Exclusive: Flathead County Admits It Conducted No Independent Investigation Before Charging Property Owner With Trespass

______

The Only Substantive Investigation, Conducted by the Sheriff, Was Ignored by Prosecutors

(Kalispell, MT) — Newly disclosed discovery filings contain striking admissions in the case of property owner Dennis Thornton v. Flathead County and three county prosecutors, now pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The case arises from the decision to charge Thornton with criminal trespass on property he claims, and public records indicate, he owned.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy stated that the allegations plausibly suggest defendant Travis Ahner engaged in investigative conduct outside the scope of prosecutorial immunity, including the alleged creation or use of falsified evidence, claims the court determined warrant further litigation. This matter has been previously reported by this outlet here, here, here, and here.

Thornton’s legal difficulties can be traced to a 2018 revival of a civil case involving him and his company, Thorco, Inc., after the matter had been dismissed with prejudice in 2016. The case was reopened by District Court Judge Dan Wilson, now a candidate for the Montana Supreme Court.

Wilson, who presided over key rulings affecting the disputed property, remains central to the ongoing controversy. This news outlet contends that subsequent decisions by Wilson have favored the defense and continue to prevent Thornton from fully exercising control over the property, despite court records and recorded instruments that he argues establish his ownership.

Click the links below to review the previous articles posted by NorthWest Liberty News regarding Judge Dan Wilson:

Judge Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court Test

Judgment Day for Dan Wilson: Supreme Court or Public Disgrace

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

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

Unfit for Service: Supreme Court Hopeful Dan Wilson Fails Supreme Court Test

The genesis of the Thornton case may have originated with Wilson, but the case which is the subject of this article is now in Federal District Court being overseen by Judge Donald Molloy.

As many readers may already know, one of the legal processes that precedes a trial is discovery, during which both the plaintiff and the defense may request information and documents from one another. This process helps frame the issues for trial and allows each side to develop and evaluate its legal defenses.

To provide readers with a clearer understanding of the key issues being disputed in this case, links to the interrogatories propounded by both the plaintiff and the defendants are included below.

Link to Plaintiff Interrogatories click here

Link to Defendant’s Interrogatories click here

______

One of the cores of this case is Request for Admission No. 20 in the defendants’ discovery responses, which contains the following question and answer:

Question (Plaintiff):

Admit that Defendants did not conduct an investigation prior to and independent of the charging decision and subsequent prosecution.

Answer (Defendants):

Admitted.

The above question and answer show that Flathead County prosecutors formally admitted, in sworn discovery responses, that they did not conduct any investigation prior to or independent of the decision to charge and prosecute Thornton for criminal trespass.

The significance of this case does not rest on allegations or opinions, but on what appears in sworn court filings. Readers are encouraged to review the discovery materials themselves and draw their own conclusions. At a time when transparency in the justice system is more important than ever, the disclosures in this case underscore why public access to court records matters.

About Author