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

______

Judge Dan Wilson Had a Choice… He Chose the Crime Ring Over the Constitution

In stunning contrast to his stated Montana Supreme Court platform, Flathead County District Court Judge Dan Wilson has once again demonstrated a blatant disregard, if not outright contempt, for the Montana Constitution — a pattern of judicial conduct that stretches back to at least 2018.

Less than a month ago, Wilson filed paperwork with the Montana Secretary of State, officially placing himself on the ballot for this year’s election cycle. Shortly thereafter, Wilson posted on his Facebook page outlining his judicial platform; the very platform that makes his conduct in the courtroom all the more troubling. You can read NWLNews prior coverage of Wilson’s candidacy by clicking here.

For foundational purposes, which will become abundantly clear as this article progresses, here is Wilson’s stated platform:

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

Ironically, before Wilson could make a legitimate run for Supreme Court Justice, he has already failed a Montana landowner who has been displaced from his property since 2018, the direct result of a Wilson ruling that improperly overturned a 2016 case which had been dismissed with prejudice. NWLNews covered that ruling extensively, linked here.

The plaintiffs in the case before Wilson, Dennis and Donna Thornton, have been struggling to recover use of their 500-plus acre property in Somers, Montana for nearly eight years. On February 19, 2026, the Thorntons filed an Emergency Motion for Default Summary Judgment, grounded in unchallenged legal precedent and backed by sworn testimony from multiple sources, including WCU’s own admissions in federal court.

The material facts are as follows. WCU’s opposition was rendered legally void on four independent grounds, with WCU’s own admissions confirming the debt never existed, and with seven Montana Supreme Court cases saying Rule 2(b) gives a judge zero discretion when the opposing party misses a court-ordered deadline — Wilson had one legally correct move: grant the motion, vacate his 2018 judgment, impose $50,000 in sanctions against WCU and its counsel, and strike all WCU filings from the record.

Wilson’s ruling was supposed to be rendered by March 11, 2026.

Here are the legal reasons, spelled out, why any opposition by WCU is legally dead:

First: WCU’s out-of-state attorney Meagan VanderWeele was admitted pro hac vice (permission to practice in Montana for one case) through a fraudulent application that concealed she had already appeared in at least seven prior Montana cases, which far exceeding the two-appearance limit under Montana bar rules. Her admission was improper, making all her filings nullities.

Second: WCU’s substitution of counsel was legally void because they failed to provide written notice to the pro se Thorntons as required by Montana statute § 37-61-404. A void substitution means all subsequent filings by new counsel are also void.

Third: All subsequent WCU filings systematically failed to serve co-plaintiff Donna Thornton, used deliberately defective mailings, and filed false certificates of service, which violated Montana Rules of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1).

Fourth — and most devastating: Wilson ordered WCU to file an answer brief by November 23, 2025. WCU filed nothing. Not a brief, not a motion for extension, not even a communication to the court. Under Montana Uniform District Court Rule 2(b), this failure is an automatic, irrevocable admission that the Thorntons’ motion to vacate is well-taken and must be granted. The documents cite seven Montana Supreme Court cases establishing this rule is self-executing with zero judicial discretion.

To make matters worse, WCU apparently filed a backdated “response” on November 25, two days late, which the clerk backdated to November 21 in the record. The documents call this record tampering and cite State v. Burns (2011) for the proposition that altered records are voided.

---

With Wilson having improperly reinstated a case in 2018 that had been dismissed with prejudice, and now in 2026 demonstrating a willful disregard for both the Montana Constitution and binding Montana Supreme Court precedent, two conclusions are becoming painfully apparent: Dan Wilson is still actively protecting his associates in the Flathead County Crime Ring, and Wilson is not fit to judge a pie-eating contest, let alone occupy a seat on Montana’s highest court.

About Author