Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court Run — Are Voters Getting Substance or Rhetoric?

______

Judge Dan Wilson has laid out his Supreme Court platform, but will he apply it in the Dennis Thornton case or turn a blind eye to lawlessness?

Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson traveled to Helena last week to file for his second run for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court, this time facing fellow Flathead District Court Judge Amy Eddy.

Wilson celebrated his filing with a Facebook post featuring Secretary of State Christy Jacobsen and a platform summary; but whether those platform promises hold up as he faces Judge Amy Eddy remains to be seen. Wilson’s post can be viewed below.

______

For those of you in back, here is Dan Wilson’s stated campaign platform for Montana Supreme Court:

Today, I officially filed for office. My commitment to Montanans is clear: I will uphold our laws as written, protect the Constitution, and ensure our courts remain places of impartial justice — not judicial activism. I will always defend the rights of all Montanans and deliver fair decisions that serve the people, not political agendas. – Flathead District Judge Dan Wilson

If Wilson’s words are true, they would be nothing short of revolutionary at a time when many courts no longer uphold the law as written, fail to protect the Constitution, and increasingly engage in judicial activism.

Fortunately for Montana voters, they won’t have to wait until 2027 to see whether Wilson’s claims hold up, as the Dennis and Donna Thornton case will soon serve as his first real Supreme Court test.

Earlier this month, NorthWest Liberty News published an article detailing multiple Montana Code violations allegedly committed by the law firm representing Whitefish Credit Union in the Thorntons’ effort to recover their land.

Let us now review the allegations outlined in that article in light of Wilson’s recent campaign promises, as he is the judge currently considering those allegations based on the evidence submitted by Dennis and Donna Thornton.

To recap, Wilson promises to:

1. Uphold our laws as written

2. Protect the Constitution

3. Ensure our courts remain places of impartial justice

4. Defend the rights of all Montanans

5. Deliver fair decisions that serve the people, not political agendas

I have condensed a portion of the article linked above and paired it with Judge Wilson’s recent campaign promises so that the average voter can more clearly assess the credibility of his statements once he rules on the Thornton case.

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)

______

Legal Verification: Is Judge Wilson Mandated to Grant Relief?

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.

Wilson Promise # 1: Uphold our laws as written

• §37-61-404, MCA, requires written notice for substitution of counsel; non-compliance renders substitution void.

Wilson Promise # 1: Uphold our laws as written

• 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.

Wilson Promise # 2: Protect the Constitution

• MRPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) mandate candor, honesty, and fairness; violations require disciplinary referral.

Wilson Promise # 3: Ensure our courts remain places of impartial justice. **Ed note:  Do attorneys who lie face equal punishment?

• 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.

Wilson Promise # 2: Protect the Constitution

The law firm that is acting in blatant disregard for Montana Law and Supreme Court precedent is based in Chicago, Illinois.

Wilson Promise # 4: Defend the rights of all Montanans

Whether Dan Wilson ultimately reaches the Montana Supreme Court is a decision that rests with the voters. What Wilson can decide, win or lose, is whether he conducts himself as a man of honor in the Thornton case or proves to be just another empty suit who delivers rhetoric when it serves his own interests.

About Author