Oath Keepers' newborn taken by state
- Thread starter chanel
- Start date
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
ah, i see where there might be a misunderstanding.
this:
was my wild guess as to why the newborn was taken. this was not a personal experience of mine.
fyrenza
Ariel Looney
Oh, WOW!
Thank you!
I suck 'cuz I don't exactly read EVERY post up to the one I reply to.
I sort of read the Title, a couple of posts from the first page,
and THEN,
I dive in to the last page to see what's doing,
and respond! My bad!!!
Thank you!
I suck 'cuz I don't exactly read EVERY post up to the one I reply to.
I sort of read the Title, a couple of posts from the first page,
and THEN,
I dive in to the last page to see what's doing,
and respond! My bad!!!
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
Whatever the other allegations, and even if the other allegations are all true, there should be no way that child services ever interferes with parental rights because of political affiliation. That is so ridiculous that it should be sending every lawyer in the country running to sue them based on that allegation alone. Political beliefs are never grounds for removing a child, and the idiot that added that to the affidavit should be fired, and barred from ever working for any government agency anywhere in this country.
Reasoning
Active Member
- Apr 15, 2010
- 403
- 70
- 28
Oath Keepers Blog Archive Oath Keepers statement about video titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”
October 7th, 2010
Oath Keepers statement about video titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”
Stewart has just now as of 7:45PM PST, spoken to the father and he is faxing documents to Stewart. We are establishing a legal defense fund. Once it is confirmed through documentation that the fatherÂ’s association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason, even if among several reasons listed, for taking the child, we will actively pursue aggressive legal remedy and redress. We will assist in locating competent local legal counsel in New Hampshire and additional expert legal counsel from around the country in First Amendment and child custody law. Stewart, who has worked on several First Amendment cases in State and Federal court will also volunteer his services to assist in the case Pro Bono.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDrA74lM3k[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZRM-P46rI[/ame]
Here is StewartÂ’s statement for now:
We are doing all we can to confirm and document this. But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother’s arms because the parents were “associated” with Oath Keepers by simply being members of our online ning discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a very serious line, and is utterly intolerable. It cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to stand.
If it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and “speak truth to power,” no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations -- because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution. It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written.
If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England. We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.
Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers
Stewart will post additional statements and info as this situation develops. Please be ready to flood the responsible parties with phone calls and emails to put public pressure on them in the court of public opinion.
UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.
Note that there is no allegation that Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime. We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, “held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.” We don’t even advocate that the current serving use violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence. We ask them to merely stand down.
Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for that matter. However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid reason to take someone’s child away. PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE OTHER VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to associate with them. To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violence or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them “thought crime” like “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count -- at least not yet). A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so). Just recently a Time Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a militia member and his family -- and those kids are still at home, where they belong, as is the case with many th0usands of children across this country who have parents who “associate” with private militias and all manner of other non-criminal groups. You had damn well better defend the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militias and keep their kids while doing so. You can bet that if you let such an association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents that it won’t only be militia folks who have their rights violated. Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on the hit list. Just wait. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
A modern version might read like this:
They came first for the militia members,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a militia member.
Then they came for the three percenters,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a three percenter.
Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t an Oath Keeper.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
So, defend the right of even the most hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.
But this particular listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other level of Alice in Wonderland “down is up” and up is down,” when you consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers are current serving police, fire-fighters, and military personnel. Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving police officers. How can “associating” with such fine men and women who are daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute evidence of child endangerment? How can it be that a New Hampshire police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as evidence of child abuse and endangerment? Only in the bizzaro world of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law, keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered “extreme” and “dangerous.”
This is the camel’s nose under the tent. We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly pushed upon us. If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about Oath Keepers except that the father “is associated” with this organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us -- and it will only be the beginning.
OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK -- peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens. Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child. Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel. And we won’t relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights. Be professional, but firm. Make them hear you.
Stewart Rhodes
October 7th, 2010
Oath Keepers statement about video titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”
Stewart has just now as of 7:45PM PST, spoken to the father and he is faxing documents to Stewart. We are establishing a legal defense fund. Once it is confirmed through documentation that the fatherÂ’s association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason, even if among several reasons listed, for taking the child, we will actively pursue aggressive legal remedy and redress. We will assist in locating competent local legal counsel in New Hampshire and additional expert legal counsel from around the country in First Amendment and child custody law. Stewart, who has worked on several First Amendment cases in State and Federal court will also volunteer his services to assist in the case Pro Bono.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDrA74lM3k[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZRM-P46rI[/ame]
Here is StewartÂ’s statement for now:
We are doing all we can to confirm and document this. But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother’s arms because the parents were “associated” with Oath Keepers by simply being members of our online ning discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a very serious line, and is utterly intolerable. It cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to stand.
If it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and “speak truth to power,” no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations -- because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution. It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written.
If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England. We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.
Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers
Stewart will post additional statements and info as this situation develops. Please be ready to flood the responsible parties with phone calls and emails to put public pressure on them in the court of public opinion.
UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST -- We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts -- they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.
Note that there is no allegation that Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime. We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, “held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.” We don’t even advocate that the current serving use violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence. We ask them to merely stand down.
Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for that matter. However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid reason to take someone’s child away. PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE OTHER VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to associate with them. To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violence or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them “thought crime” like “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count -- at least not yet). A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so). Just recently a Time Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a militia member and his family -- and those kids are still at home, where they belong, as is the case with many th0usands of children across this country who have parents who “associate” with private militias and all manner of other non-criminal groups. You had damn well better defend the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militias and keep their kids while doing so. You can bet that if you let such an association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents that it won’t only be militia folks who have their rights violated. Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on the hit list. Just wait. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
A modern version might read like this:
They came first for the militia members,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a militia member.
Then they came for the three percenters,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t a three percenter.
Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
and I didnÂ’t speak up because I wasnÂ’t an Oath Keeper.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
So, defend the right of even the most hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.
But this particular listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other level of Alice in Wonderland “down is up” and up is down,” when you consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers are current serving police, fire-fighters, and military personnel. Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving police officers. How can “associating” with such fine men and women who are daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute evidence of child endangerment? How can it be that a New Hampshire police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as evidence of child abuse and endangerment? Only in the bizzaro world of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law, keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered “extreme” and “dangerous.”
This is the camel’s nose under the tent. We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly pushed upon us. If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about Oath Keepers except that the father “is associated” with this organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us -- and it will only be the beginning.
OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK -- peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens. Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child. Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel. And we won’t relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights. Be professional, but firm. Make them hear you.
Stewart Rhodes
paperview
Life is Good
This story is not about the Oath Keepers, it's about a dirtbag father (who we don't even know is the father, as his "fiance" is still married to another man), who is apparently too blind to work, (but not too blind to play with guns),
collects state disability,
has a history of domestic violence, sexual molestation with minors, the mother has two other children who have been taken away from her for neglect and abuse, she's popping out her third child as she just barely became an adult, while still married to another man...
and the story goes red-rage viral cause...why? Waaaa!
the political dingo's takes me baby!
__________________
collects state disability,
has a history of domestic violence, sexual molestation with minors, the mother has two other children who have been taken away from her for neglect and abuse, she's popping out her third child as she just barely became an adult, while still married to another man...
and the story goes red-rage viral cause...why? Waaaa!
the political dingo's takes me baby!__________________
Reasoning
Active Member
- Apr 15, 2010
- 403
- 70
- 28
This story is not about the Oath Keepers, it's about a dirtbag father (who we don't even know is the father, as his "fiance" is still married to another man), who is apparently too blind to work, (but not too blind to play with guns),
collects state disability,
has a history of domestic violence, sexual molestation with minors, the mother has two other children who have been taken away from her for neglect and abuse, she's popping out her third child as she just barely became an adult, while still married to another man...
and the story goes red-rage viral cause...why? Waaaa!
__________________
Does it concern you that govt. agents would list being the member of a political organization as a reason for taking one of your kids away?
If this political association was not listed this would be a totally different story...
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #28
There is already a thread on this. Your 'alert' is a tad late.
paperview
Life is Good
First the affidavit you got off infowarsThis story is not about the Oath Keepers, it's about a dirtbag father (who we don't even know is the father, as his "fiance" is still married to another man), who is apparently too blind to work, (but not too blind to play with guns),
collects state disability,
has a history of domestic violence, sexual molestation with minors, the mother has two other children who have been taken away from her for neglect and abuse, she's popping out her third child as she just barely became an adult, while still married to another man...
and the story goes red-rage viral cause...why? Waaaa!
__________________
Does it concern you that govt. agents would list being the member of a political organization as a reason for taking one of your kids away?
If this political association was not listed this would be a totally different story...
is doctored.Second: They didn't take the baby away because of his political association.
They did because he is a dirtbag abusive loon with a history of domestic violence who leeches off the state (and MY tax money is helping to pay for) and a obviously mentally deranged girl who has had three babies by the time she is barely an adult, who couldn't work to try and get her own two children back who were taken away for abuse and neglect before she went and got knocked up with another *while married to another man.*
The story is not about the Oath Keepers, nor were they a *reason.*
RadiomanATL
Senior Member
Can the babby frigth back?
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,085
- 5,465
- 370
Oh yeah, the government is sooo good and soo clean, it does everything right. Do this to a muslim or a gay person and then and only then is there hell to pay. But please do not question the governments agenda when it is a person on the right 
paperview
Life is Good
You'd be wise to step back and learn a few more details about the story before you go defending these two pieces of human debris.Oh yeah, the government is sooo good and soo clean, it does everything right. Do this to a muslim or a gay person and then and only then is there hell to pay. But please do not question the governments agenda when it is a person on the right
The state did the right thing in protecting this baby from these abusers.
Last edited:
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,085
- 5,465
- 370
You'd be wise to step back and learn a few more details about the story before you go defending these two pieces of human debris.Oh yeah, the government is sooo good and soo clean, it does everything right. Do this to a muslim or a gay person and then and only then is there hell to pay. But please do not question the governments agenda when it is a person on the right
I made a statement that no matter the story, I would still make
RadiomanATL
Senior Member
Oh yeah, the government is sooo good and soo clean, it does everything right. Do this to a muslim or a gay person and then and only then is there hell to pay. But please do not question the governments agenda when it is a person on the right
If a muslim or a gay person had a history like these dirtbags do, I'd want the government to take the child as well.
This isn't a left/right issue in this case.
paperview
Life is Good
So you basically were just making a vacuous comment about the story and just needed an opportunity to burp a little martyr whine.You'd be wise to step back and learn a few more details about the story before you go defending these two pieces of human debris.Oh yeah, the government is sooo good and soo clean, it does everything right. Do this to a muslim or a gay person and then and only then is there hell to pay. But please do not question the governments agenda when it is a person on the right
I made a statement that no matter the story, I would still make
All righty then...
Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
Just read the update, it's pathetic that the moron had to invoke the Holocaust.
This is what caught my eye:
Yup, we'll post what we feel is relevant so we'll tell you how to think. However, we won't mention the "other, very serious allegations."
This is what caught my eye:
Yup, we'll post what we feel is relevant so we'll tell you how to think. However, we won't mention the "other, very serious allegations."
paperview
Life is Good
Scumbuckets, they are.
State takes infant, spurs protest - Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010
“In court paperwork, the state alleges the health and safety of the infant, named Cheyenne, was in “imminent danger” if she was left with her parents because of “a lengthy history of domestic violence” between them.
……………..
Her baby girl was born shortly before midnight on Wednesday at Concord Hospital. And that’s where the infant’s parents say they were served the next afternoon with an “abuse and neglect petition” filed by the state Division of Children, Youth and Families.
Taylor said she doesn’t know why the agency states in court documents that she twice last year reported to a state social worker that Irish had hurt her and that she feared for her life because he had a gun. “The only time he would put his hands on me was to give me a hug,” she said.
………………..
Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.”
From the comments section:
“My guess is that the concern about the ownership of guns is related to the history of Domestic Violence in this couple. According to the Motion for Venue Change (at the website referenced in earlier comments), Mr. Irish was court-ordered to complete a batterers intervention which he did not complete. When assessing for the risk of lethality (the risk of an abuser killing his/her partner) in a Domestic Violence situation, presence of weapons in the home is obviously one of the primary risk factors.
According to the same document cited above, the police department has “responded to multiple calls which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.” Obviously, we don’t know what type of calls these were, but it shows that weapons are certainly available to Mr. Irish, and that he is not a responsible (law abiding) firearm owner. As I said, I’m a member of the NRA, but with this man’s reported history, I take no issue with police/DCYF concern about his possession of weapons.”
State takes infant, spurs protest - Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010
“In court paperwork, the state alleges the health and safety of the infant, named Cheyenne, was in “imminent danger” if she was left with her parents because of “a lengthy history of domestic violence” between them.
……………..
Her baby girl was born shortly before midnight on Wednesday at Concord Hospital. And that’s where the infant’s parents say they were served the next afternoon with an “abuse and neglect petition” filed by the state Division of Children, Youth and Families.
Taylor said she doesn’t know why the agency states in court documents that she twice last year reported to a state social worker that Irish had hurt her and that she feared for her life because he had a gun. “The only time he would put his hands on me was to give me a hug,” she said.
………………..
Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.”
From the comments section:
“My guess is that the concern about the ownership of guns is related to the history of Domestic Violence in this couple. According to the Motion for Venue Change (at the website referenced in earlier comments), Mr. Irish was court-ordered to complete a batterers intervention which he did not complete. When assessing for the risk of lethality (the risk of an abuser killing his/her partner) in a Domestic Violence situation, presence of weapons in the home is obviously one of the primary risk factors.
According to the same document cited above, the police department has “responded to multiple calls which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.” Obviously, we don’t know what type of calls these were, but it shows that weapons are certainly available to Mr. Irish, and that he is not a responsible (law abiding) firearm owner. As I said, I’m a member of the NRA, but with this man’s reported history, I take no issue with police/DCYF concern about his possession of weapons.”
paperview
Life is Good
You want to see how Alex Jones fucks with people?
On the affidavit he showed a Number 1 through 6 document, then showed ...ta da... another page with #7...
Well, in this clip:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJUgkIOx5o&[/ame]
, the dirtbag John Irish is holding up **an** Affidavit (which Alex won't show us....except the Number Seven part.)
Look at it. I screen captured it. Hard to make out, but you can see number six of THAT affidavit is about how the girl feared for her safety after he hit her and the problem this scum has with guns, the restraining order she had against him...
Look:
Changes the context a little, dunnit?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Donald trump's fall in the polls is accelerating, Nate Silver warns
- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
-
Poll Question: How Many Believe Biden Has Had Prostate Cancer For Years?
- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-