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

Did anyone look up the facebook page mentioned in the video? After scrolling to the bottom of the results page their was a link to their story under "web results" that linked to North East White Pride. Just curious,as to what Oathkeepers has to do with white supremacy. I am an Oathkeeper and "We find these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". That said, I believe it a terrible thing that the TPTB would prey on maternity wards to further their intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

reply to post by nenothtu


My ex used his connections with CPS to try and circumvent the judge's ruling which terminated his visitation rights. He was (and still is) a government employee and was on first name basis with most of the government workers. So the day after his visitation rights were terminated, a CPS worker showed up at my door to seize my daughter and give her to him.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by ericsnow
When the mother and father were given visitation due to public pressure, and the baby arrived she was lethargic... they decided to change the baby's diaper since that will usually rouse the child... when the diaper came off their was blood all over her vaginal area.

"they decided to change the baby's diaper since that will usually rouse the child" ....
I've had 3 kids of my own and cared for dozens more, and I can tell you you don't change a nappy to rouse a child.
That's a really weird statement to make, so weird it reads like an excuse for changing it.
If they had to make up an excuse to change it, what was the real reason?
It can't have needed changing or they would have said that.

When my daughter was an infant, and I would change her diaper, she would cry and fuss about it. She could be sleeping and get upset over having her diaper changed. So yes, it is possible to rouse a child by changing the diaper.

Originally posted by justadood
so,the newest meme being perpetuated by the Alex Jones bots is they had 'the wrong john irish'

i have seen no actual evidence to confirm this.

anyone?

(Oh, and a quote from alex jones isnt evidence.

Someone on this thread already discovered a small mixup with the father's name.

The father is a member of "Sons of Liberty Riders" which is much more radical than Oathkeepers. SOLR are technically still not a militia, but they are quite a bit more aggressive than OK. SOLR lists a John Irish as a member, and on his page (which I linked to earlier) there are comments and good wishes for the situation, so it appeared to be the same John Irish.

Someone on ATS pointed out that the age was wrong. He claims to have been a rider for 35 years, so he can't be the same John Irish, and it turns out he is the father of John Irish.

That has nothing to do with the assault and violence charges leveled against Taylor's boyfriend, our John Irish. Those charges are a direct result of her kids being hit and the neighbors calling the police, and Taylor herself calling the police when he "choked and hit" her.

There is another confusing character. Taylors "husband." John Irish is not her husband, but he is the father of this latest baby. Taylor is still married to the father of the other two children that have been taken away from her. The husband is has refused to sign divorce papers for the past 2 years, so they are technically still married, even though she lives with Irish.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The SOLR is "John" Irish, and the son is "Jon" or Jonanthan" Irish. I can see how easy that mistake is to make to confuse folks, and I believe this is one of those situations that's hard to keep track of without a scorecard.

The ex thrown into the mix lives somewhere in the same state as this couple, according to the reports, but the guy posting on another board claiming to be the "ex" lived in Missouri or somewhere out towards the Midwest. Either he's a shill, or the the whole thing is so hard to follow that even DCYF can't get it right, and I think they HAVE the scorecard!

Either way, I have to wonder if Jonathan Irish might not be getting credit for other folks' troubles. If that's so, it ain't right, since I'm sure he's likely got troubles enough of his own. All I'm saying is that they might not be of the magnitude as what would appear at first blush.

i have to say, the way CPS backed off of this only seems to affirm the theory that it was a foolish error to include the Oath Keepers in the affidavit.

This case would have stuck if they hadn't included that reference, i bet.

It would be interesting to find out if the person who decided to include the Oath Keepers in the affidavit still has a job...
---

Good news is: here's a new vid. Bad news is: it was recorded on 10/14.

Hopefully these folks will follow up soon.