Montana Court Showdown: Will Judge Wilson Enforce the Law or Let Misconduct Slide?

______

Judicial Integrity on Trial as Plaintiffs Seek Emergency Judgment Against Out-of-State Attorneys

(Kalispell, MT) – Supreme Court candidate, and current Flathead County District Judge, Dan Wilson has, once again, been put into a position which will signal to potential voters if he is worthy of their vote this November when Wilson faces fellow Flathead District Judge Amy Eddy to secure a seat in Montana’s Supreme Court.

The current spotlight on Judge Wilson stems from a pair of motions filed yesterday (Feb. 10) by Plaintiffs Dennis and Donna Thornton (see below); motions that threaten to destabilize the opposing party’s case much like pulling the bottom block from a Jenga tower.

Motion to Revoke Pro Hac Vice status of Chicago Attorney for Whitefish Credit Union

Click Image

______

Emergency Motion to Vacate Judgement on 2018 Case

Click Image

______

Overall, Judge Wilson’s decision to vacate the 2018 judgment against the Thorntons should be, by most standards, a straightforward one. Current state law and supreme court precedent clearly require a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor. In fact, Judge Wilson is legally mandated, not merely permitted, to grant the requested relief. Montana law leaves no discretion in the face of these violations.

The following is a bullet point and summary of the procedures the Plaintiffs claim that Whitefish Credit Union Attorney(s) violated:

• Material omissions in pro hac vice application:
  Concealed at least seven prior firm appearances and substantial ongoing practice in Montana federal courts, violating Section VI(C) of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c).
• Unauthorized practice of law:
  Exceeded the two-appearance limit for pro hac vice admission without showing good cause, and engaged in substantial Montana practice without full admission.
• Statutorily void substitution of counsel:
  Failed to provide written notice to adverse pro se parties as required by §37-61-404, MCA, rendering the substitution ineffective and all subsequent filings nullities.
• Systematic non-service and defective service:
  Omitted Donna Thornton from certificates of service, addressed mailings solely to Dennis Thornton, used insufficient postage, and falsely certified compliance, violating M.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(1), MRPC 3.4(c), 8.4(d), and Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution.
• Deliberate denial of due process:
  Prevented Donna Thornton from receiving notice, objecting to counsel’s appearance, or participating meaningfully, violating constitutional rights.
• False statements and dishonesty to the tribunal:
  Knowingly made false statements by omission and certification, violating MRPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c).
• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice: Manipulated judicial process to gain unfair advantage, violating MRPC 8.4(d)

______

Below are the remedies requested by the Thorntons:

• Revocation of pro hac vice admission for Whitefish Credit Union Attorney Meagan P. VanderWeele
• Disqualification of counsel and her firm from further participation
• Striking all filings submitted by or on behalf of Meagan P. VanderWeele
• Referral for disciplinary investigation to the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel and notice to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for reciprocal discipline
• Immediate grant of uncontested motion to vacate judgment (October 10, 2018 Judgment) as void and obtained by fraud
• Evidentiary hearing if necessary to determine scope of additional equitable relief
• Restoration of procedural integrity and protection of pro se litigants’ rights

______

Legal Verification: Is Judge Wilson Mandated to Grant Relief?

Based on the factual allegations and cited authorities:

• Montana law and precedent are clear:
  • Section VI(C) of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana strictly limits pro hac vice appearances; violations mandate revocation.
  • §37-61-404, MCA, requires written notice for substitution of counsel; non-compliance renders substitution void.
  • M.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(1) and Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution mandate service and due process; violations require striking filings and vacatur.
  • MRPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) mandate candor, honesty, and fairness; violations require disciplinary referral.
  • Precedents (Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose’s Saloon, Inc., Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, In re Marriage of Broere) confirm that courts must vacate void judgments and strictly enforce procedural rules.

______

Summary: Judge Dan Wilson has the opportunity to finally end the Thornton family’s years‑long ordeal as they have spent nearly a decade trying to reclaim their stolen property.

Conclusion:
If the facts are as alleged and uncontested, Judge Wilson is legally mandated, not merely permitted, to grant the requested relief. Montana law leaves no discretion in the face of these violations.

About Author