Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital(Baby Returned)

reply to post by getreadyalready


If, in fact, they have other children and they were not taken, along with the as yet unknown allegations that were severe enough to warrant taking the baby from the parents, with alleged ties to oathkeepers, it tends to lean toward this being done to provoke the oathkeepers more than to protect the newborn.

Someone had to report the neglect and abuse... who and why?

Someone had to discover the father's loose ties to oathkeepers, so was he under surveillance by federal authorities, who used the state laws to take the newborn to provoke a violent response?

This story has many unknowns, but the possibilities are narrowing, it will be interesting to see how they back out of this one.

reply to post by ericsnow


OK, I read the infowars report and the attached motion.

1. Law enforcement has been involved with this family for 21 months! Even before the woman was pregnant, and 2 other neglect petitions are pending.

2. The family has a history of violence and is "well known" to the hospital staff and law enforcement.

3. The man has an outstanding weapons charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.

4. The man made more recent purchases of firearms with an outstanding charge pending.

5. Epsom Police Department is "very, very familiar" with the family and "have responded to multiple calls which involved Mr. Irish and firearms."

Also, he is associated with the "Son's of Liberty Riders" which I made the mistake of joining their website myself. They are very active and a little radical, and quite different than the Oathkeepers.

The Oathkeepers are the utmost definition of Patriots. They are already in Public Service, and they only formed to make their intentions known should the government ever ask them to take unconstitutional actions against citizens of the U.S. They are not a militia. However, SOLR is definitely a militia, and a little bit radical one as well. They scare me too!

If I were a hospital staff or LEO, and I was familiar with a known violent man, and I was familiar with the pending cases of child neglect, and I was familiar with the recent gun charges, and the affiliation with SOLR, and I got new information that he had just bought more weapons, and I got a call from the hospital with a concern for the well-being of a newborn, I would certainly take similar action.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ericsnow

 

If I were a hospital staff or LEO, and I was familiar with a known violent man, and I was familiar with the pending cases of child neglect, and I was familiar with the recent gun charges, and the affiliation with SOLR, and I got new information that he had just bought more weapons, and I got a call from the hospital with a concern for the well-being of a newborn, I would certainly take similar action.

Interesting info you have posted, and I can see why you would do it... "IF"

But why would you take these actions and leave other children in the custody of these parents?

I wonder, are the other children even with their parents or not now?

Still, citing the oathkeepers among the threats to the newborn is over the top, no?

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Cmon... someone needs to pull a background check on this guy and see what his record is. We need information!

This guy needs to summarize his "issues" so we have an idea if this is really about "Oathkeepers" and Firearms or if there is truly neglect / abuse issues with children.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade
Good questions on your last post.

We must remember that they went into Waco to 'save' the children. They posted pictures of the burned guns that constituted David Koresh's 'arsenal', but they didn't wave the photos of the burned corpses of the children.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Citing the Oathkeepers is definitly over the top, and was probably the fatal error that will get this family all the money and attorneys they need to fight the whole thing.

If they had left off the militia's completely, or if they had cited the SOLR or some other more radical group then I wouldn't have seen any harm in it, but citing the Oathkeeper's was pretty stupid.

IMHO, I think this was a small department, and some legal aid or paralegal drew up the petition and thought the militia group made it sound more scary. It wasn't material to the case, and it wasn't very accurate, and it never should have gotten on there, but it did, and now the department is screwed! The actions were probably warranted, the family is probably a troublesome family, and the hospital and LEO were probably taking appropriate actions, but some stupid lawyer's aid put one too many lines on the form and opened up a whole can of worms that will cost them miserably!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I would be VERY interested in why he has been charged with a concealed carry violation in a state that has legal concealed carry without permit and is an open carry state. Regardless of this mans past dealings with law enforcement it seems he is still able to legally purchase weapons so his 'sheet' must not involve any violations of spousal abuse under the Lautenberg Act. If he had, he would be precluded from purchase under NICS.
There are more discrepancies with the States reporting of the reasons of this kidnaping by the State of New Hampshire than Mr. Irish's account as far as I can see!

Zindo

Oh, I would also like to say that this is beginning to sound like what's happening in Vermont and southern Maine. The 'Nanny Staters' of Massachusetts who have moved north to get away from the taxation they themselves have caused in Mass. and have caused all kinds of problems with the natives. It's sounding more and more like some kind of personal vendetta by usurpers against a native.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I agree, we would need a LOT more details.

You know how the laws are written. It is legal to carry a weapon, until you get into some type of situation where you might need it, then it becomes illegal. In other words, maybe he got into a fight and was charged with assault or something. In that instance, it would be illegal to conceal the weapon during commission of a crime.

The laws are written in favor of the craftiest attorneys. Fortunately for those with some money, the craftiest attorneys are available for hire, and the governments don't pay too well. In most cases you can buy an attorney that is better than the prosecutor.

For this family, the opposite was probably true and they were probably dealing with "legal aid"........until now!! The stupid addition of the line naming affiliation with the Oathkeepers has now afforded this family top notch legal counsel from across the nation! Soon, they will have their baby back, an apology, and a decent settlement from the county and the hospital. In addition, the police will now treat them with kid's gloves, and even if there are real problems there, the police will be slow to react.

Fail - Fail - Fail. I think everything went wrong in this case.

So far we have allegations, and a pending court order on the custody of the other children.

We don't know what the allegations are, or whether the 21 month case was a witch-hunt or based on legitimate concerns.

People can be judged by the company they keep, and we all have seen how people with any ties to fringe groups can be targeted, have their homes raided, children taken, weapons seized, be jailed, and prosecuted on trumped up charges all aimed to disrupt the organization(s) they may have ties to.

Being named a radical, or domestic terrorist etc. ... anything that can place one on any of the government watch lists these days can ultimately lead to unjust and unfair persecutions.

It is a very grey area here, and the line between persecution and prosecution very thin.

There is a lot we don't know, and likely will never know here.

Maybe these parents are scumbags, and maybe, just maybe they are victims of an agenda.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


I disagree. Maybe you haven't spent a lot of time around white-trashy type folks, but I certainly have.

The fact that both law enforcement and hospital staff are familiar with the family is pretty good evidence that they are indeed trashy. The fact that law enforcement has been "called out" to their residence multiple times, and those times involved guns is more evidence as to the volatility of the situation. "Called out" indicates that the wife/fiancee or the friends and neighbors were in fear of their safety and REQUESTED law enforcement to come help!

This is one of those situations that is far too common. Some of my own family is guilty of this, and I have been around when law enforcement had to intervene. I have seen people's kids taken away for good reasons, and I was appalled when they were returned shortly thereafter. I have seen extended family members battered and bruised from an alcholic man, and then kick and fight the cops when they arrest him!

This is one of those situations that we are mad when the police act too quickly, and we are mad when they don't act quickly enough and a kid or a woman gets hurt or killed. The fact that Oathkeepers was mentioned is a very minor and unfortunate part of the whole thing. If it were not for that part, I believe we would be applauding the police for their efforts, or we would be criticizing them shortly when the baby returns to the hospital for its first ER visit.

HERE IS THE AFFIDAVIT

Originally posted by ericsnow
oathkeepers.org...

UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).

But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody.

Membership in an organization doesn't qualify you for having your newborn removed from your care -- they let members of religious sects that believe in prayer over medicine go home with THEIR babies. I do know of cases where the parents were not allowed to take the child home (and I do wonder about the report of uniformed people there at the intervention) -- the report by Oathkeepers indicates that there were criminal charges filed against Mr. Irish at one time (perhaps googling crime reports and incidents in the area would turn up more clues.)

If he's known to be abusive to his wife (multiple reports of domestic violence) AND he owns guns AND there was a problem with another child (requiring that child to be removed from his presence for the child's safety) OR his wife was implicated in abuse or neglectful death of a previous child, that would equal a "please don't send the baby home with these people" flag.

Anyone up to doing a bit of checking local police records for him and his wife?

reply to post by ericsnow


Inconstancy number one....his fiance's name...

and here is a link to Ending the Violence that is mentioned endingtheviolence.us...


I have to admit I still don't get why the Oath Keepers were mentioned...maybe someone was misinformed with who they were?

Originally posted by ericsnow
HERE IS THE AFFIDAVIT

edit on 8-10-2010 by ericsnow because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2010 by ericsnow because: (no reason given)

Aha. That sort of says it all.

Irish was involved in some sort of violent confrontation(s) and was ordered (instead of prison) to go to a violence prevention program.

He didn't go.

The wife has a history of child neglect and the county agency has been at their home multiple times. I wonder if the other kids are in the care of a grandparent now.

Yeah, I can see why they'd remove a newborn. If their kids have been starved/beaten (or worse), I really don't want a fragile little newborn girl going home with these people.

Once in a while our government services are rendered for good and decent purposes. That may be the case here so let's not be so quick to condemn CPS about this case.
Yes, they have screwed up many, many times before but that does not preclude the possibility that they responded correctly to this situation.
Denying ignorance is only possible when the facts are in.
Patience friends, we'll get the facts eventually.

Originally posted by Byrd
I really don't want a fragile little newborn girl going home with these people.

I present this with the utmost respect.
But this shouldn't be about what
"YOU" want. This should be about
what the parents want.

Regardless, we still do not have the whole
story, just because somebody is on
probation are they excluded from
procreation? I don't think so.
We all make mistakes, learn
from them and move on.
As far as not attending
this thingy you mentioned.
Have you ever thought just
maybe he was wrongly convicted?
It happens all the time.

If I was found guilty of something
and I knew I was innocent,
I wouldn't go either.

As far as them dropping the label
"Oathkeeper" on the affidavit. I
believe this was done intentional
to stereotype this man in the
future. Just like Nazi's labeled
the Jews. Let's give this story
time to play itself out before
we wrongfully convict him and
his wife of another offense
shall we?

reply to post by ericsnow


Wow that was a long time to hold that heart rate up, this story can kind of get you mad at first.
So reading the affidavit, seems like there are priors, violent priors and a failure to complete instructional courses?
I believe rather than take the baby I would have taken the man!
Sounds like a bad situation all around and someone playing off of OK association to gain some kind of position of status.
Sure its bad that the baby was taken, very sad very bad.
BUT Mr Fistybang has a lot of responsibility unmet here, dont you think?

Well at this point to me this looks like a case of CPS taking a newborn for valid reasons, based on history of the couple. And a plea to a loosely distant social group from the father as a last resort when the family was already in deep trouble. But the kicker is why CPS would even need to put anything about OK in there at all- when they had the couple on all those other charges. It's just plain stupid.

If this was happening to a squeaky clean couple with no prior history, and all the charge was that the guy had a loose association with OK, then yeah...Holy crap should have ensued. But that is just not the case here. It still doesn't give the right for CPS to label OK as militia, and I hope they sue.

The moral of the story is that if you are going to be involved in activism of any kind- you will be tracked and watched by Big Brother. And they will define you into history as what they need you to be to accomplish their objectives. 9/11 truthers are terrorists. Oathkeepers are malicious militia.

That's what you work hard and pay them taxes for. And the government has been doing it since day 1 to all kinds of social, anti-war, and other groups.

It's objectives and expendable assets. Ant hills and worker bees. No love.