New Born Baby Taken from Parents

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.

From RidleyReport.com:

"Oath Keeper Baby" parents answer critics

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

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.

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.:banghead::cuss:

OldCurlyWolf said:

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.:banghead::cuss:

Click to expand...

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?

GOOD FIND!! - Evidence of tampering?

Double tapped

See next post.

GOOD FIND!! - Evidence of tampering?

5o56x45 said:

View attachment 4229

Click to expand...

OldCurlyWolf said:

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.:banghead::cuss:

Click to expand...

As many times as I have looked at that thumbnail and clicked on it - I never stopped to question the legitimacy/accuracy of the document itself.

The misalignment of the paragraph is the most telling - the font discrepancy is frosting. Note that the document as presented also lacks a "Docket number" at the top right.

IMO - it is incumbent on the OP of this attachment (user/poster 5o56x45 ) to cite/link the original source of this document as presented to the forum. Without making the direct personal challenge to him, I want to know who made these apparent changes and why.

Here is a link to a news article on the subject:

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13296295

The article reports that the State says the the matter is confidential. Clearly, they did not release the memo. We do not have official verification of this document.

The State contends that the children were taken away because the father is accused of hitting the mother and abusing the children and that children cannot be taken away based upon membership in an organization.

This is not the say that Vermont is not unreasonably considering membership in the Oath Keepers as a negative in this case. IF they are, that is despicable. But even the memo, as questionable as it now is, does not state that THE reason for the removal was the membership. At most, it is a factor, albeit an unreasonable (and probably unlawful) one.

Grapeshot said:

As many times as I have looked at that thumbnail and clicked on it - I never stopped to question the legitimacy/accuracy of the document itself.

The misalignment of the paragraph is the most telling - the font discrepancy is frosting. Note that the document as presented also lacks a "Docket number" at the top right.

IMO - it is incumbent on the OP of this attachment (user/poster 5o56x45 ) to cite/link the original source of this document as presented to the forum. Without making the direct personal challenge to him, I want to know who made these apparent changes and why.

Click to expand...

I pulled the document from another forum.

In this link that I posted earlier there is an interview with Mr. Irish. It is just audio but it does sound like him and I haven't heard anything about Mr. Irish claiming that it is not him. In the interview he makes reference to this sentence about the Oath Keepers militia. I would say that Mr. Irish would be the original source where this document came from.

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

You have a very good eye OldCurlyWolf I can't imagine that Mr. Irish would do something this foolish, but if he did he will be very sorry after their court date which is on the 14th if i'm not mistaken.

5o56x45 said:

View attachment 4229

Click to expand...

OldCurlyWolf said:

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.:banghead::cuss:

Click to expand...

5o56x45 said:

I pulled the document from another forum.

In this link that I posted earlier there is an interview with Mr. Irish. It is just audio but it does sound like him and I haven't heard anything about Mr. Irish claiming that it is not him. In the interview he makes reference to this sentence about the Oath Keepers militia. I would say that Mr. Irish would be the original source where this document came from.

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

You have a very good eye OldCurlyWolf I can't imagine that Mr. Irish would do something this foolish, but if he did he will be very sorry after their court date which is on the 14th if i'm not mistaken.

Click to expand...

Quoting Mr. Irish in defense of his contentions is not unlike asking the fox what happened in the chicken coop - at the very least, you won't get an unbiased description.

Likely will only get what he wants you to hear, whether it is accurate and truthful or not.

Fox: I swear to God. The chicken jumped right in my mouth. I couldn't believe it. She just started thrashing about, ripping herself apart on my sharp teeth. I tried to tell her to stop, but she couldn't understand me. My mouth was full.

Officer: OK, then. We have a full understanding of what went on, now. We are sorry to have bothered you Mr. Fox. We'd like to arrest Miss Chicken, but we cannot find her. Know where she is?

Fox: *urp* Um....no.

eye95 said:

Fox: I swear to God. The chicken jumped right in my mouth. I couldn't believe it. She just started thrashing about, ripping herself apart on my sharp teeth. I tried to tell her to stop, but she couldn't understand me. My mouth was full.

Officer: OK, then. We have a full understanding of what went on, now. We are sorry to have bothered you Mr. Fox. We'd like to arrest Miss Chicken, but we cannot find her. Know where she is?

Fox: *urp* Um....no.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. but a 15 penalty for not giving adequate warning. :lol:
Required warning

Grapeshot said:

Quoting Mr. Irish in defense of his contentions is not unlike asking the fox what happened in the chicken coop - at the very least, you won't get an unbiased description.

Likely will only get what he wants you to hear, whether it is accurate and truthful or not.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that if it was altered there is a good possibility that it was him because he is claiming that was in the document given to him. I'm not trying to defend anyones contentions.

Taking as fact the allegation that two children were previously removed from the couple and residual parental rights of the mother were terminated (Mr. Irish is the alleged abuser but not biologically related to the child) there would have been an adversarial hearing before such termination order was issued. Merely refusing to attend some sort of anger control class, and/or refusing to admit guilt of abuse, are not sufficient grounds for termination of residual parental rights. All these matters have been up in front of SCOTUS a few times (no, I'm not going to give case cites - do your own starting here http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/groundterminall.pdf ) so the ground rules are fairly well established.

One of the ground rules is that absent overwhelming evidence that clearly abusive/neglectful parents have continued a course of action which could do nothing but cause abuse/neglect of any new child born into the family, past issues are not prima facie evidence of ongoing current abuse/neglect. There is a lot wrong with the state's action in this case. Let's start with the kid being transferred for visitation - if she had residual rights to other kid(s) terminated what was she doing being allowed to have either custody or visitation (not sure who had what) with this kid?

To bring this back a little bit to being 2A/RKBA/firearms related, the philosophy seemingly behind DCYF's behavior seems to have been taken whole-cloth from the BAFT(prior to E) playbook for eliminating "troublesome" FFLs, SOTs, and Class III collectors. It is bad enough to have memories of the tax collectors' witch hunts related to a $200 payment, but even more chilling to see other agencies so highly invested in controlling the behavior of others applying similar tactics.

"Gun Control" has almost nothing to do with guns. It's all about the control.

stay safe.

I had noticed that the document did not look exctly right but I contributed that to normal scanning and posting techniques and it still may be. I assumed that it was posted on the Oath Keepers site and figured that they would be authentic with it even though they did not publish the entire document. I also figured that there was much more to this case than what was being told and it appears now that there is much, much more. The Social Services Department can really be a pain at times but they can also be a life saver. During my wife's teaching career she referred more than one child to DSS to be investigated as some of the stories she came home with made you wonder what in the world was going on with some people. One child begged her not to make him sit in his seat one morning. She carried him to the school nurse and they found open wounds where his mother had spanked him the night before. In another case the children had to sleep under the porch because their mother didn't want them in the house while she "slept" with her boyfriend.

I hope that Oath Keepers has been fooled on this as badly as others because if not I have lost a lot of respect for at least some of them.

Oath Keepers

5o56x45 said:

I'm just saying that if it was altered there is a good possibility that it was him because he is claiming that was in the document given to him. I'm not trying to defend anyones contentions.

Click to expand...

I couldn't sleep last night so I spent all night and this morning reading ALL 1200+ comments over at Oath Keepers. My eyeballs are still tired! However, Irish and his girlfriend, Taylor, appeared on Alex Jones yesterday. It appears that someone at AJ's moved #7 from the second page to the bottom of page 1 to make it more condensed.

eye95...do you belong to that site? There are couple guys that made me think of you Actually I appreciated them (and you) for being level-headed and wanting facts....not wild comments that didn't have any bearing to the situation.

This Irish guy was never a member of OK. They had a forum site, that, I think, they called "ning" that is no longer in use. Irish joined that forum for a short while, left and did not switch to their current system. So, according to some legal type people, OK really doesn't have much to worry about....that #7 will probably be thrown out this Thursday at the hearing. Those that have dealt with affidavits explained what an affidavit was and what went into them...which appears to be everything that Irish or Taylor mentioned during questioning. Others felt that there was absolutely no reason for them to be mentioned in the affidavit. It is a mess and should be resolved this Thursday.
IDLaura

Thanks for the info. No, I am not a member.

I'm glad to hear that they have some level-headed folks over there. I've always thought that oath-keeping was grounded in level-headedness. I don't want folks flying off the handle in either direction!

I can't imagine that paragraph surviving five minutes in court. If it's not real, or real but tossed, whatever problems that may have existed evaporate.

I have zero problem with a court taking kids away from someone who beats family members. In fact, I think they are generally too hesitant to take this kind of action.

One last thing: If the paragraph is real, some folks in Vermont need to do some research into the Oath Keepers. And the Oath Keepers (and OCDO, for that matter) need to look around and see why some might mistake them for a violent fringe group.

Baby Cheyenne Granddad proposes solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj-98Yof8fE

What a rational and well-spoken person.

Now there is another perspective - seems rational and level headed.