Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Forget Oath Keepers (See last post in thread)  (Read 21329 times)

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2010, 09:46:39 pm »

* I think we'll have an Oathkeepers meeting at Murphy's Taproom basement at 4 pm on March 23, a Tuesday.
* I'll also try to have one at the Freedom Forum at Barnes & Noble in Nashua at 7 pm on March 18, a Thursday.
Logged

Bondurant

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: Ask Cops, Military, All Public Servants to Join Oath Keepers
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2010, 01:04:18 pm »

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
http://oathkeepers.ning.com

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


A few weeks ago MSNBC was running wild about the Oath Keepers.  They were treating the group as covert white supremecits and rightwing radicals.  I'll bet no one read any of the above or, in typical MSNBC fashion, they just don't care about the facts.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2010, 01:23:03 pm »

* You can see and hear Stewart Rhodes on Chris Matthews Hardball and on Bill O'Reilly at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stewart+rhodes&search_type=&aq=f and those are somewhat antagonistic, but Alex Jones and G. Gordon Liddy seem to be very agreeable with Rhodes.
* I used to listen to Liddy on the radio a lot. He was one of the Watergate burglars who got put in jail for a while. He had been a lawyer and an FBI agent previously. I enjoyed his condemnations of government atrocities at Ruby Ridge and Waco. He called the ATF and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team rogue agencies. I think elements of the CIA, the IRS etc are likewise rogue agencies.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 01:36:46 pm by Luck »
Logged

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2010, 01:23:29 pm »

You can see and hear Stewart Rhodes on Chris Matthews Hardball and on Bill O'Reilly at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stewart+rhodes&search_type=&aq=f and those are somewhat antagonistic, but Alex Jones and G. Gordon Liddy seem to be very agreeable with Rhodes.

Stewart will also be speaking at the 2010 Liberty Forum in 2 weeks.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2010, 02:09:39 pm »

* Since you mention that Stewart will be speaking at the Liberty Forum, I thought we might as well add the details. See http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum
The Liberty Forum will be Thursday March 18 to Sunday March 21, 2010 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel at 2 Somerset Pkwy, Ste 1, Nashua, NH 03063.
Here's a map: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=trafalgar+square+%26+crowne+plaza,+Nashua,+NH&sll=42.787866,-71.506448&sspn=0.004071,0.011276&ie=UTF8&hq=trafalgar+square+%26+crowne+plaza,&hnear=Nashua,+NH&ll=42.787429,-71.505606&spn=0.001937,0.005638&z=18

The schedule says Stewart will speak from 2:45 to 3:45 on Friday, 3/19 in Ballroom C/D.

I think I'll also want to hear the following.
Brett Veinotte speaks against govt schools from 2:45-3:45 on Sat, 3/20 in the Amphitheater.
Angela Keaton speaks on anti-war from 4-5 on Sat in Ballroom C/D.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 02:34:10 pm by Luck »
Logged

maxxoccupancy

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3659
  • Evil prevails when good men don't vote Libertarian
    • fija.org
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2010, 02:22:29 pm »

I'll ask my fellow constables in Seabrook.  More members add weight to the importance of this.
Logged
If you are interested in putting together an IT-creative firm to help provide jobs for liberty folks in the future, send me a Personal Message.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: Ask Cops et al to Join Oath Keepers - Manchester/Nashua Meetings
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2010, 07:10:50 pm »

* You can go here to join the NH Oathkeepers forum: http://oathkeepers.ning.com/group/newhampshire
* If anyone would like to help the Manchester Oathkeepers group, you can go to Taproom Tuesdays and put up a sign on your table saying Oathkeepers, or join a table where there's already such a sign.
* The state coordinators for Oathkeepers seem to want to approve all Oathkeepers meetings in NH, so I'm calling the OK discussions at the Taproom a discussion instead of a meeting.
* The Freedom Forum at Borders in Nashua can also discuss OK from 7-9 on Wednesdays.
* Max says he also started a group in Hampton Falls, but I don't remember if he told me the day and time.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: NH Oath Keepers Story [New]
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2010, 07:24:17 pm »

* The following is from http://oathkeepers.org . A NH Oathkeeper, John Irish, had his newborn taken by govt agents yesterday, it seems. I met John last year at an OK meeting that I organized at Murphy's. He wasn't a pleasant person, but I don't think he deserved to have his baby girl taken away, esp. if it was for associating with Oathkeepers. - Luck.

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 father’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.

Here is Stewart’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.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 07:46:47 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: NH Oath Keepers Nationally Publicized Story [New]
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2010, 08:42:40 pm »

* Oops! False alarm! The mother was a crack addict, so it's okay.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1214470/pg37
The affidavit states (#5), "termination of parental rights was recently concluded" (regarding the other 2 children mentioned. This means the children are not, and have not been in the household for some time.

[link to www.infowars.com]

That might be true but from what I understand this had to do with a previous marriage...I'm also hearing she was a crack addict....

courts.delaware.gov/OPINIONS/download.aspx?ID=137860

If someone could open that it would be nice to read....

This may have been from her PAST though...
 Quoting: Tali


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEPHANIE TAYLOR,1
§
Respondent Below,
§
Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES,
§
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellee.
§
No. 482, 2009
Court Below—Family Court of
the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County
File No. 08-09-05TN
Pet. No. 08-29280
Submitted: March 8, 2010
Decided:
May 11, 2010
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justice.
ORDER
This 11th day of May 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, her attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the respective
responses of appellee-Division of Family Services (DFS) and the attorney
guardian ad litem appointed by the Family Court, it appears to the Court
that:
(1)
The appellant, Stephanie Taylor, has appealed the Family
Court’s July 22, 2009 termination of her parental rights (TPR) in her minor
1
By Order dated June 30, 2009, the Court assigned a pseudonym to the appellant. In this
Order we also assigned a pseudonym to the minor child. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).
child, nine-year old Nathaniel.2 On appeal, Taylor’s counsel has filed an
opening brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
26.1.3 Taylor’s counsel submits that she is unable to present a meritorious
argument in support of the appeal.
Through her counsel, Taylor has
submitted several points for this Court’s consideration.
DFS and the
attorney guardian ad litem have moved to affirm the Family Court’s
judgment.
(2)
The record reflects that Taylor has a long history of crack
cocaine addiction and has been incarcerated several times as a result. Taylor
also has an extensive history with DFS. At the present time, Taylor is caring
for only one of her children. In 2007, the Family Court terminated Taylor’s
parental rights in a younger sibling of Nathaniel. Two other siblings live
with relatives.

[See more at the link above.]
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: NH Oath Keepers Nationally Publicized Story [New]
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2010, 09:04:53 pm »

1st [& 2nd?] Amendment Rights Rally noon to 4 in Dover on Thursday with Stewart Rhodes and possibly media. See http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=69.0 for details.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 09:11:28 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2885
Re: NH Oath Keepers [Update: Sheriff Position Worth Campaigning for]
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2011, 10:51:28 pm »

* Wikipedia says sheriffs are the highest ranking law enforcement officers in the state, in contrast to what someone said on this forum some time back. If true, it would mean it's worth getting FSP libertarians to run for that office. Sheriff Mack said sheriffs can help restore Constitutional government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States#New_Hampshire

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire position of High Sheriff dates back to pre-Revolutionary War days. Today, there are 10 counties and 10 High Sheriffs in New Hampshire. The ten sheriffs are the highest ranking and most powerful uniformed law-enforcement officers in the state. The state constitution gives the sheriff of each county full law-enforcement authority throughout the county. In 1911, this authority was expanded by the state legislature to include the entire state. Sheriffs are elected to two-year terms without term limits. The sheriff is responsible for patrol duties, civil process, transport of prisoners, and criminal and civil warrants. Most county sheriff's offices provide dispatch service for many of the county's communities. Sheriffs are also responsible for the security in all the county courthouses throughout the state. Finally, sheriff are responsible for the prisoners in the local district courts throughout the state.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 04:11:42 pm by Luck »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH Oath Keepers [Update: Sheriff Position Worth Campaigning for]
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2011, 06:00:04 am »

The highest ranking law enforcement officer in the State would be the Governor.
Logged

maxxoccupancy

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3659
  • Evil prevails when good men don't vote Libertarian
    • fija.org
Re: NH Oath Keepers [Update: Sheriff Position Worth Campaigning for]
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2011, 10:06:49 pm »

It really is Sheriff.  He's the only person who can go in and arrest a police chief.
Logged
If you are interested in putting together an IT-creative firm to help provide jobs for liberty folks in the future, send me a Personal Message.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH Oath Keepers [Update: Sheriff Position Worth Campaigning for]
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2011, 01:19:27 pm »

No, I'm pretty sure that the police chief can be arrested by even a patrolman should he commit a crime.
And very sure that the NH Constitution makes the Governor the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the State.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up