Posted on 10/11/2010 11:03:09 AM PDT by Sopater
There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.
To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents: the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.
By looking at the below documents, you will be able to see from the two Petitions, the Order, and Affidavit item #7, in that order, that:
1. Both Petitions state: “7. Details or Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary): See affidavit filed with the Concord Family Court.”
2. The Court’s Ex Parte Order states:
“Findings of Fact:
There is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child’s health or life, which require the immediate placement of the child for the following reasons:
See attached affidavit”
Thus, the Court’s Order does, in fact, refer to, and adopt all of the reasons given in the Affidavit as being the reasons for the order.
3. The Attached Affidavit, referenced by the Petitions and adopted by the Court as its findings of fact, includes, at #7: “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser.”
This is how all such petitions are done. The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition. And in this case, the Order explicitly states that the reasons in support are listed in the “attached affidavit.”
We have posted these documents with the permission of both parents, but we redacted (blacked out) all the personal information and allegations that do not pertain to Oath Keepers or gun ownership. This was done in part to respect the privacy of the family, including the kids. It is out of such concerns that family court proceedings are usually closed to the public and I think it would be improper to post the entirety of the affidavit for the same reason. If the parents choose to post a non-redacted version, they can do it themselves (we left in their address because they have given that information out in several interviews, asking for donations to their defense fund),
More to the point, we also blacked out the parts unrelated to Oath Keepers and to gun ownership because my focus in this case is on the illegitimate listing of a father’s political affiliations and his gun ownership as a reason to take his daughter away from him and also away from her mother. That the Court relied on an affidavit that explicitly lists the father’s association with Oath Keepers to issue that order makes it important to all ten thousand dues paying members of Oath Keepers (many of them current serving police and military), and also makes it important to the estimated thirty thousand people (and growing) who have “associated” with Oath Keepers in the past, or still do, on several social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, on our email alert list, in the comments section of our main site, in our free state forums, or in person at our many meetings across the country, and the many additional tens of thousands who have “associated” with us at various rallies, summits, and forums across the nation.
This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation. And that is why we must stand firm, now.
Ping.
I’m an Oath Keeper. They can take my babies when they pry them from my cold dead arms. Well, all three of us will be armed anyway (they’re grown men now).
Beyond the pale.
I read the part of the affidadit that was available.
I would suggest the “Oath Keepers” distant themselves from this guy.
omg ping
Agreed, they seem like skanky people to me.
1) Mr. Irish was associated with the Oath Keepers.
2) The cops had been out to his house and didn't like him much.
Sounds about right.
Run away. Run far, far away.
“CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby”
I am a member of the Oath Keepers. I have a 15 y/o stepdaughter. They can try to take her but we do all shoot recreationally as well as hunt. Good luck with that.
Obviously they are not a militia and the people preparing the affidavit were in error.
Now, about the guy whipping up on his girlfriend and kids, she's still married to some other guy so technically the baby isn't his.
Sounds like she has some problems herself anyway.
What happens when it's your turn?
They have the resistance isolated and impotent and we don’t even recognize it.
Instead of Lexington Green or The Alamo, where neighbors assembled locally to make a larger statement, these events show that an isolate-and-fix targets strategy works perfectly for them.
They just pick us off one-by-one, as they paint each victim with “crazy” (Ruby Ridge,) “child abuser” (Waco,) “best for the child” (Elian Gonzales,) “polygamy” (west Texas....)
Mix in a few that are really bad dudes, and everyone gets tarred.
Meanwhile, nobody rallies to direct support....just a bunch of anonymous online rahrahs.
I don’t see a way around it. I thought the internet would enable more awareness, but it seems to me that a place like FR simply provides a release for anger that would otherwise motivate people to get involved.
Tea Party rallies? Has it really helped? Or has it just turned us into activists which take time off work to go make signs and protest just like they do.
“I bet membership in Black Panthers would not cause any concerns at all.”
Not a fair comparison: Black Pathers would not be involved in raising the child; they would merely be “baby daddies” (if their identity is known at all) to avoid the cancelation of welfare payments.
Really now?
When an un-redacted copy of the affidavit is shown, then I might believe the "OH NOEZ CONSPIWACY" claims. Until those paragraphs are shown, I have no reason to believe any of these assertions.
Your arms will get tired carrying those big guys. :)
I kind of wonder if these two didn't meet each other at a group therapy session or something.
And membership in Nation of Islam would cause dismissal of any official who dared to mention it as a potential concern.
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.