Montana Courtroom Incident Proves Wild Fire Can Burn Twice
-
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 –
http://www.livingstonenterprise.com/content/boniek-claims-court-lacks-legitimacy
“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”
-
The Huffington Post got creative and put their own twist on the headline –
“Joel Boniek, Former GOP Montana State Rep., Leads Heckling Of Judge”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/joel-boniek_n_2170096.html
-
The Democratic Underground joined in like a dutiful copycat:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014313178
“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
-
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
-
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.
Salute!
Elias Alias, Oath Keepers
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN
SUPPORT OUR LIBERTY TOUR
Free music concerts for the troops, with direct outreach to them about their oath
December 3rd, 2012 at 11:27 am
Case law (i.e. precedent / stare decisis) is irrelevant under the rule of law:
How stare decisis Subverts the Law
http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm
Federalist paper 83
December 3rd, 2012 at 1:44 pm
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.”
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 3rd, 2012 at 8:25 pm
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
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:43 pm
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.
December 4th, 2012 at 10:30 am
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!
December 4th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
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.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:43 am
Kevin, Chris, Bob, and Orion, thank you for the nice feedback. I’m grateful.
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 5th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
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.
December 5th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
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!
December 5th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
You are truely a Warrior of the Almighty GOD.
Thank you Sir, for taking stand.
December 5th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Whoooahhhh
December 5th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I encourage all to use their email address book and distribute this complete account as best we can. This event is fundamental. Joel stood. Ernst, D.I. stood. Others showed their faces and were numbered in the room. We need to stand also and keep our servants accoutable. If we don’t we put Joel and Ernst D.I. at risk along with our Liberty and the Liberty of our posterity. The greater the numbers that stand with Joel, the lessor the chance for violence. We all wish to avoid violence if possible. If you want to help, now is the time. Take this opportunity to wake people and educate them as they ask questions. This is the tip of an iceberg.
December 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Arkansas has too many crooked lawyers! We need a lawyer who suports the consitution, bill of rights and 2nd admendment who will be willing to chalenge and win against crookedly operated state agencies, lawyers (and special interest groups circuventing state law) and politicians!
I wish he was here!
December 5th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Thank you for covering this with integrity and honesty, if everyone over the age of 50 doesn’t start standing up as Joel Boniek did, this country is doomed and I say that with honesty. The people over 50 know what this country stands for and grew up in the finest, freest country the planet had ever seen. It is this group that will save the country through their positive actions and strength of character and bravery, yes bravery to stand up for the true Constitution of the United States! And we must not forget to educate the younger group along the way. What can we do for Joel, please let us know! Montana is such an amazing and beautiful place, I hope that the patriots there continue to stand up for their rights and stick together! We are with you in spirit! Stay strong
December 5th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Tough reading but I’m glad someone is standing for our rights. I wish I knew the law enough to do this. Thanks for publishing
December 5th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
God bless Joel Boniek for the strength to stand, and fight for common sense, in the face of the tyrannous sham being perpetrated against him! I’ll be praying for him and all Patriots who do the same! Pray also that the officers of the court will see the time honored wisdom and justice of his arguments and that they (the officers of the court) serve the people! Pray also that they “keep thier oaths.”
Respectfully, Richard Troutt
December 5th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
For Cliff @ comment#9:
Cliff, I am happy to put this into words which you can understand.
Certain “authorities” decided that they should take ownership rights over a man’s property, without his permission, and stop him from defending his ranch in the path of a wild fire. When they refused to let the man go to his property to protect his home and animals, they violated his rights as a property owner. The judge could have, and perhaps should have, wisely and with justice in her heart dismissed the whole thing at this court hearing, but she tried to use the County deputy prosecutor’s lack of proper credentials as a means of continuing the case. That is when the crowd went out of control and made a hoot of the whole court hearing. The rancher has the moral high ground, and his stand for justice is based on Constitutionally-protected “unalienable” rights. The press told a fib and left out relative facts when they published hit-pieces against the rancher. We are just calling them on it, and I think that this article makes our case.
I hope that helped. Thank you for your membership in Oath Keepers.
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 5th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
If Montana can’t keep the collectivists, Statists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists outside its State borders then there’s no hope for America. The known bastion of Constitutional Conservatives in Montana may just go the way of WA, OR, CA, etc. Fight back now. Shut down the repressive socialist newspapers and oust liberal rogue judges.
December 5th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
The progressives ( communists ) have taken over the country , if Montana stays free it won’t have much company because most states are teat suckers addicted to the handouts of the communist government , as are all the Obamass supporters . Without a miracle from GOD the United States of America with her constitutional republic is , for all intents and purposes , DEAD .
December 5th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
If we do not take responsibility to take care of our own – how can we expect anyone else to do so?
Obvious is the intent of totalitary-ism and control over all aspects of our lives. Do as you are told or be persecuted.???
Proper situational response would have been a warning “High danger and if you get in trouble do not expect any help. Proceed if you must.”
December 5th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
They really hate it when the people stand up for themselves. It’s because they know the people are right and there is not a thing they can do about it. This should happen all over the United States of America.It time to let them know they are NOT going to do this to us. They work for US, we are their bosses. It’s time they act accordingly.Someone should have let the Deputy know that no one was going to leave untill they wanted to. After all, their tax money built that court and it DOES belong to the people. Unite, people of America. Together we are undefeatable.
December 5th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Elias Alias, I salute you! This subject of property rights hits very close to home with me as I live an an area of Kalifornia which is prone to wild fires. In the last 15 years, we have had 5 large fires within a mile of my property, one burning within 100 feet of my place, burned out 5 of my neighbors, one fatally. When that particular fire started, I was not at home and a friend called me at work telling me to watch the news that was on the TV. When the picture came on I immediately recognized my and my neighbors mailboxes by the side of the road on fire. As soon as I could get away from work the next day, after spending a sleepless night wondering if there was anything left of my place, I headed for home. Cal-Trans had highway 70 closed about 5 miles away from my home and I stopped at the road block. Fortunately, I was able to talk the guy into letting me through upon agreeing that I would go no further than an over look point where the TV news people were watching the fire fighting efforts. I was able to spot the chimney and part of the roof of my place so I knew that my house had been saved, but the rest of the area was all burned over. If I would not have been let through at the road block, I was fully perpared to tell the guy I was going anyway and take off, more than likely leading a parade of Sheriff and Highway Patrol officers. This is a situation where the government is trying to protect you from yourself, and I feel that they have no business doing that. I was fully aware of the risks and was ready to accept the responsibility for my actions. It’s a sad day when you’re not allowed to protect your person, family or property.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Wow! what a fiasco. Defamation of Character on the part of those lying Newspapers. Free press took the story and twisted it by design and for agenda’s. I believe 1st amendment does not protect the papers in this case as they clearly printed the article with lack of truth and full intent to harm the reputation of Joel Boniek, and that is a severe crime. What is more aggitating is that the sheriff’s report was falsified as they alway’s do. This can no longer be tolerated. It happened to me,Arresting officer grosley falsified his report on my arrest but in Wisconsin eluding is a felony and i can no longer possess any firearms.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
I’m a retired Wisconsin Officer and I know state statutes vary, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why these officers apparently abandoned their post after Mr. Boniek fully complied with it’s intent on the public highway at the entrance to the private land. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong…Mr. Boniek went to another private property, which was still accessible, and basically made his way to HIS home, without violating the roadblock. Yet these officers, in essence, moved their roadblock from the public highway to Mr. Boniek’s private property, and made a warrantless arrest under these circumstances? My friends, the whole thing looks like a cover-up for a bad arrest. I’m surprised this was even charged. I never liked second-guessing another copper’s pinch, but given this information…..I would suspect one or two of these officers is related to these court “officials” somehow. It might be worth looking into. This smells of corruption.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Shame, shame, shame on these so-called “peace officers”. Shame, shame, shame on these people who would call themselves Americans while hog-tying a fellow American from protecting his property, family and animals. What in the world have these yellow-bellied men been drinking that would make them care more about their “procedures” than about what is right and honorable and good. Shame, shame, shame on them. THEY are the ones who should be arrested for obstructing another’s way to protect and defend his family, property and animals. An arrest warrant needs to be issued for these men, their superiors and anyone who believes in subverting an American’s constitutional rights. Shame on them!
December 5th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Joel Boniek, I am proud of you and your little mule. God bless you. We are all going to have to follow your lead if we want this to remain a free country. We have so many red enemies in this country they are making us sick. The gloves are coming off of this crowd and we’d better be prepared to take our’s off, too. God bless you. We’re right behind you, Joel Boniek.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Makes me proud that there are still Americans that stand up for what’s right. Not only the pre-judged “guilty”, but those fine folks in the court that had the cajones to stand up and say “NO – not im my town do you pull this stuff.”. We’re still here, we still care, and we can’t let this movement destroy everything that we stand for. Thanx for the great example of what we can do locally. No-one I know ever went to fight for ‘progressive ideas’.
December 5th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Wow. Montana, you got it going on. Thank you!!!
December 5th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Montana is finally waking up to the invasion of the body snatchers. They do not care about the people or the heritage. They will enforce their laws on everyone but themselves. Since the woman had not posted bond as required by Montana law she was not an officer of the court. Insured doesn’t mean a dman thing. You are insured if you have life insurance or car insurance.
December 5th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
This whole episode reminds me of the heyday of the Posse Comitatus movement.
December 5th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
As a circut court bailiff I am confused how there is a constitutional right to interupt court proceedings just because you (as a spectator) do not agree with how things are going. I agree with the concepts discussed here but would not have tolerated the anarchy induced by the cursing at the Judge and disrupting the proceedings. He would have received one warning and then if he refused to exit I would have done my best to bring about order if it took tasing him to do it.
I believe the representative deserved his day in court and this disruptive anarchist robbed him of it. This muddied the waters not helped.
December 5th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Elias, thank you for this great writeup of Liberty-lovers acting in defense of common sense and freedom. We need many more of them.
Joel Boniek is truly an inspiration and a role model for us all.
And Cliff… if you aren’t willing to read a lengthy article on a case that should be of importance to every single American, I’m puzzled as to why. You state the language used turned you off, yet I can’t see anything written here by Elias that would confuse the average 6th grader.
Yours in Liberty,
Christopher di Armani
December 5th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Well Cliff, get out your dictionary and learn what the words mean.
Elias; you said: “Maybe, should reason chance to prevail, that fire won’t have to burn thrice.” I would have said, “Maybe, should reason and justice prevail, that fire won’t have to burn thrice.”
December 5th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
I salute the Hon Joel Boniek, Oath Keepers and all the supporters that believed in our constitution and the law of the land. we see so often now days that so many are tarred, feathered and rode to jail on a rail by courts that seem to think they are all powerful and we the people are just there for financial support. The courts along with those who take the oath work for us, te people, at our discretion, not their own. The politicians in many cases and that includes our judges, get power and think that is what being a judge or representative is all about, its not, you report to the people. Our system is falling apart all across the nation and we need to put it back together. Everyone in this great country needs to read ART I, Art II and Art III of the U.S. constitution and see where the power lies, don’t rely on those corrupt individuals to tell you the truth. Then look at the MT constitution and enforce it, make those responsible live up o their oath of office. God Bless america, Montana nad the citizens of both.
December 5th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Reading the article and comments sounds like a reliving of history from the late 1700s. Everything above reflect the abuses by the British against the colonists, and the reactions of the people here.
Those conditions brought about a Constitution that has stood for longer than most governments. I believe we are close to the time of a Constitutional convention re-issuing the existing Constitution. It could be like renewing marriage vows. The only changes to the present Constitution should be penalties for infractions and closing the gaps used by present government officials to avoid giving full faith and allegiance to OUR Constitution. The only problem I see with this is the number of mindless self-involved that we have now, interested more in themselves than the nation.
One necessity that I perceive is including methods of removal of elected officials from office for not doing their job properly, ignoring the Constitution, or lying to get into office and then changing their positions once installed.
Another necessity is the prohibition against allowing other nations to impose their will on OUR country through such organizations as the United Nations,or through treaties that attempt to subjugate our Constitution or laws.
December 6th, 2012 at 12:12 am
Reading this article threw kerosene on the fire of Liberty that burns inside of me. I applaud Joel for standing his ground, Elias for reporting on this, the people of the court for following suit, but most of all “Ernst D.I.” for having the balls to defy those who CLAIM authority over others. This case may be small, but what transpired here is MONUMENTAL! This proves that not only is Sui Juris Law legitimate, but that it actually overrules the court! This small wave could turn into a Tsunami, and I hope that it does. I agree with Ernst that it is time to start walking the talk. People ALWAYS TALK about fighting for freedom, but rarely do they actually do it. In an earlier post Kevin McCauley said “Thank God we have men like them fighting for us.” well I say that we ALL need to fight for ourselves! It is time to stop watching others do all the dirty work. Those who are not willing to stand, fight, and die for Freedom and Liberty deserve neither.
December 6th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Excellent! Keep up the good info. The local news NEEDs to be reported as national like on Fox instead of hearing the same stories repeated over again all day long. This IS news. No matter what state you are in, the socialist agenda is coming to us & we all need to be ready. . .
December 6th, 2012 at 5:19 am
This happens so seldom, it’s a blessing fro freedom when it does. But your last statement is wrong, i.e. hoping that this now goes away. It seems every time someone does go to court and stand on freedom as dictated by constitutions, the courts dismiss it. They are afraid to rule as that would bring precedence, which they do not want. So the only way any of us can move forward is to have these kangaroo courts make a ruling. But they won’t. this case will disappear with nothing being resolved. Here, in NC, John Ainsworth is fighting the battle that our constitution, as all state constitutions, is and has been since Reconstruction, illegal. He has been to court eight times with no resolution. Each time he is arrested, the court (all the way to the NC Supreme Court twice, has dropped the case. If they dare rule on these cases, which they must rule in his favor because the law he brings to these courts is irrefutable, it will destroy the whole fabricate of the statist environment. We need some brave judges who believe in freedom to make rulings on these cases.
December 6th, 2012 at 5:20 am
Check out what is really going to become of the U.S. “After America: Rebuilding” is available on Amazon Kindle. It even has a new Constitution. Pretty neat read.
December 6th, 2012 at 6:51 am
This same type of thing happened recently in Florida!!
Cops taser Florida man for trying to save his home from burning down in grease fire
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Daniel Jensen of Pinellas Park, Florida, was simply trying to protect his house from burning down when he instinctively grabbed the garden hose and began dousing the corner of his roof and backyard fence with water to prevent nearby flames from catching hold. But this was apparently unacceptable behavior in the eyes of the local police department, whose corrupt officers decided it was somehow appropriate to aggressively taser Jensen in the back for trying to protect his family and property from the approaching flames.
According to WTSP 10 News in Tampa Bay, police officers who arrived at the scene of the fire before firefighters showed up actually demanding that Jensen leave his house alone and allow it to burn, claiming “that’s what insurance is for.” Not wanting to see his beloved home needlessly catch fire, potentially taking with it all of his family’s personal possessions and irreplaceable mementos, Jensen made the sovereign decision to reject the officers’ poor advice and grab the garden hose again after flames suddenly jumped from his neighbor’s house to his own.
Upon doing so, the Pinellas Park Police Department sergeant who was on the scene began shouting at another officer to “hit him” and “take him down” with a taser, statements which Jensen says he had no idea at that time were in reference to himself. Almost immediately after these statements were shouted; however, Jensen recalls being struck in his back with the dual taser barbs, which brought him to his knees and ultimately face down on the ground as if he was some kind of criminal.
“It was horrible. I was laying in a puddle of water being electrocuted here by the people that are supposed to protect us,” recalled a teary-eyed Jensen to WTSP 10 News about the paralyzing incident. “I’m trying to protect my family, my neighbor, and they bring harm to me. I don’t understand. All I remember is laying in water, being electrocuted for saving my home.”
Protecting your house, property from fire is not a crime
Since no firefighters were present on the scene to address the fire themselves, Jensen’s actions to protect both his and his neighbor’s homes were fully warranted. Additionally, the cops who assaulted Jensen had no legal right to either trespass his property, or to taser him for trying to protect it. The entire incident just reeks of flagrant police state abuse, and embodies the precise reason why more Americans than ever are purchasing firearms in order to protect themselves and their families against this type of encroaching tyranny.
“They should have more tolerance with the public, to exhaust all options before firing electricity into somebody,” added Jensen about the cruel and brutal behavior of his local police department.
You can watch a video report of Jensen’s harrowing experience here: http://pinellaspark.wtsp.com
Sources for this article include:
http://www.wtsp.com
——————————————————————————–
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit http://www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml
December 6th, 2012 at 7:17 am
Dear Stuart,
On October 16, 2012 I sent you a copy of my Affidavit on Uniform Securitization. It is essential that you read it because it explains the very root of the problem in ALL Court matters such as Mr. Boniek’s and millions of others accused of victimless crimes. The courts and counties have a financial interest in every case initiated by a statute violation and therefore the constitution is circumvented by commercialism. Reference the Uniform Bonding Code for the solution to all of the problems created by these “State Actors”! The time is now, lets take back our freedom and liberty.
Regards,
Gary
December 6th, 2012 at 7:18 am
I salute Mr. Boniek for his dedication to REAL truth, justice, and the American way. An unlikely Superman, but when the need or situation calls for it, we must ALL be Supermen!
December 6th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Thank you for taking a stand for freedom and sense.
As an (Arizonan) American living just north of you in Canada, it’s great to know that Montanans are still among the finest Americans to be found anywhere. God Bless.
December 6th, 2012 at 8:20 am
This case is a prime example of how our court system has been taken over by the ‘progressive’(Comrade) far left…which was founded by the CPUSA and administered by the ACLU.
Not only has our court system been infiltrated by the subversive progressive party, but our school system as well. Our only recourse is to work on removing all Judges from our court system who adhere to the progressive party format either through the election process or in the event of a political appointment through Impeachment Hearings.
December 6th, 2012 at 9:27 am
It would have been nice to see how Mr. Boniek would have handled the situation without Mr. Ernst’s interruption. Mr. Boniek seems to have had a good strategy for presenting his arguments within a constitutionally sound framework. I can understand Mr. Erndt’s frustration if he truly did not think the court represented a legitimate forum, however his actions did muddy the waters for the case at hand. I tend to side with a previous commenter (Nickerson) who says that Ernst should have been removed from the courtroom. I’m an Oath Keeper.
December 6th, 2012 at 9:59 am
I’ll give you guys the best advice anyone ever gave you free,Have the state government of montana declare california a foreign terrorist nation,and then throw everyone from california out of montana,then gather up anyone who has voted against the us constitution in your government and throw them out to,MY SISTER lives in helena,montana,and shes a demoncratic commie from way back,she lived in california long enough to be brainwashed into beliveing that commie sh*t they teach all children in california schools,IF you don’t throw them out, MONTANA will be destroyed by them,just like arizona,orgean,washington,nevada,new mexico,colorado,and every state those commies move to………..
December 6th, 2012 at 10:16 am
I heard a story the other day,GLAD I wasn’t there,this [expletive deleted] from california, bought some land up the road from us,and was in the little restruant near our house, he was in there laughing about how his two dogs had torn a baby elk to pieces that was caught in his fence, NOW I don’t know if I’m not the only one who didn’t think it was funny or not, but that dumb ass headed back to california the next day???MY guess is someone told him he was in danger, and he went home, this is the mentlity of people from california, are you sure you want them living in montana?????
December 6th, 2012 at 10:44 am
As a citizen of Montana, I would just like to offer one observation. The problem in Montana is in most states with the judicial system as a whole is the lack of separation of powers. What I mean by that is that until our legislature enacts laws that require the professional licensing of attorneys come under the administration much like all other professional licenses are granted there will never be a pure separation of power when it comes to do the judiciary.
As long as the Supreme Court of the state of Montana is in control of the licensing of attorneys there will be no accountability nor will there be independence and flexibility to practice law.
Until we see a true separation of powers between the three branches of government here Montana we will always have an activist judiciary legislating from the bench.
December 6th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
@ comment #31, December 5th, 2012, Mr. Nickerson said:
“As a circut court bailiff I am confused how there is a constitutional right to interupt court proceedings just because you (as a spectator) do not agree with how things are going. I agree with the concepts discussed here but would not have tolerated the anarchy induced by the cursing at the Judge and disrupting the proceedings. He would have received one warning and then if he refused to exit I would have done my best to bring about order if it took tasing him to do it.
“I believe the representative deserved his day in court and this disruptive anarchist robbed him of it. This muddied the waters not helped.”
Then @ comment #45, December 06, 2012, Dan Lammon said:
“It would have been nice to see how Mr. Boniek would have handled the situation without Mr. Ernst’s interruption. Mr. Boniek seems to have had a good strategy for presenting his arguments within a constitutionally sound framework. I can understand Mr. Erndt’s frustration if he truly did not think the court represented a legitimate forum, however his actions did muddy the waters for the case at hand. I tend to side with a previous commenter (Nickerson) who says that Ernst should have been removed from the courtroom. I’m an Oath Keeper.”
Elias speaking: I’d like to thank Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Lammon both for sharing their observations and comments. There are several points I’d like to illustrate please. First I’d like to address what I perceive to be a mis-perception on the part of Mr. Nickerson.
Mr. Nickerson, I respect your position in normal circumstances. You said, however - “…confused how there is a constitutional right to interupt court proceedings just because you (as a spectator) do not agree with how things are going…”
I believe that upon re-reading the above article you’ll come to see that I was not advocating interrupting a court hearing. That was not the “constitutional right” to which the article refers. The “constitutional right” to which the article refers is the right to protect one’s property and animals in the face of a wild fire. Oath Keepers does not advocate cursing or exhibiting undue interruptions in court rooms. We certainly do not find a “constitutional right” embodied in the Constitution to do so. (But I must qualify that statement I just made – if and when a court of law diverges from its own law, then that court has no superior appeal to decorum or respect from and by the people whom the court was created to serve. In other words, if the court is the law-breaker, it thereby nullifies itself and there is in reality no court.)
We do, however, advocate for property ownership, and we do find just cause to advocate for property ownership within the totality of the two founding legal documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the united States of America. Property ownership is, like the family unit, one of the cornerstones of American society, our legal structure, our culture, and our lawful tradition. Our question here, as an underlying interest in Joel Boniek’s story, has to do with whether an external authority can assume ownership over a man’s ranch property and his animals during an exigency of any sort. For the state to deny a man his right to defend his property and animals against threat of a wild fire is in effect the action of a state which intends to assume ownership of that ranch and those animals. It supplants personal responsibility and personal property rights. That is un-Constitutional in my opinion, and is one reason (among several) why I had keen interest in Joel’s case, and, I believe, so should you.
Addressing Mr. Lammon now: Dan, there are two ways of seeing this, relative to your opening sentence, which stated “It would have been nice to see how Mr. Boniek would have handled the situation without Mr. Ernst’s interruption.”
First, you’re totally right – Joel had done his homework and had prepared fifteen points to be covered during the hearing. (Btw, please note that Joel Boniek had previously been told that this hearing would be an “omnibus” hearing, which is why he had prepared such an extensive collection of issues to bring before the court.) Joel is an avid reader, with keen interest in “the law”. He is a Constitutionalist at heart and by nature. He is a very dignified man of uncommon stature. He is respectful, thoughtful, sensitive, well-educated, and has a keen sense of justice. All of that is packaged in the charming personality of the man who can drive a team of mules over the Continental Divide in total Montana-styled Rocky Mountain wilderness. He is the complete outdoorsman, and, as he demonstrated during his tenure in Helena, our State capitol, while serving the people as a State Representative, Mr. Boniek is the epitome of proper deportment. In short, he’s a damn fine gentleman and a rugged and hardy individualist all rolled into one, and all who know him personally count it as their blessing to know such a man in today’s world.
I say all that by way of suggesting that just as you intuit, Joel would have done nicely had he been allowed to make his presentation to the judge and court. Had Ernst, D.I. not interrupted the hearing, however, it had already become apparent that Joel would not be allowed to make his carefully-prepared presentation of the fifteen points, for the court had already decided, or was acting and speaking as if it had decided, to allow the hearing to proceed even though Deputy County Prosecuter Carrick was obviously appearing in court as an errant factor which should have caused the judge to consider her option of simply dismissing the whole matter in the interest of human fairness, freedom, and justice.
That is why Ernst, D.I. decided to interrupt. Were the court to go forward after Joel had pointed out that the Deputy County Prosecutor was illegitimate, which appeared to be the situation, nothing further established in that hearing would be worth a hoot. The court simply cannot indulge the presence of an unqualified prosecutor. Yet it appeared to be willing to so indulge.
Now to the meat of the matter – should Ernst, D.I., have been removed from the court? I see merit on both sides, yea and nay. What comes of all this will shed more light, and we’ll better know later what we can only guess at now, but I do think presently that once the court diverges from its own law and the law of the State of Montana, it is no court, and nothing happening after that point of divergence has any validity up or down, either way, yea or nay. The point of divergence was the judge’s willingness to move forward with the hearing knowing that the Deputy County Prosecutor had no bond as required by Montana law.
Again, I say truly – all of this is unnecessary in the first place. The power of government was interpreted by the officers at the road block as containing authority to deny Joel his Constitutionally-protected right as a property owner to defend his ranch against a clear and present danger in the visage of a wild fire. The court has the authority to simply dismiss the whole affair, recommend to the officers that they apologize to Joel for the brutal way in which they accosted him on his errand to fulfill his personal duties as a rancher, and sleep peacefully at night knowing that it (the court) had served the interest of justice, freedom, property rights, personal responsibility rights/duties, and common sense. I maintain that the court has the authority, and now even the duty, to so declare.
Thank you both for your comments. And thank you both for reading a lengthy story.
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor
December 6th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Please forgive my memory if I am wrong, it doesn’t serve me very well these days, however, this is the first real relevant issue since my becoming a member of OATHKEEPERS I can recall to arise, that represents what I believed OATHKEEPERS came into existence for, and why I joined. Not that the other issues we’ve been called on to muster for that has come up weren’t important, this one just seems to stand out like a sore thumb. Many thanks to Elias Alias for bringing this and of course the other issues to our attention, especially thank former Hon Rep Boniek, and like minded folks like him for using the courage God gave them to make a much needed stand.
I don’t know what fate those that are represented here will be, I seen somewhere that our country was founded by about 7% of the settlers that came to America willing to stand against GB. Forgive me again for my memory, especially if I read it here someplace. I’m not as fully informed as I’d like to be, by faith, or by politics. I remember just about enough to put myself away by either using competent incompetent representation or to find myself unrepresented by myself in like circumstances as Rep Boniek. I’ll just say, we have to many folks IE: Politicians, Law Enforcement Officers- formally called Peace Officers, military, and possibly some in our judicial system that take an Oath to the Constitution, that have never actually read it, or have only as much idea what is actually in it based on someones Else’s informed or uninformed say so. It’s reassuring to me, to think we still people with the same make up as that 7%, that also cherish our Constitutions, and freedoms, as much as I do.
December 6th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Please let us know when there is a resolution to this case.
Cliff, that was shameful to read. Have you no more of an attention span than that? It was a bit long, I’ll grant you, but to openly criticize the use of a good vocabulary? Bring your game up, man. You are better than that. Here is some inspiration for you and a good, clean chuckle in the bargain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxoUUbMii7Q
December 6th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I would hope that if this debacle does go to trial that the trial date is broadcast to all members of Oath Keepers so that we may appear at the court house to support Joel. We had a fire here(19 mile fire) and when the cops showed up things just got worse for the same reasons that Joel ran into. Only a few have the guts to blow through a road block. This type of action by law enforcement must be stopped. People showed up to help their friends fight the fire and were stopped and turned back. I stayed and my neighbors and I saved my house. What idiot behavior by our public servants.
December 6th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
God bless all you good people in the Redoubt! These bastards need to be reminded that their “power” comes from the people, and not vice versa! Reading this story has given me hope!
Bill
Stuck in Commiefornia
December 6th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Wow, I believe the courts have run unconstitionally amuck in this country for decades, How do we, the comman man get justice ???
December 7th, 2012 at 12:12 am
Danny Smith, good question: “……how many incidents like this one is happening across the country that we do not know about.” That they are happening on a daily, hourly basis is precisely the reason I began my activist life about twelve years ago. I was one of these: “…..selecting cases against weak or inadequately represented defendants, appealing only those cases they are sure they will win,……” I was of the downtrodden. When you go to court if you are poor, rely on public attys you are in a losers position from the minute you are arrested. I believe the misdemeanor assault law is for the select purpose of furthering gun control per individual each losing the right to carry in full, on the first misdemeanor assault. 2A rights can be restored at that point but a pattern ensues after the first conviction. This goes on across the country. The downtrodden are heavily pressured to plead guilty, being told, “you will never prove your innocence, you might as well take the plea if you do you will be released from jail (for now) but if you insist on a jury trial, “you are going to anger the court for inconveniencing them and will get more time as they will no doubt find you guilty. ” Yes, that is what I have been told by my supposed legal representation who is “defending” me. One of them even said, “….but you didn’t hear this from me.” This happened to me twice I can think of off the top where I had done my homework and presented proof (dismissed as not good enough) of my not committing a crime but in fact, I was the victim of an assault, not the perpetrator of it. I have been through this more times than I care to think about due to my past lifestyle, eventually leading me to mad dog and freight trains. I was not a violent person but to read the arrest reports one would believe me to be a real monster. I was a vulnerable and battered woman with no capacity to defend myself for numerous reasons. The officer’s written reports are basically all that is required to convict you and so biased it is stunning. Courts fill our hearts and minds with the notion we dare not attempt to fight it in court, we’re not important to anyone, nobody cares that your rights are ignored. My 2A was the first thing they took. I believe it is pre-calculated to take the right to carry from a massive segment of the population w/o notice. Those downtrodden have an image of ‘probably guilty anyway” or “a drunk so he’s guilty” but the truth is and remains, if someone claims not guilty, no matter their station in life, they have the unalienable right and the hope to be found not guilty in trial by jury w/o fear and/or intimidation causing them to “voluntarily” give up that right. This should offend all Americans. Many of us end up doing time for getting beat up/raped and attempting to defend ourselves. Most often the result is blamed for the cause and not the cause/result as it should be. Due to the unfortunate pattern that ensues after the first assault conviction this is repeated multiple times destroying lives and liberties that could have been salvaged. Just one more point, these people are powerless to defend themselves from getting killed by a corrupt government and so it is intended as the history of genocide repeats itself.
December 7th, 2012 at 9:04 am
I’d just like to say that I have spent some time talking with Joel Boniek on several occasions, and I found him to be a very intelligent and honorable man. He is the type of man that gave us this country and Constitution in the beginning. We need more men like him. I also know Ernst, DI and consider him to be a personal friend. Bless you, Ernst. You are a fine, honorable man. You have studied the Law to a far greater extent than most Judges or Attorneys. May Ernst, DI and Joel Boniek stand as examples of personal responsibility, integrity and courage.
December 7th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
One correction should be noted: Those so-called “journalists” were not “wrong.” Their work was deliberate; they knowingly LIED. There is a difference.
December 7th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Fabulous account of how we must stand firm against the forces that strive to change our country forever. Hats off to Oath Keepers for sharing this story. Perhaps one day true journalism will return to our society with the truth that our forefathers created.
December 7th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Freedom!
December 8th, 2012 at 1:19 am
To “Mom” @ comment#51:
Thank you for a great video link. Enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed your comment.
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 8th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Nice to know, David Codrea made a nice blog entry about this story, so that will help it gain national legs. David is the National Gun Rights Examiner and one of the two gentlemen (Mike Vanderboegh is the other) to pop the “Fast And Furious” story to the media, working months to get CBS to carry the story nationally.
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2012/12/wild-fire-burns-twice.html
The story also went up at Rumor Mill News – http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=262360
Oath Keepers thanks everyone who has been sending this story out to your email lists. The more it gets around, the better the chances of helping Joel Boniek in his interaction with the Park County court system. It also can help wake up the Park County Sheriff. Knowledge is power.
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 8th, 2012 at 3:59 am
John Wayne would have been proud! I am as well! I had a similar situation last summer because of a fire here in Colorado. I was stopped by 2 county boys and 2 national guard troops at a roadblock, told I could not go to my home. So I improvised parked my jeep at at my church and recon the dried up creek bed to my farm house to check on my horse, animals and my house.
Tim O’Brien
Oath Keeper
U.S.M.C.
December 8th, 2012 at 7:16 am
Above IT states “property Rights”, property has no rights-only We the Ppll as Sovereigns Jus Soli have RIGHTS, Pls see Lynch vs Household Services Corp n read The Republics Constitution-the Preamble grants LIBERTY n that is YOUR Personal Property LIBERTY Right toBE In Plena Via – Your Right toBE In Your Pursuit of Happiness, see DOI r Butchers Union vs Cresent City-ASAP n Live Free to E, S n D n always to FTG
December 8th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Maybe you should not consider yourself an “average reader”?
December 9th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Thank you for posting this. Last July 1st (2012), my family passed through Livingston and Paradise Valley on our vacation to Yellowstone. I was filled with emotion at the awesome beauty of the area – the views were magnificent. It again fills me with emotion and pride at knowing people like Joel and Ernst D.I. are standing up for their rights as free men. Stay strong!
December 9th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Cliff….Perhaps the average reader nowadays has no better
than a 5th grade reading ability, and remedial reading instruction
is in order, along with vocabulary boosting exercises. It’s not too late.
Some legal terms were there, necessarily, to explain the situation.
This may be the answer as to why we are losing our Republic!
December 9th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Maybe you should expand your vocabulary?
December 9th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
This Joel Boniek is a true american, and i would have done the same thing.The two cops should be arrested. They should have their iq checked. Are you sure they are not security guards at Walmart?
December 10th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Who is the Sheriff who allowed such a travesty of justice by his deputies? Vote him out!
December 10th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Ok the oath is not filed with the county commissioners, it is filed with the County clerk and recorder. And there is montana case law on this subject.
In State v. Vickers, 1998 MT 201, 290 Mont. 356, 964 P.2d 756. The Court did not believe that the pledge to “discharge the duties of my office with fidelity” is the same as the pledge to “serve in the capacity of substitute Justice of the Peace or City Judge to the best of my abilities.” We believe the complete omission of one pledge and replacement with another is a major discrepancy in the authorization procedure. Further, they said Barney’s oath of office was not filed with the county clerk pursuant to § 3-10-202(1), MCA. Again, they went on to say that they did not view filing the oath with the justice court clerk functionally equivalent to filing it with the county clerk. The State conceded that the statutory intent of filing is notice. Someone searching for a substitute’s oath would presumably inquire at the county clerk’s office because that is the place where it is required to be filed. We fail to see how the purpose of notice is served by filing the oath in a place where no one expects it to be filed. They held that the District Court correctly interpreted the law in concluding that Barney was not a duly authorized justice of the peace, and that the search warrants were void ab initio. See also Potter v. Dist. Ct. of 16th Jud. Dist. (1994), 266 Mont. 384, 880 P.2d 1319.
someone with Joels address send him these two cases
December 10th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Well reported and well written. Reading of this episode encourages one to continue to stand for patriotic virtues that are shallow in this day and age. I would appreciate return response as I have had no success in reaching any Oath Keeper to respond to questions and or associate locally in Western Pennsylvania. God Bless …….. a Constitutional Conservative Christian Citizen
Citizen “Bill” (former USAF, ret. Lt.C, pilot)
[Contact info deleted by Elias Alias for Bill's protection. Bill, watch your inbox for an email from Elias Alias.]
December 10th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Didn’t she violate some law. Impersonating an officer of the court?
December 11th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
This tale of lunacy and disorganized ill-informed playing at lawyers is hardly an inspiring call to action or arms.
The Constitutional Republic is indeed in grave danger if any of this bunch of delusional cranks is expected to “guard” it.
December 11th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
To “SFC Thatguy” @ comment #73 -
I have posted your comment despite the fact that you’ve given me a bogus dot mil email address. One reason I note your anonymity is to remind all readers here that anyone can post comments here provided they are not spam or are in violation of our by-laws or our terms of service.
I agree with you, that the Deputy County Prosecutor was ill-informed, was “playing at lawyers” by presenting herself to the court as an officer of the court even though she was not bonded, as would be required by Montana law. As David M implied in comment #72, Ms Carrick was obviously and perhaps criminally “impersonating an officer of the court”.
Judge Budeski should have thrown the case out, dismissed it, as soon as Joel Boniek made note that Ms. Carrick was not bonded. That would be justice, and it would be “law and order”.
So the (auto-alleged)Deputy County Prosecutor defiled the court’s role in justice in this case, and the judge did not acknowledge proper response to discovering that the DCP was not officially qualified to prosecute anyone in her court.
Salute!
Elias Alias
December 11th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
That you Elias & Joel for encouraging my faith in the people’s community! These last 4 years, and now Nov.6, had DEEPLY eroded my faith in “the people”; (and, as well, I thank AEICB for those links, and the clarifications they provide.
While I am NOT knowledgeable in Jurisprudence, I HAVE been dubbed “The Lawyer of The Word of God”, by a fine & highly respected Lawyer, at one of his Bible studies. Thus, I can say with STRONG convictions that Joel’s & your stance for TRUTH & FREEDOM, is close to the center of the Gospel Story.
Matt.5: 21 – 48, is Yeshuah, establishing the HEART OF THE LAW, and, as well, in Matt.22:33 – 40, He simplifies the LAW to two MAJOR principles: #1] “Love the Father with ALL OF YOUR heart, and soul, and mind, and, the SECOND is like unto it, “Love your neighbor AS THYSELF! Upon these two COMMANDMENTS hang ALL the Law and the Prophets”.
In each case, common sense, love of thy fellow man, and obedience of God’s Commandments, are the heart & soul of God’s will! And FREEDOM is the result!(Who the son sets FREE, is FREE in deed!”{Jn.8:32 – 33 & 36}! But!
I MUST add one more word, a word of caution…We, as a Nation, have sincerely “Forgotten our God”, and thus, released spirits of UNgodliness, that are taking over, (just as we see occurring in the North African Muslim nations), and, as well, History is replete with the events sequences that occur & follow such actions. We Christians MUST FIRST SEEK the Lord’s forgiveness for (as the brief stated: “…
“…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…”, ANY failures on our part to take the RIGHT ROAD & do the RIGHT thing.
Therefore we must FIRST repent of ANY way in which we failed in our duties towards maintaining Godliness, and upholding the LAW OF FREEDOM, and then, we must ALSO be aware that these are darkening days, in which we MUST CLING STRONGLY to our Lord, His spirit, and His WORD! And, (as ERNST D.I. stated: “STAND UP! STAND UP!…and I will add…FOR JESUS!” God Bless! I’ll keep you both in my prayers!
December 12th, 2012 at 10:36 am
I’m a cowardly expat who lives in Central America rather than the tyranny of ObamaLand. Do you suppose i could find some freedom living in Montana?
December 15th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
See The Insurrection Act.
This is the manner in which the average citizen can prefer charges for refusal to follow the law.
Obstruction of Justice is included within this.
ALL officers of any rank are subject to The Law of The State, Constitution of that State, and The Federal Law and Federal Constitution.
According to this article, it sounds like the prosecutor needs to have charges filed against her, and the police officers involved.
Refusal to comply with judicial office requirements, intentional failure to file Oath and bearing false witness for Council members.
False arrest, false reporting, and perjury.
Complaints to The Judicial Review Board for the JP.
-note- Insurance does not cover individual actions outside an office held. A bond does.
December 16th, 2012 at 11:09 am
I love Montana’s thinking! We in Bradford county, Pa. are now getting a second generation (30yrs) of even more corruption than that. We now hire only skinny people, and make a crime of extra weight. Whole family’s rule the court system,child welfare, domestic relations, and lawyers. It’s time for us to use old testament laws again, to many ruined familys already. Cant alow another generation destroyed with communism.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:13 am
It is amazing to me that Montana Law Enforcement (no longer called Peace-Officers) is complicit in the trumped up charges against Joel Boniek. These trumped up charges exist not only in this case but in other cases all over Montana, and it’s happening all the time. It seems to me that the progressives (totalitarians, really) have not only infiltrated the news outlets (propaganda mills, really), they have also infiltrated extensively and at every level all branches of government. Montana Peace Officers have been all to willing to go along with totalitarian policies for a VERY long time, and it is not only among liberals but also professed conservatives in this service. Simply look at the abuse of Joel Boniek while on his own property–slammed face down in gravel for a misdemeanor–who would’ve probably given himself up willingly. Joel was well within his right under our laws–originally penned–to defend himself against such abuses, though, no Montana ‘Peace Officer’ would admit it. This is very telling. If they don’t believe we have a right to defend ourselves against their encroachments (trampling) of our liberties, it is obvious that they don’t believe we have any rights at all. Montana Law Enforcement as a whole does not believe you have any rights. Forget about the abuses of the propaganda mills and collectivists who come from other states for a second. We have in this state Montanans who are willing to abuse other Montanans enforcing collectivists totalitarian policies. Yes there are freedom loving Montanans, however, there are other Montanans who aren’t freedom loving and embrace all the polices of the progressives. It won’t do to simply say this all comes from California or the east as there are freedom loving people in these places as well. The battle is not against a location–east, west, or otherwise–but an ideology, the principles of liberty vs tyranny.
February 25th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
What is amazing is the tsumnami that is emerging from the ripple effect this mention of the bonding requirement for public officials is having throughout the State of Montana and possibly nationally.
It turns out the Park County, Montana Commissioners have fulfilled none of the legal requirements of MCA 2-9, nor has the Park County commission ever recorded a group bond, nor has the Park County Recorder ever recorded such a required bond, which is to be presented upon demand and is to be recorded every September and March. If these impostor officials have no bond, their office is forfeit and every act is uncovered and a fraud operating under “color of Law”. They are PERSONALLY liable for all damages, as their actions are completely uncovered by the required bond.
This is huge, and the ramifications are far reaching, both financially and as a matter of the historic record of all actions taken by the un-bonded impostor officials.
The “System” is in full panic and cover-up mode because of the courage of Joel Boniek.