When do violent gun threats become acts of terrorism? Perhaps never in Montana…

In Sept. 2009 comedian Joe Lipari returned to his New York apartment after spending several hours at a nearby Apple Store. Lipari went to the store to get his malfunctioning iPhone fixed, but when the concierges ignored him for hours, the frustrated Lipari returned home and flipped on the tube.

As Lipari tells the story the movie “Fight Club” was on. There’s a scene in the film where Edward Norton’s character leaves a copy of the Fight Club rules (you know: “The first rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club) on the copy machine.  

In the scene Norton warns his boss to be careful who he talks to about the document he found on the machine or….

“…the button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers…”

Lipari, stoned and amused with himself, paraphrased the quote on Facebook but inserted something about the Apple Store concierges in the post.

Soon thereafter he answered a knock at his door and was greeted by fully armed members of the New York City S.W.A.T. team with their MP5 machine guns drawn.

Lipari was charged with making terrorist threats and spent the better part of the next two years in court trying to clear his name.

So what does this anecdote have to do with Montana? 

I bring it up because it makes me wonder what’s going to happen to Steve Connly, the Montana man who not only sent “hate mail” (his words) to the Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies in which he specifically threatened gun violence, but who also has a habit of threatening the President of the United States on his Facebook page:

(WARNING - EXPLICIT RACIST LANGUAGE)

“Should be anti obama armory.. Barack Obama Thats right pretty nigger, millions more where these came from, just you wait.. your day will come.. and an fyi, I do not call you nigger simply because you are black.. It is because you fit the TRUE definition of a NIGGER.. Which SLAVES used to call the MASTERS before they were freed. Thats right you are a true NIGGER.”

And then there’s this gem:

“An fyi, I am probably going to be kicked off facebook again very soon. Been trolling obama's page and saying many things which should get him ticked off. Serves him right. I say execute that bastard AT the WWII memorial that he has thrown such a big fit about keeping us away from. FEDERAL LAND IS OUR LAND NOT YOURS YOU GREEDY BASTARD and you cannot keep us out of it. WE pay your overly extravagant paycheck, now WE need to hold you accountable for your actions AGAINST the constitution and AGAINST the american people. DO NOT BE FOOLED SHEEPLE, if he is not impeached this year we will have civil war. His actions prove this point. When he doesn't get his way, he throws a fit and takes it out on american people. WE WILL PUSH BACK mark my words little man, your day will come.”

How do I know the Steve Connly who made these Facebook threats against the President is the same guy who wrote to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and said he would “love the chance” to use guns on them?

Because he admitted it on the Montana Logging Facebook page:

After the Tribune published the story of Connly’s threat, a few like-minded souls took to the Trib’s comment section to pile on the treats:

Mike Prester, of Belgrade, thinks a “shooting would be to [sic] good!!!!”

So all of this has got me wondering…. if a New York City comedian can be charged with making terrorist threats and spend the better part of two years in court for posting a paraphrased movie quote on his Facebook page, what happens to Montanans who not only make specific threats of violence against individuals, but also generalized violent threats against the President of the United States?

It’s not hard to imagine that those on the receiving end of threats of deadly force –- or their families -- are terrified. Or at least that is the intention of the threat, isn’t it?

FBI spokeswoman Patricia Speelman declined via email to comment on the status of the case other than to say:

“The FBI takes threats very seriously and investigates them thoroughly with the assistance of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners.”

For those who might be tempted to dismiss these threatening comments as “just talk,” consider the following:

According to environmental investigative group Global Witness, more than 700 environmental activists, journalists and community members were murdered worldwide between 2002-2011.

In Montana environmentalists and conservation advocates know too-well the threat of violence.

As former Missoula Independent reporter Carlotta Grandstaff reported in 2001, they’ve had their homes shot-at, burned down and vandalized:

“In the Bitterroot, at least one environmentalist has received death threats for his opposition to timber sales. Someone fired shots at another activist’s house, leaving bullet holes in a fence. The home of yet another activist was burned to the ground in a mysterious fire. Still another activist was thrown off his job when his employer learned of his involvement with environmental politics. At a public meeting on a grizzly reintroduction plan in Salmon, Idaho, one pro-grizzly speaker was booed and jeered while someone from the audience yelled, ‘get a rope.’ Then, of course, there’s the suspicious death earlier this year of Flathead Valley activist Tary Mocabee.”

In 2001 Flathead Valley activist and Tary Mocabee mysteriously drowned in a shallow creek near her home. Mocabee’s friends told producers for the PBS documentary “The Fire Next Time” that some in the environmental community suspected foul play based on Mocabee’s environmental and social activism.

And lets not forget the not-too-distant past when a group of anti-government extremists from Connly’s neck of the woods plotted to murder a long list of public officials from cops to judges to dog catchers. The Project 7 day of reckoning was supposed to commence on Earth Day.

The alleged “mastermind” of Project 7 plot, David Burgert, is still missing after disappearing into the woods near the Montana-Idaho border after a shootout with police.

There’s plenty room for civil debate and disagreement about forest and wildlife management, health care, foreign and domestic policy, etc. But when the debate degrades to threats of physical violence, we have lost our way.

In America, and in Montana, civilized citizens settle their differences within the confines of the rules we agreed to through our representative democracy.

When someone steps outside those rules, when they resort to threats of violence in order to intimidate and violate the rights of those they disagree with, they should be met with those agreed upon rules and in short order.

Montana Supreme Court rules to send Barry Beach back to prison

In a 4-3 decision, the Montana Supreme Court today reversed a lower court’s ruling granting Barry Beach, the man convicted in 1984 of a murder he says he didn’t commit, a new trial.

The ruling also tossed out Beach’s post-conviction petition, meaning Beach, who has been free since Dec. 8, 2011, will likely head back to Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge to finish out his 100-year prison sentence.

Beach was convicted in 1984 of the 1979 murder of Poplar teenager Kimberly Nees and sentenced to 100 years in prison.

The sole piece of evidence connecting Beach to the crime was his own confession, which he gave to Louisiana investigators years after the murder. Beach has since maintained that his confession was coerced by aggressive interrogation techniques and that he is innocent of the crime. His lawyers have tried to make the case that a gang of jealous teenage girls were responsible for Nees’ death.

Beach asked the court to determine whether new evidence in the case — which came to light after high-profile newspaper and television accounts of his story made national headlines — merited a new trial.

After an initial District Court ruling denying Beach’s petition for post-conviction relief, the Montana Supreme Court ordered the lower court to take a second look at the case and determine whether new evidence merited a new trial. After a three-day evidentiary hearing in Lewistown in August 2011, Fergus County District Judge E. Wayne Phillips ruled in Beach’s favor, granting him a new trial and freeing him on bail.

Phillips found that the new evidence was not available at Beach’s original trial and was compelling and believable.

Then-Attorney General Steve Bullock, now governor, appealed that decision and asked the Supreme Court to overrule Phillips.

The high court sided with the state in a 93-page ruling written by Justice Jim Rice.

Justice Laurie McKinnon, who was elected to the bench in November 2012 and was just appointed to the panel reviewing Beach’s case in February, wrote a concurring opinion stating Phillips erred when he “deliberately” listened to the new evidence presented at the August 2011 hearing while “failing to closely consider” the evidence presented at Beach’s original trial, namely, his confession.

“After a review of all the evidence, we conclude that Beach did not provide reliable evidence of his actual innocence that displaced the trial evidence and thus his conviction,” McKinnon wrote in the concurring opinion.

McKinnon and Rice were joined by Justice Beth Baker and District Judge Richard Simonton in their ruling.

Justices Brian Morris, Michael Wheat and Patricia Cotter dissented.

Peter Camiel, Beach’s attorney in the case, said the high court’s ruling is surprising because it not only overturns the lower court’s ruling granting Beach a new trial, but throws out Beach’s post-conviction petition entirely.

“I am very very surprised they went as far as they did,” Camiel said. “As a general rule, a trial judges’ conclusions about the credibility and testimony of witnesses is never second guessed by the appellate court. That's what this court has done.”

Camiel said Beach is resigned to the fact that he will likely return to custody while as the legal saga unfolds.

“Barry is taking this latest news in stride,” Camiel said. “He is extremely disappointed but he is not panicking. He takes this stuff better than we do. He understands what's going to happen and he doesn't have any false hopes. He recognizes that's that he’s likely going back to jail.”

Jim McClosky, executive director of New Jersey-based Centurion Ministries, the group which spent more than a decade working to prove Beach’s innocence, said he was stunned by the high court’s latest decision.

“I’m just reeling,” McClosky said late Tuesday. “It’s just a punch in the gut. I can’t believe this is the final decision from the court. This is something we couldn’t imagine was going to happen. We’re all stunned and taken aback by it.”

Beach was reached Tuesday evening at work in Billings and had not yet been taken into custody.

“I’ve only found out five minutes ago,” Beach told The Associated Press. “Honestly right now I don’t even know what it means.”

Attorney General Tim Fox was not available for comment. Fox, who was elected in November, has made no public statements on the Beach case.

His spokesman said the Attorney General’s Office was reviewing the 93-page order and would release more details Wednesday.

“It’s a lengthy ruling. We’re in the process of reviewing it and determining what it means for the case, and for Mr. Beach, and we’ll have more to say tomorrow,” Fox spokesman John Barnes said.

Observations, reactions from the Beach hearing

If there was one thing nearly everyone in the Fergus County courtroom could agree on this week it was that District Judge Wayne Phillips conducted Barry Beach’s evidentiary hearing in a balanced manner.

“As complex as this case was for us, it was equally complex for the judge,” said Assistant Attorney General Brant Light, one of the prosecutors representing the state in the case. “I think he was very balanced in this matter.”

Fergus County Judge Wayne Phillips

Beach is the 49-year-old Poplar man convicted of  the 1979 killing schoolmate Kim Nees. Beach has long maintained that his confession to investigators in Louisiana — the only evidence tying him to the crime — was coerced.

Over the years Beach offered a theory that a gang of jealous females killed Nees in an assault that got out of hand. This week his legal team — for the first time — got a chance to present that theory to a judge. Beach hopes that Phillips will find the evidence convincing enough to order a new trial.

For nearly three days, Beach’s lawyers examined witnesses who gave testimony that bolstered Beach’s claim of  innocence. One woman testified that she heard the “horrific” screams of multiple girls the night Nees was murdered. Other witnesses told the court that, over the years, three women admitted to playing a role in the crime.

Meanwhile attorneys for the state sought to poke holes in that testimony. They called  the trustworthiness of Beach’s witnesses into question and fought back attempts to enter hearsay evidence into the record. Prosecutors brought their own witnesses, including the former Roosevelt County undersheriff who originally investigated the murder, to dispute Beach’s “gang-of-girls” theory.

Beach’s attorney Peter Camiel

Along the way, Phillips sustained and overruled dozens of objections by both sides. At some points, the judge seemed to be more favorable to the defense’s arguments, and at other times the state’s arguments appeared to hold sway.

At one point, Beach’s lawyers won a series of arguments related to the admission of evidence. The state opposed allowing certain written statements into the record, but Phillips overruled Light on three occasions. Light belied his cool confidence by slapping his hand down on the table and falling back into his chair, shaking his head in frustration.

Assistant Attorney General Tammy Plubell

Beach’s legal team had their share of frustrating moments, too. Time and time again they tried to convince the judge to allow testimony from University of San Francisco professor Dr. Richard Leo, an expert on false confessions. However, the judge rebuffed those efforts and Leo was not allowed to testify. The judge also denied Beach’s request to recall a witness after later learning new information stemming from his testimony. The judge refused, on the grounds that the defense had ample opportunity to ask the  questions during cross-examination of the witness.

Some of Beach’s supporters were worried prior to the hearing that Phillips might not give Beach and the new evidence a fair shake.

“All we can hope for is that he listens to all of the evidence and considers it carefully,” said Bobbi Clincher, Beach’s mother, before the hearing.

Left: Beach’s mother, Bobbi Clincher

Phillips was the third judge assigned to hear Beach’s petition for post-conviction relief, and he scheduled this week’s hearing more than a year after he was assigned the case.  Prior to the hearing no one knew going into Monday if Phillips would allow witnesses from Beach’s amended petition to testify. Some people, including members of Beach’s legal team, were concerned that Phillips might refuse to hear the new evidence.

However, Phillips heard from nearly all of Beach’s witnesses over the course of 2½ days. 

“I was very satisfied with the way this hearing was conducted and I am thankful to Judge Phillips,” Beach said in a jailhouse interview after the hearing concluded. “I thought he was patient and open to letting both sides present their very best case. Judge Phillips turned out to be everything I had been informed he was: fair, patient, and open minded to everything both parties presented.”

Robert “Bobby” Atkinson is the brother of Sissy Atkinson, one of the women Beach’s witnesses accused of playing a key role in Nees’ murder. Robert Atkinson, who was on the Poplar Police Department at the time of the murder, sat quietly in the courtroom gallery all three days. He was one of the few of the 30 or so people in the audience who was not there to support Beach, though Atkinson doesn’t appear to have any harsh feelings toward the man who has repeatedly accused his sister of murder.

During a break in the hearing Wednesday Robert Atkinson told The Associated Press he agreed that evidence in the murder case was mishandled . He also said Beach may not have had a fair shake at his original trial, and that Beach probably has served enough time in prison for the crime.

Robert Atkinson also said he believes Beach killed Nees largely on Beach's confession.

Robert Atkinson said he also does not believe his sister, Sissy Atkinson, who lived a rough life as a drug abuser, was involved. However, he speculated, that she might have taken credit over for the killing over the years as a way to bolster her credentials among a tough crowd.

"She likes that reputation," he said.

Sissy Atkinson told the AP that she never took credit for Nees’ murder.

Glenna Nees Lockman, Kim Nees’ older cousin, spent two days at the hearing, at times sitting next to Clincher. After the hearing  Lockman said she came to Lewistown to support Beach, whom she said she believes is innocent. Lockman was adamant that she was speaking only for herself, and not for the Nees family.

“I was very satisfied with how this hearing went,” Lockman said. “I guess the only disappointment was that (former Roosevelt County Undersheriff) Dean Mahlum remembered every detail that might have helped the state, but couldn’t seem to remember anything for the defense.”

Peter Camiel, Beach’s lead defense attorney, said he also was pleased with how the hearing went.

“Going in we didn’t know if he (Phillips) would let us present any of our new witnesses,” Camiel said. “We’ve got a very hard-working judge who has taken this case super seriously.”

Jim McCloskey, founder of Centurion Ministries, a New Jersey-based group that has been working to free Beach for more than a decade, said he feels very good about the week’s developments.

McCloskey consults with Beach

“I think our witnesses were believable, credible and they all had the opportunity to present their story to the court that shows that Barry is completely innocent of this crime, and played no role in it,” McCloskey said. “We look forward to the judge’s ultimate decision down the road.”

Both sides will present briefs to the court on or before Oct. 14. Phillips said he hopes that by Thanksgiving he will make a ruling on whether to grant Beach a new trial, or call for another hearing to hear Beach’s constitutional claims.

Light called this week's hearing "very, very unusual."

"We may not see another hearing this is many years," Light said. "Now this part is over, but we believe there will be another hearing."

Contributing: The Associated Press