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: 314
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#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.

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 1:00:09 ET Reply Untrace 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.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 1:37:04 ET Reply Untrace 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.

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 9:02:20 ET Reply Untrace 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.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:11:23 ET Reply Untrace 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.
.

PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 9:21:49 ET Reply Untrace 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.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:34:07 ET Reply Untrace 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.

FormerLurker posted on 2010-10-17 17:31:26 ET Reply Untrace 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.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 22:09:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 29.
#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.

FormerLurker posted on 2010-10-18 03:18:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um