Saturday, October 9, 2010

CPS Kidnapping and Persecution of Oath Keepers?

Not so fast....

Update (Oct. 15/10): According to an article posted at Infowars yesterday, Jonathan Irish has informed Jones that his infant daughter has been returned. He says he can't divulge any details due to a gag order, but he now claims that CPS investigated him only because he was confused with another man with a similar name who actually does have a record of domestic violence. As with everything else in the case, I don't know what to believe because there simply isn't enough information being provided from which to draw firm conclusions.

Jones has an intense hatred for social workers, particularly those employed by Child Protective Services (CPS). He has stated that social work was invented merely as a front for eugenics and racism (which would have been quite a shock to Dorothy Day, Jane Addams, and the other early social workers who did so much to help impoverished immigrants and their children). He has stated that most family court judges are sadistic pedophiles. He has stated that half of CPS workers are pedophiles.

His experiences of CPS must be quite different from mine. When I was growing up, several friends were abused or neglected by their parents, and CPS turned a blind eye. One girl was raised by a mother who would make Joan Crawford look like a freaking saint, but after one weekend in a foster home, CPS decided that because the girl wasn't a complete train wreck yet, her mother must not be so bad. She was returned to her own home, and never received another visit from a social worker. In other words, she was condemned to several more years of hell. In another family, three siblings were allowed to remain with their mother even though a social worker knew there was no food in the house. Another family plagued by alcoholism and incest never even received a visit from CPS. If social workers are really the crazed Stormtrooper thugs Jones portrays them to be, they have a strange way of showing it in certain parts of the U.S.

On Friday's show, Jones' guests were a New Hampshire couple who claim that their newborn was removed from their care solely because the father, Jonathan (John) Irish, is a supporter of the group Oathkeepers. His fiancee claims the CPS began investigating them after finding a gun in their car, even though she had a concealed carry license for it. They were told Irish belonged to a militia.

If accurate, this would be disturbing story. But the problem is, we don't have enough information to judge its accuracy. As one commenter at a Snardfarker site, Patty Kearon, pointed out: "The most important information is missing from this case. Nobody has posted any of the most important information needed to draw any conclusions. We all need to see the petitions that brought the older children into CPC custody. CPS had already taken their first 2 children into custody. We need to see the disposition reports, permanency reports and other documents such as police reports. And are the case plan requirements based on some documented substantiated abuse? We no [sic] nothing about these things which are very important pieces of information. Somebody get this needed information on the web, and then after reading it all, then I will give you my honest opinion. And anybody who makes a judgement without this information is just as bad as the people you are making judgements about".

Other commenters mention that Irish's Oath Keepers affiliation was only one of several reasons listed for the intervention, that Irish has a history of domestic violence, that Irish may not actually be affiliated with Oath Keepers. Irish himself mentioned to Jones that the CPS report lists reported abuse of his fiancee, but denies he is abusive.
Undoubtedly, many babies have been born to Oath Keepers, yet there are no other reports of newborns being removed from these families.

A Concord Monitor article has this to say: "Court records show an ongoing investigation into charges that Irish abused Taylor and her two-year-old child", and "according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse."
The affidavit also says that Rochester, New Hampshire police have documented a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Irish and his fiancee, that a judge determined Irish abused his fiancee's two older children, that he failed to complete a court-ordered domestic violence course, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate the fiancee's parental rights over the other two children for these reasons.

It seems there's much we're not being told by the New Hampshire couple. Jones didn't ask the couple any questions; he accepted their story at face value, even referring to the social workers as "wolves", "fascists", "monsters", and "kidnappers". When Irish made a vague, confusing statement indicating that his fiancee's husband (not ex-husband, as Irish calls him) is listed as the baby's father, Jones instantly interpreted this as some sort of ploy on the part of CPS - without seeking any additional information. Any other interviewer would have asked some tough questions at this point, if only for clarification. Instead, Jones solicited donations for the couple's legal defense.

The mislabeling of Oathkeepers as a "militia" can probably be straightened out in court later this month. But what about the other issues that Jones did not address? It strikes me as irresponsible to give unconditional support to this young couple when we have no idea what's going on in this case. It's not a good idea to hold them up as examples of "persecution against Libertarians and conservatives" until more is known. As the Monitor article points out, many of the supporters rallying around Irish and his fiancee heard about the case at second or third hand, and know nothing about the abuse allegations.

At the end of his interview with Irish and his fiancee (I have not used her name here because it is given variously as Taylor and Janvrin; I don't know which is her real name), Jones admits that CPS has also failed to intervene in clear-cut cases of abuse and neglect. Strangely, though, he seems far less concerned about this than about the alleged persecution of a small number of allegedly innocent parents, and what he sees as widespread corruption in social work and the "adoption racket".

Addendum: Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oathkeepers, has a much more balanced and rational take on the case, as an article re-posted at Infowars shows. He realizes that Irish's Oath Keepers affiliation was not necessarily the dominant reason why the child was removed, and acknowledges that other issues were presented in the affidavit.

22 comments:

John Seal said...

Are you sure it's illegal to hold a seminar called 'Never Get Busted Again'? Sounds like pretty mild stuff--and certainly not a good reason to take a man's children out of his care.

Anonymous said...

You said that,given Barry Coopers current illegal activity, you are not surprised that Coopers child was stolen.

What was Cooper doing? Recording a legal defense self-help seminar against unjust laws and overzealous cops? Why would that cause anyone to be not exactly surprised that he got his kid stolen?
I dont get it.

Anonymous said...

Cooper ran stings on corrupt police officers, exposing them for the power mad scum most of them are. The police retaliated with a misdemeanor raid on Coopers home...they found a tiny amount of pot...I think his stepson later went to visit his biological dad and never came back, the father had regained custody after hearing about the raid and the 'evil' Cooper and his Kopbuster program.

Wikipedia says CPS stole or took the kid, with no real explanation.

Russell said...

I'm unfamiliar with Cooper and one point of the article is unclear to me: in what "illegal activity" was he engaged?
I don't think that hosting these seminars would be illegal.

Russell said...

Then again, Texas is quite the police state...

S.M. Elliott said...

Well, who knows? Maybe in Texas it's just perfectly A-OK to aid and abet drug use and distribution. Kind of like those books that tell you how to make homemade silencers or stalk people without getting caught, it's not illegal because you're not *actually* committing the crimes yourself, you're just telling other people how to pull them off successfully.

socrates said...

Basically S.M. Elliot has no problem making up things if it serves her overall purpose of slamming Alex Jones. There's no need to ever make things up. She did the same thing with her unfounded attack on Joan Crawford. MeThinks someone is afflicted with a case of closed-minded debunkerness. A healthy skeptism is good, but this is turning into something else. At least have the dignity to admit when you are wrong. Or maybe you like sticking up for corrupt police. It took me twenty seconds to figure out what "illegal activity" you accused Cooper of. He's actually stopped doing that exact sting with the suspicious bag trick. A guy goes after bad cops, and you think he deserves to lose his kids for that. Perhaps he was somewhat guilty of something, as in producing hoax police reports. His intentions were good. He wasn't aiding and abetting drug use or whatever you wrote, and you look like you put no more than five seconds into researching that part of your entry. Your last comment makes me wonder how often you do this.

Anonymous said...

It's not a "crime" to "aid" drug use and distribution, it's the war on drugs itself that is the crime. Your fascist views only serve to lend more credence to Alex Jones. Good job.

S.M. Elliott said...

I believe Joan Crawford was abusive, at least to her two oldest children. Her daughter's account is entirely consistent with the emotional abuse meted out by parents who have been abused themselves and feel a need to control every aspect of their environments. Sometimes these parents mellow with age (or the abuse abates as the child becomes too old to dominate), so it's possible that Crawford's two younger daughters denied she was abusive because they had not experienced or witnessed any of the abuse.

This post contains more of my opinion than the average post, but so far as I know I have accurately relayed the details of the case as reported by Jones, Irish and Taylor, and the Concord Monitor. If I have misreported something, tell me and it will be corrected. But if you're simply sore that I don't approve of aiding and abetting drug use (whether that's criminal or not), there's nothing I can do about that. I have seen too many lives destroyed by drugs to have any fond feelings for pushers or enablers, and I won't apologize for that.

S.M. Elliott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
S.M. Elliott said...

P.S. I'm removing the Cooper paragraph because it is distracting readers from the germane issue, which is that the Irish/Taylor case is not a clear-cut instance of political persecution at this time. But please be aware that Jones' reporting on the Cooper case was inaccurate. CPS was not responsible. See http://trueslant.com/stephenwebster/2010/05/03/fox-news-quotes-my-reporting-on-barry-cooper-and-gets-it-wrong/

Instructing people how to use/hide/distribute drugs is not illegal in Texas, so long as you're not actively participating (though Cooper was charged with possession).

As with the Taylor/Irish case, no one seems to have a clear idea of why his three children (a stepson and two daughters) were removed. Pot people say it's because of his videos. Jones, Cooper himself, and others say he was framed because of his high-profile busts.

Paul said...

"Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oathkeepers, has a much more balanced and rational take on the case, as an article re-posted at Infowars shows."

Who would've thought it? Jones jumped right on this one though.

Anonymous said...

Removing but not retracting is retracting.


You seemed to welcome Cooper losing his kid, due to his public service which you termed his 'illegal activity,' which wasn't so much about helping people help themselves to drugs as much as it was about keeping law officers on the straight and narrow, and protecting the rights of the accused or soon to be accused, in some cases. The raid on Cooper was misdemeanor based. which wasn't right. Cooper tried to raise awareness about the illegal tactics cops use to prosecute the corrupt and futile 'war on drugs.' Making those phone calls might not have been wise or lawful, but thousands of police threatening people, lying to people, setting them up, etc. is a deep corrosive rot on our society. Cooper was charged with possession of a very small amount of pot- whoopee. you still persist in your delight over this, as it seems to help your argument- in your mind.

The Trish- Irish case is odd- the presumption of innocence seems to have been tossed out-this is not right. Maybe the kids need to be removed , I don't know.

But it is a very serious thing to use someones political associations or beliefs as part of an official reason to snatch children- this is what was done, we've seen the report. If They are unfit for other more legit reasons, thats different, but don't go and write up a child confiscation order citing Oath Keepers, gun ownership /2nd amendment adherence, etc., -that is bad precedence and blatant political persecution.

S.M. Elliott said...

I wrote that I wasn't surprised by the removal of Cooper's son, not that I approved. As I wrote here in the comments, I don't even know why the child was removed (and neither does anyone else who has commented on the case - it's all speculative in nature).

I'm not freaked by the Oathkeepers thing because I am confident that Oathkeepers will be shown to not be a militia group, and/or the issue will be nullified as child endangerment, if Irish has a competent lawyer. Then the case will rest solely on the abuse allegations, which should have been the case from the start.

Now you'll all have to stew in your righteous indignation over my drug comments by yourselves. I have things to do.

Russell said...

"I have seen too many lives destroyed by drugs to have any fond feelings for pushers or enablers, and I won't apologize for that."

What about alcohol?

Anonymous said...

Or tobacco?

Cooper had the right idea.....

Anonymous said...

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message905460/pg1

Is this you or someone posing as you? Its your writings, but unattributed.

S.M. Elliott said...

No, I'm not "Guns 'n' God" with a Scarface avatar. ;D
G 'n' G stole an early version of my squalene post, added a few things to it, and posted it as his own.

Andrew Cruze said...

Thanks for the post, Elliott. I caught part of this while tuning into the rebroadcast the other night, and I had no idea what to make of it. Jones even went on to use this incident as a means to plug his "moneybomb" and to talk up the overriding importance of his "transmission", calling his show the most important thing out there before, in my opinion, feigning a headache and airing a Ron Paul speech.

socrates said...

No one can prove anything about what you wrote concerning Cooper, because it's now gone. That's blog cheating. You cheated. Most people are nice and won't rip into someone for making a mistake. Rather than acknowledging your errors with a retraction, you whitewalled and labelled this a distraction. That's cheating 101.

socrates said...

Oops- should have said scrubbed and pruned rather than whitewalling.

S.M. Elliott said...

Well actually you did rip into me for making a mistake, even after I corrected it here in the comments.

About Me

My photo
I'm a 30ish housefrau living in Canada

Followers