Thread: What? Govt Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

As a juevinal did MR Irish actually threaten to kill his school mates ? Has he been arrested for domestic violence before ? Has he been instutuonalized in a psychatric hospital ? Does he have a stronger than usual love for guns ? Add in his real or imigined affilation with the oath keepers and you have a damning picture of the man.

No, just the psyhcobabble .

Besides, I said it was interesting, not that I advocated it,. You jump to conclusions.

So , I have just read through all of this , I have not really followed this case but here is what I get out of it.

It seemed there were other circumstances that prompted this , BUT , the fact they mentioned in the complaint that HE WAS A MEMBER (or forum member) of the Oathkeepers is disturbing

If for some reason I'm arrested , or incur a civil complaint , can they put in it I'm a member of ALIPAC? , A terrorist , domestic terrorist, or hate org (as defined by the splc)

Would this influence a judge to pass a harsher sentence ? Or deny me certain rights? Or in this case deny them custody of their child?

No matter what this really is , its pretty darn scary people

It's disturbing, in the same way it's disturbing to uncover evidence that someone who was maintaining civility to your face really hates you and working against you behind your back. Only in this case, that someone is the state.

Yes, the state used his Oath Keepers affiliation as a slur against his parenthood suitability and status as a good citizen. I think that child protective services will get nailed by an attorney for doing that. But it won't really affect the seizure of the baby, legally, one way or the other. Although nobody is questioning that Jon is the father of the newborn, legally he isn't because she is still married to someone else and Jon hasn't established his paternity legally yet. Therefore, Jon has no legal standing in the matter of his newborn daughter's custody - yet. He needs to get a lawyer and a paternity test going.

Oath Keepers has a right to be mad. This is what the legal machinery of America really thinks about right wing folks, and the truth rightly makes us uncomfortable. Yes they hate right wing folks and would do bad things to all right wing people if they had the power and resources. I know from my own custody fight two decades ago, they are lefties and they hate people who aren't like them.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

It's disturbing, in the same way it's disturbing to uncover evidence that someone who was maintaining civility to your face really hates you and working against you behind your back. Only in this case, that someone is the state.

Yes, the state used his Oath Keepers affiliation as a slur against his parenthood suitability and status as a good citizen. I think that child protective services will get nailed by an attorney for doing that. But it won't really affect the seizure of the baby, legally, one way or the other. Although nobody is questioning that Jon is the father of the newborn, legally he isn't because she is still married to someone else and Jon hasn't established his paternity legally yet. Therefore, Jon has no legal standing in the matter of his newborn daughter's custody - yet. He needs to get a lawyer and a paternity test going.

Oath Keepers has a right to be mad. This is what the legal machinery of America really thinks about right wing folks, and the truth rightly makes us uncomfortable. Yes they hate right wing folks and would do bad things to all right wing people if they had the power and resources. I know from my own custody fight two decades ago, they are lefties and they hate people who aren't like them.

once again i disagree ... i think where the connection between john and the oath keepers comes into play is that he has a HISTORY of violence , and that he was ordered to attend some sort of anger/ violence managment class ... if he was posting things that were bording the overthrow of the government on the oath keepers message board and buying guns , then i don't think he really got the message that the court was trying to send him ..

Is it unfortunate that a court could order a man to stop his affliations with the oathkeepers and gun culture , yes ... but if that man has demonstrated a history of violence in the past , well then i think that's an acceptable conditon to ensure that he is sane enough to properly raise a child ..

True, he was ordered to attend a class, but that can happen for a number of reasons. I don't know his record. I absolutely know of cases where men committed known violence towards wife and/or children, were made to attend such classes, and did not lose custody. So, if I seem to be giving Jon the benefit of the doubt, it's because I just don't know what happened. Either way, Jon has no legal standing to gain custody of Cheyenne at this point. She is legally the child of Stephanie's estranged husband until established otherwise. Never mind what we all know to be the truth of her paternity.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

It's disturbing, in the same way it's disturbing to uncover evidence that someone who was maintaining civility to your face really hates you and working against you behind your back. Only in this case, that someone is the state.

Yes, the state used his Oath Keepers affiliation as a slur against his parenthood suitability and status as a good citizen. I think that child protective services will get nailed by an attorney for doing that. But it won't really affect the seizure of the baby, legally, one way or the other. Although nobody is questioning that Jon is the father of the newborn, legally he isn't because she is still married to someone else and Jon hasn't established his paternity legally yet. Therefore, Jon has no legal standing in the matter of his newborn daughter's custody - yet. He needs to get a lawyer and a paternity test going.

Oath Keepers has a right to be mad. This is what the legal machinery of America really thinks about right wing folks, and the truth rightly makes us uncomfortable. Yes they hate right wing folks and would do bad things to all right wing people if they had the power and resources. I know from my own custody fight two decades ago, they are lefties and they hate people who aren't like them.

Yes Oathkeepers should be upset about this and I am sure Stewart Rhodes will not stop until he takes care of it. There is plenty of wrong doing to go around I am pretty sure ,so I will be very glad when the truth surfaces.

This just in: the comments forum over on Oath Keepers is reporting allegations by some posters who claim to know something about Jon's background in this matter. I have no way of knowing if what they're saying is true, of course. We have only seen one page from what must have been a thick wad of legal documents handed to Jon and Stephanie. All we saw was page one of a change of venue motion, and while it alluded to some of the reasons being given, it was not the whole list. If Jon turns out to be guilty of some of the things being said, he'll have a hard time even after he establishes paternity. This is turning out to be a very convoluted situation. We really need more info.