Updated: Oath Keeper Baby Back with Parents

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter26Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Reddit0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someonePrint this page

Background: on October 6, 2010 a baby was born at a New Hampshire hospital and was subsequently removed from the parent’s by force and with a legal affidavit listing causes at the behest of the new Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.  One of the reasons cited by the state for removal was that the father was a member of a ning group called Oath Keepers.  The veracity of such a heinous act was at first in doubt, but the founder of Oath Keepers has determined that the story is true and has posted redacted affidavits and other proofs on the group’s website.  Please go there and read for yourself.

UPDATE Baby Cheyenne returned to her parents!

About 200 people, supporter’s, Oathkeeper’s & folk’s from around the U.S. including myself and just about every reporter & TV station in the Northeast converged on the court where the Taylor’s hearing was and the court ordered the baby be released back to the parent’s immediately. However (of course) a gag order was ordered to save face for DCYF & is likely why all the link’s got pulled.

Thank you chuckolb and  CS Lynda

Update October 12, 2010

Confirmation from the Oath Keeper’s Website: 

There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order.  Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.

To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents:  the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the  Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process.   We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.

By looking at the below documents, you will be able to see from the two Petitions, the Order, and Affidavit item #7, in that order, that:

1.  Both Petitions state:  “7. Details or Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary):  See affidavit filed with the Concord Family Court.”

2.  The Court’s Ex Parte Order states:

“Findings of Fact:

There is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child’s health or life, which require the immediate placement of the child for the following reasons:

See attached affidavit”

Thus, the Court’s Order does, in fact, refer to, and adopt all of the reasons given in the Affidavit as being the reasons for the order.

3.  The Attached Affidavit, referenced by the Petitions and adopted by the Court as its findings of fact, includes, at #7:  “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser.”

This is how all such petitions are done.  The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition.  And in this case, the Order explicitly states that the reasons in support are listed in the “attached affidavit.”

You will find  the affidavit and further information and read the article in full at OK.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter26Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Reddit0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someonePrint this page


  1. Well,

    What’s with the tears for those who have subverted the oaths others have taken. Screw the OKs, they encourage active duty Soldiers to consider a political special interest group’s limited view of “unlawful”…and I suppose if a drug cartel or the Masons had said similarly it’d be alright.


    There is a strong likelihood that the OKs are, indeed, an extremist group that is in contraindication to federal law (i.e. duty);


    Folks get bent out of shape when kid’s are involved…imagine the child’s parents were klansmen, black panthers, or Democrat.


  2. What? I have to agree with you to get posted?

    Thanks for upholding the constitutional rights I defended and you, apparently, are solely entitled to enjoy.

    My God, your moderation is sad and reprehensible.


  3. Pieter, we do tend to allow comments from numerous quarters, even from people who apparently don’t care to bother with finding out what the United States Constitution states, nor what the purpose and mission is, of those sworn to abide by, uphold, and protect it.

Speak Your Mind