Government seizes newborn because father is an Oath Keeper (treason, independent, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He refused to attend End to Violence classes, they are waiting the decision for a terminations case.
If the state has a law that they have the right to go get a newborn even if they have not yet been able to abuse the child, then the pick up was the right thing to go. Further, right before mentioning that he is in a militia called the Oath Keepers it notes that he has had many calls with the police regarding firearms and a pending charge of a concealed weapon without a permit.
At this point, it doesn't matter if the Oath Keepers are a militia or where they land on the grid of right wing whatever. What matters is the fact that there has been a domestic violence problem, he has ongoing firearm problems and he has refused to take the End of Violence classes that he was court ordered to do. The fact that he is with the Oath Keepers signifies that he has no intention of getting rid of his firearms or resolving the domestic violence situation or even follwing a court order.
Definitly sounds like there more reasons for the removal of the child than JUST his being a "member of oathkeepers" as it's being spun. Sounds like this "family" is pretty dysfunctional to say the least.
He refused to attend End to Violence classes, they are waiting the decision for a terminations case.
If the state has a law that they have the right to go get a newborn even if they have not yet been able to abuse the child, then the pick up was the right thing to go. Further, right before mentioning that he is in a militia called the Oath Keepers it notes that he has had many calls with the police regarding firearms and a pending charge of a concealed weapon without a permit.
At this point, it doesn't matter if the Oath Keepers are a militia or where they land on the grid of right wing whatever. What matters is the fact that there has been a domestic violence problem, he has ongoing firearm problems and he has refused to take the End of Violence classes that he was court ordered to do. The fact that he is with the Oath Keepers signifies that he has no intention of getting rid of his firearms or resolving the domestic violence situation or even follwing a court order.
Much ado about nothing.
From what I read from someone who should know, the firearms charge is bogus, he open carries.
Second, it's quite relevant...political affiliations can not be included as a reason for taking a child.
Knowing what I do about the false claims of child abuse at Waco that were proven to be lies, I'll not side with the government just yet when they've already blatantly violated some rights.
From what I read from someone who should know, the firearms charge is bogus, he open carries.
Second, it's quite relevant...political affiliations can not be included as a reason for taking a child.
Knowing what I do about the false claims of child abuse at Waco that were proven to be lies, I'll not side with the government just yet when they've already blatantly violated some rights.
If the father's association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason for removing the child into state custody then, regardless of any other factors, a line has been crossed and EVERYONE of any political stripe should take note.
I agree fully. Him being a member of this has no bearing on the case, yet they listed it.
From what I read from someone who should know, the firearms charge is bogus, he open carries.
Second, it's quite relevant...political affiliations can not be included as a reason for taking a child.
Knowing what I do about the false claims of child abuse at Waco that were proven to be lies, I'll not side with the government just yet when they've already blatantly violated some rights.
If the government had picked this kid up specifically because of his affiliations that would be one thing. But that is not the case. He has a history of domestic violence and did not follow through with his court order. Parental rights may be terminated for the other children because, apparently, he is so worth it to stay. Many states have a law that that states if the children have been removed from the home then a newborn also goes into custody. Period. He has a pending firearm charge.
If the government had picked this kid up specifically because of his affiliations that would be one thing. But that is not the case. He has a history of domestic violence and did not follow through with his court order. Parental rights may be terminated for the other children because, apparently, he is so worth it to stay. Many states have a law that that states if the children have been removed from the home then a newborn also goes into custody. Period. He has a pending firearm charge.
He isn't a martyr. He is a turd.
They listed it as a reason. It's there in black and white. The government discredited themselves the second they put that in there (and mistakenly called it a militia).
The children were not removed from custody yet. The domestic violence charges are not proven yet either. There's the issue of an ex trying to stir up trouble. The firearms charge is bogus seemingly and anyways, not a legitimate reason for taking children away.
See, I'm not willing to fall easily for character assassination by the government. They do it everytime they have some person in their sights and often they just spout lies and make false charges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.