Posted on 10/11/2010 11:03:09 AM PDT by Sopater
There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.
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. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.
By looking at the below documents, you will be able to see from the two Petitions, the Order, and Affidavit item #7, in that order, that:
1. Both Petitions state: “7. Details or Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary): See affidavit filed with the Concord Family Court.”
2. The Court’s Ex Parte Order states:
“Findings of Fact:
There is 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, which require the immediate placement of the child for the following reasons:
See attached affidavit”
Thus, the Court’s Order does, in fact, refer to, and adopt all of the reasons given in the Affidavit as being the reasons for the order.
3. The Attached Affidavit, referenced by the Petitions and adopted by the Court as its findings of fact, includes, at #7: “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser.”
This is how all such petitions are done. The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition. And in this case, the Order explicitly states that the reasons in support are listed in the “attached affidavit.”
We have posted these documents with the permission of both parents, but we redacted (blacked out) all the personal information and allegations that do not pertain to Oath Keepers or gun ownership. This was done in part to respect the privacy of the family, including the kids. It is out of such concerns that family court proceedings are usually closed to the public and I think it would be improper to post the entirety of the affidavit for the same reason. If the parents choose to post a non-redacted version, they can do it themselves (we left in their address because they have given that information out in several interviews, asking for donations to their defense fund),
More to the point, we also blacked out the parts unrelated to Oath Keepers and to gun ownership because my focus in this case is on the illegitimate listing of a father’s political affiliations and his gun ownership as a reason to take his daughter away from him and also away from her mother. That the Court relied on an affidavit that explicitly lists the father’s association with Oath Keepers to issue that order makes it important to all ten thousand dues paying members of Oath Keepers (many of them current serving police and military), and also makes it important to the estimated thirty thousand people (and growing) who have “associated” with Oath Keepers in the past, or still do, on several social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, on our email alert list, in the comments section of our main site, in our free state forums, or in person at our many meetings across the country, and the many additional tens of thousands who have “associated” with us at various rallies, summits, and forums across the nation.
This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation. And that is why we must stand firm, now.
They (govt) had license to steal kid(s), keep them away from parents, and drag the separation along for months or years while the tedious legal process is used to undo the damages the state has done to the family.
You and I have voted in idiots that allow this abuse.
If your ballot has JUDGE RETENTION VOTES — vote every one of them out of office. NOW, DO IT NOW.
Apparently, the redacted paragraphs that we are not supposed to see, have extremely damaging and serious allegations.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/baby-snatching-its-hilarious-w
My personal opinion is that it’s better to stay “under the radar”.
The issue is that CPS went after Oath Keepers, the cops let 'em, and the judge didn't question the honesty of the affidavit regarding the description of the Oath Keepers. That would call into question the honesty of the entire affidavit, and exposes a political motive in CPS action.
No, I suspect that if those paragraphs were not redacted, there wouldn’t be a convenient platform for “OH NOEZ, CONSPIWACY!!!”
Your issue is with the police and judge over the referrence to Oath Keepers.
NOT the issue of the childs safety. It seems to me the Lazy Judge and CPS people didn’t want to take the time to do this by the Law.
But wait, there is more: (From back in 2004).
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/20...news/48093.htm
HAMPTON - A Winnacunnet High School student from Seabrook was arrested last week following a report that he had a weapon and threatened “a Columbine-type crime” at the high school.
Jonathan Irish, 17, an incoming senior at WHS, was taken into custody by North Hampton police Thursday, after it was reported to them the young man was in possession of a weapon.
Irish allegedly told a friend from North Hampton he was going to bring guns to the school, “hide them, and kill anybody he wants to,” according to a source close to the investigation about what he termed the “Columbine-type” situation.
The friend reported Irish’s comments to North Hampton police, who took Irish into custody. He was subsequently charged with criminal threatening. A search warrant was executed at the young man’s Seabrook home, but police did not immediately say whether any weapons were found at Irish’s home.
Irish was arraigned on the charge Friday morning in Hampton District Court, and is being held at Rockingham County House of Correction without bail.
In court, Judge Francis Frasier ordered Irish held pending a psychiatric evaluation to determine his mental state.
Responding to the arrest, the administration at Winnacunnet High School determined that Irish should not be allowed to return to Winnacunnet this school year.
In a letter sent to parents Friday, WHS Principal Ruth Leveille wrote, in part: “It was reported to police that the student was in possession of a weapon. Resulting from these facts the student will not be returning to Winnacunnet High School.”
From 2005:
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2005news/hampton/07292005/police_l/55221.htm
July 25
# Jonathon Irish, 18, was charged with operating after suspension, false registration/inspection sticker and unregistered motor vehicle, after a motor-vehicle stop on Lafayette Road at 10:50 a.m.
From 2007
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/news/hampton/02022007/announcements-h-coplogs0202.html
#
# Jonathan Irish, 20, was charged with possession of a controlled drug, possession of a concealed weapon, and violation of bail.
True. Which is why I think the govt strategy of connecting "bad dudes" with "Oath Keepers" or "Tea Parties" or "FR" looks very effective.
The heroes at the Alamo would've been branded as racists and drunk drivers by the modern version of the Santa Anna govt and media today.
You wanted to talk about a different subject than he was raising, so you (purposedly?)missed his point by a mile.
From 2005
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2005news/hampton/03252005/news/71931.htm
SEABROOK - A Seabrook teenager is scheduled for a probable cause hearing on April 4 after being charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl.
Jonathan Irish, 18, of 620 Lafayette Road, is being held at Rockingham County Jail without bail pending a psychological evaluation. He was arraigned Tuesday in Hampton District Court and is scheduled for a probable cause hearing at the court on April 4 at 11 a.m.
Police arrested Irish on Monday after going to his house for alleged illegal drug activity, according to an affidavit filed with the court by Seabrook Prosecutor Scott Mendes.
Irish allegedly told Sgt. Dana Bedell and Officer Frank Brown that two juvenile females in the apartment were doing drugs. The officers interviewed the girls, smelling the odor of burned marijuana on them, according to Mendes. 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. Police took her into protective custody.
The other girl, who was 17, was released.
Irish said he knew how old the girl was, according to court records.
The rest of the affidavit is extremely important. I guess it isn’t important to people with an agenda, but it is important to the rest of us.
Oh, OK, it's all right then, I forgot for a moment that there are a group in America that are above the law, the end justifies the means, and good intentions are a perfect excuse for collateral damage and false witness.
We're all susceptible. And we're all targets.
My point was simple: Stay away from Alex Jones at all costs. He's the enemy within. For the Oath Keepers to use his disgraced name in this press release is beyond foolish. It does great harm to their cause as well as ours.
There are other threads that consider the broad question of whether these a parents are fit parents.
In the specific consideration of whether being a member of Oath Keepers is a valid reason for the Court to remove the children from the home, the rest of the affidavit is irrelevant. .
Exactly, if CPS, cops and the judge had left Oath Keepers completely out of reference in the case I'd have no comment on Mr. Irish or the case.
It's hard to tell whether he's doing George Noory, or Phil Hendrie or a combination of both!
But there has to be at least one person always at the very edge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.