Thread: CONFIRMED: Irish's Baby Taken Partly Due to Association Wit

Well this should scare the bejebbers out of people if they have ever thought about belonging to an organization or forum where people talk about owning guns.

This is sobering.

October 11th, 2010
CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/ ... take-baby/

There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “associationâ€

Wow!

A lot of people have been trying to get MSM to report on this and they won't. I now see why - gov't - is guilty.

This has gone viral on web like nothing I've ever seen.

Go to google and type in Oathkeeper Baby.

It is everywhere. Must be on at least 300 websites.

The document is so blacked out as to be meaningless. The Oath Keepers association and the gun ownership are clearly not the main reasons for the action.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

The document is so blacked out as to be meaningless. The Oath Keepers association and the gun ownership are clearly not the main reasons for the action.

I agree, but I think the Oath Keepers are rightly questioning why it was even brought up. The state is implying that OK is an unsavory group. The state should have been able to make their case without that reference to OK, and it sounds like they could have from what I have seen.

The document is so blacked out as to be meaningless. The Oath Keepers association and the gun ownership are clearly not the main reasons for the action.

Probably not, but to me the issue is that it was "included" and could be used to set precedent for future cases. I think that including at all violates the 1st and 2nd Amendment.
I believe that part of the progressive agenda has been to have cases decided on precedent and a judge's interpertaion of statues. It allows liberal judges to legislate from the bench and those decisions to be cited in future cases. JMO.

I shouldn't complain about the Oath Keeper leadership, he's just doing his job. His organization has been slandered in an ominous way, and child protective services really needs to do their homework before filling out court documents and taking actions like this.

Just a guess on my part but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the courts ordered him to give up the gun culture , but he didn't , hench the mention of the oath keepers.

Bad john Irish ! The boy who once threathened to go columbine on his fellow class mates in highschool.

Are you folks unable to understand why CPS would list guns and the oath keepers in a case like this ? A case where a man has had many issues ?

Originally Posted by marquis

Just a guess on my part but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the courts ordered him to give up the gun culture , but he didn't , hench the mention of the oath keepers.

Bad john Irish ! The boy who once threathened to go columbine on his fellow class mates in highschool.

Are you folks unable to understand why CPS would list guns and the oath keepers in a case like this ? A case where a man has had many issues ?

This sounds like the real issue here:

Bad john Irish ! The boy who once threathened to go columbine on his fellow class mates in highschool.

Originally Posted by marquis

Just a guess on my part but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the courts ordered him to give up the gun culture , but he didn't , hench the mention of the oath keepers.

Bad john Irish ! The boy who once threathened to go columbine on his fellow class mates in highschool.

Are you folks unable to understand why CPS would list guns and the oath keepers in a case like this ? A case where a man has had many issues ?

I am following the events of this case because Oath Keepers have become involved, and they were already on SPLC's radar screen for some reason.

Related thread

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-214853.html