Nazi-obsessed dad wants his baby girl (Eva Braun) back

[Amelia]

People who have already had run-ins with "the system" have reason to hole up somewhere that they will be out of reach of said system.

People who are now being forced onto Medicaid may find that the government uses that as a wedge to open the door to more government "oversight" of their families.

Can of worms.




This post is not a defense of neo-Nazism or of a family who would name their kids after Nazi icons. It's just my observation about how hard it is to escape from heavy-handed government officials even if you're not a threat to your family -- officials who have been notoriously lax when there actually was cause to remove children from families.

 

[MikeK]

According to other articles, some of his other kids have been removed from his care based on allegations of abuse and adopted into other families. He believes that his ex-wife has tried to have him killed 3 times rather than sign the divorce papers. His fiance's first child (with a different man) was removed from her care.

Sounds like there's more to this than ol' Heath is letting on.

If so, then bring out the specific facts which justify government's aggressive, confiscatory actions against this fellow. Because I am not aware of any laws prohibiting one from being a Nazi, dressing like a Nazi, and naming one's child after a dead Nazi.

If it is believed this man is mentally unstable, present the professional diagnosis. If it's believed the home he provides is not suitable for children, prove that and proceed from that specific position.

So far all I've heard are personal expressions of dislike, criticisms, and allegations against this individual. While it is perfectly okay to dislike him, and to say so, it's not okay to take his children away for no better reason than that. If anything, to do so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

His children are not being removed because of what he believes, TK. They are being safe guarded because of evidence of him abusing them. No one who abuses a child should be allowed to have custody of them.

I see TK remains unmedicated.

Nine children, five different mothers. No job, no support.

But I'm the problem for saying there's a problem.

To be fair I don't think that TK did his homework first. Once I looked into the background of this scumback it was easy enough to figure out who was credible and who wasn't. Given that TK also had issues with how he was treated as a child I suspect that he will see the light once he finds out a little more.

Indeed. Get those children away from him.

 

[Derideo_Te]

According to other articles, some of his other kids have been removed from his care based on allegations of abuse and adopted into other families. He believes that his ex-wife has tried to have him killed 3 times rather than sign the divorce papers. His fiance's first child (with a different man) was removed from her care.

Sounds like there's more to this than ol' Heath is letting on.

If so, then bring out the specific facts which justify government's aggressive, confiscatory actions against this fellow. Because I am not aware of any laws prohibiting one from being a Nazi, dressing like a Nazi, and naming one's child after a dead Nazi.

If it is believed this man is mentally unstable, present the professional diagnosis. If it's believed the home he provides is not suitable for children, prove that and proceed from that specific position.

So far all I've heard are personal expressions of dislike, criticisms, and allegations against this individual. While it is perfectly okay to dislike him, and to say so, it's not okay to take his children away for no better reason than that. If anything, to do so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

The court evidence of child abuse is under a gag order. Unless you can provide exculpatory evidence to the contrary the court has more credibility than he does in this matter.

 

[mack20]

According to other articles, some of his other kids have been removed from his care based on allegations of abuse and adopted into other families. He believes that his ex-wife has tried to have him killed 3 times rather than sign the divorce papers. His fiance's first child (with a different man) was removed from her care.

Sounds like there's more to this than ol' Heath is letting on.

If so, then bring out the specific facts which justify government's aggressive, confiscatory actions against this fellow. Because I am not aware of any laws prohibiting one from being a Nazi, dressing like a Nazi, and naming one's child after a dead Nazi.

If it is believed this man is mentally unstable, present the professional diagnosis. If it's believed the home he provides is not suitable for children, prove that and proceed from that specific position.

So far all I've heard are personal expressions of dislike, criticisms, and allegations against this individual. While it is perfectly okay to dislike him, and to say so, it's not okay to take his children away for no better reason than that. If anything, to do so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

As Derideo has pointed out, the family court records are sealed. But it's worth noting that not only were some of his older children taken away, but that they have been successfully adopted into other families, which is not a short process. I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that the evidence of abuse that was presented to the court was strong enough that these children were never going to be given back to him.

As I've said in another post, being an awful human being (ex: nazi) doesn't mean your kids get taken from you. Otherwise we might've been lucky enough to not have the Westboro Baptist Church's hateful attention whoring to put up with.

 

[Moonglow]

Eva Braun did nothing wrong.

Could you marry someone who was doing what Hitler did?

It would have to be a female Hitler.

 

[Moonglow]

People who have already had run-ins with "the system" have reason to hole up somewhere that they will be out of reach of said system.

People who are now being forced onto Medicaid may find that the government uses that as a wedge to open the door to more government "oversight" of their families.

Can of worms.




This post is not a defense of neo-Nazism or of a family who would name their kids after Nazi icons. It's just my observation about how hard it is to escape from heavy-handed government officials even if you're not a threat to your family -- officials who have been notoriously lax when there actually was cause to remove children from families.

It is not just the govt. many life insurers want to come to your home for a pee test and vital checks of your health. The insurance company I tried to get a 500k insurance policy wanted to come to my house but I refused.
My Mom and Dad is being pressured by Humana, they insist that their cadillac medical policy they have had for 25 years is no good, and they want to come to their house to give them a check up.
Medicare told me that my VA medical benefits were no good also. I laughed at them and sent back the card for coverage.

 

[MikeK]

According to other articles, some of his other kids have been removed from his care based on allegations of abuse and adopted into other families. He believes that his ex-wife has tried to have him killed 3 times rather than sign the divorce papers. His fiance's first child (with a different man) was removed from her care.

Sounds like there's more to this than ol' Heath is letting on.

If so, then bring out the specific facts which justify government's aggressive, confiscatory actions against this fellow. Because I am not aware of any laws prohibiting one from being a Nazi, dressing like a Nazi, and naming one's child after a dead Nazi.

If it is believed this man is mentally unstable, present the professional diagnosis. If it's believed the home he provides is not suitable for children, prove that and proceed from that specific position.

So far all I've heard are personal expressions of dislike, criticisms, and allegations against this individual. While it is perfectly okay to dislike him, and to say so, it's not okay to take his children away for no better reason than that. If anything, to do so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

The court evidence of child abuse is under a gag order. Unless you can provide exculpatory evidence to the contrary the court has more credibility than he does in this matter.

If someone with a badge and a gun tells me that you, Deridio, are a no good s.o.b. and they are taking your kids away for reasons they can't tell me about because the court records are sealed -- how do you feel about that? Does that sound like America to you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If so, then bring out the specific facts which justify government's aggressive, confiscatory actions against this fellow. Because I am not aware of any laws prohibiting one from being a Nazi, dressing like a Nazi, and naming one's child after a dead Nazi.

If it is believed this man is mentally unstable, present the professional diagnosis. If it's believed the home he provides is not suitable for children, prove that and proceed from that specific position.

So far all I've heard are personal expressions of dislike, criticisms, and allegations against this individual. While it is perfectly okay to dislike him, and to say so, it's not okay to take his children away for no better reason than that. If anything, to do so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

The court evidence of child abuse is under a gag order. Unless you can provide exculpatory evidence to the contrary the court has more credibility than he does in this matter.

If someone with a badge and a gun tells me that you, Deridio, are a no good s.o.b. and they are taking your kids away for reasons they can't tell me about because the court records are sealed -- how do you feel about that? Does that sound like America to you?

That is not how it works. The person with the badge and the gun will only be obeying the orders of the court. The court will have heard the evidence and the testimony of both parents prior to making the ruling that resulted in the orders ending up in the hands of the person with the authority to remove the children.

 

[MikeK]

The court evidence of child abuse is under a gag order. Unless you can provide exculpatory evidence to the contrary the court has more credibility than he does in this matter.

If someone with a badge and a gun tells me that you, Deridio, are a no good s.o.b. and they are taking your kids away for reasons they can't tell me about because the court records are sealed -- how do you feel about that? Does that sound like America to you?

That is not how it works. The person with the badge and the gun will only be obeying the orders of the court. The court will have heard the evidence and the testimony of both parents prior to making the ruling that resulted in the orders ending up in the hands of the person with the authority to remove the children.

And you think this is perfectly okay. You just don't get it, do you? What country did you come here from? How do you feel about the fact that what they can do to this fellow they can do to you?


"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[Derideo_Te]

If someone with a badge and a gun tells me that you, Deridio, are a no good s.o.b. and they are taking your kids away for reasons they can't tell me about because the court records are sealed -- how do you feel about that? Does that sound like America to you?

That is not how it works. The person with the badge and the gun will only be obeying the orders of the court. The court will have heard the evidence and the testimony of both parents prior to making the ruling that resulted in the orders ending up in the hands of the person with the authority to remove the children.

And you think this is perfectly okay. You just don't get it, do you? What country did you come here from? How do you feel about the fact that what they can do to this fellow they can do to you?


"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

What is not OK is that you don't believe in the rule of law. We the People established the rule of law and no one is above it. If you are under the impression that you are not then perhaps you are the one that needs to look elsewhere for a place to live. Somalia springs to mind as a suitable alternative.

 

[MikeK]

That is not how it works. The person with the badge and the gun will only be obeying the orders of the court. The court will have heard the evidence and the testimony of both parents prior to making the ruling that resulted in the orders ending up in the hands of the person with the authority to remove the children.

And you think this is perfectly okay. You just don't get it, do you? What country did you come here from? How do you feel about the fact that what they can do to this fellow they can do to you?


"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

What is not OK is that you don't believe in the rule of law. We the People established the rule of law and no one is above it. If you are under the impression that you are not then perhaps you are the one that needs to look elsewhere for a place to live. Somalia springs to mind as a suitable alternative.

The rule of law?

You need to read this book: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Judicial-Tyranny-The-Kings-America/dp/0975345567]Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America?: Mark I. Sutherland, William J. Federer, Roy Moore, James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Ed Meese, Phyllis Schlafly, Mathew D. Staver, Alan Sears: 9780975345566: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Meanwhile, here is an article that might help to open your eyes: The Seattle Times: Local News: The cases your judges are hiding from you


For your information it is the courts which are increasingly ignoring the rule of law and are taking it upon themselves to serve as high priests, the most prominent recent example being the Supreme Court's decision to appoint George W. Bush as our President in 2000.

You should take the time to educate yourself by researching the increasing level of misconduct by judges at all levels of government, one outstanding example of which is that of judges taking bribes from the Prison Industrial Complex to illegally sentence juveniles to confinement: Former judge sentenced to prison for kids for cash scheme | Reuters

The Rule Of Law does not hold that the courts are the Law but rather guardians and arbiters of it. But too many contemporary Americans are willing to accept that some black-robed bastards who look down from high benches are in fact dictators. They are getting away with this because the Executive and Legislative branches of government are letting them get away with it, and the reason for that is too many Americans, like you for one good example, either accept it or are willing to ignore it rather than sound off and raise hell about it.

In this example we are told that some "court" (judge) has decided to confiscate the children of some guy who's chosen to be a Nazi, which is not against the law. This "court" is saying there are good reasons to do this but we can't know what those reason are because he's decided to "seal" certain court records. And that's good enough for you.

Have you even given thought to why the categorical reasons for taking this man's children cannot be revealed? If he mistreated them in any significant way, why was he not charged, convicted, and imprisoned for it?

You need to understand this business of government secrecy is getting to be an increasingly bad habit and the more they get away with it the more inclined they are to do it. Eventually the "rule of law" will become a simple declaration that the public has no right to question the actions of a "court."

I don't know how old you are, or what country you dropped in here from, or what gives you the impression you know what you're talking about -- but you obviously do not. Far from it. The first rule of law you need to understand is ours is a government of, for, and by the People, not the courts. And if it becomes necessary to conceal the reason why a court is punishing a fellow citizen the People have a right to know what that reason is.

Again, if they can do it to him they can do it to you. Try to understand that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And you think this is perfectly okay. You just don't get it, do you? What country did you come here from? How do you feel about the fact that what they can do to this fellow they can do to you?


"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

What is not OK is that you don't believe in the rule of law. We the People established the rule of law and no one is above it. If you are under the impression that you are not then perhaps you are the one that needs to look elsewhere for a place to live. Somalia springs to mind as a suitable alternative.

The rule of law?

You need to read this book: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Judicial-Tyranny-The-Kings-America/dp/0975345567]Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America?: Mark I. Sutherland, William J. Federer, Roy Moore, James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Ed Meese, Phyllis Schlafly, Mathew D. Staver, Alan Sears: 9780975345566: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Meanwhile, here is an article that might help to open your eyes: The Seattle Times: Local News: The cases your judges are hiding from you


For your information it is the courts which are increasingly ignoring the rule of law and are taking it upon themselves to serve as high priests, the most prominent recent example being the Supreme Court's decision to appoint George W. Bush as our President in 2000.

You should take the time to educate yourself by researching the increasing level of misconduct by judges at all levels of government, one outstanding example of which is that of judges taking bribes from the Prison Industrial Complex to illegally sentence juveniles to confinement: Former judge sentenced to prison for kids for cash scheme | Reuters

The Rule Of Law does not hold that the courts are the Law but rather guardians and arbiters of it. But too many contemporary Americans are willing to accept that some black-robed bastards who look down from high benches are in fact dictators. They are getting away with this because the Executive and Legislative branches of government are letting them get away with it, and the reason for that is too many Americans, like you for one good example, either accept it or are willing to ignore it rather than sound off and raise hell about it.

In this example we are told that some "court" (judge) has decided to confiscate the children of some guy who's chosen to be a Nazi, which is not against the law. This "court" is saying there are good reasons to do this but we can't know what those reason are because he's decided to "seal" certain court records. And that's good enough for you.

Have you even given thought to why the categorical reasons for taking this man's children cannot be revealed? If he mistreated them in any significant way, why was he not charged, convicted, and imprisoned for it?

You need to understand this business of government secrecy is getting to be an increasingly bad habit and the more they get away with it the more inclined they are to do it. Eventually the "rule of law" will become a simple declaration that the public has no right to question the actions of a "court."

I don't know how old you are, or what country you dropped in here from, or what gives you the impression you know what you're talking about -- but you obviously do not. Far from it. The first rule of law you need to understand is ours is a government of, for, and by the People, not the courts. And if it becomes necessary to conceal the reason why a court is punishing a fellow citizen the People have a right to know what that reason is.

Again, if they can do it to him they can do it to you. Try to understand that.

Ironic that you claim to know what you are talking about when you so patently don't. The gag order in this instance is to protect the children. Some of them have already been adopted and their privacy rights and that of their adopted parents need to be respected. You don't have the right to know the details when minors are involved.

As far as being charged with child abuse that is a matter for the prosecutor to decide if there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. However that has nothing whatsoever to do with the court findings as far as protecting the children from any further abuse goes. They are entirely separate and distinct court systems. (Something else you are ignorant about.) Unless you can provide actual hard evidence to the contrary (and so far you haven't) the rule of law stands.

I suggest that you open a thread in the Conspiracy forum for your beliefs in this regard. I am sure you will find plenty of like minded types who will agree with your rants. Since you have just demonstrated that you have nothing of actual substance to offer on this topic (your link has zero credibility) there is no point in wasting any further time on your delusions. Have a nice day.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Neo-Nazi demands child welfare workers return his baby girl named Eva Braun - NY Daily News



/snip



First off, what kind of deranged lunatic gets impregnated by such a loser? Also, it sounds more like this most recent child (youngest of nine, none of whom he has custody of) was taken because her older half-sibling was already in the system.

What a mess.

It's a sad sign when it's against the law to name your own child whatever you want.


oh wait, it's not

Yet another who doesn't understand that this is about evidence of child abuse!

Is the name Blue Ivy abuse?

if not, it's a double standard

or I should say; It's the standard double standard.

 

[Two Thumbs]

People who have already had run-ins with "the system" have reason to hole up somewhere that they will be out of reach of said system.

People who are now being forced onto Medicaid may find that the government uses that as a wedge to open the door to more government "oversight" of their families.

Can of worms.




This post is not a defense of neo-Nazism or of a family who would name their kids after Nazi icons. It's just my observation about how hard it is to escape from heavy-handed government officials even if you're not a threat to your family -- officials who have been notoriously lax when there actually was cause to remove children from families.

My second wife was in the system, she was abused by her fosters from age 5-18.

she ran away
called the cops
etc, etc

But no one stepped in to help her out of a nightmare. But someone, that's not rich or famous, wants to give their kids shitty names.....

 

[Two Thumbs]

Eva Braun did nothing wrong.

Could you marry someone who was doing what Hitler did?

Great and charismatic leader that brought his country out of the worst fiscal situation ever.

Brought pride back to a country.


Hillary stayed with Bill and actually knew what a shit he was and still is.

Eva probably didn't know about the body count, and at the time, most Germans hated jews.