’s Constitution and his moral support of Oath Keepers – and – the use of his registration on Oath Keepers’ ning forum system as a reason to separate a new-born baby from its mother in the hospital is a concern which bears much gravity.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
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.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Hypo...I must give you credit...credit where it's due.

St. Patrick led the snakes out of Ireland....and you have become the St . Patrick to this site it seems.

Where ever you go with whatever you post.....these people will follow you, begging for more info.

You have become their Prophet, their Canadian version of Brigham Young.

It is amazing.


You post could post that you had BigFoot's baby by natural birth and they'd believe you and want to know what color the nursery was.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Hypo...I must give you credit...credit where it's due.

St. Patrick led the snakes out of Ireland....and you have become the St . Patrick to this site it seems.

Where ever you go with whatever you post.....these people will follow you, begging for more info.

You have become their Prophet, their Canadian version of Brigham Young.

It is amazing.


You post could post that you had BigFoot's baby by natural birth and they'd believe you and want to know what color the nursery was.


Thanks. It comes down to trust, and when I say I will try to find out as much as I can, about an issue, I do.








irishdoc.jpg
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Hypo...I must give you credit...credit where it's due.

St. Patrick led the snakes out of Ireland....and you have become the St . Patrick to this site it seems.

Where ever you go with whatever you post.....these people will follow you, begging for more info.

You have become their Prophet, their Canadian version of Brigham Young.

It is amazing.


You post could post that you had BigFoot's baby by natural birth and they'd believe you and want to know what color the nursery was.


Thanks. It comes down to trust, and when I say I will try to find out as much as I can, about an issue, I do.



I always thought of you as more of a Louis Riel. :wink: :lol:








irishdoc.jpg
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
:D :D :D :D :D :D No new gossip there Canadien National Enquirer???

I already posted the gossip part.

Oath Keepers is not a miliitia, but the Motion for Change of Venue states that they are.

Don't you think they should check their facts, and not rely on "gossip", before they use a misrepresentation like that in a very serious matter?


If they have documented, legitimate reasons, for taking one child, but not the other 2, then list them, but don't make things up (gossip) about Oath Keepers.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Angusgord said:
:D :D :D :D :D :D No new gossip there Canadien National Enquirer???

Angusgord said:
:evil: F#%@g BS! I can't believe the garbage you post Crazy Kanuck


AG, have you wondered why, if the kids are in danger, they didn't take the 2 older ones? (the ones they claim he's been beating) Or why this guy was not arrested for domestic assault or child abuse?

I would think that if the other 2 kids were in any type of danger, they would have been removed too. At least I hope they would be.




Court documents, in full, are now up at the website (embedded pdf, so I can't copy and paste.)

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/





ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY STEWART:

As is clear from the documents, the reasons given to the Court in the Petitions, and the reasons adopted by the Court when it adopted the entirety of the attached Affidavit, included John Irish’s association with Oath Keepers. Certainly it was not the only reason, nor are we even arguing that it was the principle or dominant reason (I can’t get inside the judge’s head, and unless the judge elaborates, we don’t know).

But the fact that the political association of the father with Oath Keepers, and his gun ownership, were even among the reasons given for the taking of this baby takes this case beyond the realm of your mundane family court matter and turns it into something that could affect the rights of us all, nation-wide. Such a listing of a parent’s political associations as one of the reasons to remove a child from her parents should not happen in any case, regardless of whatever else is going on.

Relevance?

Whether it is a criminal or a civil proceeding, the political affiliations of the accused are both irrelevant and prejudicial. For example, if I had a criminal defense client accused of beating his wife, what relevance would his NRA membership have to the question of whether he beat his wife? And what relevance would there be if he were a Tea Party member, or belonged to a 912 group, or was a member of Rush Limbaugh fan club, or a member of Glen Beck’s “Insider Extreme” which includes a message board? Or what if he were a member of the ACLU, or Answer, or ACORN, or Code Pink, etc.? What relevance would any such associations have to the question of whether he assaulted his wife? The political associations of the accused in a child endangerment case are no less irrelevant to the question of whether he or the mother are guilty or whether the child is endangered.

Prejudicial.

In addition to a relevancy problem, it would also be prejudicial for the finder(s) of fact to hear testimony on the suspect’s political association, especially when such may be with an unpopular group. Say, for example, you have a conservative, pro-drug war jury in a theft case and the defendant turns out to be a member of NORML (which advocates legalizing marijuana). Should the jury be able to hear evidence of that membership? Or imagine a liberal jury, with jurors who are anti-gun. Should the jury be able to hear evidence that the accused was an NRA member, or, perhaps even a member of the far more hardcore Gun Owners of America? Mention of the defendant’s associations in either case would not only be irrelevant but also potentially prejudicial. Even if some twisted argument convinced the judge to find those associations relevant, their prejudicial effect would outweigh any such relevance. See Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

Yes, it is true that in family court one does not get the same level of due process as in a criminal trial, but that only makes it a more likely system to be abused to target political undesirables. The lower the threshold of due process protection, the more ripe it is for arbitrary abuse.


The Chilling Effect: Making People Afraid to Speak Out and Associate
And in this case the problem is not just a possible violation of the due process rights of these particular parents, but also the very real chilling effect this case will have not just on their speech but also on the free speech of potentially millions of other American parents who will, if this is allowed to stand, thereafter have to worry that their political affiliations will be listed among the reasons for taking their children in some future run-in with CPS.

A law or government practice that targets people for their speech and association, based on the content of their speech, or that MAY be used in such a way, is unconstitutional and harms not just that individual, but also all others who thereafter are “chilled” or dissuaded from engaging in similar speech or associations.

The chilling works even if it is rarely applied since just the knowledge that it can be done will chill speech and association. All the government needs to do is make an example out of one person, and others will refrain from sticking their necks out.

If it can be done to someone who is “associated” with Oath Keepers just by posting on an open social networking site (In this case John Irish was not even a dues paying member, but merely a forum user on the Oath Keepers Ning forum system, which was open to the general public to “join” for free, even on a whim) then it can happen to anyone from any group which particular authorities may look down upon.

Let’s flip the political paradigm: Imagine the same thing being done in a case involving members of PETA, Earth First, or the Anti-War Committee (AWC) which recently had their homes and offices raided by the FBI. Would it be acceptable for Child Protective Services to list those affiliations when investigating potential child abuse or neglect, or would that be both irrelevant, and prejudicial? And would it not also chill free speech, making people afraid to join those groups?

Think back to how the very arbitrary “no-fly list” was used by the Bush Administration to punish critics and political opposition, including journalists. Such power is always subject to abuse. And especially so when the list is secret, and the criteria used to put you on it is secret. Talk about arbitrary power! But even there, it was not openly and honestly used to target people because of their political associations. That was the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we all knew was happening, but the Bush Admin knew better than to state it publicly. But it still had a chilling effect (as was likely intended), because we all knew what was really going on when some journalist critic of the President just happened to make the list.

In this case, it is openly acknowledged that the political association of the father is one of the reasons for taking the child (again, the Court’s Order adopted the entire affidavit as its findings of facts). Ditto for his perfectly legal gun ownership. Over half the people in this nation own guns. Imagine the chilling effect on them.

You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice

One last point: Too many people are asking “but did he do it.” In constitutional law, what counts is not whether the particular defendant was an angel or a “dirtbag” – whether he is innocent or committed the underlying offense at issue. What counts is whether the Constitution is protected.

For example, Ernesto Miranda was suspected of kidnapping and raping of an 18-year-old girl. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, which ruled his confession inadmissible, his first conviction was overturned. But then the case was retried, leaving out the tainted confession, and Miranda was convicted and served 20 years. A dirtbag? You bet. He was a filthy rapist. Guilty? Yes, so found by a jury of his peers. He raped the girl and was rightfully convicted and locked up. But it was still wrong to coerce his confession, and his case gave us the procedural protection of our “Miranda” rights, which helps to give meaningful effect to our right to remain silent and to not incriminate ourselves, as well as our right to have counsel present at questioning.

The same goes for the case of Jose Padilla, the alleged “Chicago dirty bomber.” A dirtbag? Likely. He as both a former gang member and liked to hang out with Al Qaeda types. But that still did not make it OK to black bag him with no due process and throw him in a military brig on secret evidence, without indictment, without a lawyer, without a jury trial, for over two years. That was unconstitutional even if he “did it.” (he was later convicted in a jury trial of aiding Al Qaeda). Even though a dirtbag, he still had procedural rights that were violated, and those violations set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Now, according to the Fourth Circuit (who’s decision still stands as “good law”), that can be done to any of us. What happens even to “bad guys” can and will affect our rights too. Rules of due process and protections of free speech and association apply to EVERYONE, not just those who are pure as the driven snow.

Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts. In this case, they ask whether the parents are “guilty,” as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents. If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic? That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought. And it will.

We Oath Keepers and our many allies will fight this regardless of the supposed validity of the other allegations against the parents. This use of political associations as evidence is wrong in every case, and in any case. It is the “weaponization” of CPS – turning it into a weapon against political undesirables. And that weapon will be used to silence and suppress those who might otherwise speak out, and to silence and suppress those who already have spoken out. It will thus chill speech even when not used (just by the implied threat that you may be paid a visit by CPS if you get “uppity”), and it will punish speech when used against dissidents who still dare to speak out.

Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary “reasons” they want, like in some third world junta. The choice is yours. I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state on Thursday.

Stewart Rhodes
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Court was today after a couple of stressful days for the parents. Results of the court preceedings are posted towards the bottom

If you didn't hear about the last couple of days:


(I'm not going to worry about verifying all the claims in this report, unless someone wants to challenge waht is claimed), if you are interested in hearing the on air call from Johnathon as it was happening, I can provide the links.


Baby Cheyenne: Evidence of Neglect or Abuse in Care
Posted by Phil Brennan on Oct 13, 2010



Confirmed reports have come to our attention that Baby Cheyenne is either being neglected or abused in the care of foster parents.

When Jonathan and Stephanie arrived at at scheduled visit the baby would not wake up. They decided to change the diaper as that will wake up a baby. As they did, they discovered blood in her diaper and was found to be coming from her privates.

The sheriff is a witness to this fact and the baby has been rushed to hospital by the sheriff as this discharge is not within the normal levels expected due to hormonal changes in a new born baby girl.

These foster parents also have Stephanie's other two children in their care from her former relationship.

As we have already noted in a previous article, children in care are often at more risk of abuse or neglect than average, despite the fact that one would assume that they would be safer in care than not.

The police were trying to lay the blame on the baby's distress upon him, despite there being a sheriff who is a witness to the fact that he had nothing to do with the child's condition. The hospital personnel did not want to let him in to the treatment room at first, but they agreed after security cleared it. This was due to Jonathan talking to Alex Jones by cellphone live on national radio, and the security staff have backed off and are now allowing him to see his daughter.

The current status of Baby Cheyenne is not good as she keeps slipping in and out of conciousness. It is likely that she will have to be kept in overnight.

As we get more news of these developments we will update this article.

Update 19:48 BST (14:48 CST)

There is significant bleeding and swelling around the private parts of Baby Cheyenne and the child is being referred to a paediatrician who specialises in the medical and forensic evidence of abuse.

Baby Cheyenne is under the jurisdiction of the police while in hospital, not the CPS, and unconfirmed reports are that the deputy now has the foster parents in custody for questioning regarding the injuries sustained to Baby Cheyenne.

Only the foster parents are in the frame for this, as there is a sheriff as a witness to the discovery. The sheriff is very unlikely to perjure himself after a full disclosure was made of the facts on national radio via the Alex Jones Radio Show on GCNLive.com.

Jonathan and Stephanie are still at the hospital and are believed to be with their daughter.

Update 20:00 BST (15:00 CST)

Baby Cheyenne has been taken to a sexual assault speciality Doctor under police escort. The sheriff is with the baby. Stephanie and Jonathan are following them, along with CPS. Baby Cheyenne is 'fussy', going in and out of consciousness, and when she is awake doesn't want any one touching her, which shows the level of her injuries and distress.

Update 20:16 BST (15:16 CST)

Baby Cheyenne has been taken out of CPS custody by the sheriff, who has taken over the whole case. She is being seen by a sexual abuse specialist. There were also abrasions on her vaginal area.

Update 22:48 BST (17:48 CST)

Live Radio Update: http://www.thewatchmen.biz/Live.html

The sheriff deputies did not take evidence, but took her away from the custody of the CPS. Evidence was gathered by Jon with a glove and specimen bag - a hair and the bloody diaper. Deputy has not taken the evidence.

John has spoken on the phone to lawyer. He has advised Stephanie to write every thing down as its fresh in her mind. She feels the officers are just going thru the motions, not really caring. Jonathan had said that they had said they wanted the boys removed from that home, but we don't know if anything has happened with that

The attorney can't meet with them until tomorrow.

Update 00:00 BST (19:00 CST)

Johnathan's lawyer left him in the dust because he feels that he does not have enough time to prepare a professional defense. Johnathon is preparing to go into that courtroom tomorrow and defend himself. If you know a lawyer that might take this case let Watchman Noyes know. Or it's pretty much all over but the crying.

Update 04:45 BST (10:45 CST)

According to Watchman Noyes baby Cheyenne was returned last night to the same foster home she was in when rushed to the hospital.

The local MSM newspaper, Concord Monitor, had an article concerning the baby's trip to the hospital. They not only stated "the baby is absolutely fine," said Maggie Bishop, the director of the state Division for Children, Youth, and Families. "The baby is healthy, safe, and absolutely fine." (then why did they all think it was bad enough to go to the hospital?), but also stated, "Court documents also mention Irish's affiliation with anti-totalitarian group the Oath Keepers." So, now they they made a forward step of not calling Oath Keepers a militia, as the court document did, but they took many steps backwards by making anti-totalitarian sound illegal. American was based on the premise of being anti-totalitarian, and now it's a bad thing? So bad that you should not be trusted to keep your children over it?!?

There is a rally today at the courthouse for any and all to show their support for the First (and Second) Amendment. All support is welcome and needed to Stand for our Rights.


RALLY FOR THE FIRST (AND SECOND) AMENDMENT!
Location: Rochester Family Division Court
Time: 12:00PM Thursday, October 14th

Update 14-10-2010 18:34 BST (12:34 CST)

Reports confirm that there are between 30-40 protesters outside the courthouse at the moment.

Jonathan says that they have printed out a new copy of the affidavit that takes out any mention of the Oathkeepers.

http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10/13/baby-cheyenne-evidence-of-neglect-or-abuse-in-care/




but good news. Cheyenne has been re-united with her parents. There was a "gag order" placed on the court proceedings, but the video is worth a 1000 words.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ce9vlT-ItE&feature=player_embedded


http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10/15/video-jonathan-irish-stephanie-and-cheyenne-reunited/
 

Mike

Well-known member
I was wondering just how stupid jingo and Anusgord feel now?

Hope they don't feel as stupid as they look because they'll have a complex for the rest of their lives.

I take that back. They both need to feel as stupid as they really are. Maybe that will make them think twice before posting. :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Mike said:
I was wondering just how stupid jingo and Anusgord feel now?

Hope they don't feel as stupid as they look because they'll have a complex for the rest of their lives.

I take that back. They both need to feel as stupid as they really are. Maybe that will make them think twice before posting. :roll:

Both of them are insignificant anyway so why worry about them
:wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Letter written and signed by Oath Keepers is linked at bottom. (It's a very good read.) Nice to see some well known names at the bottom of this letter. Sheriff Mack for one.




October 14th, 2010
High Noon for New Hampshire DCYF: Oath Keepers Sheriffs and Police Issue Demand Letter

This morning, at approximately 10am, October 14, 2010, the Sheriffs and police leaders within Oath Keepers delivered their demand letter to New Hampshire DCYF on behalf of all sheriffs and police within our organization, as well as on behalf of the military and emergency personnel in our organization. The letter calls for removing our organization’s name from the affidavit that was relied upon by the court and adopted as the court’s finding of facts in it’s order.

We certainly hope that further, meaningful scrutiny of the New Hampshire DCYF will be undertaken by the state’s attorney general and legislature. The use of political association in a child protective proceeding is good cause to question the training and the motives of those involved in this case.

But our demand letter is focused on securing a retraction on behalf of our membership and in defense of free speech for all. That would be a good first step.

Stewart Rhodes

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/14/high-noon-for-new-hampshire-dcyf-oath-keepers-sheriffs-and-police-issue-demand-letter/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Letter written and signed by Oath Keepers is linked at bottom. (It's a very good read.) Niceto see some well known names at the bottom of this letter. Sheriff Mack for one.
October 14th, 2010 High Noon for New Hampshire DCYF: Oath Keepers Sheriffs and Police Issue Demand Letter This morning, at approximately 10am, October 14, 2010, the Sheriffs and police leaders within Oath Keepers delivered their demand letterto New Hampshire DCYF on behalf of all sheriffs and police within our organization, as well as on behalf of the military and emergency personnel in our organization. The letter calls for removing our organization’s namefrom the affidavit that was relied upon by the court and adopted as the court’s finding of facts in it’s order. We certainly hope that further, meaningful scrutiny of the New Hampshire DCYF will be undertaken by the state’s attorney general and legislature. The use of political association in a child protective proceeding is good causeto question the training and the motives of those involved in this case. But our demand letter is focused on securing a retraction on behalf of our membership and in defense of free speech for all. That would be a good first step. Stewart Rhodes
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/14/high-noon-for-new-hampshire-dcyf-oath-keepers-sheriffs-and-police-issue-demand-letter/
I wonder if they feel the same way when the shoe is on the other foot- and believe active involvement with radical left groups like the Black Panthers or Earth First should not be used in filing info in court papers :???: The radical right is as dangerous as the radical left!!!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Letter written and signed by Oath Keepers is linked at bottom. (It's a very good read.) Niceto see some well known names at the bottom of this letter. Sheriff Mack for one.
October 14th, 2010 High Noon for New Hampshire DCYF: Oath Keepers Sheriffs and Police Issue Demand Letter This morning, at approximately 10am, October 14, 2010, the Sheriffs and police leaders within Oath Keepers delivered their demand letterto New Hampshire DCYF on behalf of all sheriffs and police within our organization, as well as on behalf of the military and emergency personnel in our organization. The letter calls for removing our organization’s namefrom the affidavit that was relied upon by the court and adopted as the court’s finding of facts in it’s order. We certainly hope that further, meaningful scrutiny of the New Hampshire DCYF will be undertaken by the state’s attorney general and legislature. The use of political association in a child protective proceeding is good causeto question the training and the motives of those involved in this case. But our demand letter is focused on securing a retraction on behalf of our membership and in defense of free speech for all. That would be a good first step. Stewart Rhodes
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/14/high-noon-for-new-hampshire-dcyf-oath-keepers-sheriffs-and-police-issue-demand-letter/
I wonder if they feel the same way when the shoe is on the other foot- and believe active involvement with radical left groups like the Black Panthers or Earth First should not be used in filing info in court papers :???: The radical right is as dangerous as the radical left!!!

You're comparing groups known for violence and terrorism to those that have renewed their oath to uphold the Constitution :???:

You took the same Oath as these guys, correct?

I suppose you can't compare yourself to the Black Panthers or Earth First, because you no longer honor the Oath you took and are no longer a radical extremist, is that what you are saying?


:roll:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The radical right is as dangerous as the radical left!!!


Wrong again Einstein. :roll:

The radical right might take you back to where you've been, but the radical left will definitely take you places you don't want to go.
 
Top