Friday, October 8, 2010

BREAKING NEWS! - “Government Agents Seize New Born From Hospital”!

Apparently one of the reasons given by the authorities for their actions is that the parents of the child were members in an organization called "Oath Keepers" I know nothing about "Oath Keepers," other than what I just read on their site. They describe themselves as: "Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders." However, if what happened is actually as the father describes, this is a shocking story that reeks of Big Brother government, and needs to get out, passed around, and get as much exposure as possible. It appears that this couple's baby was taken from them simply because the government doesn't approve of their politics, and that the couple needs help from somewhere to get their baby back:

From the Youtube post:

"Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital
New Hampshire, Wed. Oct. 6th, 2010
Last Night John Irish & Stephanie Janvrin had their new born baby girl taken away by government officials because of their involvement with Oath Keepers, a non violent constitutional organization. According to Irish, The Director of Security and the Head Nurse of the Hospital said "we want the pediatrician to check the baby in the nursery so that you can go home." The baby was wheeled out in the bassinet under the protest of Irish. Irish followed them out and took note of 3-4 men wearing suits with detective badges as well as 3 police officers.
The Division of Family Child Services proceeded to pat down John and inform the parents they would be taking the daughter. "They Stole our Child" says John Irish. An Affidavit was produced that claimed an affiliation with a militia called Oath Keepers. Irish claims Oath Keepers is a non violent organization. John and Stephanie were able to spend a few minutes with their daughter and were forced to leave. A security officer escorted the two out of the hospital."

Hmmm…I smell a possible scam. The original post came from “George Hemminger” Do a search on him…he was involved in a pump and dump scam some years back.
His channel on YouTube is george4title.

Oath Keepers statement about video titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”:

"Oath keeper patch in englishStewart 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. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’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 didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a militia member.
Then they came for the three percenters,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a three percenter.
Then they came for the Oath Keepers,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’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"

There are yet more things to be verified. Please note that Stewart’s statement uses the word “IF” a couple of times. E.g. “If true…”.
Having said that, I’m extremely interested in hearing the bottom lines of this story as soon as the facts are in and assessed.

From the Father Johnathon Irish — October 7, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
"Alright everyone, I apologize that I never singed up on the new site. I never had 5 free minutes to, my fiancee had a rough pregnancy to say the least so I had to drop from the ranks. Yes, Stewart has the documents that I had faxed to him and no it is not mis-information. Celia, I know you are only hearing “one side” but you are hearing the TRUTH, there entire affidavit is nothing but false claims with not back bone or evidence what so ever. They have fabricated lies upon fabricated lies, the only evidence they have is what comes out of there mouth, they have nothing to provide to substantiate they ridiculous hollow claims I honestly don’t understand how the hell the did this my head is still spinning, it feels like I am in a VERY bad dream that won’t end. Thank you all for your support, I need to get in with her. She hasn’t stopped balling her eyes out for about 12 hours now.
I am going to rack out because my fiancee and I are over exhausted with all of this. If any of you think this is a “scam” or something of the sort watch Alex Jones tomorrow I think he has me on at 12 noon. People will know then, my daughter was stolen the only scam going on here is the one that the State of NH is pulling."

There is another majorly motivating issue here which the public should be informed about. I speaking of an issue that is motivating these criminal child “protective” service offenders. That issue involves very large and plentiful adoption bonuses, which multiply once henious adoption “targets” are met. In other words, in order for the state to make even more money from stealing “highly-adoptable” children, they first need to steal and have adopted a certain high number. Once these predatory officails greedily and quickly meet their “target” number of successful adoptions, then additional stolen and adopted children really start paying off for them.
There is a wonderfully informative article written by journalist and parent activist Nev Moore of Massachusetts News on this subject. It is appropriately titled “The Money Behind the Madness.”
Government child “welfare” officials are greatly assisted by cooperating doctors, social workers, court officials, judges, court-appointed lawyers for parents, court-appointed lawyers for children, state agency case workers, foster care case workers, junk psychologists, etc. who are all profitting handsomely and consistently from this crooked conspiracy to seperate children from biological parents for big profit. The big change came in 1997 when President Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which has nothing to with safety and everything to do with adoption. This new law established that parents would only have twelve to fifteen months to fight for their own flesh and blood child once the child was taken into “custody,” often directly from the maternity ward. It also established a huge pool of federal funding to reward agencies for successfully completed adoptions, with additional multiplying bonuses to be given to the states which succeed in adopting out the most children.
Seemingly rational and just reasons given for this national push toward more adoptions were that many children,especially older children and those with disabilities, remain in foster care for years without ever having a “stable, safe and permanent home.” Sounded good on the surface, but why limit the number of months that parents can fight? Well, it was said that a child’s “sense of time” is different than an adults. What?
Although the law was ostensibly set up to better meet the needs of older children and those who are disabled, what actually resulted from this pricey new law is that newborns and very young children became the targets of the more predetory members of this “profession,” and the predators are numberable. Very young children are easier to have adopted. Newborns are most prefered. And yes, white children are the most desired, with white female newborns being the single most desirable demographic for these vulture child “welfare” professionals.
This is the story on the official government bonus money which is payed for state- “assisted” adoptions. Then there is also under the table bonus money, paid for especially desirable and hard to get children, like caucasion newborns.
Potential “adopters” wait years and pay large amounts of money for this particular highly desirable demographic. They wait for years to obtain exactly the kind of child they want. This way,by adopting through the foster “care” an infertile or simply greedy couple can not only avoid paying. They can indeed be paid monthly and be paid quite well, up until the stolen and adopted child is eighteen years of age, or longer if they go to college and all the way through graduate school, if that child’s goes post-graduate.
The foster care system is also married to the psychiatric and pharmalogicial world and that means big money for both sectors. Adopters can obtain double their monthly income for each child if they are able to have “their” child diagnosed as special needs. Almost all of them achieve this, and MANY American children saddled for life with false diagnosises and are unnecessarily medicated so that profits will increase for all child “welfare” professionals involved.
The Constitution does not apply in family court. There is usually a biased judge, often one who profits oppulently from adoptions. The child’s law “guardian,” case workers and supervisors worker are also rewarded well for favoring adoption as a goal for almost every child, especially the ones considered to be highly adoptable, as are court-appointed lawyers for parents.
Hearsay testimony is allowed in family court and perjury, extortion, fabrication of evidence against parents, etc. are all commonplace.
Physical and sexual abuse of children is said to be roughly seven times more likely within the context of state “care” than within intact biological homes.
This is a world-class racket, which is happening simultaneously in England, where a similar pro-adoption law was passed around the same time. With a little research, you will find this information all over the internet.
So, you see…this case is not only about a violation of the rights of a family “associated” with Oath Keepers. It is about a violation of the rights of this family and all American families are vulnerable. This unparalleled state-sponsored theft of young children and especially newborns, in my opinion, strikes at the very heart of America and is, in fact, an ongoing operational example of Corporatist and Fascism working side by side for maximum profit while destroying the American family.
There will indeed be more to this story as the media, holding down its firm position as the newly admitted 4th branch of government, can make a demon of a 2yr old and all the mindless masses will all at once jump to their feet and in one voice sing out “Praise Big Brother”. The government does at will, never faces any retrtibution, and rarer still allows actual trial of cases because trial sets precedence and that cannot happen.
One thing more: Folks, I understand why so many of you are angry. I too saw red, and was “fighting mad” when I first heard of this. Frankly, it brought to mind something H.L. Mencken once said:
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”

No comments:

Post a Comment