quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
by what "authority" can a "state" terminate a "right" of the people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealOne
Authority means enumerated grant by the people for the agency to do such a thing.

quote:

ORINIGAL: RealOne
are we just discussing some kind of private by-laws of corporate policy that by full due consideration these people have accepted by treaty contract or trust to abide by?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealOne
Oh and dont reference the constitution or you will be construed as a terrorist!  LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
by what "authority" can a "state" terminate a "right" of the people?

USA Laws 101....

Here let me help :An unalienable right is a right that a state cannot infringe that means it cannot interfere with much less take away.....unless;
1)______________

2)______________

thats it only 2 answers

The people, vote other people to represent all people, of a geographical area.

there are 7 elements to jurisdiction 4 of which are absolutely required, you named one of the weakest.

When you have someone convey your vote opinion whatever for you is not the same as RE-Present.

When someone represents you that means you signed over power of attorney and they can represent and say anything they want and aint nothing you can do about it until after the damage is done.

Just like when traitor attorney becraft after the guy won his tax case told the judge the guy would pay the taxes.  I would have jumped up screamed your fired.

The second group of people, create rules, for what 'is' and 'isn't' allowable by all persons of that geographical area.

agency 1 making decisions FOR YOU that has no bearing on whether or not you agree!

There is another group of people, who are appointed and confirmed, by this second group of people, to maintain those rules are conducted fairly, and in line with previous rules, that were agreed on in the pass.

agency 2 making decisions FOR YOU that has no bearing on whether or not you agree!

So....The people of New Hampshire, voted for others to represent them.

yes no different than telling your next door neighbor ot make rules how you will conduct yourself on YOUR property.

This second group pass a few laws, explaining what is acceptable or not, in families.

If people are infants and wards of the state because they cannot decide these things for themselves I guess I have to agree on those terms.  Are you saying people are to ignorant to govern their own conduct?

At what point, does an action or level of violence (physical, mental, spiritual, etc) cross the line from being 'within parental boundries' to 'abusive, threatening, or violent'?

What are those boundaries?   Who's boundaries are we talking about here?  The legislatures?

The folks in that state decided the limits, and judges are expected to rule based on the better of two arguements presented.

Since when?

Without splitting hairs generically these courts are all administrative and it has nothing to do wiht the better of 2 arguments and everything to do with the application of law.   wel unless you sign a contract with judge judy.

As is pointed out, the family in question, has a history with goverment agencies, and a few accounts of neglect (of the serious nature).

Disagreement with the infringement of rights is serious!

If the parents are having problems handling two kids, what makes you believe they'll suddenly get better at being parents, with a third child?

Under the constitution show me where they have the authority to take those kids.  Where does legislation  become constructive fraud?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealOne
Authority means enumerated grant by the people for the agency to do such a thing.

Seems that is the case, based on the tiny level of evidence so far, presented. I'm guessing the full details (of the document not shown) would provide a wealth of information, and give a good history of events.

Well answer 1 and 2 and we can take it from there.

quote:

ORINIGAL: RealOne
are we just discussing some kind of private by-laws of corporate policy that by full due consideration these people have accepted by treaty contract or trust to abide by?

Do you have additional evidence, that supports this alternative arguement? From a credible source?

Got 6 months to spend in the law library?  Its just plain the way law works not sure what you are looking for in an answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealOne
Oh and dont reference the constitution or you will be construed as a terrorist!  LOL

You fail to point out, how the US Constitution has been violated. All I see, are two adults, who were abusive towards their kids, and documented by goverment agencies over a lengthy period of time. Sounds more like this Mr. Irish was trying to create another Ruby Ridge event.

quote:

So far it appears to me we have trespass on the right to own and bear, trespass on the person, trespass on case, trespass on the right of association, kidnapping, collusion and that is just off the top of my head without any real thought on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should mention that the parents have already had their parental rights terminated for 2 other children and the father has refused to complete a court ordered anger management program and has a pending concealed weapons charge or the fact that he has had such extensive contact with the local police and justice system that the state has requested a change of venue to find an impartial judge.

Those might be factors in taking the infant.

quote:

If people are infants and wards of the state because they cannot decide these things for themselves I guess I have to agree on those terms. Are you saying people are to ignorant to govern their own conduct?

quote:

Under the constitution show me where they have the authority to take those kids. Where does legislation become constructive fraud?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should mention that the parents have already had their parental rights terminated for 2 other children and the father has refused to complete a court ordered anger management program and has a pending concealed weapons charge or the fact that he has had such extensive contact with the local police and justice system that the state has requested a change of venue to find an impartial judge.

Those might be factors in taking the infant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should mention that the parents have already had their parental rights terminated for 2 other children and the father has refused to complete a court ordered anger management program and has a pending concealed weapons charge or the fact that he has had such extensive contact with the local police and justice system that the state has requested a change of venue to find an impartial judge.

Those might be factors in taking the infant.

Real will not let these facts ruin a good anti-government attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

If people are infants and wards of the state because they cannot decide these things for themselves I guess I have to agree on those terms. Are you saying people are to ignorant to govern their own conduct?

In this case i would say yes, they are too ignorant to take care of a child.

quote:

Under the constitution show me where they have the authority to take those kids. Where does legislation become constructive fraud?

The basis for government’s intervention in child maltreatment is grounded in the concept of parens patriae—a legal term that asserts that government has a role in protecting the interests of children and in intervening when parents fail to provide proper care.

Do you believe a constructive assertion over rules your rights?

Beginning in the late 19th century, States and local jurisdictions started initiating mechanisms to assist and protect children.

How did the state become a 3rd party interest in the body of one of the people?

Then in 1912, the Federal Government established the Children’s Bureau to guide Federal programs that were designed to support State child welfare programs as well as to direct Federal aid to families, which began with the passage of the Social Security Act (SSA) in 1935. The child welfare policy of the SSA layered Federal funds over existing State-supervised and administered programs that were already in place.

Ok so acceptance of the social insurance program for old age protection is now construed to apply to the living body of new borns as well?

1912 was a great year! LOL

It has long been recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty, protected by the Constitution, to raise their children as they choose. The legal framework regarding the parent-child relationship balances the rights and responsibilities among the parents, the child, and the State, as guided by Federal statutes.

after 1913 right? 

well then if the federal gubmint is our parents why arent they paying all of our bills like my parents did???

This parent-child relationship identifies certain rights, duties, and obligations, including the responsibility of the parents to protect the child’s safety and wellbeing.

I dont know seems they have all the rights and we have all the duties!

If parents, however, are unable or unwilling to meet this responsibility, the State has the power and authority to take action to protect the child from harm.

Responsibility or liability of federal parental mandate?

Since the fed ass umes parenthood, are they mommy, daddy or ???

Over the past several decades, Congress has passed significant pieces of legislation that support the States’ duty and power to act on behalf of children when parents are unable or unwilling to do so.

Who assigned a duty to the states to play mommy? 

Got the referendum and ratified bill that supports the authorization by the people?

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is one of the key pieces of legislation that guides child protection. CAPTA, in its original inception, was signed into law in 1974 (P.L. 93-247). It was reauthorized in 1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996, and with each reauthorization, amendments have been made to CAPTA that have expanded and refined the scope of the law.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta03/capta_manual.pdf

Parens patriae relates to a notion initially invoked by the King's Bench in the sixteenth century in cases of non compos mentis adults{{Lat: not having control over the mind or intellect. Not of sound mind; insane. See 108 A. 2d 820, 822. In certain circumstances its effect is lessened to mean only "not legally competent." See 1 S.E. 2d 768, 770. Compare diminished capacity; incompetent; non sui juris.}}. The notion dates from at least 1608, as recorded in Coke's Report of Calvin's Case, wherein it is said "that moral law, honora patrem...doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patriœ."[1] The parens patriae doctrine was gradually applied to children throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and has since evolved from one granting absolute rights to the sovereign to one more associated with rights and obligations of the state and courts towards children and incapacitated adults.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

You may not like it, but its not a new concept.

quote:

DCYF asked for the case to be moved from family court in Concord to the family court in Dover, citing that court's familiarity with the family involved.

Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.

The boys currently live with a foster family, and Irish said he was told baby Cheyenne will go to live with the same family for now.
source

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

DCYF asked for the case to be moved from family court in Concord to the family court in Dover, citing that court's familiarity with the family involved.

Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.

The boys currently live with a foster family, and Irish said he was told baby Cheyenne will go to live with the same family for now.
source

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

When the word alleged is used, then abuse might or might not have taken place, so what is it these days, guilty until proven innocent ?

Or is it there are people in society that have been given authority to circumvent the law and take matters into their own hands ?

If either of the above are true, then what use are laws to govern the rest of a nation ?

quote:

Photo: Tammra McCauley A newborn baby was ripped from its mother’s arms by officials from the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services accompanied by police after authorities cited the parents’ association with the Oath Keepers organization as one of the primary reasons for the snatch, heralding a shocking new level of persecution where Americans’ political beliefs are now being used by the state to kidnap children. Below: Excerpts of State of New Hampshire documents concerning the case. Note: full documents withheld to ensure family privacy.

quote:

Note: the following is from a separate document and not part of the above document.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Aneirin

If you follow Realone's link, you will see the court paper filed by CPS in reference to the baby in question, there are 6 points.

Yeh and which ones are constitutional?

Court on it OWN motion?  LOL

You will also see that there is a separate affidavit that IS NOT part of the CPS document, and that point is clearly pointed out in the article.

your point?

quote:

Note: the following is from a separate document and not part of the above document.

source


This document notes that John Irish had not completed court ordered anger management classes, there is clearly some history involving the local police department and John Irish.

Which article in the constitution is that again?

What or who gave anyone the authority to force compliance to go to an anger management program?

infowars.com is well known for its anti-government articles and taking things out of context or putting incidents in a context that is non-existent.

Anti government or anti corruption?  If he were anti government he would either be in jail or they would have taken him out a long time ago.

Just talking without basis again?

Realone is trying to connect two independent documents, one a signed affidavit of an UNRELATED incident.

How do you figger that? Explain?

If this was actually some ongoing conspiracy, I would think that the child protective services of all fifty states would be trying to take the children of the oath keepers.

So you believe that what you think they do has anything to do with the true circumstances of the 50 states?

Looks more like retaliation and collusion to me.

Jonathan Irish and Stephenie Taylor are trying to use something that has not been used in the decision to take the infant from their custody and clearly have had extensive contact in less than flattering circumstances with local law enforcement agencies.