4um: Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
National News
See other National News Articles
Title: Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 16, 2010
Author: Ridley
Post Date: 2010-10-16 22:25:38 by RidleyReport
Keywords: None
Views: 311
Comments: 35

From RidleyReport.com
After using Oath Keepers affiliation as one excuse for taking a baby, New Hampshire's child protective division is now the target of a planned lawsuit. Oath Keepers is a group of current/former military/police who pledge they won't follow unconstitutional orders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwxLUUkZnU4
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: RidleyReport (#0)
Excellent.
However, foregone conclusion, the "system" protects itself, so the keepers lose.

Cynicom posted on 2010-10-16 22:30:35 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
Excellent.
However, foregone conclusion, the "system" protects itself, so the keepers lose.

Yes and no. I can see why they filed suit - it is a shot across the bow. Government agencies, particularly Child Stealing Departments, do not like the glare of the public spotlight. People tend to get a mite pissed off over the Child Stealing Devil's behavior.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Original_Intent posted on 2010-10-16 22:46:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: Original_Intent (#2)
Yes and no. I can see why they filed suit - it is a shot across the bow. Government agencies, particularly Child Stealing Departments, do not like the glare of the public spotlight. People tend to get a mite pissed off over the Child Stealing Devil's behavior.

The system always protects itself.

Cynicom posted on 2010-10-16 22:53:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
The system always protects itself.

Oh, I agree, but it can make them behave a little better. The Children Services Division in Oregon here had to change their name because of the scandals and bad odor, but otherwise you are right.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Original_Intent posted on 2010-10-16 23:00:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: Original_Intent (#4)
I once thwarted a county Judge and his court minions in a child custody case.
He was so incensed that he told the lawyer representing my client that if he ever came into his courtroom again, with me as a consultant, he would lose, no matter what.
The LIAR (lawyer) was so cowed he would not report the Judge to the ethics board. We parted company.
If the lawyers are so cowed by the court, there is no justice.

Cynicom posted on 2010-10-16 23:08:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
The LIAR (lawyer) was so cowed he would not report the Judge to the ethics board. We parted company.
If the lawyers are so cowed by the court, there is no justice.

The level of corruption is so bad that the best is to simply avoid courts if at all possible.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Original_Intent posted on 2010-10-16 23:23:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: RidleyReport (#0)
I am personally very pleased how quickly Steward Rhodes was able to put together a team of OathKeeper professionals to deal with this baby issue. Let's sick that team on the ADL and SPLC. Since when is a militia a bad thing, anyway. Militia... where have I read that term before.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In order for a free State to be secure, a group of citizens, not part of the regular army, need to train and become proficient like soldiers. Therefore, the people's right to own and carry weapons shall not be violated.
~~~~~~~
Best Movie Monologue
OneDollarDVDProject.com

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 1:00:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: wakeup (#7) (Edited)
I am personally very pleased how quickly Steward Rhodes was able to put together a team of OathKeeper professionals to deal with this baby issue.

You missed the boat, pal. Rhodes is only interested in the claim within an affidavit that is legally signed by a judge that uses or otherwise politicizes the good name of the Oath Keepers as a reason or as substantial proof for any reason (outside the solid foundation of the group) which potentially cools first amendment rights, not just for the Oath Keepers but also any political group.

Since when is a militia a bad thing, anyway. Militia... where have I read that term before.

The Oath Keepers are not in any way associated with militias; perhaps individual members are but that is a moot point.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 1:37:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: buckeroo (#8)
Maybe we'll finally find out why they even used OK as a reason to take the baby. I haven't seen or heard the reason(s) for that yet. Either it was the result of stupidity or there is a more sinister reason for it.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 7:04:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: PSUSA (#9) (Edited)
Maybe we'll finally find out why they even used OK as a reason to take the baby. I haven't seen or heard the reason(s) for that yet. Either it was the result of stupidity or there is a more sinister reason for it.

Irish has a long list of known violent issues. Taylor has already given up two other children to CPS. So both are well known by local administrative and law enforcement agencies. As an opinion, the CPS just threw the book at Irish to ensure custodial characterization about Cheyenne. Here is the affidavit:

Irish Court Order and Affidavit
The bottom line, the CPS got their "wires" crossed about the Oath Keepers. They just used every possible reason to take custody of the child.

"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 7:54:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: buckeroo (#10) (Edited)
Here is the affidavit:

Redacted all to hell. It's useless. I don't like it when people hide relevant information. It makes me ask "why?".
Interesting video. It gives a possible reason how OK came to be mentioned in the affidavit. It's a reason that makes sense. However, they did not exercise due diligence in verifying this information. They just took it at face value and ran with it. That was a mistake in one persons judgment, and not sinister in any way, imo.
And now the son is threatening the father.
White trash? Sounds like it to me.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 8:41:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#12. To: PSUSA (#11)
White trash?

Both Irish AND Taylor are the lowest common denominator of human scum. Imagine a woman giving up her two children for a violent punk running a muck and still has a third child from the same social-path/maniac; it makes you wonder about these two; I wager they vote, too.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 8:52:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#13. To: buckeroo (#8)
Surely an Oathkeeper in need was the primary cause to action but, shortly the focus went to protecting the reputation of the organization once it was discovered Irish was dirty.
~~~~~~~
Best Movie Monologue
OneDollarDVDProject.com

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 9:02:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#14. To: RidleyReport (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Eric Stratton posted on 2010-10-17 9:02:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#15. To: wakeup, PSUSA, RidleyReport (#13)
See post#9,10,11 & 12 ....
Dave Ridley is an outstanding reporter. I wish we had a few more like this true investigative reporter.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:11:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
I wish we had a few more like this true investigative reporter.

Yeah. He did well on this one. He went right to the source of info he was looking for; the father.
If everyone else involved had gone directly to the source(s) and simply verified the info provided, this never would have become an issue.
The only group that benefits from all this crap is OK. They're milking it for all it's worth.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 9:21:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#17. To: PSUSA (#9)

~~~~~~~
Best Movie Monologue
OneDollarDVDProject.com

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 9:27:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#18. To: PSUSA, RidleyReport, Artisian, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, wakeup (#16)
If everyone else involved had gone directly to the source(s) and simply verified the info provided, this never would have become an issue.

I won't mention any names but some initials come to mind like: Artisian, FormerLurker and Original_Intent.

The only group that benefits from all this crap is OK. They're milking it for all it's worth.

Have you ever read the the Extremist Lexicon by the US Department of Homeland Security - circa 2009? Rhodes has every right to ensure his group of Oath Keepers are not included.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:34:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#19. To: buckeroo (#18) (Edited)
Artisian, FormerLurker

Both Good Guys afaiac. OI is a pseudo-intellectual punk. Ever hear him admit "I don't know" or "I was wrong" to anything? I haven't seen it. He always has an answer. And when he doesn't, he distracts.
Rhodes has every right to ensure his group of Oath Keepers are not included.
True. But if it was included due to error, and it was an error to call them a militia because they failed to verify that, then OK wasn't harmed intentionally, from what I've seen so far. It's the militias themselves that have good reason to be alarmed, unless this reflects a bias on the part of whoever filled out these forms (or ordered that info to be included on these forms) and was not the result of official policy.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 9:44:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#20. To: PSUSA (#19)
But if it was included due to error, and it was an error to call them a militia because they failed to verify that, then OK wasn't harmed intentionally, from what I've seen so far.

Beyond any affiliation with militias, are you aware that the Extremist Lexicon poses (in OFFICIAL US government documented fashion) a method of targeting terrorist organizations? Think about what you said when you consider that many active duty military and police and veterans working for government at various levels can be eliminated from their own livelihood by the simple DOD refusal to renew or even potentially revoke active security clearances which are required to do their own day-to-day jobs.

The Oath Keepers are an outstanding organization designed to do nothing more than support an already fragile US Constitution torn to smithereens by politicians and power zealots. Surely you don't want people taking an oath and then become afraid of the same, do you?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:53:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#21. To: buckeroo (#20)
The Oath Keepers are an outstanding organization designed to do nothing more than support an already fragile US Constitution torn to smithereens by politicians and power zealots. Surely you don't want people taking an oath and then become afraid of the same, do you?

The .mil already took their oaths. I don't know what oaths LEO take, or if they take any at all. Anyone can take an oath at any time. No .org is needed.
I see no need to give any online .org their names and addresses to be a "member", and in order to take an oath. It imo does no good, and has the potential to do a lot of harm, when they potentially place themselves on the PTB radar.
That's just my opinion. I don't like the idea of giving out to anyone my personal info when they have no business knowing that info. You don't know what they will do with that info.
If you take an oath telling the PTB to fuck off and die if they get too big for their britches, then it's wise to maintain privacy, and just OBEY the oath. It's important to obey it. It isnt important to blow a trumpet heralding that the oath was taken. Taking an oath does not nullify a persons right to privacy.
But how many honor their oaths? Taking an oath publicly doesn't mean it will be honored when real pressure is applied to violate it.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 10:07:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#22. To: PSUSA (#21)
But how many honor their oaths?

That's why I posted Rhodes 2009 video in post#20, above. The Oath Keepers are a result of the government response in Katrina and other calamities wherein folks taking an oath don't really understand that same oath.
You should review Rhodes' video.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 10:14:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#23. To: buckeroo (#22)
folks taking an oath don't really understand that same oath.

Then they must be really dense, if they can't understand a plainly worded oath.
IMO they just see taking an oath as a mere formality, and is to be forgotten just as soon as they lower their right hands.
I'll check out that vid, but I bet it's nothing but feel-good fluff.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 10:32:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#24. To: buckeroo (#20)
Right off the bat I have a problem. The music is manipulative and has nothing to do with the subject. So are the images.
How did they honor their oaths to the Constitution? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The marine at 3:15: marines and soldiers do not have the "right" (his word, not mine)to refuse to obey an unlawful order. They have an obligation to disobey it. There is a big difference between having a right to do something, and an obligation to do something.
usmilitary.about.com/cs/m...ylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.
When it comes to FEMA and Katrina, what does that have to do with OK? Could they have stopped FEMAs crap? Doubtful. The only way to stop them is to tell them to ESAD and then do what you want; and then kill them if they interfere further. I bet they weren't willing to do that.
None of this means that OK is the cure for what ails us. WE are the cure. Not some JBTs that belong to an .org that tells us what they won't do. We need to know what they WILL do, and if they are not walking the walk, right now, then they won't do it later.
"It wont be the same way next time"? Sure it wont. Words don't mean shit. Actions mean everything. Too many are satisfied with words, so long as they agree with the words.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 11:29:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#25. To: buckeroo, PSUSA, RidleyReport, Artisian, Original_Intent, wakeup (#18)
I won't mention any names but some initials come to mind like: Artisian, FormerLurker and Original_Intent.

Hey scumbag, where did I or anyone else say that Irish was a saint, or that DCYF had no valid allegations against him?
I said DCYF had either made a grevious error by including Oath Keepers on the affifidavit, or that it was a not so innocent inclusion meant to sully their reputation.
Either way, the state screwed up.
For you to drag MY name around the mud along with the names of others, shows just what sort of agenda YOU have here on this forum.
Trying to grandstand for your new idol? Yeah, Ridley's a decent guy and a great reporter, but I don't think he's going to ask you out on a date there buck.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2010-10-17 17:31:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#26. To: PSUSA (#24)
Right off the bat I have a problem...

Ask not what oath keepers can do for you. Ask what you can do...
~~~~~~~
Best Movie Monologue
OneDollarDVDProject.com

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 17:54:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#27. To: wakeup (#26)
I haven't been following the case. Do they know who took the child?

Itistoolate posted on 2010-10-17 18:01:16 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#28. To: wakeup (#26)
I'm getting tired of reading about them. So, I wont read about them anymore. This entire incident is surreal.
.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files

The second dumbest creature on the face of the earth is the one who cannot recognize its enemies. The most stupid of all is the one who will defend and collaborate with the very enemies that are destroying it and its own kind. -Ben Klassen
Jesus Never Existed
PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 18:41:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#29. To: FormerLurker (#25)
I said DCYF had either made a grevious error by including Oath Keepers on the affifidavit, or that it was a not so innocent inclusion meant to sully their reputation.
Either way, the state screwed up.

It genuinely appears, that CPS merely documented what Irish already alluded to on numerous occasions. The state (in this case) made no error at all.
You are wrong.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 22:09:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#30. To: buckeroo (#29) (Edited)
The state mentioned the association to the Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the baby, and called it a militia.
They could have easily avoided the situation by doing a few minutes worth of research on the Internet.
They were wrong, and so are you.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2010-10-18 3:18:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#31. To: PSUSA, buckeroo (#16) (Edited)
buckeroo: I wish we had a few more like this true investigative reporter.
PSUSA: Yeah. He did well on this one. He went right to the source of info he was looking for; the father.

Most likely, then, Jonathan Irish's father paid Ridley's travel expenses. See 3:40 in the video at Post #28 here.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2010-10-18 8:23:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#32. To: FormerLurker (#25)
I said DCYF had either made a grevious error by including Oath Keepers on the affifidavit, or that it was a not so innocent inclusion meant to sully their reputation.

The SPLC has been trying to sully their reputation and Patriot groups in general. Wouldn't surprise me if they're working through Jonathan Irish's reprehensible father to do that and also to discourage people from moving towards New Hampshire's Free State Project, especially if they have children.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2010-10-18 9:48:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
The state mentioned the association to the Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the baby, and called it a militia.
They could have easily avoided the situation by doing a few minutes worth of research on the Internet.
They were wrong, and so are you.

The claims about the Oath Keepers came from Jonathan Irish, himself. The state only processed the same into an affidavit because of Irish's known past violent behaviour; beyond Irish's well-known past shenanigans; Taylor, his girlfriend, already has a child removed by the state for child neglect.
These two are not worthy of having children. Even OL' PAPA IRISH says so.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-18 18:29:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
Even OL' PAPA IRISH says so

And "OL' PAPA IRISH" himself was convicted of assault on his son, wasn't he?
What sort of father would go public with the sort of crap coming out of the senior Irish's mouth?
Ever think of the possibility that HE'S the one causing all the trouble?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2010-10-18 22:57:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#35. To: FormerLurker (#34)
Ever think of the possibility that HE'S [PAPA IRISH] the one causing all the trouble?

Not at all.
Jonathan Irish, has a violent abusive police record a mile long. And Taylor is neglectful; she already has a child taken away from her for NEGLECT, much less the new baby, Cheyenne.
Nope. As is usual you don't look into the issues other than spouting some kind of smoke-screen. You need to calm down and look into the matters and draw a serious opinion as opposed to just piping off some sort of "fabricated opinion" on the Internet.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
buckeroo posted on 2010-10-18 23:07:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um