Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: New Born Baby Taken from Parents

  1. #1
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51

    Post New Born Baby Taken from Parents

    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I heard about this, though I have not delved deeply into the story. But here's a little twist.

    Kidnapping is considered a violent felony and as such, may be responded to with deadly force. So I wonder how the DSS would feel if met with a fully armed man, pointing a gun in their face, and telling them they just had a few seconds to exit his presence without his newborn child?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    A link containing more information would be useful, especially if it shares both sides of the story. As best as I can glean, the courts have already taken two children away for neglect or abuse. When a child was born into the situation, the State took preemptive action.

    Without further information I don't want to pass judgment on whether taking the child was appropriate. However, so far, I don't see anything to justify any assumption that an Oathkeeper is being targeted.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    A link containing more information would be useful, especially if it shares both sides of the story. As best as I can glean, the courts have already taken two children away for neglect or abuse. When a child was born into the situation, the State took preemptive action.

    Without further information I don't want to pass judgment on whether taking the child was appropriate. However, so far, I don't see anything to justify any assumption that an Oathkeeper is being targeted.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	irishdoc%5B1%5D.jpg 
Views:	175 
Size:	78.1 KB 
ID:	4229
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I read that already. I still see no evidence that "the Department of Homeland Security [is] targeting Oath Keepers," as the link in the OP indicates. The mention of the parent's membership and ownership of weapons, among many other contentions, does not support the conclusion in the title of the linked article at all.

    Does anyone have any real, unbiased information on this story?

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Gentlemen;

    I know this is off topic (somewhat since this is General Discussion), but please help me out here if you will. The embedded video at the top of the link supplied by the OP entitled, "Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey", has a piece of music throughout it, starting around 38 seconds in that is driving me nuts. I am familiar with this music and remember it in a movie, or a series, but I cannot for the life of me come up with a name. Can anyone help me out with this because it is make my wife and I crazy trying to figure it out.

    Thanks much.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Gentlemen;

    I know this is off topic (somewhat since this is General Discussion), but please help me out here if you will. The embedded video at the top of the link supplied by the OP entitled, "Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey", has a piece of music throughout it, starting around 38 seconds in that is driving me nuts. I am familiar with this music and remember it in a movie, or a series, but I cannot for the life of me come up with a name. Can anyone help me out with this because it is make my wife and I crazy trying to figure it out.

    Thanks much.
    It just came to me. This is the theme song for Last of the Mohicans. A beautiful piece of music.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    A very convoluted and involved story - one that evokes strong emotional reaction in some.

    Far too little verifiable data for this poster to make any informed speculation into the cause/reason for the action, but there are flags if you read carefully enough.

    What I do question is the appropriateness of this on OCDO. - yes I know that there was reference to owning guns, but that does not seem to be the central issue by any means.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-09-2010 at 10:15 PM. Reason: correct
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Publius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northern California Now NH soon
    Posts
    67
    Here are some videos and interviews about this story by the New Hampshire Liberty Activist community.

    OTN: Oath Keepers Cited as Justification for Government Infant Kidnapping (1/2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lq5sr3hthk&feature=sub

    Ridley Report: Oath Keeper baby stolen? An update.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDrA74lM3k

    If the facts of this case are as I suspect, then my blood will boil, but I will wait until Government officials fail to justify their actions, before I boil over.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    So far, every report is from some group with a similar axe to grind. Any independent facts, or any accounts from someone with the opposite axe?

  11. #11
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I read that already. I still see no evidence that "the Department of Homeland Security [is] targeting Oath Keepers," as the link in the OP indicates. The mention of the parent's membership and ownership of weapons, among many other contentions, does not support the conclusion in the title of the linked article at all.

    Does anyone have any real, unbiased information on this story?
    I am not sure what role exactly the Department of Homeland Security plays in this type of thing. The document says State of New Hampshire Concord Family Division. So you may be right about the title. I would have to do more research.

    However the document states his affiliation with a militia (Oath Keepers is not a militia) known as the “Oath Keepers” as one of the reasons that his child was taken away. If it we’re not one of the reasons why would it be worth mentioning? Stating Oath Keepers as one of the reasons is an attack on Oath Keepers.
    Last edited by 5o56x45; 10-09-2010 at 11:53 PM. Reason: noticed mistake in wording
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by 5o56x45 View Post
    I am not sure what role exactly the Department of Homeland Security plays in this type of thing. The document says State of New Hampshire Concord Family Division. So you may be right about the title. I would have to do more research.

    However the document states his affiliation with a militia (Oath Keepers is not a militia) known as the “Oath Keepers” as one of the reasons that his child was taken away. If it we’re not one of the reasons why would it be worth mentioning? Stating Oath Keepers as one of the reasons is an attack on Oath Keepers.
    Focusing in on one of the reasons, even one as flawed as this one, and implying the it is THE reason is disingenuous. The ultimate reason cited in the document is that the other children were taken away for neglect/abuse. If it were indeed established that the other children were abused (to the point where they needed to be reasonably taken away), then I expect the court to also take away any newborn placed into such a dangerous situation.

    It could turn out that even taking away the other children was inappropriate. I don't know! We are getting one decidedly biased side of the story. I think we should hear the facts (or both biased sides) before jumping to conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of posters here are predisposed to jump to conclusions that favor their world-view.

    I despise bigotry, even bigotry from folks with a similar world-view to mine.

    Let's get the whole story. Then, pass judgment.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-10-2010 at 12:03 AM. Reason: "here the facts"??? um, no

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Focusing in on one of the reasons, even one as flawed as this one, and implying the it is THE reason is disingenuous. The ultimate reason cited in the document is that the other children were taken away for neglect/abuse. If it were indeed established that the other children were abused (to the point where they needed to be reasonably taken away), then I expect the court to also take away any newborn placed into such a dangerous situation.

    It could turn out that even taking away the other children was inappropriate. I don't know! We are getting one decidedly biased side of the story. I think we should hear the facts (or both biased sides) before jumping to conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of posters here are predisposed to jump to conclusions that favor their world-view.

    I despise bigotry, even bigotry from folks with a similar world-view to mine.

    Let's get the whole story. Then, pass judgment.
    So, you did not read the memo from DHS ?? That returning vets could be Domestic Terrorist's ? that people that fly the Gadsden Flag are likely domestic terrorist's or Militia or both. Dude -> open your eyes, removeth head from sand.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  14. #14
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Focusing in on one of the reasons, even one as flawed as this one, and implying the it is THE reason is disingenuous. The ultimate reason cited in the document is that the other children were taken away for neglect/abuse. If it were indeed established that the other children were abused (to the point where they needed to be reasonably taken away), then I expect the court to also take away any newborn placed into such a dangerous situation.

    It could turn out that even taking away the other children was inappropriate. I don't know! We are getting one decidedly biased side of the story. I think we should hear the facts (or both biased sides) before jumping to conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of posters here are predisposed to jump to conclusions that favor their world-view.

    I despise bigotry, even bigotry from folks with a similar world-view to mine.

    Let's get the whole story. Then, pass judgment.
    I am not focusing on this one reason because I think that it should exempt them. I don't know all of the details. There are not very many details out at all right now that I know of. For all that I know they are abusive parents. One thing I do know is that it was stated on what looks like an official document that one of the reasons that there child was taken away is because he is affiliated with a militia known as the “Oath Keepers”. That is the point that I am trying make. They are attacking the Oath Keepers and making false accusations about them.

    I do understand where you are comming from. It is wise to know all of the facts before jumping to conclusions. It is easy to think with emotions. What I am pointing out is fact though based on what the document says.
    Last edited by 5o56x45; 10-10-2010 at 06:54 AM.
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock34 View Post
    So, you did not read the memo from DHS ?? That returning vets could be Domestic Terrorist's ? that people that fly the Gadsden Flag are likely domestic terrorist's or Militia or both. Dude -> open your eyes, removeth head from sand.
    Sorry, I forgot to wear my tinfoil, so they sent mind-control rays at me that kept me from linking the two stories and seeing the conspiracy between DHS and family protection in Vermont.

    *insert twilight zone music here*

    That being said, I hate the DHS memo. I hate the mindset that it represents, that the government controls us, and that any organization that opposes that idea is an enemy of the state.

    On the topic of this thread: Is there any unbiased reporting of this event from which we can glean the facts? Or, second best, articles biased from the other POV, so we can achieve some balance?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by 5o56x45 View Post
    I am not focusing on this one reason because I think that it should exempt them. I don't know all of the details. There are not very many details out at all right now that I know of. For all that I know they are abusive parents. One thing I do know is that it was stated on what looks like an official document that one of the reasons that there child was taken away is because he is affiliated with a militia known as the “Oath Keepers”. That is the point that I am trying make. They are attacking the Oath Keepers and making false accusations about them.

    I do understand where you are comming from. It is wise to know all of the facts before jumping to conclusions. It is easy to think with emotions. What I am pointing out is fact though based on what the document says.
    So, how about we wait for these facts before we get threads posted with attachments with silly headlines implying that Homeland Security is conspiring with a child protection agency to unlawfully take an Oath Keepers' child.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 5o56x45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    51

    Oath Keepers Statement

    Maybe this site is more appropriate. It is Oath Keepers Response to all of this. I think that it will be updated as the whole thing progresses. I am sure that they will be very careful to make accurate statements in regards to this issue.

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

    Feel free to post anything that you might find that can balance out the issue.
    Last edited by 5o56x45; 10-10-2010 at 12:04 PM.
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You are posting nothing but bias. That is irresponsible.

    BTW, the first paragraph recognizes that the membership is not THE reason for taking the child, and the third paragraph implies that it is (in the face of a source document saying it is not.

    Folks, until someone gets the whole story out, I would recommend taking a cautious approach to this story, and not let yourselves get crazy fired-up over something that could turn out to be an unresearched and bigoted sentence or two in an official document that will later, in recognition of its absolute foolishness, be removed.

    We have far too many real problems with significant rights violations to allow us to be seen as wackos for worrying about a pipe leaking in one of the bathrooms of the Titanic.

    Oh, and barring some balance or some facts being posted here, I'll just move on. I've already pointed out the silliness of the concern being expressed here based on so little hard information.

    BTW, mods, shouldn't this post be in the Social Lounge? This ain't about OC.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-10-2010 at 12:24 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    There is much more to the story

    This story really ruined my day earlier this week when I first read it. Then I started to learn some other things that made it not so bad.

    The document 5o56x45 posted shows that there were other reasons for removing the children, including a trial to remove the mother's parental rights toward two previous children (see point 5 in the document posted above). So right there we can see that the Oathkeeper allegation is something additional, and not the sole reason for removing the infant from the parents' custody. They might as well have said "Plus they can't cook meatloaf worth a damn" at the end of the document, for all the good the Oathkeepers allegation does them. I suspect that was included either out of ignorance or to help persuade a particular judge or jury that to accept the motion to take the children away.

    I don't like children being taken away for anything other than a serious and immediate threat to the child, but this is not as bad as it seems on the face of it. No, "they" are not taking children away from people associated with groups "they" don't like. At least not yet, if ever. There do seem to be some problems with this case, and maybe DCYF needs to review its procedures, but I don't think the problems are in the realm of "doom has come" or "they're taking kids away for nothing".

    Having said all that, what would I do if they came to the hospital and tried to take away MY newborn, for any reason? I really don't know, but I'd damn sure consider it kidnapping no matter what kind of paperwork or laws or "authority" they wave at me.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    A rational response and a breath of fresh air.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Stephanie denies the DCYF report that she claimed John used violence or threats of violence against her or the other children.

    The gun charge against John is completely bogus.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    53
    From RidleyReport.com:

    "Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2XaKma4KwE

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    Oathkeepers association is irrelevant

    Of course they would deny the allegations. It doesn't really matter whether they do or not. As it stands, this isn't anything out of the ordinary, unfortunately. The fact that there are organizations like DCYF shows this is not the first time a child has been taken away. You'd think they'd wait until a judgement had been entered against the parents before they actually take the children away, but I'm sure there are all kinds of policies and ways they can take "emergency action" to immediately take children without a judgment.

    The only issue I can possibly see here is that the association with the Oathkeepers was used to expedite the process of taking the children away, or to do so without the proper procedures being followed. And if that does turn out to be the case, there have almost certainly been other cases where flimsy allegations were used to illegally speed the process up. The solution would seem to be that the authorities need to stop these shenanigans, if that indeed is the case. If the association with Oathkeepers was used as a lever, it's a bit worrying that they could use it, but I'm sure it wouldn't hold up for long, and if the authorities are using that sort of thing to expedite the process, there's nothing stopping them from using pretty much anything they want, or even false allegations. They might as well have listed "picking toes in Poughkeepsie" as a reason.

    While that's not a good thing, the courts so far seem to shoot most of those things down, and it's on par with the other garbage so-called "authorities" pull in violating our rights. Hasn't come to a new level quite yet.

    Hopefully the Oathkeepers angle will get all this ironed out so they follow all the proper procedures in the future, if they didn't do so in this case. Maybe the Oathkeepers were the wrong "interesting tidbit" to spice up the case with.

    The couple will have to convince the courts that they are indeed fit to retain custody of the children in spite of the allegations of abuse and risk to the children which have been leveled against them. I'm sure the Oathkeepers angle won't get more than a minute in court.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    someone posted what was supposed to be the order from the State of New Hampshire authorizing taking the baby. The paragraph containing the "information" about Oath Keepers was obviously not a part of the document and had been added. The paragraph was misaligned with the rest of the paper and the font was different and the printing was a different size.

    Someone has been playing games.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    someone posted what was supposed to be the order from the State of New Hampshire authorizing taking the baby. The paragraph containing the "information" about Oath Keepers was obviously not a part of the document and had been added. The paragraph was misaligned with the rest of the paper and the font was different and the printing was a different size.

    Someone has been playing games.
    Wow!!! Nice catch.

    That last paragraph is askew, tilted up slightly, and is in a different font size. It also appears darker or bolder.

    There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation here, but my radar is up.

    Anyone?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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