The ruling by Judge Dana Christensen allows federal authorities to transfer Martinez out of Montana.

Martinez, 31, resides in Helena with his U.S. citizen wife and their children. His legal team had filed a petition requesting the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana to take jurisdiction over his detention and sought his release, claiming the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

However, Judge Christensen ruled that jurisdiction over Martinez’s detention lies with an Immigration Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals, not the federal district court.

As part of the decision, Christensen also lifted a temporary order that had previously prevented Martinez’s transfer out of state.

The ruling marks a significant development in Martinez’s case, as it clears the way for federal immigration authorities to proceed with their processes, potentially moving him to another state for further immigration proceedings.

Source: KXLH – Helena

The post Montana Federal Judge Dana Christensen: No Jurisdiction Over Immigration Detention in Helena appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy issued a 40-page order rejecting the judges’ claims, stating that their actions were outside the scope of their judicial responsibilities and, therefore, did not qualify for immunity. This ruling stems from a legal conflict dating back five years, when Bad Boy Bail Bonds, then owned by a different entity, posted a bond for an individual who subsequently failed to appear in court.

In 2022, Looney acquired only the name of the bail company from a Helena-based bonding service, not the entire business. When the Bozeman Municipal Court attempted to collect the forfeited bond on January 30, 2024, Looney informed the court and its clerk that the bond had been issued by a previous owner and that he should not be held liable for it. The judges, however, disagreed and suspended Looney’s ability to write bonds in Gallatin County.

As Looney’s business began to decline, he paid the forfeited bond in hopes of resuming operations. Before doing so, he filed a complaint with the Montana Judicial Standards Commission regarding the judges’ actions. After paying the bond, Looney expected to return to business but was informed by the court that his privileges would not be reinstated until the complaint was withdrawn. In parallel, the Bozeman Municipal Court lodged a complaint against Looney’s business with the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, which oversees bail bonding companies. This complaint was later dismissed, and no further action was taken against Bad Boy Bail Bonds or Looney.

Looney subsequently filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts. Judge Molloy mandated that the court honor Bad Boy Bail Bonds, a mandate that, according to Looney’s attorney, Matthew Monforton, the Bozeman Municipal Court has since failed to comply with. Molloy noted that both federal and state laws generally protect judges from lawsuits if they are acting within their judicial capacity. However, since Looney had paid the bond, even amidst his disputes, the court found that the judges were not covered under judicial immunity for their refusal to acknowledge his bonds.

Monforton contended in court that Montana law only allows the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance to license and regulate bail bonding companies. Furthermore, Looney attempted to meet with the judges multiple times to resolve the ongoing issues but was reportedly rebuffed, allegedly until he withdrew his complaint from the Judicial Standards Commission.

In correspondence from the Municipal Court Clerk, it was indicated that the judges were unclear whether Looney’s payment of the bond resolved the ethics complaint against Judge Tierney. The clerk stated that due to the pending complaint and potential litigation, the judges could not meet with Looney to discuss any matters related to the complaint or litigation.

Looney expressed concern that the court’s insistence on linking the reinstatement of his bonding privileges to the status of his ethics complaint against Tierney created undue pressure. He maintained that the implication of penalties for not withdrawing the complaint was troubling.

Judge Molloy concluded that Bad Boy Bail Bonds was in compliance with Montana law and authorized to conduct business as a commercial surety. He emphasized that suspending the bonding privileges did not fall under normal judicial functions. The judge also pointed out that the actions taken by the judges to regulate a function that belonged to a different branch of government were inappropriate.

In his ruling, Molloy stated that while judges can set bonding amounts or requirements, they do not have the authority to impose a blanket ban on all bail bonds issued by a specific surety company. He affirmed that Montana law does not grant judges jurisdiction to suspend the bonding privileges of a licensed surety, leading to the conclusion that judicial immunity was not applicable in this case.

Additionally, Looney filed grievances against both judges with the Montana Judicial Standards Commission, which oversees judicial conduct. Although the commission has dismissed the complaints, the details of the dismissals remain confidential under state law.

Source: Daily Montanan

The post Federal Court Rules Against Bozeman Judges’ Claims of Immunity in Bail Bonds Case appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Looney operates Bad Boy Bail Bonds, a company that he acquired under its current name after the original business, which remained in Helena, was owned by Willoughby Insurance. The conflict began when Looney received two notices from the Bozeman Municipal Court demanding payment for bail bonds that had been forfeited due to clients failing to appear for their court hearings. However, Looney contends that he was not involved with the business at the time the bonds were issued, as he purchased the business name only in December 2022, well after the bonds were executed.

In a previous legal confrontation, Looney challenged the court’s demand for the payment of a different forfeited bond from last year. He has consistently submitted documentation proving that he was not an owner of the original business or involved in issuing any of the bonds. Despite this, judges Karolina Tierney and J. Colleen Herrington ordered county officials to refuse acceptance of any bail bonds from Looney and even filed a complaint aimed at revoking his bail bonding license, which ultimately did not occur.

Amidst these challenges, Looney filed a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission, tasked with overseeing judicial conduct. Following this complaint, the judges indicated they would not honor Looney’s bonds until he withdrew his grievance, according to court documents. In response, Looney escalated the matter to federal court, where he is still pursuing a case against the judges.

On October 25, 2024, federal Judge Donald W. Molloy ruled that the Bozeman Municipal Court must immediately restore Looney’s bonding privileges. However, Looney’s recent state court filing indicates ongoing issues, with the judges allegedly continuing retaliatory actions against him despite the federal injunction.

The latest case involves two specific bail bonds issued by Bad Boy Bail Bonds while it was still owned by Willoughby Insurance. The first bond was for $1,420, issued on October 28, 2018, to Kevin Flores by bail agent Verda Shingleton. The second was a $1,060 bond executed on April 16, 2020, for Gabriel Lopez, who faced a general contempt charge. When Lopez failed to appear in court, the court issued a forfeiture notice on September 22, 2021.

Looney did not acquire the business name until over a year after these bonds were issued, and according to court documents, he only purchased the name and a phone number, not the original business or its assets. Recently, on January 23, 2025, Looney received letters from the Bozeman Municipal Court demanding payment for the forfeited bonds, with deadlines of 30 and 20 days respectively.

Looney’s attorney, Matthew Monforton, expressed concern that a judgment against Looney could jeopardize his ability to write bail bonds or lead to asset seizures. He characterized the actions of the judges as an obsession with holding Looney accountable for forfeitures tied to the previous bail bondsmen, suggesting that their motivations are more personal than judicial.

Source: Daily Montanan

The post Montana Bail Bondsman Challenges Bozeman Municipal Court Judges Over Forfeited Bonds in New Lawsuit appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Senate Bill 30, sponsored by Senator Tom McGillvray (R-Billings), directly addresses a 2021 legal challenge involving all three branches of government. The dispute centered on emails from the judicial branch, with lawmakers and Attorney General Austin Knudsen arguing that most Montana Supreme Court justices had a conflict of interest due to their email usage. SB 30 aims to codify the concept of “judicial necessity,” which allows a judge to preside over a case even with a conflict of interest if all other judges are similarly situated. McGillvray’s bill mandates that if other judges are available, even from lower courts, they must be assigned the case. The bill’s proponents argue it enhances public trust in the courts; no opposition testimony was presented.

Senate Bill 48, sponsored by Senator Carl Glimm (R-Kila), focuses on the handling of judicial misconduct complaints. Currently, complaints remain sealed until reviewed and forwarded for action. SB 48 proposes making all complaints public upon filing. Senator Glimm framed the bill as a First Amendment issue, arguing that the current system restricts free speech. He contends that the public’s right to know should outweigh the need for privacy in such matters.

Bruce Spencer, a lobbyist representing the Montana Bar Association and Montana Judges Association, expressed concerns. He noted that over 97% of complaints are dismissed, often due to issues related to specific cases or outcomes, which are appealable to the Supreme Court. Other lawmakers highlighted the parallel with complaints against legislators, which are publicly released upon filing, even if dismissed. Senator Theresa Manzella (R-Hamilton) questioned this disparity, noting legislators must endure public scrutiny of even frivolous complaints.

Spencer warned that publicizing all complaints could politicize the courts, undermining public trust and potentially damaging the reputations of judges. He emphasized that many states maintain confidentiality until a complaint is deemed meritorious, citing potential reasons for privacy, such as a judge’s health issues. He also argued that the bill would make Montana an outlier, lacking widespread support and serving primarily as a political tool against the Supreme Court. He clarified that once a complaint is reviewed and deemed valid, it becomes a public record.

Senator Manzella questioned the apparent conflict between the right to free speech and the confidentiality rules of the Judicial Standards Commission. Spencer acknowledged that while free speech is an inalienable right, it’s subject to limitations. Senator Glimm countered that SB 48 would position Montana as a leader in free speech, a recurring theme among Republicans this legislative session.

Source: Daily Montanan

The post Two Bills Aim to Change How Montana Judges Are Chosen, Disciplined appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The charges against Cotter include one count of solicitation to commit criminal distribution of dangerous drugs and two counts of attempted possession of dangerous drugs. The allegations stem from an investigation by the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and the Montana Attorney General’s Office, which claims Cotter attempted to purchase cocaine from an individual on multiple occasions over a 14-month period starting in March 2022.

In a resignation letter addressed to Chief Justice Mike McGrath of the Montana Supreme Court, Cotter expressed his decision not to proceed with the oath of office, calling the choice “heartbreaking” but necessary for his family’s well-being and the integrity of the legal profession. He stated that defending himself against the charges would demand his full attention, resources, and efforts.

Cotter, who has no prior criminal record, won the election for the Lake County District Court position without opposition in November 2024. He was set to take over the role following the retirement of Judge Deborah Kim Christopher, who had faced her own controversies. In light of Cotter’s resignation, the judicial vacancy will prompt procedural steps to ensure that the position remains filled.

Governor Greg Gianforte has the authority to extend the appointment of John Mercer, who was appointed to fill the vacancy temporarily after Judge Christopher’s retirement. Mercer’s current appointment is scheduled to end in January 2025, coinciding with Cotter’s intended inauguration.

The criminal case against Cotter began in April 2024 when DCI Agent Cynthia Lengyel investigated allegations involving fraudulent billing practices linked to a contract attorney with the Office of the State Public Defender. As part of this investigation, historical text messages between Cotter and an identified individual were uncovered, suggesting attempts to purchase cocaine.

The messages included references to “3 balls,” a term understood in street language to denote a quantity of cocaine, with a “ball” corresponding to 3.5 grams. Additionally, court records indicated that Cotter made payments to this individual through the mobile payment service Venmo over two transactions in July and October 2022, amounting to $900 and $1,200.

On November 13, 2024, DCI agents interviewed Cotter at his office in Polson. During the meeting, he acknowledged knowing the individual involved but claimed they had not spoken in several months. He also admitted to being aware of the individual’s substance abuse problems but did not elaborate further, citing potential attorney-client privilege.

DCI agents also spoke with Flathead County District Court Judge Amy Eddy, who revealed that she had confronted Cotter about his suspected cocaine use. Judge Eddy indicated concern over Cotter’s role as the newly elected judge and reported that Cotter admitted to having purchased cocaine from the individual in question “a long time ago” but claimed to have ceased this behavior when he decided to run for office.

Following these revelations, Judge Eddy felt obliged to report the situation to the Judicial Standards Commission. After discussing the matter with Cotter, he reportedly inquired about the possibility of her not filing a complaint, suggesting that he was seeking a way to mitigate the consequences of the allegations.

Cotter has been summoned to appear in court for an arraignment hearing scheduled for January 8, 2025, at the Lake County Courthouse. Until then, he has been released under specific conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug possession, as well as a requirement to undergo a chemical dependency evaluation.

In his resignation letter, Cotter expressed gratitude to his family and the community, emphasizing their support during this difficult time. He noted that his family and community involvement have been sources of fulfillment in his life.

Source: Flathead Beacon

The post Cocaine Charges Lead to Resignation of Montana Judge-Elect Kenneth Britton “Britt” Cotter appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Aldridge’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Haddon on August 14 in Lewis and Clark County District Court, alleging negligence and gross negligence. The lawsuit claimed that Haddon, who was 87 years old at the time, was driving when he attempted to make a left turn without ensuring it was safe to do so. A witness, situated directly behind Aldridge’s vehicle, reported that Haddon turned onto York Road when it was unsafe.

The estate’s legal documents stated that Haddon’s eyesight and diminished physical and mental capacity made him unfit to drive. In his defense, Haddon denied the allegations, asserting that Aldridge was speeding, which he claimed contributed to the accident.

After a lengthy 14.5-hour settlement conference on October 30, the case was resolved outside of court, although the details of the settlement have not been disclosed. The plaintiff’s attorney declined to comment, and the defense attorney was unavailable for immediate comment.

Haddon, who had a long tenure as a senior U.S. District Court judge for the Helena Division, retired on August 31, 2023, after serving 22 years on the federal bench in Montana. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and was confirmed by the Senate in July 2001.

Source: Helena Independent Record

The post Former Montana Federal Judge Sam E. Haddon Settles Lawsuit Filed by Family of Pamela Aldridge Over Deadly Collision appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Brown, 20, along with co-defendants Wilson Hill, Johnny Brown, Sherman Peters III, Travis McCullough, and Ty Reik McCullough, faces multiple charges, including four counts of reckless murder and 24 counts of first-degree assault. The victims include Shaunkivia Nicole Smith, Marsiah Emmanuel Collins, Corbin Dahmontrey Holston, and Philstavious Dowdell.

In a recent court filing, Brown’s attorney argued that access to the victims’ cell phones is critical for the defense. The legal team contends that information stored on these devices could demonstrate that at least one victim intended to harm Brown, which may impact the case’s outcome. They previously sought access to these phones but were informed by the District Attorney’s office that the phones were not in their possession. The defense maintains that investigators do, in fact, have custody of the devices.

Following Judge Hall’s recusal, Judge William Whorton has been assigned to oversee the case moving forward. The legal proceedings will continue as the defense seeks to obtain the requested evidence to support their claims regarding the victims’ intent.

Source: 1819 News

The post Alabama Judge Kevin Hall Recuses Himself from Dadeville Sweet 16 Shooting Case appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Several former aides and allies of Trump are facing legal challenges across at least four U.S. states. While Trump himself is not expected to face trial during his time in office, many of his former associates are still under scrutiny. Key figures such as Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal attorney, and Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, are facing charges in both Georgia and Arizona. Georgia stands out as the only state where Trump has been officially indicted.

This week, the Georgia Court of Appeals canceled oral arguments that were scheduled for December 5, concerning the disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, who is overseeing the case against Trump. The cancellation follows a lower court’s decision rejecting a motion to remove Willis after it was disclosed that she had a romantic relationship with an outside attorney involved in the prosecution.

Although the appeals court has not publicly stated the reasons for the cancellation, the clerk indicated that the judges may rely on the written legal briefs submitted by defense attorneys to make their decision. Christina Smith, the clerk of the Court of Appeals, mentioned that the cancellation was partly due to logistical challenges, as many lawyers wanted to present arguments within a limited timeframe.

In Arizona, another significant development occurred when Judge Bruce Cohen recused himself from a case involving Trump and his allies. Defendants in this case sought Cohen’s disqualification after it became known that he had expressed strong disapproval of Trump’s comments regarding Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton in an email to fellow judges. The recusal is expected to delay the proceedings as a new judge is now assigned to the case, with a hearing scheduled for Thursday.

In addition to cases in Georgia and Arizona, state prosecutors in Michigan and Wisconsin are advancing with their own legal actions against Trump and his allies. These cases relate to alleged efforts to maintain power following Trump’s 2020 election loss. A similar case in Nevada was dismissed earlier this year but is currently under appeal by the state’s attorney general.

Legal analysts suggest that courts may offer protections to Trump from prosecution during his upcoming term, which could impact the trajectory of these ongoing cases.

Source: Radar

The post Trump’s Legal Challenges Complicated by Canceled Arguments and Judge Recusal appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The conflict originated over four years ago when a previous entity with the same name issued a $1,585 bond that was forfeited. Although John J. Looney, Sr., the owner of Bad Boy Bail Bonds, acquired rights to the business name, he did not assume responsibility for the prior bonding activities. Despite this, the Bozeman Municipal Court demanded payment from Looney. He contested this requirement, arguing that his company should not be held accountable for bonds issued by a different business.

In response to the court’s actions, Looney filed a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission, which oversees judicial conduct in Montana. He alleged that the judges were adversely affecting his business. To mitigate the situation, Looney paid the bond but later reported that the judges would not remove sanctions against him unless he withdrew his complaint, which he refused to do. This led to numerous legal filings in both state and federal courts.

The injunction signed by Judge Molloy comes just ahead of a preliminary hearing, where it was anticipated that Tierney and Herrington might have to testify about their judicial conduct—an unusual occurrence for municipal court judges. The order stipulates that Looney and Bad Boy Bail Bonds are permitted to file bonds in both Bozeman and Gallatin County. While Looney must adhere to state laws, any issues with the bonds he issues must be raised within two business days, and such matters will be resolved by attorneys representing both parties.

As of the following Tuesday, Looney’s attorney, Matthew Monforton, indicated uncertainty regarding whether any bonds had been issued in Gallatin County since the ruling. Monforton reported that he had communicated the federal court’s order to both the Gallatin County Attorney and the Gallatin County Detention Facility. Additionally, he reached out to Yellowstone County to address concerns about potential rejections of Looney’s bonds stemming from issues in Gallatin County.

The case highlights significant questions regarding the authority over bail bonds in Montana. The state constitution generally guarantees defendants the right to bail, and bail bonding businesses are regulated by the Montana Auditor and Commissioner of Securities and Insurance. Although the judges had previously lodged a complaint against Looney with the Auditor’s office, that complaint was dismissed, and Bad Boy Bail Bonds has since remained active and in good standing. This situation raises the question of whether judges have the right to dismiss bonds from a licensed and compliant bonding company.

While the federal lawsuit initiated by Looney alleges interference with his constitutional rights—including freedom of speech related to his complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission—the injunction requiring the municipal court to accept bonds will continue until the case is resolved or a new order is issued by Judge Molloy.

Monforton characterized the ruling as positive news, suggesting that it reflects an acknowledgment by the municipal court judges of their prior misjudgment.

Source: Daily Montanan

The post Bozeman Municipal Court Must Honor Disputed Bail Bonds, Montana Federal Judge Rules appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The opinion piece highlighted Lynch’s involvement in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), legislation enacted in 2009 that aimed to exempt firearms manufactured and retained within Montana from federal regulation. Lynch played a significant role in a federal lawsuit related to the MFFA, where he served as the presiding judge. The case, known as MSSA v. Holder, involved the Montana Shooting Sports Association and Marbut as plaintiffs, seeking to affirm the validity of the MFFA.

Marbut criticized Lynch’s judicial temperament, claiming that Lynch’s writings in the MSSA v. Holder case displayed a pro-government bias. He alleged that Lynch engaged in what he described as “legal gymnastics” to reach conclusions favoring federal authority. According to Marbut, Lynch dismissed key legal principles and selectively referenced other cases to support his outcomes, ultimately ruling that the MSSA and Marbut lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit.

Marbut emphasized that Lynch’s reasoning was so flawed that the Ninth Circuit Court, known for its liberal leanings, overturned Lynch’s decision regarding standing. He argued that Lynch’s tendency to align with federal power over states’ rights and individual liberties raises significant questions about his candidacy for a state judicial position.

In light of these concerns, Marbut announced that the Montana Shooting Sports Association has endorsed Cory Swanson for the Chief Justice role. Marbut expressed apprehension regarding the potential implications of Lynch’s election, asserting that it would undermine the rights of Montana citizens.

Source: Ammoland

The post Montana Shooting Sports Association President Critiques Jeremiah Lynch’s Candidacy for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.