Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on October 11, 2010, 01:43:08 PM
-
Only links I can find right now are WND or blogs. Looking for a more reputable link to get the "other side" of the story.
At this point, for all I know the father was a raving puppy-pedophile and WND is cherry-picking the story.
But it bears monitoring.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149
Synopsis: Dana Bicford of NH CPS came to the hospital, with police, to take the newborn child of Jonathon Irish. Her grounds? He's a member of that evil organization "Oath Keepers," which is a militia, according to her (according to WND).
If true, creepy.
-
its not true
first hint wnd
second clue alex jones
http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=150687
has the usual raving and then some links to real facts
you gotta register and the politics forum has a password its "freedom"
has links to actual court documents new stories going back years
synopsis
hes a great guy drugs statutory rape gun charges shooting at mysterious invaders in his house who are never found
and he was arrested for threatening to go columbine in high school
she had her other 2 kids taken cause hero kicked ones butt the kids under 6 hes kicked her butt and failed to attend even one anger management class
how this guy can be a member of oath keepers is a bit murky as well
stewart rhodes is a moron for not saying "nope not one of us!" and moving on
-
its not true
first hint wnd
second clue alex jones
You got the clues reversed in number. Alex Jones should be #1. Yea, WND has become suspect in recent years. I don't know what happened to them. I used to think they were Ok but got themselves screwed up over time, but I don't know if that's what happened, or they simply put in enough straight stories early on to make me think they were competent or straightforward.
Alex Jones has a great love of liberty .... at the expense of good judgement (or his own twisted methodologies....).... and I would strongly encourage him to revamp and write for a new rendition of The Outer Limits .... or The Twilight Zone, both of which might be right up his alley. [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
i think wnd tries too hard to be the firstist with the worstist and neglects verification. they see zomg nwo when the mail man shows up and they have made their credibility almost nil. shame cause they have done some stuff that was true no one will believe it though
-
oh and the legal paperwork thats been shown in partial view? iis a motion for a change of venue
-
Fact remains that "militia" was used as an excuse to take the baby. And THAT is a serious, serious issue.
-
i take it you haven't read the court document yet?
-
This is the statutory rape charge in question:
One of the juveniles, who was 14, told police she and Irish were boyfriend and girlfriend and had sexual intercourse at least 10 times since they started dating, according to the affidavit
Irish was 18 at the time. I see no mention of a conviction in the articles you linked. I wonder why.
-
if the case ended up in family court its hard to find
have YOU read the court document that had alex jones all aquiver?
-
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby
This is interesting.
Not only because of the domestic violence aspects... but because I'm only one degree of separation from the Ofer Nave guy.
-
i take it you haven't read the court document yet?
I saw this story three days ago and knew it was going to be bumpy.
Obviously you don't get on CPS radar for being a nice person. Could very well be the child needed to be removed. But allow me to quote Mr. Rhodes (who, by the way, had a minor falling out with my "organization" so I'm not a huge fan of his either).
...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.
-
is the guy who abused the 2 year old in fact an "oath keeper"? or is looking at and posting on their website all it takes to join?
-
i take it thats a no? as to looking at the actual court document?
-
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/to-those-running-with-the-oath?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A2823093
-
i take it thats a no? as to looking at the actual court document?
I have looked at the court document. Doesn't look like the model citizen to me, but then, who knows.
-
is the guy who abused the 2 year old in fact an "oath keeper"? or is looking at and posting on their website all it takes to join?
That ^^ is an excellent question that I'm inclined to think you have the correct answer.
I don't care if the guy is an oathkeeper or not. I don't even care if he killed Mother Theresa.
Keep in mind there are some of us on this board a hell of a lot deeper in the militia movement than this guy ever was and this situation has ALL of us a little jumpy.
The most important thing to me is the justification of CPS actions that THEY gave.
I did not take the time to read the primary source.
EDITED for snark.
-
is the guy who abused the 2 year old in fact an "oath keeper"? or is looking at and posting on their website all it takes to join?
According to the Oath Keeper website, you don't need to be an LEO or military to join.
https://www.formstack.com/forms/?721615-lEe3sgs4Tc
-
kicking a 2 year olds butt? jails a special place for jonathan. his fiancee can mail him a dress and makeup.
his "affiliation" with oath keepers and his buying guns is relevant in 2 ways one hes a prohibited person ala lautenberg and his affiliation with a group that advocates semicivil disobediance is troubling given that hes a whack job with visions of columbine dancing in his drug addled brain.
stewart rhodes must need more press time this may not work well for him. he, and all folks associated with militias, needs to make sure they don't allow their image to be ruined by the nuts they attract heck watching the steady flow of comments from their fan base that they have to edit out does them no good.
this guy makes the hutaree look very very good by comparison
what happened with them anyway?
-
would being a child abusing mental patient make oath keepers less inclusive to you?
-
this guy makes the hutaree look very very good by comparison
what happened with them anyway?
The fibbies exaggerated and manufactured the charges. They were all aquitted very quietly, if memory serves.
-
not as of sept 22 they hadn't
http://www.freep.com/article/20100922/NEWS05/9220345/Throw-out-Hutaree-case-lawyers-ask
wishin/hopin don't make it so
-
heck fire they can't even make bond
-
re the hutaree
this seemed hopeful
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/05/judge_prosecutors_clash_in_hut.php
but then 6 months later they are still in jail
-
So, what of this stuff was he actually convicted of?
-
hard to say some types of court cases are not open when they involve minors particularly
in the last things i can find he was sent for psych evaluation twice and thats where the news reports die out
is new hampshire a state with online access of case records?
-
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/systemwi...dterminall.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.
That, plus this (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi176.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw186%2Fvaskidmark%2Firishdoc5B15D.jpg&hash=be218dc8d11e11e6f76d5eef98d81a8966435039) which shows the last paragraph out of alignment with the others, plus the typeface is different.
stay safe.
-
Pretty sure most states allow removal of a new infant if the parents'rights to other kids have been termnated. Iagree there'smore going on that falng to attend anger management, but it looks like the drafter was trying to find/list new grounds that apply to the new kid, not rely mreely on siblings removal. Being very active in firearms activities and possessing firearms seems like a
big red flag in this situation, given the history of violent abuse and poor judgment, possibly poor judgment involving fireamrs.
I'll allow it could have/should have worded better.
-
i wonder how hes not a prohibited person seems like lautenburg would fit him
-
Pretty sure most states allow removal of a new infant if the parents'rights to other kids have been termnated.
Actually, absolutely not!
It is sufficient reason to intervene in the family situation, impose mandates/restrictions, insist on family members attending this or that class, and the like.
But the mere fact that a child was previously removed, is not. At least not per New Hampshire law.
The removal of a child from the parents in New Hampshire are governed by
Section 169-C:6
169-C:6 Protective Custody. –
I. A police or juvenile probation and parole officer may take a child into protective custody without the consent of the parents or other person legally responsible for the child's care if the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life unless immediate action is taken and there is not enough time to petition for a court order.
II. If a police or juvenile probation and parole officer removes a child under paragraph I above, the officer:
(a) Shall inform the court forthwith whereupon continued protective custody pending a hearing may be ordered by the court;
(b) May take the child to a child protection services worker of the department; or
(c) May place the child in a foster home; if a child is placed directly in a foster home, the department shall be notified of the incident and where the child is placed within 24 hours, unless there is a physician involved and treating the child and the child is or will be taken to and admitted to a hospital; and
(d) Shall, when the child is removed from an individual other than a parent or a person legally responsible for the child, make every reasonable effort to inform both parents or other persons legally responsible for the child's care where the child has been taken.
III. Any police or juvenile probation and parole officer or other individual acting in good faith pursuant to this section, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of such removal or placement.
IV. The court shall hold a hearing on the matter within 24 hours of taking the child into protective custody, Sundays and holidays excluded. Notice shall be given to both parents and all parties designated by the petitioner or the court.
V. If a child is found by a child protection services worker of the department to be in imminent danger in such circumstances or surroundings and where immediate removal appears necessary to protect the child from such imminent danger, the department's child protection services worker shall contact a judge or clerk immediately for an order to remove the child. Prior to any order authorizing foster placement, the child protective service worker shall inform the judge of efforts to locate any non-custodial parent or other relatives for temporary placement.
VI. The court having jurisdiction over a child who appears to be abused or neglected, and in imminent danger may issue ex parte orders pursuant to RSA 169-C:6-a, permitting the child or the alleged perpetrator to be removed from the home at the request of the department or a law enforcement officer.
VII. No child taken into protective custody pursuant to this section shall be securely detained.
VIII. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the refusal of a parent or other person having control of a child to administer or consent to the administration of any psychotropic drug to such child shall not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for the police or a juvenile probation and parole officer to take the child into custody, or for the court to order that such child be taken into custody. However, if the administration of a decreasing dose of the drug is required during withdrawal from the medication, the refusal may constitute grounds for taking the child into protective custody.
Source. 1979, 361:2. 1987, 402:12. 1988, 197:6. 1994, 411:3, 16, 17. 1995, 310:175. 2000, 294:9, eff. July 1, 2000. 2003, 199:1, eff. Aug. 29, 2003. 2004, 237:7, eff. June 15, 2004.
Section 169-C:6-a
169-C:6-a Emergency Interim Relief. –
I. The department or law enforcement officer requesting the court for an ex parte order shall, to the extent known, present the following evidence in writing with sworn signature or orally under oath:
(a) A statement of the specific danger requiring either immediate placement of the child or removal of the alleged perpetrator.
(b) The time, place, and manner in which the child was removed from danger, if relevant.
(c) If the child was removed prior to the court order, a brief statement why it was not possible to obtain the order prior to removal.
(d) Why there is not sufficient time to notify the parent, guardian, or custodian prior to the order.
(e) The names and addresses of custodial parents, non-custodial parents, legal custodians, other legal guardians of the child, and any other person responsible for the welfare of the child at the time of removal.
(f) When removal of the child is requested, those alternatives to foster care which were considered, such as removal of the alleged perpetrator, or placement of the child with relatives or others with whom the child is familiar.
II. Whenever a petition is filed for abuse or neglect with or prior to the request for ex parte relief, the request need not repeat information included in the petition.
III. If the court finds 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, the court shall issue such ex parte orders as are necessary to protect the child and shall set the matter for hearing no later than 5 days from the date of the ex parte orders, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
IV. If the court issues ex parte orders, the department or law enforcement officer shall file a petition meeting the requirements of RSA 169-C:7 within 72 hours of the issuance of the orders, excluding Sundays and holidays.
Source. 1994, 411:4. 1995, 310:175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. 2002, 180:1, eff. July 14, 2002.
Having been a professional baby-snatcher for over a decade, I kept up with the laws to avoid getting sued. I still follow the field because of a perverse fascination with how the laws are changing and evolving. More and more the courts are putting pressure on the welfare agencies to do everything possible, and quite a lot that is neither possible not practicable IMHO, to keep the child in the family home regardless of what has taken place. I just don't see the imminent danger the newborn was in, nor do I see that there were no lesser alternatives than taking the child into protective custody. Among other options a doctor could have ordered a medical hold on the child until the home situation was assessed - and then if the parents did not cooperate there could have been a scheduled adversarial hearing.
stay safe.
-
i wonder how hes not a prohibited person seems like lautenburg would fit him
The reason Lautenburg does not apply is because the charges were never prosecuted, and he is under no indictment.
You can be accused of anything. Seems your history involves that happening to you a few times. Last I checked it only counts if you are convicted.
stay safe.
-
so its your position this was an emergency seizure of the child? as opposed to one court ordered?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/169-C/169-C-6-a.htm
169-C:6-a Emergency Interim Relief. –
I. The department or law enforcement officer requesting the court for an ex parte order shall, to the extent known, present the following evidence in writing with sworn signature or orally under oath:
(a) A statement of the specific danger requiring either immediate placement of the child or removal of the alleged perpetrator.
(b) The time, place, and manner in which the child was removed from danger, if relevant.
(c) If the child was removed prior to the court order, a brief statement why it was not possible to obtain the order prior to removal.
(d) Why there is not sufficient time to notify the parent, guardian, or custodian prior to the order.
(e) The names and addresses of custodial parents, non-custodial parents, legal custodians, other legal guardians of the child, and any other person responsible for the welfare of the child at the time of removal.
(f) When removal of the child is requested, those alternatives to foster care which were considered, such as removal of the alleged perpetrator, or placement of the child with relatives or others with whom the child is familiar.
II. Whenever a petition is filed for abuse or neglect with or prior to the request for ex parte relief, the request need not repeat information included in the petition.
III. If the court finds 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, the court shall issue such ex parte orders as are necessary to protect the child and shall set the matter for hearing no later than 5 days from the date of the ex parte orders, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
IV. If the court issues ex parte orders, the department or law enforcement officer shall file a petition meeting the requirements of RSA 169-C:7 within 72 hours of the issuance of the orders, excluding Sundays and holidays.
Source. 1994, 411:4. 1995, 310:175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. 2002, 180:1, eff. July 14, 2002.
-
The reason Lautenburg does not apply is because the charges were never prosecuted, and he is under no indictment.
You can be accused of anything. Seems your history involves that happening to you a few times. Last I checked it only counts if you are convicted.
stay safe.
indeed i have had that happen
i was quite unique though in that out of 50 plus times in cuffs with one exception i was always guilty. unlike poor folk like mr irish who were persecuted for no reason at all
-
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/169-C/169-C-6.htm
169-C:6 Protective Custody. –
I. A police or juvenile probation and parole officer may take a child into protective custody without the consent of the parents or other person legally responsible for the child's care if the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life unless immediate action is taken and there is not enough time to petition for a court order.
II. If a police or juvenile probation and parole officer removes a child under paragraph I above, the officer:
(a) Shall inform the court forthwith whereupon continued protective custody pending a hearing may be ordered by the court;
(b) May take the child to a child protection services worker of the department; or
(c) May place the child in a foster home; if a child is placed directly in a foster home, the department shall be notified of the incident and where the child is placed within 24 hours, unless there is a physician involved and treating the child and the child is or will be taken to and admitted to a hospital; and
(d) Shall, when the child is removed from an individual other than a parent or a person legally responsible for the child, make every reasonable effort to inform both parents or other persons legally responsible for the child's care where the child has been taken.
III. Any police or juvenile probation and parole officer or other individual acting in good faith pursuant to this section, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of such removal or placement.
IV. The court shall hold a hearing on the matter within 24 hours of taking the child into protective custody, Sundays and holidays excluded. Notice shall be given to both parents and all parties designated by the petitioner or the court.
V. If a child is found by a child protection services worker of the department to be in imminent danger in such circumstances or surroundings and where immediate removal appears necessary to protect the child from such imminent danger, the department's child protection services worker shall contact a judge or clerk immediately for an order to remove the child. Prior to any order authorizing foster placement, the child protective service worker shall inform the judge of efforts to locate any non-custodial parent or other relatives for temporary placement.
VI. The court having jurisdiction over a child who appears to be abused or neglected, and in imminent danger may issue ex parte orders pursuant to RSA 169-C:6-a, permitting the child or the alleged perpetrator to be removed from the home at the request of the department or a law enforcement officer.
VII. No child taken into protective custody pursuant to this section shall be securely detained.
VIII. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the refusal of a parent or other person having control of a child to administer or consent to the administration of any psychotropic drug to such child shall not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for the police or a juvenile probation and parole officer to take the child into custody, or for the court to order that such child be taken into custody. However, if the administration of a decreasing dose of the drug is required during withdrawal from the medication, the refusal may constitute grounds for taking the child into protective custody.
Source. 1979, 361:2. 1987, 402:12. 1988, 197:6. 1994, 411:3, 16, 17. 1995, 310:175. 2000, 294:9, eff. July 1, 2000. 2003, 199:1, eff. Aug. 29, 2003. 2004, 237:7, eff. June 15, 2004.
so its been 24 hours even in the worst case action of the cps a judge has looked at this, presuming that the removal wasn't prearranged, which i suspect it was
and then there is this
http://nhdcyf.info/rsa/169-c.html#169-C-18
-
this guy makes the hutaree look very very good by comparison
what happened with them anyway?
Five are still in custody, 4 are out on bond. Trials are scheduled for November.
-
Keep in mind there are some of us on this board a hell of a lot deeper in the militia movement than this guy ever was and this situation has ALL of us a little jumpy.
Pretty sure I've been in this movement much longer than you.
The most important thing we can do as members of a citizens' militia is to keep calm and get our facts straight, not run for our rifles at the dubious suggestions of news "reports".
-
Pretty sure I've been in this movement much longer than you.
The most important thing we can do as members of a citizens' militia is to keep calm and get our facts straight, not run for our rifles at the dubious suggestions of news "reports".
"Jumpy" was a little overstated. Let's go with "concerned." No more so than than when any official document that condemns/conflates militias by name appears.
-
Quote
507.Do you people really think that the state just jumps in randomly on this kind of thing?
Really?
Have any of you had your kids taken for being involved in Oath Keepers? No?
I didn’t think so.
Irish beats Stephanie. They might appear in this video like a cute couple, but that’s because they’re a couple of social degenerates who act that way.
By the way, they also live off of welfare. Good, upstanding Founding Fathers types, eh?
Last year, they lost custody of Stephanie’s other two kids because Irish beat them. Not spanking, mind you. I’m talking about a slap that I heard from across the street, and a red mark on a 2-year-old’s face that had the plain outline of his hand.
She claimed that the 1-year-old did it. Then she claimed that he slipped and hit a doorknob. Any fool could line it up to Irish’s hand.
The state took the boys away, and I doubt they’re ever coming back. I pray that they don’t.
You want to know why the state took the baby?
The baby’s life was in danger. Not because her parents have anything to do with OK. Not for politics. Not because of his Second Amendment rights. Because John Irish is a mean, violent, abusive, criminal son of a bitch.
Defend him if you want. When more of this story comes out, you’ll look like fools who leap to conclusions.
Maybe OK shouldn’t have been listed in the affidavit. Fine. But while your panties are in a knot over that, there’s a real baby whose life is in real danger because her bio-father is a real lunatic.
I hope never to see her in this neighborhood.
Comment by Irish's Neighbor — October 9, 2010
And more from the neighbor
Quote
527.The other two children were taken away last year, right after the beating that I heard. And reported.
To my knowledge, the state wasn’t involved with them, despite his criminal record, before that. I can’t swear to it, since I don’t know all the details of his life, but I sure didn’t see cops patrolling all the time, and they had the kids until last year. No one was interfering with their rights.
But when he beat the boys, the state stepped in.
This one couldn’t be taken until she was born. I’m glad that they didn’t wait until Irish had a bad trip and killed her to act.
Not sure how that’s fishy … I mean, did you want them to take the baby BEFORE she was born?
allegedly from the neighbor on why the two year old got taken
http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t611919p1/
-
ouch
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby
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
-
ridley report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2XaKma4KwE&feature=related
3 min in is he scamming disability?
7:30 in hes dodges poorly 8;15 he claims he doesn't have anything to hide after hiding whatever happened at his folks house
ridley plays real hardball journalist
i saw a four five page document whys irish only showing 2 pages? and why are the "journalists" playing along?
-
Quote
507.Do you people really think that the state just jumps in randomly on this kind of thing?
Quote
527.The other two children were taken away last year, right after the beating that I heard. And reported.
http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t611919p1/
I'm only going to say this one more time because I'm tired of discussing this.
It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby. Bottom line. Not sure why that is hard to grasp on APS of all places.
I don't care if the guy was a degenerate. I don't care if there were other, perfectly good reasons for removing the children. That Irish is affiliated with Oathkeepers is not one of those reasons, and allowing that rationale to stand is a danger to first and second amendment rights.
Agree or disagree?
-
It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby.
i think you are a might sensitive about mention of oath keepers. his name and address are also listed were they reasons? i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken. he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.
oath keepers bonding to him is doing more harm to their image than that affidavit for change of venue ever did. to me it smacks of rhodes milking it for press. so folks might not go huh? when they hear the term "oath keepers". other than the splc, another publicity seeking group, oath keepers scares no one
-
I'm gonna dissect and then summarize. I'm not so interested in disagreeing with your points as elucidating my take on the same data.
i think you are a might sensitive about mention of oath keepers.
I am sensitive. Not so much because I like Rhodes but I too run with a "hatriot" group that is socially unacceptable in the liberal NE.
i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken.
In your mind or in the collective consciousness of the state bureaucracy?
he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.
Please explain this a little more... What certain rights are OK perceived as not recognizing that the govt takes for granted? And even given those perceptions...is this reasoning constitutional
oath keepers bonding to him is doing more harm to their image than that affidavit for change of venue ever did.
I agree that this is a not a good hill for Rhodes to die on. to me it smacks of rhodes milking it for press.
Rhodes has, in the past, been a little too sensitive to perceived public opinion. At the RTC rally in Arlington last April, he canceled plans to speak at the last minute because of bullscat rumours that there was going to be an "incident."
-
and i forgot to say that i like what the basic premise behind what oath keepers stand for. thats why i'm annoyed by them holding hands with this poster couple for zero population growth.
in much the same way the minute men were weakened so will this hurt oathkeepers and to a degree all similar groups. they already battle to keep from being over run with the lunatic fringe from prison planet and stormfront
-
Quote
i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken.
In your mind or in the collective consciousness of the state bureaucracy?
Quote
he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.
Please explain this a little more... What certain rights are OK perceived as not recognizing that the govt takes for granted? And even given those perceptions...is this reasoning constitutional
i'm not sure we can give the state credit for being bright enough for a collective conciousness.
one of the big risks with a flake hero like irish is they grab the kid and vanish. no ties to the area, how hard is it to pack a bong and a cooler of beer.
his affiliation with a larger group facilitates his ability to flee sucessfully, since his fellow "free thinkers will aid and abet in the name of "LIBERTY!". then at the kids funeral, assuming a bodies found , it'll be all hung heads and "gosh i didn't know!"
the way the lunatics flocked to him already demonstrates the power of stupid people in large numbers. heck i think irish is slick. he ditches anger management, which he didn't want to go to, and the state helps him get rid of her 2 kids, which he can't afford to take care of, and he comes off a victim and folks send cash. its flawless. not sure yet whether dodging taking care of this kid was part of his plan or not. but it frees up a lot of money for beer and smoke not having to take care of the kid. especially since he may have fubared his disability now
-
It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby. Bottom line. Not sure why that is hard to grasp on APS of all places.
It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.
How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.
-
Obviously you don't get on CPS radar for being a nice person.
No, all you have to do is refuse to join a vendetta against a certain family, and then the stone throwers turn on your family and start making up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. :mad:
-
It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.
How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.
I agree with you, sir. Possibly for the first time ever. I admit I have not done much homework on the Oath Keepers, but I do know they go out of their way to state that they are not a militia.
-
It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.
How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.
explain the constitutional issue to me please
-
One more time for me, then I am going to shut up until and unless court records start appearing.
The reasons allowed by law for snatching the kid out of the hospital were not present when the kid was snatched out of the hospital. There does not need to be a whole lot of conversation about this, as the law is rather specific and the case law from SCOTUS is quite clear on just how bad things have to be and how much you have to allege in the petition. No matter how badly Irish hit the older kid a year ago, there was no imminent danger to the newborn and no attempts were made to find alternatives to protective custody. Is that clear?
Whether or not the termination of parental rights last year was valid or the two young lovers just looked at it as an easy way to get out from under a couple of rugrats, that action had no connection or correlation to the circumstances of the newborn. And as clearly stated in New Hampshire law, only a very limited number of gounds for termination can be used for snatching the newborn or seeking to terminate parental rights regarding the newborn. None of those circumstances existed. Is that clear?
Whether Urish and Taylor are saints or the Devil incarnate, New Hapmpshire has an obligation to carry out its actions according to the law as she is wrote. They did not. Is that clear?
As a former professional babysnatcher I am hurt right down to the quick to see the State of New Hampshire screw this up so blatently and so badly. There are probably several dozen reasons why these two individuals ought to be physically prevented from ever even carrying out the act that might create human life, let alone actually have a possibility of conceiving a child ever again. But most of those reasons did not, do not, will never meet the legal standards that allow for snatching the newborn out of the hospital. Is that clear?
By screwing this up so badly, there is a good chance that not only will the baby be returned to Irish and Taylor, but that Child Protective Services could be ordered to stay away from them until/unless a formal complaint of abuse/neglect is made. Back when I was a professional babysnatcher in Prince William County, Virginia there was a case much like this one. Because of technical violations of the parents' rights CPS was in fact ordered to stay away from the family unless a formal complaint was received. I was the duty worker the night Rodney Williams was beaten to death by his father, who dragged him from room to room while beating him and throwing him up aganst walls and doorframes. I had to go to the house to take custody of his younger sister who had witnessed the five hours it took for Rodney to be beaten to death. No kid should go through either experience. (I also had to collect evidence/take pictures for the protective custody case. That meant following the trail from room to room.) But screwing up a CPS baby-snatch so badly that the parents get a free pass shouldn't happen either. And if Irish is as mean-bad as was alleged, and Taylor (like Rodney's mother) is so weak/fearful/I-don't-know-what as to allow that to happen and not protect her kid or turn him in, then screwing this up has some serious consequences. And that's what they have done in New Hampshire. Is that clear?
stay safe.
-
unless court records start appearing.
which can only happen if the parents choose to do that the gov can't. there were 5 pages of documents and for some reason we get to see 2
The reasons allowed by law for snatching the kid out of the hospital were not present when the kid was snatched out of the hospital.
we don't really know that yet without those documents the keen investigative journalists only read 2 pages of
-
we don't really know that yet without those documents the keen investigative journalists only read 2 pages of
And yet you go ahead and make a variety of assumptions.
-
And yet you go ahead and make a variety of assumptions.
yet we know a judge took those 2 kids away and it wasn't on a lark
-
from oath keepers
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.
why hes mistaken
if your affiliations have a bearing on your likely hood to flee its relevant. i worked for a guy whose conversion to orthodox jew was used in court to structure his visitation rights. there was a fear he was gonna grab the kids and head to Israel with the kids. mr irish's associations here are a similar concern. and his past history of responsible gun ownership makes his guns and purchases a real issue. its funny when you are a moron doing stupid human tricks they can haunt you in years to come. things like statutory rape multiple shootings some in your house and all the usual detritus of better living through modern chemistry
-
if your affiliations have a bearing on your likely hood to flee its relevant. i worked for a guy whose conversion to orthodox jew was used in court to structure his visitation rights. there was a fear he was gonna grab the kids and head to Israel with the kids. mr irish's associations here are a similar concern. and his past history of responsible gun ownership makes his guns and purchases a real issue. its funny when you are a moron doing stupid human tricks they can haunt you in years to come. things like statutory rape multiple shootings some in your house and all the usual detritus of better living through modern chemistry
+1
Had a case locally very recently where a guy who ran with the wrong crowd had a slight oops. Purported home invasion--multiple guys in broad daylight with people at home, in other words, quite likely a shakedown by the guy's associates or others in the illicit business. Guy shot in the general direction of the intruders and killed a four year old. CPS took the other kids, and rightly so. Yes, they could have taken the kids because of the drug issue alone, but a petition should include a complete picture, and that includes listing everything that poses a substantial danger to the kids.
Guns aren't bad. Guns in conjunction with criminal activity and a history of poor judgment in using guns and associating with criminal types are bad. On the petition, you list the the guns, the history of poor judgment using guns, the criminal activity, and the continuing association with criminal types. Heck, that's two constitutionally protected rights. But I'd love to see you guys try to argue that a guy stating "I am going to kill my wife/kid" repeatedly cannot be included in a CPS/DCYF petition because doing so violates the 1st amendment. All rights are subject to reasonable limitation, including the RTKBA and the right to associate freely.
Sure, OK is not a criminal organization. But they are an organization that is likely to assist in undermining a DCYF investigation or provision of services (as indeed they seem to be doing) and they provide a possible/likely avenue for flight, as detailed by C&SD.
-
i am left wondering is rhode's focus/obsession is so narrow that he couldn't see that. Or if he just wanted to milk it for some press so he decided to exploit it. hard to decide which is worse. easy to decide which is more worthy of contempt
-
kid returned