Tea Party Proposes Law to Invalidate Police Roadblocks

by Cowgirl

Former legislator Joel Boniek

Former legislator Joel Boniek

Sen. Jennifer Fielder R-TEA Noxon

Sen. Jennifer Fielder R-TEA Noxon

Last year in Montana, a right-wing lunatic state legislator named Joel Boniek was hauled into court to answer charges that he’d sped through a roadblock in defiance of an officer’s order to keep out.  Boniek was trying to get to his house, but his house was in an area where a forest fire was burning and had been evacuated and blocked off due to the emergency.  As a devoted Tea Partier and general wingnut, Boniek did not recognize the authority of the policeman to keep him away from his private property. Also, during his encounter with the officer before he crashed the barrier, Boniek allegedly reached for a gun that he had with him in the front seat. As the Livingston Enterprise reports, he:

“allegedly argued with the officers and eventually ‘dropped his left hand near what looked like a holster’ before a deputy brought him to the ground….The deputy removed a loaded handgun from the holster, according to court documents.”

 

For his day in court, Boniek brought with him an angry mob of supporters, who shouted down the Judge and Prosecutor in such a menacing way that they fled the courtroom fearing for their safety.  At that point, Boniek stood up and proclaimed himself regent over the courtroom, and decreed himself innocent of all the charges (before the bailiff told him otherwise, while brandishing his own weapon).

Boniek is no longer in the legislature, needless to say, so to rectify his situation he has apparently prevailed upon a new Tea Party legislator named Jennifer Fielder, to introduce a new law.  This law, SB360, quite simply would allow a person to openly defy police authority and run a roadblock.   The bill would allow such an action, even if it involved brandishing a weapon, to go unpunished.

Alas for stupid Boniek and Fielder, they don’t seem to be aware that you can’t get somebody off by the hook by passing a law after the fact.

Posted: February 25, 2013 at 10:35 pm

This post was written by Cowgirl

44 thoughts on “Tea Party Proposes Law to Invalidate Police Roadblocks

  1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

    Wouldn’t that mean also that an Armed presence could also crash through the door of your house, which is considered a barrier, and defy your right to your Private property???

    In their haste to write that law to protect stupid interests, they pretty much screw themselves.

    Thank goodness all states laws must follow federal law that is established. Most of the crap these Tea bagging nuts are writing are flat out unconstitutional.

  2. Supporter of Montana SB360 2013

    Under SB360, citizens will have the right to rush into danger in order to rescue property they value above their own lives. If this passes, there is no doubt some of these tea party wingnuts will die as the result of their own skewed values. I see no downside here, and urge your support for SB360.

    1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

      I am not apt anytime soon to endanger Public safety official such as police and sheriffs, by letting such a law pass… no matter how many tea-baggers die of their own stupidity.

      I would rather they just outperform Darwin Award recipients every year.

        1. Mother Jones

          meaning, we don’t have to obey anyone, right? my rights trump your safety? you are right, supporter of sb360 – but those people endanger the other citizens, and the firefighters, and cops who are trying to protect other people…oh, i forget, cops & firefighters are “gov’t employees” and not worthy of respect. rule of law? respect for law? i thought it was the left wing who were the anarchists…

          1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

            Really what is this statement some sort of reverse Psychology try by a teenager?

            Enlighten me as to why you would disobey the constitution of the state & country?

            See I’ve been around for half a century now, and I have yet to see anyone violate my rights… even as I peacefully sat in many a protest that I knew would get me arrested…… numerous times.

            Call me when you get back from that “Out to Lunch” mentality

  3. Publius II

    What’s the latest on Boniek and the court? Does the ‘bagger’ think
    he’s above the law and the rest of us he might consider on ’3/5′ of
    a citizen?

        1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

          Wow this site must be one of the Larger News Feeds for People like Boniek… and its called the Rumor Mill… Mmmm… Interesting.

          Apparently, the site helps the reader find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis, Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies, Spirituality, Home Schooling, Home Mortgages….

          Right up Boniek’s & Pundit’s( Mark) alley for news.

  4. Mike

    And yet they keep electing these idiots. I am hoping that the sane eventually get to have a say in managing the state government.

  5. Pete

    If any of you idiots would have actually looked at the law that was supposedly violated in this case you would find that it is voluntary
    only, the highway patrol can not keep you from going on your way.
    I could site the rule for you, but i’ve already wasted more time on
    you knotheads than your worth.
    time on you knot heads

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

      HELL yes, and the courtroom antics of Boinek were the work of a sane, law abiding citizen who RESPECTS the very Constitution you whiners speak of!

      Oh wait, my bad.

  6. Michael Bashore

    Was this comment by Cowgirl satire. I hope so. There are too many sheep in this country following along the information path, created by the socialists media censored by the gov’t. Joel was well within his constitutional, US and Montana, rights to protect his property. At some point, hopefully, backbones will regrow in the American people.

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

      HEY, for the record for ALL to see, mikey, just HOW MUCH of that hated gubmint money you suckin’ up, dude? You got a “backbone” I assume, so don’t run and hide, dude. TELL us just WHY you ain’t a socialist, yet you’re suckin’ offn’ Unca Sugartit?! I’m guessin’ lots. Ag subsidies maybe? Social Security? Medicaire? Disability? Military pension?

      Which ARE they, Constistupidist dude?

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

        Pathetic. But HEY, I’m sure that God done spoke to mikey and said it’s Okay to suckle offn’ the Unca Sugartit!

        bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaa!

        1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

          p.s.s. HERE’S the problem for you dudes when you use a real name, Mikey. This is STILL Montana, dude, a very small town with long streets! SOMEone out there’s gonna know you, and they’re gonna call you on any lies you might try! Hence, I see NO response from you, Mikey. That figures. You see, ALL you teatard dudes got your hungry lips FIRMLY attached to Unca Sugartit. Hell, some of you are double dippin’, and I’ve even known some that were TRIPLE dippin’ and actually quadruple dippin’! I shit you not! And triple dippin’ while triple suckin’ on Unca Sugar’s mammary is NOT the smartest thing to do while’st claimin’ to be an anti-gubmint reetard teetard!

          So, mikey, I’ll start it off. I have NEVER, EVER in the past, during my entire life (though I tried like hell to) been able to suck ONE single solitary penny outta Unca Sugartit! Now, your turn! Can you do it, Mikey, KNOWING full well that somebody out there is gonna call you on your shit???

          I didn’t THINK so! Nice knowin’ ya, dude. Come back when you actually have some creds!

          Retired Post Office. Gotta be! You’re prolly gettin’ disability for your flat feet, right?????

  7. Wolf

    Get your facts straight please.
    “Boniek was trying to get to his house, but his house was in an area where a forest fire was burning and had been evacuated and blocked off due to the emergency”

    1: There was NO emergency declared in accordance with the currently laws in MCA
    2: The area had NOT been evacuated as there were citizens still in there home.
    3: MCA clearly states that there can be NO denial of access to property unless there has been a full evacuation.

    The state “law enfocement” officers violated the laws of the state of Montana that are currently in the MCA. (Montana Code). By your standards our founding fathers were “wingnuts”. However, I remind everyone here, according to Montana code, law enforcement offices have NO duty or obligation to protect the public. The law on this is clear and if they have no right to protect or defend the public then they have no power to stop you from defending yourself.

    Abuse within the law enforcement agencies and courts are all over the internet, just youtube a video of police abuse and you could spend months looking at all the violations. Matter of fact you can see this case on Youtube, where you claim he “fondled a weapon” yet video does not lie and shows no such thing. There for I can only make this statement clear and loud.

    Until you get your facts straight, your liable for damages so I suggest you put a lock on it until you are able to speak the truth. Because right now as your article stands it is open to a host of liable suits. Consider that when your looking up freedom of the press.

    1. jack ruby

      Did you mean to say ‘libel’? Funny that a guy who tried to take over a small town justice of the peace court by packing it with his hillbilly inbred supporters and hooting & hollering at the judge like a pack of orangutans is now trying to make a legal argument that he was within his rights. I guess it would have been too much to ask for you to just retain a lawyer and put these arguments before the Judge Budeski in a reasoned professional manner as opposed to jumping up and down and screaming like an inbred yosemite sam? Doesnt exactly help your credibility there.

      1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

        Absolutely correct! Law also states that you must follow Police requests to clear an area when there is an issue of clear and present danger, or possible safety concern. so it doesn’t have to be a declared emergency for emergency protocol .

    2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

      Wolf, problem is that Napoleon Bonikpart represents TWO of the most true truisms in life. One, that you can’t fight city hall, and two, that you can’t cure stoopid!

      You see, wolf, no matter HOW many inbreds you bring WITH you to your court hearing, that alone will NOT cure stoopid! MOST people learn this early on in life. It’s only you inbreds that don’t figure it out!

      Hope this helps.

    3. Gumbo

      Sorry Pal. Boniek is a public figure, and has such he has no claim at all against Cowgirl. Not to mention that she is repeating what was printed in the newspaper. I don’t recall Boniek suing the Billings Gazette.

  8. Elias Alias

    Montana Cowgirl, experienced riders of the range usually know not to squat with their spurs on. I am not surprised, however, that you’ve overlooked that old piece of sage advice. You certainly relish a lively lie, and your zeal for good natured fun-poking I’m sure induces animated extensions of your colorful, if somewhat politically motivated, imagination. But now you’re picking on one of my friends and a charter member of Oath Keepers, the organization I represent. Can’t let you dance out of this one without demanding an apology from you, MC.
    I will not spend much time on this today, but will just add a few trivial details on my way to making my formal request that you apologize to your readers for misleading them, for making false reports to them, and that you apologize to Joel for lying about him.
    First, Joel Boniek was trying to get to more than just a “house”. You forgot to mention to your readers that Joel’s house is part of his charming little ranch, and at his ranch that day he had farm animals in the path of the wildfire. Joel loves animals – his ranch was directly in the path of the fire – the fire burned onto his property to within ten feet of his front door before the volunteer fire department put it out there – the emergency to save his animals was real. Fortunately, no animals were burned, but that credit does not go to the officers who forgot that they could exercise “Officers’ Discretion” and assisted Joel in his rescue efforts by escorting him in to care for his animals. They had time to chase him and arrest him, but they could not be bothered to honor his request to be let through their roadblock to tend to his animals. Odd, that, eh? MC, can you remember the good ol’ days when Americans were good hearted people with common sense? You know, back before everyone started bowing down to some fiction called “The Law” no matter how out of synch a particular law might be in unusual circumstances?

    You have said that Joel blasted through a roadblock. That evokes quite a colorful imagery in the minds of avid readers here, I’m sure, but it is a lie. Joel did not “blast through a roadblock”. He stopped and asked permission to go through to save his animals. When he was denied passage, he went to a neighbor’s property to park his truck and walk the rest of the way. The neighbor, who by the way was NOT evacuated, offered to let Joel cross said neighbor’s private land to get to a private road which would go to Joel’s place. Joel thought at the time that it was a great idea, so he accepted the invitation and made his way to the private road across the neighbor’s land.

    When he was pulled over, he was on private a private gravel road. He was a man determined to save his animals from wildfire. He did not run the road block, and had no criminal intent. Would you risk a brush with the “law” to save your horse from death by fire, cowgirl? Even if the government told you not to do it? What kind of cowgirl would not want to save her horse from a wildfire?

    Regarding your statement that Joel “allegedly fondled a weapon”, you will be relieved to know that at no time did Joel “fondle his weapon”. However, one officer did draw down on Joel. That officer put his gun on Joel’s face at about eight feet distance from Joel while another officer came upon Joel from behind. The officer who pointed his gun at Joel is the same officer who later would tell Joel that he was angry with Joel for “making us have to do this to you”. (Keep reading to see how I can say that.)

    Regarding the “angry mob” at the courtroom proceedings later, you will find that Joel was as surprised as anyone when one man interrupted Joel’s stately address to the judge. (Alluding to your previous coverage of the courtroom scene which you totally mis-characterized several months ago here at your blog, and which I only discovered while reading this article today – thanks for the link), the truth of that shall out. For one thing, Joel is a respected and loved member of his community and has numerous friends, many of whom were present to witness how the court would handle this touchy situation in which the government’s employees effectively interposed government based on an assumption of authority over a free American citizen’s rights to personal property ownership and proper animal stewardship – and his *duty* as a responsible land owner.

    Although many citizens of late weakly and meekly bow to governmental encroachment, such as the government’s bid to own one’s body by asserting *authority* over what one may or may not put into one’s body, some of us still recall a Constitution with a Bill of Rights which enshrine and protect our God-given right of self-ownership and personal property ownership and the responsibility required of such freedom. At issue here is a greater question of property ownership – can the government deny a man his duty to save farm/ranch animals which are in the path of a wild-fire? Should it? How much power and control over your home or ranch would you prefer the state exercise? Will you stand and oppose unjust “rules” of government when your animals are threatened? Again I ask – Don’t even cowgirls love their horses?

    Joel did not “bring” anyone with him to court. Instead, a number of citizens who are concerned about the greater issues involved here voluntarily showed up to show support for Joel’s side of the issue. Joel did not ask Ernst, D.I. to say one word. Ernst, D.I. started it by calling “Bullshit” when the judge sought to overlook a detail which Joel had brought to the court’s attention – namely, that the alleged County Attorney had not performed the LAWFULLY-REQUIRED obligations she should have done prior to showing up in a court of law to represent the County. She admitted in that courtroom that she did not have a bond, and further, she asserted that she did not need a bond. The LAW says she must obtain her bond before she can represent the County – go figure. She places herself above the law to gain a position which would allow her to accuse Joel of placing himself above the law. I know you’re not going to like that, but please read just a bit more….
    Joel Boniek was standing before the court in an honorable and respectful manner when Ernst, D. I. interrupted the proceedings. Joel did not move, did not say anything as an officer of the court confronted Ernst, D.I. and engaged Ernst, D.I. in conversation while the whole courtroom watched in a hushed silence. Ernst, D.I. used a less-than-appropriate manner of expressing his objection that the alleged County Attorney was in legal error, to be sure. But Joel did not ask Ernst, D. I. to do that, and did not encourage Ernst, D. I., during the disturbance. Shortly, as Joel stood there in a state of surprise, Ernst, D. I. asked the courtroom spectators to rise to show unity, and the people began standing up. The judge did not protect Joel’s rights as a citizen before a court and allowed Ernst, D. I. to use a disturbance to prevent Joel from completing his 15-point presentation to the court.

    The whole thing was over in just a few minutes. However, the Livingston Enterprise decided to lay the blame on Joel in their article, which AP immediately parroted and which also several other Montana newspapers published – all of them wrong.

    How I can speak with knowledge about all this is a question I’m sure you’ve already asked yourself. So here is what you’ve been reading to get to, Montana Cowgirl.

    I have seen the film footage of the squad car which pursued Joel’s truck as Joel tried to get to his ranch. Yes, I’ve seen the entire event of Joel’s arrest as filmed by the squad car’s camera. That footage is going to put quite a pile of egg on your face if you do not apologize for the lies you’re spreading about Joel. Either you’re lying, or the squad car’s camera is lying.

    Further, I’ve also seen the film footage of the court hearing in which a single man interrupted Joel’s presentation and threw the court room into disarray. Yes, MC, the whole damn thing is on film, and I’ve seen it. Have you? Word for word, face for face, the whole thing is on film. And now it’s on a lot of DVDs floating around out there in the public – the courtroom hearing and the squad car chase and arrest – including the officer who drew his gun on Joel while another officer took Joel down from behind while Joel’s hands were spread to either side, and kicked his feet out from under him and pounced on his back – a totally unnecessary bit of abuse, as the film itself shows.

    So here is what I’m going to do for you, MC. I’m going to suggest to you that you publish an apology for lying on your blog about this matter. That is good advice. If you choose not to apologize, who knows – maybe the people who have those films will share them across the State of Montana and elsewhere.
    Lasso that, Cowgirl, and never forget – don’t squat with your spurs on!
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, Oath Keepers

    1. Rob Kailey

      Nothin’s more fun than hollow threats, especially from so-called “Oath Keepers”. Be honest, Little Camper. Post those videos. I can’t frickin wait! Come on! Post them … Unless you’re actually lying, Oath Keeper.

      If such video existed in private hands, Boniek would have had a very solid defense and there would have been no reason to stack the courtroom with crazy folk. In fact, since both you and Boniek claim that he has been harshly judged in the court of public opinion, that opinion would already have been swayed by the release of the videos you fantasize exist. With no lie, I am honestly and sincerely begging to see those videos. So if’n you got ‘em, forward them on to me. I’d love to see them. That is with the full caveat that if I get them, I will post them online, because I actually care about honesty, so-called Oath Keeper.

      I think you are lying, Elias. And I find it reprehensible, and a complete violation of the Code of the West, that a liar would request another to apologize for lying with no proof of any lie.

      1. Rob Kailey

        And for the record, if I am supplied with even one of the videos you claim exist, Elias, and it shows what you cl;aim it shows, I will come out strong and hard in defense of Boniek. I write that confident that it will never happen.

      2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

        Oath Keepers. What are they, Lias, inbred BOY scouts?!
        bwhahahahahahahahaaa!
        Too funny, dude. Do you have den meetings? Merit badges? Uniforms? Campouts? Do you allow gays????
        Boy scouts USUALLY know better than to tell lies, Lias. You’re not tellin’ a tall tale to earn a merit badge in story tellin’, are you big guy?? Embellishin’ just a wee bit for the campfire??? Seems that MORE than one state daily seems to contradict your tale! Why? How could that be? And really, what damn business is it of YOURS that Napoleon Bonikpart got himself arrested? And then declared himself innocent? And the legal court null and void?! You gonna go to jail along with Napoleon if need be? Boy scouts ain’t as SMART as they used to be, are they? They USED help old ladies across the street. And now, they help law breakers break the law! That’s progress I guess!

        1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

          BTW, Lias, just HOW long you been talkin’ to God??? The Big Guy gave you fellas some rights deeRECT from the head office, right? Well, care to elaborate on just HOW that process works?? Seems that MOST folks derive their rights from our system of laws! Ever HEARD of them??

          bwhhahahahahahahhahahahahahaaaa!

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

            WAIT! HOLD YOUR HORSES FOR ONE GALL DANGED MINUTE!

            I just received a very important message via GODmail from the Big Guy Hisself, GOD! And He tol’ me that inDEED He communicated deerectly with Lias and Napoleon Bonikpart and TOLD them that He gave them the right to do whatEVER they need to do! InCLUDING declaring the court null and void! Yippers! God Hisself! No question about it! I’m quite SURE it was Him! And who’s gonna refuse God?! Not me!

            Sorry, Lias. I apologize for making FUN of you. God tol’ me to!

            bwhahahahahahahahaahahahahaaaa!

            This message was God given, brought to you by God BY GOD!

            1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

              “and protect our God-given right of self-ownership and personal property ownership and the responsibility required of such freedom”, Lias.

              Lias, I AM a bit confused here. Just WHO “owned” you prior to your discovering your right to “self-ownership”??? Are there REALLY folks in this country who are owned by others? Wow! That is profound, dude!

    2. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

      I wonder what oaths the Oath Keepers do keep, because it hasn’t been telling the truth.

      Most seasoned judges, can put up with a lot of crap, to have one leave… Well, lets just say it is very rare, and it means she felt the people in the court room might be in danger, if she continued to hold court on Joel Boniek’s case.

      Better to clear the court., then risk any kind of violent acts. The judge did the right thing in leaving, arguing with an Ignorant man suck as Boniek, and a person spreading lies like you Elias is time wasted in futility.

      1 John 4:1
      Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

    3. Cowgirl

      Hello Mr. Alias, Thank you for your lengthy comment.

      First, the Livingston Enterprise reported that Boniek “refused to comply with policemen’s orders or abide by a roadblock.” He continued on, and when he was finally stopped by two cops, he:

      “allegedly argued with the officers and eventually ‘dropped his left hand near what looked like a holster’ before a deputy brought him to the ground….The deputy removed a loaded handgun from the holster, according to court documents.”

      So Mr. Boniek “reached for” a gun; I wrote he “fondled a gun” he had in his front seat. Hardly a material distinction, but I will certainly correct my posting. Also, if this minor distinction were such a big deal to Mr. Boniek, he might have contacted me to request that I change it, but he hasn’t.

      By the way, the newspapers also said that while in court, Mr. Boniek had a bulge in his jacket but refused to allow the court officer to inspect him for a concealed gun.

      Second, as to whether Boniek instigated the courtroom free-for-all or whether it was nothing more than “one individual” in the gallery, here is the headline from the Billings Gazette article that reported on the courtroom scene, along with the first paragraph of the article:

      FORMER LAWMAKER LEADS COURTROOM FRACAS

      LIVINGSTON — A Livingston justice of the peace walked out of a hearing after being heckled by a rowdy crowd, leaving the former state legislator who instigated it all to declare he was in charge of the courtroom and proclaim the case against him dismissed.

      Every other paper in the state carried a similar story. So I suggest you take it up with them.

      Finally, as to your point about saving animals. I certainly might consider defying an officer and sneaking into a blocked-off area if my horses were in grave danger and needed me to save them as a fire approached my property, and if the officers were being totally unreasonable. But, I would not resist arrest, nor reach for a gun, nor refuse a bailiff’s request in the courtroom to see if I was concealing a weapon under my jacket, nor challenge a judge’s or prosecutor’s authority to do their jobs by “requiring them to post a bond”, nor declare myself “innocent as the last woman standing” in court after the judge had walked out.

      Rather, I would come to court and defend myself by explaining that I wanted to free my animals, and making an argument as to why I’m entitled to do so under the law and was thus wrongly arrested. I’d do this, instead of:

      submitting filings that included requests such as that the state “provide proof of the Letter of Marque from either Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or the Principal (Boniek) granting permission to plunder” his estate. Boniek on Monday generally declined to comment but said his legal arguments might seem “arcane” to people who are not legal scholars. (Livingston Enterprise, 1/8/13)

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

        Yes, but!, YOU’RE NOT AN INBRED MORON!

        For Lias and Bonikpart, TWO of the most laffable, affable, gaffable characters SINCE the inception and subsequent incarceration of the Freemen! WHO, by the way, are no longer free!

        You see, Lias, in SPITE of your well-written, grammatically correct post, which is amazing considering your argument, you STILL come across as an unsophisiticated MORON!

        Here, Lias. THIS is how it’s done!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_Fp09NC_0

        Enjoy.

      2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

        The newspaper that I read (although I cannot attest to its accuracy) stated that Mr. Napoleon Bonikpart PLAYED with his gun to see how many times it would shoot! Now, if this incorrect, I stand corrected! But that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!

        bwhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaaaa!

  9. jack ruby

    Ive seen the video of Boniek’s car chase it does exist. I think someone linked to it on one of these other posts. Its kind of grainy i dont think you can tell whether he was fondling his rod or not in it but you can definitely see that he is attempting a high speed escape from law enforcement. I would be very interested to see the video of the court room incident with Boniek’s travelling circus of zoo animals.

  10. Elias Alias

    Hello Mr. Alias, Thank you for your lengthy comment.
    EA: >>>You’re welcome. Thank you for posting my comment without censure. I will place three of these little thingies in front of my comments below your remarks. You said -
    First, the Livingston Enterprise reported that Boniek “refused to comply with policemen’s orders or abide by a roadblock.” He continued on, and when he was finally stopped by two cops, he:
    “allegedly argued with the officers and eventually ‘dropped his left hand near what looked like a holster’ before a deputy brought him to the ground….The deputy removed a loaded handgun from the holster, according to court documents.”
    So Mr. Boniek “reached for” a gun; I wrote he “fondled a gun” he had in his front seat. Hardly a material distinction, but I will certainly correct my posting. Also, if this minor distinction were such a big deal to Mr. Boniek, he might have contacted me to request that I change it, but he hasn’t.

    >>>Montana Cowgirl, you are correct In what you quote from the Livingston Enterprise article to which you linked above. What is now known is that the Livingston Enterprise article – and possibly the “court records” to which the L. Enterprise alludes – is/are the source(s) of the erroneous statements. I am happy to grant you that – but would offer you yet further absolution by reminding you that 1), one should not always believe what one reads in the papers and 2), when one does rely upon a newspaper source one might, in the interest of wisdom, remember always that newspapers involve a human element which opens the possibility of biased perception either conscious or unconscious on the part of either the journalist/reporter, or his/her sources, or the editorial staff or even the corporate overseers who dictate “policy”, as with the J.P. Morgan press enterprises of the 1910s and 1920s. If one is attacking one’s fellow citizen and one’s newspaper source is later discovered to be less than accurate, one may feel a twinge of benign guilt upon such discovery. I mention that because in the case of the Livingston Enterprise coverage of this story the L. Enterprise has misrepresented the truth, albeit with their own “Ace in the hole” – the “court records”. So let’s look at the possibility that the origin of said court records originated from police reports offered by the arresting officers and/or others involved in Joel’s capture and transport to the jail. Why I suggest we look at the police reports (of which I have seen copies) has to do with a noteworthy variance between the written descriptions of the activities surrounding Joel’s arrest and the actual film footage which I have also seen personally. For example –
    Joel did not drop his left hand in any direction, and certainly not in the direction of his gun. The squad car footage, I repeat, witnessed the entire event. Joel stepped out of his truck and spread his arms wide, extended outward away from his body to either side, and kept them there, quite still, quite un-moving, and certainly not reaching for anything. He simply did not reach for anything and the film verifies my description as I’ve just given it to you. (Aside, to one of your comment-posters who said that he has seen the squad car footage but that it was “grainy”, I would note here for him that the film I personally saw was not at all grainy and every activity on camera was well-defined and unambiguous. Apparently this comment-poster has seen a poorly rendered copy of the original. The film I saw was first generation copy of the original and very clear.)
    -
    By the way, the newspapers also said that while in court, Mr. Boniek had a bulge in his jacket but refused to allow the court officer to inspect him for a concealed gun.

    >>>Well, Ms Cowgirl, as we are learning, the newspapers can say anything to induce misunderstanding in the minds of hurried readers. ‘Context’, when combined with crafty efforts to present an embellished mental image, can be skewed deliberately to produce predictable psychological associations. I’m sure you’ll agree, yes? In this case, the newspapers did say that and I recall reading that account myself a while back – however, Joel is a student of law and the human processes and activities which animate the law in our social behavior patterns, and Joel is keenly aware of the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which Joel holds, as do I, to be the highest law of the land. The court officer had no lawful right to search Joel, and he knew it, which is why he did not go ahead and grab Joel and inspect that “lump” then and there on the spot. Let’s be real for a moment – what Joel (and Oath Keepers) is striving for is an absolute execution of the highest law of the land according to the written letter and inherent spirit of that law. It’s about freedom for the individual under the societal mandates within a Constitutional Republic of law, inside which operates the Democratic process in check only to the enumerated (and, as noted in the Ninth Amendment, others not enumerated yet retained by the people) unalienable rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. If Joel drives home his point in this case, all Montanans win, and no Montanans shall suffer harsh abuse from the judicial system in Montana in any future similar matter. If he loses this matter through biased or less-well-read or negligent court officials, all Montanans shall feel yet a bit more of Big Brother’s weight bearing down upon their daily lives and routines as they go about their business and personal activities as citizens. Fighting the powers on behalf of freedom never hurts anyone, while oppressing any man anywhere, (to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King), oppresses everyone everywhere. So to sum up on this point – being “secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”, is a right which “shall not be violated”. To fully know this, simply ask yourself why no court official dared reach for that “lump”, and declined to do so once Joel refused to grant the court that concession. Were Joel not within his rights, the court would have had their way with that lump, and Joel would have, at gun point for the second time, had to “lump” it. ;)
    -

    Second, as to whether Boniek instigated the courtroom free-for-all or whether it was nothing more than “one individual” in the gallery, here is the headline from the Billings Gazette article that reported on the courtroom scene, along with the first paragraph of the article:
    FORMER LAWMAKER LEADS COURTROOM FRACAS
    LIVINGSTON — A Livingston justice of the peace walked out of a hearing after being heckled by a rowdy crowd, leaving the former state legislator who instigated it all to declare he was in charge of the courtroom and proclaim the case against him dismissed.
    Every other paper in the state carried a similar story. So I suggest you take it up with them.

    >>> All in good time, Cowgirl, all in good time. Shoddy journalism, even yellow journalism, is an embarrassment for our culture and society these days, and that headline by the Billings Gazette is a perfect example. Again I note that the courtroom film flat-out proves that headline to be a lie. If you choose to believe it after I have suggested that it is not true, I’m supposing that you may always fall back on the excuse that a public publication said it so you are free to repeat it and even add your own imagianic renditions when you write about this story. That is your call, but since you have yet to see the film footage yourself, your refusal to believe me merely indicates that your personal standards can, when desired, over-ride that old judicial-arena catch-phrase – “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. What I’m saying to you is yours to accept or deny or ignore, or to not react in any way. My duty to myself, to my friend, to justice, is done when I bring that “reasonable doubt” to your attention. As for the newspapers which had a great time belittling a good Montanan because he managed to get his Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 passed in both House and Senate and then signed by the Democrat governor (which we all know is why the newspapers chose to start a smear campaign against Joel), well, those newspapers may yet pay the piper – because the film will most likely come to the surface at the appropriate time and all lies shall be revealed.
    -

    Finally, as to your point about saving animals. I certainly might consider defying an officer and sneaking into a blocked-off area if my horses were in grave danger and needed me to save them as a fire approached my property, and if the officers were being totally unreasonable. But, I would not resist arrest, nor reach for a gun, nor refuse a bailiff’s request in the courtroom to see if I was concealing a weapon under my jacket, nor challenge a judge’s or prosecutor’s authority to do their jobs by “requiring them to post a bond”, nor declare myself “innocent as the last woman standing” in court after the judge had walked out.

    >>>Well said, Montana Cowgirl. Thank you for being sensitive to animals – a very good point in your favor. I’m with you on the “not resisting arrest” thingy – hell, those guys have much more power than do I, and I hate to feel pain, so my encounters with law enforcement are always very cooperative. As for “reaching for a gun”, of course I would not do so either – but, as the truth shall some fine day reveal, Joel did not reach for a gun either. As for refusing a bailiff’s request in a courtroom to see if I was concealing a weapon, he’s just going to have to take my word for it until he produces a lawful warrant. He knows the rules as well as anyone else does. Regarding a challenge of any officer of the court, if I had discovered prior to my hearing that a County prosecuting Attorney had failed to register her Oath and had failed to obtain the legally-required bond, I would most certainly challenge her authority to represent the people against me. Well before the hearing, Joel had asked her for her bond and learned that she did not have one, so it was perfectly in good form to bring that up to the judge, and the judge had the option of dismissing all charges against Joel at that point because the County had sent an imposter instead of a legally stationed County Attorney to stand against him. Had the judge done that, all of this would have already faded into a cluttered and brittle unchangeable past and justice as well as common sense would have been served properly, humanely, and at the least expense to the people. As it now stands, Joel will be back in court to carry forward his defense, more money will be spent, and, thanks to the films I’ve mentioned, now some law enforcement officer(s) may be dragged into the fray. Need I say more?
    -

    Rather, I would come to court and defend myself by explaining that I wanted to free my animals, and making an argument as to why I’m entitled to do so under the law and was thus wrongly arrested. I’d do this, instead of:
    submitting filings that included requests such as that the state “provide proof of the Letter of Marque from either Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or the Principal (Boniek) granting permission to plunder” his estate. Boniek on Monday generally declined to comment but said his legal arguments might seem “arcane” to people who are not legal scholars. (Livingston Enterprise, 1/8/13)

    >>>Ah, yes yes yes, Montana Cowgirl. I would do it more or less the way you described that you’d do it. I’m a very amiable sort of dude, and I’m much more interested in softening the descending blow of the powers’ hammer than I am in martyring myself – up to a point – best to run away losing a little battle than risk losing the whole war just to make a little point, eh? I’ll admit it – I have a well-honed distaste for jails – been there, done that, bought the shirt, and found better fields in which to play. But you and I are a bit different than Joel. Joel has read more than I have, and Joel has a passion for acting on his religious perceptions. I honor that in him, but I am an agnostic, an old beatnik and unemployed poet, a classical Liberal on the Board of Directors at Oath Keepers national, a complex enigma, a philosophical anarchist, a creative Voluntaryist, and one of Claire Wolfe’s “Freedom Outlaws”. Among other things. ;) Joel, on the other hand, has studied into highly technical matters which boggle my mind, so I stick with philosophy and my metaphysical meanderings and find little to fight for when it comes to “beliefs”. I am aware that the Eastern Establishment (Wall Street and ilk) is actually the Anglo-American Establishment, but I’ve not been interested in reading the treaty between Washington’s revolutionaries and King George III. What I do fight for is freedom for everyone out from under the authoritarian nature of governments everywhere – And the right of every individual human being to the fulfillment of his own intrinsic dignity on the mutual terms of Spencer’s “law of equal freedom”. I will close and be on my way with this – to those on this thread who are requesting that I show the films I’m claiming to have seen, please note that I did not say I *possessed* those films, only that I had *seen* them. And that is true.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, Oath Keepers

    1. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

      I think this guy is as high as a Kite when he writes this…. just saying!

  11. Jack Ruby

    Asking for the “bond” and “registered oath” of the deputy county attorney are frivolous arguments, the kind of thing self appointed and completely delusional constitutional ‘experts’ like boniek and skees conjure up and fixate on when its convenient to them. Its barely a step removed from the looney things the freemen did back in the 90s, filing fake liens and issuing their own created bad checks based on their own goofy interpretations of the law. Having his pirate hat wearing friend curse out the judge when he didn’t get his way

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers.

        Jack, maybe you don’t get it, but Napoleon Bonikpart is being persecuted for his religeeeous beliefs. Why yes he is. He’s a regular Deitrich Boneheadhoffer! He is an insaintly man! God done TOL’ Mr. Boneheadhoffer to TAKE that lump into court with him so as to waste a judge if need be to puhraise His name!

        I get it.

        bwhahaahhahahahahahahahahahahaa!

  12. Norma Duffy @Ilikewoods

    All it is is constitutional vandalism by a bunch of old white men acting like non highschool graduating street thugs!

    If our founding document was a clean wall, people like Boniek and Alias here would scrawl graffiti all over it. …. just saying!

    My Question is when do we start issuing straight-jackets for this kind of behavior???

  13. rebcon

    Joel’s arguments boggle the mind not because of their brilliance, but because of the way they mixed stupidity with insanity and just a tiny bit of mysterious arcane legal notions to give the ignorant the impression that the arguments are learned and clever.
    I believe that in a polite society, one should refrain from unnecessary namecalling and engage in civility in discourse. But sometimes, it is necessary to call out outrageous claims to ensure they are not given traction by those without knowledge in the area under discussion.
    So, to put it bluntly, Boniek is a moron. His arguments are moronic. They are not reasonable. They are not based in the law. They are silly and misguided and ignorant. Unfortunately, not only is Boniek a moron, but he is a dangerous one. He is an obstructor, an intimidator, a vigilante and he has violated the oath he took as a legislator. he and everyone else in that courtroom should be very ashamed of themselves. This is not how American citizens conduct themselves.

Comments are closed.