Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did state accuse wrong guy in Oath Keeper case? (Baby Cheyenne NH)
Youtube ^ | October 15, 2010 | RidleyReport

Posted on 10/15/2010 5:30:20 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271

Did state accuse wrong guy in Oath Keeper case? (Baby Cheyenne NH). Gag order prevents the witnesses of a court hearing from revealing what happened in there... but did the prompt return of Baby Cheyenne to her parents have something to do with mistaken identity on some issues?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; militia; newhampshire; oathkeepers; whoisjohngalt
This is alarming. The gov, loves power and taking over our lives. Regardless whether Cheyenne's parents were fit the gov. has no right to take away our children.
1 posted on 10/15/2010 5:30:25 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

Where the dickens is the press on this? Isn’t there a newspaper or TV station in New Hampshire willing to tell people what is going on? You would think this would be a big story, locally at least.


2 posted on 10/15/2010 5:34:02 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Hang on. There are stories and threads on FR that seem to show the parents are indeed kooks. Don’t believe everything this noob ‘redstate’ dishes out.


3 posted on 10/15/2010 5:58:21 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
Regardless whether Cheyenne's parents were fit the gov. has no right to take away our children.

You are a damn fool. And now you're admitting what has been alleged about the parents.

You may be on the wrong forum, noob.

4 posted on 10/15/2010 6:00:14 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
“Regardless whether Cheyenne's parents were fit the gov. has no right to take away our children.”

I am afraid I have to disagree with you. I've had to photograph child abuse as an Air Force photographer, and there are some things that very definately demand government intervention. Irish was accused of child abuse, membership in a militia called Oath Keepers, and possession of firearms.

Only the first is a reason (of those given) for possibly taking his child, and then only with serious substantiation. Oath Keepers isn't a militia and even if it was there is a right of association. Possession of firearms is a right under our Constitution, and IIRC, the NH constitution, as well. Those should NOT have been used as justification for taking the child, and the people who made the statements, and the ones who accepted them as just cause should be next in court.

There are several threads here on FR on the subject, btw. From some of what I've read in news articles posted on those threads, I expected the abuse allegation to be substantiated. Doesn't appear to have happened. There is also another Jonathan Irish out there. This kid's dad. They are not friendly to one another. Might make it more difficult to determine who is really at fault.

The dad has concerns about his son, and has also had assault charged against him for an attack on his son. IF, mind you, I've managed to keep all this crud straight. Best you check it out yourself. “Oath Keepers baby” will probably work if you want to use the search function.

5 posted on 10/15/2010 6:00:42 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
“Regardless whether Cheyenne's parents were fit the gov. has no right to take away our children.”

I am afraid I have to disagree with you. I've had to photograph child abuse as an Air Force photographer, and there are some things that very definately demand government intervention. Irish was accused of child abuse, membership in a militia called Oath Keepers, and possession of firearms.

Only the first is a reason (of those given) for possibly taking his child, and then only with serious substantiation. Oath Keepers isn't a militia and even if it was there is a right of association. Possession of firearms is a right under our Constitution, and IIRC, the NH constitution, as well. Those should NOT have been used as justification for taking the child, and the people who made the statements, and the ones who accepted them as just cause should be next in court.

There are several threads here on FR on the subject, btw. From some of what I've read in news articles posted on those threads, I expected the abuse allegation to be substantiated. Doesn't appear to have happened. There is also another Jonathan Irish out there. This kid's dad. They are not friendly to one another. Might make it more difficult to determine who is really at fault.

The dad has concerns about his son, and has also had assault charged against him for an attack on his son. IF, mind you, I've managed to keep all this crud straight. Best you check it out yourself. “Oath Keepers baby” will probably work if you want to use the search function.

6 posted on 10/15/2010 6:00:48 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

LOL all the sources i post are pro-the parents. Ridley is a good source of non-liberal media.


7 posted on 10/15/2010 6:03:54 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
LOL all the sources i post are pro-the parents

I know. I read and participated. There are other articles, some from conservative sources that paint a different picture.

And I saw how you handled yourself on other threads. Stormfront might appeal to you.

8 posted on 10/15/2010 6:07:59 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

BTW, citing and supporting Alex Jones will get you booted from FR in some cases. And you did just that.


9 posted on 10/15/2010 6:10:49 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: buccaneer81

He had his child taken away b/c of his association w/ oathkeepers. That’s all we need to know.


11 posted on 10/15/2010 6:17:15 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

I never cited Alex Jones. I just said SOMETIMES he has good articles and good perspectives.


12 posted on 10/15/2010 6:18:46 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen some discussion on the change in fonts & spacing, and forms of punctuation. It may not be an accurate copy of what was actually submitted. Or it may. I’ve had Word do stuff like that to me in the middle of a document.


13 posted on 10/15/2010 6:20:21 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

Did you read the rest of the document? No, of course you didn’t. Stephanie Taylor has two other kids who are under scrutiny by the authorities.


14 posted on 10/15/2010 6:23:20 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
BS, FRiend. We also need to know if they really did abuse the child, and if the Oath Keepers association and firearms possession were used as reasons for the taking. Simplistic doesn't make it. Find out ALL the facts. As best you can, anyway. THEN make your decisions as best you can. And be prepared to change when you find the facts don't match your preconceptions. That is what adults do, anyway. Children, maybe not so much.
15 posted on 10/15/2010 6:23:59 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Old Student

I just asked the mods to take that post dowm. It’s an Alex Jones link. Verboten.


16 posted on 10/15/2010 6:25:26 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

There are other sources.

Some are in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608172/posts

And I believe I posted a link to another thread in that one somewhere. Maybe this will help some of the overwrought emotionalism to cool off a bit.

OS


17 posted on 10/15/2010 6:32:55 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Or maybe it was this one... ;)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605457/posts


18 posted on 10/15/2010 6:42:05 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

I did a google search and found a blog which said that the parents are unmarried, and that the woman had two earlier children who had been taken away from her.

Whether that is true or not, I don’t know.


19 posted on 10/15/2010 6:44:21 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271; Old Student; Cicero

This is good enough for me:

From 2005

http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2005news/hampton/03252005/news/71931.htm

SEABROOK - A Seabrook teenager is scheduled for a probable cause hearing on April 4 after being charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl.

Jonathan Irish, 18, of 620 Lafayette Road, is being held at Rockingham County Jail without bail pending a psychological evaluation. He was arraigned Tuesday in Hampton District Court and is scheduled for a probable cause hearing at the court on April 4 at 11 a.m.

Police arrested Irish on Monday after going to his house for alleged illegal drug activity, according to an affidavit filed with the court by Seabrook Prosecutor Scott Mendes.

Irish allegedly told Sgt. Dana Bedell and Officer Frank Brown that two juvenile females in the apartment were doing drugs. The officers interviewed the girls, smelling the odor of burned marijuana on them, according to Mendes. One of the juveniles, who was 14, told police she and Irish were boyfriend and girlfriend and had sexual intercourse at least 10 times since they started dating, according to the affidavit. Police took her into protective custody.

The other girl, who was 17, was released.

Irish said he knew how old the girl was, according to court records.

33 posted on 10/11/2010 2:53:06 PM by freedomwarrior998


20 posted on 10/15/2010 6:48:32 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81; SatinDoll

I’ve still not seen anything that said he was convicted. So far, all I’ve seen is that he missed court-ordered training of some sort, IIRC related to anger managment or some such. I think SatinDoll posted that, but not certain.

the NUMBER of reports posted about him, however, you’re probably right about him. As is SatinDoll.

OS


21 posted on 10/15/2010 7:08:02 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Was he convicted or wasnt he?


22 posted on 10/15/2010 7:44:01 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Old Student; citizenredstater9271
Irish was accused of child abuse, membership in a militia called Oath Keepers, and possession of firearms.

1. An accusation is an accusation.

2. Oathkeepers is not a militia. Look it up.

3. What the hell do you have against the possession of firearms?

23 posted on 10/15/2010 7:53:20 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
Was he convicted or wasnt he?

18 banging 14 and he ADMITS he knew her age? I don't give a damn if he was convicted or not. He's a scum bag, and so are you.

24 posted on 10/15/2010 8:16:03 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
1. An accusation is an accusation. 2. Oathkeepers is not a militia. Look it up. 3. What the hell do you have against the possession of firearms?

I have nothing against firearms. I support the right to own firearms 100%. What I'm against is the gov. taking away children when they have no right to do so.

25 posted on 10/15/2010 8:16:24 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

Read post # 20.


26 posted on 10/15/2010 8:17:05 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

The media isn’t exactly a bastion of truth. Forgive me if I take “Seacoast Online” with a grain of salt.


27 posted on 10/15/2010 8:20:24 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Do we KNOW he is the same Jon Irish? How do you know? How do you know the gov. didn’t just get the wrong person? How many Jon Irishes are there?


28 posted on 10/15/2010 8:23:17 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
Add up the years, ding-a-ling. And I grew up in New England. "Irish" is not that common a surname.

Give it up. This guy is trouble.

29 posted on 10/15/2010 8:54:40 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
The media isn’t exactly a bastion of truth. Forgive me if I take “Seacoast Online” with a grain of salt.

Back in 2005, no one had heard of Obama or the Tea Party. I don't think Seacoast Online had an agenda. They were simply reporting a local story that involved a local scum bag.

30 posted on 10/15/2010 8:58:19 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Old Student

News flash. Alex Jones paid for a criminal background check on John Irish. He does not have one. His father who is also named John Irish has a criminal background and the State DEFAX workers mixed his record up with the son. It was as usual a total govt screw up.


31 posted on 10/15/2010 9:07:03 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
“News flash. Alex Jones paid for a criminal background check on John Irish. He does not have one. His father who is also named John Irish has a criminal background and the State DEFAX workers mixed his record up with the son. It was as usual a total govt screw up.”

Hmmm... Who is the 18YO John Irish who was arrested for having sex with a 14YO girl in, iirc, 2005? Somehow I doubt that is the dad. Of course he could have had charges dismissed, or not been found guilty.

Links would be useful, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that John Irish is a fairly common name. Generally, when I google my own name, I get no fewer than 5 million hits, and rarely are any of them that I can spare the time to look at me. Or my dad or grandfather, both of whom I'm named after.

32 posted on 10/16/2010 11:23:27 AM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

go back and reread what we posted. What is your problem with reading comprehension?


33 posted on 10/16/2010 11:26:46 AM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson