CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

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.”

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:

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.

>Interesting. It says the DOB of the child is 11/6/10?
>The child was born next month?

This is EXACTLY why I like the military format for dates:
DD MON YR

12 Jul 06
03 Jun 12
08 Oct 08

No confusion as to what you’re talking about.

While I agree with your restrictions in general principle, I recall that a certain professor I once knew shocked his younger (less jaded) students with the statement that the only thing we really knew about a convicted person was that they had been convicted. The way things are going today, it may end up being inevitable to remain unconvicted of some crime if one has any sense of honor or duty.
Even so, the organization may benefit from the adoption of this rule, as far as legitimate members goes.
The being under investigation for abuse part is a more difficult line. Abuse allegations are almost de rigueur in custody battles these days. And it ranges from difficult to impossible, depending on your jurisdiction, to get a “clearance” on a child abuse allegation.

It is not clear that Mr. Irish was a member from what I have read (could be I need to read more or more carefully), but even if he were only associated, this is beyond the pale. CPS should have stuck to his actions, not his politics. Further, even if one were to argue that being a member of the group could lead to an eventual violent conflict (not saying that it would, mind you), it does not follow that it places the child in imminent danger requiring her removal in an ex parte fashion.

“I read the part of the affidadit that was available.

I would suggest the “Oath Keepers” distant themselves from this guy.”

If I were you, I'd rethink that statement. His association with Oath Keepers & possession of firearms, both legal and constitutionally protected rights, were used to determine that his child should be taken, and that argument was accepted by the court. If it was just the abuse allegations, that should have been enough, and there was no reason to include the Oath Keepers and firearms. Do you see the point, now?

Who is next? You? Me? All the folks in the military who wear Oath Keeper patches on their uniforms? The retirees who also remember what oath they swore?

WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.) AKA Old Student

“This man Irish is unemployed - neither a policeman, fireman, or military member - and has abused the married woman he lives with AND her two older children. He assaulted and battered this woman while she was pregnant.

Has it occurred to anyone that this just might be a setup used to tarnish the reputation of the Oathkeepers?”

No, Ma'am. His point is that the CPS people, the cops, and the judge, had no business including the association with Oath Keepers or possession of firearms in the affidavits, or in accepting them in the decision to take the child. NONE! Rights of association and possession of firearms are constitutionally protected. They are not reasons to take a child. If the man is accused of child abuse, that is all that should be in the affidavit, and all that should be mentioned in the court order. That is not what happened here, and Oath Keepers is absolutely right to challenge this. The NRA, GOA, and every other 2nd Amendment group should also be on their case, as well.

“...[Division For Children Youth And Families] a DCYF representative said that under no circumstances would a parent’s membership in any organization be a sole cause for removal...” — from the following website:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/oath_keepers.php#more

John Irish is well known by the local cops in his town. He has been cited in the past for carrying a concealed weapon without the legally required permit. His ‘fiance’ (actually some other man’s wife) has repeatedly complained to the police about abuse by Irish, not only against herself but her children. Her two older children are now living with a foster family.

Did you know that the leading cause of death among young children is murder by their mother’s boyfriend or a stepfather?

I personally feel that no one should be required to have a permit to carry or possess weapons. But this man is abusive to women and children and adding guns into the mixture gives me concern that they could one day end up dead. The State of New Hampshire was being cautious and protective of vulnerable children and I laud them for that action.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out later, though, that someone in the DCYF purposefully put that reference to the Oath Keepers into the affidavit to generate controversy just before an election.

What Irish is known for is not relevant; it's called “hear-say”. Unless it's put on the affidavit, and backed up with evidence. His association with Oath Keepers wound up on the affidavit, and doesn't belong there. Anyone who'd investigated the group even slightly would know that. His possession of firearms likewise, unless he's a convicted felon. I've seen nothing to say he's been convicted of any felony, and if he had been, it should also have been in the affidavit. THEN they might be justified in noting his possession of firearms. Those two things should not have been on the paperwork the court accepted to justify their order to remove his child.

IF he is convicted of child abuse, dude needs to be in jail. No argument there. But the child abuse is the only thing that SHOULD be on the affidavit. Since it wasn't, Oath Keepers should be hammering NH’s CPS, judge, and police. As I said, likewise, the NRA, etc.

Two separate issues. Constitutional rights versus personal actions.

Which “their?” Oath Keepers, Irish, or the state of New Hampshire?

I suspect Oath Keepers, as a group, is seriously PO’ed. That is my reaction, as one of their associates. I am, they should be. From their response, I believe I'm right.

Irish probably doesn't have a pot to pee in, so I doubt he has a lawyer. Otherwise he'd have his lawyer fronting for him.

The judge and such probably better get one, though. I believe the phrase is “deprivation of rights under color of authority.” IIRC, it is a felony.

Irish may be every bit of the scumbag some folks are painting him. If so, they should have dealt with him years ago. But those two charges against him are total BS used as justification for taking a child.

Some of the other threads and various news sites show the paperwork. At least one of them appears to have a mashup of two of the documents combined. Some posters have listed news articles about Irish from as much as a decade ago. Seems to be a bad boy. Also not too bright.

His “girlfriend” is married (apparently) to someone else, as well. The two kids he's accused of abusing are her husband's kids, so would become his step-children, if they actually get married. I think. Not at all clear in the articles I've read.

I've not seen anything about convictions on any of the charges against him, past or current. Lots of “the police know him” and that sort of thing. In New Hampshire, as in other places with lots of small towns, he could be a saint, and still be “known” to the police, or he could be a devil and not be “known,” but neither of those appear to be the case this time.

I know, I've gone and thrown mud all over the nice clean window you had into this situation. Sorry about that.

“...the child abuse is the only thing that SHOULD be on the affidavit. Since it wasn't,..”

It was on the affidavit — Oath Keepers exhibited a heavily redacted version. That right there should be a red flag to anyone watching these events.

Irish has a prior conviction and charges of abuse resulting in two children taken away from his ‘fiance’ and himself ordered to take counseling — WHICH HE IGNORED.

Why he isn't in jail, I don't know. Probably has to do with his ‘fiance’ not wanting to press charges. Some women are just plain stupid.

The Oath Keepers shouldn't be stupid. They should back away from John Irish as if he were radioactive. They've flashed around a heavily redacted version of the affidavit, redactions that recounted the abuse charges.

This smells like a trap and will not go well for the Oath Keepers — I think they've been set up!

I think you mistake defending a right with defending the person. Unless it turns out that the ownership of firearms and association with Oath Keepers was NOT on the affidavits accepted by the court, Oath Keepers definately needs to fight this out. They can and should specify that abuse of the children is a legitimate concern, but constitutionally protected rights are not and cannot be made so.

And if he's ignored a court order, he should be in jail, and then there would NOT be a problem with him abusing the new daughter. Court needs to do its job, properly, and that is that. The Law is the Law. It needs to be followed.

Also, let me reemphasize that CHILD ABUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONLY THING on the affidavit. If it had been, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We wouldn't need to converse, because we both agree that the child abuse is the issue that should have already been dealt with. Oath Keepers wouldn't be involved at all, in that case. I've seen other copies of the affidavit, and Oath Keepers was mentioned, as were his possession of firearms. Mind you, FELONY convictions are the only ones that can legally lose you your 2nd Amendment rights. If his conviction (which I've not seen, but I'll accept your word on) was not for a felony, then they had no business mentioning his possession of firearms, either. What, exactly, was he convicted of? I've not seen that anywhere, and unless it was child abuse, it's not proven, either.

Before I respond to your post I want to let you know how much I respect your opinions and particularly the decency you've exhibited in this exchange.

I agree with you that firearm possession and Oath Keepers shouldn't have been included on the affidavit.

I've maintained that Oath Keepers is being set up — I just didn't know by whom.

The following interview with Grandpa Irish may, and I tentatively say ‘may’, shed some light on why Oath Keepers was included on the affidavit. It's obvious he and his son are at odds and that should be judged objectively while listening to this interview.

“Oath Keeper Baby” Grandad Backs CPS (DCYF) — on FreeKeene.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knFeIyeuSy8&feature=channel

(around the 3:00 to 3:30 point in this interview, Mr. Irish makes some eye-opening statements about his son's “non-association” with Oath Keepers and the son's claims about his behavior in relation to that organization)

This interview sheds some light on how the Oath Keepers were possibly included on the affidavit.

Oath Keepers should press the issue of how John Irish is NOT a dues paying member of their organization nor does he in any way represent their membership or its goals.

Well, let me say, also first, that you've also been respectful, and polite. I think we generally agree, even. We just look at things from slightly different perspectives. I did finally get to watch the video you posted, and then had to go run errands, for several hours.

You're right about the dad and son. Obvious antagonism, and some attempt at fairness even so. Decent reporting and commentary by the blogger. Wish LSM was as careful.

Sounds like the son is trying for help, and knows he doesn't deserve it. In which case, we are both right. Yes, someone is trying to set Oath Keepers up, probably the son, and yes, they need to hammer the state of New Hampshire for accepting the association, tenuous as it is, and his possession of firearms as reasons to take the baby, without contesting that they had the lawful and appropriate need to take the baby due to his abusive nature.

In a way, it's kind of sad that both of us had to comment on the decency of the other. I do remember when that was taken for granted here on FR. I won't say I never get excited and post hastily, but I TRY to behave myself. ;)

Old Student

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.