Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
Cheyenne Goes Home!
October 15, 2010 permalink
Baby Cheyenne is back with her parents.
Advice from fixcas for years has been that publicity is the best way to get your children back. But you need to persist. After a small amount of publicity, child protectors will just make your life even more miserable. A sustained campaign, as with baby Cheyenne, is the road to success. Dracula's greatest weakness is sunlight.
WND Exclusive POLICE STATE, USA
Baby snatched for dad's politics back with parents
Reunited! Newborn returned to family where father accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
A tiny baby girl snatched from her parents' custody a week ago when her father was accused of being an "Oath Keeper" today was returned to her parents.
According to WND sources close to the case, the accusations against the father, Johnathon Irish, whose fiancée, Stephanie Taylor, is the mother of Cheyenne, have been dropped.
WND originally reported on the case last weekend when the state snatched the baby, ordering the father to stand with his hands behind his back and frisking him while social workers took the child. The affidavit supporting the actions cited the father's affiliation with the patriotic organization Oath Keepers.
Irish, reached today by telephone by WND, said New Hampshire state law prevents disclosure of details of family court disputes, but the WND source confirmed that the little girl had been returned to the family and there were no future court dates scheduled in the case.
Officials with the state Family Court system could not be reached by WND.
It had been just hours earlier when a protest was held outside the court where the hearing was going on, and as WND reported officials with Oath Keepers had submitted a demand letter to the state's social services agency to remove the reference in the affidavit in the Irish case.
The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.
Irish had told WND that an affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bickford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne a week ago said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'"
While officials with Oath Keepers confirmed that there were other issues involved in the case as well, they were stunned to learn that the court ruling had described their organization as a militia, and had referenced participation with them as an accusation.
"This poorly conducted investigation used unsubstantiated and unsupported information regarding our organization. A journey to our website, and a reading of our bylaws, could have easily confirmed what we are and are not," said the Oath Keepers letter, delivered today to state officials.
"We are an association of currently serving and retired police, military, and emergency personnel. We are not a militia. Our goal is simply to educate all current service personnel on their obligations under the law and in particular our Constitution."
WND reported earlier when the dispute erupted, including when Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wrote on his website that the citation of his organization sends a seriously troubling message.
Details of the exact resolution of the case were withheld behind the curtain of Family Court restrictions on information. But Rhodes described it as a "fundamental point" to have government agencies condemning defendants for their political affiliations.
"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 [nose] under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare," he continued. "'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.'"
While Oath Keepers is not a militia, he said, it would make no difference if it was.
"A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment," he said.
Oath Keepers' members promise not to obey any order "to disarm the American people," conduct warrantless searches, "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" work to impose martial law, invade or subjugate any state, blockade American cities, put Americans in detention camps or "make war against our own people."
Rhodes himself was a U.S. Army paratrooper injured in an parachuting accident, a former firearms instructor and a former member of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's Washington staff.
The organization's board of directors includes Army veteran Sgt. Dave Freeman, Army veteran Capt. Chauncey Normandin, Navy veteran Capt. Gregory Gooch, Celia S. Hyde of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, all retired.
Others are Marines, members of the Air Force, local law enforcement and even of the U.S. Army Special Forces.
The demand letter apparently was addressed by the court's action, although Rhodes said he'd been given no direct response to the concerns. It said, "As police officers, we have been called all manner of vile names by criminal suspects, but nothing compares to the offensive assertion that to associate with us and our military counterparts is child endangerment. We respectfully request that any reference to Oath Keepers be removed from your affidavit by whatever mechanism New Hampshire law allows or requires."
The letter continued, "On behalf of all of the active duty and retired police and sheriff personnel within our organization, as well as our military and firefighter brothers and sisters, we demand that you remove the offensive verbiage in the affidavit filed by your investigator, Dana Bickford, which states, 'the Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers …''
"By so listing the political associations of a parent as a reason to take a newborn baby from her mother's arms, the affidavit politicizes child protective services. That politicization was unfortunately furthered by the judge in this case who adopted Bickford’s entire affidavit as the Court's 'findings of fact' setting forth the reasons for issuing the order to take the baby."
The letter explains Oath Keepers members "have seen first-hand the heart-rending abuse that children can suffer at the hands of dysfunctional adults. It is to prevent such abuse that child protective services is given great latitude and power. Politics has no place in this process precisely because of the immense power you wield. All that should matter is the welfare of the children, not the politics of the parents. Such politicization not only hurts the families and children involved, but also chills the speech of other parents who now will worry that their political affiliations will be used as grounds for taking their children."
It was signed by Capt. Chauncey Normandin, retired, from the Lowell, Mass., police department; Sgt. David Freeman, retired, from the Las Vegas police department; Chief Celia S. Hyde, retired, of the Bolton, Mass., police department; retired Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack; and almost half a dozen actively serving law enforcement officers in Texas, Pennsylvania, Utah and others.
According to the original court documents, copies of which were posted by Oath Keepers, "Mr. Irish was court ordered to attend Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton, however, to date, has not completed this program." The court affidavit continued, "The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr. Irish, as they have responded to multiple calls, which involved Mr. Irish and firearms, one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.
"The division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers,' and had purchase several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and taser," the court documents said.
Source: World Net Daily
Addendum: John Irish feels his granddaughter Cheyenne would be safer in foster care than in the custody of Johnathon and Stephanie. Here he is in a radio interview (mp3). The buzzes are sound effects inserted by an editor to emphasize problems. The original came from YouTube.
Addendum: Revenge! New Hampshire bills the family $4119.33 for their "services".
CPS Tyranny – Disturbing Developments in the Baby Cheyenne Case
In a new twist in the Baby Cheyenne case, the mother has received demands with menaces from the CPS for $4119.33 for the maintenance costs of her other two children in CPS Custody.
On Wednesday the 29th of December, Stephanie Janvrin received a demand for $4119.33 from the New Hampshire Child Support Division with menaces. The demanded money is for the “maintenance” of her other two children in care, Kamon and Jonathan, who were taken illegally from Stephanie and Johnathon’s custody in relation to false allegations which were later disproved during the Baby Cheyenne custody battle earlier this year.
There is no evidence to suggest that the two boys ever came to any sort of harm under Stephanie and Johnathon’s care, but still, the CPS removed their children from their care for purely spurious and political reasons before Cheyenne was born.
The legal battle to obtain the return of these boys into the rightful care of their parents is still ongoing, and due to gag orders and other constraints, we have been unable to report this despite our wishes to do so.
The demand for $4119.33 is due on the 1st of January 2011, a mere four days away, and this couple do not have the means to pay such a demand. Failure to pay this amount could mean that Stephanie Janvrin runs the risk of imprisonment.
The baby Cheyenne case
On the 7th of October this year, the CPS in New Hampshire took Stephanie and Jonathon’s new born daughter into custody shortly after birth. They used spurious reasons for doing so, including, but not limited to, Johnathon’s association with Oath Keepers, a political organisation dedicated to reminding serving police and military personnel of their oaths of office under the US Constitution. The New Hampshire CPS described this group as a “militia”, which is both inaccurate and libellous.
Another false charge levelled against Johnathon Scott Irish is a supposed former criminal history, which was later found in a court of law to belong to another John Irish with a totally different Social Security Number. This was either a gross case of mistaken identity or a deliberate attempt by New Hampshire CPS to slander Johnathon Irish during the ensuing custody court battle.
While baby Cheyenne was in the custody of foster parents, evidence came to light of either gross neglect or sexual abuse, which the CPS first tried to cover up, and when this failed on the testimony of a Sheriff who was present when the evidence was uncovered, they then tried to pin the blame on Johnathan. Fortunately for this couple the Sheriff was having none of this, and backed them up to the hilt against the CPS.
The Sheriff even tried to get baby Cheyenne to a specialist doctor to gain forensic evidence against the foster carers for either neglect or abuse, but the CPS blocked all moves in this direction.
The following day, October the 14th, Stephanie Janvrin and Johnathon Irish appeared in court for the custody of Baby Cheyenne, which they duly won. Their daughter was returned to their custody later that afternoon.
Since then, both Stephanie Janvrin and Johnathon Irish have been engaged in a legal battle to have their two boys returned to them. Due to gag orders I have not been able to report on this matter, and I myself am still waiting to hear the status of this case.
This demand with menaces for $4119.33 through the New Hampshire Child Support Division is a continuation of the constant harassment of this couple through the CPS. As I wrote in an earlier report, child stealing by the state is often used as a weapon of political terror against those who are politically active, or who are classed as dissidents or enemies of the state. This first started in Stalinist Russia, and spread to Nazi Germany, post-war East Germany (DDR) and later to Maoist China. It appears that this weapon of political terror in order to chill free speech is now becoming more prevalent here in the west.
Source: The Intel Hub