Simply Unbelievable Corruption…

Last week, I filed one of three petitions for Writ of Certiorari that I have been working on – there are two more that I need to finish by mid-October.  These are incredibly tedious documents, but the worst part is that it is even necessary to file *any* of these, as each and every one is founded upon the corruption of the federal and Montana state courts – something judicial oversight should have screened out in the first place!

If one thinks about it, the United States Supreme Court is designed to be the final place to settle issues of law.  If the issues are already well-settled, there should be no reason to bring issues that high.  And when it comes to baseless prejudice, corruption and impropriety, the High Court should not be the one weighing in on it – because the rules of law should be firmly throwing out these blatantly prejudicial issues before they ever rise to that level!

Case in point: the petition I just filed is dealing with the trademark infringement suit involving Angela Townsend and her theft of my intellectual property, “The Forlorned”.  First and foremost, the area of law is absolutely clear and this should have been an open-shut case.  I created the name, I was the first to use it in commerce, and I actively promoted it for over six months.  But the United States District Court of Montana, Missoula Division – whom I have already previously sued, and it looks like that is where this issue is going yet again – decided to deny me equal protection of the laws and deny my claim, forcing first an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and now a petition to the Supreme Court.

But what makes this such an UNBELIEVABLE issue is in how the District Court denied my claim – and the completely INCONCEIVABLE level of cover-up done at the Ninth Circuit to affirm the denial.

Because the claim was denied in the District Court by changing the facts of the case!!

In a nutshell, Angela Townsend came to me and asked me to help her rename her book, Fears of a Fisherman, for which I created the name “The Forlorned”, and I pre-solicited the title – along with a public declaration that I had created it and that Townsend only had a limited use agreement based on her accrediting my creation thereof – on my author’s blog HERE.  Townsend only had a corrupted PDF file of her original book, which she also asked me to restore, which I did.

But when Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch decided to deny the claim, he deliberately changed these details and claimed that the Forlorned title was within the file I recovered, and that I only reposted it to my blog.  In fact, he specifically stated that simply restoring a corrupted file did not give me claim to any of the contents within such a file.

This was pretty flagrant.  One could not draw a conclusion at any point that Townsend’s corrupted PDF copy of Fears of a Fisherman ever contained the title “The Forlorned” – it was entitled Fears of a Fisherman.  Duh, right?  This was a fabricated fiction created by Lynch specifically for the purpose to denounce any claim I had.  And since this was done through an unconstitutional prescreening process, there were no other party pleadings – he simply dismissed my complaint by making up a version of a story that would not give me a claim, and completely ignored the actual facts I had sworn to in my complaint.

This of course is far more complicated than this (and I will be attaching a copy of the actual full petition hereafter to anyone who actually wants to read the full details), but it is certainly the most glaring issue – how can a judge change the details of a case in order to justify dismissing it and NOT be found guilty of FRAUD?!

And therein lies the unbelievable and inconceivable part – because when the Ninth Circuit was called upon to review that very issue, they took Lynch’s summary verbatim and never even addressed my claim that it had been fabricated!  They not only ignored my specific argument that Lynch had committed fraud upon the court by tampering with the official record, but they actually said that his conclusions were correct!

Again, this should never have had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court – the Ninth Circuit should have stopped it.  This was so obvious, so flagrant, that no man of common intellect could even look at the two versions – the first presented by myself, and the second by Lynch – and not see that there was no way Lynch’s version reflected my pleadings!

Bottom line: Lynch was not basing his decision on my claims, but on something he made up.  Period.

And yet somehow the Ninth Circuit not only endorsed the District Court of Montana, but even declined to rehear the issue when I complained of this deliberate oversight.

The fact of the matter is that the federal courts are not only wholly corrupt, but even the higher courts tasked with keeping the integrity of the judiciary intact are willing to endorse the corruption.

In this instance, it is because of who I am.  I have every reason to believe that Lynch would have summarily granted relief to anyone else making an identical claim that I did for trademark infringement.  The federal laws are just too crystal clear not to.  Which is why he had to change the details, because my version of events were a clear entitlement to relief under the Lanham Act that governs trademarks in the U.S.

As I said, it was because of who I am: a secretly detained United States political prisoner, detained for challenging the very corruption so blatantly displayed in this case.

No other citizen would have been denied his rights in this way.  Just me.  And apparently, the Ninth Circuit is not only aware of the very corruption for which I am being detained, but they are exercising ridiculous levels of fraud themselves to help cover it up.

I’ve said it before, but I cannot say it enough: there is no justice nor democracy in America – we live in a totalitarian government calling itself a land of the free.  It’s all just propaganda and lies.

As promised, I am attaching the text of the Petition For Writ of Certiorari.  I will forego the cover, table of contents, etc, so that the core of the document can be read without the surplusage the High Court requires…

091017 Cert Body

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 20, 2017 in Uncategorized


Open Letter to Amnesty International

For literally years, I have been trying to draw the attention of Amnesty International to my plight, and to the existence of political prisoners in the United States – Period.

Recently, I spoke with representatives of AI on the phone – who expressed interest and asked me to send the information again.  That email follow-up was ignored.  I followed up again today, and was told that representative misspoke, that they could not commit to anything over the phone like that.

To say I am extremely disgruntled over this two-faced approach from such an internationally praised advocacy group is putting it mildly.  I do not need people placating me – I need people to take action!

Today’s representative told me to send my request again – to a different email address – but as this plea has been ignored previously, I am going to post the letter here as an open letter, in hopes that people actually seeing how little this organization is doing to protect AMERICAN citizens will compel someone inside their organization to actually do what they claim their purpose is.

Nothing like a spotlight to cast shame on a public benefit organization that solicits support under false pretenses…

I urge anyone readings this to please take the time and write Amnesty International on your own – point out that this is an urgent issue that at the very least requires an investigative probe.  Look and find out if what I am saying is true – I have absolutely nothing to hide.  I am completely transparent – it is everyone else who does not want this case looked into…

    “When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.” – Robert A. Heinlein

    I am a prisoner of conscience, held illegally under a manufactured crime in retaliation for my suing my local government in 2003.  I have been detained in one form or another since February 20, 2004.  Though I am in community-based custody right now (a non-enumerated probationary sentence – Montana Department of Corrections just took me into custody when I was released form prison, though I was supposed to be released to a suspended sentence), I have been under threat since May, 2016, of being returned to prison for another 15 years – in retaliation for my writing a book exposing the corruption I have endured (See U.S. Political Prisoner Since 2004: The True Story of an Innocent Man Detained As a Political Dissident In Kalispell, Montana).
    You can also view my online blog, The Great Montana Conspiracy, which I have also been persecuted for maintaining – even having my freedom of speech stripped from me when I identify collaborators who are instrumental in maintaining my inhuman confinement.
    I was arrested under an illegal warrant – one issued at 4:44am without a judge’s signature nor court clerk recording (in fact, the warrant was not filed in the court docket until four days after I was arrested).  I was thereafter detained for over 16 months without a trial or probable cause hearing, and eventually run through a kangaroo court where the local government manufactured a witness who claimed I confessed (never did – I have maintained my innocence for over 14 years now), though he was dead 10 days after the trial!
    This is purely a politically motivated detention.  I am deprived any genuine semblance of human dignity, am only provided the barest pretense of due process, and am kept deliberately destitute so I am unable to adequately defend against these atrocities.
    I have been trying to reach out to you now for almost seven years, but apparently I am told I have been using the wrong contact address.  I am desperate and need help…  Please, PLEASE, **PLEASE** help me!!!


Leave a comment

Posted by on August 23, 2017 in Uncategorized


Free Expose Download

Although I have copies of U.S. Political Prisoner Since 2004: The True Story of an Innocent Man Detained As a Political Dissident In Kalispell, Montana available for free PDF download 365 days a year on Google Drive, I had the opportunity to offer it for free through Amazon for five days – from July 27-31, 2017 (Amazon still refuses to let me list it as Perma-Free).  As of this posting, the book is presently #3 in both Amazon’s Organized Crime and Civil Rights & Liberties categories (see graphic below).


Hopefully this ranking along with a recent expressed interest from Amnesty International in my case will prompt more public awareness.  So if you would like to get a free copy of U.S. Political Prisoner in Kindle format, here is your opportunity…

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 27, 2017 in Uncategorized


Darlene Wilcock – Murderer Sheltered by Kalispell Police Department?

First, I want to open this by stating that the information I am about to convey is based on what one person has told me in confidence.  This information has not been corroborated, nor is there any evidence that this is even true, other than it fits other unrelated facts the person had no way of knowing that I knew.  Yet after mulling over the story for a couple of weeks now, I actually find there could be something to this.  Therefore, I am putting this out there not as a fact, but as a possible scenario that no one has ever considered.

I also have considered whether the person who told me this simply did so to gain my confidence because my personal conflict with the named person has been so well documented, or whether that same well-documented feud is what led to this confession.  That would require a far stretch though, since I have only met the person one time and they certainly did not seem to know who I was before we started talking.  Again, I am not saying this is true, but it has left considerable doubt in my mind…

I also want it clear that I urged the person to tell what they knew – I even gave them one of my business cards – but their response was, “Who would I tell?  If I told the police, I’d be dead.”  And considering the weight of the idea who was the Chief of Police at the time, I think this fear was definitely valid at the time – and I cannot say it does not remain a legitimate concern to this day with what I know about the level of corruption at all levels of law enforcement and local government.  For this reason, I am keeping the name the person gave me in confidence to protect them from retaliation (only a first name, but readers of my blog should know how damaging even first names can be in the hands of corrupt officials).

Of course, this does not protect me.  But what’s new?

Let me also say that this piece of information does line up with things I already knew – and which my informant did not know that I knew.  So this actually has gained more validity in my mind, and has more truth to its sound than falsehood.

I will start with what I already knew.

In 2000, I was dating a woman whose sister claimed to be a “kept” girl of Dick Dasen’s*. For anyone who does not know, Dick Dasen was a wealthy entrepreneur in Kalispell until he was convicted in 2005 of essentially running a prostitution ring.  The story began with allegations that Dasen had been running an underage prostitution ring, yet by the time he saw trial, he only faced charges for adult prostitution.

I had actually met two women who professed to be women Dick Dasen “kept” in town, which is to say the allegation was that Dasen paid their bills, bought them gifts, etc. in exchange for sexual relationships.  That two separate women claimed to be recipients of this kind of relationship validated this in my mind, but it was further validated by what my girlfriend’s sister told me directly:

Specifically, I was told that Dick Dasen was operating a prostitution ring in Kalispell, and that Frank Garner and the entire Kalispell Police Department protected Dasen so that he would never be prosecuted for what he was doing.  Worse, I was told that Dasen “paid” the KPD for its protection by providing Garner and his officers sexual partners upon request, but there was a definite allegation that Garner was sharing in kickbacks from the enterprise, as well.  At the time, my cousin was married to one of Dick Dasen’s sons, and when I confessed this to my girlfriend’s sister, she told my girlfriend she did not want me around anymore because she was afraid I would tell my cousin-in-law of his father’s dalliances.  I never did, as – to be honest – at the time I was not even sure if there was any truth to what was being said.

Years later, Dasen was arrested and later convicted for the very activity that my girlfriend’s sister had alleged, so obviously there had been truth to that story.  And if part of it was true, reason existed to believe it all – especially after my own experiences with Frank Garner and his official misconduct that led to my imprisonment as a political prisoner in the first place.  Clearly, Garner had no integrity and had no qualms about acting outside the law, so the idea that he had actively sheltered a prostitution ring for close to a decade was not much of a leap for me personally to believe.

Incidentally, Garner’s name was never mentioned in any publicity surrounding Dasen’s trial.  But the cause of that was very plain: When Dasen was originally arrested, the newspaper reported that his sons had been, as well – yet their charges were dropped within days, while Dasen’s continued.  It seemed fairly obvious that Dasen had kept silent to protect his sons and to shelter them from prosecution.  Whether they were ever actually involved I cannot say; I only believe for sure that they were used as leverage against Dasen.  Also, it should be noted that the KPD were not the original agency involved in investigating the prostitution ring – it started because of concerned parents reporting the ring’s molestation of young girls to the state Child Protective Services.  The KPD only became involved after the state-level agency forced them to.

Within months of Dasen’s conviction, Garner and several other key Kalispell officials resigned their posts and either took positions in other communities or walked away entirely from public service.  Garner went on to become head of security at the local hospital (ironically enough, a hospital on whose board Dasen had sat).  Garner then remained out of public service for almost ten years to the day – an ironic number since in Montana, a person could be prosecuted for sexual assault against a minor up to ten years after reaching age of majority.  Assuming that Garner was complicit in Dasen’s prostitution ring – which was initially reported in 2003 and led to Dasen’s arrest in early 2004 – that would place his re-entry into public service right at the window of prosecution if he had performed acts against victims of Dasen’s alleged underage prostitution ring.  Ten years’ time would have placed Garner outside any prosecution window and removed any threat of blackmail or leverage Dasen might have used against him.

If I were to guess – and it is only a guess based upon available information – I would say that Dasen had his own leverage against Garner and anyone in-the-know about the prostitution ring: they each had to leave public service or Dasen, once safely outside the consequences of his own prosecution, would report what he knew of their crimes.  That Garner (and others) so quickly and close together left public service so soon after Dasen’s conviction and that Garner waited a full ten years before returning to run for public office supports this hypothesis – but it is only a hypothesis, as I have nothing besides speculation.

Now, to what was confessed to me recently.

I was having a conversation with someone when the subject of the Darlene Wilcock murder came up.  We were talking about corruption in Kalispell in general, and I had already shared some of my own experiences.  I told the person also how my own false-conviction was not the only one I knew of, and how evidence was fabricated by law enforcement all the time.  Dick Dasen’s story was the first example that came to mind.

I mentioned to this person how Frank Garner had so quickly dropped Dick Dasen’s name as a suspect in the Wilcock murder shortly after Dasen’s prosecution was announced (Wilcock was murdered in April, 2003, and his prosecution was filed in January, 2004, as I recall).  I personally saw Garner make multiple claims on the local news that Dasen’s DNA had been found in the room, and that Wilcock was suspected to be one of Dasen’s prostitutes.

My point at the time was that there was no way Frank Garner could have stated conclusively that Dasen’s DNA was found at a murder scene if his DNA was not on record – unless Garner knew something besides just evidence.  Dasen had never been convicted of a crime nor was there any conceivable reason why his DNA would ever have been sampled prior.  Dasen would never have voluntarily provided DNA while being prosecuted, and there was no way to justify a warrant to extract DNA based on a prostitution charge.   The only way Garner could have known that Dasen’s DNA could potentially have been found at the scene was if he either knew Dasen had frequented the room (the more likely possibility) or Garner had planted it there himself.

Incidentally, I had met Darlene’s father in prison, and he was absolutely convinced that Dasen had killed his daughter, based entirely upon the information created by Frank Garner.

To me though, it looked very much to me like Garner had dropped a threat against Dasen to further assure his silence: say anything, and Garner would see Dasen tried for Wilcock’s murder.  Afterall, if Dasen’s original silence had been assured by the release of his sons, all it would take to protect them would be to have them leave the area – with Dasen’s wealth and influence, they could have safely left Garner’s range of power and Dasen could have opened up about Garner’s own criminal complicity.  So a new threat had to be engineered.  And apparently it was an effective threat, because Dasen did remain silent during his prosecution.

Incidentally, Dasen was dropped as a person of interest sometime after he was successfully prosecuted.  As I understand it, the KPD’s official position at present is that Darlene was either murdered by an ex-fiance or ex-roommate.

After I had told my story, this person laughed and said, “That’s funny because Frank Garner was the one who killed her!”

I was stunned and asked how the person knew that.  My informant then told me that they had been at the Motel 6 the night Darlene Wilcock had been murdered and that Frank Garner had been there as well – looking around the parking lot and asking people whether they had heard anything suspicious (my informant said they had heard nothing out of the ordinary and said so when asked).  The person said Garner had been dressed in a nice shirt open at the collar, his hair was a little ruffled, and that he had seemed really anxious, nervous even.  They told me they knew it was Garner because of his “lazy eye” (personally, I do not know that Garner’s eye would be called lazy, though his left eye is somewhat out of alignment with his right), but in hindsight I did not think to ask whether he actually identified himself or not.

Of particular note was that when Garner asked my informant if they had heard anything and they said no, Garner had said, “Keep it that way,” as he turned away.  My informant said they found it threatening but were used to being talked rudely to by KPD officers, so this alone had not struck them as unusual.

The next morning, my informant said, was when they found Wilcock’s body and it raised alarms over Garner’s actions the night before.  But they knew better than to say anything about what had happened.

If one presumes that what was told me were true – and what my informant told me does coincide with what I already knew of Garner’s connection to Dasen’s prostitution ring and Dasen providing sexual partners upon request to KPD officers and Garner specifically – it definitely raises doubts.

My first thought was that maybe Dasen had been in the room – or perhaps another police officer receiving “favor” from Dasen – and that Garner had been called in to cover it up.  But upon reflection, I think maybe my informant’s idea might have more validity.

If Garner were just covering it up, he could have buried the investigation or tampered with the evidence chain in-house.  He did not need to drive out to the scene and intimidate witnesses.  And my informant specifically said he acted anxious and that his hair was ruffled – not exactly the calm, collected behavior of someone who comes to a scene to cover up someone else’s crime.  It actually describes how someone might act as they were fighting off panic and trying to decide what to do in the face of a crisis.

What it sounds like to me upon reflection is that Garner came out of the murder scene and went into crisis mode, seeing if anyone had heard what was likely the commotion that had caused Wilcock’s death, trying to decide what he could do as he looked around to find out what people on-scene knew .  It seems that no one had heard anything and so Garner simply left the scene, leaving Darlene’s body to be found the next day through natural routine.

To be honest, this story is really disturbing for me.  I have no idea whether it is true, but it is unsettling enough that I felt I should share the story in case something does happen to me and the story might remain hidden.  After all, after over a year, I am still under threat of being returned to prison for another fifteen years for publishing my expose against Garner and other corrupt Kalispell officials.  The story told to me does jive with details from other things I had been told by others, though.  So the possibility of it being true is really, really scary – that this poor girl’s murder might have been committed by the very official whose job it would have been to investigate it.

I should also point out: according to my informant, there were several others that they knew Garner had talked to.  Again, I failed to ask the question of whether he was just talking to people who were outside or whether he was going door-to-door, which I feel I really should have asked – it just did not occur to me at the time.  But my informant said Garner was talking to “people” before he talked to them.  I also realize I did not ask whether he talked to anyone else after.

I guess I did not earn my investigative badge on this outing.  There were clearly details I did not get, and I have not seen my informant since being told this story, so this is not something I could follow-up on if I wanted to.  I did give my contact information to them and urged them to write their story out so I could post it on my blog – but they have not accepted the invitation, and it has been a couple of weeks now.

At any rate, my point is that there were other witnesses to this if it happened.  And I cannot imagine that the police would not have contact information for other people to have been at the Motel 6 that night, so if there was a general interest in investigating this, they would have the means to do so – much more than I do.  But of course, there is a very strong likelihood that if it is true, that the witnesses would be as equally reluctant to speak out as the person who talked to me.

And certainly, this is not a smoking gun.  The informant did not say they saw Garner coming out of the room where Wilcock’s body was found nor even that they had heard anything suspicious.  Only that Garner was on scene the night before the body was found talking to people in a suspicious manner.  Maybe he was there covering up for someone else, or maybe it was something completely unrelated.  I want to be fair here – as much as I can be, at any rate.

But the bottom line here is that if what was told to me is true, Chief of Police Frank Garner was actively looking for witnesses to a murder that did not get discovered until the next morning.  And if it is true, I believe Darlene Wilcock’s family has a right to call for this line of evidence to be looked into.

Do what you will with the information.  But I would urge anyone who might have additional information or who can corroborate this story, please feel free to contact me or post a comment to this post.  You can certainly report the information to law enforcement – and I urge you to file some kind of report if you have direct information – but consider your safety as you do.  If your information corroborates the details of this story, the officials you would be reporting to could be potentially complicit in a pre-existing cover-up.  So cover your bases and make certain to document your statement elsewhere first.

One final note on this subject: anyone who frequently reads my blog knows I have a long history of reporting crimes to both the KPD and Flathead County Sheriff’s Office that are just blatantly disregarded.  I have had death threats leveled against me, reported stalkings, malicious defamation, hate crimes and even another (unrelated) murder – but officials here disregard whatever I report.  This is why I am posting the information here instead of making an official report: what is the point of making a report that would just get buried by law enforcement, especially if the very office I reported it to is actually complicit in the crime itself?

And besides – I am not a witness to a crime.  At best, my information is hearsay, which is inadmissible.  So in this instance, even if I suspected that my report would be actually considered appropriately, it actually has little to no evidentiary significance because I am only reporting it in the third person…


  • NOTE: The Dick Dasen referred to in this article is Dick Dasen, Sr., and should not be confused with his son, Dick Dasen, Jr., who remains a successful businessman in Kalispell.
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 20, 2017 in Uncategorized


Open Letter To Democratic National Committee

I received an email this morning from the Democratic National Committee, seeking (as always) to raise funds to support their efforts against the Trump-era agenda the Republicans are running away with.  Now, everyone likely knows by now that Donald Trump and his neo-Nazi agenda scares the pants off of me, and normally this would be something I would wholly endorse.  But one line – their opening line – really got under my skin, and I felt it deserved a response.

So I logged onto their national site and left the following open letter to the DNC…


“Democratic values are American values.”

I received an email this morning with this being the opening salvo of a recruitment message designed to promote an anti-Trump resistance in the American people. And, believe me, I am all for that. The problem I have is that it is little more than faux propaganda, since from where I have sat for over thirteen years, no politician – Democrat or Republican – actually cares about Americans; all any of you seem to care about is advancing agendas masquerading as representation of American interests,

This might seem harsh, but let’s go to the bottom line: I am a United States citizen held as a political prisoner in the State of Montana, and have been detained as a dissident for no other reason than I have and continue to protest corrupt government officials and practices in Montana. I have deprived of the most basic human dignity for over thirteen years, and no Democrat has *ever* raised a finger to help me, nor even to address the very serious practice of detaining American citizens for opposing corrupt political practices within the United States.

And yet you open with the platform that Democrats care about American values.

What about the values of basic and essential civil liberties to *all* Americans, not just the wealthy and politically connected?

I implore you – either do as you say, or stop running these fake propaganda campaigns, because you are not helping your public image one iota if you are only spreading lies.

And you wonder why you are losing ground to Republicans: regardless of how frightfully scary their agenda is, at least they are honest about it to the American people…

This is an open letter and I will be reproducing it in my public online blog, The Great Montana Conspiracy, at: http://monspiracy.wordpress ,com


Leave a comment

Posted by on June 26, 2017 in Uncategorized


Montana Supreme Court Compared To “bully or wife beater”, “street-level ruffian”

There is never any great surprise when the Mike McGrath dominated Montana Supreme Court acts to continue in my oppression as a United States political prisoner.  It is frustrating, because each time they act, the MSC goes further and further afield of the law to “justify” its abuse of power.  It should come therefore without any shock that the MSC has made final its determination that the Montana State Legislature cannot grant authority to a person to prosecute claims on behalf of an estate (see the post about Montana’s Sherman Antitrust Act violations for more on this issue).

As recent readers of my blog know, in one of their most recent and flagrant violations, the Montana Supreme Court have actually deprived me verbatim rights under Montana law.  The law at issue could not be clearer – and yet the MSC has specifically stated that a person who is not an attorney may not do as the law provides.  This is an order directed against me personally, to obstruct my capacity to claim my inheritance (ie, keep me without money that I could actually use against these very authorities), but what makes it an even greater problem is that unlike just about every other prior order, this one is not directed as a noncitable opinion – which means the Montana Supreme Court just usurped the rights of every Montana citizen and gave them to the elite class of licensed attorneys.

The Montana State Legislature prohibited this, but the Montana Supreme Court ignored the constitutional limits of its authority and declared themselves the only authority in the state for designating the qualifications for practicing law.  Which now includes the rights individuals have to act without attorneys.

This is such a huge disgrace.  But it is the latest example of the exact corruption I have been protesting against now for thirteen years…

At any rate, I filed a petition for rehearing – I wanted to secure some arguments before I filed for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.  Lately, McGrath will not even allow rehearings – his orders in response to my last two petitions for rehearing have essentially read, “We don’t have to allow rehearing, and so we’re not going to”.  No consideration of issues, just that McGrath doesn’t want the rehearing issues addressed.

Before making this post, I checked the online registry for the Montana Supreme Court and saw that my filing has not been posted.  As I mailed this on Tuesday, and it is now Friday, this is unusual.  Not sure whether the MSC is going to seek to suppress this filing or if there’s just a backlog in their office.  But it was filed, and I will be providing the full language of the filing at the end of this post.

Of especial note, I have decided that from this date forward, I will be identifying my status as a prisoner of conscience in all of my legal filings.  This is how my status appears in the latest filing with the Montana Supreme Court:

Ron Glick
40 1st Avenue West #2
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479
United States Political Prisoner
In Custody of the State Montana

    Also, as can be seen from the content of the brief itself, I pretty much took off the kid gloves this time.  I have been direct with the courts in the past, but this time I directly accused the MSC of being the abuser in an abuse/control relationship, deflecting blame onto myself for complaining about the abuse:

“Abuse-control domestic relationships are often earmarked by a pattern of the abuser deflecting blame upon the abused. For instance, common examples of this would be statements such as, ‘I wouldn’t have to hit you if you did what I asked’, or ‘You made me hit you because you didn’t listen.’

“The conduct of this Court is little different. The Court is acting in open and brazen defiance of any aspect of genuine law, constitutional or otherwise, in persecuting [Ron Glick] as a political prisoner, keeping him “in his place” (ie, poor and subjugated) by shamelessly opposing any pretense of civil liberty he seeks to claim for himself or – as in this case – to pursue a claim to property to which he is heir. After heaping abuse after abuse upon the [Ron Glick], the Court then seeks to deflect blame back upon him when he raises objection to such abuse or seeks to have outside authorities compel this Court to follow the law.

To state that [Ron Glick’s grandmother’s estate]’s efforts to compel this Court to act within the law is “not well taken” is certainly an insult – and intended as such – but it is plainly the same pattern of deflecting blame that any bully or wife beater exhibits.”

    I go even further in my conclusion to likening the Montana Supreme Court’s actions to “the lowbrow conduct of a street-level ruffian“.

    Is it any great wonder then that I question whether the delay in this posting being made public record is an actual effort of the Montana Supreme Court to suppress this filing?

    Let me be clear: I did not make this filing with an expectation of prevailing.  I have not made a single filing for years where I had any actual hope that the courts in Montana would ever grant me relief to which I am entitled.  But the arguments needed to be made – first, because I cannot argue most issues to the United Supreme Court that has not been first presented to the Montana Supreme Court, but second – and really the more important issue – these issues need to be made public record.  I may never prevail, but perhaps someone someday after I am gone may take up these issues and perhaps be able to use them to help someone prevail…

   There is little more I can say on this that I have not said ad nauseum before.  All I can do is report and protest within the limitations I am allowed.  It clearly will fall upon men better than myself (and by better, I mean free and wealthier) to use what I provide if there will ever be any hope of holding these corrupt people accountable…

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1887)



This petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc should be granted because the Panel’s decision is in clear error, is premature, and transgresses upon protections secured under the United States Constitution and Montana State Constitution, and is effectively unconstitutional.

This Panel has apparently either deliberately misconstrued the Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch as a final order of the United States District Court in Missoula, or has decided to act in defiance of the federal courts’ authority to enjoin a state proceeding for constitutional challenge. In either case, the order issued by this Panel is both premature and inappropriate under the circumstances, and the interests of justice compel reversal.

As argued previously, this Court’s actions are abhorrent to law and constitution, and as this Court refuses to comply with either, seeking intervention from federal authorities remains Appellant’s and her Personal Representative’s only avenue. Though this Court makes point of observing that Appellant’s actions are not well taken, had this Court complied with the law of the State rather than a combined agenda of prejudice and vendetta against her Personal Representative, he would never have been compelled to seek outside authorities to restrain this Court’s criminal misconduct.

As this order is abhorrent to the United States and Montana state governments, it should properly be rescinded as disposition within the federal courts is properly adjudicated.


As this Court is fully aware, Appellant’s Personal Representative is a United States citizen and Montana resident detained as a political prisoner in Montana since 20041, and this Court has exerted an inordinate amount of effort in depriving him of essential civil liberties necessary to free himself from being detained as a political dissident within his own country. Though this cause has little to do with the Personal Representative’s personal legal struggles, a resolution in favor of Appellant would favor her Personal Representative as an heir to her estate though, so this Court has clearly extended its umbrella obstructions over this cause, as well. The Court’s orders in this cause only continue in that vein, as it justifies continuing to deprive Appellant of property and rightful due process in order to continue to suppress her Personal Representative’s capacity to protest his unconstitutional detention.

The Court acts under the auspice of responding to Appellant’s motion for stay pending federal review, yet uses such instead as a vehicle to dismiss Appellant’s cause altogether. Both are inappropriate and premature, as this Court apparently is relying upon dismissal of her Personal Representative’s federal petition for writ of mandamus by a magistrate judge, not upon a final order from the United States District Court itself.

What this Court deliberately disregards is that the Personal Representative filed Objection to Magistrate Lynch’s Recommendations on or about June 10, 2017, three days prior to the issuance of this Court’s June 13, 2017 order, such objection filed with said court on the same date as this Court’s order was issued. The magistrate judge’s recommendations were improperly founded upon a precedent that is only applicable to state criminal causes, not to civil actions, and the Personal Representative has timely raised objection to such recommendation as being contrary to law.

Even presuming that the United States District Judge Christensen should agree with his magistrate’s recommendations, this Court’s actions have necessitated a rehearing as the Court’s actions impact the determination of the federal court, since in part, the determination is founded upon the state cause being active. Should the Court’s order remain en force, this determination compels a reconsideration of the U.S. District Court’s determinations.

Finally, even should the U.S. District Court decide against all pleadings of Appellant’s, he still has appellate review to both the Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme Courts to halt this Court’s abuse.

Consequently, clearly this Court’s reliance upon a preliminary recommendation from a magistrate judge as the Personal Representative’s right to seek federal oversight of this Court’s misconduct is clearly premature and improper, and this compels reversal of both its determination to deny Appellant’s motion to stay and the dismissal of the cause entirely pending the proper administration of federal courts’ review of the Personal Representative’s pleas for relief.

This being said, this Court consistently acts as a vindictive body that fails to comply with statutory and constitutional law in order to oppress the Personal Representative, and yet somehow takes umbrage when he seeks to fight for the simplest human dignity that this Court is intent on depriving him. If law is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.” (Williams v Mississippi, 170 US 213, 225 (1898)). Plainly, this Court is doing precisely this.

Abuse-control domestic relationships are often earmarked by a pattern of the abuser deflecting blame upon the abused. For instance, common examples of this would be statements such as, “I wouldn’t have to hit you if you did what I asked”, or “You made me hit you because you didn’t listen.”

The conduct of this Court is little different. The Court is acting in open and brazen defiance of any aspect of genuine law, constitutional or otherwise, in persecuting the Personal Representative as a political prisoner, keeping him “in his place” (ie, poor and subjugated) by shamelessly opposing any pretense of civil liberty he seeks to claim for himself or – as in this case – to pursue a claim to property to which he is heir. After heaping abuse after abuse upon the Personal Representative, the Court then seeks to deflect blame back upon him when he raises objection to such abuse or seeks to have outside authorities compel this Court to follow the law.

To state that Appellant’s efforts to compel this Court to act within the law is “not well taken” is certainly an insult – and intended as such – but it is plainly the same pattern of deflecting blame that any bully or wife beater exhibits.

A perfect example of this behavior is exhibited in the Court’s snide allegation that it had granted Appellant favor by granting thirty days to acquire counsel (of which state law specifically did not require), yet the Court knew full well that Appellant could not acquire counsel – because the Court only granted such extension after Appellant had filed a financial statement of indigency with the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court was fully informed that Appellant’s estate was insolvent, and that the only equitable asset lay in the value of the property at dispute in this proceeding. The Court knew that Appellant’s estate was not being represented by her Personal Representative for any other reason than there simply were no resources with which to retain counsel. A simple review of the lower court record additionally details that the Personal Representative had struggled extensively to retain pro bono counsel and had failed, primarily for lacking the very solvency the deprivation of property at issue resulted in.

In effect, the Court exercised abuse against Appellant’s cause by compelling her Personal Representative to retain counsel that the Court was fully informed could not be acquired. Not that Appellant’s Personal Representative did not diligently reach out and yet again try to retain counsel – making hundreds of contacts within the designated thirty day period – but the results were no different than what he had tried before. And the Court was well informed of this eventuality.

In blaming Appellant’s Personal Representative for not retaining counsel, this Court is only deflecting the abuse that it initiated. The law is plain, and this Court deliberately deprived Appellant and her Personal Representative equal access to the law. The Court could have ordered counsel for Appellant’s cause on its own motion, yet refused to do so, shifting all accountable blame onto Appellant’s Personal Representative. This is the very behavior that Appellant previously has noted: the abusive party playing a shame-blame game of deflecting responsibility for the abuse onto the abused party.

The time has come for this Court to raise itself out of the lowbrow conduct of a street-level ruffian and conduct itself with the integrity which the citizens of the State of Montana expect. It is time for this Court to set aside its personal prejudices and act in the best interests of every citizen – including Appellant and her Personal Representative this time.


For the foregoing reasons, the petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.

Appellant does hereby attest under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of his ability to present.

Dated: June 20, 2017 

Ron Glick, Personal Representative

1See U.S. Political Prisoner Since 2004: The True Story of an Innocent Man Detained As a Political Dissident In Kalispell, Montana (2014), downloadable at

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 23, 2017 in Uncategorized


Free Speech Censorship Compounded

A few days ago, I reported that the Montana Supreme Court had issued an order that unconstitutionally barred me from even speaking about a person who has been acting in collusion with the corrupt officials of the state since early on in my ordeal.  You can view that post HERE.

As a brief update to that post, I did in fact file for a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which can be viewed in its entirety HERE (again, I am forbidden to even cite the case name without violating the blatantly unconstitutional gag order, but I do not violate the order by directing readers to public record).

I had to wait to verify that the petition for rehearing had been filed before I could post this article (since there was little point in discussing something no one could read and review), which I was able to do this morning.  To say that this is a huge obstruction to timely reporting significant issues publicly is an understatement.  It is just one of many blockades erected in frustrating me efforts to protest my unconstitutional detention as a prisoner of conscience, but I must navigate carefully lest even more of my rights be stripped from me.

To be honest, I keep waiting for the order to come down that I have to remove this blog entirely.  The content keeps getting censored (so much for freedom of speech), but I prevail within the boundaries I can proceed.  But it’s only a matter of time before some uppity court official decides that either myself or this blog need to go…

I strongly recommend that the official record be reviewed and shared, as the issues I complain of are clearly relevant to anyone’s essential civil liberties.

This being said, there is one aspect of the motion that I am going to reproduce here.  I am notably removing a portion of a single paragraph that discusses the applicability of this argument to the cause itself (cited as Omitted).  Though I do not mention the person’s name, I am forbidden to talk about the person or her actions, and so I am removing the paragraph so no argument can be made that I am discussing the case specifics.  To be honest, no reasonably prudent person could deem omitted content to violate the order, but anyone who frequently reads this blog knows the corrupt authorities have pounced upon less.

The reason I am reproducing this specific argument is that it demonstrates exactly how far the deprivation of civil liberties against me really go.  The argument I am reproducing has little to do with this specific cause of action, but instead references the ongoing and systematic abuse directed at me over the years.  As such, it is incredibly relevant to the subject matter of this blog.

As always, I welcome opinions and comments, but threats will be reported to law enforcement.

V. The Court’s use of noncitable opinions is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads in relevant part,
“No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.” “The equal protection clause was aimed at undue favor and individual or class
privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality,
on the other; it secures equality of protection not only for all, but against all, similarly
situated; it is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” (Truax v Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312,
332 (1921)). If law is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye
and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations
between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal
justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.” ( Williams v Mississippi, 170 US
213, 225 (198).

Plainly, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits any individual from having
laws misapplied to them alone. When law is applied with an “evil eye and uneven
hand”, it defies equal protection of the law.

In the instant case, this Court has repeatedly issued opinion after opinion against
Appellant which are listed as “noncitable” because the specific determinations within
the orders are, in effect, a pristine example of clear and deliberate deprivation of civil
liberties that impact Appellant alone. No one else is forbidden to prosecute on behalf of
a relative’s estate; nor prohibited from even mentioning names; nor had complaint after
complaint against routine deprivation of civil rights so routinely disregarded — and in
each instance under the auspice of “noncitable” opinions.

The effect of a noncitable opinion is that the determination of the Court reached in
such a case is limited solely to that case and the parties involved. If the Court
determines that a party cannot speak another’s name (as is the case here), no other
person is held to such deprivation under law. And when it is applied against a person
because they protest being held as a political prisoner by the very authorities issuing
such an order, it becomes a heinous atrocity.

The issuance of a noncitable opinion is, on its very face, an admission that the
determination made with such order violates the constitutionally mandated equal
protection clauses of both the State and federal constitutions — simply because the
decisions reached in a noncitable opinion are not equally applied towards anyone but the parties within the subject cause of action. Equal protection requires all adjudications to be equally applicable to every person, and a noncitable opinion is — by its very definition — not.

In the instant case, this Court has routinely deprived Appellant of his rights under law
and constitutions through use of such a practice, by both deliberately fabricating records,disregarding protections to which Appellant should be entitled, and otherwise just finding excuse after excuse to deprive Appellant of protection under law that each and every other citizen of the state is entitled. And in each instance, it appears under an
order directed to be noncitable so that the opinion reached only deprives Appellant of
these essential rights and no other.

Montana Constitution Article II, Section 4 reads in relevant part, “The dignity of the
human being is inviolable.” And yet this Court consistently and routinely denies all
aspects of human dignity to Appellant. [Omitted] And yet, Appellant alone is censured from the very conduct every other citizen is permitted to do freely and without restraint — because it a treasured constitutional privilege.

This Court has stripped Appellant of any pretense of human dignity, since it has made
it a routine practice to justify and validate any indignity heaped upon him. Appellant has
no property rights, no civil liberties and a mere sham of a pretense of due process, since
no matter what Appellant files, it is always denied for some arbitrary reason. Simply
because Appellate will not remain silent against this very abuse.

The Court’s conduct is clearly an active, aggressive and vexatious infliction of harm
against Appellant based solely upon who he is. Appellant alone is subject to the
restrictions of this order, plain and simple, and justice compels this Court to properly
overturn the district court’s order and to seek to redress the wrongs committed against
Appellant by the courts of this state rather than perpetuate the ongoing abusive pattern.

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 20, 2017 in Uncategorized