View Full Version : Oath Keeper's member has newborn taken by .gov after birth...?
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 11:44
Stewart Rhodes was/is a long time monthly contributor to SWAT Magazine, founder of Oath Keepers, and is saying one of their members had their newborn child taken from the parents at the hospital, and that the affidavit for the seizure lists membership in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the kid.
If true WTF?
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).
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 11:50
Another link with affadavit (at least part of it)....
http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/10/08/alert-peaceful-oath-keepers-newborn-baby-seized-at-hospital/
Court ordered to attend "Ending the Violence" lends me to believe there may be more to the story.
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 12:04
Court ordered to attend "Ending the Violence" lends me to believe there may be more to the story.
There likely is but that has nothing to do with Oath Keeper's being listed, too.
Of course it doesn't, but the "multiple calls" responding to his home and a concealed weapons charge may have been the genesis of why they were looking at him.
The Oath Keepers listing probably resulted from overzealous child services worker. Used to see it all the time when my wife worked for the county.
Still, smells funny.
CarlosDJackal
10-08-10, 12:16
And this is why I never thought it was a good idea to put yourself on such a list. Why would anyone provide the big gov any opportunity to put them under a microscope is beyond me. JM2CW.
But I am still waiting for the rest of the story though.
Of course it doesn't, but the "multiple calls" responding to his home and a concealed weapons charge may have been the genesis of why they were looking at him.
The Oath Keepers listing probably resulted from overzealous child services worker. Used to see it all the time when my wife worked for the county.
Still, smells funny.
This. I looked up the workshop referenced in the affidavit, which was "Ending the Violence" with Scott Hampton. You can view it here:
http://www.kdva.org/hampton-workshop.pdf
Based on the firearms-related notes in the affidavit, the nature of the workshop he was ordered to attend, and the fact the DHS is involved, it looks like a case of either domestic violence or repeat cases of domestic disturbance which were construed as domestic violence. Citing "Oath Keepers" is probably just an attempt to add another outlet of violent behavior for the husband and/or wife.
EDIT: To add, the affidavit cites "repeated calls" of police to their home, so I'm assuming it was either frequent husband/wife heated arguments (hence why Oath Keepers didn't post the entire affidavit, to avoid embarrassing the couple), or overly-nosy neighbors making up crap when they found out he was a gun-owning militia member.
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 12:27
And this is why I never thought it was a good idea to put yourself on such a list. Why would anyone provide the big gov any opportunity to put them under a microscope is beyond me. JM2CW.
But I am still waiting for the rest of the story though.
If you own guns you can be put under the microscope as happened to me when 2 ATF agents showed up at my door requesting to see all the firearms I currently owned, and asked for explanations for the ones I bought but no longer own.
This is all VERY dangerous stuff for a government that is supposed to be there to protect our rights.
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 12:30
This. I looked up the workshop referenced in the affidavit, which was "Ending the Violence" with Scott Hampton. You can view it here:
http://www.kdva.org/hampton-workshop.pdf
Based on the firearms-related notes in the affidavit, the nature of the workshop he was ordered to attend, and the fact the DHS is involved, it looks like a case of either domestic violence or repeat cases of domestic disturbance which were construed as domestic violence. Citing "Oath Keepers" is probably just an attempt to add another outlet of violent behavior for the husband and/or wife.
EDIT: To add, the affidavit cites "repeated calls" of police to their home, so I'm assuming it was either frequent husband/wife heated arguments (hence why Oath Keepers didn't post the entire affidavit, to avoid embarrassing the couple), or overly-nosy neighbors making up crap when they found out he was a gun-owning militia member.
Oath Keepers is neither a militia nor violent.
All it is is an organization for people to join to reaffirm their oath they took when joining a public service organization such as LEO's and military members. They neither promote violence, take up arms, or anything else that can be construed as a threat unless you want to believe affirming your oath is now a threat.
Oath Keepers is neither a militia nor violent.
All it is is an organization for people to join to reaffirm their oath they took when joining a public service organization such as LEO's and military members. They neither promote violence, take up arms, or anything else that can be construed as a threat unless you want to believe affirming your oath is now a threat.
"Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers....." are you going to continually step over the fact that there was cause to file the affidavit? It appears, at this point, that the guy has some issues with the police. Enough so that they got Child Services involved. The fact that some dingbat at Child Services put that in the affidavit isn't the issue, or at least it shouldn't be. If the guy is beating the shit out of his wife, I'd like someone to take a look at him too! Please note I said "if". There's just not enough information here to see if they're violating any of his rights.
This is typical over-egging of the pleadings that LE and prosecutors do all the time. It's annoying. If you have the goods then spill them, there's no reason to lie and twist things to make it more inflammatory.
Fair enough, but I did call the potential Child Services worker a "dingbat" ;)
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 12:51
"Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers....." are you going to continually step over the fact that there was cause to file the affidavit? It appears, at this point, that the guy has some issues with the police. Enough so that they got Child Services involved. The fact that some dingbat at Child Services put that in the affidavit isn't the issue, or at least it shouldn't be. If the guy is beating the shit out of his wife, I'd like someone to take a look at him too! Please note I said "if". There's just not enough information here to see if they're violating any of his rights.
Well I guess we better close this thread up because the gov using membership in a pro-Constitution organization to help take a persons kid away isn't an issue.....:rolleyes:
Well I guess we better close this thread up because the gov using membership in a pro-Constitution organization to help take a persons kid away isn't an issue.....:rolleyes:
Still missing the point.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CAUSE TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT without the other information!!! Cause and effect. The multiple callouts to his home, the charges for CC without a permit, court mandated classes WHICH HE FAILED to attend.... that's what lead to his child being taken... not his involvement in Oath Keepers
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 13:03
Still missing the point.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CAUSE TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT without the other information!!! Cause and effect. The multiple callouts to his home, the charges for CC without a permit, court mandated classes WHICH HE FAILED to attend.... that's what lead to his child being taken... not his involvement in Oath Keepers
The point me posting this thread was to show involvement in Oath Keepers was being used as a reason to take this family's child away from them.
The other stuff is irrelevant to why I posted this. If I wanted to talk about "police call outs" and "Ending the Violence" I would have posted about that and not Oath Keepers....
Get the point yet?
Edit: And just for clarification Im not saying taking the kid wasn't the right thing to do. Obviously that family has quite a few legal problems. Im only posting this to show that membership in a non-violent pro-Constitution organization was A reason for taking this child away, and based on the affadavit so was gun ownership. He may be a prohibited person based on a DV conviction but the way it reads is that both him being a gun owner and an Oath Keepers members were ALSO reasons for taking this newborn child. It doesn't say anything about him being a prohibited person just that he owns guns.
Other issues aside I don't like those reasons being used in taking a child away from someone. They are obviously being used as cause for the seizure of the child. Not by themselves in this case but they are still reasons none the less.
That could be easily used against any one of us on this site. NRA membership? Own guns (especially those evil assault rifles), ect. You can also throw the CC without a permit in there. What does that have to do with the safety of the child? Some states are trending to permit-less CC carry for everyone.
Again they appear to have valid reasons to look after the safety of this child but then they need to stick to those reasons, and leave the gun ownership and Oath Keepers out of it. I don't want to see a precedent of gun ownership being used as a reason by the state to start taking kids away.
The point me posting this thread was to show involvement in Oath Keepers was being used as a reason to take this family's child away from them.
The other stuff is irrelevant to why I posted this. If I wanted to talk about "police call outs" and "Ending the Violence" I would have posted about that and not Oath Keepers....
Get the point yet?
Edit: And just for clarification Im not saying taking the kid wasn't the right thing to do. Obviously that family has quite a few legal problems. Im only posting this to show that membership in a non-violent pro-Constitution organization was A reason for taking this child away, and based on the affadavit so was gun ownership. He may be a prohibited person based on a DV conviction but the way it reads is that both him being a gun owner and an Oath Keepers members were ALSO reasons for taking this newborn child. It doesn't say anything about him being a prohibited person just that he owns guns.
Other issues aside I don't like those reasons being used in taking a child away from someone. They are obviously being used as cause for the seizure of the child. Not by themselves in this case but they are still reasons none the less.
That could be easily used against any one of us on this site. NRA membership? Own guns (especially those evil assault rifles), ect. You can also throw the CC without a permit in there. What does that have to do with the safety of the child? Some states are trending to permit-less CC carry for everyone.
Again they appear to have valid reasons to look after the safety of this child but then they need to stick to those reasons, and leave the gun ownership and Oath Keepers out of it. I don't want to see a precedent of gun ownership being used as a reason by the state to start taking kids away.
I personally am not arguing that Oath Keepers should have been used, because it shouldn't have. However, it seems that this goes much deeper than the portion of the affidavit that we see shows.
My point is, belonging to Oath Keepers has zero place in a affidavit, however, trying to use that as the pinnacle of the counter-attack to the affidavit is called straw-man argument. He obviously has a bad rep with the local LE, whether it's deserved or not, most likely for domestic violence or disturbance.
I don't advocate the affidavit listing Oath Keepers one bit and a think a SEPARATE lawsuit should be filed against the person or organization that filed it. However, it also goes to say that all charges (or the confiscation of the child) shouldn't be dropped solely because Oath Keepers was listed. You don't correct drift into the left lane by running onto the shoulder of the right lane. That being said, if there was zero history of proven domestic abuse, then I'd sue the state/government for MILLIONS (for mental distress) if this was my child and then wreck the life of the person that filed the affidavit by dragging their name through the mud with my winnings.
There is obviously more than they're sharing.
Hope that explains my initial reply better.
CarlosDJackal
10-08-10, 13:39
If you own guns you can be put under the microscope as happened to me when 2 ATF agents showed up at my door requesting to see all the firearms I currently owned, and asked for explanations for the ones I bought but no longer own.
This is all VERY dangerous stuff for a government that is supposed to be there to protect our rights.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to make myself stand out even more than before. It's like that old Grizzly bear joke. It's pretty hard to hide from Uncle Sam; the best you can really do is not to stand out more than the other guys. :D
And this is why I never thought it was a good idea to put yourself on such a list. Why would anyone provide the big gov any opportunity to put them under a microscope is beyond me. JM2CW.
You mean like...
Posting thousands of times, over a period of years, on "assault weapon" message boards, using a screen name that's a play off a notorious terrorist's? :p
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 13:43
I personally am not arguing that Oath Keepers should not have been used, because it shouldn't have. However, it seems that this goes much deeper than the portion of the affidavit that we see shows.
My point is, belonging to Oath Keepers has zero place in a affidavit, however, trying to use that as the pinnacle of the counter-attack to the affidavit is called straw-man argument. He obviously has a bad rep with the local LE, whether it's deserved or not, most likely for domestic violence or disturbance.
I don't advocate the affidavit listing Oath Keepers one bit and a think a SEPARATE lawsuit should be filed against the person or organization that filed it. However, it also goes to say that all charges (or the confiscation of the child) shouldn't be dropped solely because Oath Keepers was listed. You don't correct drift into the left lane by running onto the shoulder of the right lane. That being said, if there was zero history of proven domestic abuse, then I'd sue the state/government for MILLIONS (for mental distress) if this was my child and then wreck the life of the person that filed the affidavit by dragging their name through the mud with my winnings.
There is obviously more than they're sharing.
Hope that explains my initial reply better.
Can you point me to where anyone from Oath Keepers or myself said the child should not have been taken based on the other issues?
No one has said that.
I even made it a point to say based on the OTHER reasons they sound like they have a case to ensure the safety of the child.
My only issue is listing gun ownership (by itself) and membership in Oath Keepers in addition to the other reasons.
Here is what Stewart Rhodes said:
Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child. Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel.
He never said the kid should not have been taken but that the Oath Keepers part should be retracted. That still leaves the rest of the affidavit as "in play" in taking the kid.
So again no one has said the kid should not have been taken based on the other reasons just that Oath Keepers should not have been one of the reasons.
Can you point me to where anyone from Oath Keepers or myself said the child should not have been taken based on the other issues?
No one has said that.
I even made it a point to say based on the OTHER reasons they sound like they have a case to ensure the safety of the child.
My only issue is listing gun ownership (by itself) and membership in Oath Keepers in addition to the other reasons.
Here is what Stewart Rhodes said:
He never said the kid should not have been taken but that the Oath Keepers part should be retracted. That still leaves the rest of the affidavit as "in play" in taking the kid.
So again no one has said the kid should not have been taken based on the other reasons just that Oath Keepers should not have been one of the reasons.
The document listed on the second link you provided is a "Change of Venue" affidavit. It's listing historical information to support their request for a change of venue to the Division for Children, Youth and Families. It isn't even the document requesting the child be taken from the parents. That is probably another document with that specific request, because they have to have it in their purview first in order to take action.
Think about it like this... they're covering their collective asses. They know he's got a history with the police, they know he's been charged with CC without a permit, they also know he's part of a group called the Oath Keepers and referred to it (most likely incorrectly) as a militia, and that he's purchased several weapons. They also know (point 5) that there is a pending neglect case regarding two other children in the household.
This document is just giving background information in order to get it in their actionable area.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be an issue if he was a member of NAMBLA though... right? They're documenting info to protect their asses.
This is only a hot topic because it relates to a common interest... guns.
Anyway... the document was introduced into the post by you, the whole document (as in the page posted on the second link you posted) is part of the discussion. If you wanted to limit it only to the mention of Oath Keepers, your first post is a bit misleading in that regard and may have sent me in a different direction altogether.
Stewart Rhodes was/is a long time monthly contributor to SWAT Magazine, founder of Oath Keepers, and is saying one of their members had their newborn child taken from the parents at the hospital, and that the affidavit for the seizure lists membership in Oath Keepers as a reason for taking the kid.
Being that the document you reference ISN'T the one directly related to the taking of the child, but one giving the judge a history lesson as to why he should put it in the hands of Child Services, the article is probably more guilty of misrepresentation of the facts than the document posted. They may have additional documents, but the way the article is written leads people to believe that the document they posted is what lead to the confiscation of the child from the parents. Little bit of a switcharoo there on their part.
The document listed on the second link you provided is a "Change of Venue" affidavit. It's listing historical information to support their request for a change of venue to the Division for Children, Youth and Families. It isn't even the document requesting the child be taken from the parents. That is probably another document with that specific request, because they have to have it in their purview first in order to take action.
Think about it like this... they're covering their collective asses. They know he's got a history with the police, they know he's been charged with CC without a permit, they also know he's part of a group called the Oath Keepers and referred to it (most likely incorrectly) as a militia, and that he's purchased several weapons. They also know (point 5) that there is a pending neglect case regarding two other children in the household.
This document is just giving background information in order to get it in their actionable area.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be an issue if he was a member of NAMBLA though... right? They're documenting info to protect their asses.
This is only a hot topic because it relates to a common interest... guns.
Anyway... the document was introduced into the post by you, the whole document (as in the page posted on the second link you posted) is part of the discussion. If you wanted to limit it only to the mention of Oath Keepers, your first post is a bit misleading in that regard and may have sent me in a different direction altogether.
Being that the document you reference ISN'T the one directly related to the taking of the child, but one giving the judge a history lesson as to why he should put it in the hands of Child Services, the article is probably more guilty of misrepresentation of the facts than the document posted. They may have additional documents, but the way the article is written leads people to believe that the document they posted is what lead to the confiscation of the child from the parents. Little bit of a switcharoo there on their part.
Regardless, Oath Keepers shouldn't be mentioned, even if it was a militia. This is identical to citing someone using the 5th amendment as grounds for taking their children; it's their RIGHT and it CANNOT be used as proof of anything because it's a right and cannot be illegal under any circumstances unless noted by the Supreme Court to be limited in the way it's used. That is not the case here, therefore it has no place being listed.
CarlosDJackal
10-08-10, 14:39
You mean like...
Posting thousands of times, over a period of years, on "assault weapon" message boards, using a screen name that's a play off a notorious terrorist's? :p
Correct!! :suicide2:
Actually, this is why I do not visit and have stopped visiting certain message boards. The direction they started taking was just too much of a red flag for my liking.
I'll concede that point Skyrr, it shouldn't have been there, but there was plenty of other information there to warrant the removal of the child, IMO.
I'll concede that point Skyrr, it shouldn't have been there, but there was plenty of other information there to warrant the removal of the child, IMO.
I agree with your point as well. There's too many things wrong with what was reported to simply be a case of going after someone who supposedly "joined a militia."
"Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers....." are you going to continually step over the fact that there was cause to file the affidavit? It appears, at this point, that the guy has some issues with the police. Enough so that they got Child Services involved. The fact that some dingbat at Child Services put that in the affidavit isn't the issue, or at least it shouldn't be. If the guy is beating the shit out of his wife, I'd like someone to take a look at him too! Please note I said "if". There's just not enough information here to see if they're violating any of his rights.
The issue here isn't if he was a threat or not. The issue seems to be that membership in Oath Keepers was used by the government as justification for their actions.
It really isn't that different from listing membership as a Democrat or Republican as justification. That is the problem people are having with it.
The issue here isn't if he was a threat or not. The issue seems to be that membership in Oath Keepers was used by the government as justification for their actions.
It really isn't that different from listing membership as a Democrat or Republican as justification. That is the problem people are having with it.
If you read the whole thread, you'd realize that I conceded that point. ;)
If you own guns you can be put under the microscope as happened to me when 2 ATF agents showed up at my door requesting to see all the firearms I currently owned, and asked for explanations for the ones I bought but no longer own.
This is all VERY dangerous stuff for a government that is supposed to be there to protect our rights.
ditto !!!!!!
I used to think MAN how could the German Jewish community have the WWII stuff happen to them ?
the old bring the water to boil slow and what is happening now comes to mind !!!
when its to late and they take your stuff your family or other things from you !!!!!
Case in point for my policy of not answering the door for, or talking with, uninvited ANYONE.
Edited for accuracy. I refuse to answer the door for ANYONE unexpected. Everyone who knows me can call/text and announce their visit. No announcement I don't even bother going to the door to look through the peep hole in most cases. There's no rule that says if someone take the effort to push my doorbell that I MUST answer the door to tell them to go away. Simply not answering the door is all the message they need. To this day I've lived by that policy and I doubt I've turned away anyone presenting me with a million dollar check so I'm fine with my decision.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.