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.
But that was before the germ theory of disease had been worked out.
Remember, we know more stuff these days so the milk vending question really isn't about "milk", it's about "milk" and all the other things that get sold with it ~ those germs I listed.
They'll kill you, or if not you, any of your babies the Democrats haven't already taught to smoke.
When you guys decide that it's time to roll things back to the 1700s be sure to destroy the microscope so's we can't find out what you're doing to us, OK? Best to go into oblivion and death totally devoid of knowledge.
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:..."
Well I will just accept that the Oath Keepers want to stay tied to this guy.
Do they have an attorney?
Agreed, the redacted portions could claim the guy eats human flesh. I could care less. The fact that someone smeared a group of people politically in this court document, needs to be dealt with.
1) Irish has a lot of problems and there seemed to be some probable cause in play.
2) The mention of Oath Keepers was tangental to the larger issues leading to the baby being taken, but
3) CPS had no business mentioning Oath Keepers, and Oath Keepers is right that it puts a chilling effect on freedom of association.
WTH are you talking about?
Given Irish’s lengthy criminal/police record, and given the rest of the serious allegations in the affidavit, Oath Keepers (to which I also belong) should seek to have their name removed from this affidavit for two reasons.
1. Oath Keepers is not an organization seeking to “take up arms” and should not be painted with a “radical” image. They are seeking to keep politicians and political appointees honest and following the constitution and seek legal means to do so.
2. Oath Keepers does not want bits name in any way associated with Mr. Irish.
Oath Keepers should use every legal means possible, IMHO, to accomplish these goals. IMHO, Oath Keepers should add a stipulation to it’s joining...that an individual has not been convicted of a felony or is not under any current felon investigation. Probably should add any kind if child abuse conviction or investigation as well.
If they successfully clear up the investigation, join then.
additional:
Couple: State took our baby (Oath Keepers)
Concord Monitor | October 9, 2010 | Daniel Barrick
Posted on 10/09/2010 10:37:39 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2604542/posts
Sam, excellent analysis, and really hard to answer questions. I can't give satisfactory answers.
I also can't figure why there isn't about 90% of public employees enrolled in Oath Keepers. What is it about these people that they would rather take orders from the likes of Janet Reno, or Eric Holder, rather than the Constitution it's self? Civilians don't have to shut up like the military, yet nobody will man up.
Excellent, Oath Keepers has been slandered by CPS.
Additionally, Oath Keepers did not solicit Mr Irish to join.
Oath Keepers are entitled to select worthy applicants and should require applicants to be worthy.
Typical Child Protective worker. A bunch of feminazi, male bashing, put-your-kids-on-ADHD meds, and shut the father out of the children’s lives agenda.
Fighting REAL child abuse, that which is found in the HOOD is too dangerous and politically incorrect.
Danger, Stewart Rhodes! You’re being had.
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?
I vote no retention every time I get a ballot—to date ,here in Colorado I’ve never seen a Judge removed that I know of.
I suggest everyone take another look at this document. At the end of each point numbers 1-5 there is a semicolon which indicates the sentence is continuing until we get to number 6 which ends in a period.
Together with the fact the item 7 looks pasted in and item 6 ends the sentence, I would be very skeptical that 7 is in the original.
today’s definition of assault and battery in the feminazi NOW gang domestic violence industry is an extreme glowering at a woman.
DOes anybody have this document PDF
WITHOUT my having to make a scribd account.
A download is loaded with privacy baggage from that amazon entity.
I haven't forgotten what happened in Michigan to a group of so-called violent militia and the judge who threw out the case as baseless. It was an attempt to smear militias.
In this instance I smell a rank situation, just a few weeks before an election, that stinks of politics.
Maybe John Irish is innocent and being used, then again maybe not. But I see this as an attempt to smear the Oathkeepers by using this man, Irish. He doesn't come anywhere near to the quality of people I know are members of that organization.
This kind of story is geared to getting us worked up, folks. I’m not even going to read about it anymore. Maybe the father’s abusive, maybe the family’s dysfunctional, I don’t know, and I don’t trust any journalist to tell me the straight facts.
That said, if I were the judge in this case, I wouldn’t even allow an affidavit in the record that mentioned the father’s assoc with Oath Keepers. It shouldn’t be in there.
For the record, some of the lowest opinions I have EVER had, are of CPS and their ilk. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances should any govt entity be taking someone’s children away.
Why does point 7 appear to have a different font?
Why does point 7 appear to have a different font?
...and alignment....
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.