As Dennis Thornton’s nearly two‑decade effort to restore full control of his property continues through the courts, his team has increasingly focused on reconstructing the record itself, assembling timelines, filings, and land transactions that tell a far more troubling story than any single court ruling ever could.

This narrative is supported by court filings, sworn testimony, expert‑witness reports, and the public record. Although the Thornton case has become increasingly complicated, this exposé strips away that complexity to present the facts in plain terms for all Montanans.

To fully grasp the breadth and depth of what Thornton has endured, this story must begin at the outset, in 2008, when Glacier Bank held the mortgage on Thornton’s disputed Somers property. At that time, Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton served on Glacier Bank’s Board of Directors while also acting as outside counsel for Whitefish Credit Union. Frampton’s name will appear frequently as this narrative unfolds.

According to expert witness Gerald Fritts, Glacier Bank originally held Thorco’s pre‑development loan and, not Thornton, submitted a $7.2 million construction and refinance request to Whitefish Credit Union on Thorco’s behalf. Whitefish Credit Union ultimately funded only $3.36 million, with the first disbursement used to pay off Glacier Bank, effectively transferring the loan while leaving the larger development plan partially unfunded.

As this transaction unfolded, Thornton’s loan was effectively transferred from Glacier Bank, where Frampton served on the board, to Whitefish Credit Union (WCU), which retained Frampton as outside counsel, a role that would become increasingly consequential for WCU as events progressed.

After the mortgage was transferred and Glacier Bank was paid off, Whitefish Credit Union moved quickly in a manner that later testimony would cast into question. In sworn deposition testimony cited by expert witness Gerald Fritts, loan officer Randy Cogdill admitted that shortly after Thorco entered into the 2009 loan with WCU, he was showing the disputed property to a Missoula developer for a possible sale, despite WCU not owning the land.

In the years following the 2009 transfer of Thorco’s loan to Whitefish Credit Union, the development steadily advanced while the promised structure of financing unraveled. Thorco completed substantial value‑added work on the Somers property, including roads and infrastructure, much of it independently funded or bonded, while repeatedly seeking the second phase of financing that had been contemplated as the repayment mechanism for the original loan.

According to expert witness Gerald Fritts, Whitefish Credit Union neither formally rejected the original construction request nor notified Thorco that refinancing would no longer be available, instead relying on significantly reduced appraisals that ignored completed improvements and intended use.

As refinancing and subordination requests stalled or were denied, the relationship deteriorated into foreclosure proceedings, undertaken without a completed workout process, even as Whitefish Credit Union personnel explored interest from outside developers before acquiring any ownership interest in the land.

One only needs to examine a summary of the report issued by former senior official and director at the National Credit Union Administration, Allen Carver, to gain insight as to what was really at play behind the scenes at WCU.

______

Former NCUA director Alan Carver concluded that Whitefish Credit Union was under regulatory pressure and effectively barred from making new development loans during the period when Thornton was expecting the second phase of construction financing. According to Carver’s findings, the credit union failed to notify its member borrowers of this restriction, leaving them unaware that promised refinancing would not be forthcoming. The Carver report further determined that, rather than disclosing its regulatory limitations and working with borrowers, Whitefish Credit Union shifted toward foreclosure activity, a departure from standard credit union practices and regulatory expectations.

In short, Whitefish Credit Union had the option to work with Thornton, who maintained an 800‑plus credit rating and a twenty‑million‑dollar bonding line, but instead chose to pursue foreclosure actions against him.

Fritts further reports that throughout this period, WCU personnel were in contact with at least one outside developer regarding the possible sale or takeover of the property, even though WCU had not yet acquired ownership through foreclosure. He characterizes this activity as inconsistent with standard lending practice and indicative of intent that preceded the foreclosure action.

After Whitefish Credit Union initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2012, the case moved into prolonged litigation marked by counterclaims, discovery disputes, and competing appraisals. Thornton challenged the foreclosure while continuing to seek refinancing and other avenues to resolve the loan through payment rather than surrender of the property, pointing to completed development work and unmet lending commitments.

Over the next several years, depositions and discovery revealed internal communications and third‑party interest in the land, even though Whitefish Credit Union had not acquired ownership. In early 2016, while Thornton’s counterclaims remained unresolved, Whitefish Credit Union obtained a foreclosure judgment that was promptly challenged. Before any sale took place, the parties jointly moved to vacate that judgment, and in 2016 the court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, bringing the foreclosure action to an end… or so Thornton thought.

Judge Dan Wilson Violates Montana Code?

In 2018, the case took a decisive turn when Eleventh Judicial District Judge Dan Wilson issued rulings that effectively resurrected Whitefish Credit Union’s foreclosure position. Despite the fact that the 2016 foreclosure judgment had been vacated and the case dismissed with prejudice, Wilson ruled that the underlying debt remained owed and enforceable, relying in part on the very foreclosure judgment that had been set aside.

Those rulings allowed Whitefish Credit Union to proceed as if the prior adjudication had never occurred, reshaping the dispute and setting the stage for the events that followed. Wilson ruled in a manner that, in Thornton’s view and according to the statutes listed below, conflicts with Montana law:

MCA 71-1-222
One action rule. There is only one action for recovery of a debt or enforcement of a right secured by a mortgage. Once that action is taken and resolved, no further action on the same debt is permitted.

MCA 25-20-41 (Rule 41, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure)
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits and permanently terminates the action unless the order states otherwise.

MCA 25-9-301
Judgments create liens only while they are valid and enforceable. A vacated judgment cannot serve as the basis for a continuing lien.

MCA 71-3-131
When a lien or claim is satisfied or found invalid by final order or judgment, the creditor must acknowledge satisfaction and release the lien of record.

MCA 71-1-105
A mortgage does not entitle the mortgagee to possession of the property without foreclosure and sale.

MCA 71-1-101 and MCA 71-1-103
A mortgage is a security instrument only and does not convey title or ownership.

Inquiring minds would like to know how Wilson, who is running for the Montana Supreme Court, would move forward with his 2018 decision in violation of the above-listed Montana Code. One would naturally ask if Wilson just didn’t know, or did he know and rule against Thornton anyways? Either interpretation raises serious questions that voters may wish to consider as Wilson seeks elevation to Montana’s highest court.

Following Judge Dan Wilson’s 2018 ruling, which treated Whitefish Credit Union’s extinguished foreclosure debt as if it remained valid, the dispute entered a new phase. Despite the prior vacatur and dismissal with prejudice in 2016, Whitefish Credit Union continued to assert an enforceable debt in subsequent proceedings, relying on filings and affidavits that restated amounts previously nullified by court order.

According to Fritts, this posture allowed the continued use of security instruments and mortgage documents as though a lawful foreclosure path still existed, even though no valid judgment supported that position. The effect of the 2018 ruling was to reopen, in practical terms, a foreclosure that had already been terminated, reshaping the parties’ legal positions and enabling further action against the property.

As mentioned earlier, Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton has played a key role in the Thornton property dispute from the beginning. According to a series of sworn affidavits by private investigator Katherine Wilson, the breakdown in the Thorco title chain began when deeds executed during post‑litigation settlement discussions were not delivered to a licensed title or escrow company for immediate, lawful processing. Instead, those deeds were retained by Whitefish Credit Union’s counsel, Sean Frampton, who was not licensed as a Montana title or escrow officer.

Wilson’s investigation found that the deeds were kept outside any formal escrow, then later surfaced in the public record disconnected from a valid foreclosure, closing, or contemporaneous satisfaction of the mortgage. Interviews with personnel at Title Financial Specialty Services confirmed that the deeds did not pass through standard escrow channels when executed, creating a gap that allowed security instruments to later be used as apparent conveyances.

In Kathy Wilson’s analysis, the custody and delayed recording of deeds created the conditions for subsequent title transfers and ownership claims that should not have been legally possible following the 2016 dismissal of the foreclosure with prejudice. Read more by clicking here

The Montana Supreme Court Violates Montana Code?

Between 2019 and 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued two memorandum opinions connected to the fallout from these proceedings. While neither opinion was designated for publication or precedential value, both had the effect of leaving Judge Wilson’s rulings intact.

As presented in the Fritts report, the Supreme Court did not disturb the underlying assumption that the debt survived the 2016 dismissal with prejudice, even though that dismissal was final on its face.

By 2021, the combined effect of the district court rulings and the Supreme Court’s noncitable affirmances was that actions taken against the property were treated as legally operative, notwithstanding the earlier adjudication that had extinguished the foreclosure and the debt itself.

Courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, are bound by the Montana Code Annotated and the Montana Constitution. They do not get an exemption. What follows is not an accusation of criminality, but a list of Montana statutes and procedural law that are implicated when the Supreme Court affirms or relies on an extinguished judgment or debt:

MCA 71‑1‑222
One‑action rule. There is only one action for recovery of a debt or enforcement of a right secured by a mortgage. Once that action is taken and resolved, no further action on the same debt is permitted.

MCA 25‑20‑41 (Rule 41, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure)
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits and permanently terminates the action unless the order states otherwise.

MCA 25‑9‑301
Judgments create liens only while they are valid and enforceable. A vacated judgment cannot serve as the basis for a lien or further enforcement.

MCA 71‑3‑131
When a lien or claim is satisfied or found invalid by final order or judgment, the creditor must acknowledge satisfaction and release the lien of record.

MCA 71‑1‑101 and MCA 71‑1‑103
A mortgage is a security instrument only and does not convey title or ownership absent a valid foreclosure.

MCA 71‑1‑105
A mortgagee is not entitled to possession of the property without foreclosure and sale.

Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 17
No person may be deprived of property without due process of law, which requires enforcement actions to be grounded in a valid judgment.

Mo Somers

As the courts left Judge Wilson’s 2018 ruling intact, concerns about Whitefish Credit Union’s conduct were already shifting beyond the judiciary and into the legislative arena. Borrower complaints reached the Montana Legislature’s Bank Oversight Committee, where testimony by Melanie Hall placed the credit union’s foreclosure practices under direct scrutiny by state regulators and lawmakers.

That testimony marked a turning point, signaling that questions about the legitimacy of Whitefish Credit Union’s actions were no longer confined to court filings alone. It was in the wake of that oversight process, and after the judicial and regulatory paths had effectively stalled, that Mo Somers, LLC first appeared in the record, not as a participant in the original lending or foreclosure, but as a new entity positioned to receive title through special warranty deeds tied to the same disputed paper trail.

Mo Somers, LLC entered the record not as a party to the original loan, development, or foreclosure, but as a new entity that appeared only after the courts and regulators had failed to resolve the underlying dispute. The company surfaced through a series of special warranty deeds tied to the same contested documents and extinguished debt that had already been questioned in court and before the Legislature.

Nothing in the record places Mo Somers in the early history of Thorco’s property or in the lending relationship itself. Instead, its appearance marks a shift from litigation to paper transfers, with Mo Somers positioned as an intermediate title holder whose claimed interest depended entirely on post‑dismissal instruments rather than a valid foreclosure or clear satisfaction of the mortgage.

The manner in which Mo Somers acquired its claimed interest draws renewed attention to the handling of the underlying documents themselves. The deeds placing Mo Somers into the chain of title did not emerge from a conventional escrow closing or a completed foreclosure, but from a record built on delayed and selectively deployed instruments.

Those deeds traced back to documents that had been executed years earlier, outside normal title practice, and surfaced only after litigation and oversight efforts had run their course. This paper‑first approach to ownership, untethered from a contemporaneous sale or satisfaction of the mortgage, reopened unresolved questions about who controlled the documents, when they were released into the public record, and for what purpose.

It is against that backdrop that Sean Frampton reappears in the record, again connected not to a courtroom ruling, but to the movement and correction of the paperwork itself.

Before any so‑called correction appeared in the public record, Whitefish Credit Union had already taken affirmative steps that should have ended the matter altogether. In May 2022, its agents executed and recorded a Satisfaction of Mortgage and an accompanying quitclaim deed, documents that on their face acknowledged the extinguishment of the lien and disclaimed any remaining interest in the Thorco property.

Those filings were not provisional, conditional, or subject to further judicial action. They were recorded instruments, intended to clear title and close the chapter opened years earlier by an already dismissed foreclosure. It was only after these acknowledgments had been placed of record, and after Mo Somers had briefly occupied the chain of title through special warranty deeds built on disputed paper, that Whitefish Credit Union returned to the recorder’s office with a “Corrected Release of Mortgage,” purporting to revise what had already been satisfied and disclaimed.

By that point, the issue was no longer clerical error, but the resurrection of an interest that the credit union itself had formally laid to rest. That context matters because the Satisfaction of Mortgage and quitclaim were not filed in ignorance, delay, or without notice.

In later filings, Whitefish Credit Union’s counsel, Sean Frampton, acknowledged that he was contacted by Travis Ahner and informed of the quitclaim shortly after it was issued. Despite that direct notice, and just twenty‑five days later, Whitefish Credit Union returned to the recorder’s office with a document titled “Corrected Release of Mortgage,” filed on June 6, 2022 by CEO James Kenyon.

The filing was not accompanied by a new court order, a reopened foreclosure, or any intervening judicial development. Nor did it correct a recording defect or clerical error tied to the May filings. Instead, it purported to amend a mortgage that Whitefish Credit Union had already satisfied and expressly quitclaimed, with full knowledge of that release.

By that point, there was nothing pending to correct and no defect left unresolved. The only effect of the filing was to reopen ambiguity in a record the credit union had already cleared, transforming a finalized release into yet another revision of history.

Ruis Glacier, LLC

As the disputed paper trail continued to be treated as a live source of authority, Thornton took the step specifically designed by property law to prevent further quiet reshuffling of title: he recorded notices of lis pendens. The filings did not assert a new lien or revive a foreclosure.

Lis Pendens – Click Image Below

They served a narrower and more defensive purpose, to place the public on notice that the interests being claimed by Whitefish Credit Union and Ruis‑affiliated entities in the Somers property were actively contested and depended on instruments Thornton maintained had already been extinguished.

By recording the lis pendens, Thornton sought to freeze the status quo, ensuring that any future purchaser or lender would be alerted to the ongoing dispute rather than inheriting it unknowingly after yet another round of paperwork changed hands.

The practical effect of the lis pendens fell most heavily on Whitefish Credit Union, whose asserted interests sat at the center of the disputed chain of title. By recording the notice, Thornton ensured that any claim traced through Whitefish Credit Union, and by extension through Mo Somers and other downstream entities, could no longer be treated as settled or freely transferable without full awareness of the dispute.

The lis pendens did not invalidate recorded instruments or create a new lien, but it attached formal notice to the Somers property that constrained the credit union’s ability to rely on the Corrected Release as evidence of finality.

From that point forward, any lender, buyer, or title insurer examining the record would be alerted that Whitefish Credit Union’s claimed interest was under active challenge, preventing it from quietly leveraging, transferring, or repackaging that interest without confronting the underlying litigation.

Notably, none of the named entities sought to rebut or discharge the lis pendens after it was recorded.

That silence is striking given the resources and sophistication of the parties involved, particularly Whitefish Credit Union, a large institutional lender with ample legal capacity to challenge a notice it believed to be baseless or improper.

A lis pendens is not a subtle filing; it is designed to provoke response if the underlying claim is unfounded. The absence of any recorded challenge, motion to expunge, or corrective filing suggests that the entities relying on the Corrected Release were unwilling or unable to affirm its authority in a forum where it would be tested.

In that context, the lis pendens stands as more than a procedural notice. It operates as an unanswered objection, one that continues to speak precisely because no one with the means to contest it has done so.

The Reemergence of Glacier Bank

Glacier Bank reenters the narrative after almost 2 decades of absence not through litigation, but through the public land records. Having last appeared in connection with early loan activity predating Whitefish Credit Union’s involvement, Glacier Bank resurfaces as the recorded financing institution for the Silos development constructed by Ruis in downtown Kalispell.

Those records reflect a multi‑million‑dollar loan in which the contested Somers property is identified among the collateral securing the financing. The reappearance is notable not because of the Silos project itself, but because it links an unresolved and disputed parcel back into the banking system years after its title had become clouded by vacated judgments, extinguished liens, and corrective filings.

In that context, Glacier Bank’s role raises unavoidable questions about how a property so entangled in dispute could once again be treated as viable collateral in the ordinary course of commercial lending.

Where Things Go From Here

As of today, Dennis and Donna Thornton are simultaneously litigating against their adversaries in four separate courts: the United States Bankruptcy Court, the Montana Federal District Court, the Eleventh Judicial District Court in Kalispell, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Remarkably, and perhaps without precedent in a case of this scope and duration, Thornton remains front and center in that fight as a pro se litigant, representing himself across multiple forums against well‑resourced institutional opponents.

It would be disingenuous, however, to portray Thornton as a lone wolf in this fight. While he has remained the central figure in the litigation, he has been supported by many people throughout the Flathead Valley who, after gaining an understanding of his case, chose to help in meaningful ways, something Thornton readily acknowledges.

In summary, the law is not ambiguous here. Under Montana’s own statutes and the basic principles affirmed repeatedly by federal courts, a vacated judgment and a dismissal with prejudice end the matter. Yet Thornton has spent nearly two decades fighting to make courts and institutions honor rules that are supposed to be automatic and nonnegotiable.

What should have concluded years ago has been prolonged through rulings and procedural maneuvers that contradict the controlling legal framework and keep Thornton locked in litigation while his property remains tied up. The result is not merely delay, but an ongoing deprivation of rights that Montana law says should already have been restored, and Thornton’s demand is as simple as it is overdue: apply the law as written, return what was taken, and hold accountable those who turned a settled dispute into a long running ordeal.

The post Bombshell Report: Another Major Flathead Valley Lender Drawn Into Long‑Running Thornton Land Dispute as Alleged Fraud Comes Full-Circle appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

For Montana landowner Dennis Thornton, the loss of access to his lawfully owned property traces back to a 2018 ruling by Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson, a ruling critics argue was later sustained through judicial actions taken after the court’s jurisdiction had already expired. The resulting jurisdictional void has had lasting and devastating consequences for a family whose ties to Flathead Valley span generations.

At issue is not merely an adverse ruling, but a foundational question of judicial authority: whether a court retains the power to act once a case has been dismissed with prejudice. Under Montana law, that authority generally ends at dismissal unless specific procedural steps are taken to restore jurisdiction.

If those steps were not taken, which they were not, the result is not simply a flawed decision, but one issued without jurisdiction, creating a legally viable basis for both judicial review and potential civil action, should such remedies be pursued.

Although no complaint has been filed to date, a draft judicial conduct complaint has been prepared outlining a legally viable pathway for review should that step ever be taken. The draft requests that the Montana Judicial Standards Commission examine whether Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson exercised judicial authority after jurisdiction had ended, specifically, by entering or relying upon rulings in a matter that had been dismissed with prejudice in 2016.

The complaint focuses on court records showing that the underlying foreclosure action involving Whitefish Credit Union, Thorco, Inc., and the Thornton family was dismissed with prejudice by a different judge, thereby terminating the court’s authority absent a lawful mechanism restoring jurisdiction.

It further identifies subsequent orders signed by Judge Wilson in related proceedings and raises the question of whether those actions relied upon or perpetuated rulings that were jurisdictionally void from inception.

Importantly, the draft does not presume misconduct or intent. Instead, it rests on a narrow and well‑established legal distinction: the difference between actions taken in excess of jurisdiction, where judicial immunity generally applies, and actions taken in the absence of jurisdiction, where immunity does not. Under that framework, the complaint asks whether the legal prerequisites for post‑dismissal authority were ever satisfied.

Whether such a complaint is ultimately filed remains an open question. What is clear is that the legal framework for review exists, the underlying court records are not in dispute, and Montana law provides specific mechanisms for accountability when questions of jurisdiction arise.

Under Montana law, a dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Rule 41(b) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure provides that such a dismissal conclusively ends the action, while Rule 3 makes clear that a court’s authority is tied to the existence of a properly commenced case. Once an action has been dismissed with prejudice, it no longer exists for judicial purposes unless a separate and lawful procedure restores jurisdiction.

Throughout his campaign for the Montana Supreme Court, Judge Dan Wilson has presented himself as a jurist committed to restraint, repeatedly pledging to “interpret the law as written, not create it,” and warning against what he characterizes as judicial activism. He has told voters that the legitimacy of the courts depends on judges who respect the boundaries of their authority and apply established law faithfully.

It is precisely those professed principles that make the jurisdictional questions described here difficult to dismiss. The issue raised is not one of ideology or disagreement with an outcome, but whether judicial power was exercised at a point when the law no longer authorized it. Montana law draws a bright line between decisions made within jurisdiction and actions taken after jurisdiction has ended, a distinction Judge Wilson himself has emphasized in campaign speeches about constitutional limits and the proper role of the judiciary.

No complaint has yet been filed, and none may ever be. Still, the existence of a legally viable path for review matters in a judicial election, because it tests the alignment between a candidate’s stated philosophy and their judicial record. Voters are entitled to weigh not only what a candidate promises from the campaign trail, but how those principles have been applied, or failed, when the stakes involved real people, real property, and the finality of the law.

The post Supreme Court Candidate May Face Judicial and Civil Complaints Based on Jurisdictional Ruling appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

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.

The post Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court Run — Are Voters Getting Substance or Rhetoric? appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

When Prosecutors Break the Law, Taxpayers Shouldn’t Foot the Bill

As previously reported by this news outlet (see coverage here, here, and here), Flathead County Prosecutor Travis Ahner, Assistant Prosecutor Ashley Frechette, and former Assistant Flathead County Prosecutor Michael Noonan (now serving as an Assistant Prosecutor for Attorney General Austin Knudsen) are facing enough evidence to warrant a jury trial over allegations that they knowingly used false information in an attempt to incarcerate a Montana landowner.

In light of recent events, it may not surprise many that those we elect and appoint to uphold the law could be accused of violating it themselves. What might surprise the taxpayers of Flathead Valley, however, is that your tax dollars are currently being used to fund the legal defense of those very same officials, which violates Montana law.

Montana Code clearly prohibits Flathead County, or in Noonan’s case the State of Montana, from funding any of the defendants legal defenses.

Montana Code Annotated § 2-9-305(6):
Prohibits a governmental entity from defending or indemnifying an employee whose conduct was outside the course and scope of employment, constituted malice, fraud, or intentional wrongdoing, or otherwise removed the employee from statutory protection.

______

The bottom line: The federal lawsuit against Flathead County and Ahner has survived two motions to dismiss, with the court finding the allegations plausible and legally sufficient. The nature of the allegations triggers the statutory prohibition, regardless of final conviction.

And that’s not all. As far as Flathead County goes, both Ahner and Frechette have proven themselves to be a liability to the taxpayer as their actions have triggered a $50 million lawsuit that a) wasn’t reduced in amount by a federal judge and b) was allowed to go through based upon prosecutorial malfeasance. Ahner and Frechette are still practicing law for Flathead County and based upon the Thorco case, could be falsifying evidence this very day and opening up the Flathead taxpayer to even more liability.

In light of the ongoing liability facing taxpayers in Flathead County, and every taxpayer in Montana, all three defendants should be suspended until the jury trial scheduled for June 15 of this year is complete.

Here are the facts to support a suspension of all three defendants:

–Defendants knowingly charged a citizen with a crime despite exculpatory evidence.

–Ignored the Sheriff’s directive not to prosecute.

–Withheld proof of property ownership for over a year.

–Acted with malice and reckless disregard for constitutional rights.

–Taxpayer-funded defense is ongoing, in violation of Montana law.

______

To help protect the integrity of Montana’s legal system, we have prepared the necessary documents for anyone in Flathead Valley, or across the state, to file a formal complaint. These documents are designed to both stop the funding of the legal defense for the named defendants and to request their suspension until trial.

Click the links below to download the respective complaint letters:

Letter for Ahner

Letter for Frechette

Letter for Noonan

Flathead County cannot afford to ignore Montana law or risk further liability. The ongoing defense of the defendants with public funds is unlawful and exposes taxpayers to catastrophic financial risk. Flathead Valley men and women should urge the County Commissioners to act immediately to protect the county, uphold the law, and restore public trust.

The post How Many Millions Will You Pay? Ahner’s Legal Gamble Puts Flathead Taxpayer on the Hook appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

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.

The post Montana Court Showdown: Will Judge Wilson Enforce the Law or Let Misconduct Slide? appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

(Kalispell, MT)-Embattled landowner Dennis Thornton scored a decisive victory in his ongoing effort to reclaim his stolen property—a saga extensively covered by this news outlet at creditunioncrimes.com. Late last month, a federal judge denied, for the second time, Flathead County’s motion to dismiss Thornton’s $50 million lawsuit against them, as only the most explosive allegation survived.

The suit targets County Prosecutor Travis Ahner, who is being sued both professionally and personally, and other county agents, alleging they “knowingly submitted and relied on false certifications and legal claims” regarding property ownership, in violation of federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1018); then attempted to imprison Thornton on trespassing charges.

This means the judge found enough factual basis to allow the case to proceed on the allegation that county officials may have intentionally misrepresented ownership records in legal filings.

You can review the motion filed by Thornton by clicking the image below

In summary, Thornton sued because Flathead County officials pressed criminal charges for trespassing even though the sheriff advised against it and official records proved Thornton owned the property. The lawsuit alleges that county officials knowingly relied on false information to support the prosecution.

As expected, after the judge denied Flathead County’s motion to dismiss for a second time, a trial date was set for June 15, 2026. You can review the scheduling order by clicking the image below.

If, through civil proceedings, it is established that Ahner and other County officials knowingly submitted false information in an attempt to have Thornton jailed, it could expose those officials to federal criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1018. The maximum penalty is up to one year in prison and/or a fine.

In summary, if you’re like any normal American, even the suspicion that officials knowingly submitted false information in the Thornton case naturally raises the question: Have Ahner and his associates ever done this to anyone else before?

The post Flathead County Faces Trial Over Alleged Scheme to Jail Landowner with False Claims appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

Today marks a pivotal moment for Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson. As a candidate for the upcoming Montana Supreme Court vacancy, Wilson begins a process that will either expose him as another spoke in the wheel of corruption—or reveal him as a viable challenger who recognized his mistake and corrected it.

As previously reported by this outlet, Kalispell businessman Dennis Thornton recently filed a motion in Judge Dan Wilson’s court to vacate Wilson’s 2018 judgment against him. The motion cites a voluminous body of evidence showing that Thornton’s mortgage was fully satisfied in a 2016 ruling in his favor, with prejudice, which means Wilson should never have reopened the case in the first place.

For Wilson, the Thornton case is a proverbial “fork in the road,” as WCU, nor their attorneys, answered Thornton’s complaint in the required time. The inaction by the defendant to answer Thornton’s complaint gives him a win by default, and positions Wilson to have no choice, under law, but to sign Thornton’s Motion for Default Unopposed Judgement.

Under Rules 55(a) and (b)(2), default judgment must be entered as a matter of law. The Court may deem all allegations in the Motion to Vacate admitted. See Brilz v. Metropolitan Gen. Ins. Co., 2012 MT 184, ¶ 22, 366 Mont. 78, 285 P.3d 494.

You can view a copy of the most recent Motion for Default Unopposed Judgement by clicking here.

As a side note, if Judge Wilson declines to recognize Thornton’s motion or marshals any form of resistance, it will undoubtedly be yet another attempt to shield his close associate, Sean Frampton, who faces multiple long prison sentences if the crimes he’s allegedly committed are ever prosecuted.

The ball is in your court Judge Wilson. Will you stand for law and order, or are you just another crook in a robe?

The post Judgment Day for Dan Wilson: Supreme Court or Public Disgrace appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

On April 9, 2025, Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson announced his candidacy for the Montana Supreme Court, after narrowly losing a bid for the same office in 2024. Wilson’s 2026 platform emphasizes “constitutional originalism and judicial restraint,” which is ironic in light of what is about to be revealed.

Wilson, born in Billings, has roots in Montana that stretch back for generations. After receiving a Juris Doctor (J.D) from University of Minnesota Law School in 1993, he passed the Montana Bar exam and was admitted to the BAR that same year.

Wilson’s career began as a prosecutor in Great Falls, Montana, where he mostly handled criminal cases. Wilson later moved to private practice and was even a Justice of the Peace in Phillips County before he was elected as a District Judge in Montana’s 11th Judicial District Court in Flathead County, Montana in 2016.

Also, in 2016, a key decision was made in the case of Whitefish Credit Union (WCU) vs. Thorco, Inc. and the owners of the corporation, Donna and Dennis Thornton. A decision that brings us into 2025, and one that also plays a vital part in Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court test.

Editor’s Note: Much more detail into the history of the WCU vs. Thorco conflict can be found in this report, with these exhibits as a companion. For more recent information and interviews click here.

Although the above mentioned Thorco vs WCU case had it’s origination in 2009 with the original loan, the meat of the material which will be covered moving forward began in 2016 when Judge Bob Allison dismissed the lawsuit against Thorco by WCU with prejudice and declared that Thorco didn’t owe any more money to WCU. The ruling by Judge Bob Allison can be found by clicking here.

Judge Dan Wilson Open a Case that was Dismissed with Prejudice

If you do an AI search on the requirements that have to be met to re-open a case that has been dismissed with prejudice, this is the same basic answer you get, regardless of which AI you choose:

A case dismissed with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled in the same court or based on the same claims. However, reopening a case dismissed with prejudice is extremely difficult and generally only possible under very limited and exceptional circumstances.

Here are the general requirements or grounds to attempt to reopen such a case:

• Fraud, Misconduct, or Misrepresentation
• Clerical Mistake or Judicial Error
• Newly Discovered Evidence
• Lack of Jurisdiction
• Violation of Due Process or Constitutional Rights
• Strict time limits often apply — especially for Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), which usually require motions to be filed within 1 year of the dismissal.

______

In 2018, Judge Dan Wilson re-opened the Thorco case against WCU without ANY of the above criteria being met. WCU now claimed that Thorco, Inc. owed well over $4 million dollars, despite the 2016 settlement and dismissal with prejudice. Wilson granted WCU summary judgement in the case, which was not in his purview to do. The unusual ruling by Wilson begs the question, does Wilson not know the law, or is he in on the scam? See his ruling by clicking here.

In summary, Judge Dan Wilson operated outside his authority and defied all legal standards by re-opening the Thorco case in 2018, which was dismissed with prejudice in 2016. In addition, Wilson allowed WCU to violate Montana’s “One Action Rule,” described below.

The “one action rule” in Montana is a legal principle that applies primarily in mortgage foreclosure law. It limits a creditor to one legal action to recover a debt secured by real property

Enter the Crime Boss? Whitefish Attorney, Sean Frampton

______

Besides the usual title companies and bank employees, one person’s name and law firm seems to be involved in not only the Thorco case, but in most every case of the victims interviewed by NorthWest Liberty News. That name is Sean Frampton and his Frampton law firm.

Editor’s Note: Frampton took the deeds for the Thorco case and instead of filing them with the title company as per the settlement agreement, he hid them in his desk and then lied about it

You can watch the account of some of the victims by clicking this link

You can read the article and watch the video account of the Sean Frampton vs. Deanna McAtee trial by clicking this link.

Editor’s Note: Frampton was subsequently found guilty of Malicious Prosecution of McAtee by a jury in 2023, yet he still practices law in Montana

The Judge Dan Wilson-Sean Frampton Connection

You’ve probably heard the phrase, “there are no coincidences.” We’re not here to argue this idea one way or another, we just dig for facts and look for patterns. And the pattern we found seems to be one of Sean Frampton illegally going after property of WCU borrowers using lawfare, and Judge Dan Wilson providing cover.

The re-opening of the 2016 case against Thorco by Wilson, against all judicial decorum, wouldn’t be the last time that Frampton and Wilson teamed-up to screw a Montanan. Just look to the 2019 Deanna McAtee case. Here is a summary:

In 2019, Judge Dan Wilson presided over a case involving Deanna McAtee and the law firm Morrison & Frampton, where Frampton is a named partner.

• Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of Morrison & Frampton, dismissing McAtee’s claims of malicious prosecution with prejudice.
• The Montana Supreme Court later reversed Wilson’s decision in 2021, finding that he had erred in his interpretation and handling of the case.
• This case directly links Wilson’s judicial role to Frampton’s firm, and the reversal became a notable critique of Wilson’s judgment record.

Dan Wilsons Supreme Court Test

Since Judge Wilson re-opened the Thorco case in 2018, a case that was dismissed with prejudice in 2016, numerous hearings, numerous motions, and a ton of paperwork has been filed. (Again, see a case history by clicking here.) Subsequently, Thorco Inc. had to file bankruptcy to protect their property and interests.

During the most recent bankruptcy, new information was obtained that precipitated the document below to be filed by Dennis Thornton, which is a Motion to Vacate Judge Wilson’s 2018 summary judgement, as described above.

Click to Open

All of the exhibits attached to the above motion can be found on Dropbox by clicking here

As the exhibits will show, on at least 3 occasions, and by at least 4 people, the determination has been made, under oath, that Dennis Thornton and Thorco, Inc. did not owe WCU and money after August 24, 2016. This determination can be substantiated by the following documents:

• Testimony from the Montana Banking Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the 2009 mortgage was extinguished when WCU vacated its foreclosure judgement and dismissed the case. See that document by clicking here.
• WCU’s February 28, 2025 filing in federal court verifying that there has never been a monetary judgement in favor of WCU against Thorco or the Thorntons based on a mortgage foreclosure. See that document by clicking here.
• Chapter 7 Trustee Christy Brandon’s objection stating that “The judgement entered in favor of WCU against Thorco was vacated and the underlying debt…was satisfied. See that document by clicking here.

Here it is in a nutshell. Judge Dan Wilson has a choice to make based upon all of the above information. Does he continue to adhere to his 2018 ruling to protect his crooked friends, or does he rightfully take all of the new evidence into account and vacate his 2018 judgement against Thorco, based upon the fact that Thorco didn’t owe any money to WCU?

Dan Wilson wants to sit on Montana’s highest court. This in a time where the majority of Montanans are fed-up with the Montana Supreme Court and their activist rulings. As stated earlier, Wilson’s platform is “constitutional originalism and judicial restraint.” Are these just words to get elected, or will Wilson practice what he preaches? This case is Wilson’s test. Ultimately, will Wilson play for “Team Criminal,” or “Team Law and Order,” if he makes it to the SC? Time, as they say, will soon tell.

The companion podcast can be viewed by clicking the video below

The post Judge Dan Wilson’s Supreme Court Test appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

]]> https://northwestlibertynews.com/2025/09/28/judge-dan-wilsons-supreme-court-test/feed/ 1 4806 https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/02/21/gianforte-campaign-responds-to-letter-from-prairie-county-republicans-over-superpac-funding-allegations/ https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/02/21/gianforte-campaign-responds-to-letter-from-prairie-county-republicans-over-superpac-funding-allegations/#respond Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:08:31 +0000 https://northwestlibertynews.com/?p=3189 ______ Based upon this article posted on NorthWest Liberty News, the Prairie County, Montana Republican...

The post Gianforte Campaign Responds to Letter From Prairie County Republicans Over SuperPAC Funding Allegations appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

]]> ______

Based upon this article posted on NorthWest Liberty News, the Prairie County, Montana Republican Central Committee penned a letter to Governor Greg Gianforte asking him to explain the allegations made by a whistleblower who reached out to NorthWest Liberty News last month.

The letter sent to NorthWest Liberty News can be seen by clicking the image below.

______

______

The letter sent to Governor Greg Gianforte by the Prairie County Republican Central Committee can be accessed by clicking the image below.

______

______

The e-mail response by the Gianforte Campaign can be see below.

______

______

As a side note, NWLNews reached back out to our source for the original article and they stand behind their assertions despite the response by Gianforte’s camp.

The post Gianforte Campaign Responds to Letter From Prairie County Republicans Over SuperPAC Funding Allegations appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

]]> https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/02/21/gianforte-campaign-responds-to-letter-from-prairie-county-republicans-over-superpac-funding-allegations/feed/ 0 3189 https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/01/25/multiple-states-pledge-support-for-tx-national-guard-as-patriots-unite-to-defend-border/ https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/01/25/multiple-states-pledge-support-for-tx-national-guard-as-patriots-unite-to-defend-border/#respond Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:50:52 +0000 https://northwestlibertynews.com/?p=3087 ______ Montana Governor Greg Gianforte joined Governors in 15 other states who have thrown their...

The post Multiple States Pledge Support for TX National Guard as Patriots Unite to Defend Border appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

]]> ______

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte joined Governors in 15 other states who have thrown their support behind the State of Texas and, more specifically, the Texas National Guard in their effort to battle not only the overwhelming influx of illegal border crossers, but the US Government, as well.

The decision to activate the National Guard and send them to Texas by the state’s Governors was brought on by the recent Supreme Court ruling that, if honored, would have forced Texas to remove the security barrier that the Guard erected and allow illegals to flow across the border at an unregulated rate.

The host of NorthWest Liberty News, James White, covered the Texas border crisis and what it means in regards to a possible civil war on today’s show, which can be seen by clicking the video link below.

______

The post Multiple States Pledge Support for TX National Guard as Patriots Unite to Defend Border appeared first on NorthWest Liberty News.

]]> https://northwestlibertynews.com/2024/01/25/multiple-states-pledge-support-for-tx-national-guard-as-patriots-unite-to-defend-border/feed/ 0 3087