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.
There appears to be a serious problem with that image. I saw it on another forum and reposted it here, but here and elsewhere people are questioning whether it was a deliberately misleading conflation of two or more separate court documents. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, and I know nothing about the website where the image was hosted.
The image is a combination of two Documents. It may have been done innocently thinking that since the first document ended with #6 the item #7 was part of it. Whatever the motivation, the items are part of two documents as shown by the exhibits at the Oath Keeper’s site.
Also check out that each bullet point ends in a semicolon except for point 6 which ends in a period indicating it is the end of the list. For 7 to be in original, 6 should end with a semicolon.
Interesting. It says the DOB of the child is 11/6/10?
The child was born next month?
I know that there were some Oath keepers that threatened to harm the police in Lower Michigan. Instead they were arrested because of some muslims viewed that they were going to cause death and destruction to them because of their religoius views. SO CPS is called and takes away a child because of his involvement in Oath Keepers. CPS can take a child away if there is a complaint, but there has to be an investigation to see if there is truly a problem. I think there is something more going on than what is being reported. If the cops dislike the guy that is no justification either. We have a lady in the neighborhood that all the cops like a lot. Another cop was the blight officer too, the lazy SOB never did anything as the blight officer. I filed a formal complaint against the blight officer for failure to perform his job. Yes, I am not to well liked by the cops in my area, because that left them one cop short, because the blight officer resigned as blight officer and also as a police officer.. All i did was make a complaint about the blight officer not having the backbone to do his job. He wanted to be a friend to the people in the city. The same goes for the chief of police, he wants to be the people’s friend. Like I reported to the city manager and the Mayor, the city desires a blight officer not another frienmd of the people.
I honestly beleive there is more to this case than what is being reported. I have a neighbor whom has a Personal Protective Order against him by his ex, and I refuse to have anything to do with hime. His children are a piece of work, and they continually come to my house asking for food, tools and so forth. I told them to leave me alone. They refused and a neighbor called to complain on my behalf when the little brats started to steal items from the yard. So the police stepped on the guy and he got mad at me that his children were in trouble with the law because it was my fault that his children got in trouble. The guy came at me when he was drunk, and I called the police and when the police showed up he was striving to beat up an antique vehicle with a sledge hammer.
Buckhead, is that you? ;)
Whatever other shortcomings this man may have, the central point is that the government is listing his association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for forcibly taking his newborn daughter away from him.
THAT is what's important about this story.
I have seen this kind of nonsense before, in Montgomery County, NY. The DCFS there was stealing babies from poor parents (the kind who can’t afford a lawyer) and adopting them out to the friends and family of DCFS staff.
As an associate member of Oath Keepers, I am really frightened that the NH DCFS used Oath Keepers as a reason to take the child. Which is obviously the idea; to make people like me run screaming away from Oath Keepers. I ain’t runnin’.
I just wonder what all the other reasons were. It would make a difference to me.
I don’t think membership in Oath Keepers or weapon ownership should be even listed as a reason to take someone’s baby.
But suppose the other statements mentioned child abuse convictions, or meth addiction, or psychiatric issues?
The judge could have ordered the baby removed, not for the Oath Keepers or weapons ownership, but for those or similar reasons.
So I wish we could know so I could get a better handle on it.
Sometimes Alex Jones has good articles on his site.
If he’s that bad, he should be in jail, or the mother
should be kept isolated from him. Aren’t there shelters
for that sort of thing? Why take the baby from the mother?
Others have said this much better than I have here.
something of the sort just occurred to me too.
I do not suspect anything other than the machinations and political (anti father) agenda of the feminazis and NOW gang.
I’ve seen it in action in my own personal life. My hubby’s ex wife who is a vindictive, liberal, anti father CPS worker.
She actually placed a phoney abuse report against us while the children were at our house. Took me SIX MONTHS to get it overturned.
It does not matter if you THINK they are skanky. The ONLY thing that matters at this point is the use of an affiliation with a group to use against someone.
There is also a difference between an Oath Keeper and a Supporter. I am a supporter, I have never been in Law Enforcement or the Military, so I have never taken the oath.
My brother on the other hand is an actual Oath Keeper have been both in the military and in law enforcement.
In reading about this case, I can’t see how this man can be an Oath Keeper, it says he is disabled, and is blind in one eye from a childhood accident, there has never been mention of him being military or law enforcement.
A site he built with the blood money he made defecating on the families of 9/11 victims.
Jones is a vile piece of waste.
Bingo. It's a shame that so many here just can't quite seem to see the forest except for the trees obscuring their vision. While I'm currently not a member of Oath Keepers that is likely to be changing soon.
FYI. I read somewhere in the last day or two that Irish was NOT a member of OK but rather a supporter who had made a single post on their site at some point in time in the past. This was supposedly attributed to the owner of the OK web site,
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.