• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New Born Baby Taken from Parents

KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
This grandfather was convicted of assault against his son, father of the baby, in 1995 when Johnathan Irish was 15 years old.

Johnathan might very well be an abusive @ssh0le with a penchant for manipulating others. If so, he didn't fall far from the tree.

None of which means the state was justified in this case.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I just did a little research, trying to find the assault charge on John Irish, the elder (no joy). I did find an article the has some of the official documents in the case.

It seems that paragraphs 1 through 6 in the attachment above are from one document (the change of venue request) and paragraph 7 is from another, the affidavit laying out the reasons for the request to remove the baby pending a full hearing into the matter.

We don't get to see the real paragraphs 1-6 nor 8-11, since they have been "redacted." Check out this bit of idiocy:

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.
Click to expand...

"full (though redacted);" what a hoot!

Those who are jumping to the conclusion that the State is totally unjustified in taking the child are trying to hide the vast majority of the reasoning behind the action. While they are dead right that membership in the Oath Keepers (not a militia) should not have even been mentioned in the affidavit and should, if anything, be considered a plus in Irish's favor, the deceptiveness in hiding ALL the other reasons calls into question the legitimacy of their outrage and whether ours should be due.

Of important note: The document attached earlier in the thread is a total fraud. It is an improper combination of two documents that served distinct purposes, giving the inexcusably false impression that it presents the case against Cheyenne's parents. It does not. Can anyone attach the full (and unredacted) document containing this infamous paragraph 7?

The "full (though redacted)" documents can be found here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby.html
 
Last edited:
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Not that I place any credibility in that source, but it clearly shows the documents from which the phony document attached to this thread came. I don't doubt that those documents are real, since the parts of the documents that would've made the claim look ridiculous have been "redacted."

I'd like to see the un"redacted" document. It probably contains the specific findings of violence that prompted the court removing the first two children and prompted the removal of the baby by CPS in advance of a full court hearing.

The more dishonesty I see, the less I am inclined to think a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred.
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
eye95 said:
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 to expand...

While I don't have the whole story either, it's just GOT to be something WRONG going on here. #1 Oath Keepers is in NO way shape or form a Militia organization. #2 Since WHEN does was lil social work punk get to take the law into his own hands and declare it as such? There is definatley some thing rotten in Denmark
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
eye95 said:
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.
Click to expand...



........................--Warning--
...................--Rules Violation--

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks.

Comments deleted by moderator.
 
Last edited:
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
My apologies for the previous discrepency. This IS the Social lounge thread Eye96. And this is an attempt by the bureaucrats to try and get away with anything they feel like doing. The slow creeping from soft tyranny to a hard tyranny. If you hadn't seen the several podcasts of the elitists stating that "we'll use the power of persuasion and if that doesn't work we'll use the persuasion of power" and "Mao Tse Tung was right, real power comes from the barrel of a gun" I say "Bring it on" These little sociopath bureaucrats that think they can make the laws up as they go will get their comeuppance. We the People just keep allowing these idiots to whittle away at our liberties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top