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.
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.
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.