Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???  (Read 15154 times)

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2010, 10:41:28 pm »

A cocaine addiction would be grounds.

The grounds are statutory. Addiction isn't one of them. But addiction that "renders the parents incapable of giving proper parental care and protection for a longer period of time than would be wise or prudent" is another thing.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2010, 01:47:12 am »

Thom, from one of Dave Ridley's videos, this is the paragraph directly above (from the same page) the now infamous Oathkeeper Paragraph:

Quote
Ms. Taylor again reported to CPSW (name illegible) on August 24, 2009 that she had been hurt during a physical altercation with Mr. Irish and had left him. Ms. Taylor declined to give specifics about the assault. Another safety plan was devised with Ms. Taylor in which her parents were involved. On that same date, Ms. Taylor reported she was fearful for her safety as Mr. Irish was in possession of a handgun that Mr. Taylor had purchased for him. The Division became aware that Mr. Irish and Ms. Taylor were again living together shortly after the incident occurred.

I've also seen some of the pages before that, but with too much probably relevant information redacted. So, looks like, we're seeing the "failure of the mother to address domestic violence" issue probably being raised. Sounds rather sketchy. DCYF's case is starting to looker weaker as more information is coming out. But there's still much information unknown.

Despite this, it does look like DCYF might be playing "fast and loose" with the rules. As usual. For example, the DCYF worker, Dana Bickford, claims DCYF engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the home. Obviously, that's physically impossible. So, basically, Ms. Bickford lied to the court.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 03:58:07 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2010, 06:55:31 am »

Why would it be physically impossible to engage in reasonable efforts not to remove the child from the home? Wouldn't this just be fixing the situation through other means?

DCYS is probably arguing the addiction is leading her to place herself and child into a situation that she herself at times feels is unsafe... repeatedly.


Logged

cody collier

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
NH Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2010, 09:10:14 am »

 Couple who took part in Oath Keepers online discussion forum have child snatched in shocking new level of police state persecution.
A newborn baby was ripped from its mother’s arms by officials from the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services accompanied by police after authorities cited the parents’ association with the Oath Keepers organization as one of the primary reasons for the snatch, heralding a shocking new level of persecution where Americans’ political beliefs are now being used by the state to kidnap children.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-seizes-newborn-baby-over-political-beliefs-of-parents.html
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/oath-keepers-statement-about-video-titled-government-agents-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: NH Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2010, 11:23:21 am »

A newborn baby was ripped from its mother’s arms by officials from the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services accompanied by police after authorities cited the parents’ association with the Oath Keepers organization as one of the primary reasons for the snatch, heralding a shocking new level of persecution where Americans’ political beliefs are now being used by the state to kidnap children.

That isn't true.  Why would you think that is true?  Actually, I remember watching a NH TV clip where someone that works for the government said political affiliation is not a reason to take a child.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2010, 11:42:12 am »

The child's legal father doesn't have anything to do with the OK.
Logged

RidleyReport

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3557
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2010, 01:44:06 pm »

"Oath Keeper Baby" fam shows controversial document (New Hampshire)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYqTYBlzOts
Logged
http://RidleyReport.com
http://NHexit.com - If Britain can do it, New Hampshire can do it

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2010, 02:38:59 pm »

The State doesn't recognize Mr. Irish as the father...
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2010, 06:11:34 pm »

Why would it be physically impossible to engage in reasonable efforts not to remove the child from the home?

Eh? Not would. It says they tried to. Yet the child was born and taken less than 24 hours later. The child was never in their home, nor did DCYF do anything in that short period of time other than appear and seize the child.

DCYS is probably arguing the addiction is leading her to place herself and child into a situation that she herself at times feels is unsafe... repeatedly.

That could certainly be an allegation, but I don't know of anything like that. It would only be speculation.

The State doesn't recognize Mr. Irish as the father...

Sure it does. RSA 168-A:1-2. There's just a general presumption of paternity to a mother's husband. Not a real issue in this case. DCYF is trying to pull a fast one on the court, so they can use allegations against the soon-to-be ex-husband as a basis against the couple too.
Logged

RidleyReport

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3557
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2010, 07:25:51 pm »

Officer used force to quell recording, says "Oath Keeper Baby's" mom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4NvR0KLcg
Logged
http://RidleyReport.com
http://NHexit.com - If Britain can do it, New Hampshire can do it

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2010, 10:24:59 pm »

Has Mr. Irish filed petition?
Since supposedly the birth certificate names the husband.
Logged

cody collier

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2010, 12:31:46 am »

Confirmed: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby



http://www.infowars.com/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/

Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2010, 01:49:14 pm »

Actually, the paperwork shows Mr. Irish was charged for concealed carry without a permit... and didn't attend court ordered counseling as part of his punishment.



Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2010, 06:55:42 pm »

Confirmed: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

http://www.infowars.com/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/

There's nothing that says the court relied on that. Stop spreading disinformation.

Actually, the paperwork shows Mr. Irish was charged for concealed carry without a permit... and didn't attend court ordered counseling as part of his punishment.

Not enough. There's still more to the story.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 07:22:27 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

Antijingoist

  • Guest
Re: Any New Information on the Baby Taken by Government Storm Troopers ???
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2010, 07:06:44 pm »

Actually, the paperwork shows Mr. Irish was charged for concealed carry without a permit... and didn't attend court ordered counseling as part of his punishment.

Living free is not a reason to loose a kid.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up