Exclusive: Suspicious Hirings and Failure to Act Raise Questions About Montana AG Knudsen’s Connections to Flathead County Prosecutions

_____

A Flathead County Prosecutor and an Attorney Central to the Thornton Land Case Later Joined the Montana AG’s Office — a Sequence Raising Questions

As court proceedings continue in the multiple open cases stemming from the land dispute involving Dennis Thornton, several concerning revelations have emerged. These developments warrant closer scrutiny and suggest greater depth and interconnection than previously understood in matters this outlet has reported on before.

NorthWest Liberty News has reported extensively on the long‑running land dispute between Montana landowner Dennis Thornton and Whitefish Credit Union, the state’s largest credit union, with the primary focus being on Flathead Valley. The scope of that reporting has now widened, reaching Helena with the involvement of Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office.

As would be expected in litigation spanning more than a decade, Dennis Thornton was represented at various points by multiple attorneys as he sought to defend his claimed ownership of property in Somers, Montana. Among those attorneys was Thane Johnson, a Kalispell‑based practitioner who represented Thornton during a portion of the protracted land dispute.

According to Thornton, he paid Johnson $5,000 to represent him in several related matters, including defending against a restraining order (covered in an upcoming article), responding to a criminal trespass charge, and pursuing a quiet title action. In the clipped image below, Johnson is identified as Thornton’s counsel in the upper left‑hand corner. Also of note is that Michael Noonan is copied on the correspondence, as reflected at the bottom of the document. Noonan’s role will be examined in the next segment.

Ultimately, Johnson took no substantive action on Thornton’s behalf. He filed no opposition to the restraining order, mounted no defense against the criminal trespass charge, and performed no work on the promised quiet title action. As a result, Thornton lost critical motions by default, outcomes that later had to be set aside. Although Johnson ultimately returned the $5,000 fee, the procedural and strategic damage had already been done.

Deceptive actions against Thornton by a Montana Bar attorney was nothing new, and was the main reason Thornton had to begin addressing his cases as a pro se litigant. The curious part of Johnson’s actions didn’t occur while he was Thornton’s attorney, but afterwards. According to his own sworn application materials, Thane Johnson joined the Montana Attorney General’s Office in January 2023, after leaving private practice, and after sabotaging the Thornton case

Michael Noonan and the Role of the Flathead County Prosecutor’s Office

Michael Noonan served as a Deputy County Attorney for Flathead County in 2022, when Dennis Thornton was charged with criminal trespass. Court filings allege that Noonan was directly involved in the prosecutorial decision‑making that led to the charge, and he is one of three Flathead County prosecutors named individually in Thornton’s $50 million federal civil‑rights lawsuit against the county.

Federal court records further show that Noonan played a central role in the charging decisions underlying the Thornton trespass case. The most consequential allegations of misconduct arising from that prosecution, including claims that the charge was pursued despite contrary evidence and law‑enforcement recommendations, are attributed primarily to actions taken by Noonan in his capacity as a county prosecutor.

Allegations of misconduct involving members of the Montana Bar are not new to the Thornton litigation. Over the course of his cases, Thornton has repeatedly found himself opposing attorneys who were judges, prosecutors, or defense counsel, an experience that has shaped his view of the process. What is particularly notable in the case of Michael Noonan is that, after his role as a Flathead County prosecutor in the trespass matter, he was also hired by the Montana Attorney General’s Office, where he now serves as an Assistant Attorney General with the Montana Department of Justice.

To recap, two Flathead County–based attorneys, one serving as defense counsel and the other as a county prosecutor, took actions that worked against Dennis Thornton’s efforts to regain control of property that public records indicate he owned. Both individuals were later hired by the Montana Attorney General’s Office following their respective roles in matters connected to the Thornton litigation, a sequence that raises legitimate questions given their prior positions and involvement.

Even as Thornton faced what he describes as a breakdown of institutional safeguards, spanning law enforcement inaction, questionable judicial rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct, he and a small circle of supporters persisted, driven by the belief that the truth of the record would eventually prevail.

Enter Montana AG Austin Knudsen

In the interest of full disclosure, this author was invited by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen to lunch in Helena shortly after he was elected. During that meeting, lunch was provided and the Thornton matter was discussed in detail, based on the information available at the time, to ensure the Attorney General was aware of the situation as it then stood.

Knudsen was sworn in on January 4, 2021, more than 5 years ago, and to date his office has failed to give Thornton any assistance, even after the Flathead County Sheriff requested it, as covered here.

This writer challenged Knudsen on a Facebook post a couple months ago asking why he hasn’t investigated the crime ring operating in Flathead Valley while linking to this article.

As outlined above, Knudsen asserted that the Montana Attorney General’s Office does not have jurisdiction or authority to investigate the issues raised. Multiple provisions of the Montana Code Annotated were cited in response, calling that conclusion into question, especially given the involvement of a regulated lending institution.

For transparency, the statutory citations below were identified with the assistance of AI‑based research tools and then confirmed against the Montana Code Annotated.

1. MCA § 2‑15‑501 — Attorney General as Chief Law Enforcement Officer

This statute establishes the AG’s overarching authority.

Key point:

The AG is the chief law enforcement officer of the state and can:

• Supervise criminal prosecutions
• Intervene when necessary to protect the interests of the state

This is the foundation for stepping in when a county attorney is compromised.

---

 2. MCA § 2‑15‑501(5) — AG May Assist or Take Over Prosecutions

This subsection explicitly allows the AG to:

 exercise supervisory powers over county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their offices and from time to time require of them reports as to the condition of public business entrusted to their charge. The supervisory powers granted to the attorney general by this subsection include the power to order and direct county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office. The county attorney shall, when ordered or directed by the attorney general, promptly institute and diligently prosecute in the proper court and in the name of the state of Montana any criminal or civil action or special proceeding.

• Assist a county attorney
• Take charge of a prosecution
• Appear in any court in the state

This is the statutory basis for stepping in when a county attorney has a conflict of interest.

---

 3. MCA § 44‑2‑115 — AG May Investigate Official Misconduct

It authorizes the AG to investigate:

• Public corruption
• Official misconduct
• Criminal violations by public officials

If the Flathead County Attorney is implicated, this statute is directly triggered. If the Montana Banking Commissioner confirmed wrongdoing, this statute becomes highly relevant because it involves a state‑regulated financial matter.

---

 4. MCA § 2‑15‑501(6) — AG assistance or prosecution when required by public service

If a county attorney:

• Refuses to prosecute
• Fails to prosecute
• Is unable to prosecute

…the AG may step in and prosecute directly.

This is a statutory override of local authority.

---

 5. MCA § 45‑7‑401 — Official Misconduct

If the county attorney is involved in corruption, this is the criminal statute that applies.

The AG has jurisdiction to prosecute official misconduct, especially when:

• The misconduct affects state agencies
• The misconduct involves financial institutions regulated by the state

---

So Knudsen hasn’t investigate Noonan as called for by MCA § 44‑2‑115, he retains him as an Assistant Attorney General instead.

In conclusion, Montana law vests the Department of Justice, under the supervision of the Attorney General, with authority to investigate complex financial crimes and offenses against public administration, including corruption and official misconduct, as defined in Title 45, Chapter 7 of the MCA, and exercised through the Division of Criminal Investigation pursuant to Titles 2 and 44.

You can gain more knowledge about the Roles & Responsibilities of the Montana AG by clicking here.

The Frampton-Knudsen-Shield Arms Connection

One of the most prominently named individuals in the Thornton litigation is Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton, whose alleged conduct is the subject of a comprehensive investigative report by private investigator and officer of the court Kathy Wilson. The report outlines allegations that, if substantiated, carry significant legal implications. The full expert witness report can be accessed here.

Frampton was previously found liable for malicious prosecution in the case brought by Deanna McAtee and investigative materials further identify Frampton as a former member of the Board of Directors of Glacier Bank, which serviced Thornton’s loan prior to its transfer to Whitefish Credit Union. This overlap places Frampton in a position connected to the Thornton property well before the later disputes emerged.

In sworn testimony, Frampton acknowledged that he retained the deeds to Thornton’s property in his personal desk rather than transmitting them to the title company as required by the settlement agreement. That testimony further reflects that this fact was not disclosed until he was directly confronted about the disposition of the deeds, a fact which opposed earlier sworn testimony by Frampton.

In May 2022, Title Financial Specialty Services executed and recorded a quitclaim deed and Satisfaction of Mortgage in favor of Dennis Thornton. (The corresponding docs can be seen here and here.) Following that action, Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner contacted Sean Frampton to advise him of the resulting change in ownership status. Frampton later acknowledged this communication in testimony before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel during proceedings related to the McAtee case.

Following the Ahner notification, Frampton and Whitefish Credit Union CEO James Kenyon prepared and filed a document entitled “Corrected Release of Mortgage,” which purported to override the quitclaim deed and Satisfaction of Mortgage previously executed by Title Financial Specialty Services, the sole recorded power of attorney authorized to act on behalf of Whitefish Credit Union.

Despite the absence of any recorded authority authorizing Frampton or Kenyon to transfer or correct title, a “Corrected Release of Mortgage” was nevertheless prepared and recorded, notwithstanding that Title Financial Specialty Services remained the only entity of record with lawful authority to act for Whitefish Credit Union.

At this stage, a reasonable reader may be asking how Attorney General Knudsen connects to Frampton, and what role, if any, Shield Arms plays in this story. Those questions are both fair and necessary. What follows addresses them directly.

Shield Arms is a northwest Montana firearms manufacturer that originated from a business formed with the involvement of Michael A. Hebert, who later became a member of the company and affiliated entities. Hebert is presently involved in litigation with Shield Arms and its current owners, asserting that his intellectual property interests were improperly taken and that he was wrongfully removed from the business, claims that have been litigated in the Montana courts.

One of the current owners of Shield Arms is Seth Berglee, who has been publicly described as a longtime friend of Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

Public records show that Shield Arms has been represented in litigation by Frampton Purdy Law Firm. Public reporting also documents that Attorney General Austin Knudsen, as outlined, has longstanding ties to Shield Arms co‑owner Seth Berglee and has visited the company, including public-facing engagements connected to the firearms industry. Shield Arms itself has posted that Knudsen stopped by its booth at SHOT Show. These overlapping relationships do not prove wrongdoing; however, they do raise legitimate questions about whether the appearance of conflict should be addressed when the Attorney General’s Office declines involvement in matters that could foreseeably implicate attorneys associated with the firm representing a company within Knudsen’s public orbit.

This sequence is further complicated by the fact that a prosecutor and a Kalispell attorney involved in the Thornton matter later accepted positions within the Montana Attorney General’s Office. Those employment transitions occurred after decisions that, if sustained, would have materially benefited Whitefish Credit Union’s outside counsel, Sean Frampton. While post-employment career moves do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing, their timing adds to the appearance concerns already raised by overlapping professional relationships involving Frampton, Flathead County officials, and the Attorney General’s Office.

Taken individually, each of the events described above might be explained in isolation. Taken together, however, they present a pattern that warrants closer scrutiny. The record reflects a series of overlapping professional relationships involving Sean Frampton; prosecutorial decisions taken in the Thornton matter; subsequent employment transitions into the Attorney General’s Office; and the Attorney General’s own documented personal and political ties to a business represented by Frampton’s firm. None of these facts, standing alone, establishes misconduct. But their convergence raises legitimate questions about the appearance of undue influence, conflicts of interest, and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in Flathead County and beyond.

The issue is not whether wrongdoing has been conclusively proven, but whether public confidence in the independence of Montana’s justice system has been compromised by the absence of independent review. When alleged misconduct involves actors who occupy overlapping legal, political, and professional spheres, and when those same actors benefit from decisions not to investigate, the standard response is transparency and external oversight, not silence.

At minimum, the circumstances outlined here justify an inquiry by an authority wholly removed from the relationships at issue. Anything less risks reinforcing the perception that justice in the Flathead Valley depends not solely on law and fact, but on who knows whom.

About Author