December 3rd, 2012

Montana Courtroom Incident Proves Wild Fire Can Burn Twice


Paradise Valley, Montana

Paradise Valley, Montana


This remarkable story begins with a wild fire in Paradise Valley, Montana, south of the small City of Livingston. The valley is aptly named, as it runs from Yellowstone National Park northward all the way to Livingston, Montana. The valley uses steep mountains to showcase the Yellowstone River in scenic beauty renewed and refreshed with every bend as the river winds its way through the silent majesty of Rocky Mountain ranges between Gardiner and Livingston.

Months after a wild fire was quenched, its flames have resurrected to envelop a courtroom in Livingston, Montana with a fiery exchange which has sparked fear and defensive psycho-babble in the hearts of a vociferous huddle of collectivists who are trying to forge a new culture in Montana. At their service is a newspaper cadre which serves up the Progressive perception for readers far and wide.

The culture clash between recently arrived statists and old-fashioned Montanans ignited in a spontaneous combustion in a small courtroom in mid-November, 2012, when a man wearing a three-cornered hat, like that of our forefathers of the American Revolution, stood up and bellowed to the judge in a loud, rich, baritone voice, “Bull Sh*t!”.

What happened next has been wildly misinterpreted in headlines around Montana as the state-worshipping collectivists and socialists of the press were quick in their attempt to douse such a flame, the flame of freedom, the fiery individualist rejection which dared challenge governmental authority. In their misrepresentation and mockery, the press has maligned a former State Representative’s character.

To help readers understand, here are a few of the headlines going about the Internet and some Montana newspapers. We will rebut these headlines and expose the shameful intent of the press further down in this article.

The Livingston Enterprise Started It –

“Boniek claims court lacks legitimacy”

Published: Tue, 11/20/2012


Then the Associated Press pumped it – (Nov 21, 2012)

“Former state lawmaker leads Mont. courtroom fracas”


More Progressives piled on:

The Great Falls Tribune, apparently needing to fill some space, but unable to embellish the AP’s headline, thusly echoed:

Former lawmaker leads Livingston courtroom fracas|newswell|text|Frontpage|s


The Huffington Post got creative and put their own twist on the headline –

Joel Boniek, Former GOP Montana State Rep., Leads Heckling Of Judge


The Democratic Underground joined in like a dutiful copycat:

Former state lawmaker leads Mont. courtroom fracas

Some Overlooked Background

Amid much glee and lip-smacking exuberance, the journalists who furnished the headlines and stories mentioned above have relished a runaway story, but there is a truer side to the story, which they have omitted.  Some information has been withheld by the Associated Press and its collectivist echo mechanism. Let’s now get to the truth of this amazing story by digging up some background which will send the yelping jackals of yellow journalism packing.

There is an apparent drive in the press to place the courtroom disorder at the feet of Joel Boniek, so let us clear that up. But first, it should be noted that collectivist statists have been moving into Montana like a red tide for more than a decade, swelling University towns such as Missoula, Bozeman, Helena, etc.  Like detached flotsam bringing with them all the backwash and infusoria which caused them to move from their original communities in less-free States, ( such as California and east coast urban centers), the migration of neo- and quasi-socialists has finally become visible to Montana’s native population.

Now, native Montanans are awakening to the threat to their historic culture of freedom and are beginning to oppose the statist march through Montana’s institutions. Montana is proud of its historic culture of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Montanans still believe that a rancher is the rightful owner of his ranch, and that individual land owners have property rights. Montanans believe, still, even in today’s unfavorable political climate, in the rule of law under a legitimate Constitution.  I stress the word, “legitimate”, as in, “answerable to the will of the people who support and authorize it”.

Joel Boniek is a true Montanan with all the credentials to sustain his legacy of a life well-lived. He owns with his Naturalist wife a small ranch in Paradise Valley where they tend to animals, grow healthy gardens, and enjoy the spirit of the Rocky Mountains appreciatively, meditatively, with full cognizance of and reverence for the splendor of Creation.

A charming Montana couple, they love their life on the land. Joel is a natural-born hunter and woodsman, and follows the Montana tradition of hunting to provide food for the family. Each summer, Joel travels to Alaska where he works as a contract outfitter and guide for big-game hunters.

The Bonieks love their little ranch and their animals, and it may be said that of their animals Joel’s favorite is his Mule, Jesse. Jesse is perhaps the only Mule to have spent a day at the State legislature in Helena, Montana.


Joel Boniek Once Rode Jesse To Work At Legislature

Joel Boniek Once Rode Jesse To Work At Legislature


In 2008, Joel Boniek was elected by the citizenry of Park County, Montana, [House District 61], to represent them in the Montana legislature. In the legislation session of 2009, Joel introduced Gary Marbut’s and MSSA’s “Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009”. The bill passed the House and Senate, and was signed into law in 2009 by Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer. It is now the law in Montana, and it has raised the hackles of the socialists who want to destroy Montana’s historic culture of individual gun ownership.  The Montana law has been challenged and is now on its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A strict Constitutionalist, Joel Boniek represented his constituency well during his tenure as a State Representative. He comported himself with an informed dignity and never wavered from his principled approach to duty under the State of Montana’s Constitution and the Constitution for the united States of America. Joel Boniek is a card-carrying charter member in the Constitutionalist organization “Oath Keepers, Inc.”.

Yet Joel Boniek found himself in court in Park County’s Justice Court in Livingston, Montana, on November 20, 2012, having been arrested and charged with “obstructing a peace officer, resisting arrest and fleeing from or eluding a peace officer” in July, 2012. Each of those charges would be a misdemeanor.

Anyone might ask: Why?

What happened that would cause a former State Representative, a man of honor and demonstrated integrity, a champion of the rule of Constitutional law and order, a good husband, responsible land owner and Naturalist ranch operator from Paradise Valley, to be charged with such offenses?

To answer the question, Why?, we begin by noting that the Associated Press article, first published by the Livingston Enterprise, chose not to give readers the background you’ve just read above, and the AP coverage did not mention one word about why Joel was arrested this past July.

The Progressive pseudo-journalists who concocted the above headlines and stories were not interested in what happened to cause Joel Boniek to be arrested –  because obviously that would take a lot of fire out of their gleefully penned headlines.  Might progressive journalists have a bias toward Joel Boniek, such as a latent resentment that Joel Boniek was the guy who ushered into law the Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009? Is that possibly why they don’t want to talk about why he is facing those charges?

To better understand the full picture of why Joel was arrested, let’s look at a brief scenario.


Wild Fire In Paradise

Wild Fire In Paradise


This past July, 2012, there was a wild fire in Paradise Valley. Montana has a number of wild fires each year, and some of the fires destroy ranches and ranch houses. Ranchers and farmers who live close to forests, such as is the case in the long and narrow valleys between mountain ranges, live with a perpetual awareness of their vulnerability to wild fires.  In this scenario, Joel would be in Livingston on errands for his ranch when he got word that a wild fire was moving toward his ranch.  He immediately headed back to protect his ranch and his beloved animals.

Heading down the valley south of Livingston Joel encountered a “first-responder” road block at the entrance to the private road to his place. He stopped dutifully, but was told that he could not go further. When Joel let the officers know that his home was in the path of the forest fire, and that he needed to protect his animals, the officers informed him that they could not authorize him to go past their road block.

With no criminal intent, but driven by his love for his home and farm animals, Joel turned back and thought he would have to run the three miles in on foot.  He went to the neighbor’s place to ask if he could park his truck, and was told that he could access the private road across this property. Joel then drove across the ranch to the private road on which he lived, having circumvented the roadblock.

In this scenario, Joel Boniek can be seen as a responsible individual, while the officers manning the road block were “just following orders” on behalf of the government. In this scenario, the volunteer fire department, which was on the scene, and the County authorities were assuming responsibility for Joel’s ranch.  Joel Boniek, not knowing what the fire situation was, but knowing instinctively that it was his primary responsibility to look after the condition of his own place, sought a way around the blockage which would deprive him of his unalienable right to protect his animals and property.  That goes directly to two traditional American concepts – “private property ownership” and “personal responsibility”. Both are protected in the Montana Constitution and in the Constitution for the united States of America.

But the officers discovered what Joel had done, and they went after him.  They caught up to him and they thought they had to use force to stop him. Although Joel had, like any other Montanan would likely have, a hand gun on his person when the officers caught him, he never drew that weapon, and no officer has charged him with assault with a deadly weapon.  While standing as ordered, with hands spread and up, with one officer holding a gun on him, Joel was assaulted from behind by another officer. His feet were kicked out from under him, he was “hammerlocked” and pinned to the ground. Stunned and offering no resistance he was then cuffed while face down in the gravel road. Joel was then pulled up to his feet by the officers and searched, at which time the officers took Joel’s handgun.

Joel never threatened any officer with that gun, and never even put a hand near it. However, it was falsely stated in the initial news reports that he went for his holster – inferring to readers that the charges against Joel were justified.

Joel spent the night in jail, just as, long ago, Henry David Thoreau, Saints Paul and Peter, and many other men who did what is right regardless of the official prohibitions, spent a night in jail. And Joel Boniek is no more a criminal today than were those other gentlemen back then. As a Constitutionalist, Joel knew in his heart that his duty to his wife and their property and their animals was to make every effort to get to his ranch to fight the fire, to keep the fire from destroying everything.

Truth be known, the fire encroached to less than ten feet from his front door, and damaged some of his out-structures on his property. A blessing not bestowed by the government, but by the volunteer fire fighters, the fire did not destroy Joel’s house, and did not harm Jesse or his other animals, aside from smoking-up their lungs and frightening them. Joel was taken down while trying to help them. The four officers at the road block, who could not spare even one officer to accompany Joel,  as he later pointed out to them, but who did have enough officers to go chase him, placed more value in their assignment than in their common sense.

So that is the scenario in which Joel Boniek was arrested. I believe that readers of the publications which carried the incomplete and inaccurate Associated Press coverage are entitled to know just how Joel came to be scheduled for a hearing in court on November 20, 2012. All the coverage is, thus far, only mentioning that Joel had tried to run a road block. There was a road block at the road’s entrance, and Joel did not run that road block – he stopped, spoke with the officers, then he turned away, went to a neighbor’s place in hopes of running the final three miles across that ranch to his ranch on foot, and he then discovered that he could access the private road to his ranch at another place below the road block. That is hugely different than “running a road block”. There was no criminal intent.

Also of interest, it should be stated here for the record that no one who published these erroneous stories and headlines bothered to contact Joel Boniek in any way to get the facts.

Looking back at the headlines and articles listed above, let’s quickly note a few of the errors which create a false impression in readers’ minds about Joel and the events which happened in the courtroom.

The first story came from the Livingston Enterprise, and the headline stated that Joel “claims court lacks legitimacy”. That is completely false. Joel simply pointed out to the judge that the prosecuting attorney was not bonded and had not filed a copy of her Oath with the County Commission, which is required by law. Joel at no time suggested that the judge was not bonded, or that the court was not legitimate; he only indicated to the judge that the deputy County prosecuting attorney was impersonating an official of the court because she had not been bonded and therefore was not lawfully installed as an officer of the court. He did not say the court itself was illegitimate. So that headline was wrong, and it did not help Joel Boniek’s case in any way, while it did damage his reputation in the eyes of the unschooled public by characterizing him as disrespectful to the court. Joel, a former State Representative with an impeccable reputation in the State legislature, was very respectful in everything he said to the judge, as we shall see.

The next volley was fired when the AP picked up the story from the Livingston Enterprise. Their headline charges Joel with “leading” a “Montana Courtroom Fracas”. In the article the AP twists reality to state this – “Boniek questioned whether the county employees had the proper credentials to handle his case, and he tried to stifle Carrick from addressing the judge.”

Joel did question Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Carrick’s credentials, because he had requested already, prior to the court date, in “discovery process”,  that she provide his defense with a copy of her bond and a copy of her having filed her Oath.

Kathleen Carrick had declined to furnish Joel Boniek with the documents he lawfully requested and instead had referred Mr. Boniek to the County Commission. Joel had consulted one of the Commissioners, who told Joel that Carrick had no bond on file with the County. I repeat – Joel suggested to the judge that Kathleen Carrick was not lawfully installed as a prosecuting attorney without the bond required of her by Montana law. Joel reads the law and honors the law. Montana law says the Deputy County Attorney shall be bonded, and Ms Carrick disputes that, saying it is not necessary so long as she is “insured”.

That is a violation of Montana law, which Joel patiently read to the judge. His reading of the law to the court irritated Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Carrick, who was obviously embarrassed that she had been exposed for being deficient in her legal duties to the County by not being bonded. It was she who interrupted Joel as Joel spoke with the judge, and Joel then asked the judge why the woman, who was not qualified to be a Deputy County Attorney until she had fulfilled the requirements prerequisite to the job, should be allowed to address the court. Joel spoke in a level and respectful manner to the judge.

Joel did not try to stifle Ms Carrick, it was she who tried to stifle Joel, interrupting him and asking the judge to overrule Joel’s request that she (Carrick) show proof that she was legally qualified to work in court as a Deputy County Attorney. The AP got that wrong, and, as with the Livingston Enterprise, did damage to Joel Boniek’s good name by publishing a falsehood. Shame shame.

Next: the Huffington Post took the slander ball and ran with it. Their headline informs readers that Joel “Leads Heckling Of Judge”.  That was a twist on the AP headline, and as we shall see, was completely wrong as well. Joel did not “lead” anyone in that courtroom, and we shall prove that herein, by bringing to light the man who did lead the heckling.

There we have it – a picture in headlines. Perhaps editors/journalists/writers felt that the simple truth of things would not be fun for their audiences to read. Or perhaps they felt that they should attack Joel Boniek’s character for some reason, perhaps for a political reason.  In an assault on Joel’s character, the press told and retold a lie. The Assistant County Attorney Kathleen Carrick, though it went unreported by the Livingston Enterprise and the Associated Press and all who followed suit, admitted in the courtroom at that time that she did not have the necessary, legally-required bond when she declared that a bond was not necessary. By law, that bond is pre-requisite for assuming duties as a Deputy County Attorney. That is the law, as Joel simply pointed out to the judge.

The Fire In This Story:  In The Courtroom

There were a goodly number of supporters who knew well the true nature of Joel’s actions on the day of the fire and who were interested, as good Montanans, in showing support for property ownership and personal responsibility before the judge. It should be noted that Joel did not ask them to show up at court.

Following is a compilation of first-person accountings by witnesses who were there in the courtroom. This is what was actually said in the courtroom. This accounting begins after Judge Budeski had invited Joel Boniek to be seated and Joel had stated that he preferred to stand. Joel Boniek remained standing in one place throughout what follows.

Joel had brought several Montana law books to what he had been told would be an ‘omnibus’ hearing. An omnibus hearing would address multiple aspects surrounding and involving the case. Joel began his address to the court by reading passages from the Montana law books. His first order of business was to clear up the Deputy County Prosecutor’s lack of proof of bond and filing of Oath.

Judge Budeski – “….okay, so you don’t want to do it next month – do you want to do it in January?”

Joel, not wanting a continuance – “Well, I’m objecting to you keeping me here;  it seems to me that we can clear up these matters right now.”

Judge- “I don’t know exactly how we can clear those up and it’s certainly not something I have jurisdiction to (inaudible).”

Joel- “Well, I just read you the law…”

Deputy County Prosecutor Kathleen Carrick, interrupting – “And I object to this whole – this is not the time and place to be doing this; this is to set trial date only, not – it’s not law in motion, it is not for argument(s), this is not the proper place to do this.”

Joel- “Your honor, why is this woman speaking if she can’t prove that she’s even an official officer?”

Someone in the audience, amid other inaudible murmurs: “That’s right!”

Judge- “She’s not an employee of the court – she’s an employee of the County.”

Joel – “If she’s an employee of the County she needs to have a bond to be qualified….”

Carrick, interrupting – “I do not need to have a bond.”

Judge – “That’s up to the County Commissioners; that’s an entirely separate branch of the government;  it’s not something that I have anything to do with.”

Joel- “Well, maybe it is.”

Judge – “Well, Mr. Boniek, I’m going to say that you’re out of order.”

“Ernst, D. I.” (a spectator) who stood at the wall near where Deputy County Attorney Carrick sat, from the audience: “BULLSHIT!” (Loudly) “You’re out of order” (pointing his finger at the judge) “and you’re out of order!” (pointing his finger at Carrick). “You guys are required by the Constitution to produce paperwork on the spot. You work for the people! “

Judge – (inaudible, apparently asking Ernst, D.I. for his name)

Ernst, D.I. – “I’m not going to give you my name – you identify me as the dead fiction (inaudible).  I know exactly what you are.” – (Judge is trying to interject over Ernst, D.I.’s voice but he keeps talking.  A bailiff or officer of some sort approaches Ernst, D.I., and Ernst, D.I. says boldly – “Do Not Touch Me! Do not touch me. I have already proven sui juris before Judge Holly Brown – if you touch me I will own you.”

Bailiff/officer (to Ernst, D.I.) – “You need to leave so we can proceed here.”

Ernst, D.I.  – “You can proceed. Bring forth the evidence.” (Judge is still trying to interject over Ernst, D.I.’s and the bailiff/officer’s argument)

Judge – “…very much out of order!”

Ernst, D.I., waving finger at officer/bailiff, who is now towering over Ernst, D.I. – “Don’t touch me!”

Bailiff/officer – “Well then let’s move!”

Ernst, D.I. – “Why should I?”

Bailiff/officer – “Go out here (pointing toward the door) and talk to me.”

Ernst, D.I. – “I don’t need to talk to you. You and I don’t have an issue. We clearly see the court.”

Bailiff/officer – “Let’s go!”

Ernst, D.I. – “Not leavin’.” (Officer/bailiff turns to face the judge in frustration)

Ernst, D.I. – “Don’t lay a hand on me.”

Pause, silence for three seconds.

Bailiff/officer – “Okay so we’re going to have a standoff until we can get some more people here?”

Ernst, D.I. – “There’s already a bunch of people here. Don’t touch me. I’ve given you fair warning.” …inaudible…  “Judge Holly Brown, Article III court (district inaudible) has already ruled that I’m sui juris. If you touch me I’ll own you.”

Bailiff/officer is now trying to reach someone on his cell phone, which he dialed while standing over Ernst, D.I. – He mumbles something inaudible about “making a big stink….”

Ernst, D.I. – “I’m not making a big stink – inaudible – but I’ll be back.”

Bailiff/officer – Inaudible. At this point Carrick gets up from her chair and heads for the officials’ exit.

Ernst, D.I. – “I’m gonna give you fair warning – if you touch me – I’ve already got a court ruling….”

New officer comes in the door and says to Ernst, D.I. – “Okay now, come on out here on your own, man!”

Ernst, D.I. – “I don’t need to.”

New officer – “You just got told to leave.”

Ernst, D.I. – “I don’t have to. I’ve got a court ruling.  (Inaudible) I’ll excuse that, boys. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

A member of the audience stands and walks over to stand beside Ernst, D.I. The Bailiff/officer looks at him and says something about “….just doing our job”.

The judge now speaks to the new officer who has entered the room, saying – “This gentleman in particular is be….”

Ernst, D.I. – I’m not going anywhere.  I’ve come to stand, and I’m standing.” Then, looking at the audience, “And the rest of you – this is your time – take your feet!  This (the courtoom hearing) is a cotton-pickin’ crime in process!”

Bailiff/officer – “You’re not doing any good here.” (difficult to hear, may be inexact quotation)

Ernst, D. I.  Shouting now to the crowd, some of whom are standing – “Get On Your Feet! You people always talk, you always talk… “

People in the audience rise, and one woman stands up saying, “I’m a witness! I’m a witness.”

Others stand and the buzz of quiet talking rises in volume.

Ernst, D.I. – “Huu-ahh!  You talk about freedom, you’ll fight for freedom – now is your chance! Do it! Prove your name!” (Now the noise level in the room is even more sharply increased.)

The judge leaves the courtroom, after declaring the court adjourned, but she spoke very softly and in a voice which did not carry over the din of lively citizens now on their feet. Most witnesses who were there failed to hear her adjourn the court.

Ernst, D.I. – “Look who’s now running for cover!”

Someone unidentifiable said – “Is this an adjournment?”

Ernst, D.I. – “Nope; the woman did not make a proclamation.” (That turns out to be contested, as other witnesses have said she did adjourn the court.) There is much noise in the room now.

Joel Boniek, who has been on his feet and silent the entire time, having never seated himself before the judge, was surprised to see his hearing going out of his control, the court officers leaving the room, the Bailiff/officer and the other officer being unwilling to touch Ernst, D.I., and the upheaval of so many people in the courtroom standing up and talking aloud about freedom – all of this was beyond Joel’s wildest imagination – he had no idea anything like this would happen, and the oddity of the moment coursed through his mind to produce a spontaneous corresponding gasp of un-suppressed  irony. It was all too surreal.

The whole affair, which was totally destroying his carefully prepared presentation for the judge, including his fifteen points needing conclusion during this omnibus hearing, sufficed to disorient him completely. Nothing could make sense of this thing, there was no way to give it a handle. When someone suggested that the judge had left the room without adjourning the court, Joel, in a fit of mirthful playfulness, declared that he was the only member of the court still standing in the courtroom and that he dismissed the case. It was a joke, and everyone who heard it, except the bailiff/officer, knew it was a joke.

Joel Boniek – “I declare that this case is dismissed;  and the judge has left the courtroom; I am in charge here….”

Voice (perhaps the Bailiff/officer?) – “No, you’re not!”

Several citizens from the audience, in unison – “Yes he is!”

Much chatter, much confusion. Someone said, “The judge has abandoned ship!”

Ernst, D.I. – voice trying to make it over the din in the room, speaking to officers – “You guys are….court of reprisal…. are working for the British government as British agents of the Crown…..” Crowd noise drowns him out.

Joel Boniek, overcoming his sense of shock at the surprising outbursts and becoming serious now,  sought some kind of order – “Is anyone in charge of this court? Who is in charge of this court?”

Ernst, D.I. – “So. I guess this case is closed!”

Bystander, gesturing toward Ernst, D.I.  – “Anywhere we gather is a court – he’s part of our court.”

At this point a deputy comes in and hollers “Everyone get out of the courtroom!”

Ernst, D.I. says – “I’m not going anywhere….until all of these people leave.”

Ernst, D.I., kept his word on that, and was the last man to leave that room. No officer of the court touched him.


There we have it. That is what was said during several minutes of drama in a courtroom in Livingston, Montana.  Joel Boniek did not “lead” anything. The press has published wrongly. The press made no attempt to talk with anyone outside “official” circles, and no one from the press contacted Joel Boniek.

I contacted several people, and received statements from witnesses who were in that courtroom. I obtained a statement from the gentleman calling himself “Ernst, D.I.” (which is an abbreviation of terms I do not understand). I mentioned previously in this article that I had contacted Joel Boniek to get the facts from his own perspective.  Joel sent me a personal letter in reply to my request.

Let us close this article with Joel Boniek’s letter to me, which I publish here with his permission.


Please stress that I DID NOT START, LEAD OR INSTIGATE THE INTERRUPTION.  I was as surprised as anyone when it happened.  I did not speak at all until the judge had adjourned the court, and the court was no longer in session.  I waited patiently and silently while the judge tried to deal with the interruption.  She got advice and counsel from the prosecutor, (to adjourn the court) and never discussed the matter with me, which belies her earlier assurances to me in private, that she is “an impartial referee”.   I was fully prepared to continue with the omnibus matters at hand, and was only on point 1 of the 15 I had prepared. The JP let me down, and I only weighed in when I saw that the JP was not going to do her duty to give me a chance to be heard on the omnibus matters before us.

It seems that the JP was only going to use this hearing to set a trial date, and briefly touch on discovery matters, and not do the other customary matters like rule on probable cause, constitutional matters, witnesses, and such.  It was going to be a farce and a sham. The man who interrupted was most likely correct.   I was to be treated just like all the other petty alleged offenders who do not know the law, but get a public defender Judas to run them through the corrupt injustice system, and deprive them of their money and liberty.  NOT FOR ME!  MY GOD TELLS ME TO STAND UP FOR JUSTICE, AND WHEN I STAND FOR MINE, I STAND FOR EVERYONE’S! They wanted to run me through their injustice mill, but I do not intend to be a soft nut to grind.

I take the interruption as a part of the Divine plan, so God gets HIs way and overrules what men intend.  My only plan was to go and bring up Omnibus matters.

Elias, I am standing on two very important American ideals: religious freedom and private property rights.

In my Bible, it says that if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith (His God) and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8.  These are pretty strong words.  I am a man of strong religious conviction, and am duty bound to follow my God, even if men say otherwise.  I will let men judge, if it is more right to follow God or the changing rules and whims of men.  All of natural law says a man must care for his own home and goods.

I am also standing on my natural right to private property, protected by the American and Montanan constitutions!  All of the prosperity and progress of our society is based on the right to acquire, possess and protect private property. cf. Article II, Mont. Const.

Lawyers have told me I have strong case law on my side also.

This case should have been dismissed long ago.  It is by nature preposterous.

This matter is so fundamental, it should be a cause of concern for every American and disciple of freedom.

Thank you for your hard and GOOD work in telling my side of the story, and getting the truth out.  I love you for it.  This needs wide distribution.

We lovers of liberty can’t wait for the big showdown at the OK corral.  We need to live and defend liberty every day, or die the death of a thousand cuts.

End letter to self from the Honorable Joel Boniek, former Montana Legislator, Oath Keeper, American Patriot

Perhaps the court system in Park County shall ask Deputy County Attorney Carrick to reveal her bond or go get one. Perhaps the court system will come to its senses and see the powerful issues underlying this conflict. It would cost the court nothing to drop this, and the public appreciation would be good for the court.

Perhaps the court will see the wisdom in dismissing this entire thing in an effort to demonstrate that the justice system still recognizes the nature and spirit of “justice” in human terms, in a rancher’s terms. In a Montanan’s terms.  In terms which would firmly deny that a man could be made a criminal for surpassing all odds to do the right thing for his animals and his property in the face of a wild fire.

Maybe, should reason chance to prevail, that fire won’t have to burn thrice.


Elias Alias, Oath Keepers

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

80 Responses to “Montana Courtroom Incident Proves Wild Fire Can Burn Twice”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All

  1. 1
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Case law (i.e. precedent / stare decisis) is irrelevant under the rule of law:

    How stare decisis Subverts the Law

    Federalist paper 83

    The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived.

  2. 2
    Elias Alias Says:

    Thank you AEICB;
    From that link you provided -

    “However, the drift away from constitutional legitimacy represented by Figure 1 is not just the result of incompetence or confusion. There is a faction which has tended to dominate the federal government, especially during most of the 20th century, which has deliberately sought to extend precedents beyond the bounds of original constitutional understanding. It has done this by carefully selecting cases against weak or inadequately represented defendants, appealing only those cases they are sure they will win, and framing the arguments so that the judges often don’t have a choice that is constitutional, but must choose between two unconstitutional positions. Ordinarily this is supposed to be guarded against by constitutionally protective parties filing amicus curiae briefs to argue a strict constructionist position, but such briefs are not always filed in important cases, or are often ignored by the court….
    By treating court opinions as though they are general law, and not just law for a particular case, we become accomplices in delegating legislative powers to judicial officials, which is forbidden by Art. I Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution and similar clauses of state constitutions, which delegate legislative powers exclusively to the legislative branch, and allow for no delegation of legislative power to other branches.

    “There is a fundamental logical problem with stare decisis as it is currently practiced, which is that it is a logically separate system of propositions that is independent of, and potentially inconsistent with, constitutional enactments… One who takes an oath to uphold the written constitution is bound to ignore precedents in conflict with it, and to rest decisions strictly on propositions that are logically derived from constitutional enactments, considering precedents only where they sharpen ambiguities in the language of the written enactments. To treat precedents as superior to constitutional enactments is to introduce contradictions into the law, and in any system of logical propositions, acceptance of a single contradiction accepts all contradictions, rendering every proposition logically undecidable. Contrary to the view of some judges, the law must be logical, or it is not law.”


    Elias Alias

  3. 3
    Orion Says:

    The truth shall prevail, Most of the reporting media has drawn lines in the sand and the irony is that across that line is the right they hide behind the 1st Amendment, Who will come to their rescue when there’s no one left? Thank you Mr Alias for shinning the light of truth on a significant small occurrence spun into darkness by the self proclaimed truth sayers, And let no one forget that the tip of the iceberg did not sink the titanic it was the mass below the surface. S.F

  4. 4
    Bob Fanning Says:

    If, defying all common sense, this goes to trial, may the finest most patriotic legal team ever assembled step forward.

    The precedent here is;
    “does the Constitution trump our nation’s misguided or malicious slide into a police state?”

    A note of encouragement to Joel: God is toughest on those who He loves the most and never gives them a job that they can’t handle. Via con Dios my friend.

  5. 5
    Chris Williams Says:

    Congratulations Elias on a fine, objective and truthful report of the court incident to which I was personally a witness. This story stands as one of your finest contributions to the cause of liberty and in defense of Joel’s (and every one’s) Constitutional and inalienable rights. I salute you for “a job well done,” Elias, and Joel for his unwavering faith in his Creator and our Constitutions. Let freedom ring!

  6. 6
    Kevin McCauley Says:

    Thank-you for an accurate account of what actually transpired. Having been there to witness this event I can say that the MSM coverage is disgraceful. Joel Boniek and Elias Alias are two of the finest men and patriots I have ever met. Thank God we have men like them fighting for us.

  7. 7
    Elias Alias Says:

    Kevin, Chris, Bob, and Orion, thank you for the nice feedback. I’m grateful.

    Elias Alias

  8. 8
    Danny Smith Says:

    This is worrisome in the extreme, however a major concern I have also is how many incidents like this one is happening across the country that we do not know about.

  9. 9
    Cliff Says:

    I am a member of Oath Keepers. Just want to say that if the writer of the above article stuck with simple to read english and did not attempt to show off he knows more words in the english language than teh average reader, more importantly words that are never used and confuse us, I may have read the entire article and even understood the point of it. Instead I walk away shaking my head asking myself “Is this what represents us in this organization”..we will just look like another Bob Costas!

  10. 10

    You are truely a Warrior of the Almighty GOD.
    Thank you Sir, for taking stand.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148